What's Wrong With the Pennsylvania Turnpike?
Scott M. Kozel
First of all, what's right with it? (Just kidding!)
The World's Finest Highway?
Eighth Wonder of the World?
Excellent visibility with scientific grading?
Granddaddy of all the turnpikes?
All those above are various monikers and statements that I've seen used
in Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission literature over the years. What the
heck is "scientific grading", anyhow? :-) I'll grant that it was the
"Granddaddy of all the turnpikes", though.
It's hard to criticize the Pennsylvania Turnpike on m.t.r without some
people getting their noses out of joint. Since I only lived in
Pennsylvania (Valley Forge area) for five years in the 1970s, and since
some posters don't like it being criticized, I've never really bothered
to fully discuss the many shortcomings of the Pennsylvania Turnpike.
First, the positives. The 360-mile east-west Turnpike was completed in
1959, and the 110-mile Northeast Extension was completed in 1957. The
east-west Turnpike in conjunction with the turnpikes in Chicago,
Indiana, Ohio and New Jersey, provided a Chicago to New York City
superhighway completed by 1959, and this was a forerunner of the
Interstate highway system. The Pennsylvania section serves its major
cities of Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, and Philadelphia, and the Northeast
Extension joins the east-west Turnpike near Philadelphia and provides
service to the Allentown-Bethlehem area and Scranton-Wilkes Barre area.
So Pennsylvania did complete a superhighway that joined those metro
areas by 1959, albeit there were 8 tunnels that were only 2 lanes wide
(one lane each way).
My main complaints with the original design are the 10-foot-wide median
on the east-west Turnpike and the 4-foot-wide median on the Northeast
Extension, and the overly-wide interchange spacing. I'll grant that the
original 160 miles from Irwin to Carlisle which was opened in 1940 was
very impressive as being the first long-distance superhighway in the
U.S., and I'll allow that the narrow median was ok back then. However,
IMO there is no excuse for not increasing the median width when the rest
of the Turnpike was built in the 1950s. The New Jersey Turnpike was
opened in 1951 with a 25-foot-wide median, and the New York City to
Albany section of the New York Thruway was opened about 1948 with a
normal median of about 60 feet wide, so the prevailing 1950+ design
standards for rural superhighways was for a much wider median than 10
feet.
A 10 foot median is hazardously narrow for opposing traffic, and
nighttime oncoming headlight glare is a real annoyance; and even after
they installed a guard rail median barrier in the mid- to late-1960s,
the same oncoming headlight glare continued to be a problem, and the
median guard rail was only 4 feet from the left edge of the left lane,
which is uncomfortably close to the left lane and gives very little room
for error should a vehicle drift off the left edge of the pavement. The
narrow median is doubly surprising when you consider that the standard
right-of-way width on the whole Turnpike from inception was 250 feet, so
there was enough right-of-way to make the median 50 or 60 feet wide.
Also, a narrow median is extremely expensive to widen, since at a
minimum, one of the roadways would have to be completely rebuilt to gain
even a minimal 40-foot-wide median.
Many parts of the east-west Turnpike also have a lot of horizontal
curvature, (and also a lot of vertical curvature on the original
160-mile section), and that exacerbates the headlight glare problem with
the narrow median. The Northeast Extension is fairly straight and
fairly level, but PTC (Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission) made its median
only 4 feet wide, which is literally "nothing but a guard rail for a
median". That is even more uncomfortable when driving in the left lane.
The standard clear roadside on the Turnpike is narrow, often not much
more than the 10-foot right shoulder, with the guardrail or embankment
at that point. There are many places where slope flattening could
provide 20 feet of clear roadside with or without a guardrail. Some of
the renovated sections of the Turnpike have a 12-foot right shoulder.
Still, 20 or 25 feet of clear roadside would provide a more modern,
safer, more comfortable user environment. And PTC initially bought
enough right-of-way for both the wider (40+ foot) median and the wider
clear roadsides!
On the interchange spacing, I'll grant that most of the long-distance
turnpikes have fairly wide spacing, probably mainly because of the
operating costs and staffing requirements of each toll plaza. It seems
to me that the Pennsylvania Turnpike has wider spacing than the others,
particularly in the metro areas. The 360-mile east-west Turnpike has 30
interchanges, so the average spacing is 12 miles. The Turnpike passes
near Philadelphia, but with 8-mile average interchange spacing. The
Turnpike passes near Pittsburgh, but with 9-mile average interchange
spacing. The Turnpike passes near Harrisburg, but with 7-mile average
interchange spacing. The Turnpike passes near Allentown-Bethlehem, but
with only one interchange. The Turnpike passes near Scranton-Wilkes
Barre, but with 9-mile average interchange spacing.
The PTC has been very miserly about adding new interchanges at many
crossing primary roads that should warrant an interchange, and as has
been discussed many times on m.t.r, has even been miserly about adding
an interchange when new Interstates and expressways were built across
the existing Turnpike. That causes connecting Interstate traffic to
have to use local surface roads to make the connection between two
expressways.
Interstates built without a Turnpike interchange - I-79, I-99, I-70
Breezewood, I-81 Carlisle, I-176, I-95, I-80, I-81 Wilkes Barre.
Interstates originally built with a Turnpike interchange - I-70 New
Stanton, I-83, I-283, I-476, I-81 North Scranton. Interstate
interchanges added - I-176 (1998). Only one has been added!
The I-70 Breezewood and I-95 interchanges are especially egregious
omissions. A well-known toll roads advocate recently stated in his
newsletter, that the Breezewood fiasco is the result of out-and-out...
Non-Interstate expressways built without a Turnpike interchange - PA-28,
US-219, PA-283, US-422. That causes connecting expressway traffic to
have to use local surface roads to make the connection between two
expressways.
So there is currently, without a Turnpike interchange, 7 Interstate
crossings and 4 non-Interstate expressway crossings. Inexcusable.
PTC has also been very slow to improve the Turnpike, both for expansion
as well as renovation. I've seen very little of the Turnpike in the
last 10 years, but back when I used it regularly, it was common to see
long sections of crummy old bumpy concrete slab sections that were 5 to
10 years past the time that they should have been renovated and
resurfaced with asphalt. It was typical to let it go for so many years,
that when they finally addressed renovating a section, that the amount
of renovation was so extensive that one roadway would have to be closed
for reconstruction for about a year, and then the other roadway for
about a year, providing about 2 years of construction on each 5- to
10-mile section where painfully slow one-lane each way traffic was
maintained. With more timely renovation, traffic would probably be able
to be maintained on all 4 lanes, in addition to keeping the pavement on
those sections in pretty good condition to begin with.
The maintenance of traffic during pavement renovation seemed marginal in
many cases, with barricades on both sides of a roadway sometimes only
one lane wide. I recall when the section from Valley Forge to US-1
Philadelphia was pavement renovated in the mid- to late-1970s, since I
lived there then. Because of the high traffic volumes they closed one
roadway for reconstruction while maintaining three lanes without
shoulders on the other roadway, with overhead lane control signals so
that the center lane could be reversed so as to have two lanes in the
peak direction. The whole three-lane-undivided setup with the
reversible center lane was not a safe concept at all, and they had a
number of serious accidents during this setup, the most notable of which
when Frank Purdue of Purdue Chicken collided head-on with an oncoming
vehicle in the center lane near King of Prussia, killing the other
driver (I recall that Purdue was NOT at fault, but IMO the PTC was).
The guy had to be shoveled up.
As I said before, the 360-mile east-west Turnpike was completed in 1959,
and by then all the tunnels on the original 160-mile 1940-built section
were experiencing major congestion and backups at peak travel hours.
The entire Turnpike system was built with 4 lanes except for the 8
tunnels, each of which was built with 2 lanes (one each way). You would
think that by 1959 or 1960, that PTC would have completed the tunnel
expansion and bypass projects, thereby making the entire Chicago-NYC
turnpike system a full 4-lane freeway design throughout, but it took
until 1968 (nine years after the east-west Turnpike was completed) to
finish those projects on the east-west Turnpike (4 tunnels had a
parallel tube built and 3 tunnels were bypassed by relocating the
highway in open cut). The Northeast Extension was opened in 1957 and it
had one two-lane tunnel, and that wasn't expanded (parallel tube) until
1991 (34 years later), and it was experiencing major congestion and
backups at peak travel hours even back in the mid-1970s.
The Turnpike has full service plazas (fuel and food) spaced at regular
intervals along the highway. Their snow removal seems pretty good.
However, as I said before, in many places the highway's pavement
condition is not very good due to excessively long intervals between
resurfacing and due to excessively long intervals between renovations.
The first Turnpike expansion proposals were made public in the
mid-1970s, and they included a "Phase A" and a "Phase B". Phase A
included most of the current projects, such as the Beaver Valley
Expressway, part of the Mon Valley Expressway, the Greensburg Bypass,
the Six-Lane Widening near Philadelphia, the Lehigh Tunnel Second Tube,
and the Keyser Avenue Interchange near Scranton. Phase B included a
Route 22 tollroad east of I-76 near Pittsburgh, an entire US-219
turnpike from Maryland to New York, and the southern part of the Mon
Valley Expressway.
As can be seen, western Pennsylvania got the lion's share of the
expansion proposals. The proposals suggested that the per-mile tolls be
raised on the whole Turnpike system to support the toll revenue bonds
which would need to be sold to raise funds to build the expansions.
The actual Turnpike expansions began about 1985, with the 18-mile $100
million Six-Lane Widening from Plymouth Meeting to US-1 Philadelphia
being completed in 1987, the $60 million Lehigh Tunnel Second Tube being
completed in 1991, the 18-mile Beaver Valley Expressway being completed
in the early 1990s at a cost of about $200 million, the 11-mile
Greensburg Bypass being completed in the mid-1990s at a cost of about
$170 million, and the Keyser Avenue Interchange being completed in the
mid-1990s at a cost of about $15 million.
The Phase B proposals from the 1970s for US-22 and US-219 seem to have
been deleted (the US-219 tollroad would IMO have been wasteful with low
traffic volumes). Currently active projects are the Mon-Fayette
Expressway from West Virginia to Pittsburgh, and the Southern Beltway
near Pittsburgh. The latter two projects are projected to cost over $3
billion total, and only about $500 million has been spent yet.
I don't understand the logic of adding an expensive local spur, which is
what the Greensburg Bypass (PA-66) is, and making the entire Turnpike
system support it financially. The Beaver Valley Expressway was smart,
since it completed the last gap in the 70-mile PA-60 Expressway from the
Pittsburgh Airport to I-80, and tied it directly to the east-west I-76
Turnpike. The Lehigh Tunnel Second Tube and the Keyser Avenue
Interchange were smart, much needed additions. A couple small portions
of the Mon-Fayette Expressway have been completed.
The Six-Lane Widening Project was also smart, although no new
interchanges were added in the 18 miles that is spaced 5-4-9 in the
Philadelphia suburbs, and IMO at least 2 or 3 should have been added;
and with more normal interchange spacing, they could have widened to
eight mainline lanes to handle the extra traffic. Also, PTC used cheesy
designs as they did not widen the 10-foot-wide median (a 22 foot wide
median would provide two 10-foot left shoulders and a Jersey Barrier,
needed when there are three or more lanes on a directional roadway), and
at about 10 locations where there was a local road overpass over the
Turnpike, rather than replace the overpass with a longer overpass with
modern span clearances, they shifted the highway slightly so that six
lanes could be squeezed through the span with about 3 feet of "shoulder"
on each side of each roadway. Other highway authorities on a standard
basis replace overpasses when widening projects would take away the
shoulders. The overpasses in question were opened in 1951, so there was
no excuse for not replacing them.
When you pay toll to use a highway, you rightfully expect premium
service, not cheesy designs, crummy pavement, and head-on collisions in
poorly-designed construction zones with shovel jobs.
Like I said, southwestern Pennsylvania got the lion's share of the
expansion projects currently finished and under construction, and the
per-mile tolls were raised on the whole Turnpike system to support the
toll revenue bonds which were used to build the extensions. That's not
really fair to the eastern part of the state, and the southeastern part
has by far the largest population metropolitan area. There are no
currently planned Turnpike expansion projects in the eastern part of the
state, other than the currently under construction 7 miles of six-lane
widening from Valley Forge to Plymouth Meeting, and the I-95 Interchange
and Delaware River Bridge Widening which is to be phase constructed from
2004 to 2015 at a cost of $400 million (the I-95 interchange should have
been built in the mid-1970s when I-95 was built in Bucks County, when
the land needed was undeveloped and the cost would have been $30 million
or less).
Western Pennsylvania has $2.5 billion of Turnpike expansion projects in
planning stages, and the Mon-Fayette Expressway won't even connect to
the mainline Turnpike (or even come close to it). Where is the
statewide balance in Turnpike expansion projects? I'm sure that
southwestern Pennsylvania residents like all the Turnpike expansion
attention that they are getting, but residents along the rest of the
east-west Turnpike and Northeast Extension in the state can rightfully
complain about paying the much higher tolls that will result from the
expansion projects, while only getting a small portion of the benefits.
As someone who lived near Philadelphia (Valley Forge) for 5 years in the
1970s, I could understand how the 5 million residents of southeastern
Pennsylvania might feel largely bypassed by the Turnpike expansion
projects. Projects like the proposed US-202 Expressway in Montgomery
County and Bucks County could use Turnpike expansion financing, as could
the 15 miles of the Turnpike from the Downingtown interchange to the
Valley Forge interchange which could use six-lane widening plus a
Devault interchange (at PA-29) about halfway between the two since there
are no existing interchanges between Downingtown and Valley Forge. So
as far as I'm concerned, the PTC's conduct of the expansion program over
the last 25 years, while producing some helpful projects, has been
unfair to most of the state, and all indications are that the next 15
years will see more of the same.
--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com
Jeff Kitsko
You can get directly to PA 283 thru the Harrisburg East Interchange though.
> So there is currently, without a Turnpike interchange, 7 Interstate
> crossings and 4 non-Interstate expressway crossings. Inexcusable.
I agree, even the Somerset reconstruction does not provide for construction
of an interchange with US 219.
> The actual Turnpike expansions began about 1985, with the 18-mile $100
> million Six-Lane Widening from Plymouth Meeting to US-1 Philadelphia
> being completed in 1987, the $60 million Lehigh Tunnel Second Tube being
> completed in 1991, the 18-mile Beaver Valley Expressway being completed
> in the early 1990s at a cost of about $200 million, the 11-mile
> Greensburg Bypass being completed in the mid-1990s at a cost of about
> $170 million, and the Keyser Avenue Interchange being completed in the
> mid-1990s at a cost of about $15 million.
>
> The Phase B proposals from the 1970s for US-22 and US-219 seem to have
> been deleted (the US-219 tollroad would IMO have been wasteful with low
> traffic volumes). Currently active projects are the Mon-Fayette
> Expressway from West Virginia to Pittsburgh, and the Southern Beltway
> near Pittsburgh. The latter two projects are projected to cost over $3
> billion total, and only about $500 million has been spent yet.
>
> I don't understand the logic of adding an expensive local spur, which is
> what the Greensburg Bypass (PA-66) is, and making the entire Turnpike
> system support it financially. The Beaver Valley Expressway was smart,
> since it completed the last gap in the 70-mile PA-60 Expressway from the
> Pittsburgh Airport to I-80, and tied it directly to the east-west I-76
> Turnpike. The Lehigh Tunnel Second Tube and the Keyser Avenue
> Interchange were smart, much needed additions. A couple small portions
> of the Mon-Fayette Expressway have been completed.
I don't understand the idea either, aside from providing a truck bypass of
Greensburg.
> The Six-Lane Widening Project was also smart, although no new
> interchanges were added in the 18 miles that is spaced 5-4-9 in the
> Philadelphia suburbs, and IMO at least 2 or 3 should have been added;
> and with more normal interchange spacing, they could have widened to
> eight mainline lanes to handle the extra traffic. Also, PTC used cheesy
> designs as they did not widen the 10-foot-wide median (a 22 foot wide
> median would provide two 10-foot left shoulders and a Jersey Barrier,
> needed when there are three or more lanes on a directional roadway), and
> at about 10 locations where there was a local road overpass over the
> Turnpike, rather than replace the overpass with a longer overpass with
> modern span clearances, they shifted the highway slightly so that six
> lanes could be squeezed through the span with about 3 feet of "shoulder"
> on each side of each roadway. Other highway authorities on a standard
> basis replace overpasses when widening projects would take away the
> shoulders. The overpasses in question were opened in 1951, so there was
> no excuse for not replacing them.
I think that the current rebuilding should have included 3-laning it across
the state, as Ohio has done, and to keep their standard across the OH-PA
border.
> When you pay toll to use a highway, you rightfully expect premium
> service, not cheesy designs, crummy pavement, and head-on collisions in
> poorly-designed construction zones with shovel jobs.
That is why you take PA 31 to bypass the zone :-).
> Like I said, southwestern Pennsylvania got the lion's share of the
> expansion projects currently finished and under construction, and the
> per-mile tolls were raised on the whole Turnpike system to support the
> toll revenue bonds which were used to build the extensions. That's not
> really fair to the eastern part of the state, and the southeastern part
> has by far the largest population metropolitan area. There are no
> currently planned Turnpike expansion projects in the eastern part of the
> state, other than the currently under construction 7 miles of six-lane
> widening from Valley Forge to Plymouth Meeting, and the I-95 Interchange
> and Delaware River Bridge Widening which is to be phase constructed from
> 2004 to 2015 at a cost of $400 million (the I-95 interchange should have
> been built in the mid-1970s when I-95 was built in Bucks County, when
> the land needed was undeveloped and the cost would have been $30 million
> or less).
>
> Western Pennsylvania has $2.5 billion of Turnpike expansion projects in
> planning stages, and the Mon-Fayette Expressway won't even connect to
> the mainline Turnpike (or even come close to it). Where is the
> statewide balance in Turnpike expansion projects? I'm sure that
> southwestern Pennsylvania residents like all the Turnpike expansion
> attention that they are getting, but residents along the rest of the
> east-west Turnpike and Northeast Extension in the state can rightfully
> complain about paying the much higher tolls that will result from the
> expansion projects, while only getting a small portion of the benefits.
Actually, no, a lot of us can not stand the toll roads. Protesters were out
when the 39-54 section of 43 opened; however, I can't see the reasoning
because they are putting the MFE in an economically depressed area.
> As someone who lived near Philadelphia (Valley Forge) for 5 years in the
> 1970s, I could understand how the 5 million residents of southeastern
> Pennsylvania might feel largely bypassed by the Turnpike expansion
> projects. Projects like the proposed US-202 Expressway in Montgomery
> County and Bucks County could use Turnpike expansion financing, as could
> the 15 miles of the Turnpike from the Downingtown interchange to the
> Valley Forge interchange which could use six-lane widening plus a
> Devault interchange (at PA-29) about halfway between the two since there
> are no existing interchanges between Downingtown and Valley Forge. So
> as far as I'm concerned, the PTC's conduct of the expansion program over
> the last 25 years, while producing some helpful projects, has been
> unfair to most of the state, and all indications are that the next 15
> years will see more of the same.
Hey, if they want toll roads, be my guest. That is what we get with a
representative that only concentrated on the central part of the state,
where the fewest people live, to funnel all the highway money into. Even
though said representative was chairman of the senate transportation
committee...but I am not going to name names.
--
Jeff Kitsko
Pennsylvania Highways: http://www.pahighways.com/
Pittsburgh Highways: http://www.pahighways.com/pghhwys/
Philadelphia Highways: http://www.pahighways.com/phlhwys/
stéphane dumas
"Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@attbi.com> a écrit dans le message news:
3CF2CFBB...@attbi.com...
> What's wrong with the Pennsylvania Turnpike?
>
> First of all, what's right with it? (Just kidding!)
>
> The World's Finest Highway?
>
> Eighth Wonder of the World?
>
> Excellent visibility with scientific grading?
>
> 1959, and the 110-mile Northeast Extension was completed in 1957. The
> east-west Turnpike in conjunction with the turnpikes in Chicago,
> Indiana, Ohio and New Jersey, provided a Chicago to New York City
> superhighway completed by 1959, and this was a forerunner of the
> Interstate highway system. The Pennsylvania section serves its major
> cities of Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, and Philadelphia, and the Northeast
> Extension joins the east-west Turnpike near Philadelphia and provides
> service to the Allentown-Bethlehem area and Scranton-Wilkes Barre area.
> So Pennsylvania did complete a superhighway that joined those metro
> areas by 1959, albeit there were 8 tunnels that were only 2 lanes wide
> (one lane each way).
and if the Interstate act had came later, some of the interstates
(I-80,I-79,I-90) could had been built as extension of the PA Tpk (see Jeff's
PA tpk page)
>
>
> Interstates built without a Turnpike interchange - I-79, I-99, I-70
> Breezewood, I-81 Carlisle, I-176, I-95, I-80, I-81 Wilkes Barre.
> Interstates originally built with a Turnpike interchange - I-70 New
> Stanton, I-83, I-283, I-476, I-81 North Scranton. Interstate
> interchanges added - I-176 (1998). Only one has been added!
this one wasn't added, it was relocated, it's the PA60 interchange who was
added when they build the missing link of PA60 and finally they begin to
build the much-needed direct connection with I-79 www.cranberryconnector.com
let's hope they won't cancel the I-95 interchange project
>
> The I-70 Breezewood and I-95 interchanges are especially egregious
> omissions. A well-known toll roads advocate recently stated in his
> newsletter, that the Breezewood fiasco is the result of out-and-out...
I wonder by curiosity who's the well-known toll roads advocate?
>
> Non-Interstate expressways built without a Turnpike interchange - PA-28,
> US-219, PA-283, US-422. That causes connecting expressway traffic to
> have to use local surface roads to make the connection between two
> expressways.
>
> So there is currently, without a Turnpike interchange, 7 Interstate
> crossings and 4 non-Interstate expressway crossings. Inexcusable.
I'm agree with you on this one
>
> --
> Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
> Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
> Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com
Stéphane Dumas
A Gilson
> > US-219, PA-283, US-422. That causes connecting expressway traffic to
> > have to use local surface roads to make the connection between two
> > expressways.
>
though.
That interchange is awful... are there any plans to upgrade it, making I-283
and Pa-283 a continuous freeway throughout?
> > the 15 miles of the Turnpike from the Downingtown interchange to the
> > Valley Forge interchange which could use six-lane widening plus a
> > Devault interchange (at PA-29) about halfway between the two since there
> > are no existing interchanges between Downingtown and Valley Forge.
The PTC is currently planning an interchange at this location (according to
their latest newsletter). However, it will be EZ-Pass only... I have noticed
a number of these EZ-Pass only "slip ramps" in the Philly area. It's nice
that they are finally opening access to the turnpike, but kind of unfair
that one MUST have EZ-Pass to use them.
Scott M. Kozel
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@attbi.com> a écrit dans le message news:
>
> > Breezewood, I-81 Carlisle, I-176, I-95, I-80, I-81 Wilkes Barre.
> > Interstates originally built with a Turnpike interchange - I-70 New
> > Stanton, I-83, I-283, I-476, I-81 North Scranton. Interstate
> > interchanges added - I-176 (1998). Only one has been added!
>
> this one wasn't added, it was relocated,
Added in the sense that the I-176 Interstate/Turnpike interchange did
not exist before, and the direct interchange connection was constructed
between the two.
BTW, the former southern end of I-176 at PA-23 west of Morgantown, still
exists.
> it's the PA60 interchange who was
> added when they build the missing link of PA60 and finally they begin to
> build the much-needed direct connection with I-79 www.cranberryconnector.com
> let's hope they won't cancel the I-95 interchange project
Yes, the I-79/Turnpike interchange is now under construction.
> > The I-70 Breezewood and I-95 interchanges are especially egregious
> > omissions. A well-known toll roads advocate recently stated in his
> > newsletter, that the Breezewood fiasco is the result of out-and-out...
>
> I wonder by curiosity who's the well-known toll roads advocate?
Peter Samuel of "Toll Roads" newsletter. http://www.tollroads.com
Scott M. Kozel
I was at a party earlier in the day.
> > Western Pennsylvania has $2.5 billion of Turnpike expansion projects in
> > planning stages, and the Mon-Fayette Expressway won't even connect to
> > the mainline Turnpike (or even come close to it). Where is the
> > statewide balance in Turnpike expansion projects? I'm sure that
> > southwestern Pennsylvania residents like all the Turnpike expansion
> > attention that they are getting, but residents along the rest of the
> > east-west Turnpike and Northeast Extension in the state can rightfully
> > complain about paying the much higher tolls that will result from the
> > expansion projects, while only getting a small portion of the benefits.
>
> Actually, no, a lot of us can not stand the toll roads. Protesters were out
> when the 39-54 section of 43 opened; however, I can't see the reasoning
> because they are putting the MFE in an economically depressed area.
Southeastern Pennsylvania has a lot of toll roads too, but built decades
ago; and which help financially support the whole Turnpike system. East
or west, the long-distance Interstate is the Turnpike. North from
Philadelphia to Allentown/Bethlehem and Wilkes-Barre/Scranton, the
connecting Interstate is the Northeast Extension of the Turnpike. Cross
the Delaware River into South Jersey, those bridges have tolls (not part
of the PTC, of course).
> > southeastern Pennsylvania
>
> Hey, if they want toll roads, be my guest. That is what we get with a
> representative that only concentrated on the central part of the state,
> where the fewest people live, to funnel all the highway money into. Even
> though said representative was chairman of the senate transportation
> committee...but I am not going to name names.
Truckers on the CB radio (when I used one back in the 1970s) called the
Harrisburg area the "Concrete Jungle" because of how well that area is
served by expressways.
Scott M. Kozel
>
> > Scott Kozel wrote:
> >
> > > the 15 miles of the Turnpike from the Downingtown interchange to the
> > > Valley Forge interchange which could use six-lane widening plus a
> > > Devault interchange (at PA-29) about halfway between the two since there
> > > are no existing interchanges between Downingtown and Valley Forge.
>
> The PTC is currently planning an interchange at this location (according to
> their latest newsletter). However, it will be EZ-Pass only... I have noticed
> a number of these EZ-Pass only "slip ramps" in the Philly area. It's nice
> that they are finally opening access to the turnpike, but kind of unfair
> that one MUST have EZ-Pass to use them.
It is 14 miles between the Downingtown and Valley Forge interchanges,
and the Devault interchange would be almost exactly half way between the
two. I agree that a Devault interchange should be a full-service
interchange. PA-29 south of the Turnpike would need to be 4-laned.
PA-29 north of the Turnpike to Phoenixville was a very windy and narrow
road back in the 1970s when I lived in the area, and a complete
reconstruction/relocation project was planned to provide a modern PA-29
along that section. Does anyone know if that project was ever built? A
full-service Devault interchange would probably put more traffic
pressure on that section of PA-29.
Come to think of it, Phoenixville doesn't have good westerly access to
the Turnpike. A Devault interchange with the Turnpike would provide
that.
CountryNYR
I-99 doesn't stem off the turnpike? (Never been on PA Turnpike. Always
preferred I-80.) Rand makes it look like it does. I know it's a B.S. Road
(and I don't mean "Bud Shuster"!), but it should have an interchange. Better
yet, drop the "I-99" label, and THEN build the exit!
Eric G.
Sandusky, OH/Long Island, NY
Scott M. Kozel
No, the connection between I-99/US-220 and the Turnpike follows a mile
of Business US-220 and a mile of connecting road from Business US-220 to
I-99/US-220.
Mr. Yamamoto of Hollywood
of Business US-220 and a mile of connecting road from Business US-220 to
I-99/US-220.
Did they ever put a light in on the 220->BUS 220 junction? Last time I was
thru there (1998) there was a STOP Sign.
--
Mr Yamamoto of Hollywood
http://mr_yamamoto.50megs.com
Ask not what your govenment can do for you. If you do, they'll usually set the
sherrif on you.
SPUI
"Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3CF2CFBB...@attbi.com...
> Non-Interstate expressways built without a Turnpike interchange - PA-28,
> US-219, PA-283, US-422. That causes connecting expressway traffic to
> have to use local surface roads to make the connection between two
> expressways.
How bad is traffic at these interchanges? It is my understanding that even
Breezewood is only backed up at peak tourist travel periods. Would traffic
be any better with a direct connection, given that traffic has to stop at
the toll booth anyway? (Even with EZPass, traffic still has to slow, both
because of the narrow lanes and weaving at the trumpet)
Jeff Kitsko
think Bud would have gotten a provision to build a direct connection.
--
Jeff Kitsko
Pennsylvania Highways: http://www.pahighways.com/
Pittsburgh Highways: http://www.pahighways.com/pghhwys/
Philadelphia Highways: http://www.pahighways.com/phlhwys/
"CountryNYR" <count...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020528005922...@mb-ma.aol.com...
Jeff Kitsko
"SPUI" <sp...@mit.SPeduAMSUCKS> wrote in message
news:dSJI8.75081$YI5.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
PA 28 is not bad, although you have to negotiate a couple signals between
the Turnpike off-ramp and the nearest PA 28 interchange. US 219 suffers the
same problem; however, there is a greater distance between the Turnpike
off-ramp and the 219 interchange north of town. PA 601 is only two-lanes
with many signals and businesses up and down it which causes congestion.
Dino
Bridge expansion is done over most of the road. Talk about a great tollway!
Very nice!
What about Indiana's Turnpike? What's it status? Is it up to date or being
upgraded like OH.?
Great post here. I agree the PA Turnpike has to do some upgrading!
Thanks!
Dino
"Mr. Yamamoto of Hollywood" <cyamam...@aol.comJuted> wrote in message
news:20020528071506...@mb-ct.aol.com...
Michael G. Koerner
>
> I give the OH Turnpike a thumbs up. 75% of the tollway is three lanes.
> Bridge expansion is done over most of the road. Talk about a great tollway!
> Very nice!
>
> What about Indiana's Turnpike? What's it status? Is it up to date or being
> upgraded like OH.?
Last I drove it (about a year ago), it was much the same as it always
was, just doing some resurfacing. It is 4 lanes from state line to
state line.
--
___________________________________________ ____ _______________
Regards, | |\ ____
| | | | |\
Michael G. Koerner May they | | | | | | rise again!
Appleton, Wisconsin USA | | | | | |
___________________________________________ | | | | | | _______________
Pat O'Connell
>
> Dino wrote:
> >
> > I give the OH Turnpike a thumbs up. 75% of the tollway is three lanes.
> > Bridge expansion is done over most of the road. Talk about a great tollway!
> > Very nice!
> >
> > What about Indiana's Turnpike? What's it status? Is it up to date or being
> > upgraded like OH.?
>
> Last I drove it (about a year ago), it was much the same as it always
> was, just doing some resurfacing. It is 4 lanes from state line to
> state line.
I thought it was to be modernized from the I-80 exit to the Illinois
state line, along with the tollbooth changes. The last time I was up
that way (visited frinds in Michigan City in 2000), I took I-94, then
I-80, old US 66, and I-55 out of the area.
--
Pat O'Connell
Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints,
Kill nothing but vandals...
Jeff Kitsko
It was PennDOT who screwed up in the 1970s and almost went bankrupt. The
projects such as the Mon Valley Expressway, now the Mon-Fayette Expressway,
were shelved and brought back to life as toll roads.
Adam Prince
"Jeff Kitsko" <jjki...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:4ZWI8.42973$ux5....@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
> I remember now why Southwestern Pennsylvania got stuck with the toll
roads.
> It was PennDOT who screwed up in the 1970s and almost went bankrupt. The
> projects such as the Mon Valley Expressway, now the Mon-Fayette
Expressway,
> were shelved and brought back to life as toll roads.
As was the PA 60 completion...
Scott M. Kozel
>
> I remember now why Southwestern Pennsylvania got stuck with the toll roads.
No more so than Southeastern Pennsylvania. Maybe less so when
considering the Northeast Extension and the Delaware River toll bridges.
> It was PennDOT who screwed up in the 1970s and almost went bankrupt. The
> projects such as the Mon Valley Expressway, now the Mon-Fayette Expressway,
> were shelved and brought back to life as toll roads.
The first Turnpike expansion proposals were made public in the
mid-1970s, and they included a "Phase A" and a "Phase B". Phase A
included most of the current projects, such as the Beaver Valley
Expressway, part of the Mon Valley Expressway, the Greensburg Bypass,
the Six-Lane Widening near Philadelphia, the Lehigh Tunnel Second Tube,
and the Keyser Avenue Interchange near Scranton. Phase B included a
Route 22 tollroad east of I-76 near Pittsburgh, an entire US-219
turnpike from Maryland to New York, and the southern part of the Mon
Valley Expressway.
I recall that all of them were proposed at toll roads back then.
Adam Prince
> "Jeff Kitsko" <jjki...@attbi.com> wrote:
> >
> > I remember now why Southwestern Pennsylvania got stuck with the toll
roads.
>
> No more so than Southeastern Pennsylvania. Maybe less so when
> considering the Northeast Extension and the Delaware River toll bridges.
No more? I will beg to differ. The TPC actually built the extensions in
Eastern PA, where as the plans for any of the western extensions were never
built. The TPC's priorities were in Eastern PA. Granted, the
creation/completion of the interstate highway system really nullifies that.
The TPC in regards to the current western expansion projects picked up
various projects that were lost in the PennDot shuffle in the 70s. Many
projects in easternPA are resurfacing as free highways. The completion of
the US 222 expressway, the US 202 expressway is still under consideration.
>
> > It was PennDOT who screwed up in the 1970s and almost went bankrupt.
The
> > projects such as the Mon Valley Expressway, now the Mon-Fayette
Expressway,
> > were shelved and brought back to life as toll roads.
>
> The first Turnpike expansion proposals were made public in the
> mid-1970s, and they included a "Phase A" and a "Phase B". Phase A
> included most of the current projects, such as the Beaver Valley
> Expressway, part of the Mon Valley Expressway, the Greensburg Bypass,
> the Six-Lane Widening near Philadelphia, the Lehigh Tunnel Second Tube,
> and the Keyser Avenue Interchange near Scranton.
I'd have to check my turnpike book on that (Phase A&B, or a check to the Big
C when i go home in July)...none of these phases/plance became official
until Act 61 was passed in the September 1985.
Work was being done for the MF Expwy as late as the mid 70's when pieces of
the I-70 to US 40 highway was being built. Also, the highway before Act 61
had various different plans. This is the first time, your post Scott, that
I have learned of the TPK proposing this as early as the mid 70's.
<snip>
Adam Prince
> >
> > I remember now why Southwestern Pennsylvania got stuck with the toll
roads.
>
> No more so than Southeastern Pennsylvania. Maybe less so when
> considering the Northeast Extension and the Delaware River toll bridges.
Furthermore, I present into the discussion
http://members.aol.com/StatutesP5/75.Cp.89.html
Pennsylvania Consolidate Statute, Title 75, Chapter 89
The page lists all improvements, extensions and additions authorized by
legislature (including Act 61) for the Pennsylvania Turnpike.
§ 8911. Improvement and extension authorizations.
1. Widen turnpike to six lanes between the Northeast Extension and the
Delaware River Interchange.
2. Construct turnpike interchange with Interstate Route 95 in Bucks County.
3. Construct turnpike interchange with Interstate Route 476 in Montgomery
County.
4. Construct turnpike interchange with Keyser Avenue in Lackawanna County.
5. Construct extensions to the existing turnpike from a point westerly of
existing Interchange 2 extending northerly to a connection with the existing
interchange between U.S. Route 422 and proposed State Route 60 in Lawrence
County and extending southerly to a connection with existing State Route 60
in Beaver County at or near State Route 51.
6. Construct an extension to the turnpike from a point at or near
Interchange 8 in Westmoreland County extending northerly to an interchange
with State Route 66 northwest of Greensburg and continuing northerly to an
interchange with U.S. Route 22 south of Delmont.
7. Construct an additional Lehigh Tunnel on the Northeast Extension of the
turnpike.
8. Construct a private turnpike interchange directly connected to the New
Cumberland Army Depot. The commission may commence construction of the
private turnpike interchange notwithstanding the construction schedule
established by this section.
9. Construct an interchange on the Northeast Extension with State Route 903
in Carbon County. The commission may commence construction of this
interchange notwithstanding the construction schedule established by this
section.
Items 1-7 have been completed.Most of these were authorized in Act 61.
§ 8912. Subsequent extension authorizations.
1. From an interchange with Interstate Route 70 between existing
interchanges at Lover and Speers extending northerly to an interchange with
Interstate Route 376 in Pittsburgh extending northwesterly toward the
Midfield Terminal, Greater Pittsburgh Airport, Southern Beltway, Extension
of the Findlay Connector along Interstate 79 and also extending southerly
connecting with the existing interchange between U.S. Route 40 and the Mon
Valley Expressway (L.R.1125).
2. From a point at or near the existing interchange between U.S. Route 40
and the Mon Valley Expressway (L.R.1125) in Fayette County southeasterly
along U.S. Route 40 to Uniontown and continuing southerly along Pa. Route
857 to the West Virginia border.
3. From an interchange with the turnpike at or near Interchange 10 extending
northerly generally following and coincident where feasible with existing
U.S. Route 219 to an interchange with Interstate Route 80 at or near
Interchange 16.
4. Construction of an interchange for access to the International
Distribution Center at the Wilkes-Barre-Scranton International Airport in
Luzerne County on the Northeast Extension of the Pennsylvania Turnpike
System.
5. From a point at or near Turnpike Interchange 10 southerly generally along
U.S. Route 219 to the Maryland border.
6. From a point at or near Interstate Route 80 Interchange 16 northerly
generally along U.S. Route 219 to a connection with the existing U.S. Route
219 Expressway south of Bradford in McKean County.
1&2 built as the MF Expressway
3, 4 & 6 are all part of the Murtha I-67....Item 6...has seen the Meyersdale
Bypass (shown proposed on a 76 State Map as free) completed in 1999 as a
free bypass.
items 3 &4 have various segmetns approved for funding for PennDot
http://www.pahighways.com/IHwys/I67.html
§ 8913. Additional subsequent extension authorizations.
Upon substantial completion of the turnpike extensions and improvements set
forth in sections 8911 (relating to improvement and extension
authorizations) and 8912 (relating to subsequent extension authorizations),
the commission is hereby authorized and empowered to construct, operate and
maintain further extensions and improvements of the turnpike at such
specific locations and according to such schedules as shall be deemed
feasible and which shall be approved by the commission, subject to the
waiver of the Federal toll prohibition provisions where applicable, as
follows: construct from a point at or near Interstate Route 80 Interchange
23 at Milesburg southwesterly generally along U.S. Route 220 to a connection
with the existing U.S. Route 220 Expressway south of Bald Eagle
IOW, I-99
§ 8914. Further subsequent authorizations.
Upon completion of the turnpike extensions and improvements set forth in
sections 8911 (relating to improvement and extension authorizations), 8912
(relating to subsequent extension authorizations) and 8913 (relating to
additional subsequent extension authorizations), the commission is hereby
authorized and empowered to construct, operate and maintain further
extensions and improvements of the turnpike at such specific locations and
according to such schedules as shall be deemed feasible and which shall be
approved by the commission, subject to the waiver of the Federal toll
prohibition provisions where applicable, as follows:
1. From a point at or near the intersection of State Route 65 and Crows Run
Road in Beaver County, in a southeasterly direction to a point at or near
the Perry Highway Interchange of the Pennsylvania Turnpike.
2. From a point at or near Exit 5 of the turnpike northerly to Brookville,
Jefferson County, to a point at the intersection with Interstate Route 80.
3. From a point at or near the Pennsylvania Turnpike System into various
areas of Berks County in order to complete the construction of the inner
loop system and outer loop system of highways surrounding the City of
Reading and to complete the missing links on Routes 222 to 422 to 1035.
4. From a point at or near the intersections of Interstate Route 70,
Interstate Route 76 and T.R.119 in the Borough of Youngwood, Westmoreland
County, in a northerly direction along T.R.119 and T.R.66 to the
intersection of T.R.22 with a bypass around the City of Greensburg,
Westmoreland County; thence north on T.R.66 to T.R.356; thence north on
T.R.356 to the intersection with T.R.28.
5. From a point at or near the intersection of T.R.66 and T.R.22 in Salem
Township, Westmoreland County; thence in a westerly direction paralleling
T.R.22 to Exit 6 of Interstate 76.
A lot of this looks like the TPC is allowed to cover the state's ass if
PennDot runs out of fundign for various projects. Item 3...includes the US
222 freeway or expressway (if you are originally from PA) completion.
Finally, it also allows for the converions of existing routes to toll
roads...
A Gilson
> Cumberland Army Depot. The commission may commence construction of the
> private turnpike interchange notwithstanding the construction schedule
> established by this section.
This one appears to be finished as well, though I have never seen any
vehicles using it.
Scott M. Kozel
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@attbi.com> wrote:
> > "Jeff Kitsko" <jjki...@attbi.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I remember now why Southwestern Pennsylvania got stuck with the toll roads.
> >
> > No more so than Southeastern Pennsylvania. Maybe less so when
> > considering the Northeast Extension and the Delaware River toll bridges.
>
> No more? I will beg to differ.
Sure - add 'em up.
> The TPC actually built the extensions in
> Eastern PA, where as the plans for any of the western extensions were never
> built. The TPC's priorities were in Eastern PA.
PTC built the east-west Turnpike and one extension (Northeast)
1940-1959.
> Granted, the
> creation/completion of the interstate highway system really nullifies that.
Well, yeah, the rest of the Interstates were built as part of the
Interstate system with federal aid.
> The TPC in regards to the current western expansion projects picked up
> various projects that were lost in the PennDot shuffle in the 70s. Many
> projects in easternPA are resurfacing as free highways. The completion of
> the US 222 expressway, the US 202 expressway is still under consideration.
Little of the uncompleted US-202 is under consideration now. I think
that it ought to be considered at a toll road and supported by the
finances of the whole Turnpike system, as with the new toll roads in
western PA.
> > The first Turnpike expansion proposals were made public in the
> > mid-1970s, and they included a "Phase A" and a "Phase B". Phase A
> > included most of the current projects, such as the Beaver Valley
> > Expressway, part of the Mon Valley Expressway, the Greensburg Bypass,
> > the Six-Lane Widening near Philadelphia, the Lehigh Tunnel Second Tube,
> > and the Keyser Avenue Interchange near Scranton.
>
> I'd have to check my turnpike book on that (Phase A&B, or a check to the Big
> C when i go home in July)...none of these phases/plance became official
> until Act 61 was passed in the September 1985.
>
> Work was being done for the MF Expwy as late as the mid 70's when pieces of
> the I-70 to US 40 highway was being built. Also, the highway before Act 61
> had various different plans. This is the first time, your post Scott, that
> I have learned of the TPK proposing this as early as the mid 70's.
I'll have to find my book with "Phase A" and a "Phase B", and check the
dates.
Guy Olsen
It's really a matter of principle: freeway to freeway connections
should NOT utilize non-freeways. Levels of congestion can be used to
prioritize the improvements.
Guy Olsen, PE
"My way IS the highway!!!"
Mr. Yamamoto of Hollywood
>> be any better with a direct connection, given that traffic has to stop at
>> the toll booth anyway? (Even with EZPass, traffic still has to slow, both
>> because of the narrow lanes and weaving at the trumpet)
Even with the bogus 5MPH limit, EZ-pass use is a great deal faster than picking
up a ticket/paying a toll. I probably save anywhere from 20-30 minutes a
week(maybe more) because I can jump the queue and roll thru the EZ-Pass lane.
Even w/the above conditions-which are a way of life at the IH 84/87 junction.
It's really a matter of principle: freeway to freeway connections
should NOT utilize non-freeways.
Amen!
Jeff Kitsko
due to at the time the world tensions easing.
--
Jeff Kitsko
Pennsylvania Highways: http://www.pahighways.com/
Pittsburgh Highways: http://www.pahighways.com/pghhwys/
Philadelphia Highways: http://www.pahighways.com/phlhwys/
"A Gilson" <agil...@acsworld.com> wrote in message
news:uf8ls8q...@corp.supernews.com...
Exile on Market Street
<koz...@attbi.com> wrote:
> Like I said, southwestern Pennsylvania got the lion's share of the
> expansion projects currently finished and under construction, and the
> per-mile tolls were raised on the whole Turnpike system to support the
> toll revenue bonds which were used to build the extensions. That's not
> really fair to the eastern part of the state, and the southeastern part
> has by far the largest population metropolitan area.[...]
Glad I read Jeff Kitsko's response before replying to this post.
I was going to chalk this up to the peculiar dynamics of Pennsylvania
politics, in which Western Pennsylvanians can be counted on to support
Pittsburghers running statewide while Philadelphians can hardly be bothered
with anything political that doesn't take place at Broad and Market.
The presence of a hugely popular former mayor of Philadelphia in the
current gubernatorial election (who may also achieve the unusual feat of
garnering not only an enormous share of the vote--and a higher-than-usual
turnout--in heavily Democratic Philadelphia but a sizable tally in the
city's Republican suburbs) may change things temporarily.
(His GOP opponent, though, is from Pittsburgh. This ain't over yet, not by
a long shot.)
In any case, this dynamic appears to have no bearing on why toll roads are
sprouting up all over SW but not SE Pennsylvania.
--
Sandy Smith, Univ of Pennsylvania / 215.898.1423 / smi...@pobox.upenn.edu
Managing Editor, _Pennsylvania Current_ cur...@pobox.upenn.edu
Penn Web Team -- Web Editor webm...@isc.upenn.edu
I speak for myself here, not Penn http://pobox.upenn.edu/~smiths/
"You keep usin' them big-ass Harvard words, your ghetto pass is going to
be revoked."
-----------------------------------------------Method Man, in "How High"--
Christopher Blaney
(R)? Gov. Ridge was from Erie; where was Gov. Casey from? Was Gov.
Thornburgh from eastern or western PA? Was Gov. Scranton from Scranton?
What are the younger Casey's chances versus Mayor Rendell on the Democratic
side? Who is likely to come out on top in November? Schweikert or his
Democratic opponent?
Chris Blaney
"Exile on Market Street" <smi...@pobox.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:smiths-ya02408000...@netnews.upenn.edu...
Christopher Blaney
I read through your post carefully and through some of the replies. A lot of
my thinking about the PA Turnpike is colored by the article written in
American Heritage magazine (April 1990 I think) commemorating the 50th
anniversary of the highway. That piece was very friendly towards the
turnpike.
Consider that it was built during the later Depression years and was the
first toll superhighway of length constructed in the US. When an 18'
concrete carriageway was at one time considered sufficient for two full
lanes of traffic plus a passing lane (admittedly, back before the 1st World
War), the Long Island Motor Parkway was the first private automobile road
built with grade separation and a single 16' concrete slab. Moses's parkways
were built to four lanes, on 40' or 44' widths with no center divider (if
one was added, it was a steel box-rail). Only later did Moses add medians of
up to 12' wide (in the '30s and '40s.) And all of these early roads had no
accel-decel lanes to speak of. PA Turnpike has 1200' accel and decel lanes,
even if the trumpet interchanges are still tight by today's standards.
Tunnels were built with a single tube to save money (they used the existing
partial South Penn bores if possible) at first; by 1955 the traffic volumes
were sufficient for a single tube. Only after that was there a real need for
dual-boring or for bypasses.
I do agree that by today's standards, the PA Turnpike is inefficient, and
its commission is not being proactive enough in correcting these
deficiencies. Being an entrenched 65-year old agency with plenty of
patronage for both sides of the political aisle, this is hardly suprising,
but no less inexcusable.
My ideas would be this:
1. Construct full interchanges at Breezewood and Bedford for the I-70 and
I-99 connections.
2. Widen mainline turnpike to minimum six lanes throughout entire 360 mile
mainline length. Six lanes should be provided on NE Extension to Exit 33/56
(Lehigh Valley).
3. Widen to 3-2-2-3 dual-dual between NJTP Exit 6 (PA Turnpike Connection)
and PATP Exit 24/326 (Valley Forge), connecting to an
extended NJTP 3-2-2-3 dual-dual coming from North Jersey.
4. Widen to 3-2-2-3 dual-dual between Breezewood and New Stanton
Interchanges, for the I-70/I-76 multiplex, which is the major truck route
from Philadelphia/Baltimore/DC to Pittsburgh/Youngstown/Wheeling/Columbus.
The Allegheny Tunnel Bypass should be built and carry the "outer" six lanes
of traffic for cars and trucks, with the "inner" four lanes, the original
route, still using the Tunnel and open to passenger cars and light trucks
only. Breezewood interchange and Bedford interchange would need major
reconfiguration; the inner four lanes would be coming from I-70 at
Breezewood and leave the Turnpike at New Stanton.
5. NE Extension should be rebuilt in the Scranton area to serve as an I-81
Express Lanes system, with an Exit 132 connecting southbound I-81 with
southbound Turnpike/I-81 Express. Exit 132 would be an E-ZPass slip ramp
only; Exit 39/131 would remain for local traffic. The Keyser Avenue mainline
toll plaza would be rebuilt with a pair of "cattle chute" E-ZPass lanes
through the center of the plaza; there would also be a new Exit 117 that
would be an E-ZPass slip ramp from Turnpike/I-81 Express South to I-81 South
just outside of Wilkes-Barre. I-81 Express, then, would be about 15 miles
with just one intermediate interchange, as opposed to about the same
distance with many interchanges and, in reality, no more than four local
lanes. I-476 numbering would begin at the Wyoming Valley mainline get
ticket/pay toll plaza.
6. US 202 should be built from the New Hope bridge to the mainline turnpike
as the Bucks/Montgomery Extension.
7. The Pocono Extension of the PA Turnpike (I-80) should be built from the
Turnpike/I-80 interchange (Exit 35/95 and 274) to a new bridge across the
Delaware just south of the Columbia-Portland bridge, and terminating at a
new I-80 Exit 5 in New Jersey. The road would be six lanes across the
Delaware, and four lanes with bridges and abutments made wide enough for an
easy future expansion to six lanes, to Exit 293 (I-380). From Exit 293 to
Exit 274, the Pocono Extension would serve as a pair of inner carriageways
to the existing I-80 freeway. Existing I-80 from PA Exit 293 to NJ Exit 4
would become known as I-680.
Chris Blaney
"Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3CF2CFBB...@attbi.com...
> What's wrong with the Pennsylvania Turnpike?
>
> First of all, what's right with it? (Just kidding!)
Scott M. Kozel
>
> Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>
> > Come to think of it, Phoenixville doesn't have good westerly access to
> > the Turnpike. A Devault interchange with the Turnpike would provide
> > that.
>
> there's exit 330 for Gladwyne to get onto the Schuylkill, but that's only
> east bound. to go west to get to the PA Turnpike Westbound, you have to
> take Montgomery Ave to the Gulph Road exit of 76, then transfer to the PA
> Turnpike.
>
> At least Phoenixville is right next to 422. just hop on that until you get
> to KOP.
But I said -westerly- access. Phoenixville (a fair-sized boro) has good
-easterly- access to the Turnpike, but it does not have good -westerly-
access to the Turnpike.
SPUI
"Guy Olsen" <GuyP...@AOL.com> wrote in message
news:491e1b0b.02052...@posting.google.com...
> "SPUI" <sp...@mit.SPeduAMSUCKS> wrote in message
news:<dSJI8.75081$YI5.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
even
> > Breezewood is only backed up at peak tourist travel periods. Would
traffic
> > be any better with a direct connection, given that traffic has to stop
at
> > the toll booth anyway? (Even with EZPass, traffic still has to slow,
both
> > because of the narrow lanes and weaving at the trumpet)
>
> It's really a matter of principle: freeway to freeway connections
> should NOT utilize non-freeways. Levels of congestion can be used to
> prioritize the improvements.
In other words, there's really no reason to do so. Any reasoning behind this
'matter of principle' would rely on the assumption of bad traffic conditions
or safety problems, both of which would depend on the situation.
Scott M. Kozel
>
> Scott,
>
> I read through your post carefully and through some of the replies. A lot of
> my thinking about the PA Turnpike is colored by the article written in
> American Heritage magazine (April 1990 I think) commemorating the 50th
> anniversary of the highway. That piece was very friendly towards the
> turnpike.
>
> Consider that it was built during the later Depression years and was the
> first toll superhighway of length constructed in the US.
But that is not an accurate statement. It is 1/3 true. As I pointed
out, 160 miles was built by 1940, and the remaining 310 miles was built
1950-1959.
> When an 18'
> concrete carriageway was at one time considered sufficient for two full
> lanes of traffic plus a passing lane (admittedly, back before the 1st World
> War), the Long Island Motor Parkway was the first private automobile road
> built with grade separation and a single 16' concrete slab. Moses's parkways
> were built to four lanes, on 40' or 44' widths with no center divider (if
> one was added, it was a steel box-rail). Only later did Moses add medians of
> up to 12' wide (in the '30s and '40s.) And all of these early roads had no
> accel-decel lanes to speak of. PA Turnpike has 1200' accel and decel lanes,
> even if the trumpet interchanges are still tight by today's standards.
I don't think that those NYC city parkways are an appropriate comparison
to the Turnpike. Let's compare it to other Turnpikes.
Here, let me requote what I said in my first post ---
My main complaints with the original design are the 10-foot-wide median
on the east-west Turnpike and the 4-foot-wide median on the Northeast
Extension, and the overly-wide interchange spacing. I'll grant that the
original 160 miles from Irwin to Carlisle which was opened in 1940 was
very impressive as being the first long-distance superhighway in the
U.S., and I'll allow that the narrow median was ok back then. However,
IMO there is no excuse for not increasing the median width when the rest
of the Turnpike was built in the 1950s. The New Jersey Turnpike was
opened in 1951 with a 25-foot-wide median, and the New York City to
Albany section of the New York Thruway was opened about 1948 with a
normal median of about 60 feet wide, so the prevailing 1950+ design
standards for rural superhighways was for a much wider median than 10
feet.
> Tunnels were built with a single tube to save money (they used the existing
> partial South Penn bores if possible) at first; by 1955 the traffic volumes
> were sufficient for a single tube. Only after that was there a real need for
> dual-boring or for bypasses.
Let me requote what I said in my first post about the tunnels ---
As I said before, the 360-mile east-west Turnpike was completed in 1959,
and by then all the tunnels on the original 160-mile 1940-built section
were experiencing major congestion and backups at peak travel hours.
The entire Turnpike system was built with 4 lanes except for the 8
tunnels, each of which was built with 2 lanes (one each way). You would
think that by 1959 or 1960, that PTC would have completed the tunnel
expansion and bypass projects, thereby making the entire Chicago-NYC
turnpike system a full 4-lane freeway design throughout, but it took
until 1968 (nine years after the east-west Turnpike was completed) to
finish those projects on the east-west Turnpike (4 tunnels had a
parallel tube built and 3 tunnels were bypassed by relocating the
highway in open cut). The Northeast Extension was opened in 1957 and it
had one two-lane tunnel, and that wasn't expanded (parallel tube) until
1991 (34 years later), and it was experiencing major congestion and
backups at peak travel hours even back in the mid-1970s.
[good recommendations read]
stéphane dumas
>
> 1. Construct full interchanges at Breezewood and Bedford for the I-70 and
> I-99 connections.
what about I-81 at Carlisle just west of Harrisburg?
>
> 2. Widen mainline turnpike to minimum six lanes throughout entire 360 mile
> mainline length. Six lanes should be provided on NE Extension to Exit
33/56
> (Lehigh Valley).
>
> 3. Widen to 3-2-2-3 dual-dual between NJTP Exit 6 (PA Turnpike Connection)
> and PATP Exit 24/326 (Valley Forge), connecting to an
> extended NJTP 3-2-2-3 dual-dual coming from North Jersey.
I'd like this idea but I wonder if there enough ROW to do it, homever we
should put some provisions for enough ROW at the proposed interchange of
I-95 (Deleware expwy once planned by PA Tpk as Phiadelphia loop) to connect
the express lanes with I-95 as well
>
> 4. Widen to 3-2-2-3 dual-dual between Breezewood and New Stanton
> Interchanges, for the I-70/I-76 multiplex, which is the major truck route
> from Philadelphia/Baltimore/DC to Pittsburgh/Youngstown/Wheeling/Columbus.
> The Allegheny Tunnel Bypass should be built and carry the "outer" six
lanes
> of traffic for cars and trucks, with the "inner" four lanes, the original
> route, still using the Tunnel and open to passenger cars and light trucks
> only. Breezewood interchange and Bedford interchange would need major
> reconfiguration; the inner four lanes would be coming from I-70 at
> Breezewood and leave the Turnpike at New Stanton.
I'd like this idea althought than PA Tpk once studied this project in the
early 1970's (see Jeff Kitsco's PA Tpk page) and I suggest to go even a step
further, as extending the express-local setup as 2-2-2-2 from Monroeville to
New Stanton,I wonder if it possible to replace the double-trumpet of I-70 at
New Stanton by a double 3Y? or putting a triple trumpet, while the 3rd
trumpet will connect to PATPK 66 via a Y
>
> 5. NE Extension should be rebuilt in the Scranton area to serve as an I-81
> Express Lanes system, with an Exit 132 connecting southbound I-81 with
> southbound Turnpike/I-81 Express. Exit 132 would be an E-ZPass slip ramp
> only; Exit 39/131 would remain for local traffic. The Keyser Avenue
mainline
> toll plaza would be rebuilt with a pair of "cattle chute" E-ZPass lanes
> through the center of the plaza; there would also be a new Exit 117 that
> would be an E-ZPass slip ramp from Turnpike/I-81 Express South to I-81
South
> just outside of Wilkes-Barre. I-81 Express, then, would be about 15 miles
> with just one intermediate interchange, as opposed to about the same
> distance with many interchanges and, in reality, no more than four local
> lanes. I-476 numbering would begin at the Wyoming Valley mainline get
> ticket/pay toll plaza.
An idea than I have is I-476 between I-81 and his actual terminus could be
truncated and replaced by I-81, while the actual I-81 could be renumbered
from NE Ext terminus to the junction of US6/I-84/380 as I-380 while the
southern gap could be renumbered as I-84
>
> 6. US 202 should be built from the New Hope bridge to the mainline
turnpike
> as the Bucks/Montgomery Extension.
I'd like this idea too, but is there enough ROW from New Hope bridge (is it
near King of Prussia?) to the Northeast Extension
>
> 7. The Pocono Extension of the PA Turnpike (I-80) should be built from the
> Turnpike/I-80 interchange (Exit 35/95 and 274) to a new bridge across the
> Delaware just south of the Columbia-Portland bridge, and terminating at a
> new I-80 Exit 5 in New Jersey. The road would be six lanes across the
> Delaware, and four lanes with bridges and abutments made wide enough for
an
> easy future expansion to six lanes, to Exit 293 (I-380). From Exit 293 to
> Exit 274, the Pocono Extension would serve as a pair of inner carriageways
> to the existing I-80 freeway. Existing I-80 from PA Exit 293 to NJ Exit 4
> would become known as I-680.
>
> Chris Blaney
Stéphane Dumas
A Gilson
being built, but I recall it being last fall, perhaps? There are "slip
ramps" leading from the highway, guide rail along the ramp's curvature, and
overhead EZ-Pass sign units (or so they appear) and the small buildings
which presumably house the EZ-Pass equipment. The ramp skirts the perimiter
of a state salt shed/maintenance vehicle parking area, north side of the
turnpike, directly west of the Susquehanna River bridge. However, there are
no signs for the ramps and no other signs of life at these ramps...
"Jeff Kitsko" <jjki...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:ZN7J8.109042$L76.181611@rwcrnsc53...
Christopher Blaney
> But that is not an accurate statement. It is 1/3 true. As I pointed
> out, 160 miles was built by 1940, and the remaining 310 miles was built
> 1950-1959.
You are quite correct; the 1990 American Heritage article I mentioned
commemorated the 50th anniversary of the original 160-mile turnpike, and I
should have been more clear about that.
> I don't think that those NYC city parkways are an appropriate comparison
> to the Turnpike. Let's compare it to other Turnpikes.
It is important to note that the 1938-era design of the original PA turnpike
mileage was an evolutionary step from the earliest auto roads (Vanderbilt's
1908 LI Motor Parkway), the 1920s era parkways (Moses's Long Island
parkways, and the Bronx River and other Westchester Parkways), and then
going into the post-WW2 superhighway designs as inspired (indirectly) by
President Eisenhower.
Noting your commentary on why the postwar Turnpike extensions west to Ohio
and east into NJ were held to the same 1938 standards, rather than the
improved postwar standards, I'll point you to Jeff Kitsko's very good PA
Turnpike history site:
http://www.pahighways.com/TollHwys/PennaTPK.html
He notes that in 1946, the PTC refinanced their debt to begin raising money
for the extensions. The PTC's original 1936 enabling legislation did not
permit it to finance expansion beyond its 160 mile jurisdiction: a 1948
reauthorization act was required to recharter the PTC for operation on an
eventual statewide mainline route. The 1948 act and subsequent bond issue
raised $87 million for the 100-mile Philadelphia Extension. This included $5
million for the bridge across the Susquehanna, so if the total budget for
the extension was limited to the $87 million raised, you're talking about
$870,000 per mile. It's possible that the 1938-era designs were reused to
save money, as a wider median specification would probably have raised the
price. Overpass bridges over the Turnpike are built with a single span;
Turnpike overpasses do not require two separate bridges as roads with wider
medians do. Either that or the design engineers thought their 1938 designs
were "good enough". Note that even as the highway width profile remained the
same, the grade spec (2%) and the curvature (3 degrees) for the Philadalphia
extension was less than the original turnpike's 3 percent and 6 degrees. The
Western Extension had a 3% grade and 4 degree curvature specification.
Jeff did not mention the price to construct the Western Extension, but he
did note that there was a 1952 bond issuance of $65 million and a 1954 bond
issue of $233 million, plus a third 1952 re-authorization act, so that the
Turnpike had authority to build the Northeast Extension to Scranton. By 1957
the entire mainline turnpike and the NE Extension was completed. I don't
know why a 4-ft wide median on the NE Extension was proposed, as opposed to
a 10-foot or wider median as was certainly design standard. Again, I can
only think that since the use of a guardrail was proposed from the start,
the narrower profile (10'+12'+12'+4'+12'+12'+10'=72') would make for a less
expensive building proposition than a 1950s-conventional up to 100' profile,
widening the median from 4 feet to a max of 32 feet. Again, the need for
separate northbound and southbound overpass bridges would probably factor
in, as I expect a pair of 32' wide bridges would cost more to build than a
single 64' wide bridge (I assume that the shoulders were narrowed across the
bridges).
Having said all this, I can't and don't wish to dispute your points of view.
I'm just trying to give you a rationale. If you corresponded with any
Turnpike engineers that are still around today, they'd probably give you a
better answer.
> As I said before, the 360-mile east-west Turnpike was completed in 1959,
> and by then all the tunnels on the original 160-mile 1940-built section
> were experiencing major congestion and backups at peak travel hours.
> The entire Turnpike system was built with 4 lanes except for the 8
> tunnels, each of which was built with 2 lanes (one each way). You would
> think that by 1959 or 1960, that PTC would have completed the tunnel
By 1959 the PTC had just finished absorbing the entire cost of the turnpike
expansions, and were lobbying for building further extensions such as the
(I-79) Northwest Extension, (I-80) Stroudsburg Lateral Connection, and
(I-81) Harrisburg-Scranton Extension. While I'm sure traffic counts in the
2-lane tunnels were warranting expansion by this time, the PTC had other
things on its mind (for whatever reasons). I expect that when they realized
they were not going to expand beyond their existing mileage, and were able
to get investors to swallow another bond issue, they started to tackle the
tunnel expansion questions. Note that the Lehigh Tunnel was not doubled
until 1991!
This situation is not unlike the CBBT, after all. Traffic counts on that
facility are warranting doubling the tunnels (at least factoring peak season
travel), but I don't think the tunnels will be doubled for some time. PTC's
rationale must have been similar. After all, 15 of the 17.2 miles of the
CBBT are four lanes, and of the 470 miles of mainline turnpike in place in
1960, only about 8 miles of that distance were 2 lanes, or about 2 percent
of the total distance. Again, my mentioning this does not dispute your
viewpoint.
Chris Blaney
Adam Prince
"Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3CF45B09...@attbi.com...
> "Adam Prince" <apri...@HISPAMMERScarolina.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > "Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@attbi.com> wrote:
> > > "Jeff Kitsko" <jjki...@attbi.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I remember now why Southwestern Pennsylvania got stuck with the toll
roads.
> > >
> > > No more so than Southeastern Pennsylvania. Maybe less so when
> > > considering the Northeast Extension and the Delaware River toll
bridges.
> >
> > No more? I will beg to differ.
>
> Sure - add 'em up.
>
> > The TPC actually built the extensions in
> > Eastern PA, where as the plans for any of the western extensions were
never
> > built. The TPC's priorities were in Eastern PA.
>
> PTC built the east-west Turnpike and one extension (Northeast)
> 1940-1959.
Yes, Scott I am fully aware of that.
>
> > Granted, the
> > creation/completion of the interstate highway system really nullifies
that.
>
> Well, yeah, the rest of the Interstates were built as part of the
> Interstate system with federal aid.
Many of the Interstate in the Commonwealth were proposed/planned Turnpike
extensions/additions. I-81 North of Scranton, I-90 in Erie, I-80 etc. Thus
how the Interstates really nullified the PTC's expansion plans from about
1955-85.
Scott, many of these problems came from the PTC sitting on their hands
durign the 60's and 70's..since the 1980s the PTC has been more agressive in
additions, improvements, and expansions.
You have prefaced your post with "I've seen very little of the Turnpike in
thelast 10 years, " Even with that said, I am sure you are aware of the
total rebuild of the orignal 160 mile section. The total replacement of the
Susquehanna River Bridge. The proposal for an Allegheny Tunnel Bypass,
there is a possibilty that the Turnpike will reconstruct the highway in
Northern Allegheny County to include a wide grass median...and they, that
being the PTC, say it can be done.
Admittedly, these are years behind, but I can not fault the PTC for waking
up and going after these improvements, etc. now.
Lastly, I seriously doubt hte PTC has shown any favoritism towards the
Western and specifically Southwestern part of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania.
>
> > The TPC in regards to the current western expansion projects picked up
> > various projects that were lost in the PennDot shuffle in the 70s. Many
> > projects in easternPA are resurfacing as free highways. The completion
of
> > the US 222 expressway, the US 202 expressway is still under
consideration.
>
> Little of the uncompleted US-202 is under consideration now. I think
> that it ought to be considered at a toll road and supported by the
> finances of the whole Turnpike system, as with the new toll roads in
> western PA.
Yes Scott, It possibly does deserve a look. However, neither one of us are
on the Turnpike Commission and both of us are no longer residents of the
Commonwealth. You nor I are unable to even elect legislators who could
possibly lead a movement to have the PTC do such needed things.
Secondly, it's of my opinion that many of the authorizations are made in
case the state can't build them with federal aid or with their own money.
Many of the projects that were authorized after Act 61 (US 219, Reading
Loops, US 220) are all being built as free highways.
Next, I can not dispute that the turnpike should have more interchanges.
near Harrisburg, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.
<snip>
Pete Jenior
news:Pine.GSO.4.44.02052...@babel.ling.upenn.edu...
>
> On Tue, 28 May 2002, Scott M. Kozel wrote:
> >
> > First, the positives. The 360-mile east-west Turnpike was completed in
>
>
> also, the PA Turnpike has not raised tolls since 1991, which i think might
> be longer than any other agency in the country (although i bet someone
> out there can contradict me). driving on the PA Turnpike
> is a good bargain.
>
Although I've never been on it, I know the Ohio Tpk. didn;t raise their
tolls for several decades after opening, but recently did.
Then there is Kentucky, which removes tolls once the road has been paid for.
--
-Pete Jenior - Cincinnati, Ohio
-Civil Engineering Major
Georgia Tech (downtown Atlanta)
~~~~
"You're on the road
But you've got no destination"
-U2, "Beautiful Day"
Scott M. Kozel
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> > Well, yeah, the rest of the Interstates were built as part of the
> > Interstate system with federal aid.
>
> Many of the Interstate in the Commonwealth were proposed/planned Turnpike
> extensions/additions. I-81 North of Scranton, I-90 in Erie, I-80 etc. Thus
> how the Interstates really nullified the PTC's expansion plans from about
> 1955-85.
>
> Scott, many of these problems came from the PTC sitting on their hands
> durign the 60's and 70's..since the 1980s the PTC has been more agressive in
> additions, improvements, and expansions.
>
> You have prefaced your post with "I've seen very little of the Turnpike in
> the last 10 years, "
I've driven parts of it, and all of it at various times in the past.
Then, their website is a tool for following what they are planning and
building.
> Even with that said, I am sure you are aware of the
> total rebuild of the orignal 160 mile section. The total replacement of the
> Susquehanna River Bridge. The proposal for an Allegheny Tunnel Bypass,
> there is a possibilty that the Turnpike will reconstruct the highway in
> Northern Allegheny County to include a wide grass median...and they, that
> being the PTC, say it can be done.
What "total rebuild"? Other than pavement rehabilitation and
resurfacing, that is.
> Admittedly, these are years behind, but I can not fault the PTC for waking
> up and going after these improvements, etc. now.
I agree that they are making improvements.
> Lastly, I seriously doubt hte PTC has shown any favoritism towards the
> Western and specifically Southwestern part of the Commonwealth of
> Pennsylvania.
How would you explain the fact that the bulk of the 1985+ expansion
projects (finished and those proposed) have been in the Southwestern
part of Pennsylvania?
> > uncompleted US-202
> Yes Scott, It possibly does deserve a look. However, neither one of us are
> on the Turnpike Commission and both of us are no longer residents of the
> Commonwealth. You nor I are unable to even elect legislators who could
> possibly lead a movement to have the PTC do such needed things.
That's true, but we can discuss these things since we have some personal
knowledge of the state.
> Secondly, it's of my opinion that many of the authorizations are made in
> case the state can't build them with federal aid or with their own money.
> Many of the projects that were authorized after Act 61 (US 219, Reading
> Loops, US 220) are all being built as free highways.
>
> Next, I can not dispute that the turnpike should have more interchanges.
> near Harrisburg, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.
--
Scott M. Kozel
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't think that those NYC city parkways are an appropriate comparison
> > to the Turnpike. Let's compare it to other Turnpikes.
>
> It is important to note that the 1938-era design of the original PA turnpike
> mileage was an evolutionary step from the earliest auto roads (Vanderbilt's
> 1908 LI Motor Parkway), the 1920s era parkways (Moses's Long Island
> parkways, and the Bronx River and other Westchester Parkways), and then
> going into the post-WW2 superhighway designs as inspired (indirectly) by
> President Eisenhower.
I agree. However, most the PA Turnpike was built in the 1950s when most
of the other turnpikes were built.
> Noting your commentary on why the postwar Turnpike extensions west to Ohio
> and east into NJ were held to the same 1938 standards, rather than the
> improved postwar standards, I'll point you to Jeff Kitsko's very good PA
> Turnpike history site:
[....]
I still don't agree. The other 1950s turnpikes (Indiana, Ohio, New
Jersey, New York, Maine) were built to well beyond the "1938"
standards. I don't buy any of PTC's excuses.
> By 1959 the PTC had just finished absorbing the entire cost of the turnpike
> expansions, and were lobbying for building further extensions such as the
> (I-79) Northwest Extension, (I-80) Stroudsburg Lateral Connection, and
> (I-81) Harrisburg-Scranton Extension. While I'm sure traffic counts in the
> 2-lane tunnels were warranting expansion by this time, the PTC had other
> things on its mind (for whatever reasons). I expect that when they realized
> they were not going to expand beyond their existing mileage, and were able
> to get investors to swallow another bond issue, they started to tackle the
> tunnel expansion questions. Note that the Lehigh Tunnel was not doubled
> until 1991!
Still. The 1959 traffic warranted 4 lanes throughout on the east-west
Turnpike. It was THE Chicago to New York City superhighway.
> This situation is not unlike the CBBT, after all. Traffic counts on that
> facility are warranting doubling the tunnels (at least factoring peak season
> travel), but I don't think the tunnels will be doubled for some time. PTC's
> rationale must have been similar. After all, 15 of the 17.2 miles of the
> CBBT are four lanes, and of the 470 miles of mainline turnpike in place in
> 1960, only about 8 miles of that distance were 2 lanes, or about 2 percent
> of the total distance. Again, my mentioning this does not dispute your
> viewpoint.
The PTC tunnels were major bottlenecks by then.
I disagree with the comparison between the PA Turnpike and the CBBT.
CBBT is not on a long distance Interstate highway, and today its AADT
still hasn't reached 10,000. The CBBT tunnels adequately handle the
traffic today.
In 1959, the PA Turnpike was on THE Chicago to New York City
superhighway, and 4 lanes mininum was the necessary width.
Adam Prince
"Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3CF5971E...@attbi.com...
> "Adam Prince" <apri...@HISPAMMERScarolina.rr.com> wrote:
<snip>
> > Even with that said, I am sure you are aware of the
> > total rebuild of the orignal 160 mile section. The total replacement of
the
> > Susquehanna River Bridge. The proposal for an Allegheny Tunnel Bypass,
> > there is a possibilty that the Turnpike will reconstruct the highway in
> > Northern Allegheny County to include a wide grass median...and they,
that
> > being the PTC, say it can be done.
>
> What "total rebuild"? Other than pavement rehabilitation and
> resurfacing, that is.
They are tearing out the entire roadbed..and building the pavement from the
ground up. "All of the existing bituminous material is being removed
including the Turnpike's original nine-inch thick concrete surface. " from
(http://www.paturnpike.com/rt7685/default.htm)
From Jeff's site, "The [complete rebuild] project[s] will continue for the
next 16 years with new grading, new drainage systems, new pavement, new
guide rails, and a new median as the result. The median will be widened to
18 feet and a newly designed concrete barrier will occupy the middle. There
will be eight foot wide shoulders between the barrier and the left lanes..."
>
> > Admittedly, these are years behind, but I can not fault the PTC for
waking
> > up and going after these improvements, etc. now.
>
> I agree that they are making improvements.
>
> > Lastly, I seriously doubt hte PTC has shown any favoritism towards the
> > Western and specifically Southwestern part of the Commonwealth of
> > Pennsylvania.
>
> How would you explain the fact that the bulk of the 1985+ expansion
> projects (finished and those proposed) have been in the Southwestern
> part of Pennsylvania?
Act 61 was passed by the Pennsylvania State Legislature not the PTC. I will
have to look into who sponsored the bill to see where that individual was
from and their background.
<snip>
Scott M. Kozel
>
> "SPUI" <sp...@mit.SPeduAMSUCKS> wrote:
> > "Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@attbi.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Non-Interstate expressways built without a Turnpike interchange - PA-28,
> > > US-219, PA-283, US-422. That causes connecting expressway traffic to
> > > have to use local surface roads to make the connection between two
> > > expressways.
> >
> > How bad is traffic at these interchanges? It is my understanding that even
> > Breezewood is only backed up at peak tourist travel periods. Would traffic
> > be any better with a direct connection, given that traffic has to stop at
> > the toll booth anyway? (Even with EZPass, traffic still has to slow, both
> > because of the narrow lanes and weaving at the trumpet)
>
> It's really a matter of principle: freeway to freeway connections
> should NOT utilize non-freeways. Levels of congestion can be used to
> prioritize the improvements.
It's more than just a principle, IMO. It's a missing link in the
freeway/Interstate system. A trip using more than one freeway should
have a direct freeway connection between the two freeways. Not having
such a connection is really not all that different from having a missing
link in one freeway or having a two lane bottleneck on a freeway. A
lower volume freeway-to-freeway connection would have lower warrants,
but so would a missing link in a lower volume freeway. Freeway through
traffic has to use local surface roads, and that is wrong.
Jeff Kitsko
news:jBcJ8.48591$xN5.9...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
> Scott,
>
> I read through your post carefully and through some of the replies. A lot
of
> my thinking about the PA Turnpike is colored by the article written in
> American Heritage magazine (April 1990 I think) commemorating the 50th
> anniversary of the highway. That piece was very friendly towards the
> turnpike.
>
> Consider that it was built during the later Depression years and was the
> first toll superhighway of length constructed in the US. When an 18'
> concrete carriageway was at one time considered sufficient for two full
> lanes of traffic plus a passing lane (admittedly, back before the 1st
World
> War), the Long Island Motor Parkway was the first private automobile road
> built with grade separation and a single 16' concrete slab. Moses's
parkways
> were built to four lanes, on 40' or 44' widths with no center divider (if
> one was added, it was a steel box-rail).
The old guiderail that was use was standard rail, which can been seen on the
very most western part of the Turnpike near Ohio. I don't understand why it
still exists since it has been replaced with Jersey barriers.
> My ideas would be this:
>
> 1. Construct full interchanges at Breezewood and Bedford for the I-70 and
> I-99 connections.
Might as well toss in PA 28, US 219, and I-80.
> 4. Widen to 3-2-2-3 dual-dual between Breezewood and New Stanton
> Interchanges, for the I-70/I-76 multiplex, which is the major truck route
> from Philadelphia/Baltimore/DC to Pittsburgh/Youngstown/Wheeling/Columbus.
> The Allegheny Tunnel Bypass should be built and carry the "outer" six
lanes
> of traffic for cars and trucks, with the "inner" four lanes, the original
> route, still using the Tunnel and open to passenger cars and light trucks
> only. Breezewood interchange and Bedford interchange would need major
> reconfiguration; the inner four lanes would be coming from I-70 at
> Breezewood and leave the Turnpike at New Stanton.
There was a plan in the 1970s to rebuild the original Turnpike in a 2-2-2-2
design, for cars-trucks-trucks-cars. This section would also employ
holographic road signs, which would have been interesting with 1970s
technology. Trucks would still use the tunnel, but cars would use a new
road located on the ridges.
http://www.pahighways.com/TollHwys/PennaTPK.html#Chapter10
Jeff Kitsko
Schweiker is not running. Only Rendell is battling Casey for the Democratic
spot on the ticket. There is only one Republican canidate, whose name I can
not think of right now.
--
Jeff Kitsko
Pennsylvania Highways: http://www.pahighways.com/
Pittsburgh Highways: http://www.pahighways.com/pghhwys/
Philadelphia Highways: http://www.pahighways.com/phlhwys/
"Christopher Blaney" <cbl...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1gcJ8.48507$xN5.9...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
Scott M. Kozel
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@attbi.com> wrote:
> > "Adam Prince" <apri...@HISPAMMERScarolina.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Even with that said, I am sure you are aware of the
> > > total rebuild of the orignal 160 mile section. The total replacement of the
> > > Susquehanna River Bridge. The proposal for an Allegheny Tunnel Bypass,
> > > there is a possibilty that the Turnpike will reconstruct the highway in
> > > Northern Allegheny County to include a wide grass median...and they, that
> > > being the PTC, say it can be done.
> >
> > What "total rebuild"? Other than pavement rehabilitation and
> > resurfacing, that is.
>
> They are tearing out the entire roadbed..and building the pavement from the
> ground up. "All of the existing bituminous material is being removed
> including the Turnpike's original nine-inch thick concrete surface. " from
> (http://www.paturnpike.com/rt7685/default.htm)
>
> From Jeff's site, "The [complete rebuild] project[s] will continue for the
> next 16 years with new grading, new drainage systems, new pavement, new
> guide rails, and a new median as the result. The median will be widened to
> 18 feet and a newly designed concrete barrier will occupy the middle. There
> will be eight foot wide shoulders between the barrier and the left lanes..."
Oh, OK. I thought you were saying that it had already been built. So
it will take 16 more years.
ARMOURER ERIC
>Northern Allegheny County to include a wide grass median..
Could this be a precursor to a widenig to 6-8 lanes in the median. Plus I
always wondered if the PTC still ownes the land at the location of a demolished
service area near Irwin, I feel that someday they may need to move the mainline
barrier back from it's new Warrendale location to allow for more frequent
interchanges in Pittsburgh as the burbs continue to grow.
Eric
A Gilson
Fisher (Republican), who was unopposed in the primary.
"Jeff Kitsko" <jjki...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:RChJ8.61189$352.2838@sccrnsc02...
Rush Wickes
"Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3CF5A85A...@attbi.com...
> "Adam Prince" <apri...@HISPAMMERScarolina.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > They are tearing out the entire roadbed..and building the pavement from
the
> > ground up. "All of the existing bituminous material is being removed
> > including the Turnpike's original nine-inch thick concrete surface. "
from
> > (http://www.paturnpike.com/rt7685/default.htm)
> >
> > From Jeff's site, "The [complete rebuild] project[s] will continue for
the
> > next 16 years with new grading, new drainage systems, new pavement, new
> > guide rails, and a new median as the result. The median will be widened
to
> > 18 feet and a newly designed concrete barrier will occupy the middle.
There
> > will be eight foot wide shoulders between the barrier and the left
lanes..."
Jumping into this thread late here. The pavement problems along the
Pennsylvania Turnpike can be largely attributed to the continued occasional
layering of fresh asphalt upon the existing asphalt and further below
concrete. Consequently, given the outmoded depth dimensions for the
surface, a rough ride has resulted over the years. I am confident that
with the total rebuild, the ride will improve dramatically.
I can't say with any certainty why the Turnpike Commission has been
reluctant to pursue widening their right of way. Perhaps it is due to the
number of overpasses that would need to be replaced. When I was last on
the road a few weeks ago, I noticed that some of the overpasses had height
restrictions around thirteen to fourteen feet. Moving the roadways out
would mean having to replace the overpasses -- a costly endeavor.
There are stretches of road along the mainline where wider median dimensions
have been incorporated. The current alignment that takes traffic over
Sideling and Rays Hill (where the old tunnels used to be) near Breezewood
has a median of about 25 feet or so. I imagine in other parts of the
state, such as the Philadelphia suburbs, expanding the roadway for a wider
median would necessitate takings of property and run into plenty of
strenuous objection from nearby residents.
--
A Gilson
from these areas have no reason to subscribe to EZ-Pass. Since the Turnpike
is part of the Interstate highway system, each piece of it should be open to
everyone--not just those from the northeast, where EZ-Pass is prevalent.
>
> Why is it unfair to ask that you make use of a technology that would
> automate your toll transaction and make your trip through the facility
> quicker? A conventional toll plaza needs extra lanes and dimensions that
> would make it unwieldy to fit into a established urban area setting. The
> E-ZPass only ramps allow for a much narrower footprint -- a conventional
> diamond and can (such as at Virginia Drive in the eastern section), be
built
> to provide only partial access based on commuter flow patterns.
>
> --
> Rush Wickes -- remove the '-' to reply via e-mail
> Blacksburg, VA
>
>
>
>
Exile on Market Street
Blaney" <cbl...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Is this former Mayor Rendell (D) versus the current Gov. Mark Schweikert
> (R)? Gov. Ridge was from Erie; where was Gov. Casey from? Was Gov.
> Thornburgh from eastern or western PA? Was Gov. Scranton from Scranton?
1. No. Gov. Schweiker decided not to seek election in his own right. The
Republican candidate is the current Attorney General, Mike Fisher.
2. Dick Thornburgh was from western Pennsylvania. Yes, Gov. Scranton is
from the city that bears his name; his family founded it, IIRC. Both
Caseys -- the former Governor and the current Auditor General who Rendell
defeated in the primary -- also hail from Scranton. And Gov. William
Scranton also had a son who ran for Governor on the GOP ticket against
Casey the Elder in 1986.
> What are the younger Casey's chances versus Mayor Rendell on the Democratic
> side? Who is likely to come out on top in November? Schweikert or his
> Democratic opponent?
I just told you what happened to Casey the Younger -- he lost. Generally
speaking, Rendell ran a flawless campaign while Casey took just about every
opportunity he had to shoot himself in the foot and turn off his
supporters.
Given that Rendell is probably to the left of most of the state's
electorate, I would say that the likely outcome in November is close.
However, the Pittsburgh area tends to vote Democratic, and most of the
state's Democratic mayors, including Pittsburgh's, backed Rendell in the
primary -- and suburban Republicans around Philadelphia also generally
think highly of him, which is likely to cut the traditional suburban GOP
margin significantly, perhaps to the point where it does not cancel out the
huge Democratic margin in the city proper. Right now, I'd call it Rendell
over Fisher by 5 to 10 points.
Jeff Kitsko
news:smiths-ya02408000...@netnews.upenn.edu...
> Given that Rendell is probably to the left of most of the state's
> electorate, I would say that the likely outcome in November is close.
> However, the Pittsburgh area tends to vote Democratic, and most of the
> state's Democratic mayors, including Pittsburgh's, backed Rendell in the
> primary -- and suburban Republicans around Philadelphia also generally
> think highly of him, which is likely to cut the traditional suburban GOP
> margin significantly, perhaps to the point where it does not cancel out
the
> huge Democratic margin in the city proper. Right now, I'd call it Rendell
> over Fisher by 5 to 10 points.
Generally speaking, western Pennsylvania tends to split the ticket. My
grandfather said always said, "Register Democrat, and vote Republican."
However, for positions such as governor, we do vote Democratic.
Christopher Blaney
news:smiths-ya02408000...@netnews.upenn.edu...
> 2. Dick Thornburgh was from western Pennsylvania. Yes, Gov. Scranton is
> from the city that bears his name; his family founded it, IIRC. Both
> Caseys -- the former Governor and the current Auditor General who Rendell
> defeated in the primary -- also hail from Scranton. And Gov. William
> Scranton also had a son who ran for Governor on the GOP ticket against
> Casey the Elder in 1986.
Based on this I'd say that Pennsylvania's governors tend to come from all
corners of the state: Erie, Scranton, Philadelphia, western and eastern PA.
NJ tends to favor northern and central over southern, Camden County's Gov.
Florio notwithstanding. And as for New York State -- I'd like to see the
stat. on when was the last Governor chosen who hailed from north of
Poughkeepsie or west of Harriman, and even this line is quite generous!
Chris Blaney
Exile on Market Street
Blaney" <cbl...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> "Exile on Market Street" <smi...@pobox.upenn.edu> wrote in message
> news:smiths-ya02408000...@netnews.upenn.edu...
>
> > 2. Dick Thornburgh was from western Pennsylvania. Yes, Gov. Scranton is
> > from the city that bears his name; his family founded it, IIRC. Both
> > Caseys -- the former Governor and the current Auditor General who Rendell
> > defeated in the primary -- also hail from Scranton. And Gov. William
> > Scranton also had a son who ran for Governor on the GOP ticket against
> > Casey the Elder in 1986.
>
> Based on this I'd say that Pennsylvania's governors tend to come from all
> corners of the state: Erie, Scranton, Philadelphia, western and eastern PA.
Take "Philadelphia" off that list and you'd be more accurate. There hasn't
been a Pennsylvania governor who hails from its biggest city since 1916.
And AFAIK, there hasn't been one from its four surrounding counties at all
in the last century.
John Hayes
> And as for New York State -- I'd like to see the
> stat. on when was the last Governor chosen who hailed from north of
> Poughkeepsie or west of Harriman, and even this line is quite generous!
>
> Chris Blaney
>
I'm guessing it was Nathan L. Miller, Syracuse, 1921-1922.
(google is your friend - http://www.state.ny.us/governor/govhistory.htm)
Exile on Market Street
<agil...@acsworld.com> wrote:
> There are parts of the US in which EZ-Pass does not exist, and motorists
> from these areas have no reason to subscribe to EZ-Pass. Since the Turnpike
> is part of the Interstate highway system, each piece of it should be open to
> everyone--not just those from the northeast, where EZ-Pass is prevalent.
Even though it is part of the Interstate Highway System, it is not open to
those who cannot or do not want to pay the toll to use it. So there's
already a restriction built in.
As for restricting these interchanges to a subset of the above: One could
argue that in urban areas, many of the interchanges serve local traffic far
more than they do non-local traffic. (To take one example on a non-toll
expressway in this area, I will lay you very good odds that very few
out-of-the-region motorists use either the Montgomery/West River Drive or
Gladwyne exits on the Schuylkill Expressway. The former leads to a road
that parallels the Schuylkill and is a popular alternative for commuters;
the latter is an eastbound-on/westbound-off ramp that hardly anyone besides
Gladwyne residents use.)
The Virginia Drive interchange is designed mainly to serve nearby offices
in the Fort Washington area. I suspect the number of people using the
Turnpike who will be inconvenienced by still having to use the Fort
Washington interchange because they lack E-ZPass or compatible systems
(Massachusetts' FastLane, Maryland's MTag, eventually Illinois' I-Pass,
IIRC) will be quite small.
Exile on Market Street
Stephanie <sjwi...@babel.ling.upenn.edu> wrote:
> On Wed, 29 May 2002, Exile on Market Street wrote:
> >
> > In any case, this dynamic appears to have no bearing on why toll roads are
> > sprouting up all over SW but not SE Pennsylvania.
>
>
> that's only fair. We have enough toll roads in our area. it's about time
> that SW PA also have to pay tolls too.
Actually, given the nature of the SW Pa Turnpike toll roads, I wouldn't be
making this comment.
Although one of them -- the Beaver Valley route that completes PA 60 -- is
a needed interregional highway, a number of these mainly serve
intraregional traffic in the Greater Pittsburgh area. If the PTC were to
have done the same on this side of the state, we'd have tollbooths on the
Blue Route *below* the Mid-County interchange.
And most of the toll facilities in the Philadelphia area are river
crossings, not commuter highways.
Christopher Blaney
news:smiths-ya02408000...@netnews.upenn.edu...
> Although one of them -- the Beaver Valley route that completes PA 60 -- is
> a needed interregional highway, a number of these mainly serve
> intraregional traffic in the Greater Pittsburgh area. If the PTC were to
> have done the same on this side of the state, we'd have tollbooths on the
> Blue Route *below* the Mid-County interchange.
If the PTC had had enough momentum and if the Interstate Highway bill had
passed a few years after '56, you would not have had a Blue Route, but a
Chester Extension that would have been completed by the early '60s. It would
have been a four-lane route with a 4' wide median, however, and as grossly
inadequate for traffic by the late '70s as the Surekill Distressway. :-/
Chris Blaney
David J. Greenberger
> There are parts of the US in which EZ-Pass does not exist, and motorists
> from these areas have no reason to subscribe to EZ-Pass. Since the Turnpike
> is part of the Interstate highway system, each piece of it should be open to
> everyone--not just those from the northeast, where EZ-Pass is prevalent.
E-ZPass is available to anyone in the U.S. who fills out the paperwork.
When I first signed up for E-ZPass, I lived in Illinois. I only used it
a few times per year, when I drove to New York, but it saved me time and
money nonetheless.
--
David J. Greenberger
New York, NY
John David Galt
It would be nice if all these systems shared a registry so that you could
get one transponder and use it everywhere. Wasn't that (applied to the
northeast) the original reason behind EZ-Pass?
Scott M. Kozel
A more fundamental problem is getting electronic toll collection
implemented on all the major toll roads to begin with. A huge gap
between Chicago and the Northeast is the Ohio Turnpike (241 miles) and
the Indiana Toll Road (158 miles).