Pennsylvania Turnpike reconstruction: MM 40 to MM 48 (Pittsburgh, Harrisburg: income, living in, prices)

[Craziaskowboi]

Reconstruction on the Pennsylvania Turnpike between MM 31 and MM 38 will wrap up by the end of this year, making that segment a modern six-lane highway with a 122' right-of-way. Meanwhile, preparatory work has begun to reconstruct and widen the segment of the Turnpike between MM 40 and MM 48. The first part of the project will involve the rebuilding of six overpasses along that segment, including three which carry PA 910 as it zig-zags over the Turnpike. One overpass will be eliminated, presumably because it doesn't carry enough traffic to justify its existence.

The timeline for the reconstruction of this segment is a bit longer than the others due to the number of overpasses that need to be rebuilt, plus the high volume of traffic. Construction is expected to end by 2018. For comparison's sake, the segment from MM 67 to MM 75 that was widened took about five years to get done. The reason why it takes so long to reconstruct a highway is because they're rebuilding not only the highway, but the roadbed and all the infrastructure under and along it.

Once the segment from MM 40 to MM 48 is reconstructed, the Turnpike will be a modern six-lane highway with a 122' right-of-way from Cranberry to Oakmont, including the recently rebuilt Allegheny River Bridges. At that point, the missing link between Cranberry and New Stanton would be from MM 49 to MM 67, which is basically everything between Oakmont and North Huntingdon Township, including the I-376 interchange. Expect a modernization of the I-376 interchange to be done in conjunction with the reconstruction of the segments on both sides of it.

[speagles84]

Originally Posted by Gnutella

Reconstruction on the Pennsylvania Turnpike between MM 31 and MM 38 will wrap up by the end of this year, making that segment a modern six-lane highway with a 122' right-of-way. Meanwhile, preparatory work has begun to reconstruct and widen the segment of the Turnpike between MM 40 and MM 48. The first part of the project will involve the rebuilding of six overpasses along that segment, including three which carry PA 910 as it zig-zags over the Turnpike. One overpass will be eliminated, presumably because it doesn't carry enough traffic to justify its existence.

The timeline for the reconstruction of this segment is a bit longer than the others due to the number of overpasses that need to be rebuilt, plus the high volume of traffic. Construction is expected to end by 2018. For comparison's sake, the segment from MM 67 to MM 75 that was widened took about five years to get done. The reason why it takes so long to reconstruct a highway is because they're rebuilding not only the highway, but the roadbed and all the infrastructure under and along it.

Once the segment from MM 40 to MM 48 is reconstructed, the Turnpike will be a modern six-lane highway with a 122' right-of-way from Cranberry to Oakmont, including the recently rebuilt Allegheny River Bridges. At that point, the missing link between Cranberry and New Stanton would be from MM 49 to MM 67, which is basically everything between Oakmont and North Huntingdon Township, including the I-376 interchange. Expect a modernization of the I-376 interchange to be done in conjunction with the reconstruction of the segments on both sides of it.

Awesome! Now when are they gonna get the parkways going INTO Pittsburgh done?? Haha. Rhetorical question by the way...

[Craziaskowboi]

Originally Posted by speagles84

Awesome! Now when are they gonna get the parkways going INTO Pittsburgh done?? Haha. Rhetorical question by the way...

That's PennDOT's jurisdiction, and my guess is sometime after they're done reconstructing I-83 in Harrisburg. And it's just I-376 that needs it in Pittsburgh; I-279 is already engineered to current Interstate standards.

[Anonymous939630]

Overall I think the turnpike--376 interchange needs some enhancements, but based on the timeframe of the 40-48 project, I don't think we can expect that for some number of years.

Not to get sidetracked, but if 376 were theoretically overhauled and brought up to standards and capacity demands, could it potentially be detrimental to the Pgh city by increasing suburbanization even more? Perhaps it would enable some bigger offices complexes and more housing in the parkway west corridor. I've heard that argument before but am pretty skeptical so I'd be interested to see what you guys think.

[Craziaskowboi]

Originally Posted by jmrun1126

Overall I think the turnpike--376 interchange needs some enhancements, but based on the timeframe of the 40-48 project, I don't think we can expect that for some number of years.

Not to get sidetracked, but if 376 were theoretically overhauled and brought up to standards and capacity demands, could it potentially be detrimental to the Pgh city by increasing suburbanization even more? Perhaps it would enable some bigger offices complexes and more housing in the parkway west corridor. I've heard that argument before but am pretty skeptical so I'd be interested to see what you guys think.

I don't believe that modernizing I-376 would promote suburban sprawl as much as some people think. The topography alone makes suburban sprawl in the Pittsburgh area very difficult to begin with, and there's much more interest in urban living now than there has been at any time in the last 60 years. However, those factors don't mean that Pittsburgh doesn't need to modernize I-376. The entire highway from Robinson Township to Monroeville is engineered to standards that are not only unacceptable in the 21st Century, but embarrassing too. Having modern highways doesn't necessarily equate to autocentrism. Cities in Europe are dense and walkable, but they still have modern highways serving them. If European cities are too good for cattle chutes, then so is Pittsburgh.

[BrianTH]

Not that I think we should necessarily let feelings of "embarrassment" set our transportation spending priorities, but of course if you are talking about things we should be "embarrassed" about in relation to our European peers, very high on that list would be our extremely paltry local and regional transit systems (by their standards), as well as the almost total lack of usable intercity passenger rail.

And that frames the sprawl issue as well. In a world in which we had adequately invested in local and regional transit and intercity rail, sure, you could then spend the billions it would take to upgrade I-376 without necessarily encouraging a lot of sprawl. But if you only spend the billions on upgrading I-376 and continue to neglect all other modes of surface transportation, then yes, that will encourage more sprawl--even though you would in fact be fighting against what the market is saying it actually wants.

[pman]

yeah of theres something to be embarrassed about its the one traon a day headong east that takes longer than it did in the 30's.

[gg]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Not that I think we should necessarily let feelings of "embarrassment" set our transportation spending priorities, but of course if you are talking about things we should be "embarrassed" about in relation to our European peers, very high on that list would be our extremely paltry local and regional transit systems (by their standards), as well as the almost total lack of usable intercity passenger rail.

And that frames the sprawl issue as well. In a world in which we had adequately invested in local and regional transit and intercity rail, sure, you could then spend the billions it would take to upgrade I-376 without necessarily encouraging a lot of sprawl. But if you only spend the billions on upgrading I-376 and continue to neglect all other modes of surface transportation, then yes, that will encourage more sprawl--even though you would in fact be fighting against what the market is saying it actually wants.

I agree with about everything you stated here Brian, but I am not sure about the sprawl so much. The economy is just getting moving again and as demand for fuel ramps up we already see the effects on price. Are people going to want to commute way out that way with fuel prices at $6 a gallon? Speculation has pushed prices up to were they are now and if the economy continues upward, don't expect the speculation to end. I feel it will continue.

Now, all of what I feel about the near future relates perfectly to what you stated. I don't feel we are looking into the future very well. More efficient infrastructure around Pittsburgh would have been a better investment, IMHO.

[BrianTH]

The problem is if in urbanized areas you only invest in highways, then people will be forced to live in sprawl for lack of alternatives, even with high gas prices.

Here is how it would shake out. Almost any place with decent transit service will gentrify. With supply of such places artificially restricted, housing prices will increase until the market clears. What that means is that housing prices become high enough that most people stop trying to live in those areas because they just don't have enough income to pay for that housing.

OK, so now what do they do? Well, first, they invest in cars, for lack of other options. Second, they try to get a short driving commute--but housing in those places also appreciates until the market clears, so a large number of people are still forced elsewhere.

So now what? They are stuck paying for a car, and stuck paying for a lot of gas, because they can't afford the alternatives. All they can do now is minimize their housing prices to make ends meet. And that means living in some cheap structure on cheap land, and land is cheapest out on the fringes. So, sprawl. (Sidenote: land-use regulations will likely prevent developers from building a lot of cheap housing closer in, so they are also forced by the regulatory situation into developing sprawl for lack of alternatives.)

So high gas prices in this scenario don't allow more people to live in areas with good transit or short commutes, because there just isn't enough such housing to go around. All high gas prices mean in such a scenario is that people have even less to spend on the quality of their housing.

And of course none of this is hypothetical: it is what actually has happened in many U.S. cities. And it help contribute to the worst recession since the Great Depression.

But of course all this is assuming we continue with the same transportation policies. It is entirely possible that this scenario is not politically sustainable, and that one way or another people will eventually get the governments they need to change these policies. But that may take a while.

[gg]

Of course that is true Brian. Seems most governments don't invest in obvious future needs. Europe is in a better position for growth due to the infrastructure that is in place around the cities. We will have a tough time competing, due to our sprawling style and high costs.