PENNDOT Report Card

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

PENNDOT Report Card 86 Erie 90 McKean Potter Tioga Bradford Wayne PA Warren Susquehanna 81 Crawford Wyoming Venango Elk Forest Lackawanna Cameron Sullivan Pike Lycoming Clinton Mercer 79 84 Clarion Luzerne Jefferson 80 380 180 Columbia Monroe Lawrence Butler Montour 80 80 Armstrong Union Carbon Indiana Clearfield Centre 81 Beaver Northumberland Northampton Snyder Schuylkill Lehigh Cambria Mifflin Huntingdon 78 Juniata Dauphin 376 Berks Bucks 99 Blair Perry Montgomery 279 Westmoreland 81 Lebanon 79 Allegheny 176 70 Lancaster 76 Washington Cumberland Chester Franklin 476 Philadelphia 79 Fulton 95 70 81 83 Delaware Greene Fayette Somerset Bedford Adams York PENNDOTIRI MAINTAINING INTERSTATE SMOOTHNESS PennDOT’s aggressive interstate rehabilitation program continues to pay dividends in terms of road smoothness and ride quality. Pavement smoothness is measured by what is known as the International Roughness Index, or IRI. This number is determined by using a laser device to measure motion in a vehicle as it passes over the highways. The lower the number, the smoother the pavement. Numbers below 95 are considered to be good. The median IRI number for the entire 1,200-mile interstate system in Pennsylvania was 86 in 2003, a significant improvement. The previous years, 2002 and 2001, the IRI stayed constant at 89. The nationwide IRI number for 2002 also improved, from 85 in 2001 to 84 in 2002. The charts below reflects the IRI median numbers for Pennsylvania and the United States as well as IRI numbers for individual long-distance interstates in Pennsylvania. Happy travels! 120 IRI MEDIAN Median IRIs For 115 Long-Distance Interstates 110 2002 2003 Interstate 70 80 71 105 Interstate 76 116 108 PA Interstate 78 111 109 100 Interstate 79 81 77 Interstate 80 81 78 95 Interstate 81 86 84 u.s. Interstate 83 94 79 90 Interstate 84 107 110 Interstate 86 106 106 85 Lower Is Better Interstate 90 65 65 Interstate 95 117 117 Interstate 99 99 101 80 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 APRIL 2004.

Copy Link

Recommended publications

Final Point of Access Study
Prepared for: I-95/Scudder Falls Bridge Improvement Project Technical Memorandum No. 28 FINAL POINT OF ACCESS STUDY Contract C-393A, Capital Project No. CP0301A Prepared by: Philadelphia, PA In association with: HNTB Corporation STV Inc. Gannett Fleming, Inc. A.D. Marble & Company Kise Straw & Kolodner, Inc. Riverfront Associates, Inc. November, 2012 1 2 Technical Memorandum No. 28 – Final Point of Access Study Contract C-393A, Capital Project No. CP0301A I-95/Scudder Falls Bridge Improvement Project TABLE OF CONTENTS A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, INTRODUCTION AMD REQUIREMENTS ... 1 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................ 1 Purpose of Access......................................................................... 1 Summary of Findings .................................................................... 2 II. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 7 Project Description .............................................................. 7 Study Area Description ........................................................ 7 Project Area Description .................................................... 10 Project Purpose and Need .................................................. 11 III. REQUIREMENTS FOR APPROVAL OF ACCESS ..................................... 12 B. ENGINEERING STUDY ............................................................. 17 I. CURRENT CONDITIONS ........................................................... 17 Roadway Network
[Show full text]
Our Aging Interstates
Our Aging Interstates Pennsylvania’s more than 2,700 miles of interstate highways snake into every corner of the state, carrying 1.8 million commuters a day and making the Commonwealth one of the busiest corridors for all those consumer goods people are buying from their phones this Christmas. With the fourth-largest interstate system in the country, including the 63 miles in the Lehigh Valley, Pennsylvania has long been the envy of other states, but now its interstates are deteriorating faster than they can be repaired, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) Highway Delivery Division Chief Melissa J. Batula said during a report to the Lehigh Valley Transportation Study (LVTS) and Freight Advisory Committee earlier this month. That includes Interstate 78 in the Lehigh Valley, where 62 percent of the roadway surface is rated to be in fair or poor condition, while just $8 million of the $259 million requested for “priority” projects has been programmed on the state’s 12-year plan for interstates. “We have a backlog of $251 million in the Lehigh Valley. We’re severely underfunded,” Batula said. “And that’s just what we need to keep the lights on. We’ve got to start talking about this amongst ourselves.” Those discussions won’t come easy. A report by the Interstate Steering Committee states that $13.8 billion in projects have been identified as priorities, while just $7.3 billion has been slated to be spent over the next 12 years, leaving about 188 “priority” projects unfunded. The ratio is even worse in the Lehigh Valley, where the more than 22,000 trucks daily – the second-highest statewide behind only I-81 – takes a greater toll on the roadway.
[Show full text]
Top 10 Bridges by State.Xlsx
Top 10 Most Traveled U.S. Structurally Deficient Bridges by State, 2015 2015 Year Daily State State County Type of Bridge Location Status in 2014 Status in 2013 Built Crossings Rank 1 Alabama Jefferson 1970 136,580 Urban Interstate I65 over U.S.11,RR&City Streets at I65 2nd Ave. to 2nd Ave.No Structurally Deficient Structurally Deficient 2 Alabama Mobile 1964 87,610 Urban Interstate I-10 WB & EB over Halls Mill Creek at 2.2 mi E US 90 Structurally Deficient Structurally Deficient 3 Alabama Jefferson 1972 77,385 Urban Interstate I-59/20 over US 31,RRs&City Streets at Bham Civic Center Structurally Deficient Structurally Deficient 4 Alabama Mobile 1966 73,630 Urban Interstate I-10 WB & EB over Southern Drain Canal at 3.3 mi E Jct SR 163 Structurally Deficient Structurally Deficient 5 Alabama Baldwin 1969 53,560 Rural Interstate I-10 over D Olive Stream at 1.5 mi E Jct US 90 & I-10 Structurally Deficient Structurally Deficient 6 Alabama Baldwin 1969 53,560 Rural Interstate I-10 over Joe S Branch at 0.2 mi E US 90 Not Deficient Not Deficient 7 Alabama Jefferson 1968 41,990 Urban Interstate I 59/20 over Arron Aronov Drive at I 59 & Arron Aronov Dr. Structurally Deficient Structurally Deficient 8 Alabama Mobile 1964 41,490 Rural Interstate I-10 over Warren Creek at 3.2 mi E Miss St Line Structurally Deficient Structurally Deficient 9 Alabama Jefferson 1936 39,620 Urban other principal arterial US 78 over Village Ck & Frisco RR at US 78 & Village Creek Structurally Deficient Structurally Deficient 10 Alabama Mobile 1967 37,980 Urban Interstate
[Show full text]
Ultimate RV Dump Station Guide
Ultimate RV Dump Station Guide A Complete Compendium Of RV Dump Stations Across The USA Publiished By: Covenant Publishing LLC 1201 N Orange St. Suite 7003 Wilmington, DE 19801 Copyrighted Material Copyright 2010 Covenant Publishing. All rights reserved worldwide. Ultimate RV Dump Station Guide Page 2 Contents New Mexico ............................................................... 87 New York .................................................................... 89 Introduction ................................................................. 3 North Carolina ........................................................... 91 Alabama ........................................................................ 5 North Dakota ............................................................. 93 Alaska ............................................................................ 8 Ohio ............................................................................ 95 Arizona ......................................................................... 9 Oklahoma ................................................................... 98 Arkansas ..................................................................... 13 Oregon ...................................................................... 100 California .................................................................... 15 Pennsylvania ............................................................ 104 Colorado ..................................................................... 23 Rhode Island ...........................................................
[Show full text]
Gregor Weichbrodt on the Road 0X0a
0x0a On the Road Gregor Weichbrodt On the Road Gregor Weichbrodt 0x0a © 2014 Gregor Weichbrodt All rights reserved. www.ggor.de CONTENTS About this book ........................ 5 Chapter 1 ............................... 7 Chapter 2 .............................. 23 Chapter 3 .............................. 41 Chapter 4 .............................. 53 ABOUT THIS BOOK Based on the novel “On the Road” by Jack Kerouac and Google Maps Direction Service. The exact and approximate spots Kerouac traveled and described are taken from the book and parsed by Google Direction Service API. The chapters match those of the original book. Gregor Weichbrodt January 2014 www.ggor.de 7 CHAPTER 1 Head northwest on W 47th St toward 7th Ave. Take the 1st left onto 7th Ave. Turn right onto W 39th St. Take the ramp onto Lincoln Tunnel. Parts of this road are closed Mon–Fri 4:00 – 7:00 pm. Entering New Jersey. Continue onto NJ-495 W. Keep right to continue on NJ-3 W, follow signs for New Jersey 3 W/Garden State Parkway/Secaucus. Take the New Jersey 3 W exit on the left toward Clifton. Merge onto NJ-3 W. Slight right onto the Garden State Pkwy N ramp. Merge onto Garden State Pkwy. Take exit 155P on the left to merge onto NJ-19 N toward I-80/ Paterson. Turn left onto Cianci St. Turn right onto Market St. Head west on Market St toward Washington St. Turn left onto Main St. Turn right onto County Rd 509 S. Take the Interstate 80 E ramp. Merge onto I-80 E. Take exit 62A-62B toward Saddle 9 Brook/Saddle River Rd/Garden State Pkwy.
[Show full text]
Functional Classification Update Report for the Pocatello/Chubbuck Urbanized Area
Functional Classification Update Report For the Pocatello/Chubbuck Urbanized Area Functional Classification Update Report Introduction The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973 required the use of functional highway classification to update and modify the Federal-aid highway systems by July 1, 1976. This legislative requirement is still effective today. Functional classification is the process by which streets and highways are grouped into classes, or systems, according to the character of service they are intended to provide. The functional classification system recognizes that streets cannot be treated as independent, but rather they are intertwined and should be considered as a whole. Each street has a specific purpose or function. This function can be characterized by the level of access to surrounding properties and the length of the trip on that specific roadway. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) functional classification system for urban areas is divided into urban principal arterials, minor arterial streets, collector streets, and local streets. Principal arterials include interstates, expressways, and principal arterials. Eligibility for Federal Highway Administration funding and to provide design standards and access criteria are two important reasons to classify roadway. The region is served by Interstate 15 (north/South) and Interstate 86 (east/west). While classified within the arterial class, they are designated federally and do not change locally. Interstates will be shown in the functional classification map, but they will not be specifically addressed in this report. Functional Classification Update The Idaho Transportation Department has the primary responsibility for developing and updating a statewide highway functional classification in rural and urban areas to determine the functional usage of the existing roads and streets.
[Show full text]
I-83 EXIT 4 IMPROVEMENTS the Proposed Improvements Are at the Exit 4 Interchange of Interstate 83 (I-83) and Route 851 in Shrewsbury Township
HOW DDI WORKS I-83 EXIT 4 IMPROVEMENTS The proposed improvements are at the Exit 4 Interchange of Interstate 83 (I-83) and Route 851 in Shrewsbury Township. The area surrounding the interchange has seen extensive growth that the existing interchange can no longer accommodate. There are high levels of congestion, traffic backs up onto I-83 and the bridge carrying I-83 traffic over Route 851 is structurally deficient. The purpose of the project is to ease congestion, increase capacity, and improve safety for motorists and pedestrians, by constructing a diverging diamond interchange (DDI). A diverging diamond interchange (DDI) is unique from a standard diamond interchange in that the side road traffic Route 851 PROJECT OBJECTIVES crosses to the left side of the road at a signalized intersection prior to the bridge. This allows direct left turns from the off-ramps to Route 851 and allows for a direct left turn on to the on-ramps to I-83. The side road (Route 851) traffic crosses back to the Eliminate traffic back-ups on the right side of the road at a signal beyond the bridge. ramps from I-83 to improve safety The DDI configuration has an operational advantage over the standard diamond in that it has only 2 phases per signal cycle versus 3 phases. This allows the DDI to provide more green time to traffic, alleviating congestion. Additionally, because of Increase capacity and reduce the direct left turns, there are fewer conflict points than a standard diamond, which reduces the crash rate and crash severity. congestion though the project area As of April 2018, 96 diverging diamond interchanges (DDIs) have been opened to traffic in the United States.
[Show full text]
Introduction
INTRODUCTION The Transportation Element of the Centre Planning Agency (CRPA), and the County Comprehensive Plan is an Susquehanna Economic Development assessment of the transportation facilities in Association Council of Governments the County. These facilities include not just (SEDA-COG). These organizations work the road network, but all forms of alongside the Pennsylvania Department of transportation including transit, rail, airports Transportation (PENNDOT) to identify and and bike and pedestrian facilities. It is prioritize transportation improvement important to consider the transportation projects in Centre County. network as an integrated multi-modal system. The existing conditions of the TRANSPORTATION GOAL AND transportation network are described in this OBJECTIVES initial section of the Transportation Element The goal of the Transportation Element is: (Part 1). The Transportation Element will be “To provide a multi-modal transportation completed in the future after completion of system, which includes air, bicycle, the Travel Demand Model Analysis and highway, pedestrian, public transportation, Long Range Transportation Plan for Centre and rail facilities to maximize the efficient, County. safe, economical and convenient movement of people and goods while minimizing the Significant growth of residential, office and adverse impact the system will have on industrial development has occurred in the natural and cultural resources, as well as County – especially in the Centre Region people.” area where Penn State University has served as a magnet for development. This ROAD NETWORK growth is forecasted to continue. As a Pennsylvania is in a strategic position with result, the need to identify transportation important interstate roadways traversing the facilities that will accommodate this growth state and serving national and international is a key part of the comprehensive planning trade routes.
[Show full text]
FFY 2009 Interstate TIP Highway & Bridge
FFY 2009 Interstate TIP Highway & Bridge Original US DOT Approval Date: 10/01/2008 Current Date: 06/30/2010 Allegheny MPMS #: 74919 Municipality: Glenfield (Boro) Title: SR 65 @ NI Ramps Route:65 Section: A38 A/Q Status: Exempt Improvement Type: Reconstruct Exempt Code: Pavement resurfacing and/or rehabilitation Est. Let Date: 06/26/2009 Actual Let Date: 06/26/2009 Geographic Limits: Located on SR 65/I79 Neville Island Interchange (9 structures), Glenfield Borough, Allegheny County Narrative: Pavement reconstruction and crack sealing. Bridge preservation work to include; dam repair, deck repairs, latex overlay, minor abutment repairs, and bearing repairs. Located on SR 65/I79 Neville Island Interchange (9 structures), Glenfield Borough, Allegheny County TIP Program Years ($000) Phase Fund FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 2nd 4 Years 3rd 4 Years CONBOO $9,047 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 CONIM $12,092 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 CON185 $1,005 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 CON581 $1,344 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $23,487 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total FY 2009-2012 Cost $23,487 MPMS #: 26926 Municipality: Title: I79 Ohio Rvr N to 279 Route:79 Section: 35M A/Q Status: Improvement Type: Restoration Est. Let Date: 12/08/2006 Actual Let Date: 12/08/2006 Geographic Limits: Located on I-79 from the Neville Bridge to the I279 north interchange in Boroughs of Glenfield, Sewickley Hills Narrative: Located on I-79 from the Neville Bridge to the I279 north interchange Glenfield, Sewickley Hills, and Franklin Park Boro; Aleppo, Neville and Ohio Twps in Allegheny County Reconstruction of concrete pavement TIP Program Years ($000) Phase Fund FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 2nd 4 Years 3rd 4 Years CONIM $2,340 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 CON581 $260 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total FY 2009-2012 Cost $2,600 Page 1 of 100 FFY 2009 Interstate TIP Highway & Bridge Original US DOT Approval Date: 10/01/2008 Current Date: 06/30/2010 Allegheny MPMS #: 26924 Municipality: Title: I-79 Kirwin Heights-I279 Route:79 Section: A12 A/Q Status: Improvement Type: Restoration Est.
[Show full text]
The Comprehensive Plan Background Studies for the US 220/Future I-99
TThhee CCoommpprreehheennssiivvee PPllaann BBaacckkggrroouunndd SSttuuddiieess ffoorr tthhee UUSS 222200//FFuuttuurree II--9999 PPllaannnniinngg AArreeaa Jersey Shore Borough, Piatt Township, Porter Township, Woodward Township Lycoming County, PA Technical Background Studies No. 1 – Community Development Profile Introduction The development of an effective comprehensive plan requires an understanding of the issues and trends that impact a community’s ability to sustain a “good quality of life” for its residents. During the early stages of plan development, coordination has been undertaken with many individuals and organizations in order to develop an understanding of what are perceived to be important issues that will impact the community and its development and growth in the future. This Community Development Profile summarizes where the community has been, where it is today, and where it may be going in the future based on known data sources. It includes past trend information (historic), current trend information (today), and projections (future), where appropriate and available from existing data sources. Key Community Development Issues Through consultation with the Planning Advisory Team (PAT) and interviews with key persons within the planning area and throughout the county, the important issues that could potentially impact the community in terms of social and economic conditions were identified. While many of the issues of importance relate to the county or region as shown in the adjacent highlight box, there were several issues noted by the I-99 Planning Advisory Team as being of particular importance within this I-99 planning area: þ Exodus of Younger Generation with Increasing Elderly Population – This is a concern because as an area ages the social fabric of the community becomes less stable.
[Show full text]
November 14, 2020 TO: the Honorable Tom Wolf Governor Commonwealth of Pennsylvania FROM
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR DATE: November 14, 2020 TO: The Honorable Tom Wolf Governor Commonwealth of Pennsylvania FROM: Randy Padfield Director, PA Emergency Management Agency TIME PERIOD: This report covers the period 0600 hours, November 13, 2020 through 0600 hours, November 14, 2020. STATUS REPORT: (as of 0600 hours) THREAT STATUS: National Terrorism Advisory System: There are no current alerts. Commonwealth Response Coordination Center (CRCC) Status: Supporting the “Heroin and Opioid Disaster Emergency Declaration” Activated in support of the COVID-19 Outbreak, the following agencies are activated: Department of Aging Department of Community and Economic Development Department of Drug and Alcohol Programs Department of Education Department of General Services Department of Health Department of Human Services Department of Military and Veterans Affairs FEMA FEMA SEPLO PA BEOC & VAL Department of Health Operations Center (DOC): Activated in support of the COVID-19 Outbreak – Conducting public health and medical coordination County EOC Activations: Adams - Level III monitoring for COVID-19 Bedford – Enhanced watch for COVID-19 Berks – Enhanced watch for COVID-19 Blair - Enhanced watch for COVID-19 Bradford - Enhanced watch for COVID-19 Cambria – Full activation for COVID-19 Centre – Enhanced watch for COVID-19 Clinton - Enhanced watch for COVID–19 Cumberland - Full activation for COVID-19 Delaware – Partial activation for COVID-19 Erie – Partial activation for COVID-19 Forest - Partial activation for COVID-19 Franklin - Enhanced watch
[Show full text]
ITD Board Sets Wish List for Potential Stimulus
ITD board sets wish list for potential stimulus The priorities include six road projects that wouldn't otherwise be done. None are in the Valley. Idaho Statesman, January 8, 2009 By: Cynthia Sewell Idaho transportation leaders want to spend $94 million on six otherwise unfunded road projects if President-elect Barack Obama and the new Congress pass a stimulus package dedicated to infrastructure. The windfall could create between 2,000 and 4,000 Idaho jobs, officials said. None of the six roads are in the Treasure Valley, but the region's section of Interstate 84 has been getting - and is expecting to keep getting - most of the borrowed federal dollars from the Connecting Idaho project. The stimulus projects officials have identified would upgrade treacherous Idaho 95 in North Idaho and jump-start road projects in Pocatello, Twin Falls and East Idaho. The Idaho Transportation Department board picked these projects during a special meeting Wednesday, and officials say they could be under construction by June. Several versions of possible stimulus bills are circulating in Washington, and details are still sketchy. ITD expects Idaho could receive about $100 million for roads. Agency staff had identified $817 million in projects that could be ready for construction within 180 days. The six board members disagreed on two points on how best to spend the $100 million: Whether to put the money toward new projects or use it to repair the state's existing roads. Whether to divide the money equally around the state or give it to the areas with the most need. Jim Coleman, who represents North Idaho, argued that the state should use one-time money to finance key projects it is unlikely to be able to afford under current revenue sources.
[Show full text]