Talk:Pennsylvania Turnpike/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Non-ticket tolls

• 2 Gateway Toll Plaza $3.00
• 10 New Castle none
• 13 Beaver Valley none
• 28 Cranberry none
• 30 Warrendale Toll Plaza ticket system begins

• Wyoming Valley Toll Plaza ticket system ends
• 115 Wyoming Valley
• Keyser Avenue Toll Plaza $.50
• 122 Keyser Avenue
• 131 Clarks Summit Toll Plaza $.50

There's plans to have one right before the bridge into New Jersey as part of the whole I-95 rerouting thingie. I think the idea is that they are building a new toll barrier west of I-95 to end the ticket system, and then have a flat rate toll right about where the current toll barrier is (perhaps will use same physical structure). --Chris 03:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Southern Beltway

I believe the Southern Beltway is signed as Interstate 576 and not as PA-576. Can someone in the Western part of the state confirm this? --Clubjuggle 17:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I live not far from the Pittsburgh International Airport, which will be the northern terminus of the Southern Beltway, so I'll find out when it opens. There are plans to extend I-376 up to I-80 on PA Route 60's current alignment, ultimately it would be near the northern terminus of the Southern Beltway, so I-576 would not be surprising.Jgera5 21:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: OK, PennDOT/PTC have new signs near the Pittsburgh International Airport on PA 60 that are covered up with tarp. However, they are transparent, and it appears that the Southern Beltway will be signed as PA-576, and not I-576. I'll get a pic once the tarps are uncovered. Jgera5 05:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd get one now with the covers on (if nothing else, I want to see!), and then another once the covers come off. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. I'll take a pic the next day I am off, but I'm not sure if it will show in the pic. But it is transparent in person. Maybe I'll also kill two birds in one stone and get a better pic of one of the "Future I-376 Corridor" signs that are on 60 now. Jgera5 03:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

"Hideous" photo

I-76, mile 172

I tried yesterday to improve this article with a photo (see version in question), only to have it promptly deemed "hideous" and reverted. I'm not exactly staking my ego on the quality of that photo, but I did spend several hours of the drive with camera in hand looking futilely for a better one. But I have no interest in this article beyond these few moments, so I'll leave it up to other editors to wrestle through whether something is better than nothing.  — JVinocur (talk • contribs) 11:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Well, it WAS pretty large--not sure I would have chosen it, especially at that size, to represent the entire road. But I think "hideous" was a bit strong. --Captadam 12:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, thinking about it, "hideous" was a tad strong, and so I offer my apologies for that. The rationale behind the "hideous" comment, though, was that for a photo described as of the road, the road itself is only in a tiny corner of the shot. Thus I removed it for being a lovely shot of the mountain, but not so much of the turnpike. I think it's a good photo - of the mountain. Not so much, though, if the road is what you intended. Hope that clears things up. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I certainly don't think it's a flawless picture...but it's remarkably difficult to get better. (I looked pretty hard for an opportunity that didn't look like a snapshot out the front windshield, and didn't find anything but that one.) If you want the road itself to occupy more of the frame, there's enough resolution there to do a lot of cropping..but then it's just a featureless and unremarkable stretch of highway. That's how I ended up with the composition you see; I was trying to capture the woods that define Pennsylvania and the mountains that have such influence on the character of the turnpike. (As for Captadam's comment about the size...I ended up with that size in an effort to fill even a fraction of the large whitespace next to the ToC. If there'd been text to wrap around it, I wouldn't have gone so large.)  — JVinocur (talk • contribs) 22:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Added new photo

I added a new photo, Image:Pennsylvania Turnpike east of Blue Mountain.jpg, to the article. Unfortunately, it's fair-use, and not free-license. If anyone knows where this location is and how to get to it, certainly this image can be replaced with an identical image that can be licensed under GFDL or Creative Commons. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• That's a pretty famous photo, but it's really old. (Look at those cars!) I know approximately where that location is--not sure exactly, but it would be easy to get a photo of that straightaway from an overpass somewhere. --Captadam 13:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• I'm guessing it's around here somewhere. From Google Maps I do not have a photo, as I've only traveled over this part once (round trip) on my way to Philadelphia from Pittsburgh --cngodles 19:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Shunpiking

The shunpiking section just keeps growing and growing, with some folk pruning it back. Personally I don't think it should be so large that it dominates the article, and I'm wondering if it should be split off, or even transwikied somwwhere. ++Lar: t/c 08:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• I'm wondering how necessary the section even is. I mean, there are an infinite number of shunpike routes. Imagine if every highway entry in Wikipedia listed a huge section on bypasses. You could make a seperate Wiki on just highways bypasses... --Captadam 12:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Nod. Maybe move it off somewhere else. I think it merits mention that people DO shunpike, because of the perception that the tolls are compartatively high (that would need sourcing of course, as it's a POV)... but not the blow by blow instructions on how. That could go to WikiHOW or something. ++Lar: t/c 15:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Following the lead from Ohio Turnpike, I have removed the entire shunpiking section as original research. Granted, I think that some of the material could be restored, if sourced, but as it stands, it can't be here. --CComMack (t•c) 20:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Privatisation

The Gov'nuh just mentioned that the Turnpike is considering selling itself off to a private firm [1]. Anyone hear anything further, or is this just pre-election Rendell jargon intended to make things sound more interesting than they really are? --Thisisbossi 17:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The link you provided us doesn't mention the turnpike at all. It mentions that a proposed mass transit project is dead due to lack of necessary funding. Are you sure you gave us the correct link? SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems to work for me: it's a short blurb in the last sentence. That's why it's making me think that it's just to generate interest in transportation so that Rendell can ride in and "save the day" in the final weeks approaching the election. --Thisisbossi 10:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see it now. But yeah, the way that reads, it certainly does sound like it's there to generate a little hype. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't heard anything about the Turnpike being leased off, as with the Indiana Turnpike now going to be soon maintained by a private corporation. But if that were to happen, expect more people to take US 30. I would only wonder what rates would be with a private entity. Jgera5 17:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Remaining tunnel articles created

Just as a heads-up, I've created stubs for Kittatinny Mountain Tunnel and Blue Mountain Tunnel. With this done, we now have articles for all seven original Pennsylvania Turnpike tunnels. Hopefully we can give these some TLC and make them really good... SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

The infobox for this article really needs to be slimmed down, as there should really only be 10 junctions or so in the "Major junctions" section. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 22:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Do we really need another infobox for the NE Extension? If this was the main article for the NE Extension, I'd have no problem with it, but a full article for the NE extension, complete with infobox, already exists at Interstate 476. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 00:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont mind it, but at least find some way to put it underneath the mainline box. PYLrulz 01:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Somerset Plaza Tunnel

There used to be a tunnel under the turnpike between the North and South Somerset Service Plazas (circa 1970s). Does anyone know when and why it was closed? This post was created by 131.109.225.36 (Talk)

There was no tunnel at the North and South Somerset service plaza. There is a tunnel not too far from it on the turnpike (Allegheny Tunnel), and there is an abandoned tunnel about a mile or so from the Sideling Hill Service Plaza (as well as an abandoned service plaza). Most all the info you need should be in the article and the links in it. Whammies Were Here (PYLrulz) 11:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I think what 131.109.225.36 means is whether there was ever a service tunnel for the plaza under the turnpike - not a vehicular tunnel. Midway Service Plaza has this feature. See [2]. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, that clarifies it :)

I had even never heard of a service tunnel under the Midway Service Plaza, thanks for that info a bunch. Whammies Were Here (PYLrulz) 07:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

This page needs to be split

This page is extremely long. In fact, it's 40 kb, and before we even apply for peer review or anything like that, we need to split the exit list (this seems like the largest section) and/or other sections as well. In fact, the cleanup tag on this article is still there! Comments? V60 ^{VTalk - VDemolitions} 20:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree, but there's really no way to split the exit list. Splitting the NE Extension list was easy since all of the NE Extension is I-476. However, the mainline consists of sections of I-76, I-70 and I-276, so unless we want readers to go article-hopping to get a complete exit list for the Turnpike, it's best to leave it as-is. As for the peer review note, I'd give this article a complete rewrite (as I am currently doing to the New York State Thruway here) before requesting a review.

40 KB is also not critically long. Now, it'd be a different story if we were pushing 50 or 60 KB. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 20:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think splitting the exit list into a separate page makes the most sense here. It would defintately slim down the article. Wrightchr (talk · contribs) 16:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd go with that, if the exit list was 32 KB by itself. However, it is not. You may also be interested in this discussion regarding separate articles for exit lists and when they should be used. The gist of it: the list should only be split in extreme cases, those being where the exit list is long enough to where the long article warning appears when editing only the exit list. The list present on this article isn't terribly long (nor is it the longest that I've seen on a PA roadway article), and definitely not long enough to warrant its own article. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 21:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The exit list needs to be moved (to the bottom of the article), but it does not need to be removed. The article does need to be cleaned up though, and perhaps split other ways. --MPD ^{T / C} 22:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Exit list move completed. Good idea! SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:New Jersey Turnpike Shield.svg

Image:New Jersey Turnpike Shield.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 17:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup/Reorganize

In response to the cleanup/reorganize call on this and the main article page, I'd like to put some time into reworking this article. A couple changes I'd like to make might be contentious, so I figured It'd be better to post here before diving in. A couple thoughts:

• The article is somewhat inconsistent in its scope. In different sections, and even within sections, the article switches between covering just the Turnpike Mainline (76/276), the Mainline plus Northeast Extension (476), the western toll highways (43/60/66/576), and the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission. I contend that most readers searching for "Pennsylvania Turnpike" are expecting an article on the Mainline (Ohio line to New Jersey line) plus Northeast Extension (from Mid-County to Clarks Summit).
  • However, the Turnpike system encompasses the two well-known sections as well as the toll highways. I may be biased, but I think New York State Thruway may be a good model for this article to emulate. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 19:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
    • That's a fair point, but this article is titled Pennsylvania Turnpike, not Pennsylvania Turnpike System. In reading that article I did notice that in most cases, for highways outside the main Thruway, there were brief descriptions of the highways with "Main Article" links. I believe that would be a good model to emulate.I still hold that the PTC is worthy of its own article, or its own section heading within this article (see next point below) and that brief descriptions of and links to the other PTC-operated highways should be linked to from there. ("In addition to the Turnpike itself, the Turnpike Commission also operates and maintains the following highways:"). -Clubjuggle 21:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Shouldn't be any problems with that. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 22:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission currently redirects here. The Commission is more than just the Turnpike. With its significant history, its operation and ongiong construction of several toll highways in Western PA, and the prospective tolling of Interstate 80, PTC is probably notable enough to warrant moving and further developing that content as its own article. Aborted Extensions and Expansions should move to this article, with the exception of the canceled dual-dual expansion, which directly relates to the Turnpike itself.
• Citations, citations, citations! This article probably warrants an {{Unreferenced}} tag until we can get that cleaned up.
• Image:Pennsylvania Turnpike 1942 LOC.jpg has an open Copyright question that needs to be resolved. Done -Clubjuggle 02:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• The Advertising Campaign section should probably be deleted. The Peace Love and Turnpike ad campaign was cute, but I see it as trivia, not something worthy of nine lines in an encyclopedia article.
  • Done --Clubjuggle ^T/C 17:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• The Radio Broadcasts section probably doesn't seem to make much sense as its own section, but probably warrants expansion into (and inclusion in) a brief section on customer convenience/safety features, including but limited to HAR, service plazas, variable message signage, E-ZPass, the State Farm safety patrol and TRIP.
• Major Junctions (in the infobox) is a bit long, and it doesn't even include the Northeast Extension should probably be limited to 2-digit Interstates (including indirect connections), including those crossing the Northeast Extensions. I also contend that the non-Interstate shields should be dropped from the infoboe x for those interchanges. With this change, the list would include 79, 70 (WB), 99, 70 (EB), 81, 83, 76 (EB), 78, 80 and 81.
  • I have no issues with its current length or contents. It has 10 junctions (the maximum allowed per WP:USRD/INNA) and it does have the interchange with the NE Extension. If you mean that the infobox has no information on the NE Extension, this is by design - all NE Extension information was filtered out to Interstate 476 a while ago. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 19:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, and yes I was referring to NE Ext information not being included in the infobox. Still, Interstate 79 is a pretty glaring omission, and we'll need to keep in the back of our headsthat [[Interstate 95] will eventually need to be added. With only 15,000 AADT it's difficult to justify Interstate 176 as a major interchange, and I'd propose dropping that one in favor of 79.-Clubjuggle 21:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
      • That is a good point, and I would support replacing 176 with 79 as Erie is more important than Reading, IMO. I think the reason for omitting 79 was that having 79 as a junction along with 376 is that it would make two of the 10 junctions in the box located in and around Pittsburgh. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 22:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
        • I agree on the relative importance, plus much of the traffic to Reading uses the [US Route 222] interchange anyway. Besides, Harrisburg has two listings, and Philadelphia has three. -Clubjuggle 22:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Clubjuggle 01:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Breezewood

Breezewood is listed as being in Providence Township, Pennsylvania but that article is for a town in Lancaster County. I don't know what the correct listing is. I've tagged this as dubious, could someone who knows a place to research this please make the needed correction? --Clubjuggle 20:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me, but where are you referring? Could you point us to a location? SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. The exit list box at the bottom of the article, exit 161. --Clubjuggle 02:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. It was missing the word "East". --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 02:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Awesome! I think I figured it out at about the same time you did... you beat me to the edit, though! Thanks! --Clubjuggle 02:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Exit List Box

Moved from Cleanup/Reorganize section above:

*The Exit List box should include the exit names where applicable, perhaps in bold within the Destinations column. -Edit by Clubjuggle 13:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• • I know the Turnpike is unique for naming their exits, but any change to the exit list must be compliant with WP:ELG. Placing any item in bold within the destinations column is not. Perhaps the name could be placed in the notes column. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 19:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
    • How about either adding a column under Exit Numbers for Name (makes sense to me since it is an official designation for the exit, not just a control city), or listing it in the destinations column, NOT bolded, on a line above the route designatons -- as it appears on the signs? -Clubjuggle 21:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I believe Interstate 476 does it best - placing the exit name in parentheses after the intersecting route. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 22:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Perfect :) -Clubjuggle 22:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I just made a major revision to the ELB last night (basically completely redid it).

Still to be done and/or discussed:

• Rework Delaware River Bridge toll barrier and Eastern Terminus listings to be consistent with the style of Gateway and Warrendale barriers. Completed --Clubjuggle 17:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Include the service plazas as per WP:ELG
• Include the major river crossings as per WP:ELG
• Remove the abandoned and never-used tunnels, only after moving the information about them to a separate section of the article.

--Clubjuggle 14:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, should we pull the proposed/under construction exits until they open? As it is, I think it might be confusing to someone trying to use the guide as an exit guide. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 20:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

PA 63 Slip Ramp

First and most importantly, thanks to Route 82 for adding the information on the upcoming Turnpike Slip Ramps.

Regarding the proposed interchange at Pennsylvania Route 63, the cited source for this was page 12 of Destination 2030, the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission's, long-range plan. This section of the document is titled "Aspirations" and its introduction begins as follows:

There are many more identified regional transportation needs

than there is funding available for over the life of the Plan. In order to highlight the discrepancy between needed and available funding, as well as provide a list of regional priorities, a list of future aspirations is included as part of the Destination 2030 Long Range Plan. The major regional needs that have been identified as part of the development of the long range plan but are currently unable to be funded due to fiscal constraint are included in this list. This is not an all-inclusive list as it reflects only those major regional projects that were identified during the development of

the fiscally constrained Plan.

My interpretation of this section is that it is basically DVRPC's "wish list" for the next 25 years, and that many, possibly even most of them, may never even get as far as the design phase. trying to predict which ones may come to be probably puts us on the wrong side of WP:CRYSTAL and we therefore should probably hold off on including the potential slip ramp at 63 until such time as the PTC actually decides to move forward with it. Since this was added, reverted due to age of the source, and then re-added with a more current source, I did not want to just go ahead and revert this without first opening a discussion. Thoughts? --Clubjuggle 16:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I Understand what you are talking about. I have visited this area and they recently added a large shopping center right near the Turnpike on PA 63. Behind that shopping center the first Wal-mart Supercenter in the Philadelphia region is being constructed. While it seems that nothing is concrete yet, it would seem logical that they might include some sort of EZ Pass slip ramp for the many corporate offices and this new massive shopping center. There is land available, and with an aerial image I drew how a potential slip ramp might fit (and it could). That aside... if you feel that it should be taken down I'll understand. Route 82 23:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that it "seems logical that they might include" such an interchange at some point in the future -- and speaking personally, I hope it does eventually get built, as my brother lives three blocks off of 63, about 2½ miles from the proposed interchange. Still, "seems logical that they might include" is probably to speculative for inclusion at this point, especially when funding doesn't exist. The best action at this point is probably to hold off until there's some press indicating the project is being actively advanced. --Clubjuggle 13:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Rewriting

I'm starting to rewrite the entire article at /rewrite. Everyone is welcome to contribute. Regular discussion of this should commence below. O₂ (息 • 吹) 03:47, 03 November 2007 (GMT)

If I'm understanding it correctly, the exit list would be forked to a separate title? SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it would be part of the mainline article. This article would describe the history and the basis of the system. The mainline article has anything mainline, which includes the exit list. O₂ (息 • 吹) 00:59, 04 November 2007 (GMT)

Since the mainline turnpike is the vast majority of the turnpike, wouldn't it make sense, then, to put that in the main turnpike title?

I'm not questioning at this point so much on an agree or disagree, but because I haven't quite figured out what your "master plan" is for this, and I'm still trying to wrap my mind around it. Could you give a "big picture" explanation of how you're going to be laying everything out? SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure:

• article "Pennsylvania Turnpike"
  • History (planning, bonds, construction, expansions, etc.)
  • Definition of the system (current routes, proposed routes; this would contain background info about the routes themselves, and have links to the individual articles)
  • Future plans
  • See also, refs, further reading, ext links, etc, etc.)
• article "Pennsylvania Turnpike (mainline)"
  • History (background info specific to the mainline, more details reside at the main article)
  • Route description (this and the history section can be swapped if need be)
  • Future (construction updates, the bridge, etc.)
  • Exit list
  • See also, refs, further reading, ext links, etc, etc.)
• Other routes (PA 43, 60, 66, and I-476 stay as-is, perhaps add more turnpike-specific info?)

As you can see from above, the main Turnpike article would mostly have the history and a summary of the system, since the Turnpike isn't one single highway. The reason why there will be a new mainline article is because I-76 and 276 are on it, and switch places at the Valley Forge interchange, and also because there were reroutings of I-76 and 70 near Pittsburgh at some point. All of the other routes stay as-is, since they are the only ones occupying their respective portions of the Turnpike. Is this a sufficient plan at the moment? O₂ (息 • 吹) 00:24, 05 November 2007 (GMT)

Slip ramps

This article mentions slip ramps several times but doesn't say what they are. Can someone add a definition? --Daysleeper47 (talk) 06:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It's kind of indiscriminate, but it's basically a regular exit that only accepts E-ZPass. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 18:11, 24 November 2007 (GMT)

Sign Symbolism

I think a brief description of why the turnpike and state routes use the keystone logo might be in order. Some folks might know that Pennsylvania is the "keystone state," but might not know why. It's a distinctive design and unique to this state -- as far as I know. --NameThatWorks (talk) 00:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Huntingdon County

The Pennsylvania Turnpike passes through extreme southern Huntingdon County, yet there are no interchanges therein. However, the Tuscarora Tunnel forms the boundary between Huntingdon and Franklin Counties. I added "Huntingdon" to the exit guide and tried to get the "Tuscarora Tunnel" frame on the exit guide to align next to both "Huntingdon" and "Franklin," but I don't know how. I'm sure it's an easy fix, but I can't put my finger on it. Can somebody clean up the formatting to include "Huntingdon" and get the "Tuscarora Mountain" row to align next to it and "Franklin"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.137.181.56 (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Highest and Lowest Points

Can someone provide the highest and lowest points (and the corresponding elevations) on the turnpike? It would be interesting to know these on a long car ride and they are not obvious on the official site. Presumably the lowest point is at the Delaware River. Thanks. Delmlsfan (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

"first long-distance rural highway in the United States"

The statement that "it was the first long-distance rural highway in the United States" is a little hard to swallow...I'm tempted to delete that without a source, or a qualifier like "toll" or "meant for speeds exceeding X" or whatever.--Ccrrccrr (talk) 02:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Merging Interstate 276

I suggest that the article Interstate 276 be merged into the Pennsylvania Turnpike article as the entire interstate is along the turnpike and most of the information in the I-276 article, including the exit list, is redundant to this article. In addition, the Pennsylvania Turnpike name is more noted than the I-276 number along this road. ---Dough4872 16:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a possibility, but the stats for I-276 (length and termini) need to be included in this article somewhere if it goes through. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm kind of on the fence about a merge. I won't object if it ends up happening, but Pennsylvania Turnpike already is kinda long. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The route description of the I-276 article appears to simply be a repetition of the exit list. The history of the I-276 numbering could be mentioned in the history section of the Pennsylvania Turnpike article. The Route numbers section of the Pennsylvania Turnpike mentions I-276 and its termini, the length of the route could be added here. ---Dough4872 03:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge is fine for me. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Are there any clear objections to a merge? ---Dough4872 15:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Since it does not seem like there are any, I am going to go ahead and merge the article. ---Dough4872 01:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I-276 is a 30+ mile interstate with more significance than many 3digit interstates that have own page. I understand it's part of the PA Turnpike, but I-276 is barely acknowledged. I-476 is also part of the PA Turnpike, but has own page. --Airtuna08 (talk) 00:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I-276 is adequately mentioned in the Pennsylvania Turnpike article. The route numbers section covers the designation of I-276. The Delaware River Extension section of the History covers the history of the I-276 part of the PA Turnpike. The Turnpike exit list covers all the exits on I-276. The current I-276 article has a route description that is just a prose recital of the exit list and an exit list that is completely redundant to the PA Turnpike exit list. I live a short distance from I-276 and most people better acknowledge the road as the PA Turnpike than as I-276. Most advance signs for the turnpike as well as signs at the on-ramps give the Turnpike name more precedence to the number. In addition, none of I-476 is part of the mainline PA Turnpike. It is part of the Northeast Extension, with links to that road pointing to the I-476 article. I-476 is also the Blue Route, which is not part of the turnpike system. Dough4872 03:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I support the merger as well. I-476 is not part of the mainline Turnpike, while I-276 only exists as a part of the mainline. As Dough's laid out, all of the article's contents are covered here, making it a bit redundant. I say merge away, as long as the browsers for the article are updated to incorporate the redirection of Interstate 276 here. Imzadi 1979 → 18:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed entirely. There's no need for a separate article for I-276 if the merge is done right. – TMF 22:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Merged I-276 back to Pennsylvania Turnpike. Dough4872 03:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I think interstate 276 should not be merged into the Pennsylvania Turnpike article because it does not give much information about interstate 276. Should it be redirected to the Pennsylvania Turnpike article?SR11 (talk) 00:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Mid-County Interchange

Can someone who either lives in the Philadelphia area or drives that part of the turnpike frequently please confirm that the Mid-County Interchange is indeed exit 20 from both I-276 and I-476? Pennsylvania now uses milepost-based exit numbering. The 276/476 interchange as exit 20 therefore makes sense on 476, but not 276... seems like on 276 it should be in the 330s or so. Tckma (talk) 16:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

This image shows the Mid-County exit signed as exit 20 on I-276. Dough4872 03:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Resources for expansion in the article

I've been looking for resources for this article briefly today. There is a book on the history of the turnpike, but the only copy in Michigan is non-circulating at the Library of Michigan. I did find one book available online:

• Cleaves, A.B.; Ashley, Geo. H (1942). Guidebook to the Geology of the Pennsylvania Turnpike. Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Department of Internal Affairs, Topographic and Geologic Survey.
• Dakelman, Mitchell E.; Schorr, Neal A. (2004). The Pennsylvania Turnpike. Charleston, SC: Arcadia.

I hope this helps. I'd really like to see some work done on this article. Based on its history, this can and should be a Featured Article someday. Imzadi 1979 → 21:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I own a copy of the latter book. Dough4872 03:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Why are there no sections about the many problems and complaints with the PA Turnpike?

Throughout the years there have been many problems and protests.

It has long been one of the most expensive roads in America per mile.

It has been protested that the state has intentionally not developed other routes so that people will be forced to use it.

It has been protested that it was originally supposed to only be a toll road for 5 years after initial completion to recover costs then become a public access highway without tolls.

There have also been a number of fiascoes involving diversion of funds from the PA Turnpike proceeds into inappropriate unrelated areas.

Why is NONE of this covered on this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.115.110.227 (talk) 11:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Dates

There are some places in the article where dates like 2007 are talked about as still being in the future. The article just needs a little updating. PurpleChez (talk) 20:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Could you please help us by identifying these passages? Or perhaps try your hand at editing these problem areas? SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Interstate 276

Should Interstate 276 be redirected to the Pennsylvania Turnpike page? Can a user please repond with an answer?SR11 (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

See the #Merging Interstate 276 section above. That was the discussion that resulted in the merger. Imzadi 1979 → 23:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Allegheny Mountain tunnel boring

Not that I'm saying the Allegheny Mountain tunnel is uninteresting; but the article is a bit misleading in saying, or implying, that this tunnel had not been bored for the 1880s railroad project — in fact, boring had occurred on the Allegheny Mountain tunnel in that project, but when it came to developing the tunnel for the Turnpike, the 1880s boring was deemed unusable, and the tunnel was re-bored nearby from scratch (and a deep scratch it is!)

One MIGHT also mention that two other tunnels were bored for the 1880s railroad project west of Laurel Hill; but both were simply bypassed in the original Turnpike design of the late 1930s. 108.1.71.148 (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Please edit in old exit numbers 1 and 30 (I don't know how to do it myself)

The Gateway (near the Ohio border) needs to have old exit number 1, and the Delaware River bridge needs to have old exit number 30. On the east-west turnpike: Gateway used to be the western end of the ticket system, and the Delaware River bridge is still the eastern end of the ticket system. Yes, these toll plazas had exit numbers, although you weren't actually exiting the road. Please edit these in (I don't know how to edit them in myself); thanks in advance.

Notice that the idea existed somewhere that drivers should be able to pay the toll at the end of the turnpike AND on the same stop pick up a ticket for the other turnpike just ahead. This has been nixed by other developments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 19:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not possible anymore to list them with the current state of the templates, and since they aren't exits, we don't list them. They were numbers for accounting on the toll tickets, and that's not the same. Imzadi 1979 → 20:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Old "exits" 1 and 30 are still part of the history. Notice that the old exit numbers also had 31 thru 38 (those were on the Northeast Extension, with exit 38 being at the far north end of that road). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 19:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

They're not exit, period. Traffic does not enter or exit the roadway there, just the zone tolled by the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission. Imzadi 1979 → 19:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

There was a Bold addition of information, it was Reverted, and now we're Discussing it. See. WP:BRD. In any case, this is trivial information not born out by the signage on the road. Toll plazas are not exits, therefore any "exit" number assigned to them for toll ticket purposes isn't the same as an actual number on signs for an entrance or exit on the road. The reason the templates can't display this is because consensus is that this is a trivial detail not worth including. Imzadi 1979 → 20:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Overnight, I recalled the there was a comment ABOUT TOLL TICKETS on the NY Thruway; see under "Collection methods" in the NY Thruway article:

"To distinguish between exit 16 and the Woodbury toll barrier, Thruway tickets list the NY 17 interchange as exit 16 and the Woodbury toll plaza as exit 15, although the actual exit 15 is situated almost 15 miles (24 km) to the south."

So that could be an argument for the inclusion of comments about "exits" 1 and 30 on the Pennsylvania Turnpike. Do you understand what I am saying when I point out that they were actually exits from that turnpike, although they were not from the road one would be traveling on (would be crossing a state line and entering a different turnpike). (Old "exit" 38 referred to the toll plaza at north end of Northeast Extension, and that was at the end of that road, because you then changed roads to get to I-81 or US 11 or US 6.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 13:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

See the discussion on Talk:Ohio Turnpike. Since they are essentially the same discussion, I won't repeat myself here. Imzadi 1979 → 21:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)