Penn DOT wants to toll the 95 Girard Point Bridge

[rowhomecity]

Originally Posted by bridge12

PennDOT wouldn't have to toll bridges if the state would fully fund the State Police and PennDOT stopped their billion-dollar expansion boondogles like the 83 expansion in Harrisburg (a literal 12 lane highway through Harrisburg) and the Mon-Fayette expressway.

The Mon Fayette Expressway I agree is unnecessary serving an exurban area of Pittsburgh, where money could be better spent on other projects.

The 83 expansion though is long overdue for Harrisburg. It is actually the first modern highway Pennsylvania has built in quite sometime. I am impressed.

The majority of the highway will be 8 lanes (4 each direction). Only a small portion will have 2 sublanes equating to the 12 lane section (about one mile long) for exit ramps.

Harrisburg is actually growing at a fairly healthy rate and the old 83 was from the 60s and was far overdue to be updated.

Now if the state was really smart, they would change zoning around these new infrastructure updates to encourage development which would be taxed to help pay for the projects. (This is what they do in Europe and Asia.) It really has not caught on in the US.

[selhars]

Most people probably won't avoid it. I don't take the bridge often. I will detour around it. But that's OK. My little measly dollar won't be missed.

I want to know what the city's position is on this.

The span carries an average of 148,500 vehicles per day, only about about 6 percent of which is truck traffic. Even at fewer than 1/100 people avoid the toll, that still puts hundred of more cars per day on city streets....which are not in good shape as it is.

As residents shouldn't be forced to pay for something that was caused by a Penn DOT decision like this.

[MarketStEl]

Originally Posted by rowhomecity

J
Many GOP states actually use tolling as a primary form of transportation revenue. Texas and Florida are most notable.

Actually, Texas isn't there yet, save in the Houston area and one tollway in Dallas (the tolls were removed from the Dallas-Fort Worth Turnpike some time ago). But there is the Trans-Texas Corridor proposal, and all of those roads would have tolls.

Tolls aren't taxes — they're the most direct form of user fees possible. If you don't use the road, you don't pay the toll. I would have preferred that the entire Interstate system were tolled from the outset, as they were in France and Italy, but none of the sparsely populated states of the Intermountain West (and even the Plains states through which the 100th meridian passes (save for Oklahoma, which did) would have built Interstate-grade freeways if they had to rely on tolls to pay for their construction and maintenance — the traffic levels would not have covered the expense.

And pace what the rest of the state thinks, there are actually defensible reasons for using highway tolls to fund transit service and infrastructure. The fewer cars there are on the toll road, the lower its maintenance costs and the longer it will take before it needs additional capacity.

[selhars]

The fewer cars there are on the toll road, the lower its maintenance costs and the longer it will take before it needs additional capacity.

And putting a toll on the 95 bridge will put more vehicles on city streets, increasing maintenance costs for city residents.

[skintreesnail]

Originally Posted by selhars

And putting a toll on the 95 bridge will put more vehicles on city streets, increasing maintenance costs for city residents.

A good reason to toll the whole highway. I'm sure everyone would fight it tooth and nail and come up with the most irrational arguments imaginable, because how dare you charge me for the infrastructure that lets me cruise around at 80mph. It's my god-given right.

[selhars]

IF it can't be stopped, I just hope the city is compensated in some way.

[bridge12]

Originally Posted by rowhomecity

The 83 expansion though is long overdue for Harrisburg. It is actually the first modern highway Pennsylvania has built in quite sometime. I am impressed.

The majority of the highway will be 8 lanes (4 each direction). Only a small portion will have 2 sublanes equating to the 12 lane section (about one mile long) for exit ramps.

Harrisburg is actually growing at a fairly healthy rate and the old 83 was from the 60s and was far overdue to be updated.

Now if the state was really smart, they would change zoning around these new infrastructure updates to encourage development which would be taxed to help pay for the projects. (This is what they do in Europe and Asia.) It really has not caught on in the US.

83 around Harrisburg needs to be modernized, yes. It doesn't need to be a 12-lane highway which:

• Takes even more of Harrisburg's taxable property off the rolls (49% of Harrisburg property is already untaxable)
• Induces more demand for traffic through Harrisburg city
• Expands a highway well beyond the necessary capacity when traffic on 83 is actually *decreasing*
• Parallels the existing, just expanded PA turnpike (which already generates revenue!)

PennDOT is using very favorable traffic projections which likely won't come to fruition:
https://twitter.com/5thSq/status/129...774273/photo/1

You can alleviate 90% of the traffic issues on 83 by eliminating the bottle neck at 19th street. Just make 83 six lanes between 19th street and 283 and extend the length of the ramps. Then, sign 83 across the turnpike bridge to direct thru traffic to use the turnpike instead of 83 through Harrisburg. Voila and cha-ching.

[rowhomecity]

Originally Posted by bridge12

83 around Harrisburg needs to be modernized, yes. It doesn't need to be a 12-lane highway which:

• Takes even more of Harrisburg's taxable property off the rolls (49% of Harrisburg property is already untaxable)
• Induces more demand for traffic through Harrisburg city
• Expands a highway well beyond the necessary capacity when traffic on 83 is actually *decreasing*
• Parallels the existing, just expanded PA turnpike (which already generates revenue!)

PennDOT is using very favorable traffic projections which likely won't come to fruition:
https://twitter.com/5thSq/status/129...774273/photo/1

You can alleviate 90% of the traffic issues on 83 by eliminating the bottle neck at 19th street. Just make 83 six lanes between 19th street and 283 and extend the length of the ramps. Then, sign 83 across the turnpike bridge to direct thru traffic to use the turnpike instead of 83 through Harrisburg. Voila and cha-ching.

This would not work. 83 from the Turnpike to both interchanges (283 and 83) is already a bottleneck of a mess and adds about 15 minutes to commute time. (Maybe even close to 20 during peak rush hour).

I do not think 12 lanes are necessary per say. But the 12 lane portions are actually only a small section of the proposal (less than a mile).

If anything the ease of traffic would bring more people into Harrisburg and increase tax revenue. Most of the 83 project is LONG overdue. As I said, if anything Lower Paxton, Lower Swatara and Susquehanna Twp should increase zoning density along the new corridor, which would spur new development and increase tax revenue.

Something like the Colonial Park Mall now no longer serves its best use, and there should be policies that encourage mid rise mixed use developments along this.