Talk:Pennsylvania Turnpike

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of the Pennsylvania Highway WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to highways in Pennsylvania. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add assessment comments)
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pennsylvania Turnpike article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article is a current candidate for the U.S. Roads Article Improvement Drive. Please see the project page to find this article's entry to support or comment on the nomination.

	To-do list for Pennsylvania Turnpike:	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
Here are some tasks you can do: Requests: To organize this article completely. They're too many section headings. Cleanup: Article needs copy editing and reorganization, also needs more sources.

Contents 1 Non-ticket tolls 2 Southern Beltway 3 "Hideous" photo 4 Added new photo 5 Shunpiking 6 Privatisation 7 Remaining tunnel articles created 8 Infobox 9 Somerset Plaza Tunnel 10 This page needs to be split

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "Hideous" photo

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)