Talk:Mon–Fayette Expressway

Exit list
US 119 doesn't merge with PA 43 at exit 8; it merges at an unnumbered interchange a short distance south of US 40. Exit 8 and this unnumbered interchange are not the same exit.

The extraneous information now present in the footer of the exit list would be better suited for the article proper. The purpose of the exit list is to provide a quick glance of what exits exist on the road, not to provide a explanation as to why the road is segmented. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The "extraneous information" has been moved to the article. No where in the exit list does it imply that PA 43 merges with US 119 at exit 8. Rather it states that Exit 8 is Big Six Road TO US 119 and PA 857. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.255.126.105


 * That's not the impression I get. Even if it was, the list no longer mentions the US 119/PA 43 concurrency (nor does it even hint that it exists) nor does it have the Uniontown exit. Honestly, I still fail to see what was wrong with my exit list. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 23:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The almight PennDOT says its so so it must be. Have you listened to anything I said?  Its a technicality.  Direct question... how do you know about this road?  By looking at maps or websites or by actually driving on it?


 * PA 43 Ends in Uniontown. It is never "concurrent" with US 119, it simply ends in Uniontown, if you are heading northbound.  PA 43 begins again near Brownsville.  The Uniontown-Brownsville link of PA 43 is under construction and not open.  When it is completed, there will be a concurrency between US 119 and PA 43, but at the current time there is no concurrency, so stating so in your exit list was incorrect information.  When PA 43 ends, there is a concurrency between US 40/US 119, which is implied.
 * Anon editor, please leave the exit list as it was before you changed it. And what TMF said is true—the exit list is only supposed to be quick glance of what exits are on the road, not to provide an explanation as to why the road is segmented.  This information should be placed in a "Miscellanea" section, as defined by the project standards.  Your mods with the exit list do not really comply with the exit list standards.  And no, it doesn't matter if you drive on this road regularly, the standards still come first. V60 VTalk - VDemolitions 23:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Maps indicate otherwise, but the PA 43 exit list at PA Highways is a bit vague. I see what you're saying now, but the fact that every map I've seen extends PA 43 to US 40 (and thus shows PA 43 as concurrent with US 119 between Morgantown Road and US 40) leads me to believe otherwise. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 23:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, indicates the northern terminus is at US 40/US 119 and that PA 43 runs concurrent to US 119 between Morgantown Road and US 40, as I indicated above. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 23:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And, lastly, to quote State-Ends.com: "The end sign sits at the PA 857/US 119 Fairchance/Smithfield Exit. (Exit 8) However, South PA 43 signs are posted a mile further north at the US 40 exit. " (emphasis mine). -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 23:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * TMF, go ahead and revert, since the anon's edit is a violation of WP:NOR. Unless if he/she can find a reliable source to his/her claim, the exit list will stay as-is. V60 VTalk - VDemolitions 23:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like you've never been on the road? I have. Its kind of a complicated intersection of 3 roads, basically what happens, if you are heading north, theres an exit that goes to US 119 South/Morgantown Road North. The on ramp is US 119 North. At that point, theres a sign that says "END PA 43". And theres an exit for US 40 east. Then US 40 West merges with US 119 North. If you are southbound on US 119S/US 40 E heading towards the beginning of PA 43, the following happens: US 40 E exits off to Hopwood, US 119 S exits to a two lane road, and the expressway becomes PA 43 (theres a sign, "BEGIN PA 43"). Again, I've travelled this road many times, so I don't need a map to tell me what is actually happening. IF YOU HAVEN'T BEEN ON THE ROAD, THE MAPS AREN'T ENTIRELY ACCURATE AS IT IS A CONFUSING INTERSECTION THAT WAS VERY RECENTLY CHANGED.
 * Your claim is a violation is WP:NOR. Please read that very carefully, as standards and policies come before correct information. V60 VTalk - VDemolitions 23:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The WP:NOR states: "Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation you are writing about. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident is a primary source. The White House's summary of a president's speech is a primary source." I believe I qualify as a "primary source" as someone who has travelled the road many times and very recently. And I think that the goal of Wikipedia is "correct information", not "policies and standards." I have provided this site with correct information. I am asserting that the maps that you have consulted are inaccurate and/or incomplete. If you have not travelled the road recently, then going by these innacurrate/incomplete maps contributes incorrect information to the Wikipedia project. I'm sure there's a Wiki policy that innaccurate sources shouldn't be used. I will ask again, anyone criticizing me been on PA 43 at that interchange recently or many times? If not, perhaps you could consider that actually travelling the road presents a better pictures than maps.
 * Still, another policy that compliments WP:NOR is WP:VERIFY, which states that The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Your claims are challenged by TMF and I, and you are not a reliable source since it is not published in any way (Wikipedia does not count). V60 VTalk - VDemolitions 00:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Still have not stated whether or not you have been on the road. What maps are you using to challenge my claim, and how can I challenge their accuracy?
 * You may check the reliable sources that are specified. It doesn't matter if anybody's been on the road or not.  Sources, policies, and standards come first; there is no room for original research.  Your claims are in fact original research.  What the reliable sources say are the content that can be on Wikipedia.  Original research is prohibited at all times. V60 VTalk - VDemolitions 00:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

According to the PennDOT iTMS (1) PA 43 does extend to US 40, (2) runs concurrent to US 119 and (3), by utilizing the PennDOT video log (man, I wish NYSDOT had something like this), it is evident that the guide signs for the exit to PA 43 on US 40 eastbound read "South PA 43/South US 119", not "To South PA 43/South US 119", implying that PA 43 does extend to US 40. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 00:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The "concurrency" may be as long as 200 yards. Oh wow. I'm still certain theres an "END PA 43" sign as 119 rejoins the expressway. Additionally, you have wasted countless time on something not anywhere near your geographic area.
 * So what? If PennDOT has proof, then it is absolute proof.  No more reversions from you after I get TMF to revert back to the good revision. V60 VTalk - VDemolitions 01:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, if you are so concerned with citations, I challenge you to go through and remove EVERY thing on this page that is not cited. Most of the article isn't.

Original research is never acceptable and should be reverted. However, the IP has broken WP:3RR (even if the other editors had broken it, it would be removing OR and it would not matter). Thus, I am blocking for 24 hours. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Anon user, please sign your comments. -- M PD T / C 04:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * A few comments on the topic: Anon editor, please stay cool and civil; people are much more willing to listen to what you have to say when you're not yelling at them.  Also remember, signs aren't always right.  There's a sign for a primary route that is the shape and colour of a business Interstate route (Business I-7...go figure); that doesn't mean it's a business Interstate route.  The point is that they're not always right.  To everyone else, good job on staying cool and handling the situation well.
 * Anon editor, when you return tomorrow, I encourage you to present your arguments with what you think is wrong with the article in a well-structured list (bulleted, use asterixes (*) ). Also, it would be in your best interest to not use a different computer to argue; we'll wait.  If you can find official sources backing up your claims and debunking ours, bring them along too.  We'll look at it piece by piece, rather than taking it all at once.  Also review our three-revert policy, it pertains directly to this situation.  -- M PD T / C 04:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying to find something to validate the anon's claims, because essentially they are correct. Closest I can find is this: http://www.pahighways.com/exits/PATurnpike43exits.html If you check the exit lists south bound, after exit 8 you have an unnumbered exit to US 119 South, then and "End PA 43". Basically, if you start north of Uniontown, US 119 bypasses Uniontown and exits off the expressway south of Uniontown. If you get off the exit and go south, you are on US-119 South. If you go north off the exit, you are on Morgantown Road. But at any rate, at the point where US 119 goes on the exit ramp, PA 43 begins on the expressway. If you get on 43 at exit 8 and head northward, the next thing you come up on is an unnumbered exit for US-119 SOUTH and Morgantown Road (north). If you stay on the expressway, US-119 reenters the expressway via the ON ramp and PA 43 ENDs (there is indeed an "End PA 43" sign there). But if you check that website, which I believe is managed by PennDOT, its pretty clear that 43 Ends right there. There is no mention of concurrency with 119.--the fc''' 11:11, 2 February 2007 (EST)


 * Really correct... Also, to the above editor, if you want to play specifics, the PennDOT website I provided does not show a concurrency with US 119; instead, it displays PA 43 (technically SR 0043) as the sole route on the highway between Morgantown Road and US 40. I have provided numerous sources confirming that PA 43 extends to US 40; where are yours confirming that it doesn't?
 * Of course, we could resolve this issue by removing the exit list for the southern segment altogether. The article went without one for a number of months, and it didn't harm the article any. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * PA 43 does indeed end at US 40. If you were to be technically correct down to the last foot, if you are heading northbound, theres an exit ramp for 119 S/Morgantown road, about 20 yards later you go under a bridge, 10 yards later US 119 N Enters the expressway and theres an exit for US 40 East at the same point.  About 100 yards later US 40 W merges with US 119 N.  So in the matter of 600 yards, theres an exit for US 119 S, US 119 N merges into the expressway, theres an exit for US 40 E, and US 40 W merges with the expressway.  Its confusing.  The signs in your source are not there any more.  Construction was recently done to add on/off ramps for Walnut Hill Road and expand everything for the completion of the Uniontown-Brownsville link of PA 43.  With all due respect, your source and all the pictures on it are out of date because that interchange has changed completely within the last two months.  In fact, last time I was through there, they did not have standard road signs for the exit up yet.  That site states the images are from 1993 and 1996, obviously they are out of date.--the fc''' 17:36, 2 February 2007 (EST)
 * I have no idea where you get 1993 and 1996 from. The caption below each image reads 2003, and a PennDOT video log from November 2005 (taken, I believe, at the outset of the construction) still shows the shields. Aside from that, you have now indicated that I am correct about PA 43's northern terminus, and that US 119 is forced to share the roadway with PA 43 for a quarter-mile. That looks like the definition of concurrency to me. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 03:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I appologize, I was looking at the dates on the terraserver imagery. At anyrate, completion of the Walnut Hill Rd interchange, which changed the 119/40/43 interchange as well, the photos on that page became obselete, as well as any video shot in 2005, because construction of the new interchange was just completed a few months ago.  If you feel a quarter mile concurrency is worthy of putting on this site (I'm still not convinced that there is actually that concurrency, its just a matter of feet as to where PA 43 begins and ends), then by all means add it.  However, I doubt very highly that most people really care that two route numbers share the same space for a quarter mile, or even a half mile.  When the Uniontown-Brownsville section opens, there will be a significant US 119/PA 43 concurrency, which would be worthy of inclusion here, but that does not yet exist. Additionally, it was the implication of the old road signs that PA 43 N ended when US 119 N reentered the highway, and that PA 43 S began when US 119 S exitted the highway.  Since the interchange has been changed, the addition of new road signs has not yet been completed.  Not trying to be rude, but, as I would hope you can understand, when you have someone who has never travelled the road and is relying on internet sources vs. someone who has driven on the road hundreds of times, I think the more informed person is generally the person who has travelled the road.  Internet sources are not 100% accurate, not even gov't sources.  I would not presume to argue something like this with a road in an area with which I was not familiar.  I am simply trying to add my "local expertise" to this site.  (I've seen that phrased used in regard to the wiki highway project, and I think I apply to that term for this situation.--the fc''' 22:26, 2 February 2007 (EST)

Clean-up
This doesn't seem to be a dab. What do others think? Boleyn2 (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (it's you again!) I agree it looks more like a very small stub rather than a dab. Both articles do make mention of the upcoming highway, and refer to a source that mentions it. However, the source in question is not linked, rather the articles link to the Wikipedia page about the Dominion Post, so someone would need to trace back the actual article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Puceron (talk • contribs) 07:32, 11 August 2009


 * I had decided you were right, that my notion of the content being split between a Dab and a stub was silly (my term, not yours), but i spoiled our joint argument for conversion to an article by doing research. Articles, Dab(s), and lists link'g to the PA portion number over 100; those to the WV portion are 10. Three alt titles and 2 misspellings are Rdrs to the PA portion article, and the accompanying main-namespace title spent 3 years as a Rdr to the PA Rte 43 article, until becoming a Dab less than 5 weeks ago. The division between the 2 states is under 5 mi. (WV) vs. over 100 upon completion, and 66 presently (PA), and both the geographical references in the name are PA ones (and the biographical version of its name eponomizes a PA pol). Here's what i now think: uses of the name to refer only to the PA portion are likely to be frequent, those to either the combined route or just the WV portion rare. How about this:


 * Pennsylvania Route 43:

[followed by its existing content]


 * Monongahela/Fayette Expressway
 * (as presently) :


 * 1) REDIRECT Pennsylvania Route 43


 * Monongahela/Fayette Expressway (disambiguation):

The Monongahela/Fayette Expressway is the larger portion of the project bearing that name, Pennsylvania Route 43.

Monongahela/Fayette Expressway may also refer to:
 * Monongahela/Fayette Expressway (bi-state), overall Pennsylvania-West Virginia project
 * West Virginia Route 43, southwestern 4.2 miles of 2-state project


 * Monongahela/Fayette Expressway (bi-state)
 * (after current Mon-Fayette Expressway is moved to that title):

The Monongahela/Fayette Expressway or Mon-Fayette Expressway is a highway planned to eventually link Interstate 68 near Morgantown, West Virginia with Interstate 376 near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

As it crosses the boundary between two states, it is comprised of two different state routes:
 * Pennsylvania Route 43
 * West Virginia Route 43

Category:Expressways in the United States


 * Mon-Fayette Expressway:


 * 1) REDIRECT Pennsylvania Route 43
 * --Jerzy•t 08:47 (manually resolving Ed/Conf) & 09:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The highway is never referred to as Monongahela/Fayette Expressway. While the "Mon" is derived from "Monongahela", the expressway is always consistently referred to as the Mon/Fayette Expressway or Mon-Fayette Expressway.  Also, I do want to state the Monongahela River does lie in West Virginia; the entire length of the expressway (both WV and PA) is within its drainage.
 * I suggest keeping the article as-is since West Virginia's portion is also referred to as the Mon/Fayette. (I suppose this is closest to the third option listed above.)  Having the PA and WV articles stay about their own routes fits best within the individual state projects for WP:USRD.  There is not really enough independent content to justify a separate article about the entire length of the Mon/Fayette aside from its individual state routes.
 * Brian Powell (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was merge. Jgera5 (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the two articles need to be combined to form one article titled "Mon–Fayette Expressway", for two reasons:
 * The highway is more commonly known as the Mon–Fayette Expressway as opposed to Route 43, whether it be in West Virginia or Pennsylvania.
 * The relatively short section in West Virginia would make more sense to have just one article serving both routes.

Anyone else agree? Jgera5 (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I could be OK with a merger. Bitmapped (talk) 21:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I could support a merge, given the fact PA 43 and WV 43 have a related connection and are intended to be one contiguous road.  Dough 48  72  23:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Question: Is there any part of PA 43/WV 43 that is not part of the Mon-Fayette? –Fredddie™ 02:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, all of it is on the expressway.  Dough 48  72  03:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Then I support. –Fredddie™ 11:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, it seems like a general consensus is a merger. I would merge them myself together, but I'm in the process of moving (to Morgantown right by the Mon–Fayette Expressway, to be exact) so I'm kind-of busy with the real world right now to be concerned with any major Wikipedia editing right now. In about a month, if the articles aren't merged yet, I'll start working on it. Thanks guys! Jgera5 (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support with a proviso: the merger needs to be done intelligently and produce a cohesive article; no copy/paste quick jobs. If this can't or won't be done, don't do anything at this time. That means one infobox with all three shields at the top, a single exit list similar to U.S. Route 131's list, a single RD section with the appropriate subsections, a unified history section similar to U.S. Route 223 that covers the the timeline of the whole highway.  Imzadi 1979  →   04:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Interstate System
Won't I-576 (now PA Turnpike 576) be extended along PA Turnpike 43 and take one of the branches (I'm not sure which) of the now-unbuilt Y to I-376?

68.84.62.67 (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Merger done
Okay guys, the merger is done. Since I am settled into my new apartment in Morgantown, I went ahead and did it myself. I did do some copyediting in order to make the article more cohesive, while adding some more information on the route as a whole. It still needs some work on it, especially adding some miles to the Pennsylvania section, but since the general consensus was to merge the two articles plus the disambiguation page, it'll be a lot easier to have just one article now. Jgera5 (talk) 01:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Mileage numbers
I have added mileage numbers by measuring it via Google Maps. Sorry, there's no way I can source it, but it is what I used.Jgera5 (talk) 01:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Since each state uses its own mileposts, I think the mileage should reset at the state line. Bitmapped (talk) 01:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is intended to be one highway. Plus, we already discussed in the past having one mileage list. Jgera5 (talk) 04:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * U.S. Route 131 is one highway, but the mileposts do reset at the state line per the official sources. This would be the same as well.  Imzadi 1979  →   23:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Mileage numbers appear right to me (from I-68). Somebody at PTC screwed up the exit numbers by about 2 miles starting with exit 15, so exit 15 and higher would be off regardless if it was started at the state line or not.  I wonder if the Uniontown-Brownsville segment was originally supposed to be 2 miles longer or something?  Ordoinc (talk) 05:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Mon-Fayette Expressway Simplified Timeline
I'm removing this from the article and placing it here. This is a good aid to writing the article, but a poor substitute for prose that describes these evens. In addition, several things in the table are incorrectly formatted. Exit numbers aren't really proper nouns so they don't get capitalized unless they're the start of a sentence. Directions are never proper nouns unless they're part of a name (like Southern California), and all of the hyphens in the ranges should be en dashes.  Imzadi 1979  →   01:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Map
It just occurred to me that there's no map for the existing portions of the route. I suggest we get one made, but not until after Phase 2 of the Uniontown-to-Brownsville project opens up later this month. Although the highway isn't officially done yet, after this it does appear done for the foreseeable future. Jgera5 (talk) 05:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

PA 43 designation used to be used for the Schuylkill Expressway (Philadelphia area)
I have put in a cross-reference for that usage of PA route 43, but the Schuylkill Expressway article still needs reference to this usage.

In http://www.pahighways.com/interstates/I76.html, I find:

"The [east-west Pa.] Turnpike was to be marked I-80S, this meant that it was a route south of the main I-80. This would be multiplexed with PA 43, the designation that was already in place on the Schuylkill [Expressway].  PA 43 is now used to designate the Mon-Fayette Expressway."

(I-80S ran from the Ohio border along the Pa. Tpk. to Valley Forge, where it left the Tpk. and went to Philadelphia on the Schuylkill Expressway. The rest of the east-west Pa. Tpk. was designated I-280.  I-80S and I-280 were then changed to I-76 and I-276 respectively.)

Route description
Over the last 2 1/2 years, this article has slowly improved with regards to Wikipedia transportation standards. But I just realized that it lacks a "Route description" section, like most other transportation articles. I suggest that someone who has traveled on the Mon–Fayette Expressway on at least a semi-regular basis (I've only driven on it once, and it was while Phase 2 of the Uniontown-to-Brownsville project was under construction) draft up a description of the route, heading from south to north, to make it more in line with the other transportation articles in Wikipedia.

The article has come along greatly, with a combined exit list, more details on construction, and even a map being made. Describing what the route looks like while actually driving it would improve the article even more. Jgera5 (talk) 18:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Criticism section
For the time being, I've removed the criticism section, as I had just noticed this edit that I somehow hadn't noticed while editing on the page more recently. As the road has generated some controversy, much of that is in the Allegheny County section, where it is largely sourced pretty well, as opposed to the criticism section where material was added without a proper source, as well as the associated links being dead links.

At this point, the reality of the Mon-Fayette is that depending on Act 89 funding, the route will get completed to Monroeville some time after the second leg of the Southern Beltway is completed (although it would currently be cheaper to complete the Beltway altogether before finishing the Mon–Fayette, the final leg of the Mon–Fayette is further along the final design process than the final leg of the Southern Beltway), while the leg to Pittsburgh gets cancelled outright. I'm more than willing to reinsert the criticism section if we can find proper sources. Jgera5 (talk) 03:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mon–Fayette Expressway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/pdf/BPR_pdf_files/Maps/GHS/Roadnames/fayette_GHSN.PDF
 * Added tag to ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/pdf/BPR_pdf_files/Maps/GHS/Roadnames/washington_GHSN.PDF
 * Added tag to ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/pdf/BPR_pdf_files/Maps/GHS/Roadnames/allegheny_GHSN.PDF
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://triblive.com/opinion/ericheyl/9806391-74/expressway-kennywood-park
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121227113018/http://canon-mcmillan.patch.com/articles/turnpike-commission-to-proceed-with-beltway-project-lawmaker-lauds-the-move to http://canon-mcmillan.patch.com/articles/turnpike-commission-to-proceed-with-beltway-project-lawmaker-lauds-the-move

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Construction technique testing on unopened section
https://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2022/10/10/mon-fayette-expressway-pa-turnpike-university-of-pittsburgh-irise-swanson-school-of-engineering/stories/202210070091 Notable? These may or may not be applied to sections of the finished highway. Mapsax (talk) 02:14, 11 October 2022 (UTC)