Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[cpzilliacus]

TOLLROADSnews: http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/5597

[Beltway]

TOLLROADSnews: http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/5597

Nice work ... a segment of the Northeast Extension built to modern Interstate standards!  Let's do more ...

[cpzilliacus]

TOLLROADSnews: http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/5597

Nice work ... a segment of the Northeast Extension built to modern Interstate standards!  Let's do more ...

Not just on the N.E. Extension, but I would love to see the federal government force the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission and PennDOT to remediate the state's numerous Breezewoods (and come to think of it, there's a "Breezewood" at the Pocono interchange on the N.E. Extension).

[Beltway]

TOLLROADSnews: http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/5597

Nice work ... a segment of the Northeast Extension built to modern Interstate standards!  Let's do more ...

Not just on the N.E. Extension, but I would love to see the federal government force the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission and PennDOT to remediate the state's numerous Breezewoods (and come to think of it, there's a "Breezewood" at the Pocono interchange on the N.E. Extension).

I don't see how the federal government could force a state to build a highway.

[Steve]

Threatening to withhold funding is the equivalent of force. That's why the drinking age is now 21 everywhere.

[Beltway]

Threatening to withhold funding is the equivalent of force. That's why the drinking age is now 21 everywhere.

They can't just pass a law and make an interchange appear immediately.  Or threaten to withhold federal funding and make an interchange appear immediately.

With state and federal environmental study requirements, it would take at least 5 years to get such an interchange under construction.  So there is no "immediate lever" in this case.

The real obstacle here is the Turnpike Commission, who doesn't want to build these interchanges, and the federal funding lever can't be used against them, as they effectively receive no federal funding for their own roadways.

[vdeane]

An interchange in 5-10 years is better than no interchange.  And the state could always pass a law to make the PTC comply so they don't lose their funding.

Alternatively, PennDOT could do all the work themselves.  This would result in some pretty weird interchanges since they could only modify their end of the interchanges, and involve re-aligning a lot of local roads.

For example, the I-80/I-476 one could be done by building a bridge over the ramps where the traffic light is and constructing a trumpet with that local road just to the west.

No, I didn't say any of this was practical, but it could theoretically be done.

[PAHighways]

Alternatively, PennDOT could do all the work themselves.

That is basically what happened in Breezewood as a compromise to a full interchange.

[Beltway]

Alternatively, PennDOT could do all the work themselves.

That is basically what happened in Breezewood as a compromise to a full interchange.

That's what happens when they don't cooperate, the two systems connected by a surface road.  Same deal at I-81 at Carlisle and I-95 in Bucks County, and several others.

A high-capacity limited access connection involves each agency providing their "side" of the connection.

[PAHighways]

Alternatively, PennDOT could do all the work themselves.

That is basically what happened in Breezewood as a compromise to a full interchange.

That's what happens when they don't cooperate, the two systems connected by a surface road.  Same deal at I-81 at Carlisle and I-95 in Bucks County, and several others.

That's what happens when outside interests interfere with a plan, and a "no-build" alternative is what is left on the table. 

I-95 will be connected, and most recently I-79 was connected to the Turnpike System.  Unlike Breezewood, Cranberry actually welcomed a direct connection to alleviate the congestion on US 19 and PA 228 between the two roadways.

A high-capacity limited access connection involves each agency providing their "side" of the connection.

That has happened in cases where a group didn't come together to kill an interchange such as at I-83 (then US 111) and PA 309 (then US 309).

[NE2]

That has happened in cases where a group didn't come together to kill an interchange such as at I-83 (then US 111) and PA 309 (then US 309).

Weren't both these interchanges part of the original Turnpike construction, and simply used in-place by the state when the freeways were built? That's a little different from Carlisle where the Turnpike built an interchange at US 11 but the state later bypassed it with I-81.

[SteveG1988]

When did I80 near 476 open? I have a feeling that they just tied I80 into the original interchange there to save money.

[Beltway]

Alternatively, PennDOT could do all the work themselves.

That is basically what happened in Breezewood as a compromise to a full interchange.

That's what happens when they don't cooperate, the two systems connected by a surface road.  Same deal at I-81 at Carlisle and I-95 in Bucks County, and several others.

That's what happens when outside interests interfere with a plan, and a "no-build" alternative is what is left on the table. 

I-95 will be connected, and most recently I-79 was connected to the Turnpike System.  Unlike Breezewood, Cranberry actually welcomed a direct connection to alleviate the congestion on US 19 and PA 228 between the two roadways.

And though the locals favored it, it took what, over 30 years after I-79 was completed before they connected it directly to the Turnpike?

What external groups have opposed the I-81 Carlisle interchange?  I-99 at Bedford?  US-219 expressway at Somerset?

The area around where I-95 crosses the Turnpike, had plenty of open land when I-95 was built there in the 1970s.  There were no obstacles or external groups opposed to building that back then.

[PAHighways]

That has happened in cases where a group didn't come together to kill an interchange such as at I-83 (then US 111) and PA 309 (then US 309).

Weren't both these interchanges part of the original Turnpike construction, and simply used in-place by the state when the freeways were built? That's a little different from Carlisle where the Turnpike built an interchange at US 11 but the state later bypassed it with I-81.

The Philadelphia Extension opened a few years before the new US 111 alignment was completed to 76 and before construction began north of the Turnpike.  I-276 was complete for nearly a decade before construction began on the Fort Washington Expressway.

[PAHighways]

Alternatively, PennDOT could do all the work themselves.

That is basically what happened in Breezewood as a compromise to a full interchange.

That's what happens when they don't cooperate, the two systems connected by a surface road.  Same deal at I-81 at Carlisle and I-95 in Bucks County, and several others.

That's what happens when outside interests interfere with a plan, and a "no-build" alternative is what is left on the table. 

I-95 will be connected, and most recently I-79 was connected to the Turnpike System.  Unlike Breezewood, Cranberry actually welcomed a direct connection to alleviate the congestion on US 19 and PA 228 between the two roadways.

And though the locals favored it, it took what, over 30 years after I-79 was completed before they connected it directly to the Turnpike?

What external groups have opposed the I-81 Carlisle interchange?  I-99 at Bedford?  US-219 expressway at Somerset?

The area around where I-95 crosses the Turnpike, had plenty of open land when I-95 was built there in the 1970s.  There were no obstacles or external groups opposed to building that back then.

I was speaking about Breezewood since that is what the topic turned to, and mentioned the I-79 interchange as an example of the two agencies working together in recent years.

[ARMOURERERIC]

Having travelled through Cranberry in the late 70's and throught the mid 80's as a youth and later to college at Edinboro.  The Turnpike/79 arrangement was fully adequate thru about 1995.  In fact it was such a comment cooment about PennDOT's wisdom with the arrangement being how 79 traffic could exit, get services and get back on without bactracking.  Cranberry did not start becomming a traffic problem until the expansion of Cranberry Plaza into Cranberry mall.  There was a time after 79 opened that for many years Thorn Hill and 228 were the only signals after Wexford

[Beltway]

Having travelled through Cranberry in the late 70's and throught the mid 80's as a youth and later to college at Edinboro.  The Turnpike/79 arrangement was fully adequate thru about 1995.  In fact it was such a comment cooment about PennDOT's wisdom with the arrangement being how 79 traffic could exit, get services and get back on without bactracking.  Cranberry did not start becomming a traffic problem until the expansion of Cranberry Plaza into Cranberry mall.  There was a time after 79 opened that for many years Thorn Hill and 228 were the only signals after Wexford

Having traveled in Bucks County as far back as the 1970s, I saw that the surface road connection between I-95 and the Turnpike, never was adequate.

[NE2]

The Philadelphia Extension opened a few years before the new US 111 alignment was completed to 76 and before construction began north of the Turnpike. 

The bridges carrying I-83 over the Turnpike, its ramp, and nearby creeks date from 1950-52. So it was probably not complete when the Turnpike opened, but it was definitely almost there.

I-276 was complete for nearly a decade before construction began on the Fort Washington Expressway.

But there was already an interchange on the Turnpike at Fort Washington, presumably at Pennsylvania Avenue, where the state built an interchange on PA 309. So the Turnpike didn't have to do any work to make a direct connection.

[vdeane]

Alternatively, PennDOT could do all the work themselves.

That is basically what happened in Breezewood as a compromise to a full interchange.

I think you're confusing practicality with my idea (which involves PennDOT demolishing everything around a PTC interchange and rebuilding on their end to match the interchange, ie the local road at the interchange is obliterated, freeway ramps are extended down to the interchange where the local road was, and the local road is re-aligned somewhere else).

[PAHighways]

The Philadelphia Extension opened a few years before the new US 111 alignment was completed to 76 and before construction began north of the Turnpike.  

The bridges carrying I-83 over the Turnpike, its ramp, and nearby creeks date from 1950-52. So it was probably not complete when the Turnpike opened, but it was definitely almost there.

I-276 was complete for nearly a decade before construction began on the Fort Washington Expressway.

But there was already an interchange on the Turnpike at Fort Washington, presumably at Pennsylvania Avenue, where the state built an interchange on PA 309. So the Turnpike didn't have to do any work to make a direct connection.

In both cases, the situation could have ended with both roads crossing each other without any direct connection or a situation such as at 81, 99, etc.

There was even co-operation between the two agencies in terms of the construction of new at-grade alignments that intersected the Turnpike.

[Beltway]

In both cases, the situation could have ended with both roads crossing each other without any direct connection or a situation such as at 81, 99, etc.

There was even co-operation between the two agencies in terms of the construction of new at-grade alignments that intersected the Turnpike.

The problem in a number of cases, though, is getting them to connect PennDOT freeways to the Turnpike, which involves a lot of construction to both highways, if they want to have adequate capacity on the connecting roads and ramps.

[PAHighways]

In both cases, the situation could have ended with both roads crossing each other without any direct connection or a situation such as at 81, 99, etc.

There was even co-operation between the two agencies in terms of the construction of new at-grade alignments that intersected the Turnpike.

The problem in a number of cases, though, is getting them to connect PennDOT freeways to the Turnpike, which involves a lot of construction to both highways, if they want to have adequate capacity on the connecting roads and ramps.

I understand all too well about the lack of interchanges at certain locations, but I was just mentioning instances where the PTC and DOH/DOT had worked together to create connections.

[Mr_Northside]

...
........ instances where the PTC and DOH/DOT had worked together to create connections.

While not a new interchange at a new location, they certainly rebuilt/improved the interchange at New Stanton decades ago....  (Not sure if it was a collaborative effort between the agencies, or if the PTC just did it on it's own though....)

[NE2]

I-176 may be the best example of the two working together to build an all-new interchange.

[Beltway]

I-176 may be the best example of the two working together to build an all-new interchange.

An excellent example.  Ironically, it woud take far less construction to connect I-70 directly to the Turnpike access highway at Breezewood.