Pennsylvania

[Rothman]

People should appreciate the novelty that is Breezewood.  Yes, there is stop-and-go traffic at times but where else on our Interstate system is something quite like this?  I never did mind driving through Breezewood--in fact, I would purposely stop there just to eat or fuel up.  Building a new interchange bypassing Breezewood would financially put a big dent in the area.  If Breezewood is such a pain to people then they should find a way not to drive through Breezewood.  There are ways to avoid it--if it is such a hassle.  I, myself, find Breezewood to be unique and a throwback to our early days of the Interstate system--and if I need to drive through there to go to a certain destination, then I will.

I don't think anyone has called for no access at all into Breezewood.  Just building the ramps needed so through traffic doesn't have to go through that choke point.  Let the rest of us get on with our travels; you can get off and keep going through town if you'd like.

[briantroutman]

For all of the Times and Post articles about Breezewood–which invariably include some overwrought hyperbole along the lines of "...a blaze of Las Vegas neon piercing the inky shadows of the Appalachian countryside..." –I don't find Breezewood to be much larger, brighter, or gaudier than countless other rural Interstate interchanges that have attracted a few truck stops and some assorted gas stations, fast food joints, and hotels.

And those other Interstate exits don't force motorists off the Interstate mainline, either. They exist simply because truckers and road-trippers need to eat, sleep, and refuel. That wouldn't change if a direct connection was built, and I'm certain Breezewood would survive as a popular pit stop.

[qguy]

And those other Interstate exits don't force motorists off the Interstate mainline, either. They exist simply because truckers and road-trippers need to eat, sleep, and refuel. That wouldn't change if a direct connection was built, and I'm certain Breezewood would survive as a popular pit stop.

One of the things I learned during my tenure at PennDOT is that in high-congestion, high-aggravation situations like Breezewood, when through-traffic is separated from local traffic, local businesses often see an increase in patronage, not a decrease. This is because the high congestion and accompanying aggravation is so great that many drivers who might stop to patronize a local business are discouraged from doing so because it takes so long and is so annoying just getting through that they don't want to add to the time and aggravation by stopping. Once the through-traffic and local traffic is separated, stopping is much less of a hassle and more drivers then choose choose to do it.

So perhaps the most frustrating thing about Breezewood is that the whole thing is so short-sighted and unnecessary. If a direct connection with local access were constructed, the local businesses would probably see an increase in business, not a decrease. They'd be better off, not worse off.

[amroad17]

Couldn't the Carlisle interchange be considered a "Breezewood"?  Is there any future plans to allieviate traffic there?

Since I am in the minority (of one, apparently), I do see the need for some direct ramps for those who do not want to stop (or even drive) in Breezewood.  I just appreciate the oddities of our Interstate system and just deal with whatever is brought before me.  This is not to say there should not be progress made to improve the system in places where it is needed.

And those other Interstate exits don't force motorists off the Interstate mainline, either. They exist simply because truckers and road-trippers need to eat, sleep, and refuel. That wouldn't change if a direct connection was built, and I'm certain Breezewood would survive as a popular pit stop.

One of the things I learned during my tenure at PennDOT is that in high-congestion, high-aggravation situations like Breezewood, when through-traffic is separated from local traffic, local businesses often see an increase in patronage, not a decrease. This is because the high congestion and accompanying aggravation is so great that many drivers who might stop to patronize a local business are discouraged from doing so because it takes so long and is so annoying just getting through that they don't want to add to the time and aggravation by stopping. Once the through-traffic and local traffic is separated, stopping is much less of a hassle and more drivers then choose choose to do it.

So perhaps the most frustrating thing about Breezewood is that the whole thing is so short-sighted and unnecessary. If a direct connection with local access were constructed, the local businesses would probably see an increase in business, not a decrease. They'd be better off, not worse off.

In reality, this interchange should have been reconfigured in 1968 when the bypass around the tunnels opened.  Correct me if I am wrong, but at that time, wasn't there a law or rule that the PTC had where there could be no direct Interstate to Turnpike connection?  Or was it more the local leaders in Breezewood who forced the interchange to be built the way it was? 

[epzik8]

I personally don't mind Breezewood. It's just two traffic lights and two turns. It's also visually stimulating to me seeing the plethora of services there.

[ixnay]

I personally don't mind Breezewood. It's just two traffic lights and two turns. It's also visually stimulating to me seeing the plethora of services there.

Morgantown, PA was Breezewood East (though not on as big a scale) when I was attending what is now Kutztown University in the early '80s and went through there frequently on my way home to Wallingford, PA.  Haven't been through there too much (for a number of reasons) since graduating, so I don't know the full effect of the direct I-176/turnpike connection on Morgantown.

ixnay

[empirestate]

I personally don't mind Breezewood. It's just two traffic lights and two turns. It's also visually stimulating to me seeing the plethora of services there.

Doesn't bother me, either. To be sure, it's almost never been much on my route to anywhere, so it's not something I've ever been forced to deal with; rather, I almost had to find excuses to go there. But to me (and I'm a pretty methodical-type guy), what's most interesting about the various systems we have is that they're different from place to place, and sometimes rules are broken. That's why I don't mind NY's sequential exit numbering, either, and I-99 doesn't throw me into fits.

[jeffandnicole]

In reality, this interchange should have been reconfigured in 1968 when the bypass around the tunnels opened.  Correct me if I am wrong, but at that time, wasn't there a law or rule that the PTC had where there could be no direct Interstate to Turnpike connection?  Or was it more the local leaders in Breezewood who forced the interchange to be built the way it was? 

In the early days of interstate highway building, no interstate (in any state, not just PA) could have an interchange with a toll road.  That rule/law is long rescinded.  Most states, if the issue existed, have rectified most such intersections to include direct connections.  PA has lagged far behind.

[thenetwork]

Speaking for the Ohio Turnpike, the first true turnpike to interstate connection was with I-71 in 1967.

You can argue that I-280 in Toledo was the first, but it was not up to interstate standards until the 80s.  There were at-grade intersections either side of the Turnpike until then.

[vdeane]

Pretty sure it was federal funds couldn't be used for an interchange, not that the interchange couldn't be built.  Most Thruway/Interstate interchanges were direct from the get-go, and our major breezewood (I-87/I-84) was rectified a few years ago.  However, the PTC was unwilling to spend their own money to build the interchanges, unlike other toll authorities.  Given the progress of the I-95 interchange, they still aren't.  I get the feeling they don't give a f*** about the larger picture and are happy to keep on viewing the Turnpike system as entirely separate from the rest of the state's infrastructure.

[briantroutman]

Correct me if I am wrong, but at that time, wasn't there a law or rule that the PTC had where there could be no direct Interstate to Turnpike connection?

You can get the full story from the FHWA's old "Rambler"  column here: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/tollroad.cfm

In short, laws at the time prohibited use of federal funds to pay for direct connections to toll facilities. Had the Pennsylvania Department of Highways (the forerunner of PennDOT) constructed a direct interchange back in 1968, they'd have been forced to pay the full cost rather than token 10% they would have borne otherwise.

That is...unless the toll road agency agreed to cease collecting tolls after the road's bonds had been satisfied. The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission had no desire to agree to stop collecting tolls, nor did the agency want to spend its own revenues to build a direct connection. A quote from a PTC official at the time pretty clearly explains the commission's position on the issue:

...where new interchanges would not afford an increase, great increase in revenue, we do not feel that these matters should be thrust upon the turnpike commission.

A very pragmatic and private sector business-like position, but one which unfortunately shafts the motorist:
If this investment won't bring in more dollars than it costs, we're not doing it.

[jeffandnicole]

A very pragmatic and private sector business-like position, but one which unfortunately shafts the motorist:
If this investment won’t bring in more dollars than it costs, we’re not doing it.

But a fair position as well.  Turnpikes and toll roads don't get federal funds, so they must rely on toll revenue (along with service area revenue, billboards, etc).  If they need to spend $100 million on a new interchange, that money has to come from somewhere.  If toll revenue from the new interchange won't pay for it, then they need to postpone/cancel other projects they can't afford.

[vdeane]

Of course, the PTC is not a business, they are a government agency.  Even though they're funded by tolls and not taxes, the public good should be their prime concern.  I could understand these days, because of Act 44, but that was long before they were being used as a cash cow.

[empirestate]

Of course, the PTC is not a business, they are a government agency.  Even though they're funded by tolls and not taxes, the public good should be their prime concern.  I could understand these days, because of Act 44, but that was long before they were being used as a cash cow.

On the other hand, the building of turnpikes was originally a purpose for which business ventures were specifically created (and then dissolved upon completion). The agencies that built them were the forerunners of modern corporations, and that heritage doubtless imbued the PTC's mindset in its early years, if not still today.

[jeffandnicole]

It also depends on what the needs are. If the Turnpike has money available to either: A) Build a new interchange or B) widen the highway adding a lane and full shoulders, what is the best use of that money? 

[amroad17]

Correct me if I am wrong, but at that time, wasn't there a law or rule that the PTC had where there could be no direct Interstate to Turnpike connection?

You can get the full story from the FHWA's old "Rambler"  column here: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/tollroad.cfm

In short, laws at the time prohibited use of federal funds to pay for direct connections to toll facilities. Had the Pennsylvania Department of Highways (the forerunner of PennDOT) constructed a direct interchange back in 1968, they'd have been forced to pay the full cost rather than token 10% they would have borne otherwise.

That is...unless the toll road agency agreed to cease collecting tolls after the road's bonds had been satisfied. The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission had no desire to agree to stop collecting tolls, nor did the agency want to spend its own revenues to build a direct connection. A quote from a PTC official at the time pretty clearly explains the commission's position on the issue:

...where new interchanges would not afford an increase, great increase in revenue, we do not feel that these matters should be thrust upon the turnpike commission.

A very pragmatic and private sector business-like position, but one which unfortunately shafts the motorist:
If this investment won't bring in more dollars than it costs, we're not doing it.

Thank you for the answer briantroutman.  I knew there was a reason that a direct connection was never built--I just didn't know the exact reason.

[jpi]

Just came across this on Pennlive.com-
http://www.pennlive.com/news/2017/02/re-building_of_i-83_beltway_to.html#incart_river_home_pop

[jemacedo9]

Just came across this on Pennlive.com-
http://www.pennlive.com/news/2017/02/re-building_of_i-83_beltway_to.html#incart_river_home_pop

I'm quite curious to see what the plans are for the new Eisenhower Interchange, and  the new I-283/PA-283/PA Turnpike interchange...

[briantroutman]

I'm quite curious to see what the plans are for the new Eisenhower Interchange, and  the new I-283/PA-283/PA Turnpike interchange...

This is what was included in the I-83 Master Plan PennDOT released in 2003.



That 2003 plan didn't mention the 283/283 interchange, but based on the tepid language in the Patriot-News article ("... shifting the ramp from Route 283 to the Turnpike interchange to remove the traffic "˜weave'..." ), my expectations are low, unfortunately. It might be as simple as removing the loop ramp from PA 283 westbound to the Turnpike and replacing it with a left turn instead.

[Gnutella]

I'm quite curious to see what the plans are for the new Eisenhower Interchange, and  the new I-283/PA-283/PA Turnpike interchange...

This is what was included in the I-83 Master Plan PennDOT released in 2003.



That 2003 plan didn't mention the 283/283 interchange, but based on the tepid language in the Patriot-News article ("... shifting the ramp from Route 283 to the Turnpike interchange to remove the traffic "˜weave'..." ), my expectations are low, unfortunately. It might be as simple as removing the loop ramp from PA 283 westbound to the Turnpike and replacing it with a left turn instead.

That's one thing PennDOT has begun to do that I wish other transportation agencies would adopt: keeping the main right-of-way intact and high-speed through an interchange even as the highway changes direction. They've done it with I-81 at its junction with I-84 in Scranton, I-78 at its junction with U.S. 22 in Allentown, I-99 at its junction with U.S. 322 in State College, and I-279 at its junction with I-579 in Pittsburgh. They're also doing it with I-95 at its junction with the Pennsylvania Turnpike. In a lot of other states, there are still lots of junctions where highways exit themselves and/or drop to one lane as they change direction.

[OracleUsr]

I had to look this one up–the PennDOT spec drawing for the assembly is below.

"New England"  makes a bit more sense considered in the context of the I-81 North - To I-84 shields and legend above, and previously, there had been supplemental signs "TRUCKS - USE I-81 and I-84 to New England" , but I still don't like its use as a control point.

I wonder if this signals a shift in thinking at PennDOT, and future I-80 signage will likewise include NYC as a control city.

Excuse me if this was already posted, but this sign has now been installed (in ugly Clearview, unfortunately):

GAAAH, MY EYES!!!!

I know control cities are supposed to be important, too, but what is the point of using raised caps if the type is small (we have local signs in Statesville that use micro-type for cardinal directions, too, but not on interstate signs!!!!!)

[briantroutman]

I looked but couldn't find where this had been mentioned:

The signage at the I-78/US 22 split west of Allentown was replaced in the past year, and the new signs replace 476's Interstate shield with one of the PTC's green PA Turnpike keystones.

https://goo.gl/maps/W7Z43KGMDpN2

[Rothman]

I looked but couldn't find where this had been mentioned:

The signage at the I-78/US 22 split west of Allentown was replaced in the past year, and the new signs replace 476's Interstate shield with one of the PTC's green PA Turnpike keystones.

https://goo.gl/maps/W7Z43KGMDpN2

Somebody made do when they didn't have room for a bigger sign.

[74/171FAN]

I looked but couldn't find where this had been mentioned:

The signage at the I-78/US 22 split west of Allentown was replaced in the past year, and the new signs replace 476's Interstate shield with one of the PTC's green PA Turnpike keystones.

https://goo.gl/maps/W7Z43KGMDpN2

Somebody made do when they didn't have room for a bigger sign.

See here.  Ultimately that was the same conclusion I learned especially when seeing this one at the I-78/PA 309 split.  (with advance errors before that)

[amroad17]

^ What the...?

Maybe New Jersey should be replaced with New York City--although, here in the Cincinnati area, Kentucky is used as a control point for I-275 east and west of the city.

As far as the new signs put up at I-81/I-80, I am impressed with Pennsylvania doing that.  Perhaps PA DOT could do something similar at the I-81/I-84 interchange.  They could replace (green over) Milford and Mt. Pocono with New England and New York City on one of the BGS's because just before the I-84/I-380 split, there is two ground-mounted LGS's advising motorists which Interstate to take for New England (USE I-84 EAST) and New York City (USE I-380 SOUTH).