A trio of simple questions regarding the glaring flaw that is Breezewood:
1. Why is I-70 the way it is through Breezewood?
2. Has there ever been at least a half-legitimate proposal to knock out the wonkiness that is 70 through Breezewood?
3. What would it take to actually get the situation ironed out there?
Quote from: planxtymcgillicuddy on October 30, 2019, 10:40:34 AM
A trio of simple questions regarding the glaring flaw that is Breezewood:
1. Why is I-70 the way it is through Breezewood?
2. Has there ever been at least a half-legitimate proposal to knock out the wonkiness that is 70 through Breezewood?
3. What would it take to actually get the situation ironed out there?
1) Recalcitrance of the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission.
2) Yes, on this forum, but no official proposal that I am aware of.
3) Posted before --
Two 45-mph ramps that could be one lane wide but preferably would be two lanes wide. Would provide a full direct connection between I-70 and both directions of the Turnpike.
Using my Turnpike/I-70 connection scheme, Breezewood could actually be a nice easily accessible large oasis for travelers who want any of a variety of services. Lot less congestion there as well.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.capital-beltway.com%2FBreezewoodPA.jpg&hash=8ff10c7fab7fe486220ed7b35ef1d7825984657d)
Quote from: Beltway on October 30, 2019, 03:35:11 PM
Quote from: planxtymcgillicuddy on October 30, 2019, 10:40:34 AM
A trio of simple questions regarding the glaring flaw that is Breezewood:
1. Why is I-70 the way it is through Breezewood?
2. Has there ever been at least a half-legitimate proposal to knock out the wonkiness that is 70 through Breezewood?
3. What would it take to actually get the situation ironed out there?
1) Recalcitrance of the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission.
2) Yes, on this forum, but no official proposal that I am aware of.
3) Posted before --
Two 45-mph ramps that could be one lane wide but preferably would be two lanes wide. Would provide a full direct connection between I-70 and both directions of the Turnpike.
Using my Turnpike/I-70 connection scheme, Breezewood could actually be a nice easily accessible large oasis for travelers who want any of a variety of services. Lot less congestion there as well.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.capital-beltway.com%2FBreezewoodPA.jpg&hash=8ff10c7fab7fe486220ed7b35ef1d7825984657d)
I really like your proposal. So if your proposal ever came to be, I would assume that the current route to U.S. 30 would become a business spur/loop?
Quote from: planxtymcgillicuddy on October 30, 2019, 03:50:20 PM
I really like your proposal. So if your proposal ever came to be, I would assume that the current route to U.S. 30 would become a business spur/loop?
Yes, it could be signed as Business Loop 70.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Business_Loop_70.svg)
Yet another Breezewood thread?
Quote from: Rothman on October 30, 2019, 05:05:31 PM
Yet another Breezewood thread?
But this one doesn't directly connect to the other Breezewood threads!
Quote from: formulanone on October 30, 2019, 06:35:23 PM
Quote from: Rothman on October 30, 2019, 05:05:31 PM
Yet another Breezewood thread?
But this one doesn't directly connect to the other Breezewood threads!
I hate myself for laughing as hard as I did lol
Quote from: formulanone on October 30, 2019, 06:35:23 PM
Quote from: Rothman on October 30, 2019, 05:05:31 PM
Yet another Breezewood thread?
But this one doesn't directly connect to the other Breezewood threads!
This was remarkably well-played.
Quote from: formulanone on October 30, 2019, 06:35:23 PM
Quote from: Rothman on October 30, 2019, 05:05:31 PM
Yet another Breezewood thread?
But this one doesn't directly connect to the other Breezewood threads!
Yep! That is exactly how the discussion in the last 50+ of these threads has gone, minus the nice play! :D
<in b4 lock>
Have we ever had an abandoned PA Turnpike thread? That seems like the way more interesting aspect of Breezewood rather than asking the same questions for the thousandth time.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 30, 2019, 09:19:26 PM
Have we ever had an abandoned PA Turnpike thread? That seems like the way more interesting aspect of Breezewood rather than asking the same questions for the thousandth time.
I've often wondered why they just didnt use/upgrade that stretch of the turnpike, or, if they wanted to ditch that section of turnpike anyway, run 70 along or on U.S. 30 to York, then have it it take over from York to Baltimore.
Quote from: planxtymcgillicuddy on October 30, 2019, 09:21:47 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 30, 2019, 09:19:26 PM
Have we ever had an abandoned PA Turnpike thread? That seems like the way more interesting aspect of Breezewood rather than asking the same questions for the thousandth time.
I've often wondered why they just didnt use/upgrade that stretch of the turnpike, or, if they wanted to ditch that section of turnpike anyway, run 70 along or on U.S. 30 to York, then have it it take over from York to Baltimore.
It was probably less expensive to excavate new lanes than trying to excavate a tunnel or twin it.
Quote from: Beltway on October 30, 2019, 03:35:11 PM
Quote from: planxtymcgillicuddy on October 30, 2019, 10:40:34 AM
A trio of simple questions regarding the glaring flaw that is Breezewood:
1. Why is I-70 the way it is through Breezewood?
2. Has there ever been at least a half-legitimate proposal to knock out the wonkiness that is 70 through Breezewood?
3. What would it take to actually get the situation ironed out there?
1) Recalcitrance of the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission.
2) Yes, on this forum, but no official proposal that I am aware of.
3) Posted before --
Two 45-mph ramps that could be one lane wide but preferably would be two lanes wide. Would provide a full direct connection between I-70 and both directions of the Turnpike.
Using my Turnpike/I-70 connection scheme, Breezewood could actually be a nice easily accessible large oasis for travelers who want any of a variety of services. Lot less congestion there as well.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.capital-beltway.com%2FBreezewoodPA.jpg&hash=8ff10c7fab7fe486220ed7b35ef1d7825984657d)
1. To elaborate, federal law prohibited interstate money from being used to connect to toll roads. The PTC and PennDOT not wanting to use their own money, instead built separate adjacent interchanges just about everywhere.
2. I believe I read that once there was a push in the legislature to fix it in response to a crash, but the businesses cried so loud so fast that it died very quickly and that nothing even remotely resembling a complete proposal had a chance to even get started.
3. What Beltway said.
Quote from: Beltway on October 30, 2019, 04:35:09 PM
Quote from: planxtymcgillicuddy on October 30, 2019, 03:50:20 PM
I really like your proposal. So if your proposal ever came to be, I would assume that the current route to U.S. 30 would become a business spur/loop?
Yes, it could be signed as Business Loop 70.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Business_Loop_70.svg)
Not really a fan of interstate business routes, but if that's what it would take to get this fixed...
Quote from: vdeane on October 30, 2019, 09:32:45 PM
1. To elaborate, federal law prohibited interstate money from being used to connect to toll roads. The PTC and PennDOT not wanting to use their own money, instead built separate adjacent interchanges just about everywhere.
I keep hearing this, but only PA seemed to have this problem. Maybe simply because other states used 100% state funding if needed, and construction costs were a lot lower back then.
But as it was they extended I-70 0.62 mile beyond the turnpike crossing when they didn't have to --
Because the PTC was unwilling to use its own revenues for an interchange at Breezewood, State highway officials used Federal-aid highway funds to extend I-70 north beyond the turnpike to a terminus with U.S. 30. Consistent with Section 113(b), this configuration allowed motorists to use a toll-free route (U.S. 30) or the turnpike to travel east or west of Breezewood.https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/tollroad.cfm
Plenty of other states have and/or had missing Toll Road/Freeway Interchanges
NJ Turnpike (now I-95)/I-295
Ohio Turnpike/I-475
Ohio Turnpike/I-271
Indiana Toll Road/I-65 used to be missing Direct Ramps
Tri-State Tollway/I-57 (partially resolved)
Tri-State Tollway/I-55 has a missing Direct Movement to this day
NY Thruway/Northway for Thru I-87 is an Honorable Mention for Indirect Connection
I-95/I-295 on the NJ Turnpike extension to PA actually has reasons beyond that for not having a connection - namely, proximity to other interchanges, and the fact that I-195 handles some of the missing movements.
At least the I-90/I-87 interchanges are still freeway/freeway. The Thruway did actually have a full Breezewood until 2009/2010 - I-87/I-84. One could still argue I-87/NY 23, though NY 23 isn't really a freeway and that's largely due to terrain as much as anything else, and of course there's I-87/I-587 (also debatable as a freeway, despite being an interstate), and I-90/I-790 (but only in one direction).
Thruway/Northway is a very Indirect Freeway-Freeway Interchange, and the stub for a much more direct connection is clearly there, but has not been connected. Hence the "Honorable Mention" tag
Still, better than a true Breezewood, using At Grades to make the movement
Quote from: ilpt4u on October 30, 2019, 10:14:08 PM
Plenty of other states have and/or had missing Toll Road/Freeway Interchanges
NJ Turnpike (now I-95)/I-295
No major traffic need, as I-195 makes the high volume movement subset.
Quote from: ilpt4u on October 30, 2019, 10:14:08 PM
Ohio Turnpike/I-475
A missing interchange.
Quote from: ilpt4u on October 30, 2019, 10:14:08 PM
Ohio Turnpike/I-271
I-77 and I-80 make this connection, albeit 3 miles farther.
Quote from: ilpt4u on October 30, 2019, 10:14:08 PM
Indiana Toll Road/I-65 used to be missing Direct Ramps
As you say, resolved.
Quote from: ilpt4u on October 30, 2019, 10:14:08 PM
Tri-State Tollway/I-57 (partially resolved)
I-80 and I-294 provided a connection was adequate until traffic increases caused problems after about 2000.
Quote from: ilpt4u on October 30, 2019, 10:14:08 PM
Tri-State Tollway/I-55 has a missing Direct Movement to this day
All are there and limited access even if not high speed.
Quote from: Beltway on October 30, 2019, 10:28:28 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on October 30, 2019, 10:14:08 PM
Tri-State Tollway/I-55 has a missing Direct Movement to this day
All are there and limited access even if not high speed.
Technically the I-55 South to Tri-State/I-294 South movement is Freeflow, but not fully Limited Access, as US 12/20/45/LaGrange Rd South between the 2 fills in for the missing movement and across the river/canal/etc...but LaGrange Rd does have an at grade RIRO on that stretch...just no Stoplights
Quote from: ilpt4u on October 30, 2019, 10:35:25 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 30, 2019, 10:28:28 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on October 30, 2019, 10:14:08 PM
Tri-State Tollway/I-55 has a missing Direct Movement to this day
All are there and limited access even if not high speed.
Technically the I-55 South to Tri-State/I-294 South movement is Freeflow, but not fully Limited Access, as US 12/20/45/LaGrange Rd South between the 2 fills in for the missing movement and across the river/canal/etc...but LaGrange Rd does have an at grade RIRO on that stretch...just no Stoplights
Oh ok I see that ... I-55 and the Tristate cross at a very acute angle, and there is no loop to make that movement.
The US-45 arterial segment can be utilized to make the connection, which is probably a low volume movement.
QuoteI believe I read that once there was a push in the legislature to fix it in response to a crash, but the businesses cried so loud so fast that it died very quickly and that nothing even remotely resembling a complete proposal had a chance to even get started.
Businesses grumbling isn't unusual. However they had a huge advantage - Bud Shuster, the congressman in the Breezewood area - was in charge of the Transportation committee. In that position he can easily promote or kill any bill he desires.
Quote from: formulanone on October 30, 2019, 06:35:23 PM
Quote from: Rothman on October 30, 2019, 05:05:31 PM
Yet another Breezewood thread?
But this one doesn't directly connect to the other Breezewood threads!
:clap: :clap: :clap:
Quote from: Beltway on October 30, 2019, 11:21:16 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on October 30, 2019, 10:35:25 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 30, 2019, 10:28:28 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on October 30, 2019, 10:14:08 PM
Tri-State Tollway/I-55 has a missing Direct Movement to this day
All are there and limited access even if not high speed.
Technically the I-55 South to Tri-State/I-294 South movement is Freeflow, but not fully Limited Access, as US 12/20/45/LaGrange Rd South between the 2 fills in for the missing movement and across the river/canal/etc...but LaGrange Rd does have an at grade RIRO on that stretch...just no Stoplights
Oh ok I see that ... I-55 and the Tristate cross at a very acute angle, and there is no loop to make that movement.
The US-45 arterial segment can be utilized to make the connection, which is probably a low volume movement.
It is a lower volume movement; however, the main reason for the lack of the ramp is due to the topography and development at the interchange that was pre-existing even in 1964 (when the Stevenson opened). US-66 (which used the freeway to the west (opened 1956)) already had full movements there, with the current trumpet for the northbound Tri-State (that was added on to for the Stevenson), and the ramps to/from Wolf Road. My best guess is that the golf course owner must have some clout somewhere.
I'll say again that I don't like the term "Breezewood" used to describe general locations where freeways don't intersect and you have to use a surface route to make the connection, such as I-80 and the Northeast Extension, or I-81 and the Turnpike main line.
Breezewood is a special situation because you have to use a surface route to continue on the numbered interstate. I-676 in Philadelphia and I-78 in New Jersey are better examples.
Also as I've said before, there's not a whole lot left in Breezewood to have any clout. Lots of abandoned motels and restaurants. I honestly don't think a direct connection is going to hurt the town very much. If you need gas, you're hungry, or you want to spend the night, you're going to do so anyway whether you have to go through a traffic-congested two-block section or if you have to go a mile off the mainline to do so.
Quote from: ilpt4u on October 30, 2019, 10:25:39 PM
Thruway/Northway is a very Indirect Freeway-Freeway Interchange, and the stub for a much more direct connection is clearly there, but has not been connected. Hence the "Honorable Mention" tag
What's interesting is that the stub wasn't even originally for a Thruway connection anyways (though there's been at least one proposal to use it that way). It was for the unbuilt Southside Route, which would have run parallel to the Thruway into I-787 (that's why Thruway exit 23 looks the way it does), with interchanges at US 9W, NY 85, and US 20.
http://nysroads.com/planned.php
Quote from: Beltway on October 30, 2019, 09:44:38 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 30, 2019, 09:32:45 PM
1. To elaborate, federal law prohibited interstate money from being used to connect to toll roads. The PTC and PennDOT not wanting to use their own money, instead built separate adjacent interchanges just about everywhere.
I keep hearing this, but only PA seemed to have this problem. Maybe simply because other states used 100% state funding if needed, and construction costs were a lot lower back then.
This conversation has happened before, of which I'm sure you're quite aware, considering you just posted a link contained therein.
Quote from: briantroutman on June 30, 2018, 10:42:40 AM
there was a restriction written into the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 that prevented the use of federal funds on direct interchanges with toll roads. States could use their own funds, but considering that every dollar that a state spent on an unapproved Interstate project was a lost opportunity to have that dollar matched nine times over by the federal government on an approved project, they had a major disincentive to do so–particularly in an era when the loudest public outcry (excluding the freeway resistance in urban cores) was to simply get more Interstate mileage open to traffic as quickly as possible.
The exception to the above prohibition, listed under Section 129(d) of the 1956 Act, was that a state could use the 90% federal funds to build a direct to a connection to a toll road if (and only if) the state agreed to remove tolls from the toll road when existing bond obligations had been retired. And so the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, not wishing to cease toll collection, did not exercise this option for I-70 at Breezewood, I-95 in Bristol, or anywhere else. The scenario is explained in this article (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/tollroad.cfm) by the FHWA.
In the other thread, this point–and even the truthfulness of the FHWA article–was challenged: If that was true, how did a number of other states build direct connections?
Wanting to know the answer myself, I wrote to Richard Weingroff, the FHWA employee who authored the above article. To my surprise, I got a detailed answer from him right away (on a weekend, no less). Here's an excerpt from that email:
Quote from: Weingroff, Richard (FHWA) - Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 10:35 AM
(( text from e-mail removed by kphoger because posting private e-mails is against forum guidelines ))
In other words, the facilities listed above (without asterisks) took federal funds with the promise that they'd cease collecting tolls under the terms of the agreement, but when "toll-free" day finally drew near, they reneged on their pledges. And as you can see, that list includes most long-distance toll roads in E-ZPass Land with the notable exceptions of Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey.
Where PA, NY, and NJ have built direct Interstate connections to their toll roads, it was either by self-funding (during the years of original Interstate construction) or through one-off funding appropriations for individual projects. For example, the PA Turnpike's direct connection to I-79 was given approximately 45% federal funding with the remaining 55% split between the PTC and PennDOT (according to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (http://old.post-gazette.com/regionstate/20000515cranberry2.asp)).
Quote from: Beltway on June 30, 2018, 05:58:34 PM
That is very interesting, so that explains how different states addressed the connection of Interstates to turnpikes. Some followed the 1956 system for federal aid, some gamed the system, and some built the connections without federal funds or perhaps with other lower level funds such as 50:50 primary funding.
Quote from: kphoger on November 01, 2019, 03:08:24 PM
Quote from: Weingroff, Richard (FHWA) - Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 10:35 AM
(( text from e-mail removed by kphoger because posting private e-mails is against forum guidelines ))
I can understand doing this if it was between two forum members, or a forum member and a non-member private citizen, but an email from a government employee is a public record. I'd think a correspondence from a transportation agency employee should be exempt from this forum guideline.
You can still read the text kphoger removed. Just open the original post in the other thread. (I presume the moderators don't object or else they'd have edited it earlier.)
I do wonder if PennDOT had intentions of some kind of connection being done at some point when they built "free" I-70......
Mostly I just wonder if there is a reason the median "bulges" out like it does right before it squeezes to the US-30 signal.
Most of I-70 has a pretty consistent median with between Breezewood & MD - it widens a bit for the ascents / descents of Town Hill (where the carriageways are at different elevations), but it has no other real wider spots like it does briefly right before US-30.
I've just kind of always wondered why (if there is a reason).
Quote from: hbelkins on November 02, 2019, 05:15:53 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 01, 2019, 03:08:24 PM
Quote from: Weingroff, Richard (FHWA) - Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 10:35 AM
(( text from e-mail removed by kphoger because posting private e-mails is against forum guidelines ))
I can understand doing this if it was between two forum members, or a forum member and a non-member private citizen, but an email from a government employee is a public record. I'd think a correspondence from a transportation agency employee should be exempt from this forum guideline.
Email from a government employee is an official record. That doesn't necessarily make it public. Examples include anything containing personal information (e.g., SSN or address) and anything marked FOUO (For Official Use Only). Also, any email from a classified system regardless of classification will also not be public record.
Quote from: skluth on November 07, 2019, 05:25:42 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 02, 2019, 05:15:53 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 01, 2019, 03:08:24 PM
Quote from: Weingroff, Richard (FHWA) - Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 10:35 AM
(( text from e-mail removed by kphoger because posting private e-mails is against forum guidelines ))
I can understand doing this if it was between two forum members, or a forum member and a non-member private citizen, but an email from a government employee is a public record. I'd think a correspondence from a transportation agency employee should be exempt from this forum guideline.
Email from a government employee is an official record. That doesn't necessarily make it public. Examples include anything containing personal information (e.g., SSN or address) and anything marked FOUO (For Official Use Only). Also, any email from a classified system regardless of classification will also not be public record.
For what it's worth–wanting to be completely respectful of communication that might be construed as being private–I explicitly asked for Mr. Weingroff's permission before posting that text.
Quote from: Brian Troutman - Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 11:19 AM
Would you mind if I share an excerpt of your email with my fellow roadgeeks? It would go a long way to clearing up some misconceptions and ending some wild speculation.
Quote from: Weingroff, Richard (FHWA) - Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 8:30 AM
Any information - hopefully, accurate information - I provide is in the public domain
Going on a tangent here: Now that the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission has announced they are doing away with cash toll collection, I think it's time to
really re-design Breezewood. My suggestions:
- At a minimum, build a high-speed ramp for I-70 EB through traffic, but put it on the PATP mainline, not on the "old" road. This will reduce the usage of that treacherous trumpet ramp with the truck-tipping warning. I would also suggest a similar ramp for I-70 WB, but that would be too close the existing interchange, unless there were C/D lanes added.
- Get rid of the existing trumpet interchange and toll plaza altogether, and abandon the rest of the old turnpike. Then build gently-curved, high-speed ramps in both directions of I-70. For the current I-70 north of the pike, have a signalized (or barbell) diamond interchange direct from the mainline, safely out of the way of the high-speed merge. Of course, this would mean that WB->EB traffic and vice-versa wouldn't be all-freeway, but is there really that much traffic that goes that way?
- In addition to the above, abandon the stub of I-70 north of the pike. Then build either a high-speed T-interchange, or a wide trumpet favoring the I-70 WB movement. For US-30 access, all traffic would be directed to Breezewood Rd.; but since that exit would have to be moved further south to accommodate the new high-speed connection under current standards, it might be better to close the B-wood exit (or convert it to a half-interchange to/from the south) and build a new diamond interchange where the pike mainline crosses US-30 to the east of there.
P.S. Any improvements to the current Breezewood Rd. exit should be designed accommodate relocated restaurants, gas stations, etc.. There are currently 1 or 2 (abandoned) motels in that vicinity.