I-95/Penna Turnpike Interchange

[epzik8]

Sorry, my bad then.  I thought the overpass in the background was present I-95.  Knowing for sure this is 95 south, they are much further along than I thought.  I take the turnpike through there from time to time, but very rarely 95 as I have easier ways to connect north and south of the area... Thanks for the photo.

That's okay. I wasn't trying to be hard on you. I was just trying to clarify things. But anyway, that's pretty much what the interchange project looks like right now.

[jeffandnicole]

Sorry, my bad then.  I thought the overpass in the background was present I-95.  Knowing for sure this is 95 south, they are much further along than I thought.  I take the turnpike through there from time to time, but very rarely 95 as I have easier ways to connect north and south of the area... Thanks for the photo.

The sad thing is they are years behind on this project, and they won't get the connection open until late 2018.  It's incredible how slow the PTC is allowing this project to progress.

[SignBridge]

Well it's not really surprising since they never wanted this in the first place and reality finally forced them into it. But the speed that the New Jersey Tpk. Authority can build a major project does put the PTC to shame. 

[cpzilliacus]

Well it's not really surprising since they never wanted this in the first place and reality finally forced them into it. But the speed that the New Jersey Tpk. Authority can build a major project does put the PTC to shame.

Non-connections between the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission's roads and PennDOT-maintained freeways and expressways seems to be considered desirable by PTC, PennDOT and above all Pennsylvania's elected officials, who see the breezewoods as some sort of perverse economic development scheme.

Someplace in Harrisburg, I assume that many people can be found who are angry about the pending (partial) connection between I-95 and the Pennsylvania Turnpike, even though there is not really a concentration of Breezewood-type schlock to be found near the Bristol Township non-connection.

[jeffandnicole]

Well it's not really surprising since they never wanted this in the first place and reality finally forced them into it. But the speed that the New Jersey Tpk. Authority can build a major project does put the PTC to shame.

Non-connections between the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission's roads and PennDOT-maintained freeways and expressways seems to be considered desirable by PTC, PennDOT and above all Pennsylvania's elected officials, who see the breezewoods as some sort of perverse economic development scheme.

Someplace in Harrisburg, I assume that many people can be found who are angry about the pending (partial) connection between I-95 and the Pennsylvania Turnpike, even though there is not really a concentration of Breezewood-type schlock to be found near the Bristol Township non-connection.

The distance between 95 and the PA Turnpike via a breezewood was just too far, and not really signed all that well anyway.  Plus, unlike other breezewoods, both the PA Turnpike and 95 continued thru at their intersecting point.  In most other breezewood cases, one of the highways ended, or such as The Breezewood, I-70 was part of the Turnpike and signed quite well, which made it pretty logical what needed to be done from a traveler's standpoint. 

In the case of 95/PA Tpk, it would appear illogical to exit I-95 to get to the PA Turnpike if you wanted to continue on I-95 because I-95 continued on anyway.  Only after travelers entered NJ and encountered "To I-95" signs along I-295 would motorists maybe realize there was some sort of issue.

This is more evident on the NJ Turnpike South, where I-95 signs just disappear.  Most motorists continue on the NJ Turnpike because they want to pick up 95 in Delaware anyway, so if they didn't notice the lack of 95 signage it didn't matter all that much.  But for those whose destination was Philly (or anywhere in PA for that matter) they would need to know to exit the highway that they thought was I-95 but not I-95.

[Duke87]

Non-connections between the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission's roads and PennDOT-maintained freeways and expressways seems to be considered desirable by PTC, PennDOT and above all Pennsylvania's elected officials, who see the breezewoods as some sort of perverse economic development scheme.

I don't know that I would say that broadly. This is certainly the reason that *the* Breezewood persists, but other similar circumstances on the PA Turnpike (I-79, I-176) have been remediated, so it's not like PA is outright opposed to the very concept.

Most states with legacy toll roads ended up with situations like this due to the initial prohibition on using interstate funds to build ramps to a toll road, and PA is far from the only state where examples persist to this day (FL, MA, NJ, NY, and OH all have at least one - IL is only currently working on eliminating their last one). Fixing these situations costs money and often the inconvenience of the non-connection is not severe enough to justify the expense, or at least not enough to make it a high priority. In states where the toll road has its own operator independent of the DOT, things also get gummed up due to it being twice the paperwork, and due to both agencies needing to simultaneously have room in their respective budgets for it.

If there is any perverse reason for maintaining them, it is usually cases where constructing the connection would make it easier to shunpike and result in lost toll revenue (e.g. a direct connection between the FL Tpk and I-95 near Ft Pierce).

In the instance of the PA Tpk and I-95, it's worth remembering that PA was planning on building a double trumpet interchange at this location decades ago, when the Somerset Freeway was an active proposal and there were no plans to reroute I-95. Then NJ cancelled the Somerset Freeway, and has PA dragged their heels over the course of decades since at building a high speed connection on account of believing that I-95's incompleteness is NJ's fault and it's unfair for PA to have to pay to fix it.

[SignBridge]

Well the states of New Jersey and Penna. can stuff all that political nonsense. I just want to be able to drive from Long Island to Center-City Phila. via a convenient route. And to me that means south on the NJ Turnpike, then west on the Penn. Tpk, then south on I-95 into Phila. And I've wanted that for the last forty years. I'm not interested in the politics!  I want efficient highways!

[jeffandnicole]

Well the states of New Jersey and Penna. can stuff all that political nonsense. I just want to be able to drive from Long Island to Center-City Phila. via a convenient route. And to me that means south on the NJ Turnpike, then west on the Penn. Tpk, then south on I-95 into Phila. And I've wanted that for the last forty years. I'm not interested in the politics!  I want efficient highways!

If you're going to complain about the missing interchange with 95 and the PA Turnpike, then we might as well go into all the other missing highways and bridges in and around NYC as well, many of which weren't built due to politics and that would have given you efficient highways in the city.

[Alps]

Well the states of New Jersey and Penna. can stuff all that political nonsense. I just want to be able to drive from Long Island to Center-City Phila. via a convenient route. And to me that means south on the NJ Turnpike, then west on the Penn. Tpk, then south on I-95 into Phila. And I've wanted that for the last forty years. I'm not interested in the politics!  I want efficient highways!

How about south on the NJ Turnpike, then west on NJ 90?

[jeffandnicole]

And the all-highway route of NJ Tpk, 195 West, 295 South, 76 West?

[dgolub]

Well the states of New Jersey and Penna. can stuff all that political nonsense. I just want to be able to drive from Long Island to Center-City Phila. via a convenient route. And to me that means south on the NJ Turnpike, then west on the Penn. Tpk, then south on I-95 into Phila. And I've wanted that for the last forty years. I'm not interested in the politics!  I want efficient highways!

How about south on the NJ Turnpike, then west on NJ 90?

Sure, but you have to deal with the traffic lights on NJ 73.

[Rothman]

Well the states of New Jersey and Penna. can stuff all that political nonsense. I just want to be able to drive from Long Island to Center-City Phila. via a convenient route. And to me that means south on the NJ Turnpike, then west on the Penn. Tpk, then south on I-95 into Phila. And I've wanted that for the last forty years. I'm not interested in the politics!  I want efficient highways!

If you're going to complain about the missing interchange with 95 and the PA Turnpike, then we might as well go into all the other missing highways and bridges in and around NYC as well, many of which weren't built due to politics and that would have given you efficient highways in the city.

O ho...are we proposing direct ramps from I-87 to the Willis and 3rd Ave bridges?  That would be a feat.  Probably would make the backup on those bridges worse...traffic lights on the feeder routes are currently doing at least some metering.

I actually find NYC very easy to get into, despite the mentioned lack of proposed facilities, compared to the Philadelphia nonsense.

[jeffandnicole]

I actually find NYC very easy to get into, despite the mentioned lack of proposed facilities, compared to the Philadelphia nonsense.

Philly:  I-95 to I-676 West to Board Street Exit puts you 3 blocks away from Center City.

Philly:  I-76 West from NJ to I-676 East to Broad Street Exit puts you 2 blocks away from Center City.

If you're going another way that involves multiple traffic lights (say, across the Ben Franklin Bridge), then that's one way to get to Center City Philly; but not the only way to get to Center City Philly.

[cpzilliacus]

Non-connections between the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission's roads and PennDOT-maintained freeways and expressways seems to be considered desirable by PTC, PennDOT and above all Pennsylvania's elected officials, who see the breezewoods as some sort of perverse economic development scheme.

I don't know that I would say that broadly. This is certainly the reason that *the* Breezewood persists, but other similar circumstances on the PA Turnpike (I-79, I-176) have been remediated, so it's not like PA is outright opposed to the very concept.

Most states with legacy toll roads ended up with situations like this due to the initial prohibition on using interstate funds to build ramps to a toll road, and PA is far from the only state where examples persist to this day (FL, MA, NJ, NY, and OH all have at least one - IL is only currently working on eliminating their last one). Fixing these situations costs money and often the inconvenience of the non-connection is not severe enough to justify the expense, or at least not enough to make it a high priority. In states where the toll road has its own operator independent of the DOT, things also get gummed up due to it being twice the paperwork, and due to both agencies needing to simultaneously have room in their respective budgets for it.

In the case of the Breezewood, it's a matter of safety and all of the unnecessary crashes - presumably drivers that are not expecting traffic to be stopped at a red signal on an Interstate and may  not be familiar with the  breezewoods.

But the others are mostly worthy  of condemnation, odium and scorn:

Somerset - a circuitous route to get between the E-W Mainline of the Penn Pike and U.S. 219 by way of an unnumbered access road to/from the Turnpike, PA-601 and another unnumbered access road to/from U.S. 219.  Never mind that there has always been plenty of vacant land available where 219 actually crosses the Turnpike for a double trumpet (or now a more conventional interchange with  the coming of cashless tolling).

Bedford - not as bad as Somerset, but still requires navigating through schlock to get from the Turnpike to U.S. 220/I-99.

Carlisle - heavy volume of commercial vehicle traffic between the Penn Pike and I-81 (in part because many businesses that serve intercity truck travel, or service it (warehouses) are near the interchange), but also because trucks operating on an east-west axis between Pittsburgh and North Jersey and metropolitan New York want to leave the turnpike at the earliest opportunity and that's Carlisle. 

[sparker]

Carlisle - heavy volume of commercial vehicle traffic between the Penn Pike and I-81 (in part because many businesses that serve intercity truck travel, or service it (warehouses) are near the interchange), but also because trucks operating on an east-west axis between Pittsburgh and North Jersey and metropolitan New York want to leave the turnpike at the earliest opportunity and that's Carlisle. 

With Somerset, the intersecting route is more or less perpendicular to the Turnpike; despite the periodic hoopla about a potential national N-S corridor, US 219's still at best a regional server.  The same could be said about Bedford, although I-99 might be considered to be a reasonable connector to eastward I-80 (and by extension I-84 and New England) from Turnpike traffic originating along I-70 to the west.  But Carlisle sits at a major cross-country junction; it's difficult to think that the originators of the Interstate system -- MacDonald et. al. -- didn't expect some sort of "meeting of the minds" at some point when they elected to "grandfather" the turnpikes into the network -- one that would have resulted in an efficient through connection between I-81 and the Turnpike (even a double-trumpet would be better than what's currently on the ground).  Obviously, PA politics, including turf-protecting, has played a principal role in the reluctance to provide any of these direct connections -- PTC's unstated but obvious preference would be for NYC/NE-bound traffic to remain on the pike all the way into NJ for maximum revenue.  However, it's surprising that pressure hasn't been brought to bear on the parties involved to resolve these connection issues, particularly with Carlisle; one would think that trucking associations (and firms), along with other players (the Teamsters being one that comes to mind) would supply at least part of the requisite pressure re a direct connection at Carlisle, which would benefit a broad cross-section of the transportation economy.  The fact that something of that sort has yet to happen is perplexing; it's as if all parties involved have essentially given up on this.  Sad!                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

[noelbotevera]

Honestly though, my two cents with the pseudo Breezewood situations revolves around common sense.

Provide access to the businesses. If a traveler feels the need to stop for whatever reason, they can do so. If a traveler doesn't, they can just keep going without any interruption. That's what NY did with the I-84/I-87/NY 300 interchange, so I don't understand why people haven't considered logic by now.

[SignBridge]

J&N, I absolutely agree with you about the lack of certain interchanges in the NYC area though some of those failures date back to an earlier era than the 276/95 issue. And we can thank the infinite wisdom of "Master Builder" Robert Moses for that. Off-hand though I can't think of any Interstates that cross without at least a partial interchange in the NYC Metroplex.

I have to admit I hadn't even thought of your 195/295/76 suggestion to Phila. from the NJT, though that route will take you farther south and then back northwest to Phila. When this first became an issue for me many years ago, I-195 and I-76 in New Jersey weren't even built yet.

[Mr_Northside]

Somerset - a circuitous route to get between the E-W Mainline of the Penn Pike and U.S. 219 by way of an unnumbered access road to/from the Turnpike, PA-601 and another unnumbered access road to/from U.S. 219.  Never mind that there has always been plenty of vacant land available where 219 actually crosses the Turnpike for a double trumpet (or now a more conventional interchange with  the coming of cashless tolling).

There is some vacant land on the east side of US-219, but the Service Plazas (in both directions) are really close to the 219 overpasses.  And considering they were replaced recently (relatively speaking), I doubt they would be removed for quite some time.  It also seems that someone is trying to develop some kind of business park in the NE quadrant of the junction. 
Even with cashless tolling, a double-trumpet might still be the way to go (not that I think they have any real plans to do anything)

Provide access to the businesses. If a traveler feels the need to stop for whatever reason, they can do so. If a traveler doesn't, they can just keep going without any interruption. That's what NY did with the I-84/I-87/NY 300 interchange, so I don't understand why people haven't considered logic by now.

When it comes to PA Turnpike situations, I'm sure local access will be maintained.  Even where new more-direct connections have been made (not always freeway-freeway, but still more direct), the PTC has made sure to keep some sort of local access.
Even when they built the new (at the time) interchange with their own expansion road (Beaver Valley Expy, current I-376) they had to sneak in a new local connection to PA-351 (making it not full freeway-freeway - you have to stop to complete some movements between the highways)

[Alps]

Well the states of New Jersey and Penna. can stuff all that political nonsense. I just want to be able to drive from Long Island to Center-City Phila. via a convenient route. And to me that means south on the NJ Turnpike, then west on the Penn. Tpk, then south on I-95 into Phila. And I've wanted that for the last forty years. I'm not interested in the politics!  I want efficient highways!

How about south on the NJ Turnpike, then west on NJ 90?

Sure, but you have to deal with the traffic lights on NJ 73.

Oh, I thought we were talking about theoretical unbuilt connections.

[cpzilliacus]

When it comes to PA Turnpike situations, I'm sure local access will be maintained.  Even where new more-direct connections have been made (not always freeway-freeway, but still more direct), the PTC has made sure to keep some sort of local access.

Nothing wrong with keeping access to those businesses for drivers that want to stop there.

Even when they built the new (at the time) interchange with their own expansion road (Beaver Valley Expy, current I-376) they had to sneak in a new local connection to PA-351 (making it not full freeway-freeway - you have to stop to complete some movements between the highways)

Yes, PTC and PennDOT really want to keep to their old ways.  There is a similar situation at the junction of U.S. 222 and I-76 (Turnpike E-W Mainline, Exit 286) near Denver,  Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.  Access to and from U.S. 222 is via a diamond interchange, and requires driving down arterial Colonel Howard Boulevard to reach the trumpet interchange with the Turnpike.

[ixnay]

Somerset - a circuitous route to get between the E-W Mainline of the Penn Pike and U.S. 219 by way of an unnumbered access road to/from the Turnpike, PA-601 and another unnumbered access road to/from U.S. 219.  Never mind that there has always been plenty of vacant land available where 219 actually crosses the Turnpike for a double trumpet (or now a more conventional interchange with  the coming of cashless tolling).

There is some vacant land on the east side of US-219, but the Service Plazas (in both directions) are really close to the 219 overpasses.  And considering they were replaced recently (relatively speaking), I doubt they would be removed for quite some time.  It also seems that someone is trying to develop some kind of business park in the NE quadrant of the junction. 
Even with cashless tolling, a double-trumpet might still be the way to go (not that I think they have any real plans to do anything)

Provide access to the businesses. If a traveler feels the need to stop for whatever reason, they can do so. If a traveler doesn't, they can just keep going without any interruption. That's what NY did with the I-84/I-87/NY 300 interchange, so I don't understand why people haven't considered logic by now.

When it comes to PA Turnpike situations, I'm sure local access will be maintained.  Even where new more-direct connections have been made (not always freeway-freeway, but still more direct), the PTC has made sure to keep some sort of local access.
Even when they built the new (at the time) interchange with their own expansion road (Beaver Valley Expy, current I-376) they had to sneak in a new local connection to PA-351 (making it not full freeway-freeway - you have to stop to complete some movements between the highways)

The ball was dropped at the 3-trumpets interchange in Clarks Summit, too.  At least in Oct. 2014, one encountered a stop sign when exiting I-81 SB before accessing the NE Extension (I-476), which begins here, or U.S. 11 (or U.S. 6 WB [U.S. 6 is multiplexed with I-81 east of the three trumpets, and with U.S. 11 west of the interchange]).

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4825351,-75.6803723,3a,37.5y,257.61h,87.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sazrC41gc9TrLYJ2ejbxgUQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

ixnay

[yakra]

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4825351,-75.6803723,3a,37.5y,257.61h,87.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sazrC41gc9TrLYJ2ejbxgUQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

[Beltway]

Even when they built the new (at the time) interchange with their own expansion road (Beaver Valley Expy, current I-376) they had to sneak in a new local connection to PA-351 (making it not full freeway-freeway - you have to stop to complete some movements between the highways)

Yes, PTC and PennDOT really want to keep to their old ways.  There is a similar situation at the junction of U.S. 222 and I-76 (Turnpike E-W Mainline, Exit 286) near Denver,  Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.  Access to and from U.S. 222 is via a diamond interchange, and requires driving down arterial Colonel Howard Boulevard to reach the trumpet interchange with the Turnpike.

That Turnpike interchange was rebuilt when the US-222 freeway was built in the early 1970s, so it was built at a time when no one envisioned electronic tolling.

That diamond interchange could have a loop or two added, that would help.

That interchange should be a model of the benefits of connecting the Turnpike to freeways where there are missing links.

Check it out on Google Maps ... the connector highway has limited access connections to several roads that obviously were built to provide for industrial development, and a number of businesses have been built there since the 1970s, and benefit from excellent access to the Turnpike and the US-222 freeway, so it is a hub for industrial development and can draw employees from a wide area including Lancaster and Reading, and trucks from the two superhighways.  Looks like plenty of land still undeveloped.

This could be a model for filling in other missing Turnpike interchanges such as I-81 at Carlisle, I-70 at Breezewood, US-219 at Somerset, and I-99 at Bedford. 

[Alps]

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4825351,-75.6803723,3a,37.5y,257.61h,87.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sazrC41gc9TrLYJ2ejbxgUQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

Not with 50 feet of auxiliary lane you don't.

[ixnay]

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4825351,-75.6803723,3a,37.5y,257.61h,87.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sazrC41gc9TrLYJ2ejbxgUQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

Not with 50 feet of auxiliary lane you don't.

Yes, that is a short weave area, IMO, and probably the reason for the stop signs.

ixnay