Breezewood

[hbelkins]

One thing that isn't being mentioned here is the oft-discussed extension of I-68 west from Morgantown to the Ohio River. New Martinsville is the most frequently mentioned western terminus since it's where the current route from Morgantown to the river (WV 7) terminates. But if the route could be angled northward to connect with the WV 2/US 250 freeway, which connects with both I-70 and I-470, it might become a more viable alternative to the Turnpike and Breezewood.

The only westward corridor that makes sense is US 50 to US 33. That gives you the diagonal connection to I-70 while making use of current freeway/expressway routes that are more heavily traveled. There's no demand to head due west.

From http://www.route2i68.com/maps/

[Alps]

From http://www.route2i68.com/maps/

I didn't say it wasn't studied, I said it didn't have demand.

[Roadsguy]

Why would they just have the new Interstate randomly end at the river? I suppose it would work if they fed 68 going west directly into SR 7 going north, but then they'd need significant upgrades along SR 7. Even if they just ended it at I-470, the interchange there would need to be totally redone, or else it's only slightly better than Breezewood for western through traffic.

[vdeane]

Note that the river is the state border.  Studying and completing it on the other side would be Ohio's responsibility.

[roadman65]

Be great if Ohio built I-68 to connect with the US 35 freeway some place and have I-68 go all the way to Dayton.  That could be an alternate for I-70 as well.  However, Ohio won't even upgrade OH 32 to freeway standards for the I-74 extension east of Cincy to get at least that part of the OH to NC work done.

Heck it don't need to be interstate as a good expressway west of I-79 and even if US 250 is good enough many might use it over the PA Turnpike despite its lack of full freeway.

[lepidopteran]

Two suggestions I've had for correcting Breezewood.

• Build a wide, well-banked ramp from the EB Turnpike mainline -- not the "old" pike -- directly to I-70 EB.  As this would bypass the main toll plaza, the ramp would be EZ-Pass only.  But it would only be minimally signed, so Breezewood would still have a fair share of business passing through; it would also leave the WB Turnpike to EB I-70 movement at the status-quo, but how much traffic goes that way anyway?  It would also allow truckers (who are more likely to be "in the know" about such a shortcut) to avoid that tight trumpet off-ramp; isn't there a tip-over warning sign there?  As for the WB movement, it could use a loop ramp to the old pike, since a connection to the mainline would be better suited by a pricey flyover (and would be too close to the existing on-ramp, by today's standards?)
  
• I read about this one on a roadgeek website somewhere, possibly in the days of MTR.  Instead of connecting ramps, have the existing roadways continue past US-30, and connect directly by an arc to the south north.  All the traffic would still "see" the businesses in Breezewood, so customer loss would be minimal.  The present interchange setup could be replaced by 2 half-diamonds, though there might be a demand for an "ez-off, ez-on" layout instead so the motorists will have a chance to get off the highway after seeing all the bright lights/signage.  A new overpass would be needed over US-30 where I-70 currently T-intersects, and a lot more right-of-way would need to be acquired.

As an aside, I've long felt that the former setup should be applied to EB I-70 at New Stanton as well, avoiding two trumpet ramps.  A river and a railroad at that point might make it cost-prohibitive, though.

[ilpt4u]

Two suggestions I've had for correcting Breezewood.

• Build a wide, well-banked ramp from the EB Turnpike mainline -- not the "old" pike -- directly to I-70 EB.  As this would bypass the main toll plaza, the ramp would be EZ-Pass only.  But it would only be minimally signed, so Breezewood would still have a fair share of business passing through; it would also leave the WB Turnpike to EB I-70 movement at the status-quo, but how much traffic goes that way anyway?  It would also allow truckers (who are more likely to be "in the know" about such a shortcut) to avoid that tight trumpet off-ramp; isn't there a tip-over warning sign there?  As for the WB movement, it could use a loop ramp to the old pike, since a connection to the mainline would be better suited by a pricey flyover (and would be too close to the existing on-ramp, by today's standards?)
  
• I read about this one on a roadgeek website somewhere, possibly in the days of MTR.  Instead of connecting ramps, have the existing roadways continue past US-30, and connect directly by an arc to the south.  All the traffic would still "see" the businesses in Breezewood, so customer loss would be minimal.  The present interchange setup could be replaced by 2 half-diamonds, though there might be a demand for an "ez-off, ez-on" layout instead so the motorists will have a chance to get off the highway after seeing all the bright lights/signage.  A new overpass would be needed over US-30 where I-70 currently T-intersects, and a lot more right-of-way would need to be acquired.

As an aside, I've long felt that the former setup should be applied to EB I-70 at New Stanton as well, avoiding two trumpet ramps.  A river and a railroad at that point might make it cost-prohibitive, though.

On point 2, isn't that really an arc to the North? Connect the stub end of Free I-70 to the truncated stub end of the Old Turnpike?

If the Arc/Circle is too tight and/or Property issues, could even continue I-70 further down the Old Turnpike before beginning the Curved Connector

And interesting idea, and I can see it looking at the Satellite view

On point 1, why a WB Loop to the Old Turnpike, instead of the Current Turnpike Mainline? One between Free I-70 and the Turnpike Mainline could be made larger and therefore higher speed -- Plenty of land from "Westbound" (Northbound) I-70 and I-76/Turnpike for a Loop from 70 to 76 there -- more than there is at the Old Turnpike and Free I-70

[davewiecking]

So let's pretend one of these magical direct connections comes into being. What hasn't been considered is the incredible filtering job that Breezewood does to keep EB I-70 from being more congested than it already is. Right now, thru traffic is dumped onto I-70, but metered thru the town's stop lights. A direct connection dumping unceasing traffic onto I-70 would be a nightmare, and would undoubtedly require upgrades to the portion of I-70 towards MD.

The last time I passed thru Breezewood was just about 2 years ago on a Sunday afternoon. The TPK traffic was backed up for several miles getting onto the ramp, and the left lane of the ramp was also bumper to bumper into Breezewood. This mean the right lane was wide open for those smart enough to realize a U-turn on US-30 is an option, and saves possibly 30 minutes of sitting in traffic. All that traffic being dumped on I-70 without "The Breezewood Filter" (and/or I-70 upgrades) would extend the nightmare, and would penalize those who have brains instead of GPS's.

Believe me, I'm not arguing that Breezewood should stay as is, but just pointing out a problem that "fixing Breezewood" would create.

[ilpt4u]

So let's pretend one of these magical direct connections comes into being. What hasn't been considered is the incredible filtering job that Breezewood does to keep EB I-70 from being more congested than it already is. Right now, thru traffic is dumped onto I-70, but metered thru the town's stop lights. A direct connection dumping unceasing traffic onto I-70 would be a nightmare, and would undoubtedly require upgrades to the portion of I-70 towards MD.

The last time I passed thru Breezewood was just about 2 years ago on a Sunday afternoon. The TPK traffic was backed up for several miles getting onto the ramp, and the left lane of the ramp was also bumper to bumper into Breezewood. This mean the right lane was wide open for those smart enough to realize a U-turn on US-30 is an option, and saves possibly 30 minutes of sitting in traffic. All that traffic being dumped on I-70 without "The Breezewood Filter" (and/or I-70 upgrades) would extend the nightmare, and would penalize those who have brains instead of GPS's.

Believe me, I'm not arguing that Breezewood should stay as is, but just pointing out a problem that "fixing Breezewood" would create.

If needing to "meter" I-70/Baltimore/DC bound traffic from the Turnpike is necessary, then slap a Toll Booth on the new, direct connector. No "E-Z Pass Only" free flow ramps, then.

Using the "Arc" idea to connect the two stubs already goes thru the existing toll booth on the Old Turnpike

[davewiecking]

If needing to "meter" I-70/Baltimore/DC bound traffic from the Turnpike is necessary, then slap a Toll Booth on the new, direct connector. No "E-Z Pass Only" free flow ramps, then.
...

Let's filter by putting up a few automatic stop lights instead of manned toll booths.

I agree that the described Arc is north of US-30 not south, but am confused why a plan to basically wipe out the Gateway Travel Plaza, Bob Evans, Sheetz and Shell can be considered to "save" Breezewood.

[ilpt4u]

If needing to "meter" I-70/Baltimore/DC bound traffic from the Turnpike is necessary, then slap a Toll Booth on the new, direct connector. No "E-Z Pass Only" free flow ramps, then.
...

Let's filter by putting up a few automatic stop lights instead of manned toll booths.

I agree that the described Arc is north of US-30 not south, but am confused why a plan to basically wipe out the Gateway Travel Plaza, Bob Evans, Sheetz and Shell can be considered to "save" Breezewood.

I wouldn't do this, but if your objection is saving those businesses, mainline I-70 on the Free I-70 side could be tunneled under US 30 and the businesses, with tube termini south of US 30 where the wide median still is, and north of US 30 north of the businesses. Could go Elevated over them as well, tho that would be ugly

I would probably spare Gateway Travel Plaza (but not the other 3) by running the Turnpike side of the arc further down the Old Turnpike across US 30, and then start the bending back towards Free I-70, which would get that part mostly east of the roadside businesses

[seicer]

Tunneling? Elevated viaduct?

It's not a major city. And you can't even remotely consider the option considering how expensive both proposals would be.

At most, it's a minor inconvenience to be delayed for such a short duration.

[ilpt4u]

Tunneling? Elevated viaduct?

It's not a major city. And you can't even remotely consider the option considering how expensive both proposals would be.

At most, it's a minor inconvenience to be delayed for such a short duration.

I said I wouldn't do it, but it is possible.

If I got the OK and funding to build the Arc connector, I'd go straight for acquiring the property at the Free I-70 and US 30 interchange to build a thru road

The Interstates brought those businesses into the town, and it can darn well take them out

[ixnay]

Tunneling? Elevated viaduct?

It's not a major city. And you can't even remotely consider the option considering how expensive both proposals would be.

At most, it's a minor inconvenience to be delayed for such a short duration.

I said I wouldn't do it, but it is possible.

If I got the OK and funding to build the Arc connector, I'd go straight for acquiring the property at the Free I-70 and US 30 interchange to build a thru road

The Interstates brought those businesses into the town, and it can darn well take them out

Even with a court fight?

ixnay

[froggie]

and would undoubtedly require upgrades to the portion of I-70 towards MD.

...so what's the downside?

[vdeane]

So let's pretend one of these magical direct connections comes into being. What hasn't been considered is the incredible filtering job that Breezewood does to keep EB I-70 from being more congested than it already is. Right now, thru traffic is dumped onto I-70, but metered thru the town's stop lights. A direct connection dumping unceasing traffic onto I-70 would be a nightmare, and would undoubtedly require upgrades to the portion of I-70 towards MD.

The last time I passed thru Breezewood was just about 2 years ago on a Sunday afternoon. The TPK traffic was backed up for several miles getting onto the ramp, and the left lane of the ramp was also bumper to bumper into Breezewood. This mean the right lane was wide open for those smart enough to realize a U-turn on US-30 is an option, and saves possibly 30 minutes of sitting in traffic. All that traffic being dumped on I-70 without "The Breezewood Filter" (and/or I-70 upgrades) would extend the nightmare, and would penalize those who have brains instead of GPS's.

Believe me, I'm not arguing that Breezewood should stay as is, but just pointing out a problem that "fixing Breezewood" would create.

I'm not sure how an EB problem would happen unless a WB problem already exists, since there is nothing to filter traffic coming from MD.

[froggie]

^ It's a problem of a different sort.  WB is where the high crash area occurs.

[hbelkins]

So let's pretend one of these magical direct connections comes into being. What hasn't been considered is the incredible filtering job that Breezewood does to keep EB I-70 from being more congested than it already is. Right now, thru traffic is dumped onto I-70, but metered thru the town's stop lights. A direct connection dumping unceasing traffic onto I-70 would be a nightmare, and would undoubtedly require upgrades to the portion of I-70 towards MD.

This doesn't make sense. I-70 doesn't have a problem. It's the traffic lights that are the problem (or cause the problem). A direct route for I-70 solves that issue completely. The I-70 mainline south of Breezewood toward the state line is the same quality of roadway as the turnpike that traffic just exited from.

[froggie]

^ I'd dispute that last point.  I'd argue the Turnpike interchanges are better engineered, and they are certainly fewer in number.  I'd also argue curviture is better along the Turnpike.  About the only similarity between the two segments is shoulder width.

[sparker]

So let's pretend one of these magical direct connections comes into being. What hasn't been considered is the incredible filtering job that Breezewood does to keep EB I-70 from being more congested than it already is. Right now, thru traffic is dumped onto I-70, but metered thru the town's stop lights. A direct connection dumping unceasing traffic onto I-70 would be a nightmare, and would undoubtedly require upgrades to the portion of I-70 towards MD.

This doesn't make sense. I-70 doesn't have a problem. It's the traffic lights that are the problem (or cause the problem). A direct route for I-70 solves that issue completely. The I-70 mainline south of Breezewood toward the state line is the same quality of roadway as the turnpike that traffic just exited from.

^ I'd dispute that last point.  I'd argue the Turnpike interchanges are better engineered, and they are certainly fewer in number.  I'd also argue curviture is better along the Turnpike.  About the only similarity between the two segments is shoulder width.

Let's face it -- both the Pike and I-70 south of Breezewood feature less-than-optimal geometry and interchange design; this sort of construction is repeated on I-78 east of its west terminus at I-81.  This seems to be a PA specialty extending to other Interstate facilities (I'm thinking of much of I-83 and, of course, the infamous Schuylkill)!  Of course it's always a possibility that improvements similar to those presently under way along I-70 between New Stanton and Washington could be applied to these sub-par segments -- but given PA's reticence to do so in a timely fashion, the present facilities will likely be around for the next generation to endure.

[seicer]

It's very expensive and there are other needs that compete for the same dollars. I-70's substandard sections are being rebuilt to modern standards, as are I-78's substandard sections. It just takes time and funding.

[cpzilliacus]

This doesn't make sense. I-70 doesn't have a problem. It's the traffic lights that are the problem (or cause the problem). A direct route for I-70 solves that issue completely. The I-70 mainline south of Breezewood toward the state line is the same quality of roadway as the turnpike that traffic just exited from.

I must respectfully  disagree.  The interchanges on "free" I-70 east (south) of Breezewood are awful in terms of design (but then that's a PennDOT specialty).

Exit 149, South Breezewood is missing a movement to I-70 westbound (was it removed at some point?), and is a badly constrained diamond interchange for the other three ramps.

Exit 151 at PA-915 has ramps that are very  sharp (in terms of exiting and entering the freeway).

Exit 156 at PA-643 at the ridgetop of Sidling Hill has similar problems.

Exit 163 at PA-731 at Amaranth, also terrible geometric design, in particular for the  westbound side of I-70.

The final interchange before Maryland, Exit 168 at U.S. 522 north/PA-484 (not signed on I-70) is a little better for reasons not clear to me.  Maybe expected traffic volumes on U.S. 522 motivated a better-than-usual design?

Then there's the matter of the posted speed limit (55 MPH all the way between Breezewood and the Maryland border) and predatory enforcement of that limit by the  Pennsylvania State Police (who are nearly invisible on the Pennsylvania Turnpike itself).

[hbelkins]

^^^

But those exits are for local traffic, and the design of the ramps are of no consequence for through travelers who would be navigating the Breezewood bottleneck on their way to or from Baltimore and D.C.

The 55 speed limit is far too low, as roads in West Virginia with similar grade and curvature are signed for 70.

[Beltway]

This doesn't make sense. I-70 doesn't have a problem. It's the traffic lights that are the problem (or cause the problem). A direct route for I-70 solves that issue completely. The I-70 mainline south of Breezewood toward the state line is the same quality of roadway as the turnpike that traffic just exited from.

I must respectfully  disagree.  The interchanges on "free" I-70 east (south) of Breezewood are awful in terms of design (but then that's a PennDOT specialty).

[... deficiencies snipped ...]

As Richard Weingroff, FHWA historian might say, that segment of I-70 is an Interstate 1.0 design.  Much like the early-built segments of I-95 in N.C. 

The speed limit is not because of the highway design, most of the highway has geometry that should support 70 mph, with some curves that should support 60 mph.

In its favor is that it has a decent width grass median, well-maintained pavement (originally concrete, was rehabbed and overlaid with asphalt), and well-maintained paved shoulders (4 foot left and 10 feet right), all mainline bridges have had deck and parapet replacements, and storm sewer drainage in areas without ditches.

[lepidopteran]

If direct ramps were built between free I-70 and the Turnpike mainline itself (rather than the "old" pike), even if only the movements to and from the west were included, would that mean decommissioning I-70 north of that point, for the last mile or so to the T-intersection with US-30?  They would also have to add the I-70 designation to the pike mainline for the short stretch between the existing trumpet and the new interchange.

Would it be overkill to make the former I-70 stub-end and/or the old pike an I-x70?  How about a green, business route I-70 shield for both, plus US-30 between them.