Breezewood

[Beltway]

I periodically hear this claim, but as far as I have been able to determine it is an urban legend.

So what is the actual reason it was not built as part of I-70?

PTC and PennDOT didn't want to spend the money.

[_Simon]

And they don't here, either. US 30 in Breezewood is not I-70.

That's not the point -- people can't just skip over that gap as if it's a waypoint on a flight plan.   This isn't street view where you can just drag the guy to the other leg of the interstate -- real people have to spend real time (and real money, and real emissions, and real wear and tear on local roads) traversing US-30 whether they think it's I-70 or not.

The federal government created this situation by prohibiting the use of federal funds to construct direct connections to toll roads.

We know this as a myth,  there are way too many examples of contradictory cases.   I don't see huge amounts of other states with weird non-connecting major arterials like PA has.   It's obvious that PA did this to themselves.

It is outrageous that these business people can inconvenience the motoring public for the sake of their obscene profits.

You don't have to be Bernie Sanders to see this is wrong. 

To be sure, the businesses can only talk to their elected officials.  The elected officials can always go to PennDOT/PTC and say, "hey, look, we have a problem here but don't want to hurt the businesses.  Is there a happy medium we can come up with?"

This isn't normal and elected officials are legislators.   Their job is to make laws,  not to second-guess the engineering work done by PTC/DOT engineers.   They can propose new projects with the DOT/PTC,  but involving elected officials is how we get wonky things like I-99 and roads that are legislated to do things they clearly don't/can't.   

Instead, businesses have closed.

Then I guess there isn't any argument against building the connector if the lack of one isn't actually keeping businesses open.   I don't really see what businesses existing nearby has to do with anything.   Businesses live and die by their profits.   In America, we don't bail out unprofitable businesses just because the business is no longer needed,  and we don't delay public works because of kickbacks businesses are getting from very real gaps in our transport system.   Do you work for one of these businesses?   What roadgeek isn't in favor of free-flowing traffic?   I don't understand why anyone that's not a franchise owner on that strip of road would be a NIMBY-supporter here.

What are they getting a say in?

Nothing.   That's the same amount of "say" I have in transportation affairs in my own state that aren't anywhere near me.

If their business is being taken, then they aren't exactly getting a say.

That's not true at all.   If their business is outlined as being on proposed ROW to be acquired,  there are a plethora of options the PTC/DOT can act on.   Invoking eminent domain is very costly and takes forever.  It's in a DOT's best interest to do a deal to get the ROW they need.   There is plenty of wiggle room -- the business could be relocated,  their land could be re-allocated or supplemented in other ways,  or maybe they agree to settle to save the state the cost of condemnation proceedings.    If a business is actually impacted (they need to move or lose land) the law requires them to be compensated financially.   There isn't any way they wouldn't get paid.

What we're talking about here are businesses nowhere close to the connection trying to lobby over lower sales even though people have the same option (exit onto US-30) if they really needed to utilize those services.

Let's look at it mathematically:

• let x represent all of the sales one of these businesses is doing today.
• let n represent the normal sales of people on their daily commute that would actually get off onto US-30 to buy something they need -- the sales from customers that would still traffic the businesses if a connector exists
• x-n, therefore, is whatever opportunistic sales the business is making as a result of their location in the I-70 gap
• The values of n  and thus x-n are going to vary from business to business based on their service/commodity and how much of a value the ability to stop in Breezewood actually provides people -- but regardless of these values -- they are directly proportional
• If n is a high % of the company's profit, then they will see negligible (x-n) impact from a connector
• If n is a low % of the company's profit,  then the business wouldn't normally be profitable and the business is operating (to the extent of x/n) on the backs of people that wouldn't otherwise go there.   This ratio will be low for certain types of businesses (you're not going to get an oil change on US-30 if you don't actually need an oil change), but high for others (on a congested day,  McDonald's might see a huge spike in sales from people having to use the restroom or getting hot while waiting in traffic).
• The values of x and n should move freely based on the market's need for that business to operate.   If a business can't operate because x-n is too low -- then their business model depends on the gap in the interstate being there (which is certainly not an obligation transferable to the DOT or PTC as a civil damage or liability)

Everything you're doing is basically giving the government unlimited authority to do whatever they want.

Umm,  yes.   They own the land and a connector doesn't physically interfere with any business's access. 

Everything you're saying is indicating you think a local business ought to be able to weigh in on virtually anything built anywhere near it that might endanger it's sales or profits.  We're talking speculative impact -- none of the Breezewood businesses published a financial study showing that they'd go under if a connector was built (because such a report would show their unforgivably-high profits in those stores).

That's a really noble pipe dream (that you think the government would or could involve every business nearby),  but any small business owner in America can tell you that no,  there is no mechanism by which the government will compensate you for circumstantial outcomes like that.   If you're a business and you want a piece of action from a road works project nearby, you'd better off actually being in the proposed alignment of the highway (which will spur negotiations).     There isn't any budget in any type of project (Breezewood or otherwise) to "pay off the businesses a mile or two away" that see a dip in sales because commuters now have a choice.

[sparker]

Has anyone explored the "events chain" that resulted in the current situation that defines Breezewood?  Were all these businesses who admittedly would be affected by a direct I-70/Turnpike connection around when the exit was simply to provide local access or old PA 26?  Did a national chain such as Perkins decide to locate a restaurant near the original Breezewood exit pre-I-70 construction (I'm going to assume that McDonalds would have been there under any circumstances as is their normal saturation practice!).  In short -- looking around the country at, well, pretty much any other Interstate junction, why would any business elect to locate an outlet in Breezewood given the precedent that Interstate junctions under normative circumstances feature direct (if not always high-speed) connecting ramps that don't require exiting one limited-access facility before entering the next. 

I don't expect any of the parties involved to supply an answer here -- but the choices are (a) corporate management calculated that enough travelers would get on & off the turnpike, along with serving the local area, to make the location profitable (that in itself is something of a stretch) or (b) that same management had foreknowledge of the likelihood that the direct connection would never be made -- the fix was in!  Given the byzantine nature of PA, its agencies, and how they've functioned over the years, I'd give the edge to (b).  The whole situation is akin to the classic "circle jerk" in that the agencies involved (state DOT, turnpike authority, USDOT/BPR/FHWA) all point to each other as the promulgator of the situation.  It would sure be interesting to follow the money trail here through the Shuster clan donor base, the PTC membership over the years when I-70 was being planned and built, and corporate "contributions" to entities held dear by PA politicos -- local, state, and national.  I normally don't speculate on outlandish conspiracy theories -- but there's just too much "gray area" surrounding Breezewood and its decades of status quo defenders that clouds the basic facts of the matter.  The questions that must be asked are: what makes Breezewood unique -- and why?; why does PA stand alone among all states in their approach to the relationship between turnpikes and other intersecting highways?; and precisely who stands to gain the most by retaining the status quo?

[Beltway]

[...]
I don't expect any of the parties involved to supply an answer here -- but the choices are (a) corporate management calculated that enough travelers would get on & off the turnpike, along with serving the local area, to make the location profitable (that in itself is something of a stretch) or (b) that same management had foreknowledge of the likelihood that the direct connection would never be made -- the fix was in! 
[...]

I wouldn't try to over over analyze this.  Businesses such as travelers restaurants and fuel/service stations can be built very quickly and if profitable can be fully amortized in 5 to 10 years.  A dozen or so such businesses could take advantage of a situation that might only be temporary (as in 5 to 10 years per their marketing forecast), make good income and profits during that period, and then close and the owners look into business opportunities elsewhere and not necessarily in the traveler service industry.  Very few small business people look beyond 5 or 10 years, as the future is too uncertain.

PTC and PennDOT have simply been very slow on their coordination and funding of these Interstate and other freeway connections to the turnpike, ever since the Interstate program was begun.

[jemacedo9]

Keep in mind that when PA built non-interstate freeways in the 60s and 70s, the majority of them were not made with direct freeway-to-freeway connections. This is in addition to the interstate connections (I-81, I-79, I-80). Simply put, this was generally a PTC/PennDOT practice across the board. I think the key is studying when the different sections of the Turnpike were built, when the other freeways were built, if there was an existing interchange in place.

So, I'm not sure how Breezewood single-handedly defines the problem, though I'm sure it's a factor (see Carlisle).  The only difference between Breezewood and the other junctions is the fact that I-70 joins and continues on the Turnpike.  It's an important distinction among us roadgeeks, but I don't think it is within the halls of PTC and PennDOT. I'm not defending this practice...

Before the Sideling Hill/Rays Hill Tunnels were bypassed, the Turnpike ran much closer to Breezewood, and I believe Breezewood had many traveler businesses there early on...maybe not in 1940 when the Turnpike opened, but well before the late 60s when the Turnpike relocation happened.  And again, for the most part, no direct connections were being built along the entire Turnpike.

One thing I've always wondered is...how does PennDOT funding get divided across their Districts? This would be a District 9 project, which doesn't have a lot going on outside of Altoona and I-99.  The building of I-99 would taken precedence politically as someone mentioned upstream.

Speaking of annoyances...why doesn't I-99's ends (both of them) draw as much ire as Breezewood?

Has PennDOT and PTC had problems with proper spending in the past?  Yes. Do they still today?  Yes. As this would be a capital project, which capital project(s) would you delay to fix Breezewood (if it were that simple)?

[Beltway]

Before the Sideling Hill/Rays Hill Tunnels were bypassed, the Turnpike ran much closer to Breezewood, and I believe Breezewood had many traveler businesses there early on...maybe not in 1940 when the Turnpike opened, but well before the late 60s when the Turnpike relocation happened.  And again, for the most part, no direct connections were being built along the entire Turnpike.

Very few turnpike travelers would exit the turnpike to use a service business and then reenter the turnpike, in the days when all tolling was cash and collected at interchange exits.  There were service plazas along the turnpike.

I don't think that the Turnpike relocation had any significant effect on the Breezewood business landscape.   What it did do was relegate a section of the original turnpike to being an access highway connector between the turnpike and US-30, and to provide a convenient place to connect to I-70.

Speaking of annoyances...why doesn't I-99's ends (both of them) draw as much ire as Breezewood?

I-99 is not a highway of national importance that crosses nearly the whole country.  It currently is a short intra-state highway.  As signed it doesn't even reach the Turnpike or I-80.

[jeffandnicole]

To be sure, the businesses can only talk to their elected officials.  The elected officials can always go to PennDOT/PTC and say, "hey, look, we have a problem here but don't want to hurt the businesses.  Is there a happy medium we can come up with?"

This isn't normal and elected officials are legislators.   Their job is to make laws,  not to second-guess the engineering work done by PTC/DOT engineers.   They can propose new projects with the DOT/PTC,  but involving elected officials is how we get wonky things like I-99 and roads that are legislated to do things they clearly don't/can't. 

Ah, to be young and naïve.

Their job isn't just to make laws.  It's to look out for their voters and their taxpayers...and their contributors.  And if Big Corporation says, hey, I don't want this (and makes a small campaign donation on the side), Mr. Lawmaker will make sure that BC's interests are looked after.

Instead, businesses have closed.

...Do you work for one of these businesses?   What roadgeek isn't in favor of free-flowing traffic?   I don't understand why anyone that's not a franchise owner on that strip of road would be a NIMBY-supporter here.

Because we have the ability to look at it from both sides.  Number 1: Claiming one works with affected businesses is absolutely the most annoying comment one can make.  I've mentioned many times where I work, so fuck you.  Number 2:  There's a different between being in favor of free-flowing traffic, and understanding the situation.  Would I like to see a proper interchange here?  Yep.  Do I understand the situation from a level-headed position?  Yep.

If their business is being taken, then they aren't exactly getting a say.

That's not true at all.   If their business is outlined as being on proposed ROW to be acquired,  there are a plethora of options the PTC/DOT can act on.   Invoking eminent domain is very costly and takes forever.  It's in a DOT's best interest to do a deal to get the ROW they need.   There is plenty of wiggle room -- the business could be relocated,  their land could be re-allocated or supplemented in other ways,  or maybe they agree to settle to save the state the cost of condemnation proceedings.    If a business is actually impacted (they need to move or lose land) the law requires them to be compensated financially.   There isn't any way they wouldn't get paid.

So, your long-winded response here is that the 'say' someone gets isn't that they're property is being taken, but how much money they'll get?  That is, in anyone's definition, NOT getting a say. 

Let's make it personal:  What if your local transportation department came in and decided to build a road thru your property.  They don't give you a choice - they say, we'll give you $100,000, now get out.  Your "say" is you want $200,000?   DOT is steadfast that they won't go above $105,000.  They're not going to give you $200,000 to avoid legal action.  You'll be the one that'll have to sue the State, and they'll do what they need to to keep the amount they give you low.  Remember...it most cases it's just not your property, but many other properties.  If they overpay you on your property, the other property owners will want large payouts too.  The Government may spend $50,000 fighting the lawsuit, but the potential loss is hundreds of thousands that they're trying to protect.

For a good, public example, review the NJ Turnpike Authority's monthly board minutes.  There's always legal action being taken for one reason or another, and depending on the circumstances and the chances of winning vs. the money spend, settlements are quite common that suite both parties.

In most normal circles, the "say" is that you tell the government you don't want that road going thru your property.  You can offer alternatives.  You can ask what DOT's alternatives are.  And you can file a lawsuit to stop the project from happening.  If that doesn't work, then you enter negotiations as to the fair value of your property.

Everything you're doing is basically giving the government unlimited authority to do whatever they want.

Umm,  yes.   They own the land and a connector doesn't physically interfere with any business's access.

They may own the land, but they can't do whatever they want.  All one has to do is look around at numerous land holdings, even within here in NJ, and see that projects have been halted by people and politicians that don't live on that very same land.

[Avalanchez71]

Has anyone explored the "events chain" that resulted in the current situation that defines Breezewood?  Were all these businesses who admittedly would be affected by a direct I-70/Turnpike connection around when the exit was simply to provide local access or old PA 26?  Did a national chain such as Perkins decide to locate a restaurant near the original Breezewood exit pre-I-70 construction (I'm going to assume that McDonalds would have been there under any circumstances as is their normal saturation practice!).  In short -- looking around the country at, well, pretty much any other Interstate junction, why would any business elect to locate an outlet in Breezewood given the precedent that Interstate junctions under normative circumstances feature direct (if not always high-speed) connecting ramps that don't require exiting one limited-access facility before entering the next. 

I don't expect any of the parties involved to supply an answer here -- but the choices are (a) corporate management calculated that enough travelers would get on & off the turnpike, along with serving the local area, to make the location profitable (that in itself is something of a stretch) or (b) that same management had foreknowledge of the likelihood that the direct connection would never be made -- the fix was in!  Given the byzantine nature of PA, its agencies, and how they've functioned over the years, I'd give the edge to (b).  The whole situation is akin to the classic "circle jerk" in that the agencies involved (state DOT, turnpike authority, USDOT/BPR/FHWA) all point to each other as the promulgator of the situation.  It would sure be interesting to follow the money trail here through the Shuster clan donor base, the PTC membership over the years when I-70 was being planned and built, and corporate "contributions" to entities held dear by PA politicos -- local, state, and national.  I normally don't speculate on outlandish conspiracy theories -- but there's just too much "gray area" surrounding Breezewood and its decades of status quo defenders that clouds the basic facts of the matter.  The questions that must be asked are: what makes Breezewood unique -- and why?; why does PA stand alone among all states in their approach to the relationship between turnpikes and other intersecting highways?; and precisely who stands to gain the most by retaining the status quo?

That is not really a conspiracy theory by nutter standards.  That is a reasonable thought process.

[empirestate]

Speaking of annoyances...why doesn't I-99's ends (both of them) draw as much ire as Breezewood?

I-99 is not a highway of national importance that crosses nearly the whole country.  It currently is a short intra-state highway.  As signed it doesn't even reach the Turnpike or I-80.

Well, I think for most people it's mainly because they are the ends of I-99. At Breezewood, the gap is in the middle of I-70. The major/minor question probably has less to do with it; i.e., if the ends of I-81 looked like the ends of I-99, there wouldn't be appreciably more outrage about it. (Indeed, I-81 does have a non-divided stretch near its northern end, over the Thousand Islands Bridge.)

[webny99]

Speaking of annoyances...why doesn't I-99's ends (both of them) draw as much ire as Breezewood?

I-99 is not a highway of national importance that crosses nearly the whole country.  It currently is a short intra-state highway.  As signed it doesn't even reach the Turnpike or I-80.

Well, I think for most people it's mainly because they are the ends of I-99. At Breezewood, the gap is in the middle of I-70. The major/minor question probably has less to do with it; i.e., if the ends of I-81 looked like the ends of I-99, there wouldn't be appreciably more outrage about it. (Indeed, I-81 does have a non-divided stretch near its northern end, over the Thousand Islands Bridge.)

I do agree, but I think there would be considerable outrage if the Knoxville end of I-81 looked like either end of I-99
With regards to I-99, there are a lot of other things that are much more annoying about it, such that the non-connections are less significant, in my mind, anyways.
And, of course, there's a difference between a non-connection, and a 2di actually using a surface street. The difference between those two is the difference between inconvenience and ire, IMO.

[hbelkins]

Let's make it personal:  What if your local transportation department came in and decided to build a road thru your property.  They don't give you a choice - they say, we'll give you $100,000, now get out.  Your "say" is you want $200,000?   DOT is steadfast that they won't go above $105,000.  They're not going to give you $200,000 to avoid legal action.  You'll be the one that'll have to sue the State, and they'll do what they need to to keep the amount they give you low.  Remember...it most cases it's just not your property, but many other properties.  If they overpay you on your property, the other property owners will want large payouts too.  The Government may spend $50,000 fighting the lawsuit, but the potential loss is hundreds of thousands that they're trying to protect.

Actually, it's usually the other way around. If you don't accept the state's offer, they file suit against you in condemnation proceedings.

[_Simon]

Let's make it personal:  What if your local transportation department came in and decided to build a road thru your property.  They don't give you a choice - they say, we'll give you $100,000, now get out.  Your "say" is you want $200,000?   DOT is steadfast that they won't go above $105,000.  They're not going to give you $200,000 to avoid legal action.  You'll be the one that'll have to sue the State, and they'll do what they need to to keep the amount they give you low.  Remember...it most cases it's just not your property, but many other properties.  If they overpay you on your property, the other property owners will want large payouts too.  The Government may spend $50,000 fighting the lawsuit, but the potential loss is hundreds of thousands that they're trying to protect.

Actually, it's usually the other way around. If you don't accept the state's offer, they file suit against you in condemnation proceedings.

Exactly.  What jeffandnicole said is completely not how land acquisition works.  What your land is worth and what you are offered are based on actual assessments done by the state.  There isn't any speculation as to how much your land is worth.

If there is an appraisal saying your property is 100k, the DOT will probably offer you much more (provided you are out by a certain deadline) because it's in their interest to do the deal, but if you make them condemn you you're going to get exactly what the appraisal says.  You can't sell your land to someone else for more than the 100k because that's all the new owner is guaranteed to get from the DOT.

Usually when someone has land needed for a project it's like they won the lottery.  New home/building, relocation paid for, usually get more money than you would have been able to sell it for too (because the DOT doesn't care about whether or not your central AC works or has asbestos lol).

SM-G955U

[jeffandnicole]

Let's make it personal:  What if your local transportation department came in and decided to build a road thru your property.  They don't give you a choice - they say, we'll give you $100,000, now get out.  Your "say" is you want $200,000?   DOT is steadfast that they won't go above $105,000.  They're not going to give you $200,000 to avoid legal action.  You'll be the one that'll have to sue the State, and they'll do what they need to to keep the amount they give you low.  Remember...it most cases it's just not your property, but many other properties.  If they overpay you on your property, the other property owners will want large payouts too.  The Government may spend $50,000 fighting the lawsuit, but the potential loss is hundreds of thousands that they're trying to protect.

Actually, it's usually the other way around. If you don't accept the state's offer, they file suit against you in condemnation proceedings.

Exactly.  What jeffandnicole said is completely not how land acquisition works.  What your land is worth and what you are offered are based on actual assessments done by the state.  There isn't any speculation as to how much your land is worth.

If there is an appraisal saying your property is 100k, the DOT will probably offer you much more (provided you are out by a certain deadline) because it's in their interest to do the deal, but if you make them condemn you you're going to get exactly what the appraisal says.  You can't sell your land to someone else for more than the 100k because that's all the new owner is guaranteed to get from the DOT.

Usually when someone has land needed for a project it's like they won the lottery.  New home/building, relocation paid for, usually get more money than you would have been able to sell it for too (because the DOT doesn't care about whether or not your central AC works or has asbestos lol).

SM-G955U

You both are hysterically wrong.

Both parties have the right to have the property appraised.  The State is probably going to give you a lower value than what it's worth.  The actual affected party is probably going to get a property appraised at a higher value than what it's worth.  There are numerous reasons why these appraisals will differ.  But it's absolutely safe to say what the state says is not a set-in-stone number.

Also, DOT isn't going to get an appraisal done, then suddenly throw out free money well above the appraised price.  They're going to offer the appraised price.  That's the whole purpose of the appraisal!

I've never heard someone saying having their property bought out from them is like winning the lottery.  It's usually a very stressful, upsetting experience.

If you believe the State is lowballing you on their offer, you absolutely have the right to take the State to court.  The

[Beltway]

I've never heard someone saying having their property bought out from them is like winning the lottery.  It's usually a very stressful, upsetting experience.

Have you ever heard of Yeehaw Junction, Florida?  Guess where the name came from? 

The one interchange on a 90-mile section of their Turnpike, and a local landowner made an orders of magnitude increase in property values after the turnpike opened in the 1960s and developers bought his land for use for highway service businesses.

[jeffandnicole]

I've never heard someone saying having their property bought out from them is like winning the lottery.  It's usually a very stressful, upsetting experience.

Have you ever heard of Yeehaw Junction, Florida?  Guess where the name came from? 

The one interchange on a 90-mile section of their Turnpike, and a local landowner made an orders of magnitude increase in property values after the turnpike opened in the 1960s and developers bought his land for use for highway service businesses.

And I probably should've said for most people it's not like winning the lottery (I try to stay away from *always* type claims).  As in your example, I'm sure it has happened.  But it definitely doesn't work out for everyone.

[hbelkins]

You both are hysterically wrong.

And you're just hysterical.

I've never heard someone saying having their property bought out from them is like winning the lottery.  It's usually a very stressful, upsetting experience.

Several years ago, a vacant home my family owned was bought for a road construction project. The amount the state offered was well above what we would have ever expected to get on the open market, given the condition of the house. We jumped at the offer and probably would have if it had been much less, just to get the liability off our hands.

If you believe the State is lowballing you on their offer, you absolutely have the right to take the State to court.  The

Except, that's not how it works, at least not in Kentucky. If you think the state is lowballing, you reject the offer and force the state to file condemnation proceedings. There's a process whereby the value is set by an independent commission, and you go from there.

[empirestate]

I do agree, but I think there would be considerable outrage if the Knoxville end of I-81 looked like either end of I-99

Exactly, because the number carries through. It's the discontinuity in the number that irks people, not the lack of connection between physical roadways.

[webny99]

I do agree, but I think there would be considerable outrage if the Knoxville end of I-81 looked like either end of I-99

Exactly, because the number carries through. It's the discontinuity in the number that irks people, not the lack of connection between physical roadways.

But I'm saying that the lack of physical connection would be irksome, at the southern end of I-81 specifically. On I-99, the number is definitely the bigger problem.

[kphoger]

I periodically hear this claim, but as far as I have been able to determine it is an urban legend.

An urban legend started by the FHWA's own disinformation machine: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/tollroad.cfm

I present the pertinent portions below:

Okay, Smarty Pants, What About Breezewood, Pennsylvania?
This peculiar arrangement occurred because of Section 113 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956. Under Section 113(b), Federal-aid funds could be used for approaches to any toll road, bridge, or tunnel "to a point where such project will have some use irrespective of its use for such toll road, bridge, or tunnel." In other words, a motorist could use the toll facility or not. Under Section 113 (c), the State highway agency and toll authority could use Federal-aid highway funds to build an interchange between a toll-free Interstate and an Interstate turnpike (i.e., the motorist would have no choice but to use the toll road). However, the State highway agency, the toll authority, and the BPR would have to enter into an agreement to stop collecting tolls when the bonds were retired.
The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (PTC), which had no desire to stop collecting tolls, decided not to use the State's Federal-aid funds for the I-70 connection.

SEC. 113. TOLL ROADS, BRIDGES. AND TUNNELS.
(b) APPROACHES HAVING OTHER USE.
– The funds authorized under this title, or under prior Acts, shall be available for expenditure on projects approaching any toll road, bridge, or tunnel to a point where such project will have some use irrespective of its use for such toll road, bridge, or tunnel.
(c) APPROACHES HAVING NO OTHER USE.
– The funds authorized under section 108 (b) of this title, or under prior Acts, shall be available for expenditure on Interstate System projects approaching any toll road on the Interstate System, even though the project has no use other than as an approach to such toll road: Provided, That agreement satisfactory to the Secretary of Commerce has been reached with the State prior to approval of any such project (1) that the section of toll road will become free to the public upon the collection of tolls sufficient to liquidate the cost of the toll road or any bonds outstanding at the
time constituting a valid lien against said section of toll road covered in the agreement and their maintenance and operation and debt service during the period of toll collections, and (2) that there is one or more reasonably satisfactory alternate free routes available to traffic by which the toll section of the System may be bypassed.

OK, several points.

1) Why and how during the same era did the PTC build interchanges with these other PennDOT Interstate highways -- I-376 Monroeville, I-70 New Stanton, I-283 and I-76 Valley Forge.

2) Why didn't the PTC enter into the agreement, knowing that payoff of all toll revenue bonds would be many years if not decades into the future?  If they ever would be paid off given future improvement needs that would necessitate more toll revenue bonds?

3) How did the other turnpikes in IN, OH, NJ, MA and NY get nearly all such interchanges built 1960s-1980s when they have never stopped collecting tolls?

4) We're only talking about two ramps to connect I-70 to the turnpike access highway.  Back in 1970 prices they could have been built for $1 million.  Lack of federal funds would not prevent the PTC from using toll revenue bonds to build the ramps, nor would it prevent PennDOT from using state highway funds bonds to build the ramps.

I don't know the answers to those questions, as I'm not as knowledgeable on the area history as several other folks on here (except that at first glance the one at Monroeville appears to include a free option and therefore would fall under §113(b) rather than §113(c)).  But I'm also not sure what your point is.  I quoted the pertinent portion of the Federal-Aid Highway Act, which clearly states that a direct connection between an Interstate and a toll road necessitates toll collection to be halted once the cost has been recouped.  The fact that other projects may have circumvented this law doesn't negate the law.  A basic question, though, is this:  Are you sure the funds that paid for those other ramps were "authorized under this Title, or under prior acts"?  I am interested to know how all this transpired.

[empirestate]

I do agree, but I think there would be considerable outrage if the Knoxville end of I-81 looked like either end of I-99

Exactly, because the number carries through. It's the discontinuity in the number that irks people, not the lack of connection between physical roadways.

But I'm saying that the lack of physical connection would be irksome, at the southern end of I-81 specifically. On I-99, the number is definitely the bigger problem.

It would, for sure. But it would be a different category of outrage than Breezewood.

[Beltway]

I periodically hear this claim, but as far as I have been able to determine it is an urban legend.

An urban legend started by the FHWA's own disinformation machine: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/tollroad.cfm

I present the pertinent portions below:
[....]

[....]

OK, several points.
1) Why and how during the same era did the PTC build interchanges with these other PennDOT Interstate highways -- I-376 Monroeville, I-70 New Stanton, I-283 and I-76 Valley Forge.
2) Why didn't the PTC enter into the agreement, knowing that payoff of all toll revenue bonds would be many years if not decades into the future?  If they ever would be paid off given future improvement needs that would necessitate more toll revenue bonds?
3) How did the other turnpikes in IN, OH, NJ, MA and NY get nearly all such interchanges built 1960s-1980s when they have never stopped collecting tolls?
4) We're only talking about two ramps to connect I-70 to the turnpike access highway.  Back in 1970 prices they could have been built for $1 million.  Lack of federal funds would not prevent the PTC from using toll revenue bonds to build the ramps, nor would it prevent PennDOT from using state highway funds bonds to build the ramps.

I don't know the answers to those questions, as I'm not as knowledgeable on the area history as several other folks on here (except that at first glance the one at Monroeville appears to include a free option and therefore would fall under §113(b) rather than §113(c)).  But I'm also not sure what your point is.  I quoted the pertinent portion of the Federal-Aid Highway Act, which clearly states that a direct connection between an Interstate and a toll road necessitates toll collection to be halted once the cost has been recouped.  The fact that other projects may have circumvented this law doesn't negate the law.  A basic question, though, is this:  Are you sure the funds that paid for those other ramps were "authorized under this Title, or under prior acts"?  I am interested to know how all this transpired.

"The Rambler" is Richard Weingroff, an FHWA highway historian, he wrote the article as is cited on the webpage.  He may just be being polite and exhibiting professional courtesy toward the state of Pennsylvania in his article, in answering this very common highway question in the manner he does.  FHWA provides funding and program oversight for state DOTs, and it would be a touchy issue if one of their employees publicly slammed a state DOT and turnpike authority over a major issue.

Just because the 1956 Federal-Aid Highway Act had a clause doesn't mean that it was permanent; such laws are routinely changed and this one may have been within a few years.  In fact, it is obvious that by 1975 or so that all the other states had made nearly all such Interstate/turnpike connections, so the conclusion seems to be that either the law was soon changed regarding these connections, or the laws were misinterpreted or misrepresented by Weingroff and others, or both.

[_Simon]

I've never heard someone saying having their property bought out from them is like winning the lottery.  It's usually a very stressful, upsetting experience.

Have you ever heard of Yeehaw Junction, Florida?  Guess where the name came from? 

The one interchange on a 90-mile section of their Turnpike, and a local landowner made an orders of magnitude increase in property values after the turnpike opened in the 1960s and developers bought his land for use for highway service businesses.

And I probably should've said for most people it's not like winning the lottery (I try to stay away from *always* type claims).  As in your example, I'm sure it has happened.  But it definitely doesn't work out for everyone.

Do you have any idea how much money and time it costs to forcefully take someone's land from them?   It is in any DOTs best interest to make that part of the proceess as seamless and beneficial as possible for the people involved.  Reasons include:

* Huge savings on legal fees, hearings, the entire eminent domain and condemnation process and all associated fees.

* Huge time savings.  Not only can you get people to move by a certain date if you include a time bonus, but condemnation processes have multiple mandatory time spans included (condemnation can't happen overnight or even same-year, but deals are done instantly and close as soon as the agreed upon vacate date)

* PR reasons.  You want the people whose land you're acquiring to not be making waves in the press, to not encourage NIMBYism, and to make sure neighbors don't band together to drive up negotiation prices.

* Quicker commitment.  During condemnation, it's completely unknown what the outcome will be and if multiple contingency alternatives for the alignment have to be prepared.  When you're paying someone directly in a deal, the person signs a contract locking them in after a certain date, allowing you to safely assume the land will be available to be cleared, and you can start clearing it even before the title is signed over of the contract allows for it.

* Commitment to the community.  It's just the right thing to do to make sure peoples lives are being improved and not worsened by the project.  The public will scrutinize your projects every move if you are not visibly seen as providing a net benefit.

SM-G955U

[briantroutman]

1) Why and how during the same era did the PTC build interchanges with these other PennDOT Interstate highways -- I-376 Monroeville, I-70 New Stanton, I-283 and I-76 Valley Forge.

In part because these weren't constructed during the same era. With the exception of I-283, the other direct connections you mention were built around 1950, years prior to the 1956 Act–which contained the Section 113 prohibition on use of funds for connections to toll facilities.

If the 1921 model of 50-50 funding for approved federal aid projects was still in force in 1950 and these projects qualified, the PA Dept. of Highways received at most 50% of the construction cost of that direct interchange. Otherwise, the cost was paid out of the PDH's own funding sources. So at one extreme, the 1950 PDH (in decent fiscal health) possibly received 50% funding to build direct connections–and on the other, a debt-crippled 1970 PennDOT receives 0% to build a direct connection. It's not hard for me to understand why these early direct connections were built and later ones (I-80, I-81) weren't.

Yes, I-283 was built after 1956. But it seems that the PDH was also able to exploit a bit of a loophole. The restriction in Section 113 says that federal funds could be used "to a point where such project will have some use irrespective of its use for such toll road, bridge, or tunnel" . As I can best interpret that passage, federal funds could be used to build I-283 up to the PA 283 interchange, but not beyond it. And by strategically placing the 283/283 interchange less than 500 feet from the Turnpike's existing Harrisburg East interchange, the PDH reduced its out of pocket liability to a few hundred feet of grading and concrete.

2) Why didn't the PTC enter into the agreement, knowing that payoff of all toll revenue bonds would be many years if not decades into the future?  If they ever would be paid off given future improvement needs that would necessitate more toll revenue bonds?

My interpretation of Section 113 is that the PTC would have needed to agree to end tolls when existing bonds were paid. In other words, perpetually issuing new bonds to ensure that the Commission remained in debt forever (as is its current mode) wouldn't have been allowed.



But beyond the peculiarities of federal funding, I think another major factor in the development of the current Breezewood configuration is timing and lack of coordination. According to Jeff Kitsko, "free"  I-70 was completed from the Maryland line to Breezewood in 1964–so my guess is that it would have been under design probably around 1962. At that point, a 1961 PTC study had recommended a bypass of the Rays and Sideling Hill Tunnels, but selection of a final alignment and design work wouldn't be complete until 1966 and the bypass wouldn't open until late 1968.

And with the knowledge that the Turnpike in Breezewood would be bypassed–but without solid plans showing exactly how–and in the "build it now"  ethic of the times and I-70-earmarked federal dollars burning a hole in its pocket, the PDH just built I-70 to the only fixed point it knew would be there in ten years: US 30.

[Plutonic Panda]

When will this problem be fixed? Wouldn't it have been cheaper to just add ramps to Breezewood Rd. from I-76?

I'm not happy about this Interchange. Not one bit.

[02 Park Ave]

I am cornfused.  Would any of the Breezewood businesses' property actually be taken in building the direct connexion?  Or, is their concern just about losing their "captive audience".