I-95/Penna Turnpike Interchange

[qguy]

In the PTC's defense, the presence of the ticket system on the E-W Mainline and the lack of space for their preferred trumpet-to-trumpet interchange has made matter much more difficult and complex, and moving the east end of the ticket system west was complex and expensive.

The PTC didn't change the design of the interchange from the original double trumpet because of a lack of space. The change was made due to intervention by Congress.

The PTC had acquired the ROW and had actually begun construction on the toll plaza for the original design when Congress completely upended the chessboard by dedesignating the Somerset Expressway and requiring a high-speed interchange instead of the low-speed double trumpet.

Source? I never heard that they began construction on anything related to a 276/95 connection.

From 1992 to 2005 I was a member of the Community Advisory Committee which the PTC formed to assist it in coming up with the best design that each of the various stakeholders could live with. That's the reason I know about the partial, interrupted construction of the original double-trumpet interchange.

The double-trumpet was to be built in the northwest quadrant of the interchange area. One of the first pieces of construction the PTC accomplished under the current project was what is called the "I-95 Wetland Mitigation Site." it was completed in 2012. The PTC essentially removed the concrete that had been laid years ago (not really that much, actually) and returned the area to a wooded state. Nature had been slowly reclaiming that area for some time (which makes it very difficult to see anything in old aerials), and the PTC gave it a permanent assist.

Here's a link to the PTC's project construction summary: www.patpconstruction.com/paturnpikei95/construction.aspx

If you click on the orange cone with the green check mark in the northwest quadrant on the map, it will bring up a short description of the mitigation. If you scroll down to the links under "Completed Construction" and select "I-95 Wetland Mitigation Site - 2012," it will bring up the following page: www.patpconstruction.com/paturnpikei95/complete-wet.aspx

Unfortunately, the description doesn't mention partial earlier construction. It does mention rejection of a more recent proposal to use the area to develop a trailer park.

A keen-eyed observer can even see where a portion of the ramps would've been. If you look just north of the wetland mitigation site and just across (current) I-95 (to the east of I-95), you can see a grassy area between I-95 and Green Meadow Drive. Notice the shape of the eastern boundary of that property. That was to be the location of the I-95 northbound off- and on-ramps for the trumpet on I-95.

The interrupted initial construction took place sometime in the 1980s. When Congress mandated a high-speed connection, that precluded the double-trumpet since that design is a low-speed connection. It was literally back to the drawing board, as the cliché goes.


Edited to correct "Community Relations Committee" to "Community Advisory Committee."

[ixnay]

A PA TPK middle manager has retired early with few apparent regrets...

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2016/12/02/retiring-turnpike-worker-sends-exit-survey-complaints-to-2k-employees/

ixnay

[jeffandnicole]

I agree about the "turnpike reconstruction" projects.  The road doesn't seem like it's to the point of needing a reconstruction.  Resurfacing with climbing lanes added as needed would be MUCH cheaper.

I'm guessing the PTC is in charge of the interchange project because states with toll authorities usually have the toll authority in charge of any project that touches their facility.

imho, the S-W and E-N movements should be the ones first sacrificed if things do go downhill; those movements are already nicely handled by US 1 (a divided, limited-access highway between I-95 and the Turnpike mainline).

For this exact reason, PTC already has no plans of building ramps to accommodate those movements.

Did the design change?  The website graphics show all movements not carrying I-95 would be constructed in Phase II, with none missing.

No. It was mostly only talk about postponing the rest of the project as a complaint about all the money the PTC has to give the state. Nothing officially has changed.

[SignBridge]

Jeffandnicole, you asked me earlier why PennDOT didn't build the I-95/Pa. Tpk. interchange when they built I-95. I've been told repeatedly on these boards that they couldn't do that because of a Federal rule that Interstate highway funding cannot be used to connect with toll roads. That's why I said the PTC should have built it.

[jeffandnicole]

Jeffandnicole, you asked me earlier why PennDOT didn't build the I-95/Pa. Tpk. interchange when they built I-95. I've been told repeatedly on these boards that they couldn't do that because of a Federal rule that Interstate highway funding cannot be used to connect with toll roads. That's why I said the PTC should have built it.

While that was correct at one point, PennDOT could've built it without using federal funds.

Basically, it sounds like what the PTC wants them to do now.

[SignBridge]

Well then, (LOL) maybe those two agencies should stop all this crap and just equally divide the cost.

[cpzilliacus]

Jeffandnicole, you asked me earlier why PennDOT didn't build the I-95/Pa. Tpk. interchange when they built I-95. I've been told repeatedly on these boards that they couldn't do that because of a Federal rule that Interstate highway funding cannot be used to connect with toll roads. That's why I said the PTC should have built it.

While that was correct at one point, PennDOT could've built it without using federal funds.

Basically, it sounds like what the PTC wants them to do now.

The origins of the breezewood-type non connections between toll roads and free freeways in states like Florida, New York, Ohio and especially Pennsylvania  do lie in federal transportation law, which effectively required that the toll road be de-tolled if federal dollars were used to connect the two (details from the Federal Highway Administration here).

The difference between Pennsylvania and the other states is that the others have remediated most of their breezewoods (there's one left in Fort Pierce, Florida), but the breezewoods in New York and Ohio are effectively all gone. 

I am aware of there being three on the Ohio Pike (I-80) where it does not connect to I-271 (but there are reasonable alternative all-freeway routings); same as OH-11 near Youngstown; and I-475 outside Toledo.

[jeffandnicole]

Well then, (LOL) maybe those two agencies should stop all this crap and just equally divide the cost.

There's also the thing about many projects and limited dollars available. And when it's said and done, do Pennsylvanians want or need this interchange? There aren't exactly many of those that'll benefit all that much from the direct connections.  And if you were to ask them what they want money spent on, this interchange is probably far down the list of someone wants to get rid of congestion or dangerous intersections in their hometown.

There's a whole ton of wrinkles when it comes to funding projects. And without the Feds saying get it done or we're withholding your money, neither agency is going to put it at the top of their list of priority projects.

[cpzilliacus]

Well then, (LOL) maybe those two agencies should stop all this crap and just equally divide the cost.

There's also the thing about many projects and limited dollars available. And when it's said and done, do Pennsylvanians want or need this interchange? There aren't exactly many of those that'll benefit all that much from the direct connections.  And if you were to ask them what they want money spent on, this interchange is probably far down the list of someone wants to get rid of congestion or dangerous intersections in their hometown.

There's a whole ton of wrinkles when it comes to funding projects. And without the Feds saying get it done or we're withholding your money, neither agency is going to put it at the top of their list of priority projects.

Limited dollars?  PTC can "afford" to send billions and billions of dollars to PennDOT to subsidize things that have little or usually nothing to do with the Turnpike (and I concede that PTC was forced to do this even after the proposal to toll I-80 was rejected twice by the federal government).

As for benefits, I suspect that metropolitan Philadelphia will benefit by finally having a direct all-freeway route between their downtown and North Jersey and ultimately New York City. 

There may also be benefit to the PTC in the form of increased traffic entering the Turnpike and paying $5 per car to cross the Delaware and exit the E-W Mainline to head south on I-95, which some drivers will do if they are just following the I-95 south signs.

Regarding funding priorities, I assert it is as much about institutional resistance by PTC to connect the E-W Mainline or the Northeast Extension to "free" Interstate Highways or other freeway-class highways, perhaps because the PTC (and the Pennsylvania legislature) think there is some sort of economic development advantage to the schlock that exists at or near most of the breezewoods.  And I concede that the breezewoods at Warrendale (I-79) and Morgantown (I-176) have been remediated (for reasons not clear to me).

In the case of the Breezewood, it is also about a callous disregard for motorist safety by PTC and PennDOT - I have personally seen several crashes on I-70 westbound approaching the traffic signal at Breezewood (and I do not drive that way all that frequently).

[Duke87]

Regardless of the logic of it, the fact of the matter is that "we built our portion of I-95, it not being complete is New Jersey's fault" was for years an argument that was used against Pennsylvania committing any funds to this interchange. This is a great example of why the federal government had to plan and oversee the construction of the INTERstate highway system, if it had been left up to individual states you'd have a lot more nonsensical non-connections resulting from two states squabbling over who should spend the money building something to fix it, or over one state being all in on it while the other state is like "meh" (c.f. US 12 being a freeway in Wisconsin until right before the Illinois line, where it stub ends and shifts onto a two lane road that is unlikely to be widened or bypassed anytime soon).

To some degree, therefore, the federal government dropped the ball by not pushing for this to happen sooner.

[NE2]

imho, the S-W and E-N movements should be the ones first sacrificed if things do go downhill; those movements are already nicely handled by US 1 (a divided, limited-access highway between I-95 and the Turnpike mainline). south of the Turnpike (technically, south of PA 132/Street Rd a few hundred feet later), US 1 becomes the soul-devouring Roosevelt Blvd, a dual-dual arterial which in 2001 gained the dubious recognition of housing the second- and third-most dangerous intersections in the country; given that the directions from the Turnpike to reach I-95 S instruct drivers to take US 1 S to PA 63 E/Woodhaven Rd, I feel that this is a Bad Idea^TM for nonlocals.

Non sequitur; Red Lion and Grant (the two intersections) are not on the relatively short bit of US 1 necessary to reach PA 63.

[cpzilliacus]

Regardless of the logic of it, the fact of the matter is that "we built our portion of I-95, it not being complete is New Jersey's fault" was for years an argument that was used against Pennsylvania committing any funds to this interchange. This is a great example of why the federal government had to plan and oversee the construction of the INTERstate highway system, if it had been left up to individual states you'd have a lot more nonsensical non-connections resulting from two states squabbling over who should spend the money building something to fix it, or over one state being all in on it while the other state is like "meh" (c.f. US 12 being a freeway in Wisconsin until right before the Illinois line, where it stub ends and shifts onto a two lane road that is unlikely to be widened or bypassed anytime soon).

To some degree, therefore, the federal government dropped the ball by not pushing for this to happen sooner.

The feds should have pushed for there to be a full connection between the Turnpike and I-95, regardless of what happened with the Somerset Freeway.  That PTC and PennDOT (and predecessor(s) to PennDOT) failed to build a direct connection is not in any way the fault of New Jersey.

Should the federal government have pushed harder to get the Somerset Freeway part of I-95 constructed?  I am not so sure about that, given that the New Jersey Turnpike Authority would likely have seen a significant drop in toll revenue as a result, though having parallel highway corridors (and the network redundancy of same) would have been a good idea.

Part of what happened with the Somerset Freeway is about federal environmental law (and case law), especially the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), but also the Clean Water Act; Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966; and several other statutes - though  many people with an interest in favor of or opposed to a particular transportation improvement do not want to understand that NEPA is above all a process act, and the act of filing  a lawsuit against a proposed project in no way assures success in the federal courts.

There's also the matter of elected officials in the area (usually at the local and state levels) changing their minds after spending millions of (mostly federal) dollars to study a proposed project.  Should those elected officials be required to pay-back to the federal treasury those study dollars when they change their minds?

[cpzilliacus]

Non sequitur; Red Lion and Grant (the two intersections) are not on the relatively short bit of US 1 necessary to reach PA 63.

But the at-grade signalized intersections of U.S. 1 at Old Lincoln Highway; Northgate Drive;  Southampton Road; and Hornig Road are. 

Because of those intersections (which are, BTW, generally pedestrian-hostile), it is a slow and miserable drive from the I-276 ramps to PA-63 - it is effectively a breezewood that is worse than Breezewood because of higher traffic volumes, more signalized intersections and a longer distance on U.S. 1.

[jeffandnicole]

From North Jersey, One can take the NJ Turnpike to Exit 7A to 195 West to 295 South to I-76 West to Philly.  Or, 7A to 195 West to 295 North to 95 South to Philly.

So, 2 all-freeway routes already exist.

Like you said, the limited dollars is forced away from the PTC, for PennDOT to do as they please.  And both have numerous other projects which they have decided will have priority over this one, and numerous other projects in the pipeline.  We all know how badly many of PA's bridges and overpasses need fixing, which has resulted in various and sometimes comical truck routes all throughout the state.

The agency that really needed to get the project moving is the DVRPC (Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission), which is supposed to keep traffic moving for the entire region, and coordinate projects so that one benefits others, and one doesn't create problems for others.  Unfortunately, the DVRPC has become a hangout for the bicycle and pedestrian community, and 'regional' planning comes in the way of pathways along rivers and roads.  This is where the feds are defaulting the most, by not reminding the DVRPC they are a regional planning commission for all modes of transportation.  The agency need to approve all projects in the area, and they usually rubberstamp road and highway projects, but they are failing miserably at suggesting and pushing for other road and highway projects, especially those like the ramps between 95 & the PA Tpk.

[qguy]

From North Jersey, One can take the NJ Turnpike to Exit 7A to 195 West to 295 South to I-76 West to Philly.  Or, 7A to 195 West to 295 North to 95 South to Philly.

So, 2 all-freeway routes already exist.

The way it's usually put is "a direct all-freeway route between New York City and Philadelphia" doesn't exist. Philadelphia isn't only the center city area. One can't drive between New York City (and North Jersey) and Philadelphia in a direct manner on all-freeway roadways. IOW, if I'm driving from Northeast Philadelphia (the closest part of Philadelphia to New York City or North Jersey), I can't drive directly to New York City without going out of my way (at least briefly) or driving on a non-freeway facility (at least briefly). And vice versa.

When thinking "between Philadelphia and New York," think "between Northeast Philadelphia and New York."

[wanderer2575]

In the case of the Breezewood, it is also about a callous disregard for motorist safety by PTC and PennDOT - I have personally seen several crashes on I-70 westbound approaching the traffic signal at Breezewood (and I do not drive that way all that frequently).

I'm not sure that PTC and PennDot are to blame for this one.  I can't point to a source but ISTR there were plans many years ago to construct a direct interchange after a state legislator was involved in a traffic accident in the area, but the motorist service businesses rose as one and unleashed the lobbyists, who prevailed in getting the state legislature to intervene and strike down the plans.  I (further) STR even the accident-victim legislator who was pushing for a new interchange changed his mind and said he was satisfied with the improvements instead made on US-30 in the area (reconstruction/widening, new signals, new signage).  One wonders about the amount of his take from the lobbyists.

[cpzilliacus]

I'm not sure that PTC and PennDot are to blame for this one.  I can't point to a source but ISTR there were plans many years ago to construct a direct interchange after a state legislator was involved in a traffic accident in the area, but the motorist service businesses rose as one and unleashed the lobbyists, who prevailed in getting the state legislature to intervene and strike down the plans.  I (further) STR even the accident-victim legislator who was pushing for a new interchange changed his mind and said he was satisfied with the improvements instead made on US-30 in the area (reconstruction/widening, new signals, new signage).  One wonders about the amount of his take from the lobbyists.

I think your memory is essentially correct.  There's a great Wall Street Journal (may be paywalled) article here from 1999 that describes the history pretty well, including the names of the Pennsylvania politicians (starting with ex-Rep. Bud Shuster (R)) that share the (somewhat more-recent) blame for Breezewood. 

In Rep. Shuster, Breezewood has an awesome ally. The highways of Pennsylvania are a testament to the political might of this 14-term Republican congressman. There's the Bud Shuster Byway, a four-lane bypass built in the late 1970s to keep his hometown of Everett from strangling on highway traffic. There's the Bud Shuster Highway, I-99, an $800 million engineering marvel that runs through the heart of his district. And several other highway projects for his constituents are on track, thanks to a $217 billion national transportation law he pushed through Congress last year.

Yet when it comes to Breezewood, Rep. Shuster sees no need for change. He says the interchange is neither as unusual as critics contend it to be nor as much a bottleneck as it once was. "The historic pattern has been to keep it the way it is and improve the flow of traffic," he says. Keeping Breezewood busy, he adds, is "vital" to the local economy. At night, Breezewood seems to burst out of nowhere, a bonfire of neon and halogen lighting up an Appalachian hollow once lighted by fireflies. Vying for motorists' money are Wendy's and Hardee's, Amoco and Sunoco -- more than 30 establishments in all. Anchoring the strip is the Gateway Travel Plaza, where truckers can shower and eat, play video games or pray with a chaplain. Tourists can get an "Americana fix," as one Gateway customer puts it, of meatloaf and mashed potatoes, and top it off with a Dairy Queen cone.

But on the heaviest traffic days, Breezewood is more tar pit than pit stop. On last year's worst day, the Sunday after Thanksgiving, traffic in the eastbound lanes on the turnpike backed up for 15 miles, trying to squeeze onto the exit to I-70. The backup began here and extended through the toll plaza to the pike.

By 1967, Breezewood was a bad enough bottleneck for a congressional public-works hearing to focus on it. But instead of putting in a bypass road, the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission opted for an overpass directly into town, thinking that would alleviate the congestion. For the self-proclaimed Town of Motels, this was a crucial turning point, setting in concrete its course of commercial development and hardening its resistance to any bypass.

By 1985, tie-ups had gotten so huge that the town had to hire deputy sheriffs to direct weekend traffic. Next came what local police call Black Sunday, a post-Thanksgiving traffic jam in 1987 when a series of rear-end collisions sent 16 people to local hospitals. Thereafter, the town found itself under political siege, scrambling to fend off one bypass proposal after another.

Leading the defense were six families of entrepreneurs who have run unincorporated Breezewood for two generations and contributed, federal election records show, $25,000 to Rep. Shuster over the past decade. The most prominent families are the Bittners, proprietors of the Gateway; the motel-owning Felton family, and the Wilts, who own much of the town's prime property.

Their chief antagonist was Michael Dawida, a state senator from Pittsburgh at the time, who was involved in a 1988 rear-end collision here at the I-70 light. The Democrat pushed hard the next year for an engineering study of a bypass. But Robert Jubelirer, the Republican president pro tempore of the Pennsylvania Senate, squelched it. In 1990, Mr. Dawida got a fellow Pittsburgher to push for a study on the House side. The measure passed 199-1, only to founder again in Mr. Jubelirer's Senate.

The families rely on Messrs. Shuster and Jubelirer to suppress any Breezewood bypass design work by state highway and turnpike engineers. But they still live in fear that someday the world will pass them by. They had to "fight like mad," says motel owner Derril Wilt, to ensure that work currently being done to expand the toll plaza wouldn't turn into a pretext for a seamless connection with I-70. Mr. Jubelirer weighed in to protect the town's 1,200 jobs and several business investments worth millions of dollars.

[odditude]

IMO with very  few exceptions, Interstate-Interstate interchanges should have all movements.

no arguments here; just putting my two cents towards what should first be sacrificed if it came to that extreme measure to complete the project.

Non sequitur; Red Lion and Grant (the two intersections) are not on the relatively short bit of US 1 necessary to reach PA 63.

But the at-grade signalized intersections of U.S. 1 at Old Lincoln Highway; Northgate Drive;  Southampton Road; and Hornig Road are. 

Because of those intersections (which are, BTW, generally pedestrian-hostile), it is a slow and miserable drive from the I-276 ramps to PA-63 - it is effectively a breezewood that is worse than Breezewood because of higher traffic volumes, more signalized intersections and a longer distance on U.S. 1.

additionally, the two intersections are in the immediate vicinity (both within a half-mile), and missing the ramp to Woodhaven (which is entirely possible, if you blink after getting on US 1 and end up on the Inner Drive, and then have an issue navigating the suicide-ramp-like crossover) has one more than likely using one of those two intersections to attempt to turn around. again, Bad Idea^TM.

[cpzilliacus]

additionally, the two intersections are in the immediate vicinity (both within a half-mile), and missing the ramp to Woodhaven (which is entirely possible, if you blink after getting on US 1 and end up on the Inner Drive, and then have an issue navigating the suicide-ramp-like crossover) has one more than likely using one of those two intersections to attempt to turn around. again, Bad Idea^TM.

I had that exact problem last month (U.S. 1 south  of I-276 is not a road I have driven frequently) and and I concur with your notion that it's a Bad Idea^TM to send people that way if they are not familiar with it.

[02 Park Ave]

With the Connector Bridge closure is the PTC able to accelerate the construction of this interchange?

[jeffandnicole]

With the Connector Bridge closure is the PTC able to accelerate the construction of this interchange?

The highways - both the PA Tpk and 95 - are still open at the construction location so it won't have any impact.

[MrDisco99]

If the Feds had a problem with the double trumpet interchange idea in Pennsylvania, wouldn't they have had just as much of a problem with the cluster$#@! exit 11 on the NJ Turnpike if Somerset had carried I-95 that way?

[jeffandnicole]

If the Feds had a problem with the double trumpet interchange idea in Pennsylvania, wouldn't they have had just as much of a problem with the cluster$#@! exit 11 on the NJ Turnpike if Somerset had carried I-95 that way?

No, because I-95 was to join I-287, so 95 would've met the Turnpike at Exit 10.

Would the feds have had an issue then with Exit 10?  We'll never know.

[vdeane]

Exit 10 might have been grandfathered in.

[cpzilliacus]

If the Feds had a problem with the double trumpet interchange idea in Pennsylvania, wouldn't they have had just as much of a problem with the cluster$#@! exit 11 on the NJ Turnpike if Somerset had carried I-95 that way?

Because N.J Turnpike Exit 11 probably had no federal dollars invested, and that meant that the BPR (Bureau of Public Roads, this was designed and constructed before the USDOT and FHWA were formed) had zero say-so or sign-off involvement.

Exit 10 might have been grandfathered in.

Concur with VDeane.  Exit 10 was likely grandfathered - or entirely funded by the NJTA (even though it connected to I-287 and NJ-440 which presumably were built with federal dollars).  I do not claim to know what the rules were on such matters when the interchange was built.