Poll
Question:
In light of the threads about it, is it time we stopped beating a dead horse?
Option 1: Yes
votes: 52
Option 2: No
votes: 64
So after looking through this thread, and seeing the posts and threads about everyone's least favorite interchange, I thought about making this poll. Another question, how should we stop people posting excessively about it? I'd like to hear your suggestions. Thanks!
Is this thread intentionally ironic?
Quote from: jakeroot on October 03, 2017, 02:39:53 AM
Is this thread intentionally ironic?
Yes. Yes it is.
While I do agree a bit with the OP, it's something that riles people up. And just like anything else, if the OP (or anyone else) doesn't want to read about it, then don't read about it. No one is forcing anyone to read specific threads.
If we stop talking about it entirely, the people who join in 2018, 2019, etc. won't know about it.
Quote from: jakeroot on October 03, 2017, 02:39:53 AM
Is this thread intentionally ironic?
We have a winner! :wave:
Quote from: 1If we stop talking about it entirely, the people who join in 2018, 2019, etc. won't know about it.
If this is the case, it's only because people who join later are foolish or ignorant enough to not bother looking through the archive of past threads...
I don't see any other threads about dead horses.
Quote from: froggie on October 03, 2017, 07:25:16 AM
Quote from: 1If we stop talking about it entirely, the people who join in 2018, 2019, etc. won't know about it.
If this is the case, it's only because people who join later are foolish or ignorant enough to not bother looking through the archive of past threads...
There is only one reason to look the archive of past threads.
And that's to understand the legend of the Alan.
Quote from: Alps on October 03, 2017, 08:27:26 AM
I don't see any other threads about dead horses.
Perhaps another entry for "Threads You'll Never See on AA Roads"
Speaking of dead horses, my main problem with Breezewood is that people are injured and sometimes killed when they are not expecting an at-grade signalized intersection on an Interstate highway.
All to benefit a few families that own businesses and land in "downtown" Breezewood.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 03, 2017, 08:27:39 AM
Quote from: froggie on October 03, 2017, 07:25:16 AM
Quote from: 1If we stop talking about it entirely, the people who join in 2018, 2019, etc. won't know about it.
If this is the case, it's only because people who join later are foolish or ignorant enough to not bother looking through the archive of past threads...
There is only one reason to look the archive of past threads.
And that's to understand the legend of the Alan.
If we're really going to stop beating dead horses, please consider ending any further discussion about that place that does and does not exist. That topic overran its course a very long time ago.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on October 03, 2017, 10:47:42 AM
Quote from: Alps on October 03, 2017, 08:27:26 AM
I don't see any other threads about dead horses.
Perhaps another entry for "Threads You'll Never See on AA Roads"
Consider it done!
Quote from: renegade on October 04, 2017, 01:11:10 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 03, 2017, 08:27:39 AM
Quote from: froggie on October 03, 2017, 07:25:16 AM
Quote from: 1If we stop talking about it entirely, the people who join in 2018, 2019, etc. won't know about it.
If this is the case, it's only because people who join later are foolish or ignorant enough to not bother looking through the archive of past threads...
There is only one reason to look the archive of past threads.
And that's to understand the legend of the Alan.
If we're really going to stop beating dead horses, please consider ending any further discussion about that place that does and does not exist. That topic overran its course a very long time ago.
Good luck with that. It will always live on in small drips and drabs.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 04, 2017, 12:38:52 PM
Speaking of dead horses, my main problem with Breezewood is that people are injured and sometimes killed when they are not expecting an at-grade signalized intersection on an Interstate highway.
All to benefit a few families that own businesses and land in "downtown" Breezewood.
It's a tough one. Yes, no doubt, driver expectation of no traffic signals and cross traffic on a marked Interstate highway has probably led to accidents and deaths. But when there's 30,000 or 40,000 other traffic deaths throughout the nation each year, mostly in areas where there's no unusual issues, the relatively few that occur here wouldn't make a dent (pun intended) on those overall figures.
Of course, any condition that needlessly causes accidents and deaths should be eliminated.
Also... where does the general expectancy of an interstate not having at-grade crossings/signals become negated by the expectancy of them being there that should be generated by multiple signs warning that they (and slowed / stopped traffic backing up) are ahead??
QuoteSpeaking of dead horses, my main problem with Breezewood is that people are injured and sometimes killed when they are not expecting an at-grade signalized intersection on an Interstate highway.
Westbound there are signs that the expressway ends:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9887893,-78.2419902,3a,75y,12.25h,68.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHA7tHNeY94rq9Ig5lGvvow!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Eastbound there is signage that both options are exits that should be taken at 20 mph. And the gap in the interstate is implied by the To I-70.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9972018,-78.233292,3a,75y,15.66h,90.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6Im0kjT4dZE26JYHXuyNQg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
End expressway signs should be used here as well. That may be the difference between PennDOT and PTC. The PTC may consider that part of I-70 to be just a long exit ramp and not an expressway. Which could be why the speed limit on the PTC connection to Breezewood is only 50 mph.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9904315,-78.2474384,3a,75y,103.9h,88.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLJvf1sDxCEOSl2W50mvX3A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Quote from: jakeroot on October 03, 2017, 02:39:53 AM
Is this thread intentionally ironic?
As opposed to unintentionally ironic, I guess.
I've never had to encounter Breezewood during a time of high traffic volumes, so I don't care as much as some others about this quirk in our interstate highway system. But similar to the constant I-99 and I-238 complaints, this is just another dead horse that people keep beating.
Quote from: renegade on October 04, 2017, 01:11:10 PM
If we're really going to stop beating dead horses, please consider ending any further discussion about that place that does and does not exist. That topic overran its course a very long time ago.
500% agree. There's nothing that makes me cringe harder than seeing people that still continually post about it. The meme died like two years ago, let it go already...
Quote from: kkt on October 04, 2017, 06:11:22 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 03, 2017, 02:39:53 AM
Is this thread intentionally ironic?
As opposed to unintentionally ironic, I guess.
I would imagine that most ironic situations are unintentional.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 04, 2017, 12:38:52 PM
Speaking of dead horses, my main problem with Breezewood is that people are injured and sometimes killed when they are not expecting an at-grade signalized intersection on an Interstate highway.
All to benefit a few families that own businesses and land in "downtown" Breezewood.
I haven't driven the infamous Breezewood but it looks like it an exit on to US 30. It's not like a freeway all the sudden has a traffic light.
Sort of like the connection between Florida's Turnpike and I95 near Ft Pierce using SR 70.
With that being said there is no reason there is not a real freeway to freeway interchange at both locations.
Z981
Quote from: jwolfer on October 08, 2017, 10:04:07 AM
I haven't driven the infamous Breezewood but it looks like it an exit on to US 30. It's not like a freeway all the sudden has a traffic light.
....
On westbound I-70, it more or less does just suddenly have a traffic light, although as others have pointed out, there are multiple warning signs, so it shouldn't be a total surprise. The signs might be, of course, if you don't know about it. First time I was through there was on a Boy Scout trip up to Seven Springs when I was 11 years old and I remember thinking something like, "WTH is with that sign? There are no traffic lights on the Interstate!"
Fort Pierce is quite different because both I-95 and the Turnpike require you to exit. Going westbound on I-70, it just dumps you directly into Breezewood.
The horse is dead, but it has not been buried, and it is stinking badly.
It needs to be cremated and pipe-whip the ashes.
Quote from: theroadwayone on October 03, 2017, 02:10:45 AM
...should we stop people posting excessively about it?
NIMBY!!!!
Quote from: jwolfer on October 08, 2017, 10:04:07 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 04, 2017, 12:38:52 PM
Speaking of dead horses, my main problem with Breezewood is that people are injured and sometimes killed when they are not expecting an at-grade signalized intersection on an Interstate highway.
All to benefit a few families that own businesses and land in "downtown" Breezewood.
I haven't driven the infamous Breezewood but it looks like it an exit on to US 30. It's not like a freeway all the sudden has a traffic light.
It is definitely like a freeway that all of a sudden has a traffic light, especially going westbound. Even Eastbound, once you go thru the toll plaza, it should simply lead you to a ramp to the other highway, which it does not.
Quote
With that being said there is no reason there is not a real freeway to freeway interchange at both locations.
Exactly why this issue has been brought up ad-nausea (yes, intentional) on this board hundreds of times.
QuoteWith that being said there is no reason there is not a real freeway to freeway interchange at both locations.
Pennsy is extremely infamous for its lack of highway-to-highway interchanges that require you to go thru traffic lights. The PA Turnpike has several examples of this alone.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 09, 2017, 10:40:06 AM
Pennsy is extremely infamous for its lack abundance of highway-to-highway interchanges that require you to go thru traffic lights. The PA Turnpike has several examples of this alone.
FTFY
Quote from: signalman on October 09, 2017, 01:03:19 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 09, 2017, 10:40:06 AM
Pennsy is extremely infamous for its lack abundance of highway-to-highway interchanges that require you to go thru traffic lights. The PA Turnpike has several examples of this alone.
FTFY
There were two interpretations of that statement.
1. Known for lack of highway-to-highway interchanges; i.e. known for interchanges that are not
direct highway-to-highway.
2. The way that you tried to fix it, which implies "highway-to-highway interchanges that require you to go thru traffic lights" is one phrase.
Quote from: 1 on October 09, 2017, 01:15:19 PM
Quote from: signalman on October 09, 2017, 01:03:19 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 09, 2017, 10:40:06 AM
Pennsy is extremely infamous for its lack abundance of highway-to-highway interchanges that require you to go thru traffic lights. The PA Turnpike has several examples of this alone.
FTFY
There were two interpretations of that statement.
1. Known for lack of highway-to-highway interchanges; i.e. known for interchanges that are not direct highway-to-highway.
2. The way that you tried to fix it, which implies "highway-to-highway interchanges that require you to go thru traffic lights" is one phrase.
3. PA fucks up what should be a simple connection between 2 highways.
^^
The PA Turnpike seems to be full of these bog-standard trumpet-to-trumpet interchanges. The Northeast in general seems to be full of bizarre 4-way junction designs. It's almost like there's height restrictions on freeway overpasses, requiring these sprawling designs.
I zoomed in on a random freeway in Google Maps just a moment ago (I'm not familiar with PA so, all things being equal, I just look for the thick orange lines and zoom in where they meet). First interchange I zoomed in on was the Turnpike where it meets I-99...trumpet to trumpet, though you need to use an arterial, requiring at least two turns. Just dumb.
The Northeast tends to have older roads, so there are some more unusual road designs that you'll find elsewhere. That said, something like I-99 is quite new. Using 1950's design standards to modern day construction is, well, you said it: Just dumb.
True. Many Northeast cities have those "cowpath" road layouts that necessitate some really odd interchanges. There's some cities, like Los Angeles, that also have very old roads. But most are laid out in straight lines, making interchanges relatively simply to design. Although freeway-to-freeway junctions in LA were definitely more modern than anything being built back east at the time.
Quote from: jakeroot on October 09, 2017, 06:30:16 PM
^^
The PA Turnpike seems to be full of these bog-standard trumpet-to-trumpet interchanges. The Northeast in general seems to be full of bizarre 4-way junction designs. It's almost like there's height restrictions on freeway overpasses, requiring these sprawling designs.
I zoomed in on a random freeway in Google Maps just a moment ago (I'm not familiar with PA so, all things being equal, I just look for the thick orange lines and zoom in where they meet). First interchange I zoomed in on was the Turnpike where it meets I-99...trumpet to trumpet, though you need to use an arterial, requiring at least two turns. Just dumb.
On a similar vein, the NE Extension-I-80 interchange is like that; two trumpets linked by a stoplight.
Quote from: 1 on October 09, 2017, 01:15:19 PM
Quote from: signalman on October 09, 2017, 01:03:19 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 09, 2017, 10:40:06 AM
Pennsy is extremely infamous for its lack abundance of highway-to-highway interchanges that require you to go thru traffic lights. The PA Turnpike has several examples of this alone.
FTFY
There were two interpretations of that statement.
1. Known for lack of highway-to-highway interchanges; i.e. known for interchanges that are not direct highway-to-highway.
2. The way that you tried to fix it, which implies "highway-to-highway interchanges that require you to go thru traffic lights" is one phrase.
After re-reading J&N's original post I did indeed misread/misinterpret it. I read it as him saying that there's a lack (very few, if any) of highway-to-highway (PA Turnpike-Interstate) connections requiring one to pass through a traffic light. This is most certainly not the case. My apologies for the confusion/my being dickhead.
I'm still confused.
"Highway-to-highway interchanges that require you to go through stop lights" means grade separated junctions connected by a stop light, presumably due to another minor intersecting road. PA seems to have a lot of these (i.e. an "abundance"). I'm not sure how "lack of" could possibly be the right phrasing, unless there's sarcasm involved.
Quote from: jakeroot on October 10, 2017, 03:49:44 PM
I'm still confused.
"Highway-to-highway interchanges that require you to go through stop lights" means grade separated junctions connected by a stop light, presumably due to another minor intersecting road. PA seems to have a lot of these (i.e. an "abundance"). I'm not sure how "lack of" could possibly be the right phrasing, unless there's sarcasm involved.
I guess it could be meant two ways:
- The lack of direct interchanges requires drivers to go through stop lights at these junctions.
- There is an abundance of freeway-to-freeway interchanges that require drivers to go through stop lights.
I simply wrote it wrong. How about 'too many PA Highway-to-Highway interchanges involve traffic lights'?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 11, 2017, 07:24:55 AM
I simply wrote it wrong. How about 'too many PA Highway-to-Highway interchanges involve traffic lights'?
That summarizes it nicely. And given the Pennsylvania schlock around most of these Breezewood-type non-connections, it seems that the Keystone State is rewarded for such bad behavior.
As much as I dislike the concept of these non-freeway junctions, if I had to prioritize projects for PA to complete, none of them would rank very high. I'd rather see the money spent on modernizing actual freeway stretches like I-70 west of New Stanton, I-83, I-78, and plus trying to figure out what to with the substandard urban freeways (I-376 and I-76 Philly) before I tackle those.
Should have they been fixed previously? Sure. But that and a dollar will get you a dollar.
Quote from: jemacedo9 on October 11, 2017, 01:49:36 PM
Should have they been fixed previously? Sure. But that and a dollar will get you a dollar.
The one that needs fixing above all of them is
the Breezewood.
Why?
As I suggested above, crashes on I-70 westbound (compass nearly north) approaching the signalized intersection at U.S. 30. That is (or should be)
unacceptable.
Quote from: jemacedo9 on October 11, 2017, 01:49:36 PM
As much as I dislike the concept of these non-freeway junctions, if I had to prioritize projects for PA to complete, none of them would rank very high. I'd rather see the money spent on modernizing actual freeway stretches like I-70 west of New Stanton, I-83, I-78, and plus trying to figure out what to with the substandard urban freeways (I-376 and I-76 Philly) before I tackle those.
Should have they been fixed previously? Sure. But that and a dollar will get you a dollar.
They are both about equal in priority. Missing Turnpike/Interstate interchanges are gaps in the Interstate highway system.
One thing all of the double-trumpet interchanges that have been mentioned have in common is that they're all on the Pennsylvania Turnpike system. Building a double trumpet gives you a place you can put one barrier toll plaza, as opposed to four plazas on a diamond or two on a parclo. And if you have to stop for a tollbooth anyway, there's not a whole lot of point to building a large free-flow interchange, so why spend the money?
Interchanges like Breezewood that require you to make a movement by following a general-purpose surface road for any reason can fuck right off, though.
I would like to know, for that stretch of I-70 westbound approaching Breezewood, how the accident or death rate compares to the rest of the PA interstates. If it's pretty high, then I concede my point.
And conceptually, I hate the concept of Breezewood. In utopia, or in a vacuum, this would be resolved immediately. But with limited highway funding, I don't like spending money to appease a conceptual idea where there are greater needs. And PennDOT is historically bad, IMO, and prioritizing.
I would imagine this would be a joint PTC/PennDOT project. If it were PTC only, I would rate this higher than PA 576 for sure. But I still believe IMO that PennDOT has many higher priorities than this, unless accident/death rates in comparison state otherwise...not-Act 44-withstanding.
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 11, 2017, 06:47:53 PM
One thing all of the double-trumpet interchanges that have been mentioned have in common is that they're all on the Pennsylvania Turnpike system. Building a double trumpet gives you a place you can put one barrier toll plaza, as opposed to four plazas on a diamond or two on a parclo. And if you have to stop for a tollbooth anyway, there's not a whole lot of point to building a large free-flow interchange, so why spend the money?
Interchanges like Breezewood that require you to make a movement by following a general-purpose surface road for any reason can fuck right off, though.
Given that the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission has said that it intends to migrate to a system of toll roads that is 100% cashless, the need for double-trumpet interchanges goes away (as do the excuses for not having direct interchanges with I-81, U.S. 220/I-99, U.S. 219 and the subject of this thread).
PTC has a cashless toll point on I-276 westbound entering Pennsylvania from New Jersey (site of the former eastern bounds of the toll ticket system), and an entirely cashless and ticketless interchange (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.977828,-75.6284045,3a,75y,9.25h,98.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjIu-W2Q4arCX9EuV1QweLg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) on I-476.
In addition to other parts of the Pennsylvania Turnpike network (I-376) already having gone cashless.
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 11, 2017, 06:47:53 PM
One thing all of the double-trumpet interchanges that have been mentioned have in common is that they're all on the Pennsylvania Turnpike system. Building a double trumpet gives you a place you can put one barrier toll plaza, as opposed to four plazas on a diamond or two on a parclo. And if you have to stop for a tollbooth anyway, there's not a whole lot of point to building a large free-flow interchange, so why spend the money?
The heartburn of Breezewood is that the fix is so simple and solved by two ramps. The toll plaza would not need to be changed since the ramps would enter/leave the "access" road from Breezewood before reaching the plaza. The fact that Breezewood has such a hold on PennDOT and the PTC that is blocking this solution is quite irritating to many. All the data may show that the current situation is not safe and is a regular bottleneck, but money talks.
Bruce in Blacksburg
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 12, 2017, 10:52:55 AMPTC has a cashless toll point on I-276 westbound entering Pennsylvania from New Jersey (site of the former eastern bounds of the toll ticket system), and an entirely cashless and ticketless interchange (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.977828,-75.6284045,3a,75y,9.25h,98.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjIu-W2Q4arCX9EuV1QweLg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) on I-476.
I-276 westbound also has a cashless (realistically E-ZPass Only) interchange at Virginia Drive/Exit 340 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1407936,-75.1649104,3a,75y,239h,79.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSL05BsBfKIYUVcYGkKznaw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) (this was PTC's first cashless interchange) & I-276 eastbound has one at PA 132/Exit 352 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1305918,-74.9652908,3a,75y,102.4h,75.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sm54k5M3w3ywQSJGvKA2aTw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) as well.
I-76 also has one at PA 29/Exit 320 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0763864,-75.537983,3a,75y,92.17h,75.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srNGkxrCAdESVsFKmiZVbNg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Quote from: VTGoose on October 12, 2017, 11:01:40 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 11, 2017, 06:47:53 PM
One thing all of the double-trumpet interchanges that have been mentioned have in common is that they're all on the Pennsylvania Turnpike system. Building a double trumpet gives you a place you can put one barrier toll plaza, as opposed to four plazas on a diamond or two on a parclo. And if you have to stop for a tollbooth anyway, there's not a whole lot of point to building a large free-flow interchange, so why spend the money?
The heartburn of Breezewood is that the fix is so simple and solved by two ramps. The toll plaza would not need to be changed since the ramps would enter/leave the "access" road from Breezewood before reaching the plaza. The fact that Breezewood has such a hold on PennDOT and the PTC that is blocking this solution is quite irritating to many. All the data may show that the current situation is not safe and is a regular bottleneck, but money talks.
The Wall Street Journal discussed Breezewood way back in 1999 here (https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB932939160483361786) (
may be paywalled).
Emphasis added below.QuoteBy 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.
QuoteLeading 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.
QuoteThe 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.
Breezewood bothers me a lot more than the I-76/I-81, I-76/I-99 and I-80/I-476 interchanges, solely because Breezewood is a gap in a continuous highway (I-70).
And I must be in the minority because I don't have the gripes about I-78 that so many others do. I-70 between Washington and New Stanton, yes. But not I-78.
Quote from: VTGoose on October 12, 2017, 11:01:40 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 11, 2017, 06:47:53 PM
One thing all of the double-trumpet interchanges that have been mentioned have in common is that they're all on the Pennsylvania Turnpike system. Building a double trumpet gives you a place you can put one barrier toll plaza, as opposed to four plazas on a diamond or two on a parclo. And if you have to stop for a tollbooth anyway, there's not a whole lot of point to building a large free-flow interchange, so why spend the money?
The heartburn of Breezewood is that the fix is so simple and solved by two ramps. The toll plaza would not need to be changed since the ramps would enter/leave the "access" road from Breezewood before reaching the plaza. The fact that Breezewood has such a hold on PennDOT and the PTC that is blocking this solution is quite irritating to many. All the data may show that the current situation is not safe and is a regular bottleneck, but money talks.
Bruce in Blacksburg
Exactly. That is the scheme that I have proposed as well.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 12, 2017, 12:33:47 PM
Breezewood bothers me a lot more than the I-76/I-81, I-76/I-99 and I-80/I-476 interchanges, solely because Breezewood is a gap in a continuous highway (I-70).
And I must be in the minority because I don't have the gripes about I-78 that so many others do. I-70 between Washington and New Stanton, yes. But not I-78.
I-70 between Washington and New Stanton is being worked in pieces, as well as I-78 in Berks County, and I'd like to see that continue.
The Eastbound movement I think is a pretty simple ramp.
The Westbound movement, as a fly-over, involve some interesting terrain and braiding around existing roads. But definitely not impossible. Cost estimates? The I-70/I-79 South junction was $35M 5 years ago. This would be $50M-$75M? It's not a small project.
Quote from: jemacedo9 on October 12, 2017, 01:22:14 PM
The Eastbound movement I think is a pretty simple ramp.
The Westbound movement, as a fly-over, involve some interesting terrain and braiding around existing roads. But definitely not impossible. Cost estimates? The I-70/I-79 South junction was $35M 5 years ago. This would be $50M-$75M? It's not a small project.
While a semi-directional ramp would be ideal, the westbound movement could be handled by a large radius loop ramp with a 45 mph design speed, there is ample space for that, and it would be a lot less expensive than a flyover.
These two ramps should be buildable at a cost of about $35 million total.
Yes the PA Turnpike is the one highway that stands out above the rest due to its indirect access between the toll freeway and the free freeways. Ohio used to and IL still has it to some degree at I-57 and I-294 as well as at I-55 S Bound to SB Bound I-55 to S Bound I-294 using US 12-20-45 there and some of Joliet Road heading SB to SB and NB to NB, but no stoplights in the latter.
At Breezewood where the long ramp (the former Tpk mainline) and I-70 meet you can have two ramps built and one can be a high speed loop ramp as that is all you really need to serve the missing link of I-70 if that is what Beltway is referring to.
Or build a trumpet interchange where I-70 westbound leaves the mainline and then curves west to meet the old turnpike on the way to toll plaza, and the loop ramp goes from I-70 eastbound past the toll plaza for drivers heading north to US 30 and the tourist trap area while the ramp for I-70 eastbound leaves heading south on I-70. the old turnpike east of there being removed.
As for the drivers heading south from Breezewood to I-70, there is a choice of taking a ramp to I-70 westbound, going to toll plaza or heading straight south to get on I-70 East.
Simplest solution if you want to just keep it all as is, i-68 becomes i70, 70 becomes a 3di between i-79 and i-76 in PA. 70 between MD and the turnpike becomes a 3di as well. No longer do you have an interstate traveling along US30 to connect to itself, you have a 3DI ending at a US route, which isn't unheard of.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on October 12, 2017, 09:38:21 PM
Simplest solution if you want to just keep it all as is, i-68 becomes i70, 70 becomes a 3di between i-79 and i-76 in PA. 70 between MD and the turnpike becomes a 3di as well. No longer do you have an interstate traveling along US30 to connect to itself, you have a 3DI ending at a US route, which isn't unheard of.
I have to agree.
Quote from: Alps on October 13, 2017, 01:35:55 AM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on October 12, 2017, 09:38:21 PM
Simplest solution if you want to just keep it all as is, i-68 becomes i70, 70 becomes a 3di between i-79 and i-76 in PA. 70 between MD and the turnpike becomes a 3di as well. No longer do you have an interstate traveling along US30 to connect to itself, you have a 3DI ending at a US route, which isn't unheard of.
I have to agree.
Plus Maryland gets to increase traffic to the western end of the state, which is why they market i68 the way they do as "alt route to ohio and points west" i say 170 is the 3di between 70 and breezewood, and 370 between 79 and 76 if you want to keep that section an interstate. if 70 wasn't already signed along the corridor it is now, i could see this happening like how 68 was assigned to begin with.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on October 13, 2017, 03:11:09 AM
Quote from: Alps on October 13, 2017, 01:35:55 AM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on October 12, 2017, 09:38:21 PM
Simplest solution if you want to just keep it all as is, i-68 becomes i70, 70 becomes a 3di between i-79 and i-76 in PA. 70 between MD and the turnpike becomes a 3di as well. No longer do you have an interstate traveling along US30 to connect to itself, you have a 3DI ending at a US route, which isn't unheard of.
I have to agree.
Plus Maryland gets to increase traffic to the western end of the state, which is why they market i68 the way they do as "alt route to ohio and points west" i say 170 is the 3di between 70 and breezewood, and 370 between 79 and 76 if you want to keep that section an interstate. if 70 wasn't already signed along the corridor it is now, i could see this happening like how 68 was assigned to begin with.
Under this scheme:
Would 68 become 70 in WV?
Would 70 and 79 be multiplexed between Morgantown and Washington, PA to keep 70 continuous?
ixnay
Quote from: ixnay on October 13, 2017, 05:49:06 AM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on October 13, 2017, 03:11:09 AM
Quote from: Alps on October 13, 2017, 01:35:55 AM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on October 12, 2017, 09:38:21 PM
Simplest solution if you want to just keep it all as is, i-68 becomes i70, 70 becomes a 3di between i-79 and i-76 in PA. 70 between MD and the turnpike becomes a 3di as well. No longer do you have an interstate traveling along US30 to connect to itself, you have a 3DI ending at a US route, which isn't unheard of.
I have to agree.
Plus Maryland gets to increase traffic to the western end of the state, which is why they market i68 the way they do as "alt route to ohio and points west" i say 170 is the 3di between 70 and breezewood, and 370 between 79 and 76 if you want to keep that section an interstate. if 70 wasn't already signed along the corridor it is now, i could see this happening like how 68 was assigned to begin with.
Under this scheme:
Would 68 become 70 in WV?
Would 70 and 79 be multiplexed between Morgantown and Washington, PA to keep 70 continuous?
ixnay
Yes, thought it was implied to be the case.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 12, 2017, 12:33:47 PM
Breezewood bothers me a lot more than the I-76/I-81, I-76/I-99 and I-80/I-476 interchanges, solely because Breezewood is a gap in a continuous highway (I-70).
And I must be in the minority because I don't have the gripes about I-78 that so many others do. I-70 between Washington and New Stanton, yes. But not I-78.
Agree on both parts. I've driven I-78 between exit 13 (Bethel, PA) and various interchanges in NJ more times than I'd like to admit. I've traveled on it nearly every hour of the day and day of the week over the years and I've never had an issue, even on the older US 22 segment (the part that most members here object to, I know). Of course, most of PA's interstate mileage is substandard in one way or another and I just accept it as a Pennsylvania thing and move on. I-70 between Washington and New Stanton is far worse, IMO. Although I'd drive that section again if I had to, I covered it for clinching purposes and I had my fill of it.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on October 12, 2017, 09:38:21 PM
Simplest solution if you want to just keep it all as is, i-68 becomes i70, 70 becomes a 3di between i-79 and i-76 in PA. 70 between MD and the turnpike becomes a 3di as well. No longer do you have an interstate traveling along US30 to connect to itself, you have a 3DI ending at a US route, which isn't unheard of.
I like this solution a lot. It makes a lot of sense and frees up up a 2DI for something else. You can number the current I-70 from Breezewood to interchange with the current I-68 as I-170. I'd suspect PTC would balk at the notion of rerouting 70 cause of the revenue lost and I'm sure some Breezewood people would whine but it makes a lot of sense.
Quote from: ekt8750 on October 13, 2017, 10:28:22 AM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on October 12, 2017, 09:38:21 PM
Simplest solution if you want to just keep it all as is, i-68 becomes i70, 70 becomes a 3di between i-79 and i-76 in PA. 70 between MD and the turnpike becomes a 3di as well. No longer do you have an interstate traveling along US30 to connect to itself, you have a 3DI ending at a US route, which isn't unheard of.
I like this solution a lot. It makes a lot of sense and frees up up a 2DI for something else. You can number the current I-70 from Breezewood to interchange with the current I-68 as I-170. I'd suspect PTC would balk at the notion of rerouting 70 cause of the revenue lost and I'm sure some Breezewood people would whine but it makes a lot of sense.
This might be enough to motivate PTC and PennDOT to finally remediate Breezewood.
Quote from: ekt8750 on October 13, 2017, 10:28:22 AM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on October 12, 2017, 09:38:21 PM
Simplest solution if you want to just keep it all as is, i-68 becomes i70, 70 becomes a 3di between i-79 and i-76 in PA. 70 between MD and the turnpike becomes a 3di as well. No longer do you have an interstate traveling along US30 to connect to itself, you have a 3DI ending at a US route, which isn't unheard of.
I like this solution a lot. It makes a lot of sense and frees up up a 2DI for something else. You can number the current I-70 from Breezewood to interchange with the current I-68 as I-170. I'd suspect PTC would balk at the notion of rerouting 70 cause of the revenue lost and I'm sure some Breezewood people would whine but it makes a lot of sense.
I just ran the Google Maps routing, and the preferred routing doesn't use the PA Turnpike.
Columbus, Ohio -- Baltimore, Maryland
Using I-70 - I-68 - I-79 - I-70
420 miles
6 hr 22 min
Using I-70 thruout
413 miles
6 hr 26 min
Only a small difference in time and miles, not really enough to matter, but using I-68 you avoid 86 miles of tollroad.
Clearly I-68 is the best route for cars and buses for the I-70 thru traffic.
What about large trucks? Truckers in online discussions about I-68 say that the half dozen or so long grades have a big negative impact on travel time for trucks, compared to the PA Turnpike routing. I would be interested to know how much. If it is not very much then I definitely see the case for routing I-70 on this highway and overlapping the segment of I-79 between Morgantown VW and Washington PA.
The problem with estimating time for trucks, is that it would vary greatly, dependent on the size/power of its motor and the weight of its cargo. A truck packed with high value but low weight cargo (electronic items, etc.) might see very little reduction in speed on grades, whereas a truck at the maximum legal weight might see a large reduction in speed on grades.
Regarding the route of I-70 vs. I-68: I always assumed that the I-68 routing is closer to what I-70 would have been if the Pennsylvania Turnpike had never been built. And the somewhat odd and indirect routing of I-70 via the Turnpike always struck me as an effort to save a relative few dollars and system miles by utilizing an existing freeway. But now that I-68 exists, the original rationale for routing I-70 over the Turnpike is no longer relevant.
As to trucks: I think it's a safe assumption that almost no trucker is blindly following route numbers. In the case of most large fleets, routes are predetermined for the driver based on a detailed analysis of a number of factors (fuel consumption, mileage, time, traffic, tolls, etc.). Any successful independent owner operator is going to make a similar calculation, albeit with a less sophisticated spreadsheet or a pad and paper.
So if a large volume of trucks are following I-70 through Breezewood and on to New Stanton and Washington (Pa.), it's not because of blind loyalty to the 70 shield. The trucking companies have done a detailed analysis of the mileage, time, costs, and other factors (including the Turnpike's very high tolls on trucks), and have determined that the existing I-70 route is preferable for some objective reason.
Now on the topic of Breezewood itself and the discontinuity in I-70: Certainly, the stakeholders in Breezewood have and will continue to oppose a direct connection. But I think it's more than a stretch to imply that the PTC or PennDOT have been ready to build a direct connection only to have the "big money" interests of Breezewood quash the ambitious plans in some kind of a smoky backroom deal. One Breezewood family donated $25,000 to Shuster over a decade? Peanuts. His son Bill Shuster raised $4.08 million for the 2016 election alone. Especially when you consider that a well connected construction company (i.e. another donor) would stand to make untold millions by building this connection.
If anything, the nickel-and-dime interests of Breezewood have merely helped keep an already unlikely project, unlikely. Almost nothing gets built in this state without resident groups, chambers of commerce, and highway boosters pleading for decades while successive generations of state and federal legislators jockey for funding from numerous sources. And there is no such public cry from people who live anywhere near Breezewood.
Right now, to travel on I-70 via the turnpike, it costs $12.10 cash, $8.54 EZ-Pass, if you're in a car. Just thought I'd get that out there.
Quote from: signalman on October 13, 2017, 10:16:42 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 12, 2017, 12:33:47 PM
Breezewood bothers me a lot more than the I-76/I-81, I-76/I-99 and I-80/I-476 interchanges, solely because Breezewood is a gap in a continuous highway (I-70).
And I must be in the minority because I don't have the gripes about I-78 that so many others do. I-70 between Washington and New Stanton, yes. But not I-78.
Agree on both parts. I've driven I-78 between exit 13 (Bethel, PA) and various interchanges in NJ more times than I'd like to admit. I've traveled on it nearly every hour of the day and day of the week over the years and I've never had an issue, even on the older US 22 segment (the part that most members here object to, I know). Of course, most of PA's interstate mileage is substandard in one way or another and I just accept it as a Pennsylvania thing and move on. I-70 between Washington and New Stanton is far worse, IMO. Although I'd drive that section again if I had to, I covered it for clinching purposes and I had my fill of it.
FWIW, PennDOT is at least starting to upgrade I-70 between New Stanton and Washington (Pa.) The new six lane from the I-79 north junction to Beau St./PA-136 is nice. The work has begun to stretch the six lanes to the south junction. The new interchange at New Stanton is worlds better than the old one. I'm confident the new interchanges at Bentleyville/PA-917 and Monongahela/PA-481 will be better, too. There's a long way to go (including needed upgrades at the Donora/Fayette City/PA-201 and the Pittsburgh/Uniontown/PA-51 interchanges and many highway miles), but as someone who's driven on this section of I-70 for 20+ years, I'll give some credit where it's due.
Quote from: briantroutman on October 13, 2017, 01:49:09 PM
Regarding the route of I-70 vs. I-68: I always assumed that the I-68 routing is closer to what I-70 would have been if the Pennsylvania Turnpike had never been built. And the somewhat odd and indirect routing of I-70 via the Turnpike always struck me as an effort to save a relative few dollars and system miles by utilizing an existing freeway. But now that I-68 exists, the original rationale for routing I-70 over the Turnpike is no longer relevant.
As to trucks: I think it's a safe assumption that almost no trucker is blindly following route numbers. In the case of most large fleets, routes are predetermined for the driver based on a detailed analysis of a number of factors (fuel consumption, mileage, time, traffic, tolls, etc.). Any successful independent owner operator is going to make a similar calculation, albeit with a less sophisticated spreadsheet or a pad and paper.
So if a large volume of trucks are following I-70 through Breezewood and on to New Stanton and Washington (Pa.), it's not because of blind loyalty to the 70 shield. The trucking companies have done a detailed analysis of the mileage, time, costs, and other factors (including the Turnpike's very high tolls on trucks), and have determined that the existing I-70 route is preferable for some objective reason.
Now on the topic of Breezewood itself and the discontinuity in I-70: Certainly, the stakeholders in Breezewood have and will continue to oppose a direct connection. But I think it's more than a stretch to imply that the PTC or PennDOT have been ready to build a direct connection only to have the "big money" interests of Breezewood quash the ambitious plans in some kind of a smoky backroom deal. One Breezewood family donated $25,000 to Shuster over a decade? Peanuts. His son Bill Shuster raised $4.08 million for the 2016 election alone. Especially when you consider that a well connected construction company (i.e. another donor) would stand to make untold millions by building this connection.
If anything, the nickel-and-dime interests of Breezewood have merely helped keep an already unlikely project, unlikely. Almost nothing gets built in this state without resident groups, chambers of commerce, and highway boosters pleading for decades while successive generations of state and federal legislators jockey for funding from numerous sources. And there is no such public cry from people who live anywhere near Breezewood.
I have free will over my routing within reason. The other day i was going from Baltimore MD to Rogers AR, i68 and i70 were both viable routings, i took 70 because i had a load that made my combination 75,000 lbs, which on the hills of i68 suck a big one. There are times where with a lighter load i've had to climb a hill in 8th gear at 1800 rpm, almost redlining it just to do 35mph. PA turnpike has no hills that bad.
Does I-68 have climbing lanes for trucks on these steep grades? Or, is it just two lanes for its entire length?
Quote from: briantroutman on October 13, 2017, 01:49:09 PM
Regarding the route of I-70 vs. I-68: I always assumed that the I-68 routing is closer to what I-70 would have been if the Pennsylvania Turnpike had never been built. And the somewhat odd and indirect routing of I-70 via the Turnpike always struck me as an effort to save a relative few dollars and system miles by utilizing an existing freeway. But now that I-68 exists, the original rationale for routing I-70 over the Turnpike is no longer relevant.
I believe there would have been a Pennsylvania Turnpike, built at some point, but that the "what if" is if the New York Central Railroad had either completed that Pennsylvania line or never started building it in the first place, then the Turnpike would not have had a partially completed right-of-way to purchase, which considerably reduced the cost of the original 160 miles and enabled it to be built probably 10 years or more earlier than it would have been otherwise.
Interesting alternate history to think of how the Chicago to New York City turnpike would have developed without the abandoned railroad line. I believe it would have been built, as the need was great, and that all the states involved would have seen the need. The mountain section would probably have been built in the 1950s, and would have followed the US-22 corridor between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, serving Altoona and with a spur to Johnstown, as there would have been no reason to build it thru such rural areas as where it actually was built.
That would mean no I-70 usage of the Turnpike, which would be too far to the north. Likely I-70 would have followed the US-40 corridor between Hancock MD and Washington PA.
I-80 probably would have been the routing of a Chicago to NYC turnpike. I-80 in Pennsylvania does bear the name "Keystone Shortway".
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on October 13, 2017, 05:42:47 PM
I-80 probably would have been the routing of a Chicago to NYC turnpike. I-80 in Pennsylvania does bear the name "Keystone Shortway".
I thought about that but I wonder if PennDOT may have utilized the first 1956 toll-free Interstate plan whereby I-84 would follow the US-6 corridor across the state, as the current I-80 might be considered too close to the alternate history Turnpike.
I believe there still would have been high demand to have the Pennsylvania Turnpike serve Harrisburg and Philadelphia, and connect to the New Jersey Turnpike where it does today.
Quote from: briantroutman on October 13, 2017, 01:49:09 PM
Regarding the route of I-70 vs. I-68: I always assumed that the I-68 routing is closer to what I-70 would have been if the Pennsylvania Turnpike had never been built. And the somewhat odd and indirect routing of I-70 via the Turnpike always struck me as an effort to save a relative few dollars and system miles by utilizing an existing freeway. But now that I-68 exists, the original rationale for routing I-70 over the Turnpike is no longer relevant.
If I-76 was built in a straighter line from Pittsburgh to Harrisburg, it may have gone closer to Altoona. I could then see I-70 take a more direct route from Wheeling toward Morgantown (compared to current 70-79) before heading east. But how much traffic from DC/Baltimore is heading toward Wheeling and Morgantown? I bet much more is heading toward Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, etc. up I-76 toward I-80. So it's more plausible a separate I-70 could have existed if the PA Turnpike wasn't built on its alignment (I agree with other posters that it would have been built regardless), but not a given.
Quote from: briantroutman on October 13, 2017, 01:49:09 PM
If anything, the nickel-and-dime interests of Breezewood have merely helped keep an already unlikely project, unlikely. Almost nothing gets built in this state without resident groups, chambers of commerce, and highway boosters pleading for decades while successive generations of state and federal legislators jockey for funding from numerous sources. And there is no such public cry from people who live anywhere near Breezewood.
I agree with this... When Cranberry deemed the local use of US-19 & PA-228 (depending on source/destination) to get from the Turnpike to I-79 to be much more of a hindrance to their community than a help, they pushed the PTC and PennDOT to get the direct connection done - and eventually it was.
Unless it starts with locals getting the ball moving to find the will and funding, the "Breezewood interests" may be a factor, but it's local apathy that's the biggest issue.
Perhaps if the feds came in and paid for it so PennDOT & the PTC wouldn't have to adjust their budgets, the "Breezewood Interests" might raise a stink, but I don't know that a "free" interchange would be turned down by either agency.
I had a thread in Fictional (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=13835.0) a couple of years ago speculating as to what the region's Interstate grid would look like had the PA Turnpike never been built and the Interstates were routed without any toll predecessors.
In short, I theorized that PA's Interstates would be closer to direct replacements for their US predecessors. So I assumed that PA's central E-W Interstate, I-80 for the sake of argument, would have been part of an NYC-Allentown-Harrisburg-Altoona-Pittsburgh corridor replacing US 22. I-70 would have followed US 40's route more closely (Hagerstown-Cumberland-Washington Pa.-Wheeling). And the Keystone Shortway wouldn't be necessary, replaced by a Scranton-Erie I-84 along the US 6 corridor.
Of course there are tons of "what if" questions–would the Interstate program moved as swiftly without the Turnpike as an example, would the design standards have been different, and so on.
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.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on October 13, 2017, 05:04:46 PM
Does I-68 have climbing lanes for trucks on these steep grades? Or, is it just two lanes for its entire length?
There are climbing lanes on most of the steep grades in both West Virginia and Maryland.
With the tolls as high as they are these days, that might be an option to extend I-68 to make it to Wheeling. Those on I-70 can shunpike the tolls by using this and bypass PA and not patronize the businesses on US 30 in Breezewood.
Quote from: briantroutman on October 13, 2017, 07:28:02 PM
I had a thread in Fictional (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=13835.0) a couple of years ago speculating as to what the region's Interstate grid would look like had the PA Turnpike never been built and the Interstates were routed without any toll predecessors.
In short, I theorized that PA's Interstates would be closer to direct replacements for their US predecessors. So I assumed that PA's central E-W Interstate, I-80 for the sake of argument, would have been part of an NYC-Allentown-Harrisburg-Altoona-Pittsburgh corridor replacing US 22. I-70 would have followed US 40's route more closely (Hagerstown-Cumberland-Washington Pa.-Wheeling). And the Keystone Shortway wouldn't be necessary, replaced by a Scranton-Erie I-84 along the US 6 corridor.
Of course there are tons of "what if" questions–would the Interstate program moved as swiftly without the Turnpike as an example, would the design standards have been different, and so on.
Interesting thread ... the only other "what if" I have seen about what would happen if the Turnpike did not follow the abandoned NY Central railroad grade! Although yours assumes no turnpikes at all.
Other major turnpikes were being planned in the late 1940s that were not in the NYC-Chicago corridor (Florida, New Jersey, New York, Maine), and they would get built in the 1950s regardless, so I think that the general turnpike system that we have definitely would have been built, including the NJ-PA-OH-IN-IL turnpike.
I would still maintain that a PA Turnpike would be built, and probably completed east-west by 1956 as in the original timeline, and would connect the same three major metros, just that the segment between Pittsburgh and Harrisburg would follow the US-22 corridor.
The highway needs filled by these turnpikes after WW II were IMO too great for states to wait 10 more years for a 1956 Federal Aid Highway Act that would fund toll-free Interstate highways. Even after that act some states used toll financing to advance the construction of Interstates, such as I-95 between Baltimore and Wilmington DE.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 13, 2017, 08:15:10 PM
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.
Quote from: Alps on October 13, 2017, 09:25:13 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 13, 2017, 08:15:10 PM
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.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.route2i68.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F12%2Fi-68-extension-map.jpg&hash=c629ef9dd326660de2edc4cee8e5333103d9e0fd)
From http://www.route2i68.com/maps/
Quote from: hbelkins on October 13, 2017, 11:18:29 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.route2i68.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F12%2Fi-68-extension-map.jpg&hash=c629ef9dd326660de2edc4cee8e5333103d9e0fd)
From http://www.route2i68.com/maps/
I didn't say it wasn't studied, I said it didn't have demand.
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.
Note that the river is the state border. Studying and completing it on the other side would be Ohio's responsibility.
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.
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.
Quote from: lepidopteran on October 16, 2017, 10:32:14 PM
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
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.
Quote from: davewiecking on October 16, 2017, 11:29:32 PM
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
Quote from: ilpt4u on October 16, 2017, 11:33:41 PM
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.
Quote from: davewiecking on October 16, 2017, 11:46:49 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on October 16, 2017, 11:33:41 PM
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
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.
Quote from: seicer on October 17, 2017, 12:10:25 AM
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
Quote from: ilpt4u on October 17, 2017, 12:14:33 AM
Quote from: seicer on October 17, 2017, 12:10:25 AM
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
Quote from: davewieckingand would undoubtedly require upgrades to the portion of I-70 towards MD.
...so what's the downside?
Quote from: davewiecking on October 16, 2017, 11:29:32 PM
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.
^ It's a problem of a different sort. WB is where the high crash area occurs.
Quote from: davewiecking on October 16, 2017, 11:29:32 PM
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.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 17, 2017, 01:40:37 PM
Quote from: davewiecking on October 16, 2017, 11:29:32 PM
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.
Quote from: froggie on October 17, 2017, 02:40:17 PM
^ 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.
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.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 17, 2017, 01:40:37 PM
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 (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Breezewood,+PA/@39.9795204,-78.2462653,481m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89ca34f8dfb7603d:0xfc801d508a5f4c68!8m2!3d39.9991865!4d-78.2388071), 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 (https://www.google.com/maps/place/39%C2%B056'56.1%22N+78%C2%B013'52.6%22W/@39.948914,-78.2356454,962m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m14!1m7!3m6!1s0x89ca34f8dfb7603d:0xfc801d508a5f4c68!2sBreezewood,+PA!3b1!8m2!3d39.9991865!4d-78.2388071!3m5!1s0x0:0x0!7e2!8m2!3d39.948914!4d-78.2312683) at PA-915 has ramps that are very sharp (in terms of exiting and entering the freeway).
Exit 156 (https://www.google.com/maps/place/39%C2%B053'08.0%22N+78%C2%B014'40.2%22W/@39.885552,-78.2466907,482m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m14!1m7!3m6!1s0x89ca34f8dfb7603d:0xfc801d508a5f4c68!2sBreezewood,+PA!3b1!8m2!3d39.9991865!4d-78.2388071!3m5!1s0x0:0x0!7e2!8m2!3d39.8855522!4d-78.244502) at PA-643 at the ridgetop of Sidling Hill has similar problems.
Exit 163 (https://www.google.com/maps/place/39%C2%B047'55.4%22N+78%C2%B014'44.5%22W/@39.798728,-78.2500624,964m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m14!1m7!3m6!1s0x89ca34f8dfb7603d:0xfc801d508a5f4c68!2sBreezewood,+PA!3b1!8m2!3d39.9991865!4d-78.2388071!3m5!1s0x0:0x0!7e2!8m2!3d39.7987279!4d-78.2456852) 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 (https://www.google.com/maps/place/39%C2%B045'25.3%22N+78%C2%B011'21.5%22W/@39.757036,-78.1936834,965m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m14!1m7!3m6!1s0x89ca34f8dfb7603d:0xfc801d508a5f4c68!2sBreezewood,+PA!3b1!8m2!3d39.9991865!4d-78.2388071!3m5!1s0x0:0x0!7e2!8m2!3d39.7570365!4d-78.1893061) 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).
^^^
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.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 19, 2017, 10:23:55 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 17, 2017, 01:40:37 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 19, 2017, 10:23:55 AM
South Breezewood is missing a movement to I-70 westbound...
As far as I can tell, that "missing" ramp South Breezewood was intentionally omitted for two reasons.
The first is that it's unnecessary: It duplicates the access to Breezewood that's already provided by the parallel South Breezewood Road. The PDH appears to have allowed space for the fourth ramp to be added–perhaps anticipating that a direct I-70 connection would be added later and therefore adding the ramp would be justified in the future.
As to the other reason, notice that the exit on I-70 westbound is not signed "South Breezewood" but rather "US 30
WEST - Everett" . They're trying to encourage westbound US 30 traffic to exit there and use South Breezewood Road to bypass the I-70/US 30 at-grade intersection. So at South Breezewood, they're trying to reduce any possible traffic conflict for Everett-bound traffic making a left at the base of the ramp from I-70 westbound.
Regarding Exits 151, 156, and 163–these are extremely low volume local interchanges. PA 915 has an AADT of 200 at its interchange with I-70; the other side of the interchange is SR 3017 with an AADT of 300. PA 731 has an AADT of 250 near its interchange with I-70. After the demise of the struggling Days Inn at Exit 156, none of these interchanges hosts any consumer-oriented businesses, nor do they provide access to any business parks, housing developments, or anything resembling towns. These interchanges' volumes are so low that they don't merit comparison to the under-engineered interchanges between New Stanton and Washington (Pa.), which are being addressed.
In a perfect world with unlimited funds, I'd prefer that even these low-volume exits between Breezewood and Warfordsburg be better engineered with gentler curves and longer accel/decel lanes. But that not being the case, they're not a priority, and they have almost zero impact on through I-70 traffic.
Quote from: lepidopteran on October 19, 2017, 01:18:09 PM
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.
Decommissioning any portion of I-70 would result in a functional "demotion" to a state highway; PA DOT could designate and/or sign those segments at their discretion.
Quote from: lepidopteran on October 19, 2017, 01:18:09 PM
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.
It would absolutely be overkill to do either of those things.
But since you mention it, I like the Business I-70 idea, just due to how ridiculous it would be.
I voted "Yes", because beating a dead horse sounds kind of gross.
Quote from: briantroutman on October 19, 2017, 02:19:42 PM
As to the other reason, notice that the exit on I-70 westbound is not signed "South Breezewood" but rather "US 30 WEST - Everett" .
Are those ancient all-text button copy signs still there?
^ I was last there a few years ago, but at that time, they were.
The entire Breezewood interchange situation is pretty clusterscrewed anyway; what would have been wrong with doing the attached?
(https://i.imgur.com/ISW3ehh.png)
Although I like the new (fictional) interchange between Interstate 70 and the Pennsylvania Turnpike (Interstate 76), the town still needs some sort of non-interstate connection. Perhaps it could be a little further to the east or west.
Regardless of whether Breezewood deserves access to I-70 and the Pennsylvania Turnpike, I think US 30 and the communities along it should have that access. And even if we don't like the Breezewood business community's obstructionism, numerous motorists (and especially truckers) legitimately need the services available there.
If a nonstop connection is ever built, I think the most cost-effective high-speed solution would involve building a couple of gentle two-lame ramps completing the two through movements...while largely leaving the existing Breezewood interchange unchanged. I think it goes without saying that both new ramps would be AET.
While it would be nice to have them, I don't think high-speed ramps connecting the other 70-76 movements would really be worth their cost.
The above arrangement would preserve access to Breezewood services for those who need it...while not inconveniencing those who don't. If the old 70 lanes need any number beside "TO US 30" , I think BL-70 would be ideal–providing useful guidance to motorists while giving a small (and appropriate) concession to Breezewood businesses.
Quote from: briantroutman on October 19, 2017, 07:37:31 PM
Regardless of whether Breezewood deserves access to I-70 and the Pennsylvania Turnpike, I think US 30 and the communities along it should have that access. And even if we don't like the Breezewood business community's obstructionism, numerous motorists (and especially truckers) legitimately need the services available there.
If a nonstop connection is ever built, I think the most cost-effective high-speed solution would involve building a couple of gentle two-lame ramps completing the two through movements...while largely leaving the existing Breezewood interchange unchanged. I think it goes without saying that both new ramps would be AET.
While it would be nice to have them, I don't think high-speed ramps connecting the other 70-76 movements would really be worth their cost.
The above arrangement would preserve access to Breezewood services for those who need it...while not inconveniencing those who don't. If the old 70 lanes need any number beside "TO US 30" , I think BL-70 would be ideal–providing useful guidance to motorists while giving a small (and appropriate) concession to Breezewood businesses.
I would definitely agree that the existing I-70 roadways should continue to end at US-30 as they do currently.
My solution would be two ramps added to connect southerly I-70 to the Turnpike connector highway (the segment of the bypassed original turnpike, that connects US-30 to the mainline Turnpike). That would fully connect I-70 to both directions of the Turnpike, thru the toll plaza.
The I-70 thru route is important, but other movements are important as well. Connecting southerly I-70 to easterly Turnpike is important, for example long distance traffic using the route that includes I-68, I-70, and I-76 east of Breezewood.
Quote from: briantroutman on October 19, 2017, 07:37:31 PM
Regardless of whether Breezewood deserves access to I-70 and the Pennsylvania Turnpike, I think US 30 and the communities along it should have that access. And even if we don't like the Breezewood business community's obstructionism, numerous motorists (and especially truckers) legitimately need the services available there.
If a nonstop connection is ever built, I think the most cost-effective high-speed solution would involve building a couple of gentle two-lame ramps completing the two through movements...while largely leaving the existing Breezewood interchange unchanged. I think it goes without saying that both new ramps would be AET.
While it would be nice to have them, I don't think high-speed ramps connecting the other 70-76 movements would really be worth their cost.
The above arrangement would preserve access to Breezewood services for those who need it...while not inconveniencing those who don't. If the old 70 lanes need any number beside "TO US 30" , I think BL-70 would be ideal–providing useful guidance to motorists while giving a small (and appropriate) concession to Breezewood businesses.
A reasonable idea if there ever was one. Movement from either westward movement of I-70 or 76 to the eastward movement of the other route would be minimal except for local traffic, which in all likelihood isn't particularly disturbed by the present discontinuity of I-70, so may as well leave those movements as is. I might add (possibly gratuitously!) that any community whose economic well-being is dependent upon maintaining a "forced march" through their midst by interrupting a transcontinental through route perhaps doesn't warrant more than a passing nod to their situation -- certainly not to the point of deferring to their wishes. If they want to be a "virtual service plaza", they need to advertise the fact that they're there and they feature relatively convenient access -- like every other community adjacent to an Interstate. They've gotten special treatment for about 50 years now; it's high time for a sea change!
Quote from: sparker on October 19, 2017, 09:34:27 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on October 19, 2017, 07:37:31 PM
Regardless of whether Breezewood deserves access to I-70 and the Pennsylvania Turnpike, I think US 30 and the communities along it should have that access. And even if we don't like the Breezewood business community's obstructionism, numerous motorists (and especially truckers) legitimately need the services available there.
If a nonstop connection is ever built, I think the most cost-effective high-speed solution would involve building a couple of gentle two-lame ramps completing the two through movements...while largely leaving the existing Breezewood interchange unchanged. I think it goes without saying that both new ramps would be AET.
While it would be nice to have them, I don't think high-speed ramps connecting the other 70-76 movements would really be worth their cost.
The above arrangement would preserve access to Breezewood services for those who need it...while not inconveniencing those who don't. If the old 70 lanes need any number beside "TO US 30" , I think BL-70 would be ideal–providing useful guidance to motorists while giving a small (and appropriate) concession to Breezewood businesses.
A reasonable idea if there ever was one. Movement from either westward movement of I-70 or 76 to the eastward movement of the other route would be minimal except for local traffic, which in all likelihood isn't particularly disturbed by the present discontinuity of I-70, so may as well leave those movements as is. I might add (possibly gratuitously!) that any community whose economic well-being is dependent upon maintaining a "forced march" through their midst by interrupting a transcontinental through route perhaps doesn't warrant more than a passing nod to their situation -- certainly not to the point of deferring to their wishes. If they want to be a "virtual service plaza", they need to advertise the fact that they're there and they feature relatively convenient access -- like every other community adjacent to an Interstate. They've gotten special treatment for about 50 years now; it's high time for a sea change!
Adding the two direct-connecting ramps, despite the NIMBY's likely protests, will not bring much of a loss to the Breezewood businesses. Most drivers already know when they approach Breezewood if they are planning to stop for gas/food/restrooms/lodging there or if they want to get on and off the US-30 stretch as quickly as possible. Adding two convenience ramps isn't going to make many drivers say "I'll just pee/get gas/eat/rest... at the next exit instead".
Both PennDOT and the Turnpike could install a series of Blue Logo Signs approaching Breezewood, listing ALL available facilities (if they don't do it already) there and label that short stretch BL-70.
They could even offer to make the logo signs free as a concession for building the connection. Free logo signs, the "main" road still going to Breezewood, and a business route would IMO be a very fair compromise to get a direct connection built.
Quote from: vdeane on October 20, 2017, 12:52:33 PM
They could even offer to make the logo signs free as a concession for building the connection. Free logo signs, the "main" road still going to Breezewood, and a business route would IMO be a very fair compromise to get a direct connection built.
There are probably too many businesses to fit on the one standard logo sign per type (vehicle services, lodging, restaurants). Standard practice is to only list the top ones ranked by business size or total revenue (practice varies by state).
As a further concession, offer to provide as many logo signs as needed so that every Breezewood business will be on a logo sign!
Quote from: Beltway on October 20, 2017, 01:03:50 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 20, 2017, 12:52:33 PM
They could even offer to make the logo signs free as a concession for building the connection. Free logo signs, the "main" road still going to Breezewood, and a business route would IMO be a very fair compromise to get a direct connection built.
There are probably too many businesses to fit on the one standard logo sign per type (vehicle services, lodging, restaurants). Standard practice is to only list the top ones ranked by business size or total revenue (practice varies by state).
As a further concession, offer to provide as many logo signs as needed so that every Breezewood business will be on a logo sign!
It's permissible to use 2 signs, up to 6 logos each, for each type if need-be.
I'm sure billboards can be put up to allow businesses to advertise on them as well.
Quote from: Beltway on October 20, 2017, 01:03:50 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 20, 2017, 12:52:33 PM
They could even offer to make the logo signs free as a concession for building the connection. Free logo signs, the "main" road still going to Breezewood, and a business route would IMO be a very fair compromise to get a direct connection built.
There are probably too many businesses to fit on the one standard logo sign per type (vehicle services, lodging, restaurants). Standard practice is to only list the top ones ranked by business size or total revenue (practice varies by state).
As a further concession, offer to provide as many logo signs as needed so that every Breezewood business will be on a logo sign!
The MUTCD now allows for up to twelve logos on up to two sign panels per service. Probably still won't be able to fit every business in Breezewood who would want a LOGO, not to mention finding space for all the additional signs, but it's a thought. Of course, not sure if PTC would be amenable to providing service signs on the Turnpike that would potentially take business away from their own plazas.
^ Right–I was just about to say: The PTC posts logo signs for lodging and attractions but does not sign food or fuel services on sections of the Turnpike covered by service plazas. Of course the approach from "free" I-70 could be signed with all services.
But I have to say that fitting most if not all businesses within the allotted sign space might not be as difficult as you think. For all of the hyperbole about Breezewood being a "blaze of Las Vegas neon" , it's not a very happening place these days. Actually, I was there about a week ago, and it reminded me of a dying rust belt shopping mall with about as many storefronts and sign frames vacant as there were filled.
Are there really that many businesses in that short segment of US 30? I've been through Breezewood on 30 -- or at least as far as Tannery Road. There's nothing beyond the Quality Inn going east, and nothing of note west of South Breezewood Road.
Quote from: roadman on October 20, 2017, 01:29:37 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 20, 2017, 01:03:50 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 20, 2017, 12:52:33 PM
They could even offer to make the logo signs free as a concession for building the connection. Free logo signs, the "main" road still going to Breezewood, and a business route would IMO be a very fair compromise to get a direct connection built.
There are probably too many businesses to fit on the one standard logo sign per type (vehicle services, lodging, restaurants). Standard practice is to only list the top ones ranked by business size or total revenue (practice varies by state).
As a further concession, offer to provide as many logo signs as needed so that every Breezewood business will be on a logo sign!
The MUTCD now allows for up to twelve logos on up to two sign panels per service. Probably still won't be able to fit every business in Breezewood who would want a LOGO, not to mention finding space for all the additional signs, but it's a thought. Of course, not sure if PTC would be amenable to providing service signs on the Turnpike that would potentially take business away from their own plazas.
So, up to --
24 vehicle services
24 lodgings
24 restaurants
I'm sure that Breezewood doesn't have that many on any type.
Quote from: Beltway on October 20, 2017, 05:56:32 PM
Quote from: roadman on October 20, 2017, 01:29:37 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 20, 2017, 01:03:50 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 20, 2017, 12:52:33 PM
They could even offer to make the logo signs free as a concession for building the connection. Free logo signs, the "main" road still going to Breezewood, and a business route would IMO be a very fair compromise to get a direct connection built.
There are probably too many businesses to fit on the one standard logo sign per type (vehicle services, lodging, restaurants). Standard practice is to only list the top ones ranked by business size or total revenue (practice varies by state).
As a further concession, offer to provide as many logo signs as needed so that every Breezewood business will be on a logo sign!
The MUTCD now allows for up to twelve logos on up to two sign panels per service. Probably still won't be able to fit every business in Breezewood who would want a LOGO, not to mention finding space for all the additional signs, but it's a thought. Of course, not sure if PTC would be amenable to providing service signs on the Turnpike that would potentially take business away from their own plazas.
So, up to --
24 vehicle services
24 lodgings
24 restaurants
I'm sure that Breezewood doesn't have that many on any type.
No - up to 12 logos split between 2 sign panels, so 6 on each panel.
Imagine the politics involved when one of those businesses must be omitted from its category sign for lack of room.
ixnay
PS: I voted no, it's not a dead horse.
I don't recall the exact number and configuration, but in general, there really isn't an unusually high number of standalone G/F/L businesses in Breezewood. From what I recall driving through there about two weeks ago, there were:
Four chain hotels: Holiday Inn Express, Quality Inn, Days Inn (which was a Best Western until recently), and an Econo Lodge
Two truck stops: TA (Gateway), Flying J
One full-service restaurant: Bob Evans
About four fast food joints: McDonald's, Hardee's, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut
About four gas stations: Sunoco, Shell, Sheetz (maybe one other)
One Starbucks
So, roughly speaking, there aren't many (if any) more than six of each category (gas, food, lodging). The number goes up, though, if you count the separate branded "storefronts" that are inside some of the businesses. The Gateway/TA truck stop contains a Dairy Queen inside (in addition to its Gateway full-service restaurant), and the auto-oriented fuel pumps are nominally branded as a Valero station. The Flying J's restaurant is branded as a Perkins and I believe it's gas pumps are branded Shell. I believe that one gas station has a Subway counter inside and another has an "express" version of a Dunkin' Donuts. The total number of restaurant "brands" that make some kind of appearance in Breezewood might be twice the six allowed. But even then, that's no greater than many typical interchanges in suburban and exurban areas.
When assigning priority for a limited number of logo sign panels, PennDOT gives priority (https://palogo.org/logo-program/logo-program-faq/) based on closeness to the terminal of the exit ramp. I'm not sure if the PTC does the same, but if so, a completely different set of businesses would have priority on the I-70 services signs vs. the Turnpike services signs.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 20, 2017, 06:08:42 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 20, 2017, 05:56:32 PM
Quote from: roadman on October 20, 2017, 01:29:37 PM
The MUTCD now allows for up to twelve logos on up to two sign panels per service. Probably still won't be able to fit every business in Breezewood who would want a LOGO, not to mention finding space for all the additional signs, but it's a thought. Of course, not sure if PTC would be amenable to providing service signs on the Turnpike that would potentially take business away from their own plazas.
So, up to --
24 vehicle services
24 lodgings
24 restaurants
I'm sure that Breezewood doesn't have that many on any type.
No - up to 12 logos split between 2 sign panels, so 6 on each panel.
So, up to --
12 vehicle services
12 lodgings
12 restaurants
?
My interpretation of the MUTCD restrictions on specific services (logo) signage is as follows:
No more than six logos per sign
No more than two signs per service category
No more than four signs per interchange
So this would max out an interchange at 24 businesses total, regardless of how they're divided between the categories (gas, food, lodging, etc.).
In other words, you could have twelve restaurants and twelve hotels, but you would be doing so at the cost of listing any gas stations, attractions, campgrounds, or 24-hour pharmacies.
Edited to add: Here are relevant lines from the Part 2J of the MUTCD (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/part2j.htm).
Quote from: Section 2J.02 Application
Standard:
01 The number of Specific Service signs along an approach to an interchange or intersection, regardless of the number of service types displayed, shall be limited to a maximum of four.
...
04 No service type shall appear on more than two signs.
Quote from: Section 2J.04 Number and Size of Signs and Logo Sign PanelsStandard:
01 Each Specific Service sign or sign assembly shall be limited to no more than six logo sign panels.
...
04 Where logo sign panels for more than six businesses of a specific service type are displayed at the same interchange or intersection approach, the following provisions shall apply:
A. No more than 12 logo sign panels of a specific service type shall be displayed on no more than two Specific Service signs or sign assemblies;
Quote from: roadman on October 20, 2017, 01:29:37 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 20, 2017, 01:03:50 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 20, 2017, 12:52:33 PM
They could even offer to make the logo signs free as a concession for building the connection. Free logo signs, the "main" road still going to Breezewood, and a business route would IMO be a very fair compromise to get a direct connection built.
There are probably too many businesses to fit on the one standard logo sign per type (vehicle services, lodging, restaurants). Standard practice is to only list the top ones ranked by business size or total revenue (practice varies by state).
As a further concession, offer to provide as many logo signs as needed so that every Breezewood business will be on a logo sign!
The MUTCD now allows for up to twelve logos on up to two sign panels per service. Probably still won't be able to fit every business in Breezewood who would want a LOGO, not to mention finding space for all the additional signs, but it's a thought. Of course, not sure if PTC would be amenable to providing service signs on the Turnpike that would potentially take business away from their own plazas.
Again, PTC should allow an exception to additional Gas/Food logo signs there for EB I-70 approaching Breezewood. Those continuing on I-76 East have probably made their decision (logo signs or not) if they are making a pit stop at Breezewood or if they will use a Service Plaza or later exit on the pike.
Adding the extra logo service signs on the PTC is really only to pacify the NIMBY's in Breezewood as a "compromise" for the two I-70 direct connection ramps that "could" (but in reality, probably won't) affect their businesses.
Quote from: thenetwork on October 20, 2017, 10:20:29 PM
Quote from: roadman on October 20, 2017, 01:29:37 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 20, 2017, 01:03:50 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 20, 2017, 12:52:33 PM
They could even offer to make the logo signs free as a concession for building the connection. Free logo signs, the "main" road still going to Breezewood, and a business route would IMO be a very fair compromise to get a direct connection built.
There are probably too many businesses to fit on the one standard logo sign per type (vehicle services, lodging, restaurants). Standard practice is to only list the top ones ranked by business size or total revenue (practice varies by state).
As a further concession, offer to provide as many logo signs as needed so that every Breezewood business will be on a logo sign!
The MUTCD now allows for up to twelve logos on up to two sign panels per service. Probably still won't be able to fit every business in Breezewood who would want a LOGO, not to mention finding space for all the additional signs, but it's a thought. Of course, not sure if PTC would be amenable to providing service signs on the Turnpike that would potentially take business away from their own plazas.
Again, PTC should allow an exception to additional Gas/Food logo signs there for EB I-70 approaching Breezewood. Those continuing on I-76 East have probably made their decision (logo signs or not) if they are making a pit stop at Breezewood or if they will use a Service Plaza or later exit on the pike.
Adding the extra logo service signs on the PTC is really only to pacify the NIMBY's in Breezewood as a "compromise" for the two I-70 direct connection ramps that "could" (but in reality, probably won't) affect their businesses.
Have you actually looked up how many businesses are in the area? I'm finding:
6 or 7 gas stations
8 hotels/motels
10 or 11 restaurants/dining options
So I'm not sure how big you think Breezewood is, but even 2 signs per type of business is more than enough to satisfy the current offerings available.
^ I think the issue–as far as the PTC is concerned–is that the agency does not sign food or fuel services at all on sections of the Turnpike covered by service plazas. To the contrary, the PTC routinely posts signs for the next service plaza, even if it's 10 or 20 miles away, immediately prior to an interchange–almost as if saying "Don't exit now...there's a service plaza coming up" .
The lack of signage for off-Turnpike food and fuel might be dictated by the PTC's contract with HMSHost, although I don't know this for sure.
So if the PTC was to make an exception and sign fuel and food when it normally wouldn't, I think the rationale would be that the Breezewood businesses are effectively a service to motorists following I-70 who wouldn't have access to subsequent service plazas anyway.
But on the westbound approach from "free" I-70, this isn't an issue, and it appears that most (if not all) businesses could get a logo sign without PennDOT needing to make any exceptions. If I'm reading the rules correctly, and the cap is 24 logo panels divided among four signs, that would be:
LODGING - 1 sign, 6 logos
FOOD - 2 signs, 12 logos
GAS - 1 sign, 6 logos
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 21, 2017, 11:05:41 AM
Have you actually looked up how many businesses are in the area? I'm finding:
6 or 7 gas stations
8 hotels/motels
10 or 11 restaurants/dining options
So I'm not sure how big you think Breezewood is, but even 2 signs per type of business is more than enough to satisfy the current offerings available.
No Wendy's! How can any serious business area not have the one restaurant where you can get a hamburger at 10:00 am?
Don't forget -- businesses pay to have their logos on those signs. Some businesses might choose not to pony up.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 22, 2017, 12:23:55 AM
Don't forget -- businesses pay to have their logos on those signs. Some businesses might choose not to pony up.
Remember...in this whole hypothetical example, the logo signs were to be free as a concession for building a direct interchange.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 13, 2017, 11:18:29 PM
Quote from: Alps on October 13, 2017, 09:25:13 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 13, 2017, 08:15:10 PM
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.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.route2i68.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F12%2Fi-68-extension-map.jpg&hash=c629ef9dd326660de2edc4cee8e5333103d9e0fd)
From http://www.route2i68.com/maps/
The most often mentioned proposed terminal is Moundsville, not New Martinsville. This extension isn't anywhere on WVDOH's radar, even their previously released lists of pipe dreams.
One of the county commissioners from Marshall County (Moundsville) keeps periodically trying to float the project because he thinks it would be good for the natural gas fracking industry. He's suggested that Marshall County might try to pay for it themselves, at least the portion in Marshall County. He doesn't have the faintest idea how much a project like this would cost and there's no way a toll road along this corridor would fly since it's no shorter than the existing I-70/I-79 routing between Morgantown and Wheeling.
The other problem with a routing ending in Moundsville is how to get it up to I-70. Neither OH nor US 250/WV 2 have good high speed/high volume interchanges with I-70 or I-470. The OH 7 corridor is overall in better shape but still has some at-grade intersections that would be hard to remove, and using it would require ODOT's involvement. Glen Dale and Moundsville would be hard to bypass on the WV and there's no good route from the ridge down to the river valley.
Should we move this to fictional highways, now that we are discussing the potential for moving i70 to a differnet roadway
Quote from: Beltway on October 21, 2017, 02:02:22 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 21, 2017, 11:05:41 AM
Have you actually looked up how many businesses are in the area? I'm finding:
6 or 7 gas stations
8 hotels/motels
10 or 11 restaurants/dining options
So I'm not sure how big you think Breezewood is, but even 2 signs per type of business is more than enough to satisfy the current offerings available.
No Wendy's! How can any serious business area not have the one restaurant where you can get a hamburger at 10:00 am?
There had been a Wendy's on North Breezewood Rd by the Bob Evans until about 2 years ago. It closed.
Nexus 6P
Quote from: SteveG1988 on October 22, 2017, 08:40:13 PM
Should we move this to fictional highways, now that we are discussing the potential for moving i70 to a differnet roadway
Well we have not turned it over to the nature of that idea, as we are talking about improvements to a rather current situation that has taken place for well over 50 years.
Quote from: Mr_Northside on October 19, 2017, 04:01:46 PM
Quote from: lepidopteran on October 19, 2017, 01:18:09 PM
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.
It would absolutely be overkill to do either of those things.
But since you mention it, I like the Business I-70 idea, just due to how ridiculous it would be.
Quote from: briantroutman on October 19, 2017, 07:37:31 PM
The above arrangement would preserve access to Breezewood services for those who need it...while not inconveniencing those who don't. If the old 70 lanes need any number beside "TO US 30" , I think BL-70 would be ideal–providing useful guidance to motorists while giving a small (and appropriate) concession to Breezewood businesses.
Actually, the old 70 would be a candidate for
Business Spur 70, aka BS-70; very fitting IMHO. :sombrero:
BL-70 would also go on the PTC ramps to Breezewood and along US 30.
Quote from: vdeane on October 27, 2017, 12:46:54 PM
BL-70 would also go on the PTC ramps to Breezewood and along US 30.
While true, such is an unnecessary concurrency IMHO.
There's a bill on the governor's desk to expand casino gambling to, among other places, truck stops. I could see this being a setback to any bypass of Breezewood cause we know full well that stop would definitely apply for and get a license. Welcome to Pennsylvania.
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 27, 2017, 01:38:41 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 27, 2017, 12:46:54 PM
BL-70 would also go on the PTC ramps to Breezewood and along US 30.
While true, such is an unnecessary concurrency IMHO.
I know there are many roadgeeks who dislike most concurrences; personally, I'm fine with them. But I think that this case (i.e. a direct I-70 connection is created but the existing access to and from Breezewood remains) is a nearly ideal situation for a business loop because it would serve the needs of almost all stakeholders.
For through I-70 motorists (at least those who have any idea what a BL is), "LOOP" would provide some reassurance that they can follow the BL for services and keep proceeding toward their final destination without having to double back.
For the Breezewood businesses which stand to be bypassed by a direct connection, having green 70 shields on their street would be something of a consolation prize. (My understanding is that this desire to appease bypassed businesses was the impetus for the BL/BS program originally.)
By the way, for anyone following this thread but not "Redesigning Interchanges" , I posted a few I-70 direct connection concepts here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3618.msg2269978#msg2269978).
Quote from: ekt8750 on October 27, 2017, 02:15:40 PM
There's a bill on the governor's desk to expand casino gambling to, among other places, truck stops. I could see this being a setback to any bypass of Breezewood cause we know full well that stop would definitely apply for and get a license. Welcome to Pennsylvania.
Oh, don't worry, I'm sure all the tax revenue will end up going to some good cause.
Yeah, right.
My son's class is heading to Gettysburg and Washington, DC next week.
Guess where the buses are stopping for gas...
I held my tongue when Breezewood was mentioned at the meeting, not wanting to bore 150 fellow parents with a history of toll roads and the Interstate system.
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 27, 2017, 01:38:41 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 27, 2017, 12:46:54 PM
BL-70 would also go on the PTC ramps to Breezewood and along US 30.
While true, such is an unnecessary concurrency IMHO.
How would it be unnecessary? The PTC ramps don't have another designation, and IMO are a bit long for "ramps" anyways, neither end of the route would be in a concurrency, and it shows the I-70 travelers how to get to the businesses and back again, for both directions.
Quote from: vdeane on October 27, 2017, 08:24:00 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 27, 2017, 01:38:41 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 27, 2017, 12:46:54 PM
BL-70 would also go on the PTC ramps to Breezewood and along US 30.
While true, such is an unnecessary concurrency IMHO.
How would it be unnecessary? The PTC ramps don't have another designation, and IMO are a bit long for "ramps" anyways, neither end of the route would be in a concurrency, and it shows the I-70 travelers how to get to the businesses and back again, for both directions.
I just looked at the area via Google Maps and forgot about the ramp from US 30 to the Turnpike being very long. That, along with Briantroutman's earlier comments (see Reply #139), justifies the short concurrency BL-70 would have w/US 30. I hearby recant my earlier BS-70 suggestion.
Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on October 27, 2017, 03:17:27 PM
My son's class is heading to Gettysburg and Washington, DC next week.
Guess where the buses are stopping for gas...
I held my tongue when Breezewood was mentioned at the meeting, not wanting to bore 150 fellow parents with a history of toll roads and the Interstate system.
I find myself biting my toungue about lots of road geek stuff in polite company LOL.
One of my friends was surprised to see US17 in Orlando.. he thought it was a Jacksonville only road... I resisted the urge to educate (read bore) him about the entire route from Punta Gorda all the way to Virginia
Z981
Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on October 27, 2017, 03:17:27 PM
My son's class is heading to Gettysburg and Washington, DC next week.
Guess where the buses are stopping for gas...
I held my tongue when Breezewood was mentioned at the meeting, not wanting to bore 150 fellow parents with a history of toll roads and the Interstate system.
Back in the 1980s, when my Boy Scout troop made our annual ski trip to Seven Springs, there was a scheduled stop "to regroup" at the McDonald's in Breezewood. Essentially the idea was that all the cars were to stop there so as to make sure everyone was accounted for and nobody got lost prior to entering the Turnpike because of the longer distances between exits on there. (Obviously, given the date, this was all before mobile phones, sat-navs, etc.) There was another scheduled stop in Somerset to make sure everyone got OFF the Turnpike properly. It was never clear to me what exactly would have been done had someone missed the exit or otherwise gotten lost.
As much as Breezewood is an annoyance, I have to concede that under those circumstances in those days it was a logical point for a stop of that sort. Indeed on a different camping trip to eastern Pennsylvania one year, the parent leading the way (who was supposedly from the area) led everyone onto the Turnpike going in the wrong direction, so I guess stopping to regroup wasn't necessarily a bad idea.
Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on October 27, 2017, 03:17:27 PM
My son's class is heading to Gettysburg and Washington, DC next week.
Guess where the buses are stopping for gas...
I held my tongue when Breezewood was mentioned at the meeting, not wanting to bore 150 fellow parents with a history of toll roads and the Interstate system.
While the area in general is not right when it comes to normal interstate policy, what you see is what you get. If buses want to make it their fueling stop, they are fully in their right to do so. Maybe they also have a fueling agreement with one of the stations there making it convenient for them, or maybe their fueling calculations make this the best area to stop in to prevent an additional stop along the way, or running too low of fuel.
Not only would you bore them, but the reaction would've been less than favorable.
Quote from: jwolfer on October 30, 2017, 10:27:59 AM
Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on October 27, 2017, 03:17:27 PM
My son's class is heading to Gettysburg and Washington, DC next week.
Guess where the buses are stopping for gas...
I held my tongue when Breezewood was mentioned at the meeting, not wanting to bore 150 fellow parents with a history of toll roads and the Interstate system.
I find myself biting my toungue about lots of road geek stuff in polite company LOL.
One of my friends was surprised to see US17 in Orlando.. he thought it was a Jacksonville only road... I resisted the urge to educate (read bore) him about the entire route from Punta Gorda all the way to Virginia
Z981
I find myself biting my tongue a LOT when it comes to weather, personally - it's very much a topic of interest for me, and most of the people who use it as small talk know nothing about it.
Neither do meteorologists, given how well they predict the weather. :D
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 30, 2017, 11:13:22 AM
Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on October 27, 2017, 03:17:27 PM
My son's class is heading to Gettysburg and Washington, DC next week.
Guess where the buses are stopping for gas...
I held my tongue when Breezewood was mentioned at the meeting, not wanting to bore 150 fellow parents with a history of toll roads and the Interstate system.
While the area in general is not right when it comes to normal interstate policy, what you see is what you get. If buses want to make it their fueling stop, they are fully in their right to do so. Maybe they also have a fueling agreement with one of the stations there making it convenient for them, or maybe their fueling calculations make this the best area to stop in to prevent an additional stop along the way, or running too low of fuel.
Not only would you bore them, but the reaction would've been less than favorable.
The circumstances are likely similar to a NASCAR "competition caution"; if you've gotta slow down anyway, may as well make a pit stop so you don't have to do so later!
Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on October 27, 2017, 03:17:27 PM
My son's class is heading to Gettysburg and Washington, DC next week.
Guess where the buses are stopping for gas...
I seem to recall that Greyhound had a station stop in Breezewood at one time. IIRC, the facility had sort of a "colonial" style of architecture, and was located on Breezewood Rd., just up the hill (and a hillside flight of stairs?) from the McDonald's there now. But Google Maps shows this structure as demolished, and I thought I read a news story somewhere about when this place closed.
I also read an article once about how people, en route to some protest in DC, were pleasantly surprised at meeting groups of like-minded folks when all their buses stopped there in Breezewood.
The time I (and some friends) took the Greyhound from PGH to NYC - in 2002, we stopped in Breezewood, but I can't remember exactly where.... I'm pretty sure it's where the "Flying J" is now.
Quote from: lepidopteran on November 05, 2017, 12:29:34 AM
I also read an article once about how people, en route to some protest in DC, were pleasantly surprised at meeting groups of like-minded folks when all their buses stopped there in Breezewood.
I think it was that stupid rally Jon Stewart and Stephen Pretentious Pronunciation Of His Last Name held a few years ago.
It appears that the place in Breezewood where the Greyhound -- and pretty much every other bus, including charters -- stopped, was called the "Post House Cafeteria", and was in fact located where the Flying J is now. According to article linked below, the Post House opened for Greyhound in 1964, and closed in 2004. The article attributes its closure to "a lag in tourism after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. "It just hasn't been profitable"
http://www.post-gazette.com/frontpage/2004/06/27/Breezewood-s-Post-House-is-closing-its-doors/stories/200406270150 (http://www.post-gazette.com/frontpage/2004/06/27/Breezewood-s-Post-House-is-closing-its-doors/stories/200406270150)
QuoteBreezewood, with a faded sign proclaiming it the "Town of Motels" and the "Traveler's Oasis," boomed after the Pennsylvania Turnpike opened in 1940 with one gas station and the first traveler's stop, the Gateway Motel and Restaurant.
The profusion of businesses competing to make their signs most prominent has overwhelmed the small Post House Cafeteria sign, with an arrow pointing up the hill.
From the outside, the red-brick, one-story Post House contrasts with the new, brightly lighted restaurants on the highway just below. It feels dated on the inside too.
Computer-generated, paper signs cover the doors and windows, announcing the specials for the day and the prices.
The dining room is divided into sections by large, stained-glass windows depicting scenes from the early days of Pennsylvania: a woman wearing a bonnet stoking a fire; a blacksmith in suspenders working a piece of metal.
Those walls separate rows and rows of wooden tables, many with slightly mismatched chairs and black plastic ashtrays. Smoking is permitted just about everywhere in the building, except a small area near the front door.
In an effort to entertain the children who pass through the doors, there's a room of arcade games, including the classic Ms. Pac-Man.
In an age of wireless communication, where it's sometimes difficult to find a single pay phone, the Post House offers a bank of them against the back wall.
I'm still not sure what the restaurant was that was up the hill from the McDonald's on Breezewood Rd.; a Howard Johnson's, perhaps? Google Maps shows a rather clear floor-plan that resembles a family restaurant, albeit now-demolished.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 06, 2017, 03:40:03 PM
Quote from: lepidopteran on November 05, 2017, 12:29:34 AM
I also read an article once about how people, en route to some protest in DC, were pleasantly surprised at meeting groups of like-minded folks when all their buses stopped there in Breezewood.
I think it was that stupid rally Jon Stewart and Stephen Pretentious Pronunciation Of His Last Name held a few years ago.
You mean the bipartisan Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear? I guess you dislike Sanity.
Quote from: lepidopteran on November 05, 2017, 12:29:34 AM
I seem to recall that Greyhound had a station stop in Breezewood at one time. IIRC, the facility had sort of a "colonial" style of architecture, and was located on Breezewood Rd., just up the hill (and a hillside flight of stairs?) from the McDonald's there now.
The Breezewood Post House is behind the Flying J and still standing today (I saw it in Breezewood a few weeks ago). It's on Post House Road, logically enough. The building is unremarkable, not colonial or really distinctive in any way: just a fairly generic looking '60s box of a building with long canopies extending out of the left and right sides where busses would pull up and discharge their passengers. You can see it on Google's current satellite image–grass is growing between the cracks in the pavement, but the canopy wings and diagonal bus parking spaces are very easy to see: https://goo.gl/maps/LXfhrYsc9b12
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5128/5261898249_7772f12f6b_b.jpg)
Sometime after the '60s postcard picture above, the Post House sign on top of the roof was removed and a towering yellow sign reading "Post House Cafeteria" was added behind the building–visible from US 30. Even though it's been closed for more than a decade, the sign is still there, and you can barely see it on Street View (you can make out the word
CAFETERIA): https://goo.gl/maps/db6xWQbFjqy There's another Post House sign mounted at ground level, ironically still proclaiming: "Always Open" . I didn't take any photos while I was there, but someone sketched a drawing that's fairly accurate:
(https://orig00.deviantart.net/f5f4/f/2008/069/0/0/breezewood__pa_post_house____by_zekesgraphics.jpg)
Quote from: lepidopteran on November 06, 2017, 06:02:30 PM
I'm still not sure what the restaurant was that was up the hill from the McDonald's on Breezewood Rd.; a Howard Johnson's, perhaps?
I'm not sure about the demolished building on South Breezewood Road was, but it wasn't a Howard Johnson's.
There was a Howard Johnson's Restaurant in Breezewood on US 30, and the building is still there–occasionally vacant, occasionally occupied–most recently doing business as Your Game Bar and Grille as of a couple of years ago (https://goo.gl/maps/tDhpsECDEZS2).
There had also been a Howard Johnson's Motor Lodge behind the restaurant, part of which (including the motor lodge office) was demolished to build the Holiday Inn Express around 2000. Sometime after that, more of the motor lodge was demolished to create parking space for the HIE, leaving only one motor lodge building with about 15 rooms standing today. It's apparently owned by the Gateway Travel Plaza, and the HoJo remnants were just relabeled as the Gateway Travel Lodge and rooms were rented from a counter in the truck stop. The Gateway Travel Plaza website (https://web.archive.org/web/20131016105446/http://www.gatewaytravelplaza.com/index.php?page=lodging) used to list the HIE and Gateway Travel Lodge as separate options under Lodging, but the Travel Lodge was dropped from the website between 2013 and 2014. The last building is still there as of a few weeks ago and appeared to show signs of life, but perhaps the Gateway owners are using the rooms as cheap housing for employees (?).
The guy who maintains "America's Landmark" Howard Johnson history website has a detailed write-up on the Breezewood complex: http://www.highwayhost.org/Pennsylvania/Breezewood/breezewood1.html
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 11, 2017, 02:19:51 PM
Quote from: jemacedo9 on October 11, 2017, 01:49:36 PM
Should have they been fixed previously? Sure. But that and a dollar will get you a dollar.
The one that needs fixing above all of them is the Breezewood.
Why?
As I suggested above, crashes on I-70 westbound (compass nearly north) approaching the signalized intersection at U.S. 30. That is (or should be) unacceptable.
Citation please.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on November 06, 2017, 08:00:09 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 11, 2017, 02:19:51 PM
Quote from: jemacedo9 on October 11, 2017, 01:49:36 PM
Should have they been fixed previously? Sure. But that and a dollar will get you a dollar.
The one that needs fixing above all of them is the Breezewood.
Why?
As I suggested above, crashes on I-70 westbound (compass nearly north) approaching the signalized intersection at U.S. 30. That is (or should be) unacceptable.
Citation please.
First cite where crashes are acceptable.
Why not just use US 30 and shunpike anyway?
Quote from: Alps on November 06, 2017, 06:32:41 PM
You mean the bipartisan Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear?
and/or Fear? :)
This is one case where a typo can send a contradictory message.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on November 06, 2017, 09:07:26 PM
Why not just use US 30 and shunpike anyway?
Plenty of steep grades and sharp curves on U.S. 30 between Breezewood and Chambersburg for starters - and most of it is one lane each way.
^ Nevermind that one still has to get to US 30...of which the most direct route is to stay on I-70 West right through the high-crash zone.
Of course, folks could try Exit 149 and take South Breezewood Rd up to US 30, but then they'd be sitting at THAT stoplight forever...
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 07, 2017, 08:52:33 AM
Quote from: Alps on November 06, 2017, 06:32:41 PM
You mean the bipartisan Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear?
and/or Fear? :)
This is one case where a typo can send a contradictory message.
There was no typo.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on November 06, 2017, 09:07:26 PM
Why not just use US 30 and shunpike anyway?
It depends where you are going. For people heading to Bedford and the US 220 corridor, I'd say many or maybe even most do just take US 30 which is 4-5 lanes between there and has better access to I-99. West of Bedford and east of Breezewood, US 30 is not particularly good as a through route.
Quote from: Bitmapped on November 08, 2017, 01:10:25 PM
It depends where you are going. For people heading to Bedford and the US 220 corridor, I'd say many or maybe even most do just take US 30 which is 4-5 lanes between there and has better access to I-99. West of Bedford and east of Breezewood, US 30 is not particularly good as a through route.
Once past the miserable signal at I-70 and U.S. 30, U.S. 30 west of Breezewood is indeed a pretty good road, and traffic there seems rather heavy (there's the issue of why PennDOT spent money to turn that part of U.S. 30 into a near-freeway parallel to the Pennsylvania Turnpike, but the whole reason of why Pennsylvania converts roads that do not need to be freeways into freeways or near-freeways (excluding ADHS corridors) is broader than U.S. 30).
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 08, 2017, 03:03:24 PM
there's the issue of why PennDOT spent money to turn that part of U.S. 30 into a near-freeway parallel to the Pennsylvania Turnpike
I could be wrong, cause I don't have the timelines in front of me, but I think the planning and funding was done while Bud Shuster was still in power (even if he was out/deceased by the time all the construction was done)
Quote from: Mr_Northside on November 08, 2017, 04:05:24 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 08, 2017, 03:03:24 PM
there's the issue of why PennDOT spent money to turn that part of U.S. 30 into a near-freeway parallel to the Pennsylvania Turnpike
I could be wrong, cause I don't have the timelines in front of me, but I think the planning and funding was done while Bud Shuster was still in power (even if he was out/deceased by the time all the construction was done)
I wouldn't call it a "near freeway" as most the length is nonlimited-access, but it is a good 4-lane highway and I use it when connecting between I-70 and I-99. It certainly has the traffic warrants for 4 lanes. That long-phase signal at I-70 and westerly US-30 is no worse that taking US-30 to the Breezewood turnpike entrance. And as pointed out US-30 makes a direct connection to I-99.
Quote from: briantroutman on November 06, 2017, 07:46:46 PM
Quote from: lepidopteran on November 05, 2017, 12:29:34 AM
I seem to recall that Greyhound had a station stop in Breezewood at one time. IIRC, the facility had sort of a "colonial" style of architecture, and was located on Breezewood Rd., just up the hill (and a hillside flight of stairs?) from the McDonald's there now.
The Breezewood Post House is behind the Flying J and still standing today (I saw it in Breezewood a few weeks ago). It's on Post House Road, logically enough. The building is unremarkable, not colonial or really distinctive in any way: just a fairly generic looking '60s box of a building with long canopies extending out of the left and right sides where busses would pull up and discharge their passengers. You can see it on Google's current satellite image–grass is growing between the cracks in the pavement, but the canopy wings and diagonal bus parking spaces are very easy to see: https://goo.gl/maps/LXfhrYsc9b12
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5128/5261898249_7772f12f6b_b.jpg)
Sometime after the '60s postcard picture above, the Post House sign on top of the roof was removed and a towering yellow sign reading "Post House Cafeteria" was added behind the building–visible from US 30. Even though it's been closed for more than a decade, the sign is still there, and you can barely see it on Street View (you can make out the word CAFETERIA): https://goo.gl/maps/db6xWQbFjqy There's another Post House sign mounted at ground level, ironically still proclaiming: "Always Open" . I didn't take any photos while I was there, but someone sketched a drawing that's fairly accurate:
(https://orig00.deviantart.net/f5f4/f/2008/069/0/0/breezewood__pa_post_house____by_zekesgraphics.jpg)
Quote from: lepidopteran on November 06, 2017, 06:02:30 PM
I'm still not sure what the restaurant was that was up the hill from the McDonald's on Breezewood Rd.; a Howard Johnson's, perhaps?
I'm not sure about the demolished building on South Breezewood Road was, but it wasn't a Howard Johnson's.
There was a Howard Johnson's Restaurant in Breezewood on US 30, and the building is still there–occasionally vacant, occasionally occupied–most recently doing business as Your Game Bar and Grille as of a couple of years ago (https://goo.gl/maps/tDhpsECDEZS2).
There had also been a Howard Johnson's Motor Lodge behind the restaurant, part of which (including the motor lodge office) was demolished to build the Holiday Inn Express around 2000. Sometime after that, more of the motor lodge was demolished to create parking space for the HIE, leaving only one motor lodge building with about 15 rooms standing today. It's apparently owned by the Gateway Travel Plaza, and the HoJo remnants were just relabeled as the Gateway Travel Lodge and rooms were rented from a counter in the truck stop. The Gateway Travel Plaza website (https://web.archive.org/web/20131016105446/http://www.gatewaytravelplaza.com/index.php?page=lodging) used to list the HIE and Gateway Travel Lodge as separate options under Lodging, but the Travel Lodge was dropped from the website between 2013 and 2014. The last building is still there as of a few weeks ago and appeared to show signs of life, but perhaps the Gateway owners are using the rooms as cheap housing for employees (?).
The guy who maintains "America's Landmark" Howard Johnson history website has a detailed write-up on the Breezewood complex: http://www.highwayhost.org/Pennsylvania/Breezewood/breezewood1.html
So where do Greyhound buses stop there today? Or are there no longer routes through there?
Quote from: bzakharin on November 09, 2017, 01:10:20 PM
So where do Greyhound buses stop there today? Or are there no longer routes through there?
Greyhound surely still runs busses through Breezewood in some fashion. Though not labeled, you can easily see the Breezewood juction on Greyhound's route map (http://extranet.greyhound.com/Revsup/schedules/sa-50.pdf) where routes 202 (Pittsburgh-Harrisburg) and 200 (Pittsburgh-Baltimore) diverge.
I notice that Greyhound's website doesn't allow Breezewood as an origin or destination–nor does the bus line provide service to any of the other small communities between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh (Carlisle, Bedford, Somerset, etc.). I've never been in a Post House (or on a Greyhound bus, for that matter), but I'm inclined to believe that they served a dual purpose as dining facilities and also as bus stations. (in other words, I assume that if you broke down in Breezewood, you could walk into the Post House and buy a bus ticket home.) If that's the case, then Breezewood was taken off Greyhound's map with the 2004 closure of its Post House.
Greyhound puts RS Sliding Rock on some Pittsburgh-Harrisburg schedules and judging from the name and time, I think they mean Sideling Hill Service Plaza.
Nexus 6P
Neither Breezewood nor Sideling Hill is listed on the current Greyhound timetable (dated 06/21/2017, available as a 292-page .pdf here (http://extranet.greyhound.com/revsup/schedules2/pdf/NABT%20Timetable%20Guide%20062117.pdf)).
The "RS Sideling Hill" that apparently used to appear on the 1683 (NYC—LA) schedule did indeed refer to the Sideling Hill Service Plaza–but only as a rest stop (that's what "RS" stands for), not as station stop. You couldn't actually buy a ticket to or from there, in the same way you cannot buy a ticket to or from the Delaware House Travel Plaza in the median of I-95 today, even though it's listed on the 124 (NYC—Fayetteville) schedule.
It appears Greyhound hasn't stopped in Breezewood since June 2004, when the Breezewood Post House closed its doors (http://www.post-gazette.com/frontpage/2004/06/27/Breezewood-s-Post-House-is-closing-its-doors/stories/200406270150).
I know I will be roasted for this, but why is it so important? It is just a freeway not up to standards, basically. We have something like it up here too. How is it relevant or very interesting?
I-70 is on a surface road in Breezewood. It's not just substandard; it's an Interstate on a normal road.
In Breezewood, there exists an anomaly in the interstate system, I-70 in this case. Because of an impasse between the private operators of the Pennsylvania Turnpike and the builders of I-70, there's a "gap" in the interstate instead of a direct ramp. To continue on I-70 toward Baltimore after it breaks from the Turnpike, you have to follow a ramp to a surface street (US 30) then make a left turn at a traffic light (and the reverse applies for the opposite direction). It will most likely stay that way because businesses along this gap have thrived from it.
There are other gaps in the country, but this is among the most notable (if not the most).
How is https://imgur.com/a/UaD7Q (https://imgur.com/a/UaD7Q) (Breezewood) not alike https://imgur.com/a/4z01x (https://imgur.com/a/4z01x) (I-495 ME) and https://imgur.com/a/t93Wr (https://imgur.com/a/t93Wr)(I-180)?
Quote from: Marf on December 17, 2017, 08:40:26 PM
How is https://imgur.com/a/UaD7Q (https://imgur.com/a/UaD7Q) (Breezewood) not alike https://imgur.com/a/4z01x (https://imgur.com/a/4z01x) (I-495 ME) and https://imgur.com/a/t93Wr (https://imgur.com/a/t93Wr)(I-180)?
I-495 there is just a stub end to a surface street. I-180 is a 3di surface street "interstate". Breezewood is unique in that a major 2di interstate (ending in x0) rides on surface streets through traffic lights before becoming a freeway once again.
Okay, got it. :colorful:
Quote from: Brandon on December 17, 2017, 08:47:06 PM
Quote from: Marf on December 17, 2017, 08:40:26 PM
How is https://imgur.com/a/UaD7Q (https://imgur.com/a/UaD7Q) (Breezewood) not alike https://imgur.com/a/4z01x (https://imgur.com/a/4z01x) (I-495 ME) and https://imgur.com/a/t93Wr (https://imgur.com/a/t93Wr)(I-180)?
I-495 there is just a stub end to a surface street. I-180 is a 3di surface street "interstate". Breezewood is unique in that a major 2di interstate (ending in x0) rides on surface streets through traffic lights before becoming a freeway once again.
It makes many people on these roads boards feel like puking. Whether the I-70 signs on US-30 really mean that segment is an Interstate route (I don't think it does) can be debated, but the point remains that a major 2di interstate (ending in x0) has a gap that could easily be remediated by building two ramps between I-70 and the Turnpike access highway.
It's a gap in freeways.
Breezewood was cool at first, now it's just a lame trope.
Like others have said, the two freeways I-70 uses do not connect, causing it to run wrong-way concurrent with US 30 on a surface street through the crowded business district of Breezewood. Personally I think it should be rerouted already, I-78 should also be taken off the highly congested surface streets, and I-180 in Wyoming is a complete slap in the face to the system and should be removed. The other designations on it serve the purpose well enough.
And by the way Marf, awesome song in your signature. Underrated late-80s classic.
Quote from: nwi_navigator_1181 on December 17, 2017, 08:35:49 PMIt will most likely stay that way because businesses along this gap have thrived from it.
It makes no sense that those businesses bitch every time a direct connection proposal is made. People are still going to have to stop and get gas, grab a bag of Cheetos, and take a piss even if the interchange is built. If hundreds of other towns can survive with having interchanges on their interstates, so can Breezewood.
Quote from: LM117 on December 18, 2017, 10:55:27 AM
Quote from: nwi_navigator_1181 on December 17, 2017, 08:35:49 PMIt will most likely stay that way because businesses along this gap have thrived from it.
It makes no sense that those businesses bitch every time a direct connection proposal is made. People are still going to have to stop and get gas, grab a bag of Cheetos, and take a piss even if the interchange is built. If hundreds of other towns can survive with having interchanges on their interstates, so can Breezewood.
Which is true, but nowhere else have I ever seen such an insane amount of stuff crammed onto one short road.
I wonder how high the property values are down there? Must be some expensive road.
I think the 13-mile stretch of abandoned Pennsylvania Turnpike makes Breezewood way more interesting than the surface road I-70.
Breezewood is also in the middle of a very populated area of the country, and is traveled quite often (or could be traveled) by many on these forums.
The more likely people here are familiar with it, the more likely it's going to be talked about and referenced more often.
If I-180 were in PA, with a seemingly easy ability to properly upgrade it to a true limited access highway, guaranteed it'll be talked about more often.
Huh, guess this thing was moved. :ded:
Quote from: 20160805 on December 18, 2017, 07:27:44 AM
Like others have said, the two freeways I-70 uses do not connect, causing it to run wrong-way concurrent with US 30 on a surface street through the crowded business district of Breezewood. Personally I think it should be rerouted already, I-78 should also be taken off the highly congested surface streets, and I-180 in Wyoming is a complete slap in the face to the system and should be removed. The other designations on it serve the purpose well enough.
And by the way Marf, awesome song in your signature. Underrated late-80s classic.
I-78 is not talked about because it does not link two completed freeway segments at each end. I-78 could easily be remedied by truncating it to the end of the Turnpike Freeway at Jersey Avenue. Most non road geeks do not even see it as such anyway, so its not that noticeable. Plus the PANYNJ that maintain the two one ways streets of 12 Street and Boyle Plaza does not sign it that good anyway. Mostly its on paper, so no one here really gives a damn.
I think that they won't build an interchange to avoid angering the business owners.
More broadly, we use "Breezewood" as a derogatory term for a place where two freeways (or tollways) that meet without a free-flowing system interchange.
The PA Tpk has lots of "Breezewoods".
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 21, 2017, 12:16:33 PM
More broadly, we use "Breezewood" as a derogatory term for a place where two freeways (or tollways) that meet without a free-flowing system interchange.
The PA Tpk has lots of "Breezewoods".
Personally, I think that is a misuse of the term "Breezewood." Breezewood presents a unique situation, where you have to exit off a numbered freeway and navigate a surface road with traffic signals to stay on the freeway. That's not as egregious as a situation where there is no direct connection between two freeways, and you have to use surface roads to connect from one numbered highway to a different numbered highway. They aren't unique to Pennsylvania. I-71 to US 35 in Ohio is also an example, as is I-81 south to I-88 east.
The lack of an interchange between I-81 and I-76 west of Harrisburg doesn't bother me the way Breezewood does.
Quote from: hbelkins on December 21, 2017, 12:55:28 PM
The lack of an interchange between I-81 and I-76 west of Harrisburg doesn't bother me the way Breezewood does.
Bugs the heck out of me. Driving through truck hell is hell.
Henderson KY may just be the next Breezewood for I-69.
Quote from: Rothman on December 21, 2017, 01:38:09 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 21, 2017, 12:55:28 PM
The lack of an interchange between I-81 and I-76 west of Harrisburg doesn't bother me the way Breezewood does.
Bugs the heck out of me. Driving through truck hell is hell.
It is a gap in two major Interstate highway movements --
1) Westerly I-76 <==> easterly I-81 and I-78
2) Easterly I-76 <==> westerly I-81
(I am aware that national I-81 is north-south, but the above reflects the orientation in central PA)
I am also aware that there is an all-Interstate alternative that utilizes I-83 and I-283 east of Harrisburg, but it incurs about 10 additional miles and those segments are already overloaded with traffic. There is probably less delay to use the surface connection at Carlisle.
I'd rather say that it's just a gap in the fact that there isn't a direct connection between I-81 and I-76 at all. Any way you want to go between the two interstates, you have to drive past those major truck stops.
Quote from: hbelkins on December 21, 2017, 12:55:28 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 21, 2017, 12:16:33 PM
More broadly, we use "Breezewood" as a derogatory term for a place where two freeways (or tollways) that meet without a free-flowing system interchange.
The PA Tpk has lots of "Breezewoods".
Personally, I think that is a misuse of the term "Breezewood." Breezewood presents a unique situation, where you have to exit off a numbered freeway and navigate a surface road with traffic signals to stay on the freeway. That's not as egregious as a situation where there is no direct connection between two freeways, and you have to use surface roads to connect from one numbered highway to a different numbered highway. They aren't unique to Pennsylvania. I-71 to US 35 in Ohio is also an example, as is I-81 south to I-88 east.
The lack of an interchange between I-81 and I-76 west of Harrisburg doesn't bother me the way Breezewood does.
Question. If one of the I-70s were renumbered (say, for example, Breezewood to Baltimore were I-995), would it bother you less?
Quote from: kphoger on December 21, 2017, 03:25:50 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 21, 2017, 12:55:28 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 21, 2017, 12:16:33 PM
More broadly, we use "Breezewood" as a derogatory term for a place where two freeways (or tollways) that meet without a free-flowing system interchange.
The PA Tpk has lots of "Breezewoods".
Personally, I think that is a misuse of the term "Breezewood." Breezewood presents a unique situation, where you have to exit off a numbered freeway and navigate a surface road with traffic signals to stay on the freeway. That's not as egregious as a situation where there is no direct connection between two freeways, and you have to use surface roads to connect from one numbered highway to a different numbered highway. They aren't unique to Pennsylvania. I-71 to US 35 in Ohio is also an example, as is I-81 south to I-88 east.
The lack of an interchange between I-81 and I-76 west of Harrisburg doesn't bother me the way Breezewood does.
Question. If one of the I-70s were renumbered (say, for example, Breezewood to Baltimore were I-995), would it bother you less?
Yes.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on December 21, 2017, 01:52:41 PM
Henderson KY may just be the next Breezewood for I-69.
Not in the least. It would just be a short stretch of surface road between two freeways, just as the short stretch of US 460 in Salyersville, Ky., will be when the Mountain Parkway extension between Salyersville and Prestonsburg is completed. Not a situation where you have to exit the road you're on and drive through a short segment of surface route to reconnect to the freeway.
Quote from: hbelkins on December 21, 2017, 03:32:51 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 21, 2017, 03:25:50 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 21, 2017, 12:55:28 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 21, 2017, 12:16:33 PM
More broadly, we use "Breezewood" as a derogatory term for a place where two freeways (or tollways) that meet without a free-flowing system interchange.
The PA Tpk has lots of "Breezewoods".
Personally, I think that is a misuse of the term "Breezewood." Breezewood presents a unique situation, where you have to exit off a numbered freeway and navigate a surface road with traffic signals to stay on the freeway. That's not as egregious as a situation where there is no direct connection between two freeways, and you have to use surface roads to connect from one numbered highway to a different numbered highway. They aren't unique to Pennsylvania. I-71 to US 35 in Ohio is also an example, as is I-81 south to I-88 east.
The lack of an interchange between I-81 and I-76 west of Harrisburg doesn't bother me the way Breezewood does.
Question. If one of the I-70s were renumbered (say, for example, Breezewood to Baltimore were I-995), would it bother you less?
Yes.
Second question. Do you think that's silly? After all, everything stays physically the same, people still go where they intend to go. Nothing actually changes except a little number on a little sign.
Quote from: Rothman on December 21, 2017, 02:26:30 PM
I'd rather say that it's just a gap in the fact that there isn't a direct connection between I-81 and I-76 at all. Any way you want to go between the two interstates, you have to drive past those major truck stops.
When you transfer from one Interstate highway to another Interstate highway, it should be a seamless freeway connection, you should not have to use surface roads.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 21, 2017, 12:16:33 PM
More broadly, we use "Breezewood" as a derogatory term for a place where two freeways (or tollways) that meet without a free-flowing system interchange.
The PA Tpk has lots of "Breezewoods".
So did OH and IN on their toll roads. Many of them remedied though. NJ still has one between the NJ Turnpike and NJ 42 where a direct freeway into Philly from the Turnpike is needed. I-69 getting done from Indy to Mexico will be completed before something like this missing connection is addressed.
Quote from: roadman65 on December 21, 2017, 06:02:47 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 21, 2017, 12:16:33 PM
More broadly, we use "Breezewood" as a derogatory term for a place where two freeways (or tollways) that meet without a free-flowing system interchange.
The PA Tpk has lots of "Breezewoods".
So did OH and IN on their toll roads. Many of them remedied though. NJ still has one between the NJ Turnpike and NJ 42...
Another is 295 and the NJ Tpk PA Ext.
Another is the missing moves between 295 North and 42 South and vice versa.
Another minor one is 295 South to the NJ Tpk North and vice versa.
The most interesting thing about Breezewood is the fact that we continue to talk about it, despite the fact that everything there is to say about it has been said hundreds of times.
Quote from: webny99 on December 21, 2017, 06:34:34 PM
The most interesting thing about Breezewood is the fact that we continue to talk about it, despite the fact that everything there is to say about it has been said hundreds of times.
New members join all the time.
Quote from: 1 on December 21, 2017, 06:35:20 PM
Quote from: webny99 on December 21, 2017, 06:34:34 PM
The most interesting thing about Breezewood is the fact that we continue to talk about it, despite the fact that everything there is to say about it has been said hundreds of times.
New members join all the time.
New members never tell us stuff we didn't know already, or ask stuff that hasn't already been answered. It would be preferred if they just read the old threads.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 21, 2017, 06:34:13 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 21, 2017, 06:02:47 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 21, 2017, 12:16:33 PM
More broadly, we use "Breezewood" as a derogatory term for a place where two freeways (or tollways) that meet without a free-flowing system interchange.
The PA Tpk has lots of "Breezewoods".
So did OH and IN on their toll roads. Many of them remedied though. NJ still has one between the NJ Turnpike and NJ 42...
Another is 295 and the NJ Tpk PA Ext.
Another is the missing moves between 295 North and 42 South and vice versa.
Another minor one is 295 South to the NJ Tpk North and vice versa.
Yeah the list goes on and on. We have one in FL that finally is being filled in and that is the SR 417 at the FL Turnpike that has partial ramps. However, the current Tpk widening is addressing the last three ramps to complete all the movements there.
Also the Bruckner to the Hutch in NYC. You need to use the Bruckner Blvd. Service Road to go from EB I-278 to the NB Parkway and from the SB Hutch to WB I-278.
Also in Queens going from the Van Wyck to the EB LIE or WB on the LIE to any direction on the Van Wyck.
Quote from: webny99 on December 21, 2017, 06:38:04 PM
Quote from: 1 on December 21, 2017, 06:35:20 PM
Quote from: webny99 on December 21, 2017, 06:34:34 PM
The most interesting thing about Breezewood is the fact that we continue to talk about it, despite the fact that everything there is to say about it has been said hundreds of times.
New members join all the time.
New members never tell us stuff we didn't know already, or ask stuff that hasn't already been answered. It would be preferred if they just read the old threads.
I meant that if we stopped talking about Breezewood, then new members might not know about it. I didn't know about it when I joined.
Breezewood and of course the damned I-74 & US 74 thing is very old that we sometimes get tired of it. Yeah, new members are unaware of it, but tell our nerves that.
I do have a tolerance for it though, but some of the users get serious about even fictional highways when a new user has an ideal solution where they act as if the proposer is from the DOT of the state and many lash out at him for the idea.
Oh well. It is what it is.
Quote from: 1 on December 21, 2017, 06:43:06 PM
Quote from: webny99 on December 21, 2017, 06:38:04 PM
Quote from: 1 on December 21, 2017, 06:35:20 PM
Quote from: webny99 on December 21, 2017, 06:34:34 PM
The most interesting thing about Breezewood is the fact that we continue to talk about it, despite the fact that everything there is to say about it has been said hundreds of times.
New members join all the time.
New members never tell us stuff we didn't know already, or ask stuff that hasn't already been answered. It would be preferred if they just read the old threads.
I meant that if we stopped talking about Breezewood, then new members might not know about it. I didn't know about it when I joined.
Fair point. Me either, TBH. This gives me an idea - I'll start a thread in General Highway Talk that should solve that problem.
Quote from: webny99 on December 21, 2017, 06:51:54 PM
Quote from: 1 on December 21, 2017, 06:43:06 PM
Quote from: webny99 on December 21, 2017, 06:38:04 PM
Quote from: 1 on December 21, 2017, 06:35:20 PM
Quote from: webny99 on December 21, 2017, 06:34:34 PM
The most interesting thing about Breezewood is the fact that we continue to talk about it, despite the fact that everything there is to say about it has been said hundreds of times.
New members join all the time.
New members never tell us stuff we didn't know already, or ask stuff that hasn't already been answered. It would be preferred if they just read the old threads.
I meant that if we stopped talking about Breezewood, then new members might not know about it. I didn't know about it when I joined.
Fair point. Me either, TBH. This gives me an idea - I'll start a thread in General Highway Talk that should solve that problem.
We mention Breezewood often enough that it doesn't need its own dedicated thread. And this thread is already a thread dedicated to Breezewood.
Quote from: 1 on December 21, 2017, 06:53:06 PM
Quote from: webny99 on December 21, 2017, 06:51:54 PM
Quote from: 1 on December 21, 2017, 06:43:06 PM
Quote from: webny99 on December 21, 2017, 06:38:04 PM
Quote from: 1 on December 21, 2017, 06:35:20 PM
Quote from: webny99 on December 21, 2017, 06:34:34 PM
The most interesting thing about Breezewood is the fact that we continue to talk about it, despite the fact that everything there is to say about it has been said hundreds of times.
New members join all the time.
New members never tell us stuff we didn't know already, or ask stuff that hasn't already been answered. It would be preferred if they just read the old threads.
I meant that if we stopped talking about Breezewood, then new members might not know about it. I didn't know about it when I joined.
Fair point. Me either, TBH. This gives me an idea - I'll start a thread in General Highway Talk that should solve that problem.
We mention Breezewood often enough that it doesn't need its own dedicated thread. And this thread is already a thread dedicated to Breezewood.
I know. That's why I made a general thread, "Things every roadgeek should know"
Breezewood is bad for several reasons:
(1) Crashes caused by an at-grade signalized intersection and at-grade driveways on a road that should not have them, especially I-70 westbound (headed compass north from Maryland to Breezewood) approaching the traffic signal at U.S. 30.
(2) Added congestion that should not be there, especially around the holidays.
(3) The influence of owners and businesses in "downtown" Breezewood (the Wilt family is one of them) that has an effective lobbying machine to keep Breezewood the way that it is. Never mind that PTC and PennDOT have remediated some of the other breezewoods in recent years, including at Exit 28 (Cranberry (I-79)) and at Exit 298 (Morgantown (I-176)).
I for one never, ever stop in Breezewood, not even at the Sheetz, which is a a chain that I really like. Instead, I stop in Hagerstown, Maryland or at one of the service plazas on the Pennsylvania Turnpike.
Quote from: roadman65 on December 21, 2017, 06:02:47 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 21, 2017, 12:16:33 PM
More broadly, we use "Breezewood" as a derogatory term for a place where two freeways (or tollways) that meet without a free-flowing system interchange.
The PA Tpk has lots of "Breezewoods".
So did OH and IN on their toll roads. Many of them remedied though. NJ still has one between the NJ Turnpike and NJ 42 where a direct freeway into Philly from the Turnpike is needed. I-69 getting done from Indy to Mexico will be completed before something like this missing connection is addressed.
IL has a few. Part of the I-294/Tri State Tollway and I-57 Interchange has (finally) been completed - the most useful movements of North I-57 to North I-294 and South I-294 to South I-57. The other movements are to be done at a later time. 159th St/US 6 is about 1 mile of Surface Street between its Cloverleaves with both I-294 and I-57 for all directional movements
The I-294/Tri-State Tollway and I-55/Stevenson Expressway Interchange has a missing movement - I-55 South to I-294 South. The connection is made using La Grange Rd/US 12/20/45 for about 1 mile or so, which is Freeflow but not full Grade Separated Freeway between the two Interstates
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 21, 2017, 07:24:38 PM
I for one never, ever stop in Breezewood, not even at the Sheetz, which is a a chain that I really like. Instead, I stop in Hagerstown, Maryland or at one of the service plazas on the Pennsylvania Turnpike.
I'd rather stop at a private enterprise in Breezewood than a government-licensed monopoly at a service plaza, where the restaurants typically charge inflated prices and often don't accept coupons from the franchising brand. It's not Sheetz's fault that Breezewood exists the way it does, nor is it the fault of any other business there. It's the fault of spineless politicians who won't remedy the situation, and the fact that there are two separate agencies that maintain the highways there (PennDOT and the turnpike authority.)
Considering all the lobbying those businesses do to make sure the politicians never allow PennDOT and the PTC to do anything about it, yes it is their fault.
As for a solution, I was thinking they could build an EZ-Pass-only interchange that would connect the EB turnpike with EB I-70, and WB I-70 with the WB turnpike.
Breezewood is basically interesting because its so common. Also that it gets the road geek boycott people verses the those who feel its crazy to take it out on a business (or businesses) like here and previous threads.
To me I won't boycott it, but understand those who do as I boycott the news lately as non of them seem to give that anymore, especially Fox! But to each his own.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 21, 2017, 07:24:38 PM
Breezewood is bad for several reasons:
(1) Crashes caused by an at-grade signalized intersection and at-grade driveways on a road that should not have them, especially I-70 westbound (headed compass north from Maryland to Breezewood) approaching the traffic signal at U.S. 30.
(2) Added congestion that should not be there, especially around the holidays.
(3) The influence of owners and businesses in "downtown" Breezewood (the Wilt family is one of them) that has an effective lobbying machine to keep Breezewood the way that it is. Never mind that PTC and PennDOT have remediated some of the other breezewoods in recent years, including at Exit 28 (Cranberry (I-79)) and at Exit 298 (Morgantown (I-176)).
I for one never, ever stop in Breezewood, not even at the Sheetz, which is a a chain that I really like. Instead, I stop in Hagerstown, Maryland or at one of the service plazas on the Pennsylvania Turnpike.
Look at the other side of the coin on this one. What about the people that wake up since they have to break up the tunnel vision sometimes associated with interstate driving.
The travelers get off the road and get a chance to stretch their legs and see something else.
This keeps a local economy going instead of dying on the vine.
Quote from: hbelkins on December 21, 2017, 10:02:23 PM
It's not Sheetz's fault that Breezewood exists the way it does, nor is it the fault of any other business there. It's the fault of spineless politicians who won't remedy the situation, and the fact that there are two separate agencies that maintain the highways there (PennDOT and the turnpike authority.)
Quote from: vdeane on December 21, 2017, 10:15:16 PM
Considering all the lobbying those businesses do to make sure the politicians never allow PennDOT and the PTC to do anything about it, yes it is their fault.
I gotta say, I'm with
vdeane on this one. I'm not saying I hate Breezewood (never even driven that far east), but the businesses there are at least partly to blame for its persistence.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on December 22, 2017, 01:41:37 PM
Look at the other side of the coin on this one. What about the people that wake up since they have to break up the tunnel vision sometimes associated with interstate driving.
The travelers get off the road and get a chance to stretch their legs and see something else.
This keeps a local economy going instead of dying on the vine.
No need to stop at Breezewood for a break of any kind. That can be accomplished on the Pennsylvania Turnpike or along U.S. 30 west of Breezewood.
Regarding the economy, I think Breezewood would not be hurt by it being bypassed. People that want to patronize the businesses will still stop there. But drivers not interested in Breezewood will bypass it.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 22, 2017, 07:53:14 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on December 22, 2017, 01:41:37 PM
Look at the other side of the coin on this one. What about the people that wake up since they have to break up the tunnel vision sometimes associated with interstate driving.
The travelers get off the road and get a chance to stretch their legs and see something else.
This keeps a local economy going instead of dying on the vine.
No need to stop at Breezewood for a break of any kind. That can be accomplished on the Pennsylvania Turnpike or along U.S. 30 west of Breezewood.
Regarding the economy, I think Breezewood would not be hurt by it being bypassed. People that want to patronize the businesses will still stop there. But drivers not interested in Breezewood will bypass it.
I think the size of Breezewood would be hurt. The strong will survive.
Funny.
We were just looking through some old family picture albums the other night and there is a picture of my dad splashing water in my face in a motel swimming pool in Breezewood, from the summer of 1976. My dad, a roadgeek from a time before being a roadgeek was cool, was utterly convinced that the "Breezewood Problem" would be solved in the next 10-15 years (so by 1991).
Sorry dad, you were way off in your projection, God rest your soul.
Quote from: slorydn1 on December 23, 2017, 04:36:24 AM
a time before being a roadgeek was cool
Nonsense. Have you been to a roadmeet? None of us are cool.
Quote from: kphoger on December 23, 2017, 04:19:50 PM
Quote from: slorydn1 on December 23, 2017, 04:36:24 AM
a time before being a roadgeek was cool
Nonsense. Have you been to a roadmeet? None of us are cool.
Speak for yourself. :biggrin:
All of us are cool. Whether other people know it or not is irrelevant.
Quote from: roadman65 on December 21, 2017, 06:02:47 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 21, 2017, 12:16:33 PM
More broadly, we use "Breezewood" as a derogatory term for a place where two freeways (or tollways) that meet without a free-flowing system interchange.
The PA Tpk has lots of "Breezewoods".
So did OH and IN on their toll roads. Many of them remedied though. NJ still has one between the NJ Turnpike and NJ 42 where a direct freeway into Philly from the Turnpike is needed. I-69 getting done from Indy to Mexico will be completed before something like this missing connection is addressed.
Ohio had some "Breezewoods" and still has one major one between I-475 and the Turnpike. Indiana never had any such "Breezewoods". I-69 was built connecting to the existing US-27 interchange. And the only other interstate the Toll Road meets, I-94, was planned as an interchange from when the Borman Expressway ended at the Toll Road in the 1960s, later extended to M-239 in the mid-1970s.
Quote from: hbelkins on December 21, 2017, 10:02:23 PM
I'd rather stop at a private enterprise in Breezewood than a government-licensed monopoly at a service plaza, where the restaurants typically charge inflated prices and often don't accept coupons from the franchising brand. It's not Sheetz's fault that Breezewood exists the way it does, nor is it the fault of any other business there. It's the fault of spineless politicians who won't remedy the situation, and the fact that there are two separate agencies that maintain the highways there (PennDOT and the turnpike authority.)
They are not really government licensed monopolies in the style of utility companies for the following reasons:
(1) You can exit ticket-type toll roads (like most of the Pennsylvania Turnpike) and patronize off-turnpike businesses if you prefer.
(2) I believe all contracts with private-sector service plaza operators (such as HMSHost and AreasUSA) are competitively (re)bid on a periodic basis, which is why HMSHost lost the two Maryland plazas to AreasUSA.
(3) I agree with you about the spineless Pennsylvania politicians - and spineless members of Congress that have it within their authority to end every single breezewood in the nation (by far the most are found in Pennsylvania) though some simple changes to the tax code.
(4) Regarding Sheetz, I agree that it is not their fault in any way - Breezewood was a breezewood long before they had a store there. Still, I will patronize one of the Sheetz stores in Hagerstown instead.
(5) Regarding prices, some toll road service plazas do charge excessive prices for some things. On the other hand, if I am driving my truck, I usually stop to fill up at one of the service plazas on the New Jersey Turnpike, because Diesel (and it is
full-
service Diesel) is generally cheaper there than other places in the East except possibly South Carolina and certain warehouse stores like Sam's Club, Costco and BJ's (I have cards for all three) which sell Diesel (not all warehouse clubs with fuel islands carry Diesel).
As I have said before, if Breezewood were to be bypassed, then I would certainly consider patronizing the businesses there.
Consider also that there is one nearly
absolute monopoly on many toll roads in the U.S. - if your vehicle breaks down, you can only get service from a tow service that has a contract with the operator of the toll road (though most of them now honor your AAA card if you have one, which was not always the case).
Quote from: Brandon on December 24, 2017, 09:05:17 PM
Ohio had some "Breezewoods" and still has one major one between I-475 and the Turnpike. Indiana never had any such "Breezewoods". I-69 was built connecting to the existing US-27 interchange. And the only other interstate the Toll Road meets, I-94, was planned as an interchange from when the Borman Expressway ended at the Toll Road in the 1960s, later extended to M-239 in the mid-1970s.
The Ohio Turnpike did eliminate the non-connection with I-75, and the one at I-280 (which I remember as having traffic signals at one point) is now a freeway-to-freeway connection, so I am inclined to give them a pass on the breezewood at I-475.
They also got rid of the non-connection at I-77.
There's another breezewood that often gets forgotten in these threads - the one on FL-70 between I-95 (Exit 129) and Florida's Turnpike (Exit 152) (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/27.4125836,-80.3989655/27.4150094,-80.3907255/@27.4143712,-80.3939226,17z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0) at Fort Pierce.
Quote from: webny99 on December 21, 2017, 06:38:04 PM
Quote from: 1 on December 21, 2017, 06:35:20 PM
Quote from: webny99 on December 21, 2017, 06:34:34 PM
The most interesting thing about Breezewood is the fact that we continue to talk about it, despite the fact that everything there is to say about it has been said hundreds of times.
New members join all the time.
New members never tell us stuff we didn't know already, or ask stuff that hasn't already been answered. It would be preferred if they just read the old threads.
Maybe the forum needs a new folder to deal with the topic --
"Breezewood PA I-70 Gap"
[Just kidding :-)]
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 24, 2017, 10:51:50 PM
There's another breezewood that often gets forgotten in these threads - the one on FL-70 between I-95 (Exit 129) and Florida's Turnpike (Exit 152) (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/27.4125836,-80.3989655/27.4150094,-80.3907255/@27.4143712,-80.3939226,17z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0) at Fort Pierce.
Interesting ... first time I've seen it mentioned. Same thing with where I-95 crosses the Turnpike again south of Stuart, no direct interchange.
Maybe is it because hardly anyone wants to switch to the other highway?
Or maybe a traffic strategy to help keep a traffic balance on the two highways?
Quote from: Beltway on December 24, 2017, 11:03:21 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 24, 2017, 10:51:50 PM
There's another breezewood that often gets forgotten in these threads - the one on FL-70 between I-95 (Exit 129) and Florida's Turnpike (Exit 152) (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/27.4125836,-80.3989655/27.4150094,-80.3907255/@27.4143712,-80.3939226,17z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0) at Fort Pierce.
Interesting ... first time I've seen it mentioned. Same thing with where I-95 crosses the Turnpike again south of Stuart, no direct interchange.
Maybe is it because hardly anyone wants to switch to the other highway?
Or maybe a traffic strategy to help keep a traffic balance on the two highways?
Or maybe a more likely reason -- the toll road authority wants to keep traffic on the toll road
on the toll road!. Of course, this does inconvenience travelers at Fort Pierce, where the toll facility diverges to the NW from its largely parallel (some might say redundant!) to I-95 alignment south of there. Actually -- since the practical purpose of the turnpike over its southern segment parallel to I-95 is as effective "tolled express lanes" (with less chance of congestion simply because of the toll factor), a interchange-cum-toll-plaza at or near Fort Pierce might be beneficial to all concerned, as it would expedite independent use of the southern Turnpike as those virtual additional toll lanes once into that oft-congested region.
Quote from: sparker on December 25, 2017, 12:46:23 AM
Or maybe a more likely reason -- the toll road authority wants to keep traffic on the toll road on the toll road!. Of course, this does inconvenience travelers at Fort Pierce, where the toll facility diverges to the NW from its largely parallel (some might say redundant!) to I-95 alignment south of there.
There seemed to be
plenty of traffic on both when I last visited the Sunshine State (many years ago).
Quote from: sparker on December 25, 2017, 12:46:23 AM
Actually -- since the practical purpose of the turnpike over its southern segment parallel to I-95 is as effective "tolled express lanes" (with less chance of congestion simply because of the toll factor), a interchange-cum-toll-plaza at or near Fort Pierce might be beneficial to all concerned, as it would expedite independent use of the southern Turnpike as those virtual additional toll lanes once into that oft-congested region.
As with many U.S. toll roads, the distance between interchanges is (or was) greater on the Turnpike than on I-95, though apparently less than it once was, since the section of the Turnpike in South Florida is all cashless toll collection now, making it easier to add interchanges.
For some drivers, having on-freeway service plazas (generally not available on "free" roads in the U.S.) motivates use of toll roads. And I believe the Turnpike allows "turnpike double" tractor/semitrailer combinations, generally forbidden on "free" freeways like I-95.
Quote from: Beltway on December 24, 2017, 11:03:21 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 24, 2017, 10:51:50 PM
There's another breezewood that often gets forgotten in these threads - the one on FL-70 between I-95 (Exit 129) and Florida's Turnpike (Exit 152) (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/27.4125836,-80.3989655/27.4150094,-80.3907255/@27.4143712,-80.3939226,17z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0) at Fort Pierce.
Interesting ... first time I've seen it mentioned. Same thing with where I-95 crosses the Turnpike again south of Stuart, no direct interchange.
Maybe is it because hardly anyone wants to switch to the other highway?
Or maybe a traffic strategy to help keep a traffic balance on the two highways?
The large collection of breezewood-type businesses on and near FL-70 between the Turnpike and I-95 seems to imply that there are a fair number of trips that switch between the two roads.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 25, 2017, 06:28:32 AM
Quote from: sparker on December 25, 2017, 12:46:23 AM
Or maybe a more likely reason -- the toll road authority wants to keep traffic on the toll road on the toll road!. Of course, this does inconvenience travelers at Fort Pierce, where the toll facility diverges to the NW from its largely parallel (some might say redundant!) to I-95 alignment south of there.
There seemed to be plenty of traffic on both when I last visited the Sunshine State (many years ago).
2016 FDOT traffic data AADT --
I-95 south of the Fort Pierce crossing -- 74,500
Turnpike south of the Fort Pierce crossing -- 40,300
I-95 has 6 lanes there and the Turnpike has 4 lanes.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 25, 2017, 06:33:17 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 24, 2017, 11:03:21 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 24, 2017, 10:51:50 PM
There's another breezewood that often gets forgotten in these threads - the one on FL-70 between I-95 (Exit 129) and Florida's Turnpike (Exit 152) (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/27.4125836,-80.3989655/27.4150094,-80.3907255/@27.4143712,-80.3939226,17z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0) at Fort Pierce.
Interesting ... first time I've seen it mentioned. Same thing with where I-95 crosses the Turnpike again south of Stuart, no direct interchange.
Maybe is it because hardly anyone wants to switch to the other highway?
Or maybe a traffic strategy to help keep a traffic balance on the two highways?
The large collection of breezewood-type businesses on and near FL-70 between the Turnpike and I-95 seems to imply that there are a fair number of trips that switch between the two roads.
That business cluster may have well predated the completion of I-95, which was in 1987 per Wiki.
These dates are from memory.
Turnpike completed between Fort Pierce and Miami, 1959.
Turnpike completed between Fort Pierce and Orlando, 1965.
So originally FL-70 was the northern terminus of the Turnpike (Sunshine State Parkway as it was named back them), and after 1965 the only interchange between Stuart and Yeehaw Junction (others added in 1990s+ ?). And FL-70 was the connection between the Turnpike and the US-1 corridor north of Fort Pierce. Reasons why there would be a business cluster near the FL-70 interchange from 1959 onward.
I-95 completed between FL-70 and FL-60 at Vero Beach, the final segment of I-95 north of Fort Pierce, 1979. So I-95 traffic was forced to use FL-70 to connect to the Turnpike, for 8 years. More reasons why there would be a business cluster near the FL-70 interchange that well predated the completion of I-95.
Quote from: Beltway on December 25, 2017, 07:05:37 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 25, 2017, 06:28:32 AM
Quote from: sparker on December 25, 2017, 12:46:23 AM
Or maybe a more likely reason -- the toll road authority wants to keep traffic on the toll road on the toll road!. Of course, this does inconvenience travelers at Fort Pierce, where the toll facility diverges to the NW from its largely parallel (some might say redundant!) to I-95 alignment south of there.
There seemed to be plenty of traffic on both when I last visited the Sunshine State (many years ago).
2016 FDOT traffic data AADT --
I-95 south of the Fort Pierce crossing -- 74,500
Turnpike south of the Fort Pierce crossing -- 40,300
I-95 has 6 lanes there and the Turnpike has 4 lanes.
Those figures, taken in a relative sense, would make a lot of sense -- more aggregate traffic on the free 6-lane road with considerably more exits (as CPZ noted), with a not unexpected drop in usage for the lower-capacity toll facility -- but one with lower potential for congestion because of both the toll aspect as well as less access points. Functionally, drivers who don't have need to use the interim local exits provided by I-95 but
not by the Turnpike -- and who place value on the prospect of having a free-flowing facility -- can utilize the Turnpike for just that purpose. In effect, although the facilities are physically separated, a parallel "premium" express route.
Quote from: sparker on December 26, 2017, 01:06:06 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 25, 2017, 07:05:37 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 25, 2017, 06:28:32 AM
Quote from: sparker on December 25, 2017, 12:46:23 AM
Or maybe a more likely reason -- the toll road authority wants to keep traffic on the toll road on the toll road!. Of course, this does inconvenience travelers at Fort Pierce, where the toll facility diverges to the NW from its largely parallel (some might say redundant!) to I-95 alignment south of there.
There seemed to be plenty of traffic on both when I last visited the Sunshine State (many years ago).
2016 FDOT traffic data AADT --
I-95 south of the Fort Pierce crossing -- 74,500
Turnpike south of the Fort Pierce crossing -- 40,300
I-95 has 6 lanes there and the Turnpike has 4 lanes.
Those figures, taken in a relative sense, would make a lot of sense -- more aggregate traffic on the free 6-lane road with considerably more exits (as CPZ noted), with a not unexpected drop in usage for the lower-capacity toll facility -- but one with lower potential for congestion because of both the toll aspect as well as less access points. Functionally, drivers who don't have need to use the interim local exits provided by I-95 but not by the Turnpike -- and who place value on the prospect of having a free-flowing facility -- can utilize the Turnpike for just that purpose. In effect, although the facilities are physically separated, a parallel "premium" express route.
Turnpike volume north of the Fort Pierce crossing is nearly the same as to the south of it.
I-95 would naturally have the higher volume as it serves the entire east coast of Florida as well as the entire eastern seaboard.
The Turnpike merely connects south Florida with the central and western part of the state. I am surprised that it carries the high volume it does at Fort Pierce.
Quote from: Beltway on December 25, 2017, 07:49:59 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 25, 2017, 06:33:17 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 24, 2017, 11:03:21 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 24, 2017, 10:51:50 PM
There's another breezewood that often gets forgotten in these threads - the one on FL-70 between I-95 (Exit 129) and Florida's Turnpike (Exit 152) (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/27.4125836,-80.3989655/27.4150094,-80.3907255/@27.4143712,-80.3939226,17z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0) at Fort Pierce.
Interesting ... first time I've seen it mentioned. Same thing with where I-95 crosses the Turnpike again south of Stuart, no direct interchange.
Maybe is it because hardly anyone wants to switch to the other highway?
Or maybe a traffic strategy to help keep a traffic balance on the two highways?
The large collection of breezewood-type businesses on and near FL-70 between the Turnpike and I-95 seems to imply that there are a fair number of trips that switch between the two roads.
That business cluster may have well predated the completion of I-95, which was in 1987 per Wiki.
These dates are from memory.
Turnpike completed between Fort Pierce and Miami, 1959.
Turnpike completed between Fort Pierce and Orlando, 1965.
So originally FL-70 was the northern terminus of the Turnpike (Sunshine State Parkway as it was named back them), and after 1965 the only interchange between Stuart and Yeehaw Junction (others added in 1990s+ ?). And FL-70 was the connection between the Turnpike and the US-1 corridor north of Fort Pierce. Reasons why there would be a business cluster near the FL-70 interchange from 1959 onward.
I-95 completed between FL-70 and FL-60 at Vero Beach, the final segment of I-95 north of Fort Pierce, 1979. So I-95 traffic was forced to use FL-70 to connect to the Turnpike, for 8 years. More reasons why there would be a business cluster near the FL-70 interchange that well predated the completion of I-95.
I was a child when this situation existed. I remember this very well. I recall there was a sign stating that I-95 was something like 7/10 mile away.
I assumed that this situation was older than 1979. I remember I-95 being completed as well.
Quote from: Beltway on December 26, 2017, 08:11:40 AM
Quote from: sparker on December 26, 2017, 01:06:06 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 25, 2017, 07:05:37 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 25, 2017, 06:28:32 AM
Quote from: sparker on December 25, 2017, 12:46:23 AM
Or maybe a more likely reason -- the toll road authority wants to keep traffic on the toll road on the toll road!. Of course, this does inconvenience travelers at Fort Pierce, where the toll facility diverges to the NW from its largely parallel (some might say redundant!) to I-95 alignment south of there.
There seemed to be plenty of traffic on both when I last visited the Sunshine State (many years ago).
2016 FDOT traffic data AADT --
I-95 south of the Fort Pierce crossing -- 74,500
Turnpike south of the Fort Pierce crossing -- 40,300
I-95 has 6 lanes there and the Turnpike has 4 lanes.
Those figures, taken in a relative sense, would make a lot of sense -- more aggregate traffic on the free 6-lane road with considerably more exits (as CPZ noted), with a not unexpected drop in usage for the lower-capacity toll facility -- but one with lower potential for congestion because of both the toll aspect as well as less access points. Functionally, drivers who don't have need to use the interim local exits provided by I-95 but not by the Turnpike -- and who place value on the prospect of having a free-flowing facility -- can utilize the Turnpike for just that purpose. In effect, although the facilities are physically separated, a parallel "premium" express route.
Turnpike volume north of the Fort Pierce crossing is nearly the same as to the south of it.
I-95 would naturally have the higher volume as it serves the entire east coast of Florida as well as the entire eastern seaboard.
The Turnpike merely connects south Florida with the central and western part of the state. I am surprised that it carries the high volume it does at Fort Pierce.
I have shunpiked using US 441 and or US 27.
Quote from: webny99 on December 23, 2017, 06:40:59 PM
All of us are cool. Whether other people know it or not is irrelevant.
I didn't mean temperature.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on December 23, 2017, 05:50:50 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 23, 2017, 04:19:50 PM
Quote from: slorydn1 on December 23, 2017, 04:36:24 AM
a time before being a roadgeek was cool
Nonsense. Have you been to a roadmeet? None of us are cool.
Speak for yourself. :biggrin:
No, I do not think we are cool. We need to make ice puns, so chill out.
Quote from: Beltway on December 24, 2017, 11:03:21 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 24, 2017, 10:51:50 PM
There's another breezewood that often gets forgotten in these threads - the one on FL-70 between I-95 (Exit 129) and Florida's Turnpike (Exit 152) (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/27.4125836,-80.3989655/27.4150094,-80.3907255/@27.4143712,-80.3939226,17z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0) at Fort Pierce.
Interesting ... first time I've seen it mentioned. Same thing with where I-95 crosses the Turnpike again south of Stuart, no direct interchange.
Maybe is it because hardly anyone wants to switch to the other highway?
Or maybe a traffic strategy to help keep a traffic balance on the two highways?
Its is that way to encourage traffic to stay on each other's freeways. Plus the SR 70 interchange and the SR 706 interchange at Jupiter do allow a somewhat helpful transfer. At Stuart its hard to make the transfer as the interchange at Martin Downs lies several miles to the north of the I-95 and Turnpike crossover. There is an exit further north on I-95 that connects FL 714 but it several miles to the west of the Turnpike, so both Jupiter and Fort Pierce are your best options to transfer between.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 25, 2017, 06:33:17 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 24, 2017, 11:03:21 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 24, 2017, 10:51:50 PM
There's another breezewood that often gets forgotten in these threads - the one on FL-70 between I-95 (Exit 129) and Florida's Turnpike (Exit 152) (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/27.4125836,-80.3989655/27.4150094,-80.3907255/@27.4143712,-80.3939226,17z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0) at Fort Pierce.
Interesting ... first time I've seen it mentioned. Same thing with where I-95 crosses the Turnpike again south of Stuart, no direct interchange.
Maybe is it because hardly anyone wants to switch to the other highway?
Or maybe a traffic strategy to help keep a traffic balance on the two highways?
The large collection of breezewood-type businesses on and near FL-70 between the Turnpike and I-95 seems to imply that there are a fair number of trips that switch between the two roads.
I don't see this as being like Breezewood. I-95 is uninterrupted, and the Turnpike is uninterrupted. There's only an interruption if you switch from one highway to the other. Places where a freeway-to-freeway connection are made via stoplight aren't the same thing. To me, those are just two freeways that happen to not share a junction.
Quote from: kphoger on December 26, 2017, 04:39:29 PM
I don't see this as being like Breezewood. I-95 is uninterrupted, and the Turnpike is uninterrupted. There's only an interruption if you switch from one highway to the other. Places where a freeway-to-freeway connection are made via stoplight aren't the same thing. To me, those are just two freeways that happen to not share a junction.
IMO, that is not acceptable. State DOTs (and their toll road agencies, if there is one separate from the DOT) are responsible for providing a freeway-to-freeway connection.
Note that I concede that breezewoods are a creation of the federal government, and the states are not really at fault, and accordingly the remediation of breezewoods should be something that is funded by 100% federal money.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 26, 2017, 04:43:41 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 26, 2017, 04:39:29 PM
I don't see this as being like Breezewood. I-95 is uninterrupted, and the Turnpike is uninterrupted. There's only an interruption if you switch from one highway to the other. Places where a freeway-to-freeway connection are made via stoplight aren't the same thing. To me, those are just two freeways that happen to not share a junction.
IMO, that is not acceptable. State DOTs (and their toll road agencies, if there is one separate from the DOT) are responsible for providing a freeway-to-freeway connection.
Note that I concede that breezewoods are a creation of the federal government, and the states are not really at fault, and accordingly the remediation of breezewoods should be something that is funded by 100% federal money.
I'm not saying its acceptable or unacceptable. I'm just saying it's not a Breezewood.
I know only one "Breezewood" and that's Breezewood. What other place exist where an interstate enters a concurrency with another interstate via a surface street? The closest thing I can see to this setup is when an interstate just all out terminates very near another one and has to use surface streets to connect to it, like the forever stupid I-99.
There's also the fact that just because there's a kinda-sorta Breezewood in one area, doesn't mean that the state's guilty of creating Breezewoods everywhere. 90 miles to the south of the 95/FL Tpk intersection here, one can get from 95 to the Tpk via 595. On the NJ Turnpike, one can get to 295 and eventually NJ 42 via 195 (and it's actually much cheaper to exit there for the majority of people going south). A missed interchange, or a 'Breezewood' type interchange, may also have to do with available land at the intersection, or the need for such an interchange. In the case referred to at FL 70, it's not impossible, but it creates numerous weaving hazards and a great deal of expense to have a direct interchange between the two highways, and an interchange with FL 70.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 24, 2017, 10:35:34 PM
Quote from: Brandon on December 24, 2017, 09:05:17 PM
Ohio had some "Breezewoods" and still has one major one between I-475 and the Turnpike. Indiana never had any such "Breezewoods". I-69 was built connecting to the existing US-27 interchange. And the only other interstate the Toll Road meets, I-94, was planned as an interchange from when the Borman Expressway ended at the Toll Road in the 1960s, later extended to M-239 in the mid-1970s.
The Ohio Turnpike did eliminate the non-connection with I-75, and the one at I-280 (which I remember as having traffic signals at one point) is now a freeway-to-freeway connection, so I am inclined to give them a pass on the breezewood at I-475.
They also got rid of the non-connection at I-77.
Both the old and the newer, larger interchanges were always north of the truck stops. Thus the Ohio Turnpike Interchange with bothI-280/SR-420 was
never a Breezewood. However, up until the late 80's, I-280 North through Wood County was a combination of interchanges and at-grade intersections -- some signalized and some not. I-280's "expressway" was somehow grandfathered into the Interstate system even though a good chunk of it was obviously sub-standard. So that's where the confusion might have surfaced.
The short segment known as SR-420 south of the Turnpike is still an expressway with at-grade intersections, although some have been modified.
I know how to fix it. Just make I-76 into I-70 and renumber the rest.
Quote from: texaskdog on December 26, 2017, 11:14:40 PM
I know how to fix it. Just make I-76 into I-70 and renumber the rest.
Then that would give I-70 the proper terminus at I-95 it deserves.
Quote from: texaskdog on December 26, 2017, 11:14:40 PM
I know how to fix it. Just make I-76 into I-70 and renumber the rest.
I-68 gets extended, I-270 and I-370 become I-268 and I-368, and I-70 (degraded) becomes I-168?
Quote from: Alps on December 27, 2017, 12:33:32 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on December 26, 2017, 11:14:40 PM
I know how to fix it. Just make I-76 into I-70 and renumber the rest.
I-68 gets extended, I-270 and I-370 become I-268 and I-368, and I-70 (degraded) becomes I-168?
Problem solved
Quote from: texaskdog on December 27, 2017, 01:02:46 AM
Quote from: Alps on December 27, 2017, 12:33:32 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on December 26, 2017, 11:14:40 PM
I know how to fix it. Just make I-76 into I-70 and renumber the rest.
I-68 gets extended, I-270 and I-370 become I-268 and I-368, and I-70 (degraded) becomes I-168?
Problem solved
And I'd suppose that all the I-x76s become I-x70s. As of now, to travel the hypothetical I-70 on the Turnpike, from New Stanton to Valley Forge (or vice versa,) would cost a car $31.85 cash or $22.80 EZ-Pass. (Those are going to go up to $33.80 and $24.17, respectively, about a week from now.)
Quote from: Beltway on December 26, 2017, 08:11:40 AM
Quote from: sparker on December 26, 2017, 01:06:06 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 25, 2017, 07:05:37 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 25, 2017, 06:28:32 AM
Quote from: sparker on December 25, 2017, 12:46:23 AM
Or maybe a more likely reason -- the toll road authority wants to keep traffic on the toll road on the toll road!. Of course, this does inconvenience travelers at Fort Pierce, where the toll facility diverges to the NW from its largely parallel (some might say redundant!) to I-95 alignment south of there.
There seemed to be plenty of traffic on both when I last visited the Sunshine State (many years ago).
2016 FDOT traffic data AADT --
I-95 south of the Fort Pierce crossing -- 74,500
Turnpike south of the Fort Pierce crossing -- 40,300
I-95 has 6 lanes there and the Turnpike has 4 lanes.
Those figures, taken in a relative sense, would make a lot of sense -- more aggregate traffic on the free 6-lane road with considerably more exits (as CPZ noted), with a not unexpected drop in usage for the lower-capacity toll facility -- but one with lower potential for congestion because of both the toll aspect as well as less access points. Functionally, drivers who don't have need to use the interim local exits provided by I-95 but not by the Turnpike -- and who place value on the prospect of having a free-flowing facility -- can utilize the Turnpike for just that purpose. In effect, although the facilities are physically separated, a parallel "premium" express route.
Turnpike volume north of the Fort Pierce crossing is nearly the same as to the south of it.
I-95 would naturally have the higher volume as it serves the entire east coast of Florida as well as the entire eastern seaboard.
The Turnpike merely connects south Florida with the central and western part of the state. I am surprised that it carries the high volume it does at Fort Pierce.
The Florida Turnpike has quite a bit of out of state and commercial traffic. The turnpike along with 75 is the direct route from Atlanta area, the Midwest and West to Miami... Much more than intrastate traffic
Z981
Quote from: theroadwayone on December 26, 2017, 11:41:25 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on December 26, 2017, 11:14:40 PM
I know how to fix it. Just make I-76 into I-70 and renumber the rest.
Then that would give I-70 the proper terminus at I-95 it deserves.
Nope. The interchange at I-76 and I-95 in Philadelphia is missing several movements, and besides, I-76 runs across the bridge into New Jersey where it goes away at NJ-42, with no access to the NJ-700 part of the New Jersey Turnpike.
Quote from: Alps on December 27, 2017, 12:33:32 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on December 26, 2017, 11:14:40 PM
I know how to fix it. Just make I-76 into I-70 and renumber the rest.
I-68 gets extended, I-270 and I-370 become I-268 and I-368, and I-70 (degraded) becomes I-168?
I've a better idea. Re-route I-70 eastbound down the Mon Valley Expressway (currently PA-43) into West Virginia (requires some upgrading of the interchange at WV-43 and present I-68), then east on present I-68 back onto original I-70 at Hancock. I-70 from Hancock to Breezewood can be I-970, and the far western part of I-68 in West Virginia can be I-170 or I-270.
This deprives the PTC of a lot of truck toll revenue (though they still get some on the Mon Valley), hurts the Wilt family in Breezewood and their allies, and gives businesses along present-day I-68 in Western Maryland more customers.
Quote from: jwolfer on January 01, 2018, 05:08:16 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 26, 2017, 08:11:40 AM
Turnpike volume north of the Fort Pierce crossing is nearly the same as to the south of it.
I-95 would naturally have the higher volume as it serves the entire east coast of Florida as well as the entire eastern seaboard.
The Turnpike merely connects south Florida with the central and western part of the state. I am surprised that it carries the high volume it does at Fort Pierce.
The Florida Turnpike has quite a bit of out of state and commercial traffic. The turnpike along with 75 is the direct route from Atlanta area, the Midwest and West to Miami... Much more than intrastate traffic
Definitely aware that the Turnpike connects westerly I-10 and northerly I-75 to south Florida, it is the most direct route.
However a large portion of the Turnpike (and its tolls) can be avoided by taking the Beeline to I-95 or by taking I-10 to I-295 to I-95, when heading to south Florida. There is some distance penalty but all in all those routes are competitive and take some of the traffic that would be on the Turnpike.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 01, 2018, 05:23:10 PM
I've a better idea. Re-route I-70 eastbound down the Mon Valley Expressway (currently PA-43) into West Virginia (requires some upgrading of the interchange at WV-43 and present I-68), then east on present I-68 back onto original I-70 at Hancock. I-70 from Hancock to Breezewood can be I-970, and the far western part of I-68 in West Virginia can be I-170 or I-270.
This deprives the PTC of a lot of truck toll revenue (though they still get some on the Mon Valley), hurts the Wilt family in Breezewood and their allies, and gives businesses along present-day I-68 in Western Maryland more customers.
Some truckers complain about the steep grades on I-68, to the point where it sounds like they would rather pay the tolls on the PA Turnpike to get the shallower grades.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 01, 2018, 05:23:10 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 27, 2017, 12:33:32 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on December 26, 2017, 11:14:40 PM
I know how to fix it. Just make I-76 into I-70 and renumber the rest.
I-68 gets extended, I-270 and I-370 become I-268 and I-368, and I-70 (degraded) becomes I-168?
I've a better idea. Re-route I-70 eastbound down the Mon Valley Expressway (currently PA-43) into West Virginia (requires some upgrading of the interchange at WV-43 and present I-68), then east on present I-68 back onto original I-70 at Hancock. I-70 from Hancock to Breezewood can be I-970, and the far western part of I-68 in West Virginia can be I-170 or I-270.
This deprives the PTC of a lot of truck toll revenue (though they still get some on the Mon Valley), hurts the Wilt family in Breezewood and their allies, and gives businesses along present-day I-68 in Western Maryland more customers.
And what becomes of I-70 from PA-43 to New Stanton?
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 01, 2018, 05:15:08 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on December 26, 2017, 11:41:25 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on December 26, 2017, 11:14:40 PM
I know how to fix it. Just make I-76 into I-70 and renumber the rest.
Then that would give I-70 the proper terminus at I-95 it deserves.
Nope. The interchange at I-76 and I-95 in Philadelphia is missing several movements, and besides, I-76 runs across the bridge into New Jersey where it goes away at NJ-42, with no access to the NJ-700 part of the New Jersey Turnpike.
Then if we're making the turnpike east of New Stanton I-70, and all the I-x76s I-x70s, then since I-276 would become I-270, the two highways could swap numbers. There, problem solved.
Quote from: Beltway on January 01, 2018, 05:32:14 PM
Some truckers complain about the steep grades on I-68, to the point where it sounds like they would rather pay the tolls on the PA Turnpike to get the shallower grades.
They can keep using it.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 03, 2018, 12:26:19 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 01, 2018, 05:32:14 PM
Some truckers complain about the steep grades on I-68, to the point where it sounds like they would rather pay the tolls on the PA Turnpike to get the shallower grades.
They can keep using it.
That way they have a choice of a route that's more direct, and free of charge, but full of steep grades, and one that's flatter, but longer and charges a toll.
Quote from: theroadwayone on January 03, 2018, 02:59:19 AM
That way they have a choice of a route that's more direct, and free of charge, but full of steep grades, and one that's flatter, but longer and charges a toll.
The I-68 route probably has more steep grades, especially climbing to and descending from the Allegheny Plateau (especially eastbound between WV-43 (Exit 10) and Coopers Rock (Exit 15), ascending; and eastbound between MD-546 (Exit 29) and Cumberland (Exit 43A) descending).
The Penn Pike has one tough grade, that being east of the Allegheny Mountain Tunnel (descending eastbound and ascending westbound).
Quote from: theroadwayone on January 03, 2018, 02:59:19 AM
That way they have a choice of a route that's more direct, and free of charge, but full of steep grades, and one that's flatter, but longer and charges a toll.
Ahh, what exactly would stop said truckers/drivers from using it presently? Are the signs what you view as the impediment from people using it? (I'm sure the truckers at least are well aware of their most efficient routes)
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 03, 2018, 12:26:19 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 01, 2018, 05:32:14 PM
Some truckers complain about the steep grades on I-68, to the point where it sounds like they would rather pay the tolls on the PA Turnpike to get the shallower grades.
They can keep using it.
True indeed, but my comment was prompted by the proposal to reroute I-70 along I-68 and a segment of I-79 or PA-43, to avoid the PA Turnpike. Both routes are available for motorists today, the question would be what is the utility of such a rerouting.
Quote from: Beltway on January 03, 2018, 04:41:04 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 03, 2018, 12:26:19 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 01, 2018, 05:32:14 PM
Some truckers complain about the steep grades on I-68, to the point where it sounds like they would rather pay the tolls on the PA Turnpike to get the shallower grades.
They can keep using it.
True indeed, but my comment was prompted by the proposal to reroute I-70 along I-68 and a segment of I-79 or PA-43, to avoid the PA Turnpike. Both routes are available for motorists today, the question would be what is the utility of such a rerouting.
So the anal-retentive roadgeek can get I-70 off Breezewood's surface streets.
Quote from: Brandon on January 03, 2018, 05:11:40 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 03, 2018, 04:41:04 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 03, 2018, 12:26:19 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 01, 2018, 05:32:14 PM
Some truckers complain about the steep grades on I-68, to the point where it sounds like they would rather pay the tolls on the PA Turnpike to get the shallower grades.
They can keep using it.
True indeed, but my comment was prompted by the proposal to reroute I-70 along I-68 and a segment of I-79 or PA-43, to avoid the PA Turnpike. Both routes are available for motorists today, the question would be what is the utility of such a rerouting.
So the anal-retentive roadgeek can get I-70 off Breezewood's surface streets.
Even if I-70 was separated from the PA Turnpike, and I-170 was designated between Hancock, MD and Breezewood, a freeway-to-freeway interchange should still be built, IMHO. That would still be the preferred Interstate route between Baltimore/Washington to Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Detroit, etc.
What's most interesting about Breezewood to me is how universally despised it seems to be among our ranks here. Yes, it breaks the rules, but the two most interesting things about the Interstate system are 1) its rules, and 2) the exceptions to its rules. In fact, that kind of sums up the appeal of roads and travel in general for me: the unique places, the oddities. The things that, were it not for the Internet, we would have just discovered along our own way, and that now, thanks to the Internet, we can discover all the more easily. I'm always a bit caught off guard by how much of a minority view point mine seems to be with respect to curiosities like Breezewood.
Quote from: empirestate on January 03, 2018, 07:59:53 PM
What's most interesting about Breezewood to me is how universally despised it seems to be among our ranks here. Yes, it breaks the rules, but the two most interesting things about the Interstate system are 1) its rules, and 2) the exceptions to its rules. In fact, that kind of sums up the appeal of roads and travel in general for me: the unique places, the oddities. The things that, were it not for the Internet, we would have just discovered along our own way, and that now, thanks to the Internet, we can discover all the more easily. I'm always a bit caught off guard by how much of a minority view point mine seems to be with respect to curiosities like Breezewood.
I don’t actually think Breezewood is as despised as you seem to think. Yes, the opinions posted regarding it are generally negative, but that’s because it is probably the single most-talked-about topic on this forum. There are at least five or six threads dedicated to Breezewood, and people get tired of hearing about it again and again.
Quote from: roadguy2 on January 03, 2018, 10:42:38 PM
people get tired of hearing about it again and again.
:clap:
When you drive I-70 west into Breezewood, there's a sign that says, "I-70 West: Follow the PA Turnpike West to New Stanton." I don't know why someone 84 miles to the west hasn't put up the converse sign, "I-70 East: Follow the PA Turnpike East to Breezewood."
Quote from: roadguy2 on January 03, 2018, 10:42:38 PM
Quote from: empirestate on January 03, 2018, 07:59:53 PM
What's most interesting about Breezewood to me is how universally despised it seems to be among our ranks here. Yes, it breaks the rules, but the two most interesting things about the Interstate system are 1) its rules, and 2) the exceptions to its rules. In fact, that kind of sums up the appeal of roads and travel in general for me: the unique places, the oddities. The things that, were it not for the Internet, we would have just discovered along our own way, and that now, thanks to the Internet, we can discover all the more easily. I'm always a bit caught off guard by how much of a minority view point mine seems to be with respect to curiosities like Breezewood.
I don't actually think Breezewood is as despised as you seem to think. Yes, the opinions posted regarding it are generally negative, but that's because it is probably the single most-talked-about topic on this forum. There are at least five or six threads dedicated to Breezewood, and people get tired of hearing about it again and again.
Hmm, well how about I-99? I have pretty much the same view on that subject. :evilgrin:
Quote from: empirestate on January 03, 2018, 11:29:34 PM
Hmm, well how about I-99? I have pretty much the same view on that subject. :evilgrin:
Most people want Breezewood rebuilt. Most people want a different number on I-99.
Which one of those two things characterizes your view on both?
Quote from: kphoger on January 04, 2018, 01:01:58 PM
Quote from: empirestate on January 03, 2018, 11:29:34 PM
Hmm, well how about I-99? I have pretty much the same view on that subject. :evilgrin:
Most people want Breezewood rebuilt. Most people want a different number on I-99.
Which one of those two things characterizes your view on both?
Neither of them.
Quote from: empirestate on January 04, 2018, 01:17:44 PM
Quote from: kphoger on January 04, 2018, 01:01:58 PM
Quote from: empirestate on January 03, 2018, 11:29:34 PM
Hmm, well how about I-99? I have pretty much the same view on that subject. :evilgrin:
Most people want Breezewood rebuilt. Most people want a different number on I-99.
Which one of those two things characterizes your view on both?
Neither of them.
Oh. You meant you're tired of hearing about both of them, then?
Quote from: kphoger on January 04, 2018, 01:52:35 PM
Quote from: empirestate on January 04, 2018, 01:17:44 PM
Quote from: kphoger on January 04, 2018, 01:01:58 PM
Quote from: empirestate on January 03, 2018, 11:29:34 PM
Hmm, well how about I-99? I have pretty much the same view on that subject. :evilgrin:
Most people want Breezewood rebuilt. Most people want a different number on I-99.
Which one of those two things characterizes your view on both?
Neither of them.
Oh. You meant you're tired of hearing about both of them, then?
No, I mean I appreciate both for the curiosities they are. The fact that they break the rules makes them interesting, rather than infuriating, to me. What's more, I always thought that appreciation of the curiosities was a big component of the wanderlust that motivates us roadfans–the
Blue Highways mentality, if you will–and so the apparent pervasive hatred of them represents a chink in my worldview.
Just saying, I'm still up for the idea of making the turnpike I-70 from New Stanton to the Delaware River, making the I-x76s there into I-x70s, and making I-70 from Hancock to Baltimore I-68 (with I-70 between Breezewood and Hancock into an I-x68.)
Quote from: theroadwayone on January 04, 2018, 07:06:22 PM
Just saying, I'm still up for the idea of making the turnpike I-70 from New Stanton to the Delaware River, making the I-x76s there into I-x70s, and making I-70 from Hancock to Baltimore I-68 (with I-70 between Breezewood and Hancock into an I-x68.)
How would Philadelphia feel about losing I-76?
Quote from: empirestate on January 04, 2018, 03:54:15 PM
No, I mean I appreciate both for the curiosities they are. The fact that they break the rules makes them interesting, rather than infuriating, to me. What's more, I always thought that appreciation of the curiosities was a big component of the wanderlust that motivates us roadfans–the Blue Highways mentality, if you will–and so the apparent pervasive hatred of them represents a chink in my worldview.
I see little if any "pervasive hatred of them". I-99 is not that big of a deal, say Delaware wanted to assign that to the DE-1 superhighway, they would probably be able to get AASHTO to approve it as it would be far enough away that there should be no problem with having the second occurrence.
The I-70 gap is simply a missing important link in the Interstate system, nothing more and nothing less.
Quote from: Beltway on January 04, 2018, 07:46:55 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on January 04, 2018, 07:06:22 PM
Just saying, I'm still up for the idea of making the turnpike I-70 from New Stanton to the Delaware River, making the I-x76s there into I-x70s, and making I-70 from Hancock to Baltimore I-68 (with I-70 between Breezewood and Hancock into an I-x68.)
How would Philadelphia feel about losing I-76?
For all I care, they can just suck it.
Quote from: theroadwayone on January 04, 2018, 07:57:58 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 04, 2018, 07:46:55 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on January 04, 2018, 07:06:22 PM
Just saying, I'm still up for the idea of making the turnpike I-70 from New Stanton to the Delaware River, making the I-x76s there into I-x70s, and making I-70 from Hancock to Baltimore I-68 (with I-70 between Breezewood and Hancock into an I-x68.)
How would Philadelphia feel about losing I-76?
For all I care, they can just suck it.
Why? They have nothing to do with the Breezewood situation. Heck, they have their own Breezewood situation.
And if Philly loses 76, they lose 676 as well.
And if Philly loses 76, they lose 676 as well.
[/quote]
If I-76 becomes I-70, then I-676 would just become I-670.
I have a feeling that this is either moving towards Fictional Highways or Mid-Atlantic. (Or both.)
What is the cost to adjust the Breezewood situation? I think the tax dollars would be better spent elsewhere.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on January 04, 2018, 09:08:05 PM
What is the cost to adjust the Breezewood situation? I think the tax dollars would be better spent elsewhere.
Two ramps. Maybe those should be two lanes wide at the dropped pin here (https://www.google.com/maps/place/39%C2%B059'26.4%22N+78%C2%B014'31.5%22W/@39.9923169,-78.2471849,1923m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m14!1m7!3m6!1s0x89ca34f8dfb7603d:0xfc801d508a5f4c68!2sBreezewood,+PA!3b1!8m2!3d39.9991865!4d-78.2388071!3m5!1s0x0:0x0!7e2!8m2!3d39.9906733!4d-78.2420777) and the cost to revise signage.
One ramp exiting the I-70 connector road eastbound after the Breezewood toll plaza to the right to head east on I-70 (but headed south here); and one cloverleaf ramp from I-70 westbound (but headed in a northerly direction) to enter the connector road westbound.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 04, 2018, 09:50:09 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on January 04, 2018, 09:08:05 PM
What is the cost to adjust the Breezewood situation? I think the tax dollars would be better spent elsewhere.
Two ramps. Maybe those should be two lanes wide at the dropped pin here (https://www.google.com/maps/place/39%C2%B059'26.4%22N+78%C2%B014'31.5%22W/@39.9923169,-78.2471849,1923m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m14!1m7!3m6!1s0x89ca34f8dfb7603d:0xfc801d508a5f4c68!2sBreezewood,+PA!3b1!8m2!3d39.9991865!4d-78.2388071!3m5!1s0x0:0x0!7e2!8m2!3d39.9906733!4d-78.2420777) and the cost to revise signage.
One ramp exiting the I-70 connector road eastbound after the Breezewood toll plaza to the right to head east on I-70 (but headed south here); and one cloverleaf ramp from I-70 westbound (but headed in a northerly direction) to enter the connector road westbound.
A large radius loop ramp for westbound, a finger ramp for eastbound, connecting I-70 to the Turnpike access highway. Estimate $30 million for one-lane ramps and $45 million for two-lane ramps. That would complete the I-70 gap.
Actually those ramps would also provide the connection to the easterly Turnpike, as long-distance traffic between I-68 and I-76 is important as it needs to connect to Harrisburg and east, places like the Philadelphia area, Allentown, Bethlehem, Scranton, New York City, etc. So two lanes would be ideal on these ramps.
Quote from: Beltway on January 04, 2018, 11:21:52 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 04, 2018, 09:50:09 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on January 04, 2018, 09:08:05 PM
What is the cost to adjust the Breezewood situation? I think the tax dollars would be better spent elsewhere.
Two ramps. Maybe those should be two lanes wide at the dropped pin here (https://www.google.com/maps/place/39%C2%B059'26.4%22N+78%C2%B014'31.5%22W/@39.9923169,-78.2471849,1923m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m14!1m7!3m6!1s0x89ca34f8dfb7603d:0xfc801d508a5f4c68!2sBreezewood,+PA!3b1!8m2!3d39.9991865!4d-78.2388071!3m5!1s0x0:0x0!7e2!8m2!3d39.9906733!4d-78.2420777) and the cost to revise signage.
One ramp exiting the I-70 connector road eastbound after the Breezewood toll plaza to the right to head east on I-70 (but headed south here); and one cloverleaf ramp from I-70 westbound (but headed in a northerly direction) to enter the connector road westbound.
A large radius loop ramp for westbound, a finger ramp for eastbound, connecting I-70 to the Turnpike access highway. Estimate $30 million for one-lane ramps and $45 million for two-lane ramps. That would complete the I-70 gap.
Actually those ramps would also provide the connection to the easterly Turnpike, as long-distance traffic between I-68 and I-76 is important as it needs to connect to Harrisburg and east, places like the Philadelphia area, Allentown, Bethlehem, Scranton, New York City, etc. So two lanes would be ideal on these ramps.
I kinda had the same idea.
Quote from: Beltway on January 04, 2018, 11:21:52 PM
Actually those ramps would also provide the connection to the easterly Turnpike, as long-distance traffic between I-68 and I-76 is important as it needs to connect to Harrisburg and east, places like the Philadelphia area, Allentown, Bethlehem, Scranton, New York City, etc. So two lanes would be ideal on these ramps.
Doesn't most of that traffic use I-70 to I-81 to connect to the turnpike west of Harrisburg?
Quote from: hbelkins on January 05, 2018, 11:01:42 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 04, 2018, 11:21:52 PM
Actually those ramps would also provide the connection to the easterly Turnpike, as long-distance traffic between I-68 and I-76 is important as it needs to connect to Harrisburg and east, places like the Philadelphia area, Allentown, Bethlehem, Scranton, New York City, etc. So two lanes would be ideal on these ramps.
Doesn't most of that traffic use I-70 to I-81 to connect to the turnpike west of Harrisburg?
Just checked and Google Maps gives identical times and 2 miles in difference in the two routes above.
So actually to avoid tolls west of Carlisle, it looks like I-70 to I-81 should be the preferred route.
Is there not a Breezewood bypass routing?
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on January 05, 2018, 05:04:53 PM
Is there not a Breezewood bypass routing?
Of course there is. Why people don't just
do this (https://goo.gl/maps/b8dKg8Ad4pR2) instead of having to endure the horror of a break in I-70, I'll never understand.
Quote from: Beltway on January 05, 2018, 05:04:05 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 05, 2018, 11:01:42 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 04, 2018, 11:21:52 PM
Actually those ramps would also provide the connection to the easterly Turnpike, as long-distance traffic between I-68 and I-76 is important as it needs to connect to Harrisburg and east, places like the Philadelphia area, Allentown, Bethlehem, Scranton, New York City, etc. So two lanes would be ideal on these ramps.
Doesn't most of that traffic use I-70 to I-81 to connect to the turnpike west of Harrisburg?
Just checked and Google Maps gives identical times and 2 miles in difference in the two routes above.
So actually to avoid tolls west of Carlisle, it looks like I-70 to I-81 should be the preferred route.
You checked at a single point in time. Are they always going to be the same travel time?
Quote from: kphoger on January 05, 2018, 05:39:41 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on January 05, 2018, 05:04:53 PM
Is there not a Breezewood bypass routing?
Of course there is. Why people don't just do this (https://goo.gl/maps/b8dKg8Ad4pR2) instead of having to endure the horror of a break in I-70, I'll never understand.
Actually, Google recommends this from Washington PA to Hancock MD. (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Washington,+PA+15301/Hancock/@40.0619152,-79.7847465,8.89z/data=!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x8835ad85b9259631:0x48644ecd2e6d32f!2m2!1d-80.2461714!2d40.17396!1m5!1m1!1s0x89ca1620b29c6839:0xedb5e998251303d7!2m2!1d-78.1797293!2d39.6989809!3e0) If you're obsessed with staying on interstates the whole time, you can take I-79 down to Morgantown WV and then east on I-68 (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Washington,+PA+15301/Hancock/@40.0619152,-79.7847465,8.89z/data=!4m19!4m18!1m10!1m1!1s0x8835ad85b9259631:0x48644ecd2e6d32f!2m2!1d-80.2461714!2d40.17396!3m4!1m2!1d-80.11592!2d39.8468931!3s0x88359fc9c41632e3:0x898871c63005ac35!1m5!1m1!1s0x89ca1620b29c6839:0xedb5e998251303d7!2m2!1d-78.1797293!2d39.6989809!3e0).
I-99 doesn't seem like such a big deal to me. The number is out of grid, but they had to number it something, and no numbers that were in grid were available.
Quote from: roadguy2 on January 05, 2018, 05:48:01 PM
Quote from: kphoger on January 05, 2018, 05:39:41 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on January 05, 2018, 05:04:53 PM
Is there not a Breezewood bypass routing?
Of course there is. Why people don't just do this (https://goo.gl/maps/b8dKg8Ad4pR2) instead of having to endure the horror of a break in I-70, I'll never understand.
Actually, Google recommends this from Washington PA to Hancock MD. (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Washington,+PA+15301/Hancock/@40.0619152,-79.7847465,8.89z/data=!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x8835ad85b9259631:0x48644ecd2e6d32f!2m2!1d-80.2461714!2d40.17396!1m5!1m1!1s0x89ca1620b29c6839:0xedb5e998251303d7!2m2!1d-78.1797293!2d39.6989809!3e0) If you're obsessed with staying on interstates the whole time, you can take I-79 down to Morgantown WV and then east on I-68 (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Washington,+PA+15301/Hancock/@40.0619152,-79.7847465,8.89z/data=!4m19!4m18!1m10!1m1!1s0x8835ad85b9259631:0x48644ecd2e6d32f!2m2!1d-80.2461714!2d40.17396!3m4!1m2!1d-80.11592!2d39.8468931!3s0x88359fc9c41632e3:0x898871c63005ac35!1m5!1m1!1s0x89ca1620b29c6839:0xedb5e998251303d7!2m2!1d-78.1797293!2d39.6989809!3e0).
I think that sometimes is a good alternative, but only if I'm heading west on I-70 into Ohio. That way I avoid not just Breezewood, but also a substandard stretch of I-70 between Washington PA and New Stanton PA. If my destination is Pittsburgh or points beyond, I'll just put up with Breezewood to pick up the Pennsylvania Turnpike there.
Quote from: kphoger on January 05, 2018, 05:39:41 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on January 05, 2018, 05:04:53 PM
Is there not a Breezewood bypass routing?
Of course there is. Why people don't just do this (https://goo.gl/maps/b8dKg8Ad4pR2) instead of having to endure the horror of a break in I-70, I'll never understand.
I just spit my drink all over, thanks.
Quote from: kphoger on January 05, 2018, 05:39:41 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on January 05, 2018, 05:04:53 PM
Is there not a Breezewood bypass routing?
Of course there is. Why people don't just do this (https://goo.gl/maps/b8dKg8Ad4pR2) instead of having to endure the horror of a break in I-70, I'll never understand.
Do the routes have trailblazers?
Quote from: kphoger on January 05, 2018, 05:39:41 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on January 05, 2018, 05:04:53 PM
Is there not a Breezewood bypass routing?
Of course there is. Why people don't just do this (https://goo.gl/maps/b8dKg8Ad4pR2) instead of having to endure the horror of a break in I-70, I'll never understand.
This route (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Somerset/Hancock,+MD+21750/@39.9352477,-78.8708043,9.83z/data=!4m24!4m23!1m15!1m1!1s0x89cad38421a26693:0x588424461e161b54!2m2!1d-79.0780831!2d40.008411!3m4!1m2!1d-78.582222!2d39.936793!3s0x89ca5724d8ee5d95:0xfc0a7d35035771dd!3m4!1m2!1d-78.4051745!2d39.788974!3s0x89ca43ea938a471d:0xfa4c9335adf376ec!1m5!1m1!1s0x89ca1620b29c6839:0xedb5e998251303d7!2m2!1d-78.1797293!2d39.6989809!3e0) is actually shorter.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 05, 2018, 05:45:36 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 05, 2018, 05:04:05 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 05, 2018, 11:01:42 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 04, 2018, 11:21:52 PM
Actually those ramps would also provide the connection to the easterly Turnpike, as long-distance traffic between I-68 and I-76 is important as it needs to connect to Harrisburg and east, places like the Philadelphia area, Allentown, Bethlehem, Scranton, New York City, etc. So two lanes would be ideal on these ramps.
Doesn't most of that traffic use I-70 to I-81 to connect to the turnpike west of Harrisburg?
Just checked and Google Maps gives identical times and 2 miles in difference in the two routes above.
So actually to avoid tolls west of Carlisle, it looks like I-70 to I-81 should be the preferred route.
You checked at a single point in time. Are they always going to be the same travel time?
Not necessarily, but either route has no particular issues with regard to urban congestion.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on January 05, 2018, 08:45:58 PM
Quote from: kphoger on January 05, 2018, 05:39:41 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on January 05, 2018, 05:04:53 PM
Is there not a Breezewood bypass routing?
Of course there is. Why people don't just do this (https://goo.gl/maps/b8dKg8Ad4pR2) instead of having to endure the horror of a break in I-70, I'll never understand.
Do the routes have trailblazers?
LOL!
ixnay
Great article by Selena Zito today that discusses the love/hate with Breezewood.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/breezewood-stands-at-the-intersection-of-cronyism-and-tradition/article/2645067
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on January 05, 2018, 09:34:26 PM
Quote from: kphoger on January 05, 2018, 05:39:41 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on January 05, 2018, 05:04:53 PM
Is there not a Breezewood bypass routing?
Of course there is. Why people don't just do this (https://goo.gl/maps/b8dKg8Ad4pR2) instead of having to endure the horror of a break in I-70, I'll never understand.
This route (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Somerset/Hancock,+MD+21750/@39.9352477,-78.8708043,9.83z/data=!4m24!4m23!1m15!1m1!1s0x89cad38421a26693:0x588424461e161b54!2m2!1d-79.0780831!2d40.008411!3m4!1m2!1d-78.582222!2d39.936793!3s0x89ca5724d8ee5d95:0xfc0a7d35035771dd!3m4!1m2!1d-78.4051745!2d39.788974!3s0x89ca43ea938a471d:0xfa4c9335adf376ec!1m5!1m1!1s0x89ca1620b29c6839:0xedb5e998251303d7!2m2!1d-78.1797293!2d39.6989809!3e0) is actually shorter.
Oh, was that the goal?
Quote from: kphoger on January 08, 2018, 01:39:14 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on January 05, 2018, 09:34:26 PM
Quote from: kphoger on January 05, 2018, 05:39:41 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on January 05, 2018, 05:04:53 PM
Is there not a Breezewood bypass routing?
Of course there is. Why people don't just do this (https://goo.gl/maps/b8dKg8Ad4pR2) instead of having to endure the horror of a break in I-70, I'll never understand.
This route (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Somerset/Hancock,+MD+21750/@39.9352477,-78.8708043,9.83z/data=!4m24!4m23!1m15!1m1!1s0x89cad38421a26693:0x588424461e161b54!2m2!1d-79.0780831!2d40.008411!3m4!1m2!1d-78.582222!2d39.936793!3s0x89ca5724d8ee5d95:0xfc0a7d35035771dd!3m4!1m2!1d-78.4051745!2d39.788974!3s0x89ca43ea938a471d:0xfa4c9335adf376ec!1m5!1m1!1s0x89ca1620b29c6839:0xedb5e998251303d7!2m2!1d-78.1797293!2d39.6989809!3e0) is actually shorter.
Oh, was that the goal?
:-D ... fair enough. :biggrin:
Quote from: CanesFan27 on January 07, 2018, 09:32:24 AM
Great article by Selena Zito today that discusses the love/hate with Breezewood.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/breezewood-stands-at-the-intersection-of-cronyism-and-tradition/article/2645067
That is a great article. There is just an inaccuracy. Every square inch of Pennsylvania is incorporated. I guess they may mean to say that Breezewood isn't incorporated into it's own borough perhaps.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on January 09, 2018, 08:52:16 AM
Quote from: CanesFan27 on January 07, 2018, 09:32:24 AM
Great article by Selena Zito today that discusses the love/hate with Breezewood.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/breezewood-stands-at-the-intersection-of-cronyism-and-tradition/article/2645067
That is a great article. There is just an inaccuracy. Every square inch of Pennsylvania is incorporated. I guess they may mean to say that Breezewood isn't incorporated into it's own borough perhaps.
If you're being super technical, it's inaccurate to say "unincorporated town", because every one of Pennsylvania's towns (here's a complete list of them: Bloomsburg) is incorporated.
Otherwise, yes; they simply mean that the place known as Breezewood isn't an incorporated entity of any kind on its own. (Looks like they just recopied the error from Wikipedia, which also lists it as an "unincorporated town", rather than the locally accepted "village".) Breezewood is located with East Providence Township; but is it common in PA to refer to townships as "incorporated"?
Has there ever been an organized boycott of the businesses at Breezewood?.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on January 09, 2018, 01:00:20 PM
Has there ever been an organized boycott of the businesses at Breezewood?.
Most people don't even know what "Breezewood" is. Some may be familiar with how I-70 encounters some traffic lights, and some of them may realize that it's in the area known as Breezewood, but hey, the kids need to pee and the car needs gas. Might as well pull off and do it then.
I-676 has a Breezewood. But no one calls it "Philly", and I've yet to see anyone say they're not visiting Philly because there's traffic lights on 676.
Quote from: empirestate on January 09, 2018, 10:07:31 AM
but is it common in PA to refer to townships as "incorporated"?
Pennsylvania townships are incorporated municipalities most of which were formed out of unincorporated villages that weren't apart of any borough or city.
Quote from: empirestate on January 09, 2018, 10:07:31 AM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on January 09, 2018, 08:52:16 AM
Quote from: CanesFan27 on January 07, 2018, 09:32:24 AM
Great article by Selena Zito today that discusses the love/hate with Breezewood.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/breezewood-stands-at-the-intersection-of-cronyism-and-tradition/article/2645067
That is a great article. There is just an inaccuracy. Every square inch of Pennsylvania is incorporated. I guess they may mean to say that Breezewood isn't incorporated into it's own borough perhaps.
If you're being super technical, it's inaccurate to say "unincorporated town", because every one of Pennsylvania's towns (here's a complete list of them: Bloomsburg) is incorporated.
Otherwise, yes; they simply mean that the place known as Breezewood isn't an incorporated entity of any kind on its own. (Looks like they just recopied the error from Wikipedia, which also lists it as an "unincorporated town", rather than the locally accepted "village".) Breezewood is located with East Providence Township; but is it common in PA to refer to townships as "incorporated"?
Townships in PA have the equivalent jurisdiction and power as incorporated cities/towns/villages in other states. It is common to refer to PA as being entirely incorporated. There is no functional annexation as any annexation would require the permission of the municipality. Boroughs were formed as carve outs of townships but they pretty much have the same powers and duties.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 09, 2018, 01:11:55 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on January 09, 2018, 01:00:20 PM
Has there ever been an organized boycott of the businesses at Breezewood?.
Most people don't even know what "Breezewood" is. Some may be familiar with how I-70 encounters some traffic lights, and some of them may realize that it's in the area known as Breezewood, but hey, the kids need to pee and the car needs gas. Might as well pull off and do it then.
I-676 has a Breezewood. But no one calls it "Philly", and I've yet to see anyone say they're not visiting Philly because there's traffic lights on 676.
That's because Breezewood has such a simple and obvious fix, yet it hasn't been done because, ostensibly, such a small wide spot in the road has such outsized political influence.
Quote from: hbelkins on January 09, 2018, 03:32:16 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 09, 2018, 01:11:55 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on January 09, 2018, 01:00:20 PM
Has there ever been an organized boycott of the businesses at Breezewood?.
Most people don't even know what "Breezewood" is. Some may be familiar with how I-70 encounters some traffic lights, and some of them may realize that it's in the area known as Breezewood, but hey, the kids need to pee and the car needs gas. Might as well pull off and do it then.
I-676 has a Breezewood. But no one calls it "Philly", and I've yet to see anyone say they're not visiting Philly because there's traffic lights on 676.
That's because Breezewood has such a simple and obvious fix, yet it hasn't been done because, ostensibly, such a small wide spot in the road has such outsized political influence.
I-676 has a simple and obvious fix: close 6th Street between Wood Street and Race Street.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on January 09, 2018, 02:45:55 PM
Quote from: empirestate on January 09, 2018, 10:07:31 AM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on January 09, 2018, 08:52:16 AM
Quote from: CanesFan27 on January 07, 2018, 09:32:24 AM
Great article by Selena Zito today that discusses the love/hate with Breezewood.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/breezewood-stands-at-the-intersection-of-cronyism-and-tradition/article/2645067
That is a great article. There is just an inaccuracy. Every square inch of Pennsylvania is incorporated. I guess they may mean to say that Breezewood isn't incorporated into it's own borough perhaps.
If you're being super technical, it's inaccurate to say "unincorporated town", because every one of Pennsylvania's towns (here's a complete list of them: Bloomsburg) is incorporated.
Otherwise, yes; they simply mean that the place known as Breezewood isn't an incorporated entity of any kind on its own. (Looks like they just recopied the error from Wikipedia, which also lists it as an "unincorporated town", rather than the locally accepted "village".) Breezewood is located with East Providence Township; but is it common in PA to refer to townships as "incorporated"?
Townships in PA have the equivalent jurisdiction and power as incorporated cities/towns/villages in other states. It is common to refer to PA as being entirely incorporated. There is no functional annexation as any annexation would require the permission of the municipality. Boroughs were formed as carve outs of townships but they pretty much have the same powers and duties.
If I'm to understand this correctly, then the governing jurisdiction in Breezewood is East Providence Township. If the entire "township" -- which seems to encompass the adjoining areas -- benefits from revenue from those Breezewood businesses that in essence have a quasi-captive clientele in I-70 travelers, then that largely explains (though hardly excuses) the seemingly perpetual inaction toward forging a direct Turnpike connection. The status quo is also likely bolstered by the very fact that Breezewood
is an anomaly with some accrued folklore -- the "little burg that stood up to the big bad highway interests". Some politicos -- obviously enough in PA to matter -- seem to get deferential when the issue crops up from time to time. Maybe the solution is to back the Brinks' truck up to the town and keep shoveling out $$ until something gives! At this point, nothing else has worked.
Quote from: kphoger on January 09, 2018, 04:28:22 PMI-676 has a simple and obvious fix: close 6th Street between Wood Street and Race Street.
That only addresses the eastbound direction. For the westbound direction both 7th & 8th Streets between Race & Callowhill Streets would have to be closed.
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 09, 2018, 04:51:02 PM
Quote from: kphoger on January 09, 2018, 04:28:22 PMI-676 has a simple and obvious fix: close 6th Street between Wood Street and Race Street.
That only addresses the eastbound direction. For the westbound direction both 7th & 8th Streets between Race & Callowhill Streets would have to be closed.
Ah. Didn't catch that half of the breezewood.
Quote from: ekt8750 on January 09, 2018, 02:18:20 PM
Quote from: empirestate on January 09, 2018, 10:07:31 AM
but is it common in PA to refer to townships as "incorporated"?
Pennsylvania townships are incorporated municipalities most of which were formed out of unincorporated villages that weren't apart of any borough or city.
I don't think so. While a few cities may have been chartered before they were part of any township, the vast majority of boroughs and most cities would have been set off from an underlying township. Townships are more areal divisions than they are organizations of populated paces.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on January 09, 2018, 02:45:55 PM
Townships in PA have the equivalent jurisdiction and power as incorporated cities/towns/villages in other states.
Equivalent, perhaps, as far as their governmental tier (state->county->city/borough/township), but many of the townships–particularly those of the second class–have much weaker governments and provide fewer services than a city or borough would. (Those that do exercise broad governmental powers often reorganize as home rule municipalities.)
QuoteIt is common to refer to PA as being entirely incorporated.
Common among Pennsylvanians, though? It is common to refer to New York the same way, but in local usage the term "incorporated" is reserved for cities and villages, not towns. By contrast, in New England it's typical to regard cities and towns equivalently, as just different kinds of "incorporated" entities. But I don't have a sense of what the local usage in Pennsylvania is.
Sixth, Seventh, and Eigth Streets in Philadelphia.should be closed off. Doing this would solve the problem and provide continuous movement on I-676 at almost no cost. Of course there are tight turns in both directions there that would limit speed but in the long run it would be quite beneficial to the motoring public.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on January 09, 2018, 06:17:35 PM
Sixth, Seventh, and Eigth Streets in Philadelphia.should be closed off. Doing this would solve the problem and provide continuous movement on I-676 at almost no cost. Of course there are tight turns in both directions there that would limit speed but in the long run it would be quite beneficial to the motoring public.
The real way to close that gap is a flyover. Adding a level completely opens things up for WB and EB traffic. But that violates the sightlines of the monument in the middle.
Quote from: Alps on January 09, 2018, 07:34:42 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on January 09, 2018, 06:17:35 PM
Sixth, Seventh, and Eigth Streets in Philadelphia.should be closed off. Doing this would solve the problem and provide continuous movement on I-676 at almost no cost. Of course there are tight turns in both directions there that would limit speed but in the long run it would be quite beneficial to the motoring public.
The real way to close that gap is a flyover. Adding a level completely opens things up for WB and EB traffic. But that violates the sightlines of the monument in the middle.
you could "fix" it on paper by having i-676 end at i-95. Have US30 be an exit from the freeway, have 676 on the NJ side be NJ42 and have that connect to the bridge. There, no more breezewood situation.
That wouldn't improve the situation for the motorists though.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on January 09, 2018, 07:47:58 PM
you could "fix" it on paper by having i-676 end at i-95. Have US30 be an exit from the freeway, have 676 on the NJ side be NJ42 and have that connect to the bridge. There, no more breezewood situation.
Officially that's how PennDOT recognizes SR 676. It stays on the freeway to the ramps to 95. The DRPA recognizes 676 across the bridge to the base of the Lightning Bolt sculpture. Like 02 Park Ave said, your solution doesn't physically fix anything for motorists. Just jumbles some numbers around.
I don't see any real way to fix this situation either. You can't tunnel under the sculpture because the PATCO tunnel is already under it, additional ramps are out of the question due to historical concerns with both the sculpture and Franklin Square. It'll just have to stay like the I-78 approach to the Holland Tunnel.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on January 09, 2018, 07:47:58 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 09, 2018, 07:34:42 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on January 09, 2018, 06:17:35 PM
Sixth, Seventh, and Eigth Streets in Philadelphia.should be closed off. Doing this would solve the problem and provide continuous movement on I-676 at almost no cost. Of course there are tight turns in both directions there that would limit speed but in the long run it would be quite beneficial to the motoring public.
The real way to close that gap is a flyover. Adding a level completely opens things up for WB and EB traffic. But that violates the sightlines of the monument in the middle.
you could "fix" it on paper by having i-676 end at i-95. Have US30 be an exit from the freeway, have 676 on the NJ side be NJ42 and have that connect to the bridge. There, no more breezewood situation.
Well, that'll make it NJ 42 - I-76 - NJ 42.
You could do a NJ 42 - I-76 - I-176 (or other odd number) from I-76 to the Ben Franklin Bridge. Again, doesn't fix the traffic light issue. Just fixes the traffic-light-on-the-interstate issue.
Given how short I-76 is in NJ, I wouldn't think it would be much of an issue for NJ 42's mileage/exit numbers to dominate on an overlap. This would also have the positive side effect of simplifying the exit numbers on the road, since they wouldn't reset so many times. One could even leave the "exit 354" signs on the Walt Whitman Bridge as-is.
Quote from: vdeane on January 10, 2018, 01:05:25 PM
Given how short I-76 is in NJ, I wouldn't think it would be much of an issue for NJ 42's mileage/exit numbers to dominate on an overlap. This would also have the positive side effect of simplifying the exit numbers on the road, since they wouldn't reset so many times. One could even leave the "exit 354" signs on the Walt Whitman Bridge as-is.
Everyone (except NJDOT) calls it Rt. 42 anyway.
Perhaps they could drop all those numerical designations and just call it the Atlantic City Expressway eastward from the Ben Franklin Bridge. Or maybe I shoud say southward as the mileage on the ACE starts at zero in Atlantic City. And so, extending the mileage all the way northward to the bridge would also simplify the cumbersome exit numbering that now exists.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on January 09, 2018, 07:47:58 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 09, 2018, 07:34:42 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on January 09, 2018, 06:17:35 PM
Sixth, Seventh, and Eigth Streets in Philadelphia.should be closed off. Doing this would solve the problem and provide continuous movement on I-676 at almost no cost. Of course there are tight turns in both directions there that would limit speed but in the long run it would be quite beneficial to the motoring public.
The real way to close that gap is a flyover. Adding a level completely opens things up for WB and EB traffic. But that violates the sightlines of the monument in the middle.
you could "fix" it on paper by having i-676 end at i-95. Have US30 be an exit from the freeway, have 676 on the NJ side be NJ42 and have that connect to the bridge. There, no more breezewood situation.
I like this approach. 76 will end at BK Horse Pike. Nj 42 takes over the full routing of the NS Fwy from us 30 to Atl city
The ben should not be used as a freeways connector. It should only be used to connect to center City
Thru traffic to reach areas west of Philly should use the Walt.
Quote from: mrsman on January 12, 2018, 11:26:35 AM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on January 09, 2018, 07:47:58 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 09, 2018, 07:34:42 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on January 09, 2018, 06:17:35 PM
Sixth, Seventh, and Eigth Streets in Philadelphia.should be closed off. Doing this would solve the problem and provide continuous movement on I-676 at almost no cost. Of course there are tight turns in both directions there that would limit speed but in the long run it would be quite beneficial to the motoring public.
The real way to close that gap is a flyover. Adding a level completely opens things up for WB and EB traffic. But that violates the sightlines of the monument in the middle.
you could "fix" it on paper by having i-676 end at i-95. Have US30 be an exit from the freeway, have 676 on the NJ side be NJ42 and have that connect to the bridge. There, no more breezewood situation.
I like this approach. 76 will end at BK Horse Pike. Nj 42 takes over the full routing of the NS Fwy from us 30 to Atl city
The ben should not be used as a freeways connector. It should only be used to connect to center City
Thru traffic to reach areas west of Philly should use the Walt.
It would be nicer if NJDOT asked AASHTO to transfer this lost mileage to NJ 24 in North Jersey to be an x78 designation as, really, that should be an interstate being it connects to two of them already.
Quote from: roadman65 on January 12, 2018, 11:48:21 AM
Quote from: mrsman on January 12, 2018, 11:26:35 AM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on January 09, 2018, 07:47:58 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 09, 2018, 07:34:42 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on January 09, 2018, 06:17:35 PM
Sixth, Seventh, and Eigth Streets in Philadelphia.should be closed off. Doing this would solve the problem and provide continuous movement on I-676 at almost no cost. Of course there are tight turns in both directions there that would limit speed but in the long run it would be quite beneficial to the motoring public.
The real way to close that gap is a flyover. Adding a level completely opens things up for WB and EB traffic. But that violates the sightlines of the monument in the middle.
you could "fix" it on paper by having i-676 end at i-95. Have US30 be an exit from the freeway, have 676 on the NJ side be NJ42 and have that connect to the bridge. There, no more breezewood situation.
I like this approach. 76 will end at BK Horse Pike. Nj 42 takes over the full routing of the NS Fwy from us 30 to Atl city
The ben should not be used as a freeways connector. It should only be used to connect to center City
Thru traffic to reach areas west of Philly should use the Walt.
It would be nicer if NJDOT asked AASHTO to transfer this lost mileage to NJ 24 in North Jersey to be an x78 designation as, really, that should be an interstate being it connects to two of them already.
Interstate 76 enters new jersey, continues to Atlantic City, NJ55 starts mid-span of ben franklin bridge and runs to i-76, splits off as it does today to head down towards NJ47. Current NJ42 after the ACE exit, is NJ42. This will work better if NJ55 gets connected to the parkway, you could use it as a way to encourage easier access down to Cape May and Wildwood.
But this is a fictional highway, so i think this is all we should really post about it here.
I didn't realize that I-78 was such a late comer to the game.
Breezewood will likely continue if PA politics continues the way it is.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on January 12, 2018, 04:43:24 PM
I didn't realize that I-78 was such a late comer to the game.
Breezewood will likely continue if PA politics continues the way it is.
Again, this has to be corrected at the federal level, since it is unlikely that Pennsylvania elected officials care about remediation of breezewoods.
Congress has the power to set conditions on the issuance of bonds by entities like the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (because bonds issued by the PTC are exempt from federal taxation). Those conditions could include a prohibition on breezewoods.
If Congress were to put PTC on notice that their federal tax exemption would be cancelled if they failed to remediate the breezewoods, then the breezewoods would be gone within a year or two.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 16, 2018, 02:37:29 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on January 12, 2018, 04:43:24 PM
I didn't realize that I-78 was such a late comer to the game.
Breezewood will likely continue if PA politics continues the way it is.
Again, this has to be corrected at the federal level, since it is unlikely that Pennsylvania elected officials care about remediation of breezewoods.
Fixed. No elected official, especially in today's environment of just trying to find money to do routine maintenance and some expansions, will demand something be changed just because it's not proper.
While THE breezewood is a huge issue because it plants traffic lights on a signed interstate, the other breezewoods confirm 100% to not only yesterday's MUTCD, but today's MUTCD. There's no requirement that two intersecting roads shall have an interchange connecting the two.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 16, 2018, 02:48:18 PM
While THE breezewood is a huge issue because it plants traffic lights on a signed interstate, the other breezewoods confirm 100% to not only yesterday's MUTCD, but today's MUTCD. There's no requirement that two intersecting roads shall have an interchange connecting the two.
But there was an understanding when the Interstate system routes were allocated, that there would not be gaps in routes. This not only includes a continuous I-70 route, but also Interstate traffic connecting between two Interstate routes (such as between I-76 and I-81).
Quote from: Beltway on January 16, 2018, 04:13:08 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 16, 2018, 02:48:18 PM
While THE breezewood is a huge issue because it plants traffic lights on a signed interstate, the other breezewoods confirm 100% to not only yesterday's MUTCD, but today's MUTCD. There's no requirement that two intersecting roads shall have an interchange connecting the two.
But there was an understanding when the Interstate system routes were allocated, that there would not be gaps in routes. This not only includes a continuous I-70 route, but also Interstate traffic connecting between two Interstate routes (such as between I-76 and I-81).
A stoplight within I-70 itself is indeed a "gap in routes". But a stoplight between I-76 and I-81 is not.
Quote from: kphoger on January 16, 2018, 04:33:20 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 16, 2018, 04:13:08 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 16, 2018, 02:48:18 PM
While THE breezewood is a huge issue because it plants traffic lights on a signed interstate, the other breezewoods confirm 100% to not only yesterday's MUTCD, but today's MUTCD. There's no requirement that two intersecting roads shall have an interchange connecting the two.
But there was an understanding when the Interstate system routes were allocated, that there would not be gaps in routes. This not only includes a continuous I-70 route, but also Interstate traffic connecting between two Interstate routes (such as between I-76 and I-81).
A stoplight within I-70 itself is indeed a "gap in routes". But a stoplight between I-76 and I-81 is not.
But it is indeed interesting to note that all the instances of non-connection between crossing/adjoining Interstates involve toll facilities; PA being the most egregious of the lot. Ohio has corrected most of their previous "disconnects" over the last 30 years, but PA has not elected to follow suit with their remaining cases except for two locations (I-79, I-176). What is perplexing to me is the failure of the governing body (BPR or FHWA, embedded in the Commerce Dept. before 1968) to set some basic but comprehensive connectivity requirements for toll facilities "grandfathered" into the network -- which has allowed local and state political considerations to determine such matters.
Quote from: kphoger on January 16, 2018, 04:33:20 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 16, 2018, 04:13:08 PM
But there was an understanding when the Interstate system routes were allocated, that there would not be gaps in routes. This not only includes a continuous I-70 route, but also Interstate traffic connecting between two Interstate routes (such as between I-76 and I-81).
A stoplight within I-70 itself is indeed a "gap in routes". But a stoplight between I-76 and I-81 is not.
It is a gap in the Interstate system. Interstate trips were meant to be seamless, and some trips will utilize two or more Interstate routes, of which there are many examples.
Quote from: sparker on January 16, 2018, 04:51:05 PM
But it is indeed interesting to note that all the instances of non-connection between crossing/adjoining Interstates involve toll facilities; PA being the most egregious of the lot. Ohio has corrected most of their previous "disconnects" over the last 30 years, but PA has not elected to follow suit with their remaining cases except for two locations (I-79, I-176). What is perplexing to me is the failure of the governing body (BPR or FHWA, embedded in the Commerce Dept. before 1968) to set some basic but comprehensive connectivity requirements for toll facilities "grandfathered" into the network -- which has allowed local and state political considerations to determine such matters.
Good point, as BPR and FHWA has had comprehensive design requirements and standards for the new Interstate highways themselves.
Quote from: sparker on January 16, 2018, 04:51:05 PM
But it is indeed interesting to note that all the instances of non-connection between crossing/adjoining Interstates involve toll facilities; PA being the most egregious of the lot. Ohio has corrected most of their previous "disconnects" over the last 30 years, but PA has not elected to follow suit with their remaining cases except for two locations (I-79, I-176). What is perplexing to me is the failure of the governing body (BPR or FHWA, embedded in the Commerce Dept. before 1968) to set some basic but comprehensive connectivity requirements for toll facilities "grandfathered" into the network -- which has allowed local and state political considerations to determine such matters.
Even more interesting is that the I-76/I-376 interchange isn't freeway/freeway, despite both roads being part of the Turnpike system!
Quote from: vdeane on January 16, 2018, 07:34:19 PM
Quote from: sparker on January 16, 2018, 04:51:05 PM
But it is indeed interesting to note that all the instances of non-connection between crossing/adjoining Interstates involve toll facilities; PA being the most egregious of the lot. Ohio has corrected most of their previous "disconnects" over the last 30 years, but PA has not elected to follow suit with their remaining cases except for two locations (I-79, I-176). What is perplexing to me is the failure of the governing body (BPR or FHWA, embedded in the Commerce Dept. before 1968) to set some basic but comprehensive connectivity requirements for toll facilities "grandfathered" into the network -- which has allowed local and state political considerations to determine such matters.
Even more interesting is that the I-76/I-376 interchange isn't freeway/freeway, despite both roads being part of the Turnpike system!
And not a "grandfathering" issue as that interchange with the Beaver Valley Expressway was built in 1992, plus the expressway was PA-60 until the I-376 designation was applied in 2010.
Breezewood just basically a tourist trap. There aren't many people that live around there and it thrives from a gap on I-70. I-70 is a through route here and to continue on it you have to exit the highway and stop at traffic lights to remain on the same highway.
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 17, 2018, 01:02:54 AM
Breezewood just basically a tourist trap. There aren't many people that live around there and it thrives from a gap on I-70. I-70 is a through route here and to continue on it you have to exit the highway and stop at traffic lights to remain on the same highway.
I'd refer to it as more as a
traveler trap than a tourist trap; if it weren't for the uniqueness of the configuration and overall situation, there would be little reason for dollars to change hands at that particular location. It's a captive-audience cash cow, plain & simple.
Quote from: sparker on January 17, 2018, 01:35:34 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 17, 2018, 01:02:54 AM
Breezewood just basically a tourist trap. There aren't many people that live around there and it thrives from a gap on I-70. I-70 is a through route here and to continue on it you have to exit the highway and stop at traffic lights to remain on the same highway.
I'd refer to it as more as a traveler trap than a tourist trap; if it weren't for the uniqueness of the configuration and overall situation, there would be little reason for dollars to change hands at that particular location. It's a captive-audience cash cow, plain & simple.
Yeah that makes more sense I guess.
Quote from: sparker on January 17, 2018, 01:35:34 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 17, 2018, 01:02:54 AM
Breezewood just basically a tourist trap. There aren't many people that live around there and it thrives from a gap on I-70. I-70 is a through route here and to continue on it you have to exit the highway and stop at traffic lights to remain on the same highway.
I'd refer to it as more as a traveler trap than a tourist trap; if it weren't for the uniqueness of the configuration and overall situation, there would be little reason for dollars to change hands at that particular location. It's a captive-audience cash cow, plain & simple.
Never once since 1972 when I first went thru there has any of my cash been spent there.
1. The reason Breezewood is ridiculous isn't the surface street (I grew up near the Holland Tunnel where I-78 does the same shit), it's the fact that the two freeways **CROSS OVER EACH OTHER** and don't connect. You actually have to drive OVER the highway you ultimately need to get on, back track on a surface road, and the drive UNDER where you just were. That's why it's ridiculous, it's not like the two legs don't get close enough so there's a gap; the two legs cross each other without any ramps. It's almost as ridiculous as I-276/I-95 being built to cross without any intersection.
2. This cements my feelings in why local business should have absolutely no input to the equation of where people need roads. Local communities? Sure -- don't divide them. Environment? Sure -- build around sensitive areas. Local businesses in Breezewood? Why are they better than the millions of other local businesses that need to drive on I-70? This is the same type of issue created when businesspeople are able to buy land up near where near highways are going in and then have control over the area. This needs to stop -- it's businesses being put in front of the common person's needs once again.
3. I think it's about time the businesses in Breezewood started getting prank calls from fake news asking them how they feel about the new upcoming connection ;) I really want to know which businesses freak out vs which ones don't even understand the significance of the anomaly.
Quote from: _Simon on January 17, 2018, 09:04:47 AM
This cements my feelings in why local business should have absolutely no input to the equation of where people need roads. Local communities? Sure -- don't divide them. Environment? Sure -- build around sensitive areas. Local businesses in Breezewood? Why are they better than the millions of other local businesses that need to drive on I-70? This is the same type of issue created when businesspeople are able to buy land up near where near highways are going in and then have control over the area. This needs to stop -- it's businesses being put in front of the common person's needs once again.
But local businesses are owned by members of the local community. How do you disconnect the two?
Quote from: kphoger on January 17, 2018, 10:58:49 AM
Quote from: _Simon on January 17, 2018, 09:04:47 AM
This cements my feelings in why local business should have absolutely no input to the equation of where people need roads. Local communities? Sure -- don't divide them. Environment? Sure -- build around sensitive areas. Local businesses in Breezewood? Why are they better than the millions of other local businesses that need to drive on I-70? This is the same type of issue created when businesspeople are able to buy land up near where near highways are going in and then have control over the area. This needs to stop -- it's businesses being put in front of the common person's needs once again.
But local businesses are owned by members of the local community. How do you disconnect the two?
They're more than just "local businesses" if they profit from the opportunity of commuters and travelers. "Local businesses" is what they don't want to become. Entities, local or not, shouldn't really have a say unless they own property near where the construction would be. The businesses that have nothing to do with i-70 and are profiting from mere bureaucratic discourse have no say in the matter. It's one thing if they were in the right of way needed for such a connector, but they're not. The people that have no choice in the matter are the greater benefactors of a connection. Opportunists that set up shop there in the 70s and 80s have had their shot at getting rich. If people actually need those services, they'll exit. Everyone else is just having their time wasted.
The reality is that these businesses (that would fight the connection) have no interest in serving breezewood, they're there because that's where thousands of cars have to stop every day.
SM-G955U
Quote from: _Simon on January 17, 2018, 11:07:04 AM
Quote from: kphoger on January 17, 2018, 10:58:49 AM
Quote from: _Simon on January 17, 2018, 09:04:47 AM
This cements my feelings in why local business should have absolutely no input to the equation of where people need roads. Local communities? Sure -- don't divide them. Environment? Sure -- build around sensitive areas. Local businesses in Breezewood? Why are they better than the millions of other local businesses that need to drive on I-70? This is the same type of issue created when businesspeople are able to buy land up near where near highways are going in and then have control over the area. This needs to stop -- it's businesses being put in front of the common person's needs once again.
But local businesses are owned by members of the local community. How do you disconnect the two?
They're more than just "local businesses" if they profit from the opportunity of commuters and travelers. "Local businesses" is what they don't want to become. Entities, local or not, shouldn't really have a say unless they own property near where the construction would be. The businesses that have nothing to do with i-70 and are profiting from mere bureaucratic discourse have no say in the matter. It's one thing if they were in the right of way needed for such a connector, but they're not. The people that have no choice in the matter are the greater benefactors of a connection. Opportunists that set up shop there in the 70s and 80s have had their shot at getting rich. If people actually need those services, they'll exit. Everyone else is just having their time wasted.
The reality is that these businesses (that would fight the connection) have no interest in serving breezewood, they're there because that's where thousands of cars have to stop every day.
Let me reword this...
You are in favor of letting citizens of a community band together to block a road project if it would divide their community in half, yet you advocate preventing those same citizens from banding together to block a road project if it would hurt their businesses.
Either they should have a say in where the road goes, or they shouldn't. Their motives shouldn't matter.
Quote from: kphoger on January 17, 2018, 11:35:08 AM
Quote from: _Simon on January 17, 2018, 11:07:04 AM
Quote from: kphoger on January 17, 2018, 10:58:49 AM
Quote from: _Simon on January 17, 2018, 09:04:47 AM
This cements my feelings in why local business should have absolutely no input to the equation of where people need roads. Local communities? Sure -- don't divide them. Environment? Sure -- build around sensitive areas. Local businesses in Breezewood? Why are they better than the millions of other local businesses that need to drive on I-70? This is the same type of issue created when businesspeople are able to buy land up near where near highways are going in and then have control over the area. This needs to stop -- it's businesses being put in front of the common person's needs once again.
But local businesses are owned by members of the local community. How do you disconnect the two?
They're more than just "local businesses" if they profit from the opportunity of commuters and travelers. "Local businesses" is what they don't want to become. Entities, local or not, shouldn't really have a say unless they own property near where the construction would be. The businesses that have nothing to do with i-70 and are profiting from mere bureaucratic discourse have no say in the matter. It's one thing if they were in the right of way needed for such a connector, but they're not. The people that have no choice in the matter are the greater benefactors of a connection. Opportunists that set up shop there in the 70s and 80s have had their shot at getting rich. If people actually need those services, they'll exit. Everyone else is just having their time wasted.
The reality is that these businesses (that would fight the connection) have no interest in serving breezewood, they're there because that's where thousands of cars have to stop every day.
Let me reword this...
You are in favor of letting citizens of a community band together to block a road project if it would divide their community in half, yet you advocate preventing those same citizens from banding together to block a road project if it would hurt their businesses.
Either they should have a say in where the road goes, or they shouldn't. Their motives shouldn't matter.
I'm not in favor of the former either.. I don't think anyone has a business case to stand in the way of the greater good, I'm just saying it's more understandable that a major freeway was delayed because an urban neighborhood had to be relocated vs something as petty as "the gas stations and restaurants don't want to lose business", which is an obvious rebuttal that's been there every time every highway or bypass had ever been built anywhere in America.
Some of us aren't old enough to remember the generations of businesses that used to be on the main thoroughfare, were bypassed in the 50/60s with state/us highways and then again in the 70s with interstates. Businesses shifting is a normal part of building roads.
SM-G955U
What is the average "delay" in this area anyway? What gives one the right to have an interstate anyway?
:popcorn:
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on January 17, 2018, 01:09:36 PM
What is the average "delay" in this area anyway? What gives one the right to have an interstate anyway?
:popcorn:
There is and has been no "right" to have an Interstate highway... but it has been a national -policy- since 1956 to have a national Interstate Highway System composed of freeways with 4 or more lanes.
Quote from: _Simon on January 17, 2018, 11:07:04 AM
They're more than just "local businesses" if they profit from the opportunity of commuters and travelers.
So, do away with the blue service sign program, billboards, and anything else that attract travelers to local businesses?
Quote from: _Simon on January 17, 2018, 11:07:04 AMEntities, local or not, shouldn't really have a say unless they own property near where the construction would be. The businesses that have nothing to do with i-70 and are profiting from mere bureaucratic discourse have no say in the matter.
Many states disagree with you. Nearby business owners are local companies, and local companies contribute to the local economy. They absolutely have a right to be involved in the process.
Also, see "United States of America Constitution, First Amendment Rights."
Because highway departments are part of the Government, local businesses, and everyone else in the entire world for that matter, are allowed to have a say. Now, do the DOTs and Governments necessary have to listen to them and do as they say? No. But people and businesses are most definitely permitted to have a say in the process.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on January 17, 2018, 01:09:36 PM
What is the average "delay" in this area anyway? What gives one the right to have an interstate anyway?
Interstates routes were designed primarily to connect cities. No idea how they decided on the routing between cities; when to combine 2 routes into 1, etc.
Quote from: _Simon on January 17, 2018, 09:04:47 AM
... local business should have absolutely no input to the equation of where people need roads. Local communities? Sure -- don't divide them.
Quote from: kphoger on January 17, 2018, 11:35:08 AM
You are in favor of letting citizens of a community band together to block a road project if it would divide their community in half ...
Quote from: _Simon on January 17, 2018, 12:50:15 PM
I'm not in favor of the former either.
Well, hopefully you can understand my confusion as to where you stand.
We had our own little "Breezewood influence" situation occur here in Kentucky. Several years ago, a proposal was on the books to build a short expansion of the Mountain Parkway by bypassing the commercial section of US 460 in Salyersville with a new route to run south of the current one. Magoffin County has traditionally had one of the highest unemployment rates in the state. The current US 460 strip is called "Restaurant Row" by locals. It has a McDonald's, Wendy's, Subway, Dairy Queen, Lee's Famous Recipe Chicken, a now-closed food court that included an Arby's, three or four gas stations, and several other businesses (auto parts stores, dollar stores, grocery store, bank, etc.) There were also two motels that were destroyed by a tornado and were not rebuilt. Local interests fought hard against the bypass, saying taking through traffic off of US 460 would kill those businesses in a town that's already struggling economically. Those interests won, and the bypass was scrapped in favor of widening existing US 460 and building a series of frontage and backage roads to provide access to the businesses. That project was incorporated into the current Mountain Parkway expansion project now under construction.
There's currently one traffic light along the strip; at the end of the Mountain Parkway at US 460. The new road will have at least four traffic lights and a reduced speed limit, probably 45 mph. This is going to create a bottleneck in what's planned to be a high-speed corridor all the way from I-64 to just shy of US 23.
There are no services to speak of for more than 50 miles along that stretch of the Mountain Parkway. You don't find 24-hour gas until Campton, and that's inconvenient to get to due to a lack of a full interchange at KY 15. There are two gas stations at Slade (Exit 33) but I'm not sure if they are 24-hour or not. It's not until you get to Stanton (Exit 22) that you have a full complement of services (McDonald's, Arby's,, Long John Silver's, Hardee's, Dairy Queen).
Anyone who needs food or gas or a restroom break is going to stop in Salyersville, and exit the parkway if necessary. Myself, I don't stop there unless I need to. Sometimes I'll grab a bite to eat there, but I try not to buy gas there because it's expensive. I don't think a bypass would kill that business district, especially since the majority of businesses there are not "highway businesses."
So the local business interests succeeded in killing a highway project that would have been better for the traveling public in general for their own interests.
Sounds like a modern-day "Breezewood" to me.
Quote from: Beltway on January 17, 2018, 07:23:11 AM
Quote from: sparker on January 17, 2018, 01:35:34 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 17, 2018, 01:02:54 AM
Breezewood just basically a tourist trap. There aren't many people that live around there and it thrives from a gap on I-70. I-70 is a through route here and to continue on it you have to exit the highway and stop at traffic lights to remain on the same highway.
I'd refer to it as more as a traveler trap than a tourist trap; if it weren't for the uniqueness of the configuration and overall situation, there would be little reason for dollars to change hands at that particular location. It's a captive-audience cash cow, plain & simple.
Never once since 1972 when I first went thru there has any of my cash been spent there.
I've only been through it a few times in my life since I don't usually use the PA Turnpike. I take I-80 to I-99 and then US 322 to Harrisburg and then use I-83 to get to Baltimore just to avoid the Turnpike. It takes about 45-60 minutes longer but I never really care about that.
Quote from: hbelkins on January 17, 2018, 03:47:03 PM
We had our own little "Breezewood influence" situation occur here in Kentucky. Several years ago, a proposal was on the books to build a short expansion of the Mountain Parkway by bypassing the commercial section of US 460 in Salyersville with a new route to run south of the current one. Magoffin County has traditionally had one of the highest unemployment rates in the state. The current US 460 strip is called "Restaurant Row" by locals. It has a McDonald's, Wendy's, Subway, Dairy Queen, Lee's Famous Recipe Chicken, a now-closed food court that included an Arby's, three or four gas stations, and several other businesses (auto parts stores, dollar stores, grocery store, bank, etc.) There were also two motels that were destroyed by a tornado and were not rebuilt. Local interests fought hard against the bypass, saying taking through traffic off of US 460 would kill those businesses in a town that's already struggling economically. Those interests won, and the bypass was scrapped in favor of widening existing US 460 and building a series of frontage and backage roads to provide access to the businesses. That project was incorporated into the current Mountain Parkway expansion project now under construction.
There's currently one traffic light along the strip; at the end of the Mountain Parkway at US 460. The new road will have at least four traffic lights and a reduced speed limit, probably 45 mph. This is going to create a bottleneck in what's planned to be a high-speed corridor all the way from I-64 to just shy of US 23.
There are no services to speak of for more than 50 miles along that stretch of the Mountain Parkway. You don't find 24-hour gas until Campton, and that's inconvenient to get to due to a lack of a full interchange at KY 15. There are two gas stations at Slade (Exit 33) but I'm not sure if they are 24-hour or not. It's not until you get to Stanton (Exit 22) that you have a full complement of services (McDonald's, Arby's,, Long John Silver's, Hardee's, Dairy Queen).
Anyone who needs food or gas or a restroom break is going to stop in Salyersville, and exit the parkway if necessary. Myself, I don't stop there unless I need to. Sometimes I'll grab a bite to eat there, but I try not to buy gas there because it's expensive. I don't think a bypass would kill that business district, especially since the majority of businesses there are not "highway businesses."
So the local business interests succeeded in killing a highway project that would have been better for the traveling public in general for their own interests.
Sounds like a modern-day "Breezewood" to me.
They have earned my business in Salyersville. Henderson has as well. If I-69 is built and had SR 9009 bypassed Salyersville they may not have earned my business. Looks like it is more then hype to me.
Quote from: kphoger on January 17, 2018, 02:09:51 PM
Quote from: _Simon on January 17, 2018, 09:04:47 AM
... local business should have absolutely no input to the equation of where people need roads. Local communities? Sure -- don't divide them.
Quote from: kphoger on January 17, 2018, 11:35:08 AM
You are in favor of letting citizens of a community band together to block a road project if it would divide their community in half ...
Quote from: _Simon on January 17, 2018, 12:50:15 PM
I'm not in favor of the former either.
Well, hopefully you can understand my confusion as to where you stand.
To clarify further, I mean that I agree that care should be placed in selecting new alignments that won't cause neighborhoods to NIMBY the project. I don't mean that businesses or otherwise should be able to fight it just because it happens to be in their town. In no other legal precedent is someone able transfer that type of liability to the state (or even a private firm). If your business is doing bad because the community's population, trends, needs, or purchasing power change, you have to absorb that. If your business is relocated to fit in a highway, sure -- you get a say and a right to be compensated; but these businesses are miles from where they are directly impacted. In no other type of urban renewal project do businesses get compensated because of changes to traffic patterns.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 17, 2018, 01:51:55 PM
So, do away with the blue service sign program, billboards, and anything else that attract travelers to local businesses?
Absolutely not. Those are not only informational for motorists but also a revenue generating opportunity. Once roads have sufficient fiber or other connectivity, the BBS's need to be fully digital VMSs with sensors so that businesses can pay the DOT per view (per passing car) which is how all modern advertising is billed anyhow. The logos for businesses would go away during hours they are closed (saving drivers frustration and the business ad money) and others could even pay for a custom banner (imagine a "BREAKFAST" banner under the McDonalds logo during breakfast hours, or a "DRIVE THRU" under Taco bell after 9 PM when the dining room closes). Also billboards and other services are not inputs into the equation of where highway connections should go. Come on, there's a difference between businesses having presence and having veto-power over a highway ramp that everyone that doesn't live in Breezewood wants (and that any driver could see belongs there).
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 17, 2018, 01:51:55 PM
Many states disagree with you. Nearby business owners are local companies, and local companies contribute to the local economy. They absolutely have a right to be involved in the process.
Again -- if their land is being taken, if their road access is being controllers, or if they are incurring damages that are legally compensated under existing precedents, sure. If they're just some 7-Eleven a few blocks away that wants to lobby against a highway connector because it's really good for them that 100% of the people on the interstate have to exit in Breezewood, then I would argue against that. History shows that local businesses are *always* against a bypass, highway, or anything that takes travelers elsewhere. Look up any public hearing about any new highway that was built ever. That's not a reason not to build a road. This type of gap is unacceptable in an interstate highway.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 17, 2018, 01:51:55 PM
Also, see "United States of America Constitution, First Amendment Rights."
The First Amendment prevents laws from being passed to restrict speech, it has absolutely nothing to do with the State's sovereign immunity and exemption to any type of damages incurred as a result of changing traffic patterns. Businesses can lobby and bitch and moan -- (that's also not related to the First Amendment unless someone's trying to pass a law against it), but that's not getting an official input into the traffic engineering being done by PennDOT. That's just businesses making an investment in an interest. Traffic engineers and DOT officials need to understand that *of course* local businesses that get to have a monopoly on interstate traffic are going to want to keep doing that. Nowhere else in the country can Perkins and Shell have entrances on a road beginning with "I-"anything. If only there was room for a TA and a Sheetz.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 17, 2018, 01:51:55 PM
Because highway departments are part of the Government, local businesses, and everyone else in the entire world for that matter, are allowed to have a say.
That's not true at all. Look up everything Robert Moses ever did; public authorities are held to different standards and the Pennsylvania Turnpike authority can develop on any land it or the state owns the rights to (it acts as the state's proxy). It has the authority to float bonds, own land, and do private deals. Public hearings are required for only certain parts of the land acquisition/zoning process and the requirements and process varies widely from municipality to municipality (or in NJ, municipality type). I'm not saying they wouldn't hold one, but if the EIS was done and they owned the land, I don't see why they need to. They didn't hold a public hearing along the lines of "does anyone local care if we leave a huge stretch of abandoned highway to rot because we don't want to pay for the condemnation?", did they?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 17, 2018, 01:51:55 PMNow, do the DOTs and Governments necessary have to listen to them and do as they say? No. But people and businesses are most definitely permitted to have a say in the process.
Well anyone can have a say in anything. You're responding to my "say" in the Breezewood discussion :) I "say" that companies shouldn't have a say with where my highway goes. I can't just build a competing interstate that *doesn't* go through Breezewood. The highway is for the defense of the country and the use of the people and the businesses there can be accommodated fine with their existing exit. People can easily get off and on to get gas or coffee -- there is no unfair aspect to building a connector. PennDOT isn't lining such a said connector with it's own gas stations and restaurants. It would be a completely different story if the businesses were going to compete with a state-run service area or something. These businesses are still the closest thing around.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on January 17, 2018, 01:09:36 PM
What is the average "delay" in this area anyway? What gives one the right to have an interstate anyway?
Interstates run through parts of Wyoming and Iowa where no one lives. There is no minimum requirement to having an interstate highway; it's part of the national defense network and any study done (unless the study is being funded in a joint venture by Sunoco, Perkins, and McDonalds) is going to find that the addition of two small ramps are going to not only increase productivity and traffic capacity, but also decrease pollution/emissions in the area, and save commuters in general
days off their lives.
QuoteAgain -- if their land is being taken, if their road access is being controllers, or if they are incurring damages that are legally compensated under existing precedents, sure...
What are they getting a say in? If their business is being taken, then they aren't exactly getting a say. If the business is forced to move elsewhere, then it falls to your other complaint...that then the business is far enough removed from the highway that they no longer get a say.
Everything you're doing is basically giving the government unlimited authority to do whatever they want.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 17, 2018, 11:16:22 PM
QuoteAgain -- if their land is being taken, if their road access is being controllers, or if they are incurring damages that are legally compensated under existing precedents, sure...
What are they getting a say in? If their business is being taken, then they aren't exactly getting a say. If the business is forced to move elsewhere, then it falls to your other complaint...that then the business is far enough removed from the highway that they no longer get a say.
Everything you're doing is basically giving the government unlimited authority to do whatever they want.
I don't see anyone suggesting "giving the government unlimited authority to do whatever they want."
There are a lot of reasons that have been posted, about why two ramps should be built where I-70 crosses over the turnpike access highway, to complete the freeway connection for I-70. The existing looping route thru Breezewood would remain in place for those travelers who want to use services there.
The US-30 businesses are entitled to an opinion on the matter, but they are not entitled to veto power.
Quote from: _Simon on January 17, 2018, 09:30:10 PM
Nowhere else in the country can Perkins and Shell have entrances on a road beginning with "I-"anything.
(https://i.imgur.com/vvYPG9U.png) (https://goo.gl/maps/A6ZGzVxdmd42)
(https://i.imgur.com/NW0HpWg.png) (https://stores.perkinsrestaurants.com/search.html?q=owatonna%2C+mn)
:bigass: Sorry, I just had to. Yes, I know that's not what you meant.
Quote from: _Simon on January 17, 2018, 09:30:10 PM
Nowhere else in the country can Perkins and Shell have entrances on a road beginning with "I-"anything.
Except I-78 in Jersey City. Well, not Perkins, but Shell. And 7-Eleven and McDonald's. And many other things.
Quote from: bzakharin on January 18, 2018, 01:39:52 PM
Quote from: _Simon on January 17, 2018, 09:30:10 PM
Nowhere else in the country can Perkins and Shell have entrances on a road beginning with "I-"anything.
Except I-78 in Jersey City. Well, not Perkins, but Shell. And 7-Eleven and McDonald's. And many other things.
Not to mention a few business in Laredo.
Did the Breezewood threads get merged?
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on January 18, 2018, 02:03:29 PM
Did the Breezewood threads get merged?
Oh, so it's not just me? I thought I was crazy, because I didn't see any purple text.
Here we go again...dusting off the tired old book of Breezewood myths.
Quote from: _Simon on January 17, 2018, 09:30:10 PM
Nowhere else in the country can Perkins and Shell have entrances on a road beginning with "I-"anything.
And they don't here, either. US 30 in Breezewood is not I-70.
The road isn't posted as I-70; it's not inventoried in PennDOT's system as SR 0070. PennDOT's location referencing system does account for the Breezewood mileage in its location referencing system numbers. FHWA's Interstate log doesn't account for the surface mileage in Breezewood (nor does it include the PTC's Breezewood connector, for that matter) in its inventory of I-70 mileage in Pennsylvania.
It's a discontinuity in the route.
Quote from: Beltway on January 18, 2018, 09:08:12 AM
The US-30 businesses are entitled to an opinion on the matter, but they are not entitled to veto power.
And they don't have veto power, either.
The federal government created this situation by prohibiting the use of federal funds to construct direct connections to toll roads (where a free alternative existed). I don't know when the restriction was lifted, but I've read that by the late '70s, PennDOT was in a position where it was using every dime of its funding just to satisfy debt service on money borrowed for past construction. To my knowledge, the department has been in dire financial straits ever since.
Now we're in an environment where the PTC is obligated to write a nearly half-billion-dollar check to PennDOT every year to cover transit subsidies. At the same time, the Commission is compelled by law to continue construction on the Mon-Fayette, Southern Beltway, and I-95 interchange projects. And they're also faced with replacing deteriorating sections of a 70+ year-old highway.
The bottom line is that a nine-figure project to speed up Thanksgiving weekend traffic and soothe the nerves of roadgeeks isn't in the cards at all. So the business interests of Breezewood can "veto" all they want. Unless federal funds suddenly appear, it's not happening anyway.
Wasn't there a push a while ago to fix it after a major accident that got halted the nanosecond the businesses got wind of it?
It is outrageous that these business people can inconvenience the motoring public for the sake of their obscene profits.
Quote from: briantroutman on January 18, 2018, 02:10:17 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 18, 2018, 09:08:12 AM
The US-30 businesses are entitled to an opinion on the matter, but they are not entitled to veto power.
And they don't have veto power, either.
The federal government created this situation by prohibiting the use of federal funds to construct direct connections to toll roads (where a free alternative existed). I don't know when the restriction was lifted,
I periodically hear this claim, but as far as I have been able to determine it is an urban legend.
The prime piece of evidence is the numerous places where original Interstate highways were constructed with a direct connection to a tollroad, almost universal in other states excepting PA.
Quote from: briantroutman on January 18, 2018, 02:10:17 PM
but I've read that by the late '70s, PennDOT was in a position where it was using every dime of its funding just to satisfy debt service on money borrowed for past construction. To my knowledge, the department has been in dire financial straits ever since.
Now we're in an environment where the PTC is obligated to write a nearly half-billion-dollar check to PennDOT every year to cover transit subsidies. At the same time, the Commission is compelled by law to continue construction on the Mon-Fayette, Southern Beltway, and I-95 interchange projects. And they're also faced with replacing deteriorating sections of a 70+ year-old highway.
Managerial problems on the part of PennDOT and PTC, due to the choices they have made in the past.
Quote from: vdeane on January 18, 2018, 02:44:33 PM
Wasn't there a push a while ago to fix it after a major accident that got halted the nanosecond the businesses got wind of it?
One Democratic state senator, Michael Dawida, was involved in an accident in Breezewood in 1989 and briefly pushed a resolution in Harrisburg directing PennDOT to study building a connection. Fellow state senator and Republican powerbroker Robert Jubelirer did not support the resolution, and it never went anywhere.
Now was that because Jubelirer was in the Breezewood interests' pocket? Possibly, but Breezewood wasn't even in his district at the time. But even if Jubelrier hadn't opposed it, that doesn't mean a push for a direct connection would have gone anywhere anyway. At the time Jubelrier and his ally in Washington Bud Shuster were keen to seize any available funding to build the US 220 freeway that would eventually become I-99. Would they have wanted to see their precious funds transferred to Breezewood? And likewise across the state with their own constituents begging for local transportation improvements.
Quote from: Beltway on January 18, 2018, 02:59:27 PM
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 (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/tollroad.cfm)
Quote from: briantroutman on January 18, 2018, 03:26:19 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 18, 2018, 02:59:27 PM
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 (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/tollroad.cfm)
I present the pertinent portions below:
Quote from: FWHA Highway History – https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/tollroad.cfm
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.
Quote from: Title I – Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 – https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-70/pdf/STATUTE-70-Pg374.pdf
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.
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?"
The elected officials are the ones that are truly stopping this from happening.
Also to note: If they were making obscene profits, one would think more businesses would try to crowd in here. Instead, businesses have closed. I don't think they're exactly making a huge profit, but rather it's the elected officials trying to keep traffic - and the associated tax revenue - coming in. And many of the businesses are national chains. Close down any one of these and their effect on the companies' bottom line is nill.
Now, a location that can impact a bottom line is the Vegas Strip. A Denny's there shut down for remodeling for a few months, and it actually created a notable impact on the financial statements!
Quote from: Beltway on January 18, 2018, 02:59:27 PM
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?
They could have kept the Breezewood of Idaho in place. Now I-90 blocks the sun out of view of many places in Wallace.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 18, 2018, 03:43:31 PM
Managerial problems on the part of PennDOT and PTC, due to the choices they have made in the past.
Actually, a lot of that (the PTC payments) is Act 44 (and modified by Act 89), which was politicians thinking they could also milk a tolled I-80 to add to this pool of money. The Feds predictably denied it, but the payment obligations stayed. There is just 300+ miles of highway they thought would help generate that revenue that isn't (because, once again, they were too stupid to realize the Feds were going to shoot it down)
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on January 18, 2018, 04:26:12 PM
They could have kept the Breezewood of Idaho in place. Now I-90 blocks the sun out of view of many places in Wallace.
There was never much of an organized push to make the Wallace gap a permanent situation; I-90 would have either gone through or around the town, although a bypass on the adjacent hillside would have meant problematic construction (unstable hillsides in the Bitterroots), which is one of the main reasons why an in-town viaduct was eventually built.
It didn't seem like much of an issue when I went through. What a waste of money.
Quote from: kphoger on January 18, 2018, 03:42:49 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on January 18, 2018, 03:26:19 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 18, 2018, 02:59:27 PM
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 (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/tollroad.cfm)
I present the pertinent portions below:
Quote from: FWHA Highway History – https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/tollroad.cfm
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.
Quote from: Title I – Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 – https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-70/pdf/STATUTE-70-Pg374.pdf
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.
Quote from: bzakharin on January 18, 2018, 03:51:42 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 18, 2018, 02:59:27 PM
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.
Quote from: briantroutman on January 18, 2018, 02:10:17 PM
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.
Quote from: briantroutman on January 18, 2018, 02:10:17 PM
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.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on January 18, 2018, 02:46:48 PM
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.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 18, 2018, 03:43:31 PM
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.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 18, 2018, 03:43:31 PM
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.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 17, 2018, 11:16:22 PM
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.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 17, 2018, 11:16:22 PM
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)
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 17, 2018, 11:16:22 PM
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.
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?
Quote from: sparker on January 19, 2018, 01:52:14 AM
[...]
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.
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)?
Quote from: jemacedo9 on January 19, 2018, 08:15:33 AM
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.
Quote from: jemacedo9 on January 19, 2018, 08:15:33 AM
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.
Quote from: _Simon on January 18, 2018, 08:10:49 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 18, 2018, 03:43:31 PM
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.
Quote from: _Simon on January 18, 2018, 08:10:49 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 18, 2018, 03:43:31 PM
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.
Quote from: _Simon on January 18, 2018, 08:10:49 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 17, 2018, 11:16:22 PM
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.
Quote from: _Simon on January 18, 2018, 08:10:49 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 17, 2018, 11:16:22 PM
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.
Quote from: sparker on January 19, 2018, 01:52:14 AM
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.
Quote from: Beltway on January 19, 2018, 08:58:24 AM
Quote from: jemacedo9 on January 19, 2018, 08:15:33 AM
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.)
Quote from: empirestate on January 19, 2018, 09:40:14 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 19, 2018, 08:58:24 AM
Quote from: jemacedo9 on January 19, 2018, 08:15:33 AM
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 :D
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.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 19, 2018, 09:02:56 AM
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.
Quote from: hbelkins on January 19, 2018, 11:11:45 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 19, 2018, 09:02:56 AM
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
Quote from: _Simon on January 19, 2018, 11:17:58 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 19, 2018, 11:11:45 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 19, 2018, 09:02:56 AM
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
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 19, 2018, 11:55:07 AM
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.
Quote from: Beltway on January 19, 2018, 12:20:28 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 19, 2018, 11:55:07 AM
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.
QuoteYou both are hysterically wrong.
And you're just hysterical.
QuoteI'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.
QuoteIf 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.
Quote from: webny99 on January 19, 2018, 09:47:23 AM
Quote from: empirestate on January 19, 2018, 09:40:14 AM
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 :D
Exactly, because the number carries through. It's the discontinuity in the number that irks people, not the lack of connection between physical roadways.
Quote from: empirestate on January 19, 2018, 01:46:15 PM
Quote from: webny99 on January 19, 2018, 09:47:23 AM
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 :D
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.
Quote from: Beltway on January 18, 2018, 06:39:01 PM
Quote from: kphoger on January 18, 2018, 03:42:49 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on January 18, 2018, 03:26:19 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 18, 2018, 02:59:27 PM
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 (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/tollroad.cfm)
I present the pertinent portions below:
Quote from: FWHA Highway History – https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/tollroad.cfm
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.
Quote from: Title I – Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 – https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-70/pdf/STATUTE-70-Pg374.pdf
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.
Quote from: webny99 on January 19, 2018, 01:52:53 PM
Quote from: empirestate on January 19, 2018, 01:46:15 PM
Quote from: webny99 on January 19, 2018, 09:47:23 AM
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 :D
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.
Quote from: kphoger on January 19, 2018, 02:54:20 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 18, 2018, 06:39:01 PM
Quote from: kphoger on January 18, 2018, 03:42:49 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on January 18, 2018, 03:26:19 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 18, 2018, 02:59:27 PM
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 (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/tollroad.cfm)
I present the pertinent portions below:
[....]
Quote from: Title I – Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 – https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-70/pdf/STATUTE-70-Pg374.pdf
[....]
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.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 19, 2018, 12:29:00 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 19, 2018, 12:20:28 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 19, 2018, 11:55:07 AM
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
Quote from: Beltway on January 18, 2018, 06:39:01 PM
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.
Quote from: Beltway on January 18, 2018, 06:39:01 PM
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.
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.
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".
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on January 19, 2018, 11:15:05 PM
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".
If you did EZ-Pass only ramps from Free-70 to the Pike where those two mainlines cross, with the east-to-east connection a right ramp and a flyover from west-to-west, you would bypass the "town" and the old PA Tpk alignment (now the Breezewood Toll Plaza) completely tearing down little to no buildings. So it is more the "town" being afraid nobody will stop for services there anymore.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on January 19, 2018, 11:15:05 PM
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".
It wouldn't at all. And that's my point. If the PTC owns the land (they do) and they want to build a connector, and they have done the required EIS and met all federal and statutory requirements, then they can. They don't need to ask anyone.
The part where they to appeal to a community or work with landowners is over because no further land is needed. Jeffandnicole seems to think that local businesses or individuals seem to have some input into the process of what a state authority is doing on state property with state resources beyond the normal input that authority civilly consumes based on its own policies (not laws). The PTCs funds are not subject to public approval because they're an authority. They don't need to have a hearing like local or county government would to approve funding, and they don't need a public hearing for land acquiring, zoning, or land use change because they already own the ROW and it's already not part of the local municipalities zoning.
For example, show me any public hearing ever done related to new highway ramps and I will sort it into of four groups: information finding, land use/zoning, funding, legislative. None of these considerations are required for PTC to add a pair of ramps. Look at any previous example where a turnpike commission added new ramps that didn't require any new land. Project briefings and press releases aren't public hearings and public hearings also don't mean veto power. No business miles away should even be considered during a project like this unless they themselves are the source of the traffic.
SM-G955U
Quote from: briantroutman on January 19, 2018, 08:58:45 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 18, 2018, 06:39:01 PM
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.
The I-476 interchange concept was approved in the 1970s and was completed in 1992, and that involved a complex connection between a PennDOT Interstate and two PTC highways.
The I-176 interchange was completed in 1996.
Both are within the original Interstate construction era.
If the I-70 ramps had been built we wouldn't even be having this discussion today.
I am not at all convinced that "Section 113" was interpreted correctly, and if it was that a new federal-aid highway bill of 1962 or later didn't eliminate that stricture. After all, the apparent practices elsewhere would indicate that there was no such stricture after about 1965.
Richard Weingroff's webpage concerns me in that it may have pulled the punches that were deserved, or perhaps engaged in revisionist history. Given the federal-state relationship between FHWA and the state highway administrations, he may be reluctant to give the state its due, while at the same time having felt a lot of pressure from untold numbers of inquires from around the country to FHWA about Breezewood, to publish some kind of answer to the question.
PennDOT's debt problems after 1970 would not have affected the eligibility for 90% federal funding for Interstate construction. PennDOT did a decent job of getting all of its authorized Interstate highways built in a timely fashion, and the only ones deleted were I-695 and I-895.
Quote from: briantroutman on January 19, 2018, 08:58:45 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 18, 2018, 06:39:01 PM
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.
See my comments above about Section 113. That obviously didn't occur with the turnpikes in NJ, NY, OH and IN. As things transpired, all those turnpikes needed large amounts of capital and new toll revenue bond issues to fund major maintenance and expansion projects, and AFAIK none have ever had any plans to stop tolling.
Quote from: briantroutman on January 19, 2018, 08:58:45 PM
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.
Given the close timing of those years, there would have been ample time to coordinate the designs of I-70 and the new turnpike alignment. Besides, by 1966 they knew where to build two ramps between what would be the old turnpike stub (access highway to US-30) and I-70, they could have awarded the contract by 1968.
Isn't the southern end of I-99 somewhat like Breezewood? Only exception would be I-99 isn't a through route but rather ends there. Another one I remember in Ohio was the exit between I-475/US 23 and the Turnpike, they cross and you have to take Dussel Dr and Reynolds Road to make the connection. I guess Breezewood is sort of different considering I-70 is a through route there and doesn't end there.
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 20, 2018, 07:45:04 PM
Isn't the southern end of I-99 somewhat like Breezewood? Only exception would be I-99 isn't a through route but rather ends there. Another one I remember in Ohio was the exit between I-475/US 23 and the Turnpike, they cross and you have to take Dussel Dr and Reynolds Road to make the connection. I guess Breezewood is sort of different considering I-70 is a through route there and doesn't end there.
This was discussed a bit upthread (on the previous page), and I think you just answered your own question. A 2di on a surface street is very much unique to Breezewood, setting it apart from all the other non-connections that exist.
Quote from: webny99 on January 20, 2018, 08:36:08 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 20, 2018, 07:45:04 PM
Isn't the southern end of I-99 somewhat like Breezewood? Only exception would be I-99 isn't a through route but rather ends there. Another one I remember in Ohio was the exit between I-475/US 23 and the Turnpike, they cross and you have to take Dussel Dr and Reynolds Road to make the connection. I guess Breezewood is sort of different considering I-70 is a through route there and doesn't end there.
This was discussed a bit upthread (on the previous page), and I think you just answered your own question. A 2di on a surface street is very much unique to Breezewood, setting it apart from all the other non-connections that exist.
It's also the case for I-78 in Jersey City but thats not as big of a deal because there isn't a freeway on the other side of the Holland tunnel (yet), and traffic had to come to a crawl to traverse the tunnel anyway. Breezewood is the only place where you have to stop and take a local road for seemingly no reason to continue your cross-state interstate travel. This is a 70mph highway that most people are on for an hour or more if they're in this part of the state.
It literally feels like a tourist trip.
SM-G955U
Quote from: thenetwork on January 19, 2018, 11:53:57 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on January 19, 2018, 11:15:05 PM
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".
If you did EZ-Pass only ramps from Free-70 to the Pike where those two mainlines cross, with the east-to-east connection a right ramp and a flyover from west-to-west, you would bypass the "town" and the old PA Tpk alignment (now the Breezewood Toll Plaza) completely tearing down little to no buildings. So it is more the "town" being afraid nobody will stop for services there anymore.
I had that idea; thanks a lot for stealing it.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 19, 2018, 11:55:07 AM
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 owner of a truck stop at I-81 exit 150 condemned by VDOT did just that and pocketed more money than what the state initially offered.
See https://goo.gl/82DoX9 (Roanoke Times article).
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 20, 2018, 07:45:04 PM
Isn't the southern end of I-99 somewhat like Breezewood? Only exception would be I-99 isn't a through route but rather ends there. ....
Don't forget, also, the Turnpike's Bedford interchange that you use to connect to I-99 was built long before the Interstate designation was applied to US-220 north of the town.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 22, 2018, 10:51:41 AM
Don't forget, also, the Turnpike's Bedford interchange that you use to connect to I-99 was built long before the Interstate designation was applied to US-220 north of the town.
Agreed. But the lack of direct freeway connections between "free" expressways and freeways and the Pennsylvania Turnpike
now is a
deliberate policy decision by PennDOT, the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission and (especially) elected officials in Pennsylvania. Never mind the unwanted extra fuel consumed and the crashes that would not otherwise occur.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 22, 2018, 11:20:10 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 22, 2018, 10:51:41 AM
Don't forget, also, the Turnpike's Bedford interchange that you use to connect to I-99 was built long before the Interstate designation was applied to US-220 north of the town.
Agreed. But the lack of direct freeway connections between "free" expressways and freeways and the Pennsylvania Turnpike now is a deliberate policy decision by PennDOT, the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission and (especially) elected officials in Pennsylvania. Never mind the unwanted extra fuel consumed and the crashes that would not otherwise occur.
That...except for 12: I-79, I-376 (east), I-70 (west), US 15, I-83, I-283, I-176, I-76 (east), I-476, PA 309, US 1, US 22/I-78 (though none of those are high-speed).
Which leaves 10: I-376 (west), PA 28, US 219, I-99/US 220, I-70 (east), I-81 Carlisle, US 222, I-95 (being "worked"), I-81 (Dunmoore), I-81 (Clarks Summit).
Quote from: VTGoose on January 22, 2018, 10:47:31 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 19, 2018, 11:55:07 AM
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 owner of a truck stop at I-81 exit 150 condemned by VDOT did just that and pocketed more money than what the state initially offered.
See https://goo.gl/82DoX9 (Roanoke Times article).
Story doesn't say who sued whom.
Quote from: hbelkins on January 22, 2018, 12:27:49 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on January 22, 2018, 10:47:31 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 19, 2018, 11:55:07 AM
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 owner of a truck stop at I-81 exit 150 condemned by VDOT did just that and pocketed more money than what the state initially offered.
See https://goo.gl/82DoX9 (Roanoke Times article).
Story doesn't say who sued whom.
I would imagine the truck stop owner filed the lawsuit. Per the below, VDOT already paid the owner $6.28 million.
Quote
When the transportation agency took the 12-acre parcel in 2013, it placed the $6.28 million it believed the property was worth in an account designated for its owner, HPT TA Properties Trust, a real estate investment trust based in Maryland.
After that amount was distributed to HPT, the company continued to argue that it was entitled to a larger sum for the loss of its land and business. A jury trial was scheduled for November to determine what that amount would be.
^^^
That's typical for eminent domain proceedings. The state will place the amount of money it's offering into an escrow account, even if it has to file a condemnation suit.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 22, 2018, 11:20:10 AM
Agreed. But the lack of direct freeway connections between "free" expressways and freeways and the Pennsylvania Turnpike now is a deliberate policy decision by PennDOT, the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission and (especially) elected officials in Pennsylvania. Never mind the unwanted extra fuel consumed and the crashes that would not otherwise occur.
I don't know the result is deliberate.... though it's been stated the process of a connection being built - when it comes to planning & budgeting is now very dependent on local support. Not just the notions of businesses objecting (as the case has been in Breezewood), but just local
support for getting something done.
Cranberry was the antithesis of Breezewood in this respect (maybe not at first) - instead of traffic having to use local roads to connect from the Turnpike to 79 being viewed as a good thing, since Cranberry was getting huge (business and population wise), the lack of a direct-connection was seen as a detriment to the area (and not the only way to keep businesses in business), and support built to force PennDOT & the PTC to build the connection.
I guess, another way to put it, is even if the Breezewood businesses issued a decree that they would no longer actively oppose a pair of ramps to fix Breezewood - unless the citizens in the area also clamored for the connection to get done, PennDOT & the PTC probably wouldn't make it any kind of priority, or put it on their radar.
It may sound like a joke, cause it certainly isn't practical at all, but the best way to get Breezewood "fixed" would be for everyone that hates it to move to Bedford or Fulton counties (maybe even a county further out than those in PA) and push your "new" representatives to get the funding to make it happen (then move back to wherever)
Quote from: Mr_Northside on January 22, 2018, 07:03:30 PM
It may sound like a joke, cause it certainly isn't practical at all, but the best way to get Breezewood "fixed" would be for everyone that hates it to move to Bedford or Fulton counties (maybe even a county further out than those in PA) and push your "new" representatives to get the funding to make it happen (then move back to wherever)
Or just bring it up to Trump and have him call it "a real shame" on Twitter while he pushes his big infrastructure funding agenda. Either way it's absurd enough on its own that simply describing the problem publicly enough should induce enough embarrassment for someone to build a pair of ramps.
SM-G955U
It's not as if there already hasn't been 40+ years of public comment on the Breezewood situation; it certainly isn't hidden from public view! It seems that in some quarters (particularly PTC and their fellow agencies) the status quo has been internalized (and likely, in some minds, amortized!); it's old news at this point. If an outcry from the driving public would turn the tables in this situation, it would likely have happened by now. It's possible that the solution would be to back up the Brinks' truck to Breezewood, offload part of its contents, then drive to Harrisburg and unload the rest! Then one can argue about the format of the solution.
Quote from: sparker on January 23, 2018, 04:16:01 PM
It's not as if there already hasn't been 40+ years of public comment on the Breezewood situation; it certainly isn't hidden from public view! It seems that in some quarters (particularly PTC and their fellow agencies) the status quo has been internalized (and likely, in some minds, amortized!); it's old news at this point. If an outcry from the driving public would turn the tables in this situation, it would likely have happened by now. It's possible that the solution would be to back up the Brinks' truck to Breezewood, offload part of its contents, then drive to Harrisburg and unload the rest! Then one can argue about the format of the solution.
The political landscape is changing as the age of people in power shift. All you need is a popular infotainment company like Vox or Wendover Productions to do one of their awesome "anomoly" videos on this and a whole new generation of social justice soldiers will spray PTC with their angst. Let's not be defeatist here, it's completely within our power as a message board to get the right people's attention on this issue by leveraging the power of the masses, even if no one involved lives near Breezewood.
SM-G955U
It's still a major interchange. It's not like nobody would be getting off the highway to get a snack and some gas even if there was a direct freeway connection.
</preaching to the choir>
Quote from: _Simon on January 23, 2018, 05:42:10 PM
Quote from: sparker on January 23, 2018, 04:16:01 PM
It's not as if there already hasn't been 40+ years of public comment on the Breezewood situation; it certainly isn't hidden from public view! It seems that in some quarters (particularly PTC and their fellow agencies) the status quo has been internalized (and likely, in some minds, amortized!); it's old news at this point. If an outcry from the driving public would turn the tables in this situation, it would likely have happened by now. It's possible that the solution would be to back up the Brinks' truck to Breezewood, offload part of its contents, then drive to Harrisburg and unload the rest! Then one can argue about the format of the solution.
The political landscape is changing as the age of people in power shift. All you need is a popular infotainment company like Vox or Wendover Productions to do one of their awesome "anomoly" videos on this and a whole new generation of social justice soldiers will spray PTC with their angst. Let's not be defeatist here, it's completely within our power as a message board to get the right people's attention on this issue by leveraging the power of the masses, even if no one involved lives near Breezewood.
Just get Breitbart or HuffPost to aggregate one angry tweet and three outraged replies to that tweet, lead with the story on a Wednesday, and you'll have it rebuilt by Sunday.
If and when the Penna Turnpike goes totally ticket-less and becomes Ez-Pass and Toll By Plate only, I think the pressure to do some sort of direct connection of the I-70s will increase tenfold because "Why do I still have to drive in a big 5-minute circle if the toll booths are gone?"
Quote from: _Simon on January 23, 2018, 05:42:10 PM
..........it's completely within our power as a message board to get the right people's attention on this issue by leveraging the power of the masses, even if no one involved lives near Breezewood.
SM-G955U
Maybe it's cynicism forged by age, but I lived through the '60's -- and all I can say about
"leveraging the power of the masses" is
easier said than done! It's all in the follow-through -- and that tends to be subject to dissipation in short order (it happened back then -- and was called the '70s).
Quote from: empirestate on January 23, 2018, 08:19:31 PM
Just get Breitbart or HuffPost to aggregate one angry tweet and three outraged replies to that tweet, lead with the story on a Wednesday, and you'll have it rebuilt by Sunday.
HuffPost would likely frame it as a "David & Goliath" story about the put-upon little town besieged by every institution and industry that makes driving possible; Breitbart would probably re-cast the story as the failure of the Interstate system as a public good and how it should be privatized and driven by the profit motive.
Quote from: thenetwork on January 23, 2018, 08:22:07 PM
If and when the Penna Turnpike goes totally ticket-less and becomes Ez-Pass and Toll By Plate only, I think the pressure to do some sort of direct connection of the I-70s will increase tenfold because "Why do I still have to drive in a big 5-minute circle if the toll booths are gone?"
Now
this might actually portend a solution -- make the "Breezewood Block" the sole slowdown rather than one of two on the I-70 thoroughfare (the toll booth being the other, of course).
Quote from: thenetwork on January 23, 2018, 08:22:07 PM
If and when the Penna Turnpike goes totally ticket-less and becomes Ez-Pass and Toll By Plate only, I think the pressure to do some sort of direct connection of the I-70s will increase tenfold because "Why do I still have to drive in a big 5-minute circle if the toll booths are gone?"
Dreaming.
The same question will play out all over the PA Turnpike, because of the Trumpet interchanges used. Many people need to circle around to get to various interchanges today. While these issues aren't Breezewoods, the PA Turnpike sees what improvements can be done to make it easier on travelers at busy interchanges. For example, they already made it easier for people at the Lansdale Interchange so they wouldn't have to circle all the way around.
Quote from: sparker on January 24, 2018, 03:15:25 AM
Quote from: _Simon on January 23, 2018, 05:42:10 PM
..........it's completely within our power as a message board to get the right people's attention on this issue by leveraging the power of the masses, even if no one involved lives near Breezewood.
SM-G955U
Maybe it's cynicism forged by age, but I lived through the '60's -- and all I can say about "leveraging the power of the masses" is easier said than done! It's all in the follow-through -- and that tends to be subject to dissipation in short order (it happened back then -- and was called the '70s).
But Millenials are well known for taking great initiative to do something big, even when it doesn't affect their personal lives in any way.
[/sarc]
I have another solution. Dismantle the PTC and remove the tolls off of the Turnpike. Then move to have PennDOT as the successor agency. Maybe the disconnects can be fixed.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on January 24, 2018, 01:43:47 PM
I have another solution. Dismantle the PTC and remove the tolls off of the Turnpike. Then move to have PennDOT as the successor agency. Maybe the disconnects can be fixed.
So remove a significant funding source for PennDOT, PTC and the transit agencies? And how do you get the money to fix the interchange that's not even available today?
See Breezeway is here to stay.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 24, 2018, 01:49:17 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on January 24, 2018, 01:43:47 PM
I have another solution. Dismantle the PTC and remove the tolls off of the Turnpike. Then move to have PennDOT as the successor agency. Maybe the disconnects can be fixed.
So remove a significant funding source for PennDOT, PTC and the transit agencies? And how do you get the money to fix the interchange that's not even available today?
That's what I keep trying to remind everyone who wants to remove tolls on every toll road out there. How are you going to pay for it?
Quote from: Brandon on January 24, 2018, 03:43:21 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 24, 2018, 01:49:17 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on January 24, 2018, 01:43:47 PM
I have another solution. Dismantle the PTC and remove the tolls off of the Turnpike. Then move to have PennDOT as the successor agency. Maybe the disconnects can be fixed.
So remove a significant funding source for PennDOT, PTC and the transit agencies? And how do you get the money to fix the interchange that's not even available today?
That's what I keep trying to remind everyone who wants to remove tolls on every toll road out there. How are you going to pay for it?
Kentucky did it. The intent was always to retire the tolls after the construction bonds were paid off. The tolls were never intended to pay for maintenance.
Quote from: kphoger on January 24, 2018, 01:07:32 PM
Quote from: sparker on January 24, 2018, 03:15:25 AM
Quote from: _Simon on January 23, 2018, 05:42:10 PM
..........it's completely within our power as a message board to get the right people's attention on this issue by leveraging the power of the masses, even if no one involved lives near Breezewood.
SM-G955U
Maybe it's cynicism forged by age, but I lived through the '60's -- and all I can say about "leveraging the power of the masses" is easier said than done! It's all in the follow-through -- and that tends to be subject to dissipation in short order (it happened back then -- and was called the '70s).
But Millenials are well known for taking great initiative to do something big, even when it doesn't affect their personal lives in any way.
[/sarc]
Absolutely we do, have you not seen the video I produced on the matter just above?
SM-G955U
Quote from: thenetwork on January 23, 2018, 08:22:07 PM
If and when the Penna Turnpike goes totally ticket-less and becomes Ez-Pass and Toll By Plate only, I think the pressure to do some sort of direct connection of the I-70s will increase tenfold because "Why do I still have to drive in a big 5-minute circle if the toll booths are gone?"
It might bring more awareness/pressure - but I doubt it would be tenfold. Just a feeling. (Also, as I mentioned upthread, the pressure really needs to be on a local level)
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 24, 2018, 06:21:10 AM
The same question will play out all over the PA Turnpike, because of the Trumpet interchanges used. Many people need to circle around to get to various interchanges today. While these issues aren't Breezewoods, the PA Turnpike sees what improvements can be done to make it easier on travelers at busy interchanges. For example, they already made it easier for people at the Lansdale Interchange so they wouldn't have to circle all the way around.
While some of them are "tight", the trumpets aren't that bad. Lansdale might be the exception to the rule for quite some time as well concerning modifying existing interchanges (though Beaver Valley is planned on being redone as a diamond in a couple of years (no toll plaza there anymore) - and I'm curious as to what they have in mind for Irwin)
Quote from: hbelkins on January 24, 2018, 04:16:48 PM
Quote from: Brandon on January 24, 2018, 03:43:21 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 24, 2018, 01:49:17 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on January 24, 2018, 01:43:47 PM
I have another solution. Dismantle the PTC and remove the tolls off of the Turnpike. Then move to have PennDOT as the successor agency. Maybe the disconnects can be fixed.
So remove a significant funding source for PennDOT, PTC and the transit agencies? And how do you get the money to fix the interchange that's not even available today?
That's what I keep trying to remind everyone who wants to remove tolls on every toll road out there. How are you going to pay for it?
Kentucky did it. The intent was always to retire the tolls after the construction bonds were paid off. The tolls were never intended to pay for maintenance.
And, IMHO, Kentucky made a big mistake in the long run. Tolls could have been used for maintenance as well as expansion.
Quote from: Brandon on January 24, 2018, 07:34:16 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 24, 2018, 04:16:48 PM
Quote from: Brandon on January 24, 2018, 03:43:21 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 24, 2018, 01:49:17 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on January 24, 2018, 01:43:47 PM
I have another solution. Dismantle the PTC and remove the tolls off of the Turnpike. Then move to have PennDOT as the successor agency. Maybe the disconnects can be fixed.
So remove a significant funding source for PennDOT, PTC and the transit agencies? And how do you get the money to fix the interchange that's not even available today?
That's what I keep trying to remind everyone who wants to remove tolls on every toll road out there. How are you going to pay for it?
Kentucky did it. The intent was always to retire the tolls after the construction bonds were paid off. The tolls were never intended to pay for maintenance.
And, IMHO, Kentucky made a big mistake in the long run. Tolls could have been used for maintenance as well as expansion.
You're definitely in the minority in that thought. A proposal was floated a few years ago to reinstitute tolls on the Mountain Parkway, and a certain famous Keith Moon utterance could describe the reaction.
Quote from: hbelkins on January 24, 2018, 08:48:13 PM
Quote from: Brandon on January 24, 2018, 07:34:16 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 24, 2018, 04:16:48 PM
Quote from: Brandon on January 24, 2018, 03:43:21 PM
That's what I keep trying to remind everyone who wants to remove tolls on every toll road out there. How are you going to pay for it?
Kentucky did it. The intent was always to retire the tolls after the construction bonds were paid off. The tolls were never intended to pay for maintenance.
And, IMHO, Kentucky made a big mistake in the long run. Tolls could have been used for maintenance as well as expansion.
You're definitely in the minority in that thought. A proposal was floated a few years ago to reinstitute tolls on the Mountain Parkway, and a certain famous Keith Moon utterance could describe the reaction.
Time will tell. Virginia detolled a bunch of major highways and bridges and tunnels, between 1976 and 1995, I count 8 in the Hampton Roads area and one in the Richmond-Petersburg area. Since then to finance major expansions they have retolled 2 tunnels and one bridge. More have been discussed.
Mention the word toll a highway in Tennessee and you would be thrown out of office.
That is why they call them public private partnerships now (PPPs).
Quote from: Rothman on January 24, 2018, 10:27:30 PM
That is why they call them public private partnerships now (PPPs).
Many tollroads are administered by public sector agencies, and are not public-private partnerships.
I was responding to the previous post. Also see "monetizing" the infrastructure.
Also keep in mind that public authorities are not government agencies. They are their own organizations spun off from government with government retaining some control through appointees. However, they do not report directly either to Governors or Legislatures.
Quote from: Rothman on January 24, 2018, 11:27:08 PM
I was responding to the previous post. Also see "monetizing" the infrastructure.
Also keep in mind that public authorities are not government agencies. They are their own organizations spun off from government with government retaining some control through appointees. However, they do not report directly either to Governors or Legislatures.
That depends on the authority and the state. Many are small state agencies that were created by act of the general assembly.
One example --
In 1954, the Virginia General Assembly (state legislature) created the Chesapeake Bay Ferry District and the Chesapeake Bay Ferry Commission as the governing body of the District; later named the Chesapeake Bay Bridge and Tunnel District (CBBTD), and the Chesapeake Bay Bridge and Tunnel Commission. The CBBTD is a public agency and it is a legal subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/CBBT.html#Ferry
Quote from: Rothman on January 24, 2018, 10:27:30 PM
That is why they call them public private partnerships now (PPPs).
I think in another 10-15 years, we will be looking at P3's as the "what were we thinking" portion of road building in the early part of this century.
Quote from: storm2k on January 25, 2018, 03:39:22 AM
Quote from: Rothman on January 24, 2018, 10:27:30 PM
That is why they call them public private partnerships now (PPPs).
I think in another 10-15 years, we will be looking at P3's as the "what were we thinking" portion of road building in the early part of this century.
Actually in the last 30 years they have been becoming more and more prevalent all over the world for building highway projects.
Quote from: Beltway on January 24, 2018, 11:37:54 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 24, 2018, 11:27:08 PM
I was responding to the previous post. Also see "monetizing" the infrastructure.
Also keep in mind that public authorities are not government agencies. They are their own organizations spun off from government with government retaining some control through appointees. However, they do not report directly either to Governors or Legislatures.
That depends on the authority and the state. Many are small state agencies that were created by act of the general assembly.
One example --
In 1954, the Virginia General Assembly (state legislature) created the Chesapeake Bay Ferry District and the Chesapeake Bay Ferry Commission as the governing body of the District; later named the Chesapeake Bay Bridge and Tunnel District (CBBTD), and the Chesapeake Bay Bridge and Tunnel Commission. The CBBTD is a public agency and it is a legal subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/CBBT.html#Ferry
Au contraire: When I was an intern at FHWA, I took a tour at CBBT (including standing in the exhaust duct for one of their tunnels) and got an extensive orientation to how they operate: They have their own court, their own police -- again, although they were created by VA, they are almost autonomous and are organized similarly to what I described -- heck, even moreso than NYSTA!
Had to laugh at you picking that particular example because it doesn't prove your point and is only one of a couple examples I know from very hands-on experience.
That said, you are correct that not every toll road is run by a public authority. A better example is how the operation of the Massachusetts Turnpike is now conducted under MassDOT due to some extraordinary maneuvering by then-Governor Romney.
Quote from: Beltway on January 25, 2018, 05:48:53 AM
Quote from: storm2k on January 25, 2018, 03:39:22 AM
Quote from: Rothman on January 24, 2018, 10:27:30 PM
That is why they call them public private partnerships now (PPPs).
I think in another 10-15 years, we will be looking at P3's as the "what were we thinking" portion of road building in the early part of this century.
Actually in the last 30 years they have been becoming more and more prevalent all over the world for building highway projects.
Of course. Legalizing corruption is a very popular thing to do for those that benefit.
Quote from: Rothman on January 25, 2018, 09:15:22 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 25, 2018, 05:48:53 AM
Quote from: storm2k on January 25, 2018, 03:39:22 AM
Quote from: Rothman on January 24, 2018, 10:27:30 PM
That is why they call them public private partnerships now (PPPs).
I think in another 10-15 years, we will be looking at P3's as the "what were we thinking" portion of road building in the early part of this century.
Actually in the last 30 years they have been becoming more and more prevalent all over the world for building highway projects.
Of course. Legalizing corruption is a very popular thing to do for those that benefit.
It's easy when you have a property tax attorney as speaker of your state house and he writes laws so he makes money.
/Oh, wait a minute...
Quote from: Beltway on January 25, 2018, 05:48:53 AM
Quote from: storm2k on January 25, 2018, 03:39:22 AM
Quote from: Rothman on January 24, 2018, 10:27:30 PM
That is why they call them public private partnerships now (PPPs).
I think in another 10-15 years, we will be looking at P3's as the "what were we thinking" portion of road building in the early part of this century.
Actually in the last 30 years they have been becoming more and more prevalent all over the world for building highway projects.
I would think the debacle with respect to I-69 in Indiana as well as the bankruptcies of the Indiana Toll Road and TX 130 would show why PPPs are a bad idea.
(personal opinion)
Breezewood is actually the start of the bypass around the abandoned Pennsylvania Turnpike. When you are traveling eastbound on I-70 the ramp that goes to Breezewood was part of the mainline Turnpike before it was abandoned and bypassed. So the Turnpike at one time was closer to Breezewood than it is now.
This right here is where the abandoned Turnpike kept going but was bypassed due to the need to bypass the Sideling Hill Tunnel and Rays Hill Tunnel. The Turnpike passes over the eastern end of the Sideling Hill Tunnel.
At Breezewood, could E-Z Pass only ramps be built between the PA Turnpike and I-70 while retaining the existing ramps for cash paying/ticket taking motorists? I believe they have a somewhat similar arrangement now at Lansdale on the Northeast Extension.
Discussion of public-private partnerships has been moved to General Highway Talk (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?board=12.0). Please keep it there and let's return this thread to its original course.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=22159.0
So to the folks that keep thinking Breezewood will never be fixed or that the businesses are going to always prevail, I ask, "you know this has happened before right?"
No, this isn't an upside down Breezewood, this is Morgantown which had a virtually identical "problem" to Breezewood until 1996 when I-176 was directly connected to I-76 in addition to PA-10, the road the freeway used to end at and force people over a block or two to get into 76.
I'm sure the political forces at work are much different (since people actually live around here, unlike Breezewood, other the people that work on "the strip"), but this wasn't even a gap in a major 2di like the I-70 gap, and seems to have been ousted over 20 years ago. (https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180202/f3aefbdd1d3185c6af72d9660ccec1a3.jpg)
SM-G955U
Who built the connexion, PENNDOT or the PTC?
Quote from: _Simon on February 02, 2018, 10:07:48 AM
So to the folks that keep thinking Breezewood will never be fixed or that the businesses are going to always prevail, I ask, "you know this has happened before right?"
And the choir sings "Yeah, it's happened before. You're not telling us anything new.". Hell, it's happening right now, with the 95/PA Turnpike connection.
BTW, if you do a little more research (which maybe you did and thought to leave this out), you'll find out that there were hearings on extending I-176 to the PA Turnpike back in 1984. Which means planning of such was done before that date. The connection didn't open until 1996.
So, ignoring all else, and using that same timeline, even if PA magically produced several options to the public today, the connector wouldn't open until 2030.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 02, 2018, 10:34:42 AM
Quote from: _Simon on February 02, 2018, 10:07:48 AM
So to the folks that keep thinking Breezewood will never be fixed or that the businesses are going to always prevail, I ask, "you know this has happened before right?"
And the choir sings "Yeah, it's happened before. You're not telling us anything new.". Hell, it's happening right now, with the 95/PA Turnpike connection.
BTW, if you do a little more research (which maybe you did and thought to leave this out), you'll find out that there were hearings on extending I-176 to the PA Turnpike back in 1984. Which means planning of such was done before that date. The connection didn't open until 1996.
So, ignoring all else, and using that same timeline, even if PA magically produced several options to the public today, the connector wouldn't open until 2030.
Then I guess we better get cracking!
SM-G955U
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 02, 2018, 10:34:42 AM
Quote from: _Simon on February 02, 2018, 10:07:48 AM
So to the folks that keep thinking Breezewood will never be fixed or that the businesses are going to always prevail, I ask, "you know this has happened before right?"
And the choir sings "Yeah, it's happened before. You're not telling us anything new.". Hell, it's happening right now, with the 95/PA Turnpike connection.
BTW, if you do a little more research (which maybe you did and thought to leave this out), you'll find out that there were hearings on extending I-176 to the PA Turnpike back in 1984. Which means planning of such was done before that date. The connection didn't open until 1996.
So, ignoring all else, and using that same timeline, even if PA magically produced several options to the public today, the connector wouldn't open until 2030.
OT question . . . was there ever any plan to extend I-176 south of its historical terminus at Route 10/23 (before it was tied directly to the Turnpike)? I tried to look that up recently, but found nothing . . .
Quote from: akotchi on February 02, 2018, 01:17:32 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 02, 2018, 10:34:42 AM
Quote from: _Simon on February 02, 2018, 10:07:48 AM
So to the folks that keep thinking Breezewood will never be fixed or that the businesses are going to always prevail, I ask, "you know this has happened before right?"
And the choir sings "Yeah, it's happened before. You're not telling us anything new.". Hell, it's happening right now, with the 95/PA Turnpike connection.
BTW, if you do a little more research (which maybe you did and thought to leave this out), you'll find out that there were hearings on extending I-176 to the PA Turnpike back in 1984. Which means planning of such was done before that date. The connection didn't open until 1996.
So, ignoring all else, and using that same timeline, even if PA magically produced several options to the public today, the connector wouldn't open until 2030.
OT question . . . was there ever any plan to extend I-176 south of its historical terminus at Route 10/23 (before it was tied directly to the Turnpike)? I tried to look that up recently, but found nothing . . .
On this site, https://www.interstate-guide.com/i-176_pa.html , there's this paragraph. It's pretty vague though on what it was supposed to do or where it would go.
QuoteA hearing held on December 8, 1966 outlined two concepts to extend Interstate 176 southward.6 One proposal lengthened Interstate 176 southwest from Morgantown along a parallel course 1.5 miles to the south of Pennsylvania 23 to New Holland and Lancaster. Estimated to cost $15.4-million, the 21.8-mile route was thought to initially open as a two-lane limited access highway
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 02, 2018, 01:34:57 PM
Quote from: akotchi on February 02, 2018, 01:17:32 PM
OT question . . . was there ever any plan to extend I-176 south of its historical terminus at Route 10/23 (before it was tied directly to the Turnpike)? I tried to look that up recently, but found nothing . . .
On this site, https://www.interstate-guide.com/i-176_pa.html , there's this paragraph. It's pretty vague though on what it was supposed to do or where it would go.
QuoteA hearing held on December 8, 1966 outlined two concepts to extend Interstate 176 southward.6 One proposal lengthened Interstate 176 southwest from Morgantown along a parallel course 1.5 miles to the south of Pennsylvania 23 to New Holland and Lancaster. Estimated to cost $15.4-million, the 21.8-mile route was thought to initially open as a two-lane limited access highway
Sounds like the PA-23 freeway that was partially built near Lancaster.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on February 02, 2018, 10:17:39 AM
Who built the connexion, PENNDOT or the PTC?
The PTC built the interchange and toll plaza section, as well as the loop ramp and the mainline up to a stub just north of the bridge over PA 10. PennDOT built the rest of the mainline and ramps at PA 10 soon after. You can see the pavement change where SR 0176 (the PennDOT part) ends and Turnpike maintenance begins.
Quote from: Roadsguy on February 02, 2018, 02:07:13 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on February 02, 2018, 10:17:39 AM
Who built the connexion, PENNDOT or the PTC?
The PTC built the interchange and toll plaza section, as well as the loop ramp and the mainline up to a stub just north of the bridge over PA 10. PennDOT built the rest of the mainline and ramps at PA 10 soon after. You can see the pavement change where SR 0176 (the PennDOT part) ends and Turnpike maintenance begins.
I love it when a plan comes together. This just clear and able ability makes Breezewood seem even more outlandish (literally, an outlier).
As recently as last February the press were once again complaining about breezewood in light of Trumps promises regarding infrastructure spending.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/06/us/politics/a-pennsylvania-highway-town-at-the-junction-of-politics-and-policy.html
I personally believe the prevelation of satellite imagery on GPS apps and the overall inclusion of navigation screens in cars makes average people much more aware of ridiculous looking shit like this. You can tell from any map that the alignment is ridiculous and you ask yourself "what the fuck was that?" When you get back on the freeway and see you have hundreds of miles remaining to your destination and the last 15 minutes was just there for seemingly shits and giggles.
It's the opposite of an oasis, it's an aggravation factory.
Quote from: _Simon on February 02, 2018, 02:17:55 PM
I personally believe the prevelation of satellite imagery on GPS apps and the overall inclusion of navigation screens in cars makes average people much more aware of ridiculous looking shit like this. You can tell from any map that the alignment is ridiculous and you ask yourself "what the fuck was that?" When you get back on the freeway and see you have hundreds of miles remaining to your destination and the last 15 minutes was just there for seemingly shits and giggles.
That is a good point, with Google Maps satellite view anyone can look at Breezewood and even if they don't have much engineering knowledge they can see the open spaces where those two ramps could go, and see other examples of how interchanges are laid out and how much space they take. At least they can't be buffaloed by someone at PTC who might claim that it would be "way too difficult to do it".
The satellite view might not depict the varying topology of the area though. Nothing that can't be overcome with tall piers and bridges, and for 2 simple ramps that shouldn't be too ridiculous - but it would probably make it more expensive than some people just glancing at a map would think it would be.
Quote from: Mr_Northside on February 05, 2018, 02:50:53 PM
The satellite view might not depict the varying topology of the area though. Nothing that can't be overcome with tall piers and bridges, and for 2 simple ramps that shouldn't be too ridiculous - but it would probably make it more expensive than some people just glancing at a map would think it would be.
Every road project is. It shouldn't cost, for example, more than the Morgantown project did. Ive gotten a lot of feedback on my video from people like "oh I realized this was wrong but figured it was in the process of being fixed" or "we didn't realize it was actually designed to never connect".
SM-G955U
Just leave Breezewood alone. It is fine as it is.
Quote from: _Simon on February 05, 2018, 04:03:49 PM
Quote from: Mr_Northside on February 05, 2018, 02:50:53 PM
The satellite view might not depict the varying topology of the area though. Nothing that can't be overcome with tall piers and bridges, and for 2 simple ramps that shouldn't be too ridiculous - but it would probably make it more expensive than some people just glancing at a map would think it would be.
Every road project is. It shouldn't cost, for example, more than the Morgantown project did. Ive gotten a lot of feedback on my video from people like "oh I realized this was wrong but figured it was in the process of being fixed" or "we didn't realize it was actually designed to never connect".
SM-G955U
Much less than Morgantown. That was in effect 1.3 mile of new freeway branching from preexisting I-176 and a new trumpet interchange with the turnpike and a new modified diamond interchange with PA-10.
The terrain around where the turnpike access highway crosses I-70 is on gently rolling terrain. Satellite view augmented with eyeball. :-)
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on February 05, 2018, 09:44:55 PM
Just leave Breezewood alone. It is fine as it is.
Breezewood, Henderson -- someone
really, really has a thing for interrupted Interstates! Maybe someday it'll get its own Pornhub category!
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on February 05, 2018, 09:44:55 PM
Just leave Breezewood alone. It is fine as it is.
I don't even live in Pennsylvania, and I'm not buying it. No, it is not fine. You can't call it a freeway but then route it in reverse order across surface streets with two lights.
Either reroute I-70 onto the Penna and make the Breezwood section a Bus I-70, or build a proper direct freeway connection between I-70 and I-76. When a designated freeway has to endure stoplights, it's no longer a freeway.
And, yes, I would decommission I-180 in Wyoming and all other non-freeway Interstates.
Quote from: Anthony_JK on February 06, 2018, 01:25:19 AM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on February 05, 2018, 09:44:55 PM
Just leave Breezewood alone. It is fine as it is.
I don't even live in Pennsylvania, and I'm not buying it. No, it is not fine. You can't call it a freeway but then route it in reverse order across surface streets with two lights.
Either reroute I-70 onto the Penna and make the Breezwood section a Bus I-70, or build a proper direct freeway connection between I-70 and I-76. When a designated freeway has to endure stoplights, it's no longer a freeway.
And, yes, I would decommission I-180 in Wyoming and all other non-freeway Interstates.
Seems like you've never looked at a map of Breezewood either
Quote from: Beltway on February 05, 2018, 10:14:49 PM
Quote from: _Simon on February 05, 2018, 04:03:49 PM
Quote from: Mr_Northside on February 05, 2018, 02:50:53 PM
The satellite view might not depict the varying topology of the area though. Nothing that can't be overcome with tall piers and bridges, and for 2 simple ramps that shouldn't be too ridiculous - but it would probably make it more expensive than some people just glancing at a map would think it would be.
Every road project is. It shouldn't cost, for example, more than the Morgantown project did. Ive gotten a lot of feedback on my video from people like "oh I realized this was wrong but figured it was in the process of being fixed" or "we didn't realize it was actually designed to never connect".
SM-G955U
Much less than Morgantown. That was in effect 1.3 mile of new freeway branching from preexisting I-176 and a new trumpet interchange with the turnpike and a new modified diamond interchange with PA-10.
The terrain around where the turnpike access highway crosses I-70 is on gently rolling terrain. Satellite view augmented with eyeball. :-)
Can your eyeball tell us what's underground, which may require a much deeper and more expensive excavation?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 06, 2018, 06:17:56 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 05, 2018, 10:14:49 PM
Much less than Morgantown. That was in effect 1.3 mile of new freeway branching from preexisting I-176 and a new trumpet interchange with the turnpike and a new modified diamond interchange with PA-10.
The terrain around where the turnpike access highway crosses I-70 is on gently rolling terrain. Satellite view augmented with eyeball. :-)
Can your eyeball tell us what's underground, which may require a much deeper and more expensive excavation?
Such as? Wetlands and acid rock are the only possibilities. There are no wetlands there, and viewing other highway cuts near there reveals no acid rock treatments. The soil in that area is the common mix of rocks, clay and sand, which generally makes an excellent material for highway road beds. Nevertheless a geological survey would be part of the preliminary engineering for any highway project.
Quote from: Beltway on February 06, 2018, 06:45:44 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 06, 2018, 06:17:56 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 05, 2018, 10:14:49 PM
Much less than Morgantown. That was in effect 1.3 mile of new freeway branching from preexisting I-176 and a new trumpet interchange with the turnpike and a new modified diamond interchange with PA-10.
The terrain around where the turnpike access highway crosses I-70 is on gently rolling terrain. Satellite view augmented with eyeball. :-)
Can your eyeball tell us what's underground, which may require a much deeper and more expensive excavation?
Such as? Wetlands and acid rock are the only possibilities. There are no wetlands there, and viewing other highway cuts near there reveals no acid rock treatments. The soil in that area is the common mix of rocks, clay and sand, which generally makes an excellent material for highway road beds. Nevertheless a geological survey would be part of the preliminary engineering for any highway project.
What if there isa void from an old coal mine that needs to be filled?
Cats and dogs living together -- mass hysteria!
Quote from: CanesFan27 on February 06, 2018, 08:27:44 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 06, 2018, 06:45:44 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 06, 2018, 06:17:56 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 05, 2018, 10:14:49 PM
Much less than Morgantown. That was in effect 1.3 mile of new freeway branching from preexisting I-176 and a new trumpet interchange with the turnpike and a new modified diamond interchange with PA-10.
The terrain around where the turnpike access highway crosses I-70 is on gently rolling terrain. Satellite view augmented with eyeball. :-)
Can your eyeball tell us what's underground, which may require a much deeper and more expensive excavation?
Such as? Wetlands and acid rock are the only possibilities. There are no wetlands there, and viewing other highway cuts near there reveals no acid rock treatments. The soil in that area is the common mix of rocks, clay and sand, which generally makes an excellent material for highway road beds. Nevertheless a geological survey would be part of the preliminary engineering for any highway project.
What if there is a void from an old coal mine that needs to be filled?
That is something that the geological survey would determine.
Quote from: Beltway on February 06, 2018, 11:30:25 AM
Quote from: CanesFan27 on February 06, 2018, 08:27:44 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 06, 2018, 06:45:44 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 06, 2018, 06:17:56 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 05, 2018, 10:14:49 PM
Much less than Morgantown. That was in effect 1.3 mile of new freeway branching from preexisting I-176 and a new trumpet interchange with the turnpike and a new modified diamond interchange with PA-10.
The terrain around where the turnpike access highway crosses I-70 is on gently rolling terrain. Satellite view augmented with eyeball. :-)
Can your eyeball tell us what's underground, which may require a much deeper and more expensive excavation?
Such as? Wetlands and acid rock are the only possibilities. There are no wetlands there, and viewing other highway cuts near there reveals no acid rock treatments. The soil in that area is the common mix of rocks, clay and sand, which generally makes an excellent material for highway road beds. Nevertheless a geological survey would be part of the preliminary engineering for any highway project.
What if there is a void from an old coal mine that needs to be filled?
That is something that the geological survey would determine.
Exactly. Which is why simply looking at the terrain doesn't cut it.
Quote from: Anthony_JK on February 06, 2018, 01:25:19 AM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on February 05, 2018, 09:44:55 PM
Just leave Breezewood alone. It is fine as it is.
I don't even live in Pennsylvania, and I'm not buying it. No, it is not fine. You can't call it a freeway but then route it in reverse order across surface streets with two lights.
Either reroute I-70 onto the Penna and make the Breezwood section a Bus I-70, or build a proper direct freeway connection between I-70 and I-76. When a designated freeway has to endure stoplights, it's no longer a freeway.
And, yes, I would decommission I-180 in Wyoming and all other non-freeway Interstates.
The segment in Breezewood is signed as US 30 not I-70.
Meh. There is enough BGS signage along that stretch with I-70 shields that I'd consider it signed I-70.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on February 06, 2018, 01:15:18 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on February 06, 2018, 01:25:19 AM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on February 05, 2018, 09:44:55 PM
Just leave Breezewood alone. It is fine as it is.
I don't even live in Pennsylvania, and I'm not buying it. No, it is not fine. You can't call it a freeway but then route it in reverse order across surface streets with two lights.
Either reroute I-70 onto the Penna and make the Breezwood section a Bus I-70, or build a proper direct freeway connection between I-70 and I-76. When a designated freeway has to endure stoplights, it's no longer a freeway.
And, yes, I would decommission I-180 in Wyoming and all other non-freeway Interstates.
The segment in Breezewood is signed as US 30 not I-70.
Wanna show me those signs?
The GSV shows 70/30 to be largely devoid of any sort of route signage. Coming off of the PA Turnpike, this BGS only uses I-70. https://goo.gl/maps/w9yZNigoy5p . No US 30 found anywhere in the multiroute area of I-70 & US 30.
You are correct the area is devoid of US 30 signs.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 06, 2018, 01:30:28 PM
Wanna show me those signs?
The GSV shows 70/30 to be largely devoid of any sort of route signage. Coming off of the PA Turnpike, this BGS only uses I-70. https://goo.gl/maps/w9yZNigoy5p . No US 30 found anywhere in the multiroute area of I-70 & US 30.
https://goo.gl/maps/7sCERgW6eNH2
Quote from: vdeane on February 06, 2018, 02:15:04 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 06, 2018, 01:30:28 PM
Wanna show me those signs?
The GSV shows 70/30 to be largely devoid of any sort of route signage. Coming off of the PA Turnpike, this BGS only uses I-70. https://goo.gl/maps/w9yZNigoy5p . No US 30 found anywhere in the multiroute area of I-70 & US 30.
https://goo.gl/maps/7sCERgW6eNH2
Congrats you found one... with a 70 shield as well proving your point wrong, 70 is signed as the main route in that area. Heck US 30 is signed as a left exit from a diagrammic on one of the dirextions
Quote from: AMLNet49 on February 06, 2018, 02:21:41 PM
Quote from: vdeane on February 06, 2018, 02:15:04 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 06, 2018, 01:30:28 PM
Wanna show me those signs?
The GSV shows 70/30 to be largely devoid of any sort of route signage. Coming off of the PA Turnpike, this BGS only uses I-70. https://goo.gl/maps/w9yZNigoy5p . No US 30 found anywhere in the multiroute area of I-70 & US 30.
https://goo.gl/maps/7sCERgW6eNH2
Congrats you found one... with a 70 shield as well proving your point wrong, 70 is signed as the main route in that area. Heck US 30 is signed as a left exit from a diagrammic on one of the dirextions
Vdeane was making a point other than just posting the GoogleMaps link? Be careful who you respond to.
Quote from: vdeane on February 06, 2018, 02:15:04 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 06, 2018, 01:30:28 PM
Wanna show me those signs?
The GSV shows 70/30 to be largely devoid of any sort of route signage. Coming off of the PA Turnpike, this BGS only uses I-70. https://goo.gl/maps/w9yZNigoy5p . No US 30 found anywhere in the multiroute area of I-70 & US 30.
https://goo.gl/maps/7sCERgW6eNH2
I had seen that one. However, from an I-70 point of view, that sign isn't on I-70...it's on US 30 as I-70 traffic enters from the right.
Quote from: Rothman on February 06, 2018, 02:26:23 PM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on February 06, 2018, 02:21:41 PM
Quote from: vdeane on February 06, 2018, 02:15:04 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 06, 2018, 01:30:28 PM
Wanna show me those signs?
The GSV shows 70/30 to be largely devoid of any sort of route signage. Coming off of the PA Turnpike, this BGS only uses I-70. https://goo.gl/maps/w9yZNigoy5p . No US 30 found anywhere in the multiroute area of I-70 & US 30.
https://goo.gl/maps/7sCERgW6eNH2
Congrats you found one... with a 70 shield as well proving your point wrong, 70 is signed as the main route in that area. Heck US 30 is signed as a left exit from a diagrammic on one of the dirextions
Vdeane was making a point other than just posting the GoogleMaps link? Be careful who you respond to.
You're right didn't see who the OP was my bad.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 06, 2018, 11:35:57 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 06, 2018, 11:30:25 AM
Quote from: CanesFan27 on February 06, 2018, 08:27:44 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 06, 2018, 06:45:44 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 06, 2018, 06:17:56 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 05, 2018, 10:14:49 PM
Much less than Morgantown. That was in effect 1.3 mile of new freeway branching from preexisting I-176 and a new trumpet interchange with the turnpike and a new modified diamond interchange with PA-10.
The terrain around where the turnpike access highway crosses I-70 is on gently rolling terrain. Satellite view augmented with eyeball. :-)
Can your eyeball tell us what's underground, which may require a much deeper and more expensive excavation?
Such as? Wetlands and acid rock are the only possibilities. There are no wetlands there, and viewing other highway cuts near there reveals no acid rock treatments. The soil in that area is the common mix of rocks, clay and sand, which generally makes an excellent material for highway road beds. Nevertheless a geological survey would be part of the preliminary engineering for any highway project.
What if there is a void from an old coal mine that needs to be filled?
That is something that the geological survey would determine.
Exactly. Which is why simply looking at the terrain doesn't cut it.
It is rather unlikely as it is rather rare that a highway excavation impinges on an old coal mine.
If it did it could be filled in with excavation material, or spanned over with mechanically stabilized earth (MSE). Routine highway construction methods.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 06, 2018, 02:37:05 PM
Quote from: vdeane on February 06, 2018, 02:15:04 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 06, 2018, 01:30:28 PM
Wanna show me those signs?
The GSV shows 70/30 to be largely devoid of any sort of route signage. Coming off of the PA Turnpike, this BGS only uses I-70. https://goo.gl/maps/w9yZNigoy5p . No US 30 found anywhere in the multiroute area of I-70 & US 30.
https://goo.gl/maps/7sCERgW6eNH2
I had seen that one. However, from an I-70 point of view, that sign isn't on I-70...it's on US 30 as I-70 traffic enters from the right.
It still says West 70, indicating that road is signed as I-70.
Also, look what’s posted in the gore looking north. https://goo.gl/maps/U7J43QXmJk22
That sign assembly says, among other things, West 70 TO Pennsylvania Turnpike. I’d say that because it says
WEST 70 rather than
TO 70, it is signed as I-70.
Quote from: roadguy2 on February 06, 2018, 10:21:48 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 06, 2018, 02:37:05 PM
Quote from: vdeane on February 06, 2018, 02:15:04 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 06, 2018, 01:30:28 PM
Wanna show me those signs?
The GSV shows 70/30 to be largely devoid of any sort of route signage. Coming off of the PA Turnpike, this BGS only uses I-70. https://goo.gl/maps/w9yZNigoy5p . No US 30 found anywhere in the multiroute area of I-70 & US 30.
https://goo.gl/maps/7sCERgW6eNH2
I had seen that one. However, from an I-70 point of view, that sign isn't on I-70...it's on US 30 as I-70 traffic enters from the right.
It still says West 70, indicating that road is signed as I-70.
Also, look what's posted in the gore looking north. https://goo.gl/maps/U7J43QXmJk22
That sign assembly says, among other things, West 70 TO Pennsylvania Turnpike. I'd say that because it says WEST 70 rather than TO 70, it is signed as I-70.
Just because US-30 has a few I-70 signs on it, doesn't make it I-70. It is a nonlimited-access arterial, not an Interstate highway.
Quote from: Beltway on February 06, 2018, 11:11:27 PM
Quote from: roadguy2 on February 06, 2018, 10:21:48 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 06, 2018, 02:37:05 PM
Quote from: vdeane on February 06, 2018, 02:15:04 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 06, 2018, 01:30:28 PM
Wanna show me those signs?
The GSV shows 70/30 to be largely devoid of any sort of route signage. Coming off of the PA Turnpike, this BGS only uses I-70. https://goo.gl/maps/w9yZNigoy5p . No US 30 found anywhere in the multiroute area of I-70 & US 30.
https://goo.gl/maps/7sCERgW6eNH2
I had seen that one. However, from an I-70 point of view, that sign isn't on I-70...it's on US 30 as I-70 traffic enters from the right.
It still says West 70, indicating that road is signed as I-70.
Also, look what’s posted in the gore looking north. https://goo.gl/maps/U7J43QXmJk22
That sign assembly says, among other things, West 70 TO Pennsylvania Turnpike. I’d say that because it says WEST 70 rather than TO 70, it is signed as I-70.
Just because US-30 has a few I-70 signs on it, doesn't make it I-70. It is a nonlimited-access arterial, not an Interstate highway.
By that logic, I-180 in Cheyenne isn’t an Interstate.
That is I-70 regardless of it being on a surface street or not it is part of the route of I-70.
Quote from: Beltway on February 06, 2018, 11:11:27 PM
Quote from: roadguy2 on February 06, 2018, 10:21:48 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 06, 2018, 02:37:05 PM
Quote from: vdeane on February 06, 2018, 02:15:04 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 06, 2018, 01:30:28 PM
Wanna show me those signs?
The GSV shows 70/30 to be largely devoid of any sort of route signage. Coming off of the PA Turnpike, this BGS only uses I-70. https://goo.gl/maps/w9yZNigoy5p . No US 30 found anywhere in the multiroute area of I-70 & US 30.
https://goo.gl/maps/7sCERgW6eNH2
I had seen that one. However, from an I-70 point of view, that sign isn't on I-70...it's on US 30 as I-70 traffic enters from the right.
It still says West 70, indicating that road is signed as I-70.
Also, look what's posted in the gore looking north. https://goo.gl/maps/U7J43QXmJk22
That sign assembly says, among other things, West 70 TO Pennsylvania Turnpike. I'd say that because it says WEST 70 rather than TO 70, it is signed as I-70.
Just because US-30 has a few I-70 signs on it, doesn't make it I-70. It is a nonlimited-access arterial, not an Interstate highway.
I have an old Rand McNally atlas that actually shows interstate shields on two-lane roads. The functional class does not determine the interstate route; the shield does.
Quote from: Beltway on February 06, 2018, 11:11:27 PM
Quote from: roadguy2 on February 06, 2018, 10:21:48 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 06, 2018, 02:37:05 PM
Quote from: vdeane on February 06, 2018, 02:15:04 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 06, 2018, 01:30:28 PM
Wanna show me those signs?
The GSV shows 70/30 to be largely devoid of any sort of route signage. Coming off of the PA Turnpike, this BGS only uses I-70. https://goo.gl/maps/w9yZNigoy5p . No US 30 found anywhere in the multiroute area of I-70 & US 30.
https://goo.gl/maps/7sCERgW6eNH2
I had seen that one. However, from an I-70 point of view, that sign isn't on I-70...it's on US 30 as I-70 traffic enters from the right.
It still says West 70, indicating that road is signed as I-70.
Also, look what's posted in the gore looking north. https://goo.gl/maps/U7J43QXmJk22
That sign assembly says, among other things, West 70 TO Pennsylvania Turnpike. I'd say that because it says WEST 70 rather than TO 70, it is signed as I-70.
Just because US-30 has a few I-70 signs on it, doesn't make it I-70. It is a nonlimited-access arterial, not an Interstate highway.
I have to agree with the others on this one unless you can show me something from penndot indicating otherwise (like the gap in I-676 where us-30 really is just us-30, but to Pennsylvania that's it's terminus, that's not a gap like such a gap in i-70 would be).
There are a few places like I-78 in NJ and NYC where the interstate actually is in surface streets and is maintained, funded, and signed as such.
But yeah I feel that the legitimization of a route number is 60/40 signage/public map data and in this case both agree that it is indeed i-70. I would gather PAs internal documentation and topo maps show that too.
SM-G955U
Quote from: _Simon on February 07, 2018, 07:48:31 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 06, 2018, 11:11:27 PM
Quote from: roadguy2 on February 06, 2018, 10:21:48 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 06, 2018, 02:37:05 PM
Quote from: vdeane on February 06, 2018, 02:15:04 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 06, 2018, 01:30:28 PM
Wanna show me those signs?
The GSV shows 70/30 to be largely devoid of any sort of route signage. Coming off of the PA Turnpike, this BGS only uses I-70. https://goo.gl/maps/w9yZNigoy5p . No US 30 found anywhere in the multiroute area of I-70 & US 30.
https://goo.gl/maps/7sCERgW6eNH2
I had seen that one. However, from an I-70 point of view, that sign isn't on I-70...it's on US 30 as I-70 traffic enters from the right.
It still says West 70, indicating that road is signed as I-70.
Also, look what's posted in the gore looking north. https://goo.gl/maps/U7J43QXmJk22
That sign assembly says, among other things, West 70 TO Pennsylvania Turnpike. I'd say that because it says WEST 70 rather than TO 70, it is signed as I-70.
Just because US-30 has a few I-70 signs on it, doesn't make it I-70. It is a nonlimited-access arterial, not an Interstate highway.
I have to agree with the others on this one unless you can show me something from penndot indicating otherwise (like the gap in I-676 where us-30 really is just us-30, but to Pennsylvania that's it's terminus, that's not a gap like such a gap in i-70 would be).
There are a few places like I-78 in NJ and NYC where the interstate actually is in surface streets and is maintained, funded, and signed as such.
But yeah I feel that the legitimization of a route number is 60/40 signage/public map data and in this case both agree that it is indeed i-70. I would gather PAs internal documentation and topo maps show that too.
SM-G955U
Correct. Is that stretch of road SR 70 or SR 30? If PennDOT recognizes it as SR 30 and funds/maintains it as such then your question is answered as to what route it really is. As far as concurrencies with their reference numbers go, they recognize the highest standard of route as the number assigned to the concurrency. In this case if they did recognize I-70 through Breezewood, that stretch of road would be SR 70. According to PennDOT's SLD, that stretch of road is SR 30 straight through with SR 70 ending at Breezewood.
Quote from: ekt8750 on February 07, 2018, 02:42:03 PM
Quote from: _Simon on February 07, 2018, 07:48:31 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 06, 2018, 11:11:27 PM
Quote from: roadguy2 on February 06, 2018, 10:21:48 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 06, 2018, 02:37:05 PM
Quote from: vdeane on February 06, 2018, 02:15:04 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 06, 2018, 01:30:28 PM
Wanna show me those signs?
The GSV shows 70/30 to be largely devoid of any sort of route signage. Coming off of the PA Turnpike, this BGS only uses I-70. https://goo.gl/maps/w9yZNigoy5p . No US 30 found anywhere in the multiroute area of I-70 & US 30.
https://goo.gl/maps/7sCERgW6eNH2
I had seen that one. However, from an I-70 point of view, that sign isn't on I-70...it's on US 30 as I-70 traffic enters from the right.
It still says West 70, indicating that road is signed as I-70.
Also, look what’s posted in the gore looking north. https://goo.gl/maps/U7J43QXmJk22
That sign assembly says, among other things, West 70 TO Pennsylvania Turnpike. I’d say that because it says WEST 70 rather than TO 70, it is signed as I-70.
Just because US-30 has a few I-70 signs on it, doesn't make it I-70. It is a nonlimited-access arterial, not an Interstate highway.
I have to agree with the others on this one unless you can show me something from penndot indicating otherwise (like the gap in I-676 where us-30 really is just us-30, but to Pennsylvania that's it's terminus, that's not a gap like such a gap in i-70 would be).
There are a few places like I-78 in NJ and NYC where the interstate actually is in surface streets and is maintained, funded, and signed as such.
But yeah I feel that the legitimization of a route number is 60/40 signage/public map data and in this case both agree that it is indeed i-70. I would gather PAs internal documentation and topo maps show that too.
SM-G955U
Correct. Is that stretch of road SR 70 or SR 30? If PennDOT recognizes it as SR 30 and funds/maintains it as such then your question is answered as to what route it really is. As far as concurrencies with their reference numbers go, they recognize the highest standard of route as the number assigned to the concurrency. In this case if they did recognize I-70 through Breezewood, that stretch of road would be SR 70. According to PennDOT's SLD, that stretch of road is SR 30 straight through with SR 70 ending at Breezewood.
Except concurrencies are probably only allowed to have one reference number. In Utah, the I-15/80 concurrency is only SR 15, but no one disputes that I-80 also runs on that route.
Say you see this sign:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4598/38580432165_408d6ee377.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/21MdNmV)
This is posted looking east at the south end of this concurrency. (https://goo.gl/maps/Ry3xt6a24XH2)
If you turn left, and the reassurance shield posted only has an SR-68 shield, does that mean that it's not also SR-48?
Quote from: roadguy2 on February 07, 2018, 04:30:49 PM
Quote from: ekt8750 on February 07, 2018, 02:42:03 PM
Quote from: _Simon on February 07, 2018, 07:48:31 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 06, 2018, 11:11:27 PM
Quote from: roadguy2 on February 06, 2018, 10:21:48 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 06, 2018, 02:37:05 PM
Quote from: vdeane on February 06, 2018, 02:15:04 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 06, 2018, 01:30:28 PM
Wanna show me those signs?
The GSV shows 70/30 to be largely devoid of any sort of route signage. Coming off of the PA Turnpike, this BGS only uses I-70. https://goo.gl/maps/w9yZNigoy5p . No US 30 found anywhere in the multiroute area of I-70 & US 30.
https://goo.gl/maps/7sCERgW6eNH2
I had seen that one. However, from an I-70 point of view, that sign isn't on I-70...it's on US 30 as I-70 traffic enters from the right.
It still says West 70, indicating that road is signed as I-70.
Also, look what's posted in the gore looking north. https://goo.gl/maps/U7J43QXmJk22
That sign assembly says, among other things, West 70 TO Pennsylvania Turnpike. I'd say that because it says WEST 70 rather than TO 70, it is signed as I-70.
Just because US-30 has a few I-70 signs on it, doesn't make it I-70. It is a nonlimited-access arterial, not an Interstate highway.
I have to agree with the others on this one unless you can show me something from penndot indicating otherwise (like the gap in I-676 where us-30 really is just us-30, but to Pennsylvania that's it's terminus, that's not a gap like such a gap in i-70 would be).
There are a few places like I-78 in NJ and NYC where the interstate actually is in surface streets and is maintained, funded, and signed as such.
But yeah I feel that the legitimization of a route number is 60/40 signage/public map data and in this case both agree that it is indeed i-70. I would gather PAs internal documentation and topo maps show that too.
SM-G955U
Correct. Is that stretch of road SR 70 or SR 30? If PennDOT recognizes it as SR 30 and funds/maintains it as such then your question is answered as to what route it really is. As far as concurrencies with their reference numbers go, they recognize the highest standard of route as the number assigned to the concurrency. In this case if they did recognize I-70 through Breezewood, that stretch of road would be SR 70. According to PennDOT's SLD, that stretch of road is SR 30 straight through with SR 70 ending at Breezewood.
Except concurrencies are probably only allowed to have one reference number. In Utah, the I-15/80 concurrency is only SR 15, but no one disputes that I-80 also runs on that route.
That's a state level concept and has nothing to do with the assignment of interstate status. Being able to have only one reference number (common in most states) would also impact the I-76/i-70 concurrency itself and any other place a legitimize concurrency exists under your supposition.
There isn't a gap in us-30 nor i-70 and reference route numbers are just that .. reference numbers used by the state.
SM-G955U
Quote from: _Simon on February 07, 2018, 04:41:34 PM
Quote from: roadguy2 on February 07, 2018, 04:30:49 PM
Quote from: ekt8750 on February 07, 2018, 02:42:03 PM
Quote from: _Simon on February 07, 2018, 07:48:31 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 06, 2018, 11:11:27 PM
Quote from: roadguy2 on February 06, 2018, 10:21:48 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 06, 2018, 02:37:05 PM
Quote from: vdeane on February 06, 2018, 02:15:04 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 06, 2018, 01:30:28 PM
Wanna show me those signs?
The GSV shows 70/30 to be largely devoid of any sort of route signage. Coming off of the PA Turnpike, this BGS only uses I-70. https://goo.gl/maps/w9yZNigoy5p . No US 30 found anywhere in the multiroute area of I-70 & US 30.
https://goo.gl/maps/7sCERgW6eNH2
I had seen that one. However, from an I-70 point of view, that sign isn't on I-70...it's on US 30 as I-70 traffic enters from the right.
It still says West 70, indicating that road is signed as I-70.
Also, look what's posted in the gore looking north. https://goo.gl/maps/U7J43QXmJk22
That sign assembly says, among other things, West 70 TO Pennsylvania Turnpike. I'd say that because it says WEST 70 rather than TO 70, it is signed as I-70.
Just because US-30 has a few I-70 signs on it, doesn't make it I-70. It is a nonlimited-access arterial, not an Interstate highway.
I have to agree with the others on this one unless you can show me something from penndot indicating otherwise (like the gap in I-676 where us-30 really is just us-30, but to Pennsylvania that's it's terminus, that's not a gap like such a gap in i-70 would be).
There are a few places like I-78 in NJ and NYC where the interstate actually is in surface streets and is maintained, funded, and signed as such.
But yeah I feel that the legitimization of a route number is 60/40 signage/public map data and in this case both agree that it is indeed i-70. I would gather PAs internal documentation and topo maps show that too.
SM-G955U
Correct. Is that stretch of road SR 70 or SR 30? If PennDOT recognizes it as SR 30 and funds/maintains it as such then your question is answered as to what route it really is. As far as concurrencies with their reference numbers go, they recognize the highest standard of route as the number assigned to the concurrency. In this case if they did recognize I-70 through Breezewood, that stretch of road would be SR 70. According to PennDOT's SLD, that stretch of road is SR 30 straight through with SR 70 ending at Breezewood.
Except concurrencies are probably only allowed to have one reference number. In Utah, the I-15/80 concurrency is only SR 15, but no one disputes that I-80 also runs on that route.
That's a state level concept and has nothing to do with the assignment of interstate status. Being able to have only one reference number (common in most states) would also impact the I-76/i-70 concurrency itself and any other place a legitimize concurrency exists under your supposition.
There isn't a gap in us-30 nor i-70 and reference route numbers are just that .. reference numbers used by the state.
SM-G955U
People on this board like to spend a lot of time taking about who maintains or funds specific parts of a route. That's great trivia for you to tell to your spouse on your next road trip, but it really doesn't factor into whether or not a road has US or interstate route status.
US routes were originally create entirely from locally-jurisdicted (I.e. Not federally funded) roads and many places that are now US routes were once state routes. Many states (nj and ny included) had major renumberings in the 40s and 50s because the US numbers were simply a national overlay of existing roads and without a cleanup, almost every US route also had a state route number too, but in those renumberings, the state route numbers lost. Even state level rules (In 1959 NJ removed all concurrencies and prefixed/suffixed ties) have typically not effected US routes (202+206, 9W respectively).
It doesn't matter if PennDot considers the road to be SR0030 .. That's not the same thing as the public US-30 designation nor the public I-70 designation. That's why it's only referenced on a 12" white sign that no one notices except transportation workers and autists. When PennDot makes political and typographical maps the routes are identified by Shields and public route numbers, not reference routes.
SM-G955U
Quote from: roadguy2 on February 07, 2018, 04:30:49 PM
Quote from: ekt8750 on February 07, 2018, 02:42:03 PM
Quote from: _Simon on February 07, 2018, 07:48:31 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 06, 2018, 11:11:27 PM
Quote from: roadguy2 on February 06, 2018, 10:21:48 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 06, 2018, 02:37:05 PM
Quote from: vdeane on February 06, 2018, 02:15:04 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 06, 2018, 01:30:28 PM
Wanna show me those signs?
The GSV shows 70/30 to be largely devoid of any sort of route signage. Coming off of the PA Turnpike, this BGS only uses I-70. https://goo.gl/maps/w9yZNigoy5p . No US 30 found anywhere in the multiroute area of I-70 & US 30.
https://goo.gl/maps/7sCERgW6eNH2
I had seen that one. However, from an I-70 point of view, that sign isn't on I-70...it's on US 30 as I-70 traffic enters from the right.
It still says West 70, indicating that road is signed as I-70.
Also, look what's posted in the gore looking north. https://goo.gl/maps/U7J43QXmJk22
That sign assembly says, among other things, West 70 TO Pennsylvania Turnpike. I'd say that because it says WEST 70 rather than TO 70, it is signed as I-70.
Just because US-30 has a few I-70 signs on it, doesn't make it I-70. It is a nonlimited-access arterial, not an Interstate highway.
I have to agree with the others on this one unless you can show me something from penndot indicating otherwise (like the gap in I-676 where us-30 really is just us-30, but to Pennsylvania that's it's terminus, that's not a gap like such a gap in i-70 would be).
There are a few places like I-78 in NJ and NYC where the interstate actually is in surface streets and is maintained, funded, and signed as such.
But yeah I feel that the legitimization of a route number is 60/40 signage/public map data and in this case both agree that it is indeed i-70. I would gather PAs internal documentation and topo maps show that too.
SM-G955U
Correct. Is that stretch of road SR 70 or SR 30? If PennDOT recognizes it as SR 30 and funds/maintains it as such then your question is answered as to what route it really is. As far as concurrencies with their reference numbers go, they recognize the highest standard of route as the number assigned to the concurrency. In this case if they did recognize I-70 through Breezewood, that stretch of road would be SR 70. According to PennDOT's SLD, that stretch of road is SR 30 straight through with SR 70 ending at Breezewood.
Except concurrencies are probably only allowed to have one reference number. In Utah, the I-15/80 concurrency is only SR 15, but no one disputes that I-80 also runs on that route.
Say you see this sign:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4598/38580432165_408d6ee377.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/21MdNmV)
This is posted looking east at the south end of this concurrency. (https://goo.gl/maps/Ry3xt6a24XH2)
If you turn left, and the reassurance shield posted only has an SR-68 shield, does that mean that it's not also SR-48?
The answer is: you can't tell from the information presented.
Additionally: this is completely irrelevant to breezewood because no federally assigned numbers or numbers assigned by different levels of the government hierarchy are used here.
This may just be some unique rule UT has. My personal answer would be "what do signage, online maps, and the state's maps all say?".
SM-G955U
Quote from: _Simon on February 07, 2018, 04:41:34 PM
Quote from: roadguy2 on February 07, 2018, 04:30:49 PM
Quote from: ekt8750 on February 07, 2018, 02:42:03 PM
Quote from: _Simon on February 07, 2018, 07:48:31 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 06, 2018, 11:11:27 PM
Quote from: roadguy2 on February 06, 2018, 10:21:48 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 06, 2018, 02:37:05 PM
Quote from: vdeane on February 06, 2018, 02:15:04 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 06, 2018, 01:30:28 PM
Wanna show me those signs?
The GSV shows 70/30 to be largely devoid of any sort of route signage. Coming off of the PA Turnpike, this BGS only uses I-70. https://goo.gl/maps/w9yZNigoy5p . No US 30 found anywhere in the multiroute area of I-70 & US 30.
https://goo.gl/maps/7sCERgW6eNH2
I had seen that one. However, from an I-70 point of view, that sign isn't on I-70...it's on US 30 as I-70 traffic enters from the right.
It still says West 70, indicating that road is signed as I-70.
Also, look what's posted in the gore looking north. https://goo.gl/maps/U7J43QXmJk22
That sign assembly says, among other things, West 70 TO Pennsylvania Turnpike. I'd say that because it says WEST 70 rather than TO 70, it is signed as I-70.
Just because US-30 has a few I-70 signs on it, doesn't make it I-70. It is a nonlimited-access arterial, not an Interstate highway.
I have to agree with the others on this one unless you can show me something from penndot indicating otherwise (like the gap in I-676 where us-30 really is just us-30, but to Pennsylvania that's it's terminus, that's not a gap like such a gap in i-70 would be).
There are a few places like I-78 in NJ and NYC where the interstate actually is in surface streets and is maintained, funded, and signed as such.
But yeah I feel that the legitimization of a route number is 60/40 signage/public map data and in this case both agree that it is indeed i-70. I would gather PAs internal documentation and topo maps show that too.
SM-G955U
Correct. Is that stretch of road SR 70 or SR 30? If PennDOT recognizes it as SR 30 and funds/maintains it as such then your question is answered as to what route it really is. As far as concurrencies with their reference numbers go, they recognize the highest standard of route as the number assigned to the concurrency. In this case if they did recognize I-70 through Breezewood, that stretch of road would be SR 70. According to PennDOT's SLD, that stretch of road is SR 30 straight through with SR 70 ending at Breezewood.
Except concurrencies are probably only allowed to have one reference number. In Utah, the I-15/80 concurrency is only SR 15, but no one disputes that I-80 also runs on that route.
That's a state level concept and has nothing to do with the assignment of interstate status. Being able to have only one reference number (common in most states) would also impact the I-76/i-70 concurrency itself and any other place a legitimize concurrency exists under your supposition.
There isn't a gap in us-30 nor i-70 and reference route numbers are just that .. reference numbers used by the state.
SM-G955U
In Florida the official number for the interstate and US route is the SR number.. but the secret SR is rarely signed.. with the exception of "your tax dollars at work" tupe signs for construction projects.. it's also written on traffic tickets.. I got a ticket on US301 in Marion County.. it said I was on SR200.. i95 is SR9 for most of it's route in the state etc
Z981
Quote from: _Simon on February 07, 2018, 07:07:55 PM
It doesn't matter if PennDot considers the road to be SR0030 .. That's not the same thing as the public US-30 designation nor the public I-70 designation. That's why it's only referenced on a 12" white sign that no one notices except transportation workers and autists. When PennDot makes political and typographical maps the routes are identified by Shields and public route numbers, not reference routes.
Indeed, I won't consider that segment of US-30 to be I-70, either.
Someone could post a New Jersey Turnpike trailblazer sign on the Schuylkill Expressway, but that won't make it the New Jersey Turnpike.
Quote from: _Simon on January 23, 2018, 05:42:10 PM
Quote from: sparker on January 23, 2018, 04:16:01 PM
It's not as if there already hasn't been 40+ years of public comment on the Breezewood situation; it certainly isn't hidden from public view! It seems that in some quarters (particularly PTC and their fellow agencies) the status quo has been internalized (and likely, in some minds, amortized!); it's old news at this point. If an outcry from the driving public would turn the tables in this situation, it would likely have happened by now. It's possible that the solution would be to back up the Brinks' truck to Breezewood, offload part of its contents, then drive to Harrisburg and unload the rest! Then one can argue about the format of the solution.
The political landscape is changing as the age of people in power shift. All you need is a popular infotainment company like Vox or Wendover Productions to do one of their awesome "anomoly" videos on this and a whole new generation of social justice soldiers will spray PTC with their angst. Let's not be defeatist here, it's completely within our power as a message board to get the right people's attention on this issue by leveraging the power of the masses, even if no one involved lives near Breezewood.
SM-G955U
There have been articles about Breezewood since the 80s. CPZ pointed to a WSJ article in 1999. Business Week did a story on it in 1991. An infotainment piece on Breezewood won't move the needle.
A PA state senator tried in the late 80s to force the state to study and build and interchange. It was blocked by the President Pro Tem who was from Bedford County. Bedford County Commissioners and state legislators will do all they can do block any attempt to build a bypass interchange. Breezewood is a large source of county income which is also why they are very much trying to revive the Abandoned Pike idea.
The Federal Highway Administration threatening to withold funding to Pennsylvania without steps moving forward to remedy Breezewood is about the only thing that will do it.
Quote from: CanesFan27 on February 08, 2018, 10:38:21 PM
Bedford County Commissioners and state legislators
Which ones? I'll call them. I'm not letting this go.
And if you think I'm just blowing smoke, ask any county or state employee (a few are on this board still I think) that's had the unfortunate situation of being between me and getting signage and other works fixed; My willpower extends infinitely in the direction of changing things people say can't be changed.
SM-G955U
Quote from: Rothman on February 07, 2018, 07:42:04 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 06, 2018, 11:11:27 PM
Quote from: roadguy2 on February 06, 2018, 10:21:48 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 06, 2018, 02:37:05 PM
Quote from: vdeane on February 06, 2018, 02:15:04 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 06, 2018, 01:30:28 PM
Wanna show me those signs?
The GSV shows 70/30 to be largely devoid of any sort of route signage. Coming off of the PA Turnpike, this BGS only uses I-70. https://goo.gl/maps/w9yZNigoy5p . No US 30 found anywhere in the multiroute area of I-70 & US 30.
https://goo.gl/maps/7sCERgW6eNH2
I had seen that one. However, from an I-70 point of view, that sign isn't on I-70...it's on US 30 as I-70 traffic enters from the right.
It still says West 70, indicating that road is signed as I-70.
Also, look what's posted in the gore looking north. https://goo.gl/maps/U7J43QXmJk22
That sign assembly says, among other things, West 70 TO Pennsylvania Turnpike. I'd say that because it says WEST 70 rather than TO 70, it is signed as I-70.
Just because US-30 has a few I-70 signs on it, doesn't make it I-70. It is a nonlimited-access arterial, not an Interstate highway.
I have an old Rand McNally atlas that actually shows interstate shields on two-lane roads. The functional class does not determine the interstate route; the shield does.
In the early '60's the McNally atlases showed plenty of Interstate shields on existing 2-lane roads simply to reference the corridor the Interstate would eventually occupy; new-terrain routings were shown as dotted triple lines (with appropriate shields shown there as well). AFAIK, few if any of these existing routes displayed any indication in the field about their status as future Interstate corridors until at least property acquisition commenced. Back then the atlas idiom was Gousha for details (they only showed Interstate shields on completed segments), McNally for nascent Interstate references.
Quote from: CanesFan27 on February 08, 2018, 10:38:21 PM
There have been articles about Breezewood since the 80s. CPZ pointed to a WSJ article in 1999. Business Week did a story on it in 1991. An infotainment piece on Breezewood won't move the needle.
A PA state senator tried in the late 80s to force the state to study and build and interchange. It was blocked by the President Pro Tem who was from Bedford County. Bedford County Commissioners and state legislators will do all they can do block any attempt to build a bypass interchange. Breezewood is a large source of county income which is also why they are very much trying to revive the Abandoned Pike idea.
The Federal Highway Administration threatening to withold funding to Pennsylvania without steps moving forward to remedy Breezewood is about the only thing that will do it.
Great idea, but does FHWA have the power to do that over this particular Breezewood issue? I don't think so.
Quote from: _Simon on February 08, 2018, 11:02:16 PM
Quote from: CanesFan27 on February 08, 2018, 10:38:21 PM
Bedford County Commissioners and state legislators
Which ones? I'll call them. I'm not letting this go.
And if you think I'm just blowing smoke, ask any county or state employee (a few are on this board still I think) that's had the unfortunate situation of being between me and getting signage and other works fixed; My willpower extends infinitely in the direction of changing things people say can't be changed.
SM-G955U
I'm a state employee. I guess I haven't been between you and whatever issue you're referring to.
Quote from: _Simon on February 08, 2018, 11:02:16 PM
Quote from: CanesFan27 on February 08, 2018, 10:38:21 PM
Bedford County Commissioners and state legislators
Which ones? I'll call them. I'm not letting this go.
And if you think I'm just blowing smoke, ask any county or state employee (a few are on this board still I think) that's had the unfortunate situation of being between me and getting signage and other works fixed; My willpower extends infinitely in the direction of changing things people say can't be changed.
SM-G955U
You're an out-of-state resident and not a constituent of theirs. Odds are good that they won't even get your message. It will be filtered by staffers, or if they have an online comments page, by the software that kicks out messages from people who live in ZIP codes not in their districts.
Quote from: hbelkins on February 09, 2018, 12:23:24 PM
Quote from: _Simon on February 08, 2018, 11:02:16 PM
Quote from: CanesFan27 on February 08, 2018, 10:38:21 PM
Bedford County Commissioners and state legislators
Which ones? I'll call them. I'm not letting this go.
And if you think I'm just blowing smoke, ask any county or state employee (a few are on this board still I think) that's had the unfortunate situation of being between me and getting signage and other works fixed; My willpower extends infinitely in the direction of changing things people say can't be changed.
SM-G955U
You're an out-of-state resident and not a constituent of theirs. Odds are good that they won't even get your message. It will be filtered by staffers, or if they have an online comments page, by the software that kicks out messages from people who live in ZIP codes not in their districts.
It's been 35 years since the United States demanded PA build a full interchange between 95 and the PA Turnpike, and with any luck that project may be 25% completed by this year.
Some guy from out of state that doesn't like an interchange that he heard about on the internet? Yeah. Start an epetition too.
I don't think that poster understands the dynamics of politics. Not only politics but Pennsylvania politics and the fact that there are two agencies involved. The PTC and PennDOT.
Considering that the PA legislature is investigating whether to fold the PTC into PennDOT, there might not be two agencies much longer.
^ Is the state legislature actually investigating that currently? I remember reading some stories about 15 years ago (prior to Act 44) that various legislators were pushing for that to happen, but obviously that didn't result in any action. I'm generally of the opinion that both Pennsylvania and the traveling public would be better off if the PTC was merged into PennDOT, but as of now, I don't see how it could happen.
The PTC is being milked by the state for its current toll revenue, and as a result, the Commission has had to take on ridiculous amounts of debt to fund ongoing maintenance and expansion operations. But the catch is that, since it isn't an agency of state government, the PTC issues bonds that are not backed by the full faith and credit of the Commonwealth. As far as I can see, the only way that the PTC could be dissolved and its operations folded into PennDOT would be for the Commonwealth to assume the Commission's billions of dollars in debt, an obligation from which it is currently insulated.
For the longest time, I couldn't understand why the PTC signed on to Act 44. I mean, honestly: Why would they agree to pay the Commonwealth nearly half a billion dollars annually when there was no guarantee that I-80 tolling would be approved–and the agreement contained no escape clause in the event that I-80 tolling wasn't approved. (And it wasn't.)
And then I read something from a Harrisburg Patriot-News investigative reporter that made the answer crystal clear. Immediately prior to Act 44, the PTC faced the very real possibility of the Commission being disbanded by the state legislature. And if you're one of the commissioners bringing home a nice side income plus a free vehicle and free tolls for relatively little work, if you're handing out decently paid patronage jobs as thank-you gifts for donors and friends, if you're one of the administrators earning a healthy salary and good benefits and would be made redundant through a merger, you're going to fight the elimination of the PTC by any means–including tactics that would put the long term viability of the Commission in jeopardy.
PTC commissioners figured out that they could use debt as a "poison pill" –get so far in the hole that no legislator could dream of trying to reabsorb the Commission into state government. The result is an insidious "I'll scratch your back..." arrangement of the sickest order. The PTC hands over hundreds of millions to the Commonwealth, allowing legislators to (temporarily) dodge answering difficult questions regarding the long-term viability of transportation funding in the state. And in turn, the legislature allows the PTC to remain in existence, and the generous salaries and benefits keep flowing. Meanwhile, America's First Superhighway continues to be leveraged ever closer to a debt-driven death spiral.
Quote from: briantroutman on February 09, 2018, 03:40:09 PM
^ Is the state legislature actually investigating that currently? I remember reading some stories about 15 years ago (prior to Act 44) that various legislators were pushing for that to happen, but obviously that didn't result in any action. I'm generally of the opinion that both Pennsylvania and the traveling public would be better off if the PTC was merged into PennDOT, but as of now, I don't see how it could happen.
The PTC is being milked by the state for its current toll revenue, and as a result, the Commission has had to take on ridiculous amounts of debt to fund ongoing maintenance and expansion operations. But the catch is that, since it isn't an agency of state government, the PTC issues bonds that are not backed by the full faith and credit of the Commonwealth. As far as I can see, the only way that the PTC could be dissolved and its operations folded into PennDOT would be for the Commonwealth to assume the Commission's billions of dollars in debt, an obligation from which it is currently insulated.
For the longest time, I couldn't understand why the PTC signed on to Act 44. I mean, honestly: Why would they agree to pay the Commonwealth nearly half a billion dollars annually when there was no guarantee that I-80 tolling would be approved–and the agreement contained no escape clause in the event that I-80 tolling wasn't approved. (And it wasn't.)
And then I read something from a Harrisburg Patriot-News investigative reporter that made the answer crystal clear. Immediately prior to Act 44, the PTC faced the very real possibility of the Commission being disbanded by the state legislature. And if you're one of the commissioners bringing home a nice side income plus a free vehicle and free tolls for relatively little work, if you're handing out decently paid patronage jobs as thank-you gifts for donors and friends, if you're one of the administrators earning a healthy salary and good benefits and would be made redundant through a merger, you're going to fight the elimination of the PTC by any means–including tactics that would put the long term viability of the Commission in jeopardy.
PTC commissioners figured out that they could use debt as a "poison pill" –get so far in the hole that no legislator could dream of trying to reabsorb the Commission into state government. The result is an insidious "I'll scratch your back..." arrangement of the sickest order. The PTC hands over hundreds of millions to the Commonwealth, allowing legislators to (temporarily) dodge answering difficult questions regarding the long-term viability of transportation funding in the state. And in turn, the legislature allows the PTC to remain in existence, and the generous salaries and benefits keep flowing. Meanwhile, America's First Superhighway continues to be leveraged ever closer to a debt-driven death spiral.
Thing about that is, that's a bubble that'll eventually burst and the more they try to keep it from bursting the worse the burst will be when it happens.
Quote from: briantroutman on February 09, 2018, 03:40:09 PM
^ Is the state legislature actually investigating that currently?
Yes, I saw a news story float across my Facebook feed, but didn't read it.
QuoteBut the catch is that, since it isn't an agency of state government
How is the PTC
not a state government agency? If the members are politically appointed, how can it not be considered an arm of state government?
Quote from: hbelkins on February 09, 2018, 05:21:56 PM
How is the PTC not a state government agency? If the members are politically appointed, how can it not be considered an arm of state government?
Now we're starting to get into the intricacies of what makes an agency a "government agency" and what makes an employee a "government employee" . I think a Pennsylvania attorney would need to clarify some of the distinctions.
I can only draw a few analogies. In higher education, for example, the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education universities (West Chester, Bloomsburg, Shippensburg) are agencies of state government. The professors are counted as state employees and are represented by a state employees' union, and even the property on which they stand is deeded: "Commonwealth of Pennsylvania." There's essentially no insulation between these schools and the whims of the governor and state legislature.
On the other hand Penn State, which is often referred to as a "state" school, is more accurately a "state-related" school. The university was created by an act of the state legislature and is situated on land granted to it by the Commonwealth. It is partially funded by an appropriation of tax dollars, and it is governed by a board that, under the terms of its charter, includes the governor, secretaries of multiple cabinet-level departments, and several governor appointees. But its employees are not counted as state employees and are not represented by the state employees' union; its property is deeded to "Pennsylvania State University" , not the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth can threaten Penn State's appropriations and exert influence through board members, but as long as Penn State doesn't violate its charter, the state does not control the university's operations.
Likewise at the Federal level, you have organizations like the Corporation for Public Broadcasting–which is governed by a board of Presidential appointees who are confirmed by the Senate. But strictly speaking, the CPB isn't a government agency, nor are its employees federal employees.
But regardless of the technicalities, the bottom line as far as a PTC/PennDOT merger is concerned: The PTC's charter specifically stipulates that the Commission's debts are not those of the Commonwealth. I don't see how the PTC could be absorbed by the Commonwealth unless it assumed its debts.
Edited to add:
Here's a link to a
Post-Gazette editorial discussing the study on dissolving/merging the PTC into PennDOT: http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/editorials/2018/02/06/Better-together-Explore-joining-PennDOT-and-turnpike-services/stories/201802280010 (http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/editorials/2018/02/06/Better-together-Explore-joining-PennDOT-and-turnpike-services/stories/201802280010)
Apparently, they're looking mergers in both directions–the PTC being dissolved and its duties handed over to PennDOT as well as reverse scenario where responsibilities for maintaining the Commonwealth's free Interstates are handed over to an enlarged PTC. I don't see where the opportunity for savings lie in the latter scenario.
If the former scenario materializes, however, the editorial mentions the PTC becoming "little more than a vehicle for debt service" . But I don't understand how that's possible–to transfer the asset and the stream of revenue to a new owner and leave an empty shell behind holding the debt.
wearecentralpa.com: Strip club outrages residents in Bedford County (http://www.wearecentralpa.com/news/strip-club-outrages-residents-in-bedford-county/948753555)
QuoteThis past weekend, people driving through Breezewood, Bedford County saw signs for a new gentlemen's club pop-up on one of the old businesses. The building is in the middle of town and could be the first thing that travelers see.
QuoteThousands of people pass through Breezewood every day and over the weekend, many saw something new on their drive.
Quote"Banners. Big Banners 'Completely nude girls' '27/7' 'Triple X' Right here in the, right along the highway," Bedford County resident Steven Leydig said.
QuoteThe signs were put up on the outside of an abandoned building in the middle of the highway junction, but the signs were taken down at the beginning of the week.
Quote from: briantroutman on February 09, 2018, 06:26:51 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 09, 2018, 05:21:56 PM
How is the PTC not a state government agency? If the members are politically appointed, how can it not be considered an arm of state government?
Now we're starting to get into the intricacies of what makes an agency a "government agency" and what makes an employee a "government employee" . I think a Pennsylvania attorney would need to clarify some of the distinctions.
They are exempt from all federal and Pennsylvania taxes, which would imply that they are a creature of state government. And the interest on bonds they sell are (like bonds sold by many other state, county and municipal agencies) exempt from federal taxes.
QuoteBut regardless of the technicalities, the bottom line as far as a PTC/PennDOT merger is concerned: The PTC's charter specifically stipulates that the Commission's debts are not those of the Commonwealth. I don't see how the PTC could be absorbed by the Commonwealth unless it assumed its debts.
The massive pile of bonded indebtedness from the Turnpike Commission and its billions of dollars poured into PennDOT for things having little to do with the Turnpike under Act 44 and Act 89, would
still be outstanding after a merger. As would bonds sold for legitimate Turnpike expansion and repair and reconstruction projects.
But presumably those bonds, like most toll road revenue bonds sold to investors by toll road agencies across the U.S., are
non-
recourse bonds secured
only by the toll revenues collected by the PTC (which means that in the event of a default, bondholders
cannot look to Pennsylvania taxpayers for payment) - compare and contrast with "full faith and credit" bonds (which are backed by the taxing power of the state government).
None of this would change if the PTC were to be merged into a part of PennDOT, except that the bondholders would be paid by checks with PennDOT written on them instead of by PTC. But if there were to be a default, PennDOT would have
no obligation to use its Transportation Trust Fund (and the motor fuel tax revenue that flows into same) to pay investors, nor would the Pennsylvania governor and legislature have any obligation to tap into the state's general fund to pay holders of Turnpike bonds either.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 11, 2018, 11:32:39 PM
wearecentralpa.com: Strip club outrages residents in Bedford County (http://www.wearecentralpa.com/news/strip-club-outrages-residents-in-bedford-county/948753555)
QuoteThis past weekend, people driving through Breezewood, Bedford County saw signs for a new gentlemen's club pop-up on one of the old businesses. The building is in the middle of town and could be the first thing that travelers see.
QuoteThousands of people pass through Breezewood every day and over the weekend, many saw something new on their drive.
Quote"Banners. Big Banners 'Completely nude girls' '27/7' 'Triple X' Right here in the, right along the highway," Bedford County resident Steven Leydig said.
QuoteThe signs were put up on the outside of an abandoned building in the middle of the highway junction, but the signs were taken down at the beginning of the week.
Well now -- the county and township want to accumulate revenue from pass-through business; this is just another enterprise electing to join the Breezewood crowd! I don't know about particular PA rules governing such things, but here in CA the only way to foil the establishment of adult entertainment venues is through tight zoning rules. I guess this is a case of this sword having two sides -- it'll be interesting to see if this issue causes a new spotlight to be focused on the main Breezewood issue!
Quote from: sparker on February 12, 2018, 12:06:48 AM
Well now -- the county and township want to accumulate revenue from pass-through business; this is just another enterprise electing to join the Breezewood crowd! I don't know about particular PA rules governing such things, but here in CA the only way to foil the establishment of adult entertainment venues is through tight zoning rules. I guess this is a case of this sword having two sides -- it'll be interesting to see if this issue causes a new spotlight to be focused on the main Breezewood issue!
This bigger issue is this - Breezewood businesses are failing even with all of that I-70 traffic being forced to drive through there. Hence the establishment of the strip joint, calls into question the "we must have that I-70 traffic to survive, when it seems that some drivers have had enough and are opting to stop someplace else.
The people interviewed on the TV report are "protesting rather too loudly," IMO.
Quote from: sparker on February 12, 2018, 12:06:48 AM
... it'll be interesting to see if this issue causes a new spotlight to be focused on the main Breezewood issue!
You mean the issue that no one here took notice to for 10 days until someone posted an article about it?
The issue that, while "thousands" of motorists pass by every day, the only people interviewed were local residents?
We can travel the highways all over the country and see signs for strip bars and adult stores. This isn't exactly going to be a reason why Pennsy will spend tens of millions of dollars...
Quote from: vdeane on February 09, 2018, 02:14:45 PM
Considering that the PA legislature is investigating whether to fold the PTC into PennDOT, there might not be two agencies much longer.
Except the PA legislature has bigger problems on its plate right now, with gerrymandering and the problems of a missed deadline. The resulting changes may have an impact on the future of PennDOT and the PTC if voters finally have an accurate voice in Harrisburg.
Bruce in Blacksburg (but a native of the 'Burgh)
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 12, 2018, 06:29:16 AM
We can travel the highways all over the country and see signs for strip bars and adult stores. This isn't exactly going to be a reason why Pennsy will spend tens of millions of dollars...
I agree. But it does reinforce the hypocrisy and craven nature of Breezewood.
So all this recent discussion in the thread has me working on a feature/article for the blog on why breezewood hasn't been bypassed.
In looking back at various articles since the late 80s on Breezewood, I would say that the business owners have been losing clout as the most vocal have been the family owned operations that have slowly closed shop. You don't see the franchise owner of the Taco Bell or the district manager of Sheetz quoted in these articles.
That leaves the various political powers from state legislators to the Bedford County Commissioners as having the most influence.
The most common response from business owners and legislators defending Breezewood has been it's only a few days of the year. I can see that as i go through Breezewood at least 6-8 times a year and not had issue. However I make sure to avoid it at holidays. I would say that we stop at Breezewood 1 of every 10 times going through there and our kids being the biggest reason. So people would still stop, there's nothing on 70 until Hancock, turnpike plazas are usually more expensive, if you go towards Ft. Littleton there's nothing, and stoplubg at Bedford means on and off the turnpike also. And on 68 you have to wait to Cumberland. If we stop, it's because it is right there, but if it was bypassed and we needed to stop we'd still exit.
There's an Altoona Mirror article from 2015 that talked about how rumors of cashless tolling has breezewood owners up in arms. Again, the same family owned businesses are commenting.
That article reminded me of a turnpike strike that led to the pike being opened without tolls. I think it was a holiday season any one remember When? I recall my sister who lives in Northern Va said how quickly she went through Breezewood as a result.
And yes, when heading back to PA our location in respect to Breezewood is used as an estimate on when one of us are to our parents house.
Also, everyone pretty much knows breezewood do a Twitter search of breezewood or breezewood bypass and you see a whole array of comments. However, there isn't as much angst about as there obviously is in our hobby. There is very little mention of boycotting breezewood more of maybe one business or the turnpike as a whole after a toll increase.
As the local owners die off or sell their business because their kids aren't interested, there may be some momentum.
Unless there really is a political groundswell from Bedford County or within the commonwealth to fix it - it's unlikely.
Quote from: VTGoose on February 12, 2018, 09:34:35 AM
Except the PA legislature has bigger problems on its plate right now, with gerrymandering and the problems of a missed deadline. The resulting changes may have an impact on the future of PennDOT and the PTC if voters finally have an accurate voice in Harrisburg.
Bruce in Blacksburg (but a native of the 'Burgh)
I disagree, for this reason - the current majority party in Harrisburg is not going to cut its own throat in order to comply with an order from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
Much better to submit a revised plan (which changes nothing) as they have done, and then scream and yell when the court comes up with a vastly less gerrymandered map.
Quote from: CanesFan27 on February 12, 2018, 09:37:06 AM
So all this recent discussion in the thread has me working on a feature/article for the blog on why breezewood hasn't been bypassed.
Because Pennsylvania and their DOT and their Turnpike Commission don't care.
Quote from: CanesFan27 on February 12, 2018, 09:37:06 AM
In looking back at various articles since the late 80s on Breezewood, I would say that the business owners have been losing clout as the most vocal have been the family owned operations that have slowly closed shop. You don't see the franchise owner of the Taco Bell or the district manager of Sheetz quoted in these articles.
Given the loyalty of many Sheetz patrons (including myself), I might well stop there even if Breezewood were to be properly bypassed.
Quote from: CanesFan27 on February 12, 2018, 09:37:06 AM
That leaves the various political powers from state legislators to the Bedford County Commissioners as having the most influence.
The federal government could put a stop to it easily.
Quote from: CanesFan27 on February 12, 2018, 09:37:06 AM
The most common response from business owners and legislators defending Breezewood has been it's only a few days of the year. I can see that as i go through Breezewood at least 6-8 times a year and not had issue. However I make sure to avoid it at holidays. I would say that we stop at Breezewood 1 of every 10 times going through there and our kids being the biggest reason. So people would still stop, there's nothing on 70 until Hancock, turnpike plazas are usually more expensive, if you go towards Ft. Littleton there's nothing, and stoplubg at Bedford means on and off the turnpike also. And on 68 you have to wait to Cumberland. If we stop, it's because it is right there, but if it was bypassed and we needed to stop we'd still exit.
I don't stop there because drivers are killed and injured approaching Breezewood, especially on the westbound side of I-70 approaching the traffic signals at U.S. 30.
Quote from: CanesFan27 on February 12, 2018, 09:37:06 AM
There's an Altoona Mirror article from 2015 that talked about how rumors of cashless tolling has breezewood owners up in arms. Again, the same family owned businesses are commenting.
Cashless tolling is coming because the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission continues to bleed cash thanks to the provisions of Act 44 and Act 89, and going cashless will save PTC a lot of money.
CPZ,
You make a good point about injuries and fatalities, I know of the wreck involving Mike Dawida in the late 80s that caused him to push for changes. He had support in the House but stopped cold in the Senate. There was also the big crash in 1987.
Do you know of any other large/deadly wrecks there. I haven't found much since they added the extra lane for 70 West traffic in the early 90s.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 12, 2018, 09:47:41 AM
Quote from: CanesFan27 on February 12, 2018, 09:37:06 AM
In looking back at various articles since the late 80s on Breezewood, I would say that the business owners have been losing clout as the most vocal have been the family owned operations that have slowly closed shop. You don't see the franchise owner of the Taco Bell or the district manager of Sheetz quoted in these articles.
Given the loyalty of many Sheetz patrons (including myself), I might well stop there even if Breezewood were to be properly bypassed.
One thing that might -- MIGHT -- make a difference here is distance from the mainline. In most places, the highway businesses are located very near the exit. Add a direct connection for I-70, and suddenly the Breezewood services are a couple of miles off both I-70 and I-76. If you absolutely have to have gas or get something to eat, you may get off there. If you can wait awhile, you might decide instead to keep traveling -- although it should be noted that the Hancock Sheetz isn't really convenient to I-70, either.
Sheetz has some interesting building patterns. They've built three in Beckley, WV, but none are near the interstate/turnpike. There's one at the interchange where US 19 joins Corridor D, one farther south on US 19 in the Beckley commercial district, and one right downtown at WV 16 and WV 3. None anywhere near the turnpike.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 12, 2018, 09:47:41 AM
Quote from: CanesFan27 on February 12, 2018, 09:37:06 AM
That leaves the various political powers from state legislators to the Bedford County Commissioners as having the most influence.
The federal government could put a stop to it easily.
What sort of actual legal tools do they have? Do they have any legal power that would withstand a lawsuit if they tried to withhold any portion of PennDOT's federal funding?
As an aside why try to penalize PennDOT when it is the PTC that is refusing to participate in an interchange project? Since PTC is not federally funded they could not be penalized in that manner.
Quote from: Beltway on February 12, 2018, 01:36:15 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 12, 2018, 09:47:41 AM
Quote from: CanesFan27 on February 12, 2018, 09:37:06 AM
That leaves the various political powers from state legislators to the Bedford County Commissioners as having the most influence.
The federal government could put a stop to it easily.
What sort of actual legal tools do they have? Do they have any legal power that would withstand a lawsuit if they tried to withhold any portion of PennDOT's federal funding?
As an aside why try to penalize PennDOT when it is the PTC that is refusing to participate in an interchange project? Since PTC is not federally funded they could not be penalized in that manner.
What interchange project? The fantasy one that doesn't exist?
As far as FHWA is concerned, the state DOT is responsible for the actions of all jurisdictions in the state, regardless of whether it actually has that kind of authority or not.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 12, 2018, 02:03:13 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 12, 2018, 01:36:15 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 12, 2018, 09:47:41 AM
Quote from: CanesFan27 on February 12, 2018, 09:37:06 AM
That leaves the various political powers from state legislators to the Bedford County Commissioners as having the most influence.
The federal government could put a stop to it easily.
What sort of actual legal tools do they have? Do they have any legal power that would withstand a lawsuit if they tried to withhold any portion of PennDOT's federal funding?
As an aside why try to penalize PennDOT when it is the PTC that is refusing to participate in an interchange project? Since PTC is not federally funded they could not be penalized in that manner.
What interchange project? The fantasy one that doesn't exist?
That's the point, the PTC is refusing to plan and build this interchange.
Quote from: vdeane on February 12, 2018, 02:33:33 PM
As far as FHWA is concerned, the state DOT is responsible for the actions of all jurisdictions in the state, regardless of whether it actually has that kind of authority or not.
So FHWA could have still refused to give NYSDOT $14 million in funding if the Thruway Authority told them to go pound sand regarding the Cuomo signs?
Quote from: ekt8750 on February 09, 2018, 04:14:32 PM
For the longest time, I couldn't understand why the PTC signed on to Act 44.
While I'm sure they had some input in pre-vote meetings, since it's a law (and not a good one), it really wouldn't matter if they signed on to it or not.
Quote from: hbelkins on February 12, 2018, 01:20:09 PM
One thing that might -- MIGHT -- make a difference here is distance from the mainline. In most places, the highway businesses are located very near the exit. Add a direct connection for I-70, and suddenly the Breezewood services are a couple of miles off both I-70 and I-76.
I don't know that it would be more than a mile each direction.... it's about a mile from the general junction of the access road and 30 (maybe less for "free" 70 heading north) for either movement.
Quote from: Beltway on February 12, 2018, 03:13:21 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 12, 2018, 02:03:13 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 12, 2018, 01:36:15 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 12, 2018, 09:47:41 AM
Quote from: CanesFan27 on February 12, 2018, 09:37:06 AM
That leaves the various political powers from state legislators to the Bedford County Commissioners as having the most influence.
The federal government could put a stop to it easily.
What sort of actual legal tools do they have? Do they have any legal power that would withstand a lawsuit if they tried to withhold any portion of PennDOT's federal funding?
As an aside why try to penalize PennDOT when it is the PTC that is refusing to participate in an interchange project? Since PTC is not federally funded they could not be penalized in that manner.
What interchange project? The fantasy one that doesn't exist?
That's the point, the PTC is refusing to plan and build this interchange.
Why should they? The Turnpike is fine in this area. It's a straight run with no lights. It's the PennDOT road that has the problem.
Here's a question I have: When Breezewood was Breeze-wooded (a.k.a when Free I-70 to MD was completed) in the late 60's/Early 70's (?), there were businesses and owners who had or were setting up shop to cash in on the I-70 gap.
How many of those specific businesses and/or owners are still in their exact spots 50 years later? Not many.
So the vast majority of businesses along that US-30 strip today should not have the same rights as those when the gap was first created since I believe there has been enough talk over the last couple of decades to eliminate the gap -- or at least to eliminate the Free-to-Toll-I-70-movements from the gap -- that they should know that the PTC & PennDOT may alter the Breezewood connection in the near future because of the increase in traffic volumes.
Same goes for those residents that live within a 10-mile radius of Breezewood. How many of the owners & their families still live on their same property or in that same radius 50 years later? They should know the day is coming as well.
That's like those who decided to build or move to the area of Pasadena where the missing I-710 link is. If you move into that questionable area that you know could be bulldozed, then you have no right to play the NIMBY card...And the politicians should not be helping them to block progress either -- jobs be damned!
Bottom line is: The benefits to these people if only a direct east-to-east/west-to-west connection is ultimately made is Less Pollution, Less Noise and a Safer Neighborhood (less accidents, backups,...). But if heaven forbid a nudie bar or a similar undesirable business darkens their block, then they change their tune. In other words, you can't have it both ways.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 12, 2018, 06:34:46 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 12, 2018, 03:13:21 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 12, 2018, 02:03:13 PM
What interchange project? The fantasy one that doesn't exist?
That's the point, the PTC is refusing to plan and build this interchange.
Why should they? The Turnpike is fine in this area. It's a straight run with no lights. It's the PennDOT road that has the problem.
PennDOT can't fix the problem without the partnership with PTC.
Both roads are Interstate highways. Interstate highways are part of a network and they need interchanges that directly connect them.
Quote from: Beltway on February 12, 2018, 08:58:27 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 12, 2018, 06:34:46 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 12, 2018, 03:13:21 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 12, 2018, 02:03:13 PM
What interchange project? The fantasy one that doesn't exist?
That's the point, the PTC is refusing to plan and build this interchange.
Why should they? The Turnpike is fine in this area. It's a straight run with no lights. It's the PennDOT road that has the problem.
PennDOT can't fix the problem without the partnership with PTC.
Both roads are Interstate highways. Interstate highways are part of a network and they need interchanges that directly connect them.
Should we go back to listing all the interstates in PA that aren't connected yet get completely ignored?
I-81.
Done. :D
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 12, 2018, 10:20:14 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 12, 2018, 08:58:27 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 12, 2018, 06:34:46 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 12, 2018, 03:13:21 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 12, 2018, 02:03:13 PM
What interchange project? The fantasy one that doesn't exist?
That's the point, the PTC is refusing to plan and build this interchange.
Why should they? The Turnpike is fine in this area. It's a straight run with no lights. It's the PennDOT road that has the problem.
PennDOT can't fix the problem without the partnership with PTC.
Both roads are Interstate highways. Interstate highways are part of a network and they need interchanges that directly connect them.
Should we go back to listing all the interstates in PA that aren't connected yet get completely ignored?
They are not ignored, I and others have commented on them many times. The FAct that some others aren't connected does not justify I-70 Breezewood not being connected.
Quote from: Rothman on February 12, 2018, 11:28:27 PM
I-81.
Done. :D
376@76 (west) technically a breezewood. Both ends of 99 are breezewoods. 80@476 is a unique case. 81@476 (southern - planned to be fixed). 78@476 (albeit all freeway to connect).
Quote from: Beltway on February 12, 2018, 11:29:46 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 12, 2018, 10:20:14 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 12, 2018, 08:58:27 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 12, 2018, 06:34:46 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 12, 2018, 03:13:21 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 12, 2018, 02:03:13 PM
What interchange project? The fantasy one that doesn't exist?
That's the point, the PTC is refusing to plan and build this interchange.
Why should they? The Turnpike is fine in this area. It's a straight run with no lights. It's the PennDOT road that has the problem.
PennDOT can't fix the problem without the partnership with PTC.
Both roads are Interstate highways. Interstate highways are part of a network and they need interchanges that directly connect them.
Should we go back to listing all the interstates in PA that aren't connected yet get completely ignored?
They are not ignored, I and others have commented on them many times. The FAct that some others aren't connected does not justify I-70 Breezewood not being connected.
They've been commented on...occasionally. And often while we're talking about Breezewood. The others don't have a 22 page thread - their combined mentions would barely fill up a page or two.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 13, 2018, 06:22:34 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 12, 2018, 11:29:46 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 12, 2018, 10:20:14 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 12, 2018, 08:58:27 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 12, 2018, 06:34:46 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 12, 2018, 03:13:21 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 12, 2018, 02:03:13 PM
What interchange project? The fantasy one that doesn't exist?
That's the point, the PTC is refusing to plan and build this interchange.
Why should they? The Turnpike is fine in this area. It's a straight run with no lights. It's the PennDOT road that has the problem.
PennDOT can't fix the problem without the partnership with PTC.
Both roads are Interstate highways. Interstate highways are part of a network and they need interchanges that directly connect them.
Should we go back to listing all the interstates in PA that aren't connected yet get completely ignored?
They are not ignored, I and others have commented on them many times. The FAct that some others aren't connected does not justify I-70 Breezewood not being connected.
They've been commented on...occasionally. And often while we're talking about Breezewood. The others don't have a 22 page thread - their combined mentions would barely fill up a page or two.
With the one exception of I-95/276, which has its own long thread.
Quote from: 1 on February 13, 2018, 06:23:57 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 13, 2018, 06:22:34 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 12, 2018, 11:29:46 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 12, 2018, 10:20:14 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 12, 2018, 08:58:27 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 12, 2018, 06:34:46 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 12, 2018, 03:13:21 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 12, 2018, 02:03:13 PM
What interchange project? The fantasy one that doesn't exist?
That's the point, the PTC is refusing to plan and build this interchange.
Why should they? The Turnpike is fine in this area. It's a straight run with no lights. It's the PennDOT road that has the problem.
PennDOT can't fix the problem without the partnership with PTC.
Both roads are Interstate highways. Interstate highways are part of a network and they need interchanges that directly connect them.
Should we go back to listing all the interstates in PA that aren't connected yet get completely ignored?
They are not ignored, I and others have commented on them many times. The FAct that some others aren't connected does not justify I-70 Breezewood not being connected.
They've been commented on...occasionally. And often while we're talking about Breezewood. The others don't have a 22 page thread - their combined mentions would barely fill up a page or two.
With the one exception of I-95/276, which has its own long thread.
Very true.
And 25% of that interchange has taken 35 years to be built...under a government mandate to be built.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 13, 2018, 06:22:34 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 12, 2018, 11:29:46 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 12, 2018, 10:20:14 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 12, 2018, 08:58:27 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 12, 2018, 06:34:46 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 12, 2018, 03:13:21 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 12, 2018, 02:03:13 PM
What interchange project? The fantasy one that doesn't exist?
That's the point, the PTC is refusing to plan and build this interchange.
Why should they? The Turnpike is fine in this area. It's a straight run with no lights. It's the PennDOT road that has the problem.
PennDOT can't fix the problem without the partnership with PTC.
Both roads are Interstate highways. Interstate highways are part of a network and they need interchanges that directly connect them.
Should we go back to listing all the interstates in PA that aren't connected yet get completely ignored?
They are not ignored, I and others have commented on them many times. The FAct that some others aren't connected does not justify I-70 Breezewood not being connected.
They've been commented on...occasionally. And often while we're talking about Breezewood. The others don't have a 22 page thread - their combined mentions would barely fill up a page or two.
Breezewood is the worst example, but discussing it is a proxy for the others.
One of the main reasons why the Breezewood discussion has so many posts, is because people like yourself keep it going by posting so many objecting and contrarian posts.
Quote from: Alps on February 13, 2018, 12:14:00 AM
Quote from: Rothman on February 12, 2018, 11:28:27 PM
I-81.
Done. :D
376@76 (west) technically a breezewood. Both ends of 99 are breezewoods. 80@476 is a unique case. 81@476 (southern - planned to be fixed). 78@476 (albeit all freeway to connect).
Meh. The only connection out of all of the missing ones that I find anywhere close to as annoying as Breezewood is I-81/I-76 in Carlisle.
Although I-78 to I-476 N sends you around all sorts of loops, at least you're moving.
I-80 to I-476? One light that you drive straight through? Meh.
I suppose I think of I-99 as just incomplete rather than the result of political nonsense.
And I-376 to I-76? Pffffffffffft. :D
Just saying the I-81 connections to the Penna Turnpike are the only other ones worth bothering with.
Quote from: Beltway on February 13, 2018, 07:15:41 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 13, 2018, 06:22:34 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 12, 2018, 11:29:46 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 12, 2018, 10:20:14 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 12, 2018, 08:58:27 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 12, 2018, 06:34:46 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 12, 2018, 03:13:21 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 12, 2018, 02:03:13 PM
What interchange project? The fantasy one that doesn't exist?
That's the point, the PTC is refusing to plan and build this interchange.
Why should they? The Turnpike is fine in this area. It's a straight run with no lights. It's the PennDOT road that has the problem.
PennDOT can't fix the problem without the partnership with PTC.
Both roads are Interstate highways. Interstate highways are part of a network and they need interchanges that directly connect them.
Should we go back to listing all the interstates in PA that aren't connected yet get completely ignored?
They are not ignored, I and others have commented on them many times. The FAct that some others aren't connected does not justify I-70 Breezewood not being connected.
They've been commented on...occasionally. And often while we're talking about Breezewood. The others don't have a 22 page thread - their combined mentions would barely fill up a page or two.
Breezewood is the worst example, but discussing it is a proxy for the others.
One of the main reasons why the Breezewood discussion has so many posts, is because people like yourself keep it going by posting so many objecting and contrarian posts.
So, no debate? Certain people have the one and only answer? Should someone have the final answer and then shut the thread down, God forbid we keep talking about it?
They're not so much objecting and contrarian, but rather pointing out the flaws of reasoning others make, especially when they come upon this phenomenon that has existed for 55 years or so.
Should it be a direct connection? Absolutely. There's no doubt about that, and one that technically I haven't argued against. My argument is that the feds aren't actually doing anything about it, yet people here act as if the feds should start cutting off funding for PA until it's fixed. For as much knowledge that gets passed around these boards, I've found a very strong and lengthy history of people not caring about how stuff actually works. The feds actually have to demand and approve these projects that they actually permitted in the first place. The feds aren't demanding it be fixed, so why should PA go thru the expense of fixing it when the people most directly affected don't want it fixed?
Quote from: Rothman on February 13, 2018, 08:25:01 AM
Meh. The only connection out of all of the missing ones that I find anywhere close to as annoying as Breezewood is I-81/I-76 in Carlisle.
The actual statement I made was listing all the interstates in PA that aren't connected yet get completely ignored. It had nothing to do with their degree of annoyance. For the most part, the degree of annoyance depends on how often one actually uses the interchange. If you don't use 476 to 80 all that often, not a big deal. If you use it every day, when heavy truck traffic requires a 2 or 3 cycle wait to go thru that one light, it's quite a bit more annoying.
Quote from: Beltway on February 12, 2018, 03:13:21 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 12, 2018, 02:03:13 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 12, 2018, 01:36:15 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 12, 2018, 09:47:41 AM
Quote from: CanesFan27 on February 12, 2018, 09:37:06 AM
That leaves the various political powers from state legislators to the Bedford County Commissioners as having the most influence.
The federal government could put a stop to it easily.
What sort of actual legal tools do they have? Do they have any legal power that would withstand a lawsuit if they tried to withhold any portion of PennDOT's federal funding?
As an aside why try to penalize PennDOT when it is the PTC that is refusing to participate in an interchange project? Since PTC is not federally funded they could not be penalized in that manner.
What interchange project? The fantasy one that doesn't exist?
That's the point, the PTC is refusing to plan and build this interchange.
For this to be the case they would have to be thinking about it. Do we even know if Breezewood crosses their minds as a problem? The 95 interchange will be completed because the feds want it to be, but Breezewood is rather insignificant in comparison. I'd be willing to believe that they don't even have alternatives because they never plan on doing anything about it.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 13, 2018, 08:29:27 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 13, 2018, 07:15:41 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 13, 2018, 06:22:34 AM
They've been commented on...occasionally. And often while we're talking about Breezewood. The others don't have a 22 page thread - their combined mentions would barely fill up a page or two.
Breezewood is the worst example, but discussing it is a proxy for the others.
One of the main reasons why the Breezewood discussion has so many posts, is because people like yourself keep it going by posting so many objecting and contrarian posts.
So, no debate? Certain people have the one and only answer? Should someone have the final answer and then shut the thread down, God forbid we keep talking about it?
They're not so much objecting and contrarian, but rather pointing out the flaws of reasoning others make, especially when they come upon this phenomenon that has existed for 55 years or so.
Should it be a direct connection? Absolutely. There's no doubt about that, and one that technically I haven't argued against. My argument is that the feds aren't actually doing anything about it, yet people here act as if the feds should start cutting off funding for PA until it's fixed. For as much knowledge that gets passed around these boards, I've found a very strong and lengthy history of people not caring about how stuff actually works. The feds actually have to demand and approve these projects that they actually permitted in the first place. The feds aren't demanding it be fixed, so why should PA go thru the expense of fixing it when the people most directly affected don't want it fixed?
You seem to stir various pots endlessly, and sometimes like above it is not even clear what you are trying to accomplish.
I have not suggested cutting off federal funds over this, I have questioned the legality of it in fact; and I am very much process-oriented in how to get things done. I have questioned whether the FHWA has any actual legal authority to force a state to build a project on a turnpike that does not receive federal funds.
I don't see how FHWA can force PTC to build this project so your argument is a strawman.
Quote from: Beltway on February 13, 2018, 10:43:25 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 13, 2018, 08:29:27 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 13, 2018, 07:15:41 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 13, 2018, 06:22:34 AM
They've been commented on...occasionally. And often while we're talking about Breezewood. The others don't have a 22 page thread - their combined mentions would barely fill up a page or two.
Breezewood is the worst example, but discussing it is a proxy for the others.
One of the main reasons why the Breezewood discussion has so many posts, is because people like yourself keep it going by posting so many objecting and contrarian posts.
So, no debate? Certain people have the one and only answer? Should someone have the final answer and then shut the thread down, God forbid we keep talking about it?
They're not so much objecting and contrarian, but rather pointing out the flaws of reasoning others make, especially when they come upon this phenomenon that has existed for 55 years or so.
Should it be a direct connection? Absolutely. There's no doubt about that, and one that technically I haven't argued against. My argument is that the feds aren't actually doing anything about it, yet people here act as if the feds should start cutting off funding for PA until it's fixed. For as much knowledge that gets passed around these boards, I've found a very strong and lengthy history of people not caring about how stuff actually works. The feds actually have to demand and approve these projects that they actually permitted in the first place. The feds aren't demanding it be fixed, so why should PA go thru the expense of fixing it when the people most directly affected don't want it fixed?
You seem to stir various pots endlessly, and sometimes like above it is not even clear what you are trying to accomplish.
I have not suggested cutting off federal funds over this, I have questioned the legality of it in fact; and I am very much process-oriented in how to get things done. I have questioned whether the FHWA has any actual legal authority to force a state to build a project on a turnpike that does not receive federal funds.
I don't see how FHWA can force PTC to build this project so your argument is a strawman.
I never said you specifically. You're taking this a bit personally if you think I did. But it has been mentioned several times by others that PA Funding should be cut off until a interchange is built.
Stirring the pot? Isn't that normally done by people that want change? How is explaining the status quo stirring the pot?
I can see the genisis of this thread evolving into something like the numerical/sequential exit numbering thread.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on February 13, 2018, 12:14:38 PM
I can see the genisis of this thread evolving into something like the numerical/sequential exit numbering thread.
I was just thinking the same thing. :-D
Quote from: empirestate on February 13, 2018, 12:55:26 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on February 13, 2018, 12:14:38 PM
I can see the genisis of this thread evolving into something like the numerical/sequential exit numbering thread.
I was just thinking the same thing. :-D
You and I will just watch this time :-P ;-)
What is the exit number?
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on February 13, 2018, 12:14:38 PM
I can see the genisis of this thread evolving into something like the numerical/sequential exit numbering thread.
There are just some topics that devolve into a roadgeek version of a holy war.
With the current focus on improving "Infrastructure", a transformation to the Breezewood situation would be for a private entity to build EZ Pass only ramps directly connecting I-70 with the Turnpike. They could maintain their own tolling equipment or perhaps enter into an agreement with the Turnpike to add their toll, as a surcharge, onto the Turnpike's there.
This could be a way for this project to get the high priority it deserves rather than languishing as it is now and has been for decades.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on February 13, 2018, 02:23:04 PM
With the current focus on improving "Infrastructure", a transformation to the Breezewood situation would be for a private entity to build EZ Pass only ramps directly connecting I-70 with the Turnpike. They could maintain their own tolling equipment or perhaps enter into an agreement with the Turnpike to add their toll, as a surcharge, onto the Turnpike's there.
This could be a way for this project to get the high priority it deserves rather than languishing as it is now and has been for decades.
The state would need to have enabling legislation to allow the formulation of a public-private partnership for such a project. Environmental impact studies would need to be undertaken. The state would need to acquire the needed right-of-way for the ramps.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 13, 2018, 11:00:05 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 13, 2018, 10:43:25 AM
You seem to stir various pots endlessly, and sometimes like above it is not even clear what you are trying to accomplish.
I have not suggested cutting off federal funds over this, I have questioned the legality of it in fact; and I am very much process-oriented in how to get things done. I have questioned whether the FHWA has any actual legal authority to force a state to build a project on a turnpike that does not receive federal funds.
I don't see how FHWA can force PTC to build this project so your argument is a strawman.
I never said you specifically. You're taking this a bit personally if you think I did. But it has been mentioned several times by others that PA Funding should be cut off until a interchange is built.
And I have responded to them a number of times, asking anyone who wants to answer what if any mechanism does FHWA have available to withhold funds if a state won't build a particular project.
Quote from: Beltway on February 13, 2018, 10:43:25 AM
Stirring the pot? Isn't that normally done by people that want change? How is explaining the status quo stirring the pot?
In what ways have you been "explaining the status quo"? Ladling chum onto the waters doesn't do that.
Just think about a piece of Americana that will be destroyed if Breezewood is bypassed. How much longer will this go on?
I-69 has a Breezewood in Kentucky but they are trying to get rid of it.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on February 13, 2018, 03:39:13 PM
Just think about a piece of Americana that will be destroyed if Breezewood is bypassed. How much longer will this go on?
I-69 has a Breezewood in Kentucky but they are trying to get rid of it.
I'm perplexed about the first statement/question; is A-71 trying to be ironic, or is Breezewood being equated with a historical monument? If so, put up a fucking museum along that little stretch of US 30 along with some direct ramps bypassing the place; the museum can celebrate 40 years of politically motivated B.S. If honoring Americana constitutes a "forced march" down a city street in the middle of a transcontinental Interstate -- just so some folks can flip a center finger at the driving public -- then that segment of history has indeed entered the Twilight Zone!
And the "Kentucky Breezewood" (obviously Henderson)
will be bypassed, despite any display of curmudgeony!
Quote from: sparker on February 13, 2018, 05:15:38 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on February 13, 2018, 03:39:13 PM
Just think about a piece of Americana that will be destroyed if Breezewood is bypassed. How much longer will this go on?
I-69 has a Breezewood in Kentucky but they are trying to get rid of it.
I'm perplexed about the first statement/question; is A-71 trying to be ironic, or is Breezewood being equated with a historical monument? If so, put up a fucking museum along that little stretch of US 30 along with some direct ramps bypassing the place; the museum can celebrate 40 years of politically motivated B.S. If honoring Americana constitutes a "forced march" down a city street in the middle of a transcontinental Interstate -- just so some folks can flip a center finger at the driving public -- then that segment of history has indeed entered the Twilight Zone!
And the "Kentucky Breezewood" (obviously Henderson) will be bypassed, despite any display of curmudgeony!
<slo raises his Bud Lite> Dilly Dilly!
1. There is no A-71. It's A-73 and the next one down is A-50. Any talk of Q-175 becoming A-75 is long dead.
2. Please stop arguing. If the thread is over let it die. I think everything has been said.
Quote from: webny99 on February 13, 2018, 01:02:20 PM
Quote from: empirestate on February 13, 2018, 12:55:26 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on February 13, 2018, 12:14:38 PM
I can see the genisis of this thread evolving into something like the numerical/sequential exit numbering thread.
I was just thinking the same thing. :-D
You and I will just watch this time :-P ;-)
Oh yeah, been watching this one for years. And my view on the subject is similar, though not exactly the same. :-)
Quote from: Alps on February 14, 2018, 12:03:59 AM
2. Please stop arguing. If the thread is over let it die. I think everything has been said.
I have the feeling that in 50 years, people will still be
arguing about passionately discussing Breezewood if a direct connection has not yet been built.
Quote from: hbelkins on February 14, 2018, 10:53:08 AM
Quote from: Alps on February 14, 2018, 12:03:59 AM
2. Please stop arguing. If the thread is over let it die. I think everything has been said.
I have the feeling that in 50 years, people will still be arguing about passionately discussing Breezewood if a direct connection has not yet been built.
Like various issues, it has it's peaks and valleys. Whenever something significant happens it'll get a little publicity, or whenever a journalist trying to market themselves puts out an article on a clickbait website "You won't believe what happens to this Interstate!" it'll get noticed, but it goes away fairly quickly.
Those people that are the target of such stories have learned not to comment, because, as you saw on Page 22, comments lead to further comments, discussion, and accusations. When the story can't get fuel, it becomes lost when tomorrow, "20 reasons why Tomatoes are hazardous to your Health. You won't believe #6!" becomes the headline of the day.
Quote from: hbelkins on February 14, 2018, 10:53:08 AM
Quote from: Alps on February 14, 2018, 12:03:59 AM
2. Please stop arguing. If the thread is over let it die. I think everything has been said.
I have the feeling that in 50 years, people will still be arguing about passionately discussing Breezewood if a direct connection has not yet been built.
We may have flying cars by then.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on February 14, 2018, 02:13:06 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 14, 2018, 10:53:08 AM
Quote from: Alps on February 14, 2018, 12:03:59 AM
2. Please stop arguing. If the thread is over let it die. I think everything has been said.
I have the feeling that in 50 years, people will still be arguing about passionately discussing Breezewood if a direct connection has not yet been built.
We may have flying cars by then.
More likely, an app for whatever replaces smartphones that allows teleporting to the coordinates that you type in (provided that it's both a public area and a flat surface).
Yeah -- this thread has sporadically lapsed into a pale imitation of Monty Python's "Argument Clinic"!
"I told you once....."
"No, you didn't."
"I most certainly did!"
......and so on and so forth.
"An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition."
"No it isn't!"
I'm sorry; is this a five minute argument, or the full half hour?
Quote from: hbelkins on February 14, 2018, 10:53:08 AM
Quote from: Alps on February 14, 2018, 12:03:59 AM
2. Please stop arguing. If the thread is over let it die. I think everything has been said.
I have the feeling that in 50 years, people will still be arguing about passionately discussing Breezewood if a direct connection has not yet been built.
The reason it keeps going here, is because of some posters who seem to use various arguments against building the connection. The posters in favor respond to those arguments.
"I could be arguing on my own time."
"Ahhh...........I've had enough."
"No, you haven't."
"Oh, shut up!"
First heard this in college back about '69 or so. Never gets old!
The direct connexion should be built as a P3. Neither the PTC nor PENNDOT seem interested in it so they should farm it out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on February 15, 2018, 10:02:21 PM
The direct connexion should be built as a P3. Neither the PTC nor PENNDOT seem interested in it so they should farm it out.
I mean, drivers on the road could use some fresh farm made food instead of eating fatty fast food.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on February 16, 2018, 10:50:07 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on February 15, 2018, 10:02:21 PM
The direct connexion should be built as a P3. Neither the PTC nor PENNDOT seem interested in it so they should farm it out.
I mean, drivers on the road could use some fresh farm made food instead of eating fatty fast food.
However, the single (and those functionally so) male drivers might well be eating strip-club food on their sojourns through beautiful downtown Breezewood. IIRC from misspent youth, that means fried chicken wings and self-bake pizza; both of which fit neatly into the latter category above.
Quote from: sparker on February 13, 2018, 05:15:38 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on February 13, 2018, 03:39:13 PM
Just think about a piece of Americana that will be destroyed if Breezewood is bypassed. How much longer will this go on?
I-69 has a Breezewood in Kentucky but they are trying to get rid of it.
I'm perplexed about the first statement/question; is A-71 trying to be ironic, or is Breezewood being equated with a historical monument? If so, put up a fucking museum along that little stretch of US 30 along with some direct ramps bypassing the place; the museum can celebrate 40 years of politically motivated B.S. If honoring Americana constitutes a "forced march" down a city street in the middle of a transcontinental Interstate -- just so some folks can flip a center finger at the driving public -- then that segment of history has indeed entered the Twilight Zone!
And the "Kentucky Breezewood" (obviously Henderson) will be bypassed, despite any display of curmudgeony!
Let me clarify something here: An ancient bell that hasn't rung since the 1830s, but was rung at the time of this country's founding is a "piece of America." A statue of a founder of a colony is a "piece of America." A town that has a section of a transcontinental interstate highway running along surface streets is not. There are things that are part of this country's history and fabric that are worth preserving; a town that has a major highway running through a stoplight just to attract visitors isn't really one of them. Clear?
Quote from: theroadwayone on February 21, 2018, 04:38:26 PM
Quote from: sparker on February 13, 2018, 05:15:38 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on February 13, 2018, 03:39:13 PM
Just think about a piece of Americana that will be destroyed if Breezewood is bypassed. How much longer will this go on?
I-69 has a Breezewood in Kentucky but they are trying to get rid of it.
I'm perplexed about the first statement/question; is A-71 trying to be ironic, or is Breezewood being equated with a historical monument? If so, put up a fucking museum along that little stretch of US 30 along with some direct ramps bypassing the place; the museum can celebrate 40 years of politically motivated B.S. If honoring Americana constitutes a "forced march" down a city street in the middle of a transcontinental Interstate -- just so some folks can flip a center finger at the driving public -- then that segment of history has indeed entered the Twilight Zone!
And the "Kentucky Breezewood" (obviously Henderson) will be bypassed, despite any display of curmudgeony!
Let me clarify something here: An ancient bell that hasn't rung since the 1830s, but was rung at the time of this country's founding is a "piece of America." A statue of a founder of a colony is a "piece of America." A town that has a section of a transcontinental interstate highway running along surface streets is not. There are things that are part of this country's history and fabric that are worth preserving; a town that has a major highway running through a stoplight just to attract visitors isn't really one of them. Clear?
Actually, no, not clear...because the quote should have been "piece of America
na". Different thing.
Quote from: empirestate on February 21, 2018, 07:35:05 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on February 21, 2018, 04:38:26 PM
Quote from: sparker on February 13, 2018, 05:15:38 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on February 13, 2018, 03:39:13 PM
Just think about a piece of Americana that will be destroyed if Breezewood is bypassed. How much longer will this go on?
I-69 has a Breezewood in Kentucky but they are trying to get rid of it.
I'm perplexed about the first statement/question; is A-71 trying to be ironic, or is Breezewood being equated with a historical monument? If so, put up a fucking museum along that little stretch of US 30 along with some direct ramps bypassing the place; the museum can celebrate 40 years of politically motivated B.S. If honoring Americana constitutes a "forced march" down a city street in the middle of a transcontinental Interstate -- just so some folks can flip a center finger at the driving public -- then that segment of history has indeed entered the Twilight Zone!
And the "Kentucky Breezewood" (obviously Henderson) will be bypassed, despite any display of curmudgeony!
Let me clarify something here: An ancient bell that hasn't rung since the 1830s, but was rung at the time of this country's founding is a "piece of America." A statue of a founder of a colony is a "piece of America." A town that has a section of a transcontinental interstate highway running along surface streets is not. There are things that are part of this country's history and fabric that are worth preserving; a town that has a major highway running through a stoplight just to attract visitors isn't really one of them. Clear?
Actually, no, not clear...because the quote should have been "piece of Americana". Different thing.
Oh, well that makes all the difference in the world. :meh:
Quote from: qguy on February 21, 2018, 10:41:51 PM
Quote from: empirestate on February 21, 2018, 07:35:05 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on February 21, 2018, 04:38:26 PM
Quote from: sparker on February 13, 2018, 05:15:38 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on February 13, 2018, 03:39:13 PM
Just think about a piece of Americana that will be destroyed if Breezewood is bypassed. How much longer will this go on?
I-69 has a Breezewood in Kentucky but they are trying to get rid of it.
I'm perplexed about the first statement/question; is A-71 trying to be ironic, or is Breezewood being equated with a historical monument? If so, put up a fucking museum along that little stretch of US 30 along with some direct ramps bypassing the place; the museum can celebrate 40 years of politically motivated B.S. If honoring Americana constitutes a "forced march" down a city street in the middle of a transcontinental Interstate -- just so some folks can flip a center finger at the driving public -- then that segment of history has indeed entered the Twilight Zone!
And the "Kentucky Breezewood" (obviously Henderson) will be bypassed, despite any display of curmudgeony!
Let me clarify something here: An ancient bell that hasn't rung since the 1830s, but was rung at the time of this country's founding is a "piece of America." A statue of a founder of a colony is a "piece of America." A town that has a section of a transcontinental interstate highway running along surface streets is not. There are things that are part of this country's history and fabric that are worth preserving; a town that has a major highway running through a stoplight just to attract visitors isn't really one of them. Clear?
Actually, no, not clear...because the quote should have been "piece of Americana". Different thing.
Oh, well that makes all the difference in the world. :meh:
Well, that's what you guys will have to figure out. ;-)
The Henderson KY pit stop is a living piece of yesteryear. The city is still situated on the route between Chicago and Nashville. The route serves a reminder of the country and it is ashamed that it will be bypassed.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on February 22, 2018, 01:34:18 PM
The Henderson KY pit stop is a living piece of yesteryear. The city is still situated on the route between Chicago and Nashville. The route serves a reminder of the country and it is ashamed that it will be bypassed.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on February 22, 2018, 01:34:18 PM
The Henderson KY pit stop is a living piece of yesteryear. The city is still situated on the route between Chicago and Nashville. The route serves a reminder of the country and it is ashamed that it will be bypassed.
Wait, what?
I wonder how our forefathers got to Chicago from Nashville? Interstate 65?
I know when Interstate 69 comes through town, decimating the local, homegrown Applebee's, the comfortable yet sleazy Economy Inn & Suites, the already-abandoned K-Mart, what remains of Shoney's, and the omni McWenby Hut - I'll shed a tear.
Quote from: seicer on February 22, 2018, 03:35:21 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on February 22, 2018, 01:34:18 PM
The Henderson KY pit stop is a living piece of yesteryear. The city is still situated on the route between Chicago and Nashville. The route serves a reminder of the country and it is ashamed that it will be bypassed.
Wait, what?
I wonder how our forefathers got to Chicago from Nashville? Interstate 65?
I know when Interstate 69 comes through town, decimating the local, homegrown Applebee's, the comfortable yet sleazy Economy Inn & Suites, the already-abandoned K-Mart, what remains of Shoney's, and the omni McWenby Hut - I'll shed a tear.
Wow -- a
route that's capable of feeling shame! I guess AI has gotten really out of control! Just hope I-69 can control its urges! But I used to like Shoney's for breakfast when on my various cross-country trips in the '80's and '90's -- scarf down enough food so you don't have to stop until dinner time; sorry they're amidst hard times these days. Oh well, there's always Waffle House!
Quote from: sparker on February 22, 2018, 04:15:17 PM
Quote from: seicer on February 22, 2018, 03:35:21 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on February 22, 2018, 01:34:18 PM
The Henderson KY pit stop is a living piece of yesteryear. The city is still situated on the route between Chicago and Nashville. The route serves a reminder of the country and it is ashamed that it will be bypassed.
Wait, what?
I wonder how our forefathers got to Chicago from Nashville? Interstate 65?
I know when Interstate 69 comes through town, decimating the local, homegrown Applebee's, the comfortable yet sleazy Economy Inn & Suites, the already-abandoned K-Mart, what remains of Shoney's, and the omni McWenby Hut - I'll shed a tear.
Wow -- a route that's capable of feeling shame! I guess AI has gotten really out of control! Just hope I-69 can control its urges! But I used to like Shoney's for breakfast when on my various cross-country trips in the '80's and '90's -- scarf down enough food so you don't have to stop until dinner time; sorry they're amidst hard times these days. Oh well, there's always Waffle House!
:-D :clap:
Quote from: 1 on October 03, 2017, 06:32:49 AM
If we stop talking about it entirely, the people who join in 2018, 2019, etc. won't know about it.
Except for those who do already know about it because they have been there.
If there is a direct interchange built between I-70 and the turnpike, will we stop talking about Breezewood?
Quote from: theroadwayone on June 27, 2018, 09:14:04 PM
If there is a direct interchange built between I-70 and the turnpike, will we stop talking about Breezewood?
No, because what gets built will be either falling apart or of inadequate capacity within 10-15 years and we'll all be calling it Breezewood for simplicity's sake.
Quote from: theroadwayone on June 27, 2018, 09:14:04 PM
If there is a direct interchange built between I-70 and the turnpike, will we stop talking about Breezewood?
And since we're on this sort of meta-subject, what was the last major undiscussed topic in the roadgeek community?
Quote from: empirestate on June 28, 2018, 11:41:36 AM
Quote from: theroadwayone on June 27, 2018, 09:14:04 PM
If there is a direct interchange built between I-70 and the turnpike, will we stop talking about Breezewood?
And since we're on this sort of meta-subject, what was the last major undiscussed topic in the roadgeek community?
Do you mean "undiscussed currently" or "undiscussed by the general public"?
If you mean "undiscussed currently", probably the removal of call boxes.
Quote from: 1 on June 28, 2018, 11:46:44 AM
Do you mean "undiscussed currently" or "undiscussed by the general public"?
If you mean "undiscussed currently", probably the removal of call boxes.
Did they start removing them on the PA Turnpike (haven't been on it in a few months)? I always remember signs posted saying that there are "call boxes every mile" on that road.
I drove from Valley Forge to Ohio earlier this month and I don't recall seeing any.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on June 28, 2018, 12:16:36 PM
I drove from Valley Forge to Ohio earlier this month and I don't recall seeing any.
If you're answering my question, the sign was usually at the entrance to the turnpike. The one below is at Interchange 105's southbound entrance on the Northeast Extension.
(https://cdn.pbrd.co/images/Hs2n3T6.png)
Quote from: 1 on June 28, 2018, 11:46:44 AM
Quote from: empirestate on June 28, 2018, 11:41:36 AM
Quote from: theroadwayone on June 27, 2018, 09:14:04 PM
If there is a direct interchange built between I-70 and the turnpike, will we stop talking about Breezewood?
And since we're on this sort of meta-subject, what was the last major undiscussed topic in the roadgeek community?
Do you mean "undiscussed currently" or "undiscussed by the general public"?
Neither. I mean which of the major topic areas of our hobby was the last one to be discovered by us in our online presence?
For example, years ago somebody went poking around the brand-new Internet, just to see if anyone else out there was interested in roads and interchanges. Finding some who were, that somebody then probably posted to a newsgroup or some such, asking if the others were aware of this oddity in Pennsylvania called Breezewood, and what's the deal with it? From that moment, it entered the canon of our online consciousness, and was at varying times joined by other core subjects like I-99, I-238, mile-based numbering, button copy, the discontinuity of I-95, and the like.
So when was the last "core subject" added to our knowledge base (not counting things that were added because they had only just come into being)?
Quote from: ipeters61 on June 28, 2018, 12:04:35 PM
Quote from: 1 on June 28, 2018, 11:46:44 AM
Do you mean "undiscussed currently" or "undiscussed by the general public"?
If you mean "undiscussed currently", probably the removal of call boxes.
Did they start removing them on the PA Turnpike (haven't been on it in a few months)? I always remember signs posted saying that there are "call boxes every mile" on that road.
The call boxes and all related signage were removed with the swiftness people wish they would finish expansion/connection projects. They have been gone from mainline and the Extension for at least a few months.
With all the controversy going on around Breezewood, let us not forget that after the 24th of this month, it will be #1 on the list of notorious interstate gaps.
Quote from: theroadwayone on September 12, 2018, 02:45:00 AM
With all the controversy going on around Breezewood, let us not forget that after the 24th of this month, it will be #1 on the list of notorious interstate gaps.
It is probably #1 now, given that I-70 there is on single routing.
Quote from: theroadwayone on September 12, 2018, 02:45:00 AM
With all the controversy going on around Breezewood, let us not forget that after the 24th of this month, it will be #1 on the list of notorious interstate gaps.
The "controversy" mostly begins and ends with this group. Unlike the I-95 gap, I-70 is continuous...just with a few traffic lights and driveways. Many drivers don't even notice the problem, and actually like the break!
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 12, 2018, 08:39:11 AM
Quote from: theroadwayone on September 12, 2018, 02:45:00 AM
With all the controversy going on around Breezewood, let us not forget that after the 24th of this month, it will be #1 on the list of notorious interstate gaps.
The "controversy" mostly begins and ends with this group. Unlike the I-95 gap, I-70 is continuous...just with a few traffic lights and driveways. Many drivers don't even notice the problem, and actually like the break!
I highly doubt that. I'm sure a very sizable amount of drivers scratch their head a few times at this. It obviously isn't that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things, but that doesn't mean this shouldn't be fixed.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 12, 2018, 08:47:22 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 12, 2018, 08:39:11 AM
Quote from: theroadwayone on September 12, 2018, 02:45:00 AM
With all the controversy going on around Breezewood, let us not forget that after the 24th of this month, it will be #1 on the list of notorious interstate gaps.
The "controversy" mostly begins and ends with this group. Unlike the I-95 gap, I-70 is continuous...just with a few traffic lights and driveways. Many drivers don't even notice the problem, and actually like the break!
I highly doubt that. I’m sure a very sizable amount of drivers scratch their head a few times at this. It obviously isn’t that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things, but that doesn’t mean this shouldn’t be fixed.
Didn't say it shouldn't be fixed. I said it's not as controversial to the general public as it is on these forums.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 12, 2018, 08:39:11 AM
The "controversy" mostly begins and ends with this group. Unlike the I-95 gap, I-70 is continuous...just with a few traffic lights and driveways.
I-70 is NOT continuous. US-30 is a nonlimited-access highway, an arterial, not a freeway, not an Interstate highway.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 12, 2018, 08:39:11 AM
Many drivers don't even notice the problem, and actually like the break!
How do you know that "many drivers" feel that way? How many is "many"?
Quote from: Beltway on September 12, 2018, 09:25:14 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 12, 2018, 08:39:11 AM
The "controversy" mostly begins and ends with this group. Unlike the I-95 gap, I-70 is continuous...just with a few traffic lights and driveways.
I-70 is NOT continuous. US-30 is a nonlimited-access highway, an arterial, not a freeway, not an Interstate highway.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 12, 2018, 08:39:11 AM
Many drivers don't even notice the problem, and actually like the break!
How do you know that "many drivers" feel that way? How many is "many"?
On the other hand, please site the controversy, other than the occasional news article written about this unusual break in the interstate system.
Of the controversies out there involving the interstate highway system, anything dealing with traffic lights usually doesn't register. Philly has I-676 and NJ has I-78, and there's been a handful of others throughout the years that exist and/or have been fixed, but none have created the ire of, say, downtown interstate highways that certain groups want removed completely.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 12, 2018, 09:35:17 AM
On the other hand, please site the controversy, other than the occasional news article written about this unusual break in the interstate system.
An internet search reveals page after page of articles about it, including a number of major newspapers, some going back many years. Widely theorized is that local politicos have done what they can to block the connection, to enrich the coffers of businesses there. Of course the PTC historically has been very slow to connect other freeways and Interstates to the Turnpike.
Even the Pennsylvania General Assembly has tried and failed to get the PTC to move on this --
Senate Resolution 109; Regular Session 1989-1990
Sponsors: DAWIDA, BELAN and LYNCH
Printer's No.(PN): 1607*
Short Title:
A Resolution urging the Department of Transportation and the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission to conduct a study of unconnected turnpike interchanges, with particular concern to the I-70 intersection at Breezewood, Pennsylvania, to insure maximum public safety and convenience.
Actions: Referred to TRANSPORTATION, Oct. 11, 1989
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/billInfo/bill_history.cfm?syear=1989&sind=0&body=S&type=R&bn=109
And 20 years later, not even a design to fix it!
These are the same agencies that took 35+ years to build 1/4th of the I-95/PA Turnpike connection which they were federally mandated to do!
^ Dawida's resolution never made it out of committee.
Brian is correct and he only did it because he got in a wreck. Now that I'm settled in our new home etc. I'll get back to work on the Breezewood article I was working on before we started the whole move and change job process.
Quote from: briantroutman on September 12, 2018, 10:59:54 AM
^ Dawida's resolution never made it out of committee.
It is not a bill, it is a resolution. Meaning not "we legislate that you do this", but "Attention! This is important! The General Assembly wants you to do this!". Still online almost 30 years later.
^^^^^^^
And if an unbinding resolution for a general study can't even get out of committee, that is a definite sign that the "fix is in" regarding Breezewood (as well as its brethren up and down the turnpike). It's sort of a "hot potato" that has been passed back and forth enough times that it's lost its heat -- the Feds are saying "we can't do anything about this" and the PTC and their political handlers follow with "we're not going to do anything about this". And everyone dines on cold potato salad except for the travelers who stop at Mickey D's or another of the outlets along that golden-goose stretch of US 30. :ded:
Quote from: sparker on September 12, 2018, 06:28:41 PM
^^^^^^^
And if an unbinding resolution for a general study can't even get out of committee, that is a definite sign that the "fix is in" regarding Breezewood (as well as its brethren up and down the turnpike). It's sort of a "hot potato" that has been passed back and forth enough times that it's lost its heat -- the Feds are saying "we can't do anything about this" and the PTC and their political handlers follow with "we're not going to do anything about this". And everyone dines on cold potato salad except for the travelers who stop at Mickey D's or another of the outlets along that golden-goose stretch of US 30. :ded:
Why won't the feds help? Because of the tollway?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 12, 2018, 07:18:15 PM
Quote from: sparker on September 12, 2018, 06:28:41 PM
^^^^^^^
And if an unbinding resolution for a general study can't even get out of committee, that is a definite sign that the "fix is in" regarding Breezewood (as well as its brethren up and down the turnpike). It's sort of a "hot potato" that has been passed back and forth enough times that it's lost its heat -- the Feds are saying "we can't do anything about this" and the PTC and their political handlers follow with "we're not going to do anything about this". And everyone dines on cold potato salad except for the travelers who stop at Mickey D's or another of the outlets along that golden-goose stretch of US 30. :ded:
Why won't the feds help? Because of the tollway?
Short answer:
yes. Complex arrangement re funding of toll roads "grandfathered" into the Interstate system and who paid for connections to those (particularly in pre-OTR times, when structures for collecting tolls were needed at the entrances and exits of the various pikes, and were owned by the agency operating the turnpike). Avoidance of Interstate funds being spent on facilities being so self-funded was written into the original '56 authorizing legislation; this has over the years led to convoluted connection arrangements (the dual-trumpet connection between I-94 and the ITR east of Gary that carries I-80 traffic is one of the "poster children" for this phenomenon) and, in the case of PA, lack of actual direct connection between the "free" Interstate network and the PA Tpk. Of course, Breezewood, as an interruption of I-70, is by far the most notable of these -- but the lack of direct connections at Carlisle (I-81) and Bedford (I-99) have been subjects of discussion and derision as well. But others (I-79, I-176) have been "fixed" over the years, so there
is precedent for action -- it's just getting the "ducks in a row" regarding PA politics that seems to be the deciding factor. And in the case of Breezewood (and to a lesser extent Carlisle & Bedford) there's a definite economic "ox" that would be "gored" by implementing a direct connection -- the "golden goose" of roadside businesses with what is effectively a "quasi-captive clientele" as mentioned in my previous post. These folks quite clearly prefer to remain in their position of taking advantage of the
"as long as we have to stop, we may as well get some food/snacks/fuel right here!" traveler sentiment. That was instilled a half-century ago; it's not going to go away easily; it's embedded in the political reality of the situation.
I-70 is continuous through Breezewood as a legislated Interstate. Let's get that straight. So that means technically it is not a gap. I-99 at I-80 is technically a gap, since I-99 ends south of the PA 26 interchange. So if we're going to focus on gaps in Pennsylvania, that is the next one.
Quote from: Alps on September 12, 2018, 08:40:19 PM
I-70 is continuous through Breezewood as a legislated Interstate. Let's get that straight. So that means technically it is not a gap.
I would be interesting in seeing the legislation. Because from a highway engineering and traffic engineering standpoint, that segment of US-30 is not an Interstate or even a limited access highway.
Quote from: Beltway on September 12, 2018, 09:15:58 PM
Quote from: Alps on September 12, 2018, 08:40:19 PM
I-70 is continuous through Breezewood as a legislated Interstate. Let's get that straight. So that means technically it is not a gap.
I would be interesting in seeing the legislation. Because from a highway engineering and traffic engineering standpoint, that segment of US-30 is not an Interstate or even a limited access highway.
Neither is I-180 WY or I-78 NJ. Or (almost) anything in Alaska or Puerto Rico. Hence the legislation.
Quote from: Alps on September 12, 2018, 10:09:49 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 12, 2018, 09:15:58 PM
Quote from: Alps on September 12, 2018, 08:40:19 PM
I-70 is continuous through Breezewood as a legislated Interstate. Let's get that straight. So that means technically it is not a gap.
I would be interesting in seeing the legislation. Because from a highway engineering and traffic engineering standpoint, that segment of US-30 is not an Interstate or even a limited access highway.
Neither is I-180 WY or I-78 NJ. Or (almost) anything in Alaska or Puerto Rico. Hence the legislation.
Those are logical, possibly. WY I-180 is an urban spur, I-78 ends in surface streets within a mile of that point, Puerto Rico has a freeway network that (by PA standards) could have those highway posted as Interstate routes, and Alaska's long distance highways are nearly all adequate as nonlimited-access 2-lane highways.
^^^^^^^
It may not be a "gap" as far as the technical aspects of the legislation are concerned, but it is an unfinished Interstate as far as the technical aspects of Interstate facility standards are concerned. Question? Does the segment of US 30 over which the continuous movement of I-70 satisfy Interstate standards? Answer: of course not. And it doesn't matter if there are other exceptions to this; I-180/WY is a spur; the substandard nature of which does not disrupt the continuity of the system. And the "NJ 139" section of I-78 is, while technically an interruption, is just an interim obstacle in the inevitable end of that route at the outlet of a tunnel in another state; I-78 doesn't connect to anything in NY; system connectivity isn't affected. But I-70 east of Breezewood does connect to other parts of the network -- the only appropriate way to treat the situation is as an uncompleted Interstate facility, albeit one with a longstanding temporary connection.
Quote from: sparker on September 12, 2018, 10:29:10 PM
^^^^^^^
It may not be a "gap" as far as the technical aspects of the legislation are concerned, but it is an unfinished Interstate as far as the technical aspects of Interstate facility standards are concerned. Question? Does the segment of US 30 over which the continuous movement of I-70 satisfy Interstate standards? Answer: of course not. And it doesn't matter if there are other exceptions to this; I-180/WY is a spur; the substandard nature of which does not disrupt the continuity of the system. And the "NJ 139" section of I-78 is, while technically an interruption, is just an interim obstacle in the inevitable end of that route at the outlet of a tunnel in another state; I-78 doesn't connect to anything in NY; system connectivity isn't affected. But I-70 east of Breezewood does connect to other parts of the network -- the only appropriate way to treat the situation is as an uncompleted Interstate facility, albeit one with a longstanding temporary connection.
I-78 did connect to I-478 before the latter collapsed.
Quote from: Alps on September 12, 2018, 11:44:32 PM
I-78 did connect to I-478 before the latter collapsed.
Was the West Side Highway designated and signed as I-478?
Quote from: Beltway on September 12, 2018, 11:48:26 PM
Quote from: Alps on September 12, 2018, 11:44:32 PM
I-78 did connect to I-478 before the latter collapsed.
Was the West Side Highway designated and signed as I-478?
Designated. I wasn't alive for the rest.
Quote from: Alps on September 13, 2018, 12:46:18 AM
Quote from: Beltway on September 12, 2018, 11:48:26 PM
Quote from: Alps on September 12, 2018, 11:44:32 PM
I-78 did connect to I-478 before the latter collapsed.
Was the West Side Highway designated and signed as I-478?
Designated. I wasn't alive for the rest.
I-78 wasn't completed until well after the West Side Highway closed in 1973.
The section between Scotch Plains and Springfield was completed in August 1986.
The final segment connecting PA and NJ was completed in November 1989.
^^^^^^^^
Since the Holland Tunnel actually surfaces on Hudson St. (EB) and Broome (WB), each a few blocks inland from the West Side Highway, there was actually no connection at any time between it (I-78) and anything occupying the West Side Highway alignment that didn't require slogging over city streets. In other words, even before the West Side expressway was removed, there wasn't a direct connection between it (at that time I-478 though likely unsigned) and the I-78/Holland tunnel -- at best it was its own "Breezewood". Any planned connection was probably cancelled along with the rest of the cross-Manhattan freeways back in the '70's.
Back in the '80's Manhattan -- particularly Sotheby's up on 72nd and York -- was a regular stop; not being a spendthrift I normally stayed in a Red Roof over in Edison, NJ; so getting out of Manhattan via the Holland Tunnel was a regular part of my routine there. If there had been a direct connection between the West Side and the tunnel I would have found it; instead, I essentially ended up schlepping through the Village en route to the tunnel. I like to drive -- but Manhattan is not one of my favorite places to do so; if I could get on & off the island without incident I considered it a minor victory! So trust me on this one -- at least between 1982 and 2001 there was no direct access between the West Side Highway and the Holland Tunnel!
My first trip thru the Holland Tunnel was on a family trip to near Orient Point, NY, in summer 1964, as that was on the preferred route between southern NJ and Long Island, the Verrazano Bridge was not open until later that year. So we would have passed near the West Side Highway but I don't remember anything about it. I do remember the NYC skyline and the Empire State Building (no WTC then), but back then I was too young to drive and have few highway memories. First time I myself drove to NYC was in 1975 and by then the West Side Highway was closed.
Quote from: sparker on September 13, 2018, 05:26:07 AM
^^^^^^^^
Since the Holland Tunnel actually surfaces on Hudson St. (EB) and Broome (WB), each a few blocks inland from the West Side Highway, there was actually no connection at any time between it (I-78) and anything occupying the West Side Highway alignment that didn't require slogging over city streets. In other words, even before the West Side expressway was removed, there wasn't a direct connection between it (at that time I-478 though likely unsigned) and the I-78/Holland tunnel -- at best it was its own "Breezewood". Any planned connection was probably cancelled along with the rest of the cross-Manhattan freeways back in the '70's.
Back in the '80's Manhattan -- particularly Sotheby's up on 72nd and York -- was a regular stop; not being a spendthrift I normally stayed in a Red Roof over in Edison, NJ; so getting out of Manhattan via the Holland Tunnel was a regular part of my routine there. If there had been a direct connection between the West Side and the tunnel I would have found it; instead, I essentially ended up schlepping through the Village en route to the tunnel. I like to drive -- but Manhattan is not one of my favorite places to do so; if I could get on & off the island without incident I considered it a minor victory! So trust me on this one -- at least between 1982 and 2001 there was no direct access between the West Side Highway and the Holland Tunnel!
Good point, it really was a Breezewood. Had I-78 been completed as planned, there would have been an interchange with WSH. It certainly was complete and designated from NJ 24 through the tunnel by the 60s but I'm not sure how much was signed until the full completion in 1986.
Quote from: Alps on September 13, 2018, 01:16:32 PM
Good point, it really was a Breezewood. Had I-78 been completed as planned, there would have been an interchange with WSH. It certainly was complete and designated from NJ 24 through the tunnel by the 60s but I'm not sure how much was signed until the full completion in 1986.
I for one think that Westway would have been very beneficial and worth the cost which would have been 90% FHWA funded
Quote from: Beltway on September 13, 2018, 01:36:55 PM
Quote from: Alps on September 13, 2018, 01:16:32 PM
Good point, it really was a Breezewood. Had I-78 been completed as planned, there would have been an interchange with WSH. It certainly was complete and designated from NJ 24 through the tunnel by the 60s but I'm not sure how much was signed until the full completion in 1986.
I for one think that Westway would have been very beneficial and worth the cost which would have been 90% FHWA funded
IIRC, the original Westway/I-478 plans extended north all the way to the Lincoln Tunnel, which would have received a direct connection as well (back in the days when it was still considered part of I-495).
CityLab: What Internet Memes Get Wrong About Breezewood, Pennsylvania -
A photo of a strip of fast-food outlets and gas stations is used to critique the sameness of the American landscape. But it could only be one place on Earth. (https://www.citylab.com/design/2019/07/breezewood-meme-pennsylvania-turnpike-i-70-rest-stop-photos/594559/)
QuoteIt's summer, and for hundreds of thousands of Americans, that means at least one burger-and-bathroom break in Breezewood, Pennsylvania. This half-mile gauntlet of gas stations, fast-food outlets, and motels, its oversized signs towering above the surrounding countryside, is familiar to anyone who has to drive regularly from the East Coast to the Midwest or vice versa.
QuoteAs the New York Times explained in 2017, Pennsylvania's "Gas Vegas" sprang up because of an obsolete law. Breezewood is a deliberately awkward transition between Interstate 70 and the Pennsylvania Turnpike, where they (almost) meet. Back in the 1950s, as I-70 was being built, a law prohibited spending federal funds to channel drivers directly from a free road to a toll road. The law was later overturned, but to comply with it, highway planners designed a looping interchange that lets drivers avoid the turnpike if they (hypothetically) want to. From this constant stream of slow-moving traffic, a mega-rest-stop was born.
Ugh. I have no love for that place.
I do not travel that way so Breezewood is not a place I patronize, but if I was hungry or tired I would not go to the extreme of ignoring it if I was on I-70, US 30, or the Pa Turnpike if I needed a place to eat or crash for the evening while at that point on either of those routes.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 31, 2019, 08:44:09 PM
I do not travel that way so Breezewood is not a place I patronize, but if I was hungry or tired I would not go to the extreme of ignoring it if I was on I-70, US 30, or the Pa Turnpike if I needed a place to eat or crash for the evening while at that point on either of those routes.
I have to drive through there sometimes. But no business in Breezewood gets any of my money.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 31, 2019, 09:15:35 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 31, 2019, 08:44:09 PM
I do not travel that way so Breezewood is not a place I patronize, but if I was hungry or tired I would not go to the extreme of ignoring it if I was on I-70, US 30, or the Pa Turnpike if I needed a place to eat or crash for the evening while at that point on either of those routes.
I have to drive through there sometimes. But no business in Breezewood gets any of my money.
You would be better off writing to the town council as I am sure if any of us boycott the town, none of them would feel the pinch!
When are they going to finally fix this? It is absolute insanity that this is allowed.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 31, 2019, 08:44:09 PM
You would be better off writing to the town council as I am sure if any of us boycott the town, none of them would feel the pinch!
Not part of any city or town.
Breezewood is in East Providence Township in Bedford County, Pennsylvania.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 31, 2019, 10:57:02 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 31, 2019, 08:44:09 PM
You would be better off writing to the town council as I am sure if any of us boycott the town, none of them would feel the pinch!
Not part of any city or town.
Breezewood is in East Providence Township in Bedford County, Pennsylvania.
IOW Breezewood is an unincorporated place.
ixnay
I can count on one hand the number of times I've been through Breezewood, too few for me to have a first hand opinion on it. One or two of those times I did stop to fuel up there.
ixnay
Quote from: ixnay on August 01, 2019, 08:26:47 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 31, 2019, 10:57:02 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 31, 2019, 08:44:09 PM
You would be better off writing to the town council as I am sure if any of us boycott the town, none of them would feel the pinch!
Not part of any city or town.
Breezewood is in East Providence Township in Bedford County, Pennsylvania.
IOW Breezewood is an unincorporated place.
ixnay
Technically yes as Breezewood doesn't goven itself, but it does lie within an incorporated municipality (as does every other parcel of land within the Commonwealth) so there is a government to complain to, the aforementioned East Providence Twp. You'd want to contact the commissioner who represents the ward Breezwood lies in which I'm sure the Breezewood business owners already have deep in their collective pockets.
And tell them what, exactly? That you refuse to shop there because you don't like the incomplete interchange? I'm sure they would put you in the scales against all the hundreds of people who do shop there every year precisely because there's an incomplete interchange, and I don't wonder what conclusion they would come to.
Quote from: kphoger on August 01, 2019, 03:22:42 PM
And tell them what, exactly? That you refuse to shop there because you don't like the incomplete interchange? I'm sure they would put you in the scales against all the hundreds of people who do shop there every year precisely because there's an incomplete interchange, and I don't wonder what conclusion they would come to.
The powers that be need to come together and build this fucking thing for betterment of society. Hours and gas lost, unnecessary emissions, preventable accidents, etc. all because horrible politics. I don't blame the business owners for trying to keep things the same. It's the government that allows it.
I just looked at this, and damn, I didn't expect the thread to get this long.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 31, 2019, 09:17:33 PM
You would be better off writing to the town council as I am sure if any of us boycott the town, none of them would feel the pinch!
The more assured way to go about it (though totally impractical) would be to move there to be able to actually vote.
As noted - impractical.
Quote from: Mr_Northside on August 02, 2019, 06:48:36 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 31, 2019, 09:17:33 PM
You would be better off writing to the town council as I am sure if any of us boycott the town, none of them would feel the pinch!
The more assured way to go about it (though totally impractical) would be to move there to be able to actually vote.
As noted - impractical.
Vote for what? A politician that would send a letter to the PTC saying that they should create a normal interchange there?
If you were to move there, you would probably be far away from your job. Or looking for work. Which means the very area that one would want bypassed would be their source of income.
Suddenly, now you want people stopping to visit the business you work at!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3768506/posts
ixnay
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 01, 2019, 08:22:45 PM
Quote from: kphoger on August 01, 2019, 03:22:42 PM
And tell them what, exactly? That you refuse to shop there because you don't like the incomplete interchange? I'm sure they would put you in the scales against all the hundreds of people who do shop there every year precisely because there's an incomplete interchange, and I don't wonder what conclusion they would come to.
The powers that be need to come together and build this fucking thing for betterment of society. Hours and gas lost, unnecessary emissions, preventable accidents, etc. all because horrible politics. I don't blame the business owners for trying to keep things the same. It's the government that allows it.
I'm pretty sure that the local politicians' view of "betterment of society" does not include causing their slice of society to lose business.
Quote from: kphoger on August 02, 2019, 02:43:36 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 01, 2019, 08:22:45 PM
Quote from: kphoger on August 01, 2019, 03:22:42 PM
And tell them what, exactly? That you refuse to shop there because you don't like the incomplete interchange? I'm sure they would put you in the scales against all the hundreds of people who do shop there every year precisely because there's an incomplete interchange, and I don't wonder what conclusion they would come to.
The powers that be need to come together and build this fucking thing for betterment of society. Hours and gas lost, unnecessary emissions, preventable accidents, etc. all because horrible politics. I don't blame the business owners for trying to keep things the same. It's the government that allows it.
I'm pretty sure that the local politicians' view of "betterment of society" does not include causing their slice of society to lose business.
I actually don't think Breezewood would lose much business if a direct connection was built. People who need gas will still get gas; people who are hungry will still want food; and people who are sleepy will still want a motel room. There's nothing convenient to I-70 between Breezewood and at least Hagerstown, if not Frederick. Most of the Hagerstown services are located on I-81 north of I-70, farther away than US 30 woul be from a direct Breezewood connection. Breezewood isn't booming like it once was, so it's not like there are a plethora of customers stopping there as it is because traffic is bad.
Quote from: kphoger on August 02, 2019, 02:43:36 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 01, 2019, 08:22:45 PM
Quote from: kphoger on August 01, 2019, 03:22:42 PM
And tell them what, exactly? That you refuse to shop there because you don't like the incomplete interchange? I'm sure they would put you in the scales against all the hundreds of people who do shop there every year precisely because there's an incomplete interchange, and I don't wonder what conclusion they would come to.
The powers that be need to come together and build this fucking thing for betterment of society. Hours and gas lost, unnecessary emissions, preventable accidents, etc. all because horrible politics. I don't blame the business owners for trying to keep things the same. It's the government that allows it.
I'm pretty sure that the local politicians' view of "betterment of society" does not include causing their slice of society to lose business.
Society extends to broader range than their town.
I don't even know why Breezewood gets roadgeeks so worked up. It's two traffic lights on an interstate in the middle of nowhere, barely causing any traffic. So what? I see nobody complaining about
-I-78 in Jersey City
-US 31 in Benton Harbor, Michigan
-CA 2 in Los Angeles
-The Bedford Interchange
Quote from: hbelkins on August 02, 2019, 06:58:28 PM
I actually don't think Breezewood would lose much business if a direct connection was built. People who need gas will still get gas; people who are hungry will still want food; and people who are sleepy will still want a motel room. There's nothing convenient to I-70 between Breezewood and at least Hagerstown, if not Frederick. Most of the Hagerstown services are located on I-81 north of I-70, farther away than US 30 woul be from a direct Breezewood connection. Breezewood isn't booming like it once was, so it's not like there are a plethora of customers stopping there as it is because traffic is bad.
Using my Turnpike/I-70 connection scheme, Breezewood could actually be a nice easily accessible large oasis for travelers who want any of a variety of services. Lot less congestion there as well.
But due to their recalcitrance about connecting it, I absolutely refuse to do business there.
That's they own dumbness.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.capital-beltway.com%2FBreezewoodPA.jpg&hash=8ff10c7fab7fe486220ed7b35ef1d7825984657d)
Quote from: noelbotevera on August 02, 2019, 10:15:34 PM
I don't even know why Breezewood gets roadgeeks so worked up. It's two traffic lights on an interstate in the middle of nowhere, barely causing any traffic. So what? I see nobody complaining about
-I-78 in Jersey City
-US 31 in Benton Harbor, Michigan
-CA 2 in Los Angeles
-The Bedford Interchange
When most people say they avoid the area, they pretty much wouldn't have been nearby anyway, or other options are just as if not more useful and convenient. It's like saying I'm going from New Jersey to Virginia but I'll drive a route that'll allow me to avoid North Korea.
Quote from: noelbotevera on August 02, 2019, 10:15:34 PM
I don't even know why Breezewood gets roadgeeks so worked up. It's two traffic lights on an interstate in the middle of nowhere, barely causing any traffic. So what? I see nobody complaining about
-I-78 in Jersey City
-US 31 in Benton Harbor, Michigan
-CA 2 in Los Angeles
-The Bedford Interchange
The US 31 part in Benton Harbor, MI will no longer be a part of the list. MDOT is going to build the direct connection from the current stub end north to I-94/I-196 interchange next year.
Quote from: Strider on August 03, 2019, 01:33:39 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on August 02, 2019, 10:15:34 PM
I don't even know why Breezewood gets roadgeeks so worked up. It's two traffic lights on an interstate in the middle of nowhere, barely causing any traffic. So what? I see nobody complaining about
-I-78 in Jersey City
-US 31 in Benton Harbor, Michigan
-CA 2 in Los Angeles
-The Bedford Interchange
The US 31 part in Benton Harbor, MI will no longer be a part of the list. MDOT is going to build the direct connection from the current stub end north to I-94/I-196 interchange next year.
False - northwest to a separate interchange. There will be a concurrency on 94.
Quote from: Alps on August 03, 2019, 01:40:40 AM
Quote from: Strider on August 03, 2019, 01:33:39 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on August 02, 2019, 10:15:34 PM
I don't even know why Breezewood gets roadgeeks so worked up. It's two traffic lights on an interstate in the middle of nowhere, barely causing any traffic. So what? I see nobody complaining about
-I-78 in Jersey City
-US 31 in Benton Harbor, Michigan
-CA 2 in Los Angeles
-The Bedford Interchange
The US 31 part in Benton Harbor, MI will no longer be a part of the list. MDOT is going to build the direct connection from the current stub end north to I-94/I-196 interchange next year.
False - northwest to a separate interchange. There will be a concurrency on 94.
You got this right. I was wrong after checking the official website. My apologizes.
Comparing Breezewood to US 31 is ridiculous. There is nothing at the end of that stub and traffic is much, much lower than what travels though that congested mess at Breezewood. It's little wonder people don't complain about it as much As Breezewood.
In terms of I-78, where the solution would be to demolish Jersey City itself, it is also little wonder that people are more willing to accept the status quo.
Quote from: Rothman on August 03, 2019, 07:47:26 AM
Comparing Breezewood to US 31 is ridiculous. There is nothing at the end of that stub and traffic is much, much lower than what travels though that congested mess at Breezewood. It's little wonder people don't complain about it as much As Breezewood.
In terms of I-78, where the solution would be to demolish Jersey City itself, it is also little wonder that people are more willing to accept the status quo.
Breezewood happens to be in an area where many of us can travel thru. I-78 isnt.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 03, 2019, 08:09:08 AM
Breezewood happens to be in an area where many of us can travel thru. I-78 isnt.
That happens to be at the very end of I-78 where it ends anyway a couple miles from the section in question.
I-70 is a major Interstate highway that crosses most of the country east-west and connects many major metro areas.
Quote from: Beltway on August 03, 2019, 10:01:27 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 03, 2019, 08:09:08 AM
Breezewood happens to be in an area where many of us can travel thru. I-78 isnt.
That happens to be at the very end of I-78 where it ends anyway a couple miles from the section in question.
I-70 is a major Interstate highway that crosses most of the country east-west and connects many major metro areas.
But people aren't upset about I-70 across most of the country. The specific area people don't like is where there's traffic lights. Just like the other examples given that people constantly provide excuses for.
Quote from: noelbotevera on August 02, 2019, 10:15:34 PM
I don't even know why Breezewood gets roadgeeks so worked up. It's two traffic lights on an interstate in the middle of nowhere, barely causing any traffic. So what? I see nobody complaining about
-CA 2 in Los Angeles
I'm not sure I follow. The 2 doesn't have any signals along its freeway stretch. Yes, the mainlines are flanked by signals on either end, but not every freeway has to end at an interchange. The problem is having a continuous freeway interrupted by traffic lights.
Quote from: jakeroot on August 03, 2019, 02:10:36 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on August 02, 2019, 10:15:34 PM
I don't even know why Breezewood gets roadgeeks so worked up. It's two traffic lights on an interstate in the middle of nowhere, barely causing any traffic. So what? I see nobody complaining about
-CA 2 in Los Angeles
I'm not sure I follow. The 2 doesn't have any signals along its freeway stretch. Yes, the mainlines are flanked by signals on either end, but not every freeway has to end at an interchange. The problem is having a continuous freeway interrupted by traffic lights.
It doesn't completely connect to US 101, ending a couple blocks short of it. There's many traffic lights to traverse before you reach US 101. It's probably a bad example of a Breezewood, more akin to a stub ending.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 03, 2019, 10:43:49 AM
Quote from: Beltway on August 03, 2019, 10:01:27 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 03, 2019, 08:09:08 AM
Breezewood happens to be in an area where many of us can travel thru. I-78 isnt.
That happens to be at the very end of I-78 where it ends anyway a couple miles from the section in question.
I-70 is a major Interstate highway that crosses most of the country east-west and connects many major metro areas.
But people aren't upset about I-70 across most of the country. The specific area people don't like is where there's traffic lights. Just like the other examples given that people constantly provide excuses for.
People that don't use it would have little or no knowledge of it.
People traveling between Washington, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Columbus, Indianapolis, etc., that pass thru Breezewood, would have knowledge of it.
Quote from: noelbotevera on August 03, 2019, 02:44:55 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 03, 2019, 02:10:36 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on August 02, 2019, 10:15:34 PM
I don't even know why Breezewood gets roadgeeks so worked up. It's two traffic lights on an interstate in the middle of nowhere, barely causing any traffic. So what? I see nobody complaining about
-CA 2 in Los Angeles
I'm not sure I follow. The 2 doesn't have any signals along its freeway stretch. Yes, the mainlines are flanked by signals on either end, but not every freeway has to end at an interchange. The problem is having a continuous freeway interrupted by traffic lights.
It doesn't completely connect to US 101, ending a couple blocks short of it. There's many traffic lights to traverse before you reach US 101. It's probably a bad example of a Breezewood, more akin to a stub ending.
I see what you're thinking. It's more of just a generic stub ending, IMO. I am certainly aware of the original plans for the 2, where it was to connect to the 101 and become the Beverly Hills Freeway. But it's not like it peters out a few blocks from the 101. It's still about 1.5 miles and seven-ish traffic lights away. Plus, unlike the other examples, the 2-101 connection is not a continuous roadway with some signals in the middle, where the "fix" is obvious. With the 2, there's no obvious route to the 101 beyond the current arterial, ergo no obvious fix to the issue. They could complete the original interchange location plan, near Vermont Ave, but they'd have to demolish half of Silver Lake to do that.
Quote from: noelbotevera on August 02, 2019, 10:15:34 PM
I don't even know why Breezewood gets roadgeeks so worked up. It's two traffic lights on an interstate in the middle of nowhere, barely causing any traffic. So what? I see nobody complaining about
-I-78 in Jersey City
-US 31 in Benton Harbor, Michigan
-CA 2 in Los Angeles
-The Bedford Interchange
Breezewood takes on the outrage it does because it's a gap in the freeway in the middle of an interstate. I-78 could just as easily be fixed by truncating it, as it ends as soon as it crosses into NY anyways. US 31 isn't an interstate, and that will have an all-freeway connection soon (albeit with an overlap with I-94) in any case. CA 2 isn't really a gap in the route, and while Bedford is egregious, I-99 doesn't continue from there so it's more like the other non-connections on the PA Turnpike. Plus it's newer and many people here would rather just delete it from the interstate system anyways. We just don't hear about it as much these days as Congress, Texas, and North Carolina have found plenty of other ways to exasperate us about numbering these days.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 02, 2019, 06:58:28 PM
I actually don't think Breezewood would lose much business if a direct connection was built. People who need gas will still get gas; people who are hungry will still want food; and people who are sleepy will still want a motel room. There's nothing convenient to I-70 between Breezewood and at least Hagerstown, if not Frederick. Most of the Hagerstown services are located on I-81 north of I-70, farther away than US 30 woul be from a direct Breezewood connection. Breezewood isn't booming like it once was, so it's not like there are a plethora of customers stopping there as it is because traffic is bad.
Correctly stated. There's a Sheetz in downtown Hancock on MD-144 (east of U.S. 522) (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Hancock,+MD+21750/@39.6999815,-78.1848289,19z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x89ca1620b29c6839:0xedb5e998251303d7!8m2!3d39.6989809!4d-78.1797293), but it is small and not especially convenient to I-70 drivers (there are tight ramps that connect MD-144 with the Maryland end of the U.S. 522 bridge over the Potomac River). The one Sheetz that's near Hagerstown that's easy to reach from I-70 is at the junction of U.S. 40 and MD-63 (https://www.google.com/maps/place/39%C2%B039'07.2%22N+77%C2%B048'01.9%22W/@39.6520101,-77.8027237,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m14!1m7!3m6!1s0x89c9ed151481dfdd:0x65f2620826df7239!2sHagerstown,+MD!3b1!8m2!3d39.6417629!4d-77.7199932!3m5!1s0x0:0x0!7e2!8m2!3d39.6520057!4d-77.8005352), west of I-81.
Yes, Breezewood is dying a slow death. One of the best ways to help it would be to remove the traffic that does not wish to stop there by building those ramps. Then designate the route through Breezewood as Business I-70 (still would retain the wrong-way concurrency through Breezewood too) and sign it as such.
Quote from: vdeane on August 03, 2019, 10:49:48 PM
Breezewood takes on the outrage it does because it's a gap in the freeway in the middle of an interstate.
My first issue with Breezewood is the crashes, especially on the westbound side of I-70 approaching the signal at U.S. 30.
My secondary issue with Breezewood is severe congestion that can happen there on holidays.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 04, 2019, 03:37:07 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 02, 2019, 06:58:28 PM
I actually don't think Breezewood would lose much business if a direct connection was built. People who need gas will still get gas; people who are hungry will still want food; and people who are sleepy will still want a motel room. There's nothing convenient to I-70 between Breezewood and at least Hagerstown, if not Frederick. Most of the Hagerstown services are located on I-81 north of I-70, farther away than US 30 woul be from a direct Breezewood connection. Breezewood isn't booming like it once was, so it's not like there are a plethora of customers stopping there as it is because traffic is bad.
Correctly stated. There's a Sheetz in downtown Hancock on MD-144 (east of U.S. 522) (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Hancock,+MD+21750/@39.6999815,-78.1848289,19z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x89ca1620b29c6839:0xedb5e998251303d7!8m2!3d39.6989809!4d-78.1797293), but it is small and not especially convenient to I-70 drivers (there are tight ramps that connect MD-144 with the Maryland end of the U.S. 522 bridge over the Potomac River). The one Sheetz that's near Hagerstown that's easy to reach from I-70 is at the junction of U.S. 40 and MD-63 (https://www.google.com/maps/place/39%C2%B039'07.2%22N+77%C2%B048'01.9%22W/@39.6520101,-77.8027237,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m14!1m7!3m6!1s0x89c9ed151481dfdd:0x65f2620826df7239!2sHagerstown,+MD!3b1!8m2!3d39.6417629!4d-77.7199932!3m5!1s0x0:0x0!7e2!8m2!3d39.6520057!4d-77.8005352), west of I-81.
There's also this one east of Hagerstown at US 40 and MD 66. I've stopped at this one a few times.
https://goo.gl/maps/FXWXDoRdNKX9sDRT7
Quote from: hbelkins on August 04, 2019, 07:10:02 PM
There's also this one east of Hagerstown at US 40 and MD 66. I've stopped at this one a few times.
https://goo.gl/maps/FXWXDoRdNKX9sDRT7
Yes. I have stopped there at least once or twice. For some reason I prefer the one on the other side of Hagerstown.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 04, 2019, 03:47:44 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 03, 2019, 10:49:48 PM
Breezewood takes on the outrage it does because it's a gap in the freeway in the middle of an interstate.
My first issue with Breezewood is the crashes, especially on the westbound side of I-70 approaching the signal at U.S. 30.
My secondary issue with Breezewood is severe congestion that can happen there on holidays.
Yet another reason to pile hatred onto Breezewood is this. Breezewood is located in the Township of East Providence, Bedford County, Pennsylvania.
Yet the elected officials of East Providence are too cheap to pay for the Pennsylvania State Police service that they use (since there is no township law enforcement there).
Source is Pennlive here (https://www.pennlive.com/news/2019/02/heres-what-towns-would-pay-for-state-police-under-gov-tom-wolfs-proposal-use-the-database.html) (scroll down to table in this page and pull up records for Bedford County).
According to that table, East Providence should be paying about $14,840 annually to the state treasury for the PSP services that they use. I am not including the unnecessary crashes that PSP has to respond to on the westbound side of I-70 approaching the traffic signal at Breezewood.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 05, 2019, 07:24:51 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 04, 2019, 03:47:44 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 03, 2019, 10:49:48 PM
Breezewood takes on the outrage it does because it's a gap in the freeway in the middle of an interstate.
My first issue with Breezewood is the crashes, especially on the westbound side of I-70 approaching the signal at U.S. 30.
My secondary issue with Breezewood is severe congestion that can happen there on holidays.
Yet another reason to pile hatred onto Breezewood is this. Breezewood is located in the Township of East Providence, Bedford County, Pennsylvania.
Yet the elected officials of East Providence are too cheap to pay for the Pennsylvania State Police service that they use (since there is no township law enforcement there).
Source is Pennlive here (https://www.pennlive.com/news/2019/02/heres-what-towns-would-pay-for-state-police-under-gov-tom-wolfs-proposal-use-the-database.html) (scroll down to table in this page and pull up records for Bedford County).
According to that table, East Providence should be paying about $14,840 annually to the state treasury for the PSP services that they use. I am not included the unnecessary crashes that PSP has to respond to on the westbound side of I-70 approaching the traffic signal at Breezewood.
PSP does not currently charge municipalities for police protection, which they are legally obligated to provide. It's not that East Providence Township is refusing to pay. It's that the state isn't billing them.
Rural townships having their own police forces is rare in Pennsylvania. Even some larger suburban townships and smaller urban boroughs rely on PSP. Frankly, I'd rather have PSP provide the policing for small municipalities like East Providence Township (population 1,854) than having another small police department that is unlikely to have the same level of professionalism as the State Police.
Quote from: Bitmapped on August 08, 2019, 11:23:36 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 05, 2019, 07:24:51 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 04, 2019, 03:47:44 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 03, 2019, 10:49:48 PM
Breezewood takes on the outrage it does because it's a gap in the freeway in the middle of an interstate.
My first issue with Breezewood is the crashes, especially on the westbound side of I-70 approaching the signal at U.S. 30.
My secondary issue with Breezewood is severe congestion that can happen there on holidays.
Yet another reason to pile hatred onto Breezewood is this. Breezewood is located in the Township of East Providence, Bedford County, Pennsylvania.
Yet the elected officials of East Providence are too cheap to pay for the Pennsylvania State Police service that they use (since there is no township law enforcement there).
Source is Pennlive here (https://www.pennlive.com/news/2019/02/heres-what-towns-would-pay-for-state-police-under-gov-tom-wolfs-proposal-use-the-database.html) (scroll down to table in this page and pull up records for Bedford County).
According to that table, East Providence should be paying about $14,840 annually to the state treasury for the PSP services that they use. I am not included the unnecessary crashes that PSP has to respond to on the westbound side of I-70 approaching the traffic signal at Breezewood.
PSP does not currently charge municipalities for police protection, which they are legally obligated to provide. It's not that East Providence Township is refusing to pay. It's that the state isn't billing them.
Rural townships having their own police forces is rare in Pennsylvania. Even some larger suburban townships and smaller urban boroughs rely on PSP. Frankly, I'd rather have PSP provide the policing for small municipalities like East Providence Township (population 1,854) than having another small police department that is unlikely to have the same level of professionalism as the State Police.
Apparently you haven't been following this story...
https://www.delcotimes.com/news/state-police-investigating-claim-of-racial-profiling-in-chadds-ford/article_92e5415e-b56a-11e9-91b1-ab3c7165c71e.html
It does seem to be an unusual occurrence, and based on what we know so far a very abnormal incident involving a rookie trooper, but the PA State Police will be under the microscope after this one for a while.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 08, 2019, 12:16:15 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on August 08, 2019, 11:23:36 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 05, 2019, 07:24:51 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 04, 2019, 03:47:44 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 03, 2019, 10:49:48 PM
Breezewood takes on the outrage it does because it's a gap in the freeway in the middle of an interstate.
My first issue with Breezewood is the crashes, especially on the westbound side of I-70 approaching the signal at U.S. 30.
My secondary issue with Breezewood is severe congestion that can happen there on holidays.
Yet another reason to pile hatred onto Breezewood is this. Breezewood is located in the Township of East Providence, Bedford County, Pennsylvania.
Yet the elected officials of East Providence are too cheap to pay for the Pennsylvania State Police service that they use (since there is no township law enforcement there).
Source is Pennlive here (https://www.pennlive.com/news/2019/02/heres-what-towns-would-pay-for-state-police-under-gov-tom-wolfs-proposal-use-the-database.html) (scroll down to table in this page and pull up records for Bedford County).
According to that table, East Providence should be paying about $14,840 annually to the state treasury for the PSP services that they use. I am not included the unnecessary crashes that PSP has to respond to on the westbound side of I-70 approaching the traffic signal at Breezewood.
PSP does not currently charge municipalities for police protection, which they are legally obligated to provide. It's not that East Providence Township is refusing to pay. It's that the state isn't billing them.
Rural townships having their own police forces is rare in Pennsylvania. Even some larger suburban townships and smaller urban boroughs rely on PSP. Frankly, I'd rather have PSP provide the policing for small municipalities like East Providence Township (population 1,854) than having another small police department that is unlikely to have the same level of professionalism as the State Police.
Apparently you haven't been following this story...
https://www.delcotimes.com/news/state-police-investigating-claim-of-racial-profiling-in-chadds-ford/article_92e5415e-b56a-11e9-91b1-ab3c7165c71e.html
It does seem to be an unusual occurrence, and based on what we know so far a very abnormal incident involving a rookie trooper, but the PA State Police will be under the microscope after this one for a while.
Even better and, people wonder why PA roads are such a disaster but, have to pay for the Troopers, SMDH, so glad I moved:
https://www.lehighvalleylive.com/lehigh-county/2019/04/42-billion-diverted-from-penndot-road-and-bridge-repairs-to-fund-state-police-new-audit-reveals.html
Quote from: Bitmapped on August 08, 2019, 11:23:36 AM
PSP does not currently charge municipalities for police protection, which they are legally obligated to provide. It's not that East Providence Township is refusing to pay. It's that the state isn't billing them.
Rural townships having their own police forces is rare in Pennsylvania. Even some larger suburban townships and smaller urban boroughs rely on PSP. Frankly, I'd rather have PSP provide the policing for small municipalities like East Providence Township (population 1,854) than having another small police department that is unlikely to have the same level of professionalism as the State Police.
Unlike most other Pennsylvania townships, East Providence has Breezewood, and the township can increase property taxes on the land and buildings there to pay the PSP for service.
IMO the Pennsylvania legislature should force Pennsylvania municipalities that do not wish to have their own law enforcement agencies to pay Harrisburg for service from the PSP (or in some cases to pay an adjoining township or other municipality for police service). I agree that a small township is not likely to get the most-professional or most-well-trained police officers, and it is quite likely that they will be better serviced by PSP troopers.
Requiring these payments for PSP service would free up at least some of the fuel tax revenues that now fund PSP to be used for highway upgrades and improvements.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 08, 2019, 12:16:15 PM
Apparently you haven't been following this story...
https://www.delcotimes.com/news/state-police-investigating-claim-of-racial-profiling-in-chadds-ford/article_92e5415e-b56a-11e9-91b1-ab3c7165c71e.html
It does seem to be an unusual occurrence, and based on what we know so far a very abnormal incident involving a rookie trooper, but the PA State Police will be under the microscope after this one for a while.
I saw a report about that incident from a different source, perhaps the Web site of KYW-TV, CBS-TV 3 in Philadelphia.
That incident, as presented by the media, screams of racist profiling, and does not make the PSP look good.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 09, 2019, 07:46:10 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on August 08, 2019, 11:23:36 AM
PSP does not currently charge municipalities for police protection, which they are legally obligated to provide. It's not that East Providence Township is refusing to pay. It's that the state isn't billing them.
Rural townships having their own police forces is rare in Pennsylvania. Even some larger suburban townships and smaller urban boroughs rely on PSP. Frankly, I'd rather have PSP provide the policing for small municipalities like East Providence Township (population 1,854) than having another small police department that is unlikely to have the same level of professionalism as the State Police.
Unlike most other Pennsylvania townships, East Providence has Breezewood, and the township can increase property taxes on the land and buildings there to pay the PSP for service.
IMO the Pennsylvania legislature should force Pennsylvania municipalities that do not wish to have their own law enforcement agencies to pay Harrisburg for service from the PSP (or in some cases to pay an adjoining township or other municipality for police service). I agree that a small township is not likely to get the most-professional or most-well-trained police officers, and it is quite likely that they will be better service by PSP.
Requiring these payments for PSP service would free up at least some of the fuel tax revenues that now fund PSP to be used for highway upgrades and improvements.
This would be a total heresy in a state such as Pennsylvania, but perhaps it is time for the commonwealth to seriously consider abolishing their townships and turning all of that over to their respective county boards (does PA have elected county sheriffs?).
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on August 23, 2019, 11:34:17 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 09, 2019, 07:46:10 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on August 08, 2019, 11:23:36 AM
PSP does not currently charge municipalities for police protection, which they are legally obligated to provide. It's not that East Providence Township is refusing to pay. It's that the state isn't billing them.
Rural townships having their own police forces is rare in Pennsylvania. Even some larger suburban townships and smaller urban boroughs rely on PSP. Frankly, I'd rather have PSP provide the policing for small municipalities like East Providence Township (population 1,854) than having another small police department that is unlikely to have the same level of professionalism as the State Police.
Unlike most other Pennsylvania townships, East Providence has Breezewood, and the township can increase property taxes on the land and buildings there to pay the PSP for service.
IMO the Pennsylvania legislature should force Pennsylvania municipalities that do not wish to have their own law enforcement agencies to pay Harrisburg for service from the PSP (or in some cases to pay an adjoining township or other municipality for police service). I agree that a small township is not likely to get the most-professional or most-well-trained police officers, and it is quite likely that they will be better service by PSP.
Requiring these payments for PSP service would free up at least some of the fuel tax revenues that now fund PSP to be used for highway upgrades and improvements.
This would be a total heresy in a state such as Pennsylvania, but perhaps it is time for the commonwealth to seriously consider abolishing their townships and turning all of that over to their respective county boards (does PA have elected county sheriffs?).
Mike
Yes, PA does have elected sheriffs, the chance of this change happening are as good as Breezewood getting directing connected completely to the Interstate system and ending this debacle. PA is too corrupt to have this Titanic of a move.
Quote from: goobnav on August 23, 2019, 02:57:31 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on August 23, 2019, 11:34:17 AM
This would be a total heresy in a state such as Pennsylvania, but perhaps it is time for the commonwealth to seriously consider abolishing their townships and turning all of that over to their respective county boards (does PA have elected county sheriffs?).
Mike
Yes, PA does have elected sheriffs, the chance of this change happening are as good as Breezewood getting directing connected completely to the Interstate system and ending this debacle. PA is too corrupt to have this Titanic of a move.
So, no doubt, is New Jersey, which also has townships.
Full(er) disclosure: I was born and spent the first 23+ years of my life in Pennsylvania. Then (in 1985) I moved to Maryland and have lived there ever since (except for four months in the fall and winter of 1986/87 in NJ).
Maryland doesn't have townships. Neither does Delaware. Would it be sacreligious for those states and states like them to adopt townships or towns (not that they will IMO)?
ixnay
Quote from: goobnav on August 23, 2019, 02:57:31 PM
Yes, PA does have elected sheriffs, the chance of this change happening are as good as Breezewood getting directing connected completely to the Interstate system and ending this debacle. PA is too corrupt to have this Titanic of a move.
In most of the United States, counties and county-level jurisdictions have elected sheriffs.
This holds in Maryland and Virginia, where cities can be independent of counties (Baltimore, Maryland) and all cities in the Commonwealth (Virginia cities are by law independent of nearby counties, though some cities share their sheriff with a nearby county).
The only places that appear to lack elected sheriffs are the District of Columbia (the U.S. Marshal for D.C. is the de-facto sheriff) and in Alaska (there are no county sheriffs in the 49th state). In Hawaii, there's one sheriff that provides such service statewide (not clear to me if the sheriff is an elected official or not).
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 24, 2019, 11:48:03 PM
Quote from: goobnav on August 23, 2019, 02:57:31 PM
Yes, PA does have elected sheriffs, the chance of this change happening are as good as Breezewood getting directing connected completely to the Interstate system and ending this debacle. PA is too corrupt to have this Titanic of a move.
In most of the United States, counties and county-level jurisdictions have elected sheriffs.
This holds in Maryland and Virginia, where cities can be independent of counties (Baltimore, Maryland) and all cities in the Commonwealth (Virginia cities are by law independent of nearby counties, though some cities share their sheriff with a nearby county).
The only places that appear to lack elected sheriffs are the District of Columbia (the U.S. Marshal for D.C. is the de-facto sheriff) and in Alaska (there are no county sheriffs in the 49th state). In Hawaii, there's one sheriff that provides such service statewide (not clear to me if the sheriff is an elected official or not).
The problem is that the sheriffs in PA are not Primary law enforcement, just jail and prison wardens in their respected counties.
Quote from: ixnay on August 24, 2019, 09:17:46 PM
Maryland doesn't have townships. Neither does Delaware. Would it be sacreligious for those states and states like them to adopt townships or towns (not that they will IMO)?
ixnay
I write about this in Delaware from time to time on the forum (not relevant to this topic, though). As someone raised in New England and PA, when I moved to DE, I was baffled when I first saw the sign "Leaving Corporate Limits of Newark." "So....where am I?" was my first thought. I decided one night to see how I would make Delaware's towns if the whole state decided to make everything a municipality, but it was kind of messy. There are Hundreds still, but those could split towns (e.g. West Dover Hundred and East Dover Hundred).
Regarding your question, though, my coworkers all looked at me like I was crazy when I said I thought everything should just be incorporated so we don't have this weird ambiguity in location.
Quote from: ipeters61 on August 25, 2019, 11:21:50 PM
Quote from: ixnay on August 24, 2019, 09:17:46 PM
Maryland doesn't have townships. Neither does Delaware. Would it be sacreligious for those states and states like them to adopt townships or towns (not that they will IMO)?
ixnay
I write about this in Delaware from time to time on the forum (not relevant to this topic, though). As someone raised in New England and PA, when I moved to DE, I was baffled when I first saw the sign "Leaving Corporate Limits of Newark." "So....where am I?" was my first thought. I decided one night to see how I would make Delaware's towns if the whole state decided to make everything a municipality, but it was kind of messy. There are Hundreds still, but those could split towns (e.g. West Dover Hundred and East Dover Hundred).
Regarding your question, though, my coworkers all looked at me like I was crazy when I said I thought everything should just be incorporated so we don't have this weird ambiguity in location.
In states where there are no townships, and all or nearly all rural land is in unincorporated counties (and even inside urbanized area boundaries there is frequently plenty of land that is not part of any municipality), when you leave that incorporated municipality you are in an unincorporated county - nothing more and nothing less.
Breezewood: Some people enjoy it - others are indifferent - most despise it. I take an in depth look at the growth and current slow and steady decline of possibly the most well known and angst causing junction of two Interstate highways in the country.
https://www.gribblenation.org/2018/02/will-we-ever-see-breezewood-bypass.html
(Note: I had originally started this with a working title of a Breezewood Bypass - blogger saved that old working title. Over the past two years it has evolved more to an overall history and story of Breezewood)
Since the PA Turnpike has now gone to AET, they need to seriously look at connecting the free section of I-70 to the Turnpike without having to do the "through town jog".
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on July 19, 2020, 05:43:03 PM
Since the PA Turnpike has now gone to AET, they need to seriously look at connecting the free section of I-70 to the Turnpike without having to do the "through town jog".
What does one have to do with the other? Motorists have been able to go thru the toll plaza without stopping for 20 years.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 19, 2020, 08:55:30 PM
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on July 19, 2020, 05:43:03 PM
Since the PA Turnpike has now gone to AET, they need to seriously look at connecting the free section of I-70 to the Turnpike without having to do the "through town jog".
What does one have to do with the other? Motorists have been able to go thru the toll plaza without stopping for 20 years.
Well, AET does allow for more options to directly connect I-70 to the Turnpike without relying on the existing toll plaza, but even with AET, just building a pair of flyovers where I-70 crosses itself and smoothing out the eastbound trumpet ramp coming off the Turnpike is probably still the best bang for the buck option they could go with.
I actually like Breezewood. I think it's unique and gives you a break from the highway. I've shunpiked the PA Turnpike before and used US-30 never even realizing that I went right through Breezewood.
Quote from: Flint1979 on July 19, 2020, 10:56:24 PM
I actually like Breezewood. I think it's unique and gives you a break from the highway. I've shunpiked the PA Turnpike before and used US-30 never even realizing that I went right through Breezewood.
Bless your heart.
Quote from: Rothman on July 19, 2020, 10:59:14 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on July 19, 2020, 10:56:24 PM
I actually like Breezewood. I think it's unique and gives you a break from the highway. I've shunpiked the PA Turnpike before and used US-30 never even realizing that I went right through Breezewood.
Bless your heart.
Ya know, it's popular to hate Breezewood, but there are many people, even among us, who use it. I'm not one, but I'm not gonna look down on someone who likes it. It's only there because it's used, after all.
Quote from: Alps on July 20, 2020, 01:37:11 PM
Quote from: Rothman on July 19, 2020, 10:59:14 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on July 19, 2020, 10:56:24 PM
I actually like Breezewood. I think it's unique and gives you a break from the highway. I've shunpiked the PA Turnpike before and used US-30 never even realizing that I went right through Breezewood.
Bless your heart.
Ya know, it's popular to hate Breezewood, but there are many people, even among us, who use it. I'm not one, but I'm not gonna look down on someone who likes it. It's only there because it's used, after all.
I don't actively dislike it, other than for the traffic backups the setup causes during busy times. But I don't particularly have a fondness for it either. Twice, it's been a convenient place for me to stop and spend a couple of nights at reasonably-priced accommodations. It worked for me during the 2010 SEPA meet when I was on a lengthy road trip, and it worked year before last for the abandoned tunnel meet/tour.
Quote from: hbelkins on July 20, 2020, 05:01:50 PM
Quote from: Alps on July 20, 2020, 01:37:11 PM
Quote from: Rothman on July 19, 2020, 10:59:14 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on July 19, 2020, 10:56:24 PM
I actually like Breezewood. I think it's unique and gives you a break from the highway. I've shunpiked the PA Turnpike before and used US-30 never even realizing that I went right through Breezewood.
Bless your heart.
Ya know, it's popular to hate Breezewood, but there are many people, even among us, who use it. I'm not one, but I'm not gonna look down on someone who likes it. It's only there because it's used, after all.
I don't actively dislike it, other than for the traffic backups the setup causes during busy times. But I don't particularly have a fondness for it either. Twice, it's been a convenient place for me to stop and spend a couple of nights at reasonably-priced accommodations. It worked for me during the 2010 SEPA meet when I was on a lengthy road trip, and it worked year before last for the abandoned tunnel meet/tour.
The only thing that drives me nuts are when some people want to talk a good game, but its realized they're not familiar with the area. They appear to complain how the PA Turnpike has the Breezewood, even though that highway is never impacted. Only if you need to use 70 will they encounter this issue.
While researching on the recent feature on Breezewood, I came across information that led me to learning that my family (maternal grandmother) has had long ties to Breezewood. Though we aren't related to the Snyder/Bittner's that own the Gateway Plaza complex, I did learn that distant relatives once owned the now abandoned Penn Aire Motel.
A postscript on Breezewood, the Penn Aire, and how every road and even place does indeed tell a story.
https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/07/breezewood-postscript-family-ties.html
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 20, 2020, 05:54:04 PM
The only thing that drives me nuts are when some people want to talk a good game, but its realized they're not familiar with the area. They appear to complain how the PA Turnpike has the Breezewood, even though that highway is never impacted.
They probably get off the Turnpike there, then immediately get back on again, forcing them to pay twice.
Quote from: Alps on July 20, 2020, 01:37:11 PM
Quote from: Rothman on July 19, 2020, 10:59:14 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on July 19, 2020, 10:56:24 PM
I actually like Breezewood. I think it's unique and gives you a break from the highway. I've shunpiked the PA Turnpike before and used US-30 never even realizing that I went right through Breezewood.
Bless your heart.
Ya know, it's popular to hate Breezewood, but there are many people, even among us, who use it. I'm not one, but I'm not gonna look down on someone who likes it. It's only there because it's used, after all.
Bless your heart, too. :D
Quote from: Verlanka on July 21, 2020, 05:11:58 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 20, 2020, 05:54:04 PM
The only thing that drives me nuts are when some people want to talk a good game, but its realized they're not familiar with the area. They appear to complain how the PA Turnpike has the Breezewood, even though that highway is never impacted.
They probably get off the Turnpike there, then immediately get back on again, forcing them to pay twice.
How would that be different from any other interchange?
Quote from: Rothman on July 21, 2020, 08:40:50 PM
Quote from: Alps on July 20, 2020, 01:37:11 PM
Quote from: Rothman on July 19, 2020, 10:59:14 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on July 19, 2020, 10:56:24 PM
I actually like Breezewood. I think it's unique and gives you a break from the highway. I've shunpiked the PA Turnpike before and used US-30 never even realizing that I went right through Breezewood.
Bless your heart.
Ya know, it's popular to hate Breezewood, but there are many people, even among us, who use it. I'm not one, but I'm not gonna look down on someone who likes it. It's only there because it's used, after all.
Bless your heart, too. :D
For some of us, it's fun to just enjoy the existence of an oddity in the system. Yes, traffic would flow better with a direct freeway connection. And it's also fun to theorize about concepts for how to improve it. But in the grand scheme of things, it's the epitome of "first-world problems."
For the record, I loved stopping at the Taco Bell there on road trips, because Taco Bell is my favorite "anywhere" fast food, and because it was fun just to stop for a bit and
see Breezewood. I'm sure some people would frown on liking Taco Bell, too, so whatever. But now that location's gone, from what I hear. I would love, however, to someday have the chance to stay at the Days Inn (formerly Best Western) because it's a mid-century gem!
Quote from: stridentweasel on July 21, 2020, 10:30:05 PM
Quote from: Rothman on July 21, 2020, 08:40:50 PM
Quote from: Alps on July 20, 2020, 01:37:11 PM
Quote from: Rothman on July 19, 2020, 10:59:14 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on July 19, 2020, 10:56:24 PM
I actually like Breezewood. I think it's unique and gives you a break from the highway. I've shunpiked the PA Turnpike before and used US-30 never even realizing that I went right through Breezewood.
Bless your heart.
Ya know, it's popular to hate Breezewood, but there are many people, even among us, who use it. I'm not one, but I'm not gonna look down on someone who likes it. It's only there because it's used, after all.
Bless your heart, too. :D
For some of us, it's fun to just enjoy the existence of an oddity in the system. Yes, traffic would flow better with a direct freeway connection. And it's also fun to theorize about concepts for how to improve it. But in the grand scheme of things, it's the epitome of "first-world problems."
For the record, I loved stopping at the Taco Bell there on road trips, because Taco Bell is my favorite "anywhere" fast food, and because it was fun just to stop for a bit and see Breezewood. I'm sure some people would frown on liking Taco Bell, too, so whatever. But now that location's gone, from what I hear. I would love, however, to someday have the chance to stay at the Days Inn (formerly Best Western) because it's a mid-century gem!
That's where I stayed when I attended the abandoned turnpike meet year before last. The room was clean and comfortable. And the facility is right next door to Sheetz, which made walking over to get my evening sustenance both nights a -- wait for it -- breeze.
Quote from: stridentweasel on July 21, 2020, 10:30:05 PM
For some of us, it's fun to just enjoy the existence of an oddity in the system. Yes, traffic would flow better with a direct freeway connection. And it's also fun to theorize about concepts for how to improve it. But in the grand scheme of things, it's the epitome of "first-world problems."
This is exactly why I like freeway stubs. They'd be better off either eliminated or finished, but they represent an unusual situation where goals did not align with reality, or where money ran out, or whatever.
They're cool.
Breezewood sucks, but it's cool.