TOLLROADSnews: http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/5597 (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/5597)
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 05, 2011, 02:16:07 PM
TOLLROADSnews: http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/5597 (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/5597)
Nice work ... a segment of the Northeast Extension built to modern Interstate standards! Let's do more ...
Quote from: Beltway on November 06, 2011, 09:44:21 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 05, 2011, 02:16:07 PM
TOLLROADSnews: http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/5597 (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/5597)
Nice work ... a segment of the Northeast Extension built to modern Interstate standards! Let's do more ...
Not just on the N.E. Extension, but I would love to see the federal government
force the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission and PennDOT to remediate the state's numerous Breezewoods (and come to think of it, there's a "Breezewood" at the Pocono interchange on the N.E. Extension).
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 08, 2011, 07:59:13 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 06, 2011, 09:44:21 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 05, 2011, 02:16:07 PM
TOLLROADSnews: http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/5597 (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/5597)
Nice work ... a segment of the Northeast Extension built to modern Interstate standards! Let's do more ...
Not just on the N.E. Extension, but I would love to see the federal government force the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission and PennDOT to remediate the state's numerous Breezewoods (and come to think of it, there's a "Breezewood" at the Pocono interchange on the N.E. Extension).
I don't see how the federal government could force a state to build a highway.
Threatening to withhold funding is the equivalent of force. That's why the drinking age is now 21 everywhere.
Quote from: Steve on November 08, 2011, 11:40:45 PM
Threatening to withhold funding is the equivalent of force. That's why the drinking age is now 21 everywhere.
They can't just pass a law and make an interchange appear immediately. Or threaten to withhold federal funding and make an interchange appear immediately.
With state and federal environmental study requirements, it would take at least 5 years to get such an interchange under construction. So there is no "immediate lever" in this case.
The real obstacle here is the Turnpike Commission, who doesn't want to build these interchanges, and the federal funding lever can't be used against them, as they effectively receive no federal funding for their own roadways.
An interchange in 5-10 years is better than no interchange. And the state could always pass a law to make the PTC comply so they don't lose their funding.
Alternatively, PennDOT could do all the work themselves. This would result in some pretty weird interchanges since they could only modify their end of the interchanges, and involve re-aligning a lot of local roads.
For example, the I-80/I-476 one could be done by building a bridge over the ramps where the traffic light is and constructing a trumpet with that local road just to the west.
No, I didn't say any of this was practical, but it could theoretically be done.
Quote from: deanej on November 09, 2011, 11:00:23 AMAlternatively, PennDOT could do all the work themselves.
That is basically what happened in Breezewood as a compromise to a full interchange.
Quote from: PAHighways on November 09, 2011, 12:23:16 PM
Quote from: deanej on November 09, 2011, 11:00:23 AMAlternatively, PennDOT could do all the work themselves.
That is basically what happened in Breezewood as a compromise to a full interchange.
That's what happens when they don't cooperate, the two systems connected by a surface road. Same deal at I-81 at Carlisle and I-95 in Bucks County, and several others.
A high-capacity limited access connection involves each agency providing their "side" of the connection.
Quote from: Beltway on November 09, 2011, 01:58:37 PM
Quote from: PAHighways on November 09, 2011, 12:23:16 PM
Quote from: deanej on November 09, 2011, 11:00:23 AMAlternatively, PennDOT could do all the work themselves.
That is basically what happened in Breezewood as a compromise to a full interchange.
That's what happens when they don't cooperate, the two systems connected by a surface road. Same deal at I-81 at Carlisle and I-95 in Bucks County, and several others.
That's what happens when outside interests interfere with a plan, and a "no-build" alternative is what is left on the table.
I-95 will be connected, and most recently I-79 was connected to the Turnpike System. Unlike Breezewood, Cranberry actually welcomed a direct connection to alleviate the congestion on US 19 and PA 228 between the two roadways.
Quote from: Beltway on November 09, 2011, 01:58:37 PMA high-capacity limited access connection involves each agency providing their "side" of the connection.
That has happened in cases where a group didn't come together to kill an interchange such as at I-83 (then US 111) and PA 309 (then US 309).
Quote from: PAHighways on November 09, 2011, 06:12:29 PM
That has happened in cases where a group didn't come together to kill an interchange such as at I-83 (then US 111) and PA 309 (then US 309).
Weren't both these interchanges part of the original Turnpike construction, and simply used in-place by the state when the freeways were built? That's a little different from Carlisle where the Turnpike built an interchange at US 11 but the state later bypassed it with I-81.
When did I80 near 476 open? I have a feeling that they just tied I80 into the original interchange there to save money.
Quote from: PAHighways on November 09, 2011, 06:12:29 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 09, 2011, 01:58:37 PM
Quote from: PAHighways on November 09, 2011, 12:23:16 PM
Quote from: deanej on November 09, 2011, 11:00:23 AMAlternatively, PennDOT could do all the work themselves.
That is basically what happened in Breezewood as a compromise to a full interchange.
That's what happens when they don't cooperate, the two systems connected by a surface road. Same deal at I-81 at Carlisle and I-95 in Bucks County, and several others.
That's what happens when outside interests interfere with a plan, and a "no-build" alternative is what is left on the table.
I-95 will be connected, and most recently I-79 was connected to the Turnpike System. Unlike Breezewood, Cranberry actually welcomed a direct connection to alleviate the congestion on US 19 and PA 228 between the two roadways.
And though the locals favored it, it took what, over 30 years after I-79 was completed before they connected it directly to the Turnpike?
What external groups have opposed the I-81 Carlisle interchange? I-99 at Bedford? US-219 expressway at Somerset?
The area around where I-95 crosses the Turnpike, had plenty of open land when I-95 was built there in the 1970s. There were no obstacles or external groups opposed to building that back then.
Quote from: NE2 on November 09, 2011, 08:10:09 PM
Quote from: PAHighways on November 09, 2011, 06:12:29 PM
That has happened in cases where a group didn't come together to kill an interchange such as at I-83 (then US 111) and PA 309 (then US 309).
Weren't both these interchanges part of the original Turnpike construction, and simply used in-place by the state when the freeways were built? That's a little different from Carlisle where the Turnpike built an interchange at US 11 but the state later bypassed it with I-81.
The Philadelphia Extension opened a few years before the new US 111 alignment was completed to 76 and before construction began north of the Turnpike. I-276 was complete for nearly a decade before construction began on the Fort Washington Expressway (http://philadelphia.pahighways.com/expressways/fwexpressway.html).
Quote from: Beltway on November 09, 2011, 09:25:51 PM
Quote from: PAHighways on November 09, 2011, 06:12:29 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 09, 2011, 01:58:37 PM
Quote from: PAHighways on November 09, 2011, 12:23:16 PM
Quote from: deanej on November 09, 2011, 11:00:23 AMAlternatively, PennDOT could do all the work themselves.
That is basically what happened in Breezewood as a compromise to a full interchange.
That's what happens when they don't cooperate, the two systems connected by a surface road. Same deal at I-81 at Carlisle and I-95 in Bucks County, and several others.
That's what happens when outside interests interfere with a plan, and a "no-build" alternative is what is left on the table.
I-95 will be connected, and most recently I-79 was connected to the Turnpike System. Unlike Breezewood, Cranberry actually welcomed a direct connection to alleviate the congestion on US 19 and PA 228 between the two roadways.
And though the locals favored it, it took what, over 30 years after I-79 was completed before they connected it directly to the Turnpike?
What external groups have opposed the I-81 Carlisle interchange? I-99 at Bedford? US-219 expressway at Somerset?
The area around where I-95 crosses the Turnpike, had plenty of open land when I-95 was built there in the 1970s. There were no obstacles or external groups opposed to building that back then.
I was speaking about Breezewood since that is what the topic turned to, and mentioned the I-79 interchange as an example of the two agencies working together in recent years.
Having travelled through Cranberry in the late 70's and throught the mid 80's as a youth and later to college at Edinboro. The Turnpike/79 arrangement was fully adequate thru about 1995. In fact it was such a comment cooment about PennDOT's wisdom with the arrangement being how 79 traffic could exit, get services and get back on without bactracking. Cranberry did not start becomming a traffic problem until the expansion of Cranberry Plaza into Cranberry mall. There was a time after 79 opened that for many years Thorn Hill and 228 were the only signals after Wexford
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on November 09, 2011, 10:26:29 PM
Having travelled through Cranberry in the late 70's and throught the mid 80's as a youth and later to college at Edinboro. The Turnpike/79 arrangement was fully adequate thru about 1995. In fact it was such a comment cooment about PennDOT's wisdom with the arrangement being how 79 traffic could exit, get services and get back on without bactracking. Cranberry did not start becomming a traffic problem until the expansion of Cranberry Plaza into Cranberry mall. There was a time after 79 opened that for many years Thorn Hill and 228 were the only signals after Wexford
Having traveled in Bucks County as far back as the 1970s, I saw that the surface road connection between I-95 and the Turnpike, never was adequate.
Quote from: PAHighways on November 09, 2011, 10:11:25 PM
The Philadelphia Extension opened a few years before the new US 111 alignment was completed to 76 and before construction began north of the Turnpike.
The bridges carrying I-83 over the Turnpike, its ramp, and nearby creeks date from 1950-52. So it was probably not complete when the Turnpike opened, but it was definitely almost there.
Quote from: PAHighways on November 09, 2011, 10:11:25 PM
I-276 was complete for nearly a decade before construction began on the Fort Washington Expressway (http://philadelphia.pahighways.com/expressways/fwexpressway.html).
But there was already an interchange on the Turnpike at Fort Washington, presumably at Pennsylvania Avenue, where the state built an interchange on PA 309. So the Turnpike didn't have to do any work to make a direct connection.
Quote from: PAHighways on November 09, 2011, 12:23:16 PM
Quote from: deanej on November 09, 2011, 11:00:23 AMAlternatively, PennDOT could do all the work themselves.
That is basically what happened in Breezewood as a compromise to a full interchange.
I think you're confusing practicality with my idea (which involves PennDOT demolishing everything around a PTC interchange and rebuilding on their end to match the interchange, ie the local road at the interchange is obliterated, freeway ramps are extended down to the interchange where the local road was, and the local road is re-aligned somewhere else).
Quote from: NE2 on November 09, 2011, 11:01:17 PM
Quote from: PAHighways on November 09, 2011, 10:11:25 PM
The Philadelphia Extension opened a few years before the new US 111 alignment was completed to 76 and before construction began north of the Turnpike.
The bridges carrying I-83 over the Turnpike, its ramp, and nearby creeks date from 1950-52. So it was probably not complete when the Turnpike opened, but it was definitely almost there.
Quote from: PAHighways on November 09, 2011, 10:11:25 PM
I-276 was complete for nearly a decade before construction began on the Fort Washington Expressway (http://philadelphia.pahighways.com/expressways/fwexpressway.html).
But there was already an interchange on the Turnpike at Fort Washington, presumably at Pennsylvania Avenue, where the state built an interchange on PA 309. So the Turnpike didn't have to do any work to make a direct connection.
In both cases, the situation could have ended with both roads crossing each other without any direct connection or a situation such as at 81, 99, etc.
There was even co-operation between the two agencies in terms of the construction of new at-grade alignments that intersected the Turnpike.
Quote from: PAHighways on November 10, 2011, 12:48:13 PM
In both cases, the situation could have ended with both roads crossing each other without any direct connection or a situation such as at 81, 99, etc.
There was even co-operation between the two agencies in terms of the construction of new at-grade alignments that intersected the Turnpike.
The problem in a number of cases, though, is getting them to connect PennDOT freeways to the Turnpike, which involves a lot of construction to both highways, if they want to have adequate capacity on the connecting roads and ramps.
Quote from: Beltway on November 10, 2011, 05:58:03 PM
Quote from: PAHighways on November 10, 2011, 12:48:13 PM
In both cases, the situation could have ended with both roads crossing each other without any direct connection or a situation such as at 81, 99, etc.
There was even co-operation between the two agencies in terms of the construction of new at-grade alignments that intersected the Turnpike.
The problem in a number of cases, though, is getting them to connect PennDOT freeways to the Turnpike, which involves a lot of construction to both highways, if they want to have adequate capacity on the connecting roads and ramps.
I understand all too well about the lack of interchanges at certain locations, but I was just mentioning instances where the PTC and DOH/DOT had worked together to create connections.
Quote from: PAHighways on November 11, 2011, 10:35:52 AM...
........ instances where the PTC and DOH/DOT had worked together to create connections.
While not a new interchange at a new location, they certainly rebuilt/improved the interchange at New Stanton decades ago.... (Not sure if it was a collaborative effort between the agencies, or if the PTC just did it on it's own though....)
I-176 may be the best example of the two working together to build an all-new interchange.
Quote from: NE2 on November 11, 2011, 03:36:09 PM
I-176 may be the best example of the two working together to build an all-new interchange.
An excellent example. Ironically, it woud take far less construction to connect I-70 directly to the Turnpike access highway at Breezewood.
All that is needed are two ramps...and changes in ownership at every business to people who do not believe said ramps would equal the economic destruction of Breezewood.
Quote from: PAHighways on November 14, 2011, 01:16:25 AM
All that is needed are two ramps...and changes in ownership at every business to people who do not believe said ramps would equal the economic destruction of Breezewood.
The ownership of the businesses at Breezewood, are irrelevant to the decision of whether I-70 should be a continuous Interstate highway.
Business owners are the one who've held back a full freeway to freeway connection at Breezewood. Sadly, new owners of said businesses will likely oppose it also. They're all there to make money. Of course they want the most potential customers to pass by.
Quote from: signalman on November 14, 2011, 06:33:14 AM
Business owners are the one who've held back a full freeway to freeway connection at Breezewood. Sadly, new owners of said businesses will likely oppose it also. They're all there to make money. Of course they want the most potential customers to pass by.
No, the state has caved in to those business owners. Business owners have no right to demand that a gap be left in the national Interstate highway system, when the right-of-way would not impact them.
Besides, they would still have easy-on and easy-off access to their businesses.
It wasn't the state that caved. They went over the Commonwealth's head to every roadgeek's favorite US Representative and got it canned at the federal level.
Quote from: PAHighways on November 14, 2011, 10:43:43 AM
It wasn't the state that caved. They went over the Commonwealth's head to every roadgeek's favorite US Representative and got it canned at the federal level.
Bud Shuster? Are you saying that the U.S. Congress passed a law prohibiting the I-70 connection at Breezewood?
If we changed the owners there would at least be a chance that the new owners would be capitalists who recognize that situations change, rather than crybabies who would rather that government bend over to keep them lazy rather than look out for the common good.
Quote from: Beltway on November 14, 2011, 12:18:37 PM
Quote from: PAHighways on November 14, 2011, 10:43:43 AM
It wasn't the state that caved. They went over the Commonwealth's head to every roadgeek's favorite US Representative and got it canned at the federal level.
Bud Shuster? Are you saying that the U.S. Congress passed a law prohibiting the I-70 connection at Breezewood?
Yes, Bud Shuster. He was the chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and thus controlled the purse strings for transportation funding.
Quote from: PAHighways on November 14, 2011, 01:04:37 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 14, 2011, 12:18:37 PM
Quote from: PAHighways on November 14, 2011, 10:43:43 AM
It wasn't the state that caved. They went over the Commonwealth's head to every roadgeek's favorite US Representative and got it canned at the federal level.
Bud Shuster? Are you saying that the U.S. Congress passed a law prohibiting the I-70 connection at Breezewood?
Yes, Bud Shuster. He was the chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and thus controlled the purse strings for transportation funding.
Where exactly in the U.S. Code is this law? I would like to read it.
Quote from: Beltway on November 14, 2011, 02:18:58 PM
Quote from: PAHighways on November 14, 2011, 01:04:37 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 14, 2011, 12:18:37 PM
Quote from: PAHighways on November 14, 2011, 10:43:43 AM
It wasn't the state that caved. They went over the Commonwealth's head to every roadgeek's favorite US Representative and got it canned at the federal level.
Bud Shuster? Are you saying that the U.S. Congress passed a law prohibiting the I-70 connection at Breezewood?
Yes, Bud Shuster. He was the chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and thus controlled the purse strings for transportation funding.
Where exactly in the U.S. Code is this law? I would like to read it.
I'm sure it can be found somewhere online. I had heard of the arrangement from people working at the DOT and PTC.
Quote from: deanej on November 14, 2011, 12:23:13 PM
If we changed the owners there would at least be a chance that the new owners would be capitalists who recognize that situations change, rather than crybabies who would rather that government bend over to keep them lazy rather than look out for the common good.
While I'm not sure what the "
If we changed the owners" means exactly.... I do agree that the protection of the status quo in Breezewood seems fairly unnecessary. Breezewood is still going to be the only "oasis" of choice & convenience from miles around. If you're heading west on I-70, there really isn't much to choose from once you get past Hagerstown until Breezewood. The Turnpike does have some service plazas, but with widely spaced exits, Breezewood is still a potentially convenient stop (especially if you don't want any of the stuff at a service plaza)...
I'd think it would almost be better to get the traffic that has no intention of stopping in Breezewood businesses to just stay out of Breezewood. As mentioned in posts above, I'm sure they'd take the simplest approach with a "direct connection", and just add 2 ramps where I-70 crosses the PTC "stub", leaving all the current connections to US 30 intact. It would make Breezewood more convenient for those who wish to patronize a business there.
Quote from: PAHighways on November 14, 2011, 02:49:36 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 14, 2011, 02:18:58 PM
Quote from: PAHighways on November 14, 2011, 01:04:37 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 14, 2011, 12:18:37 PM
Quote from: PAHighways on November 14, 2011, 10:43:43 AM
It wasn't the state that caved. They went over the Commonwealth's head to every roadgeek's favorite US Representative and got it canned at the federal level.
Bud Shuster? Are you saying that the U.S. Congress passed a law prohibiting the I-70 connection at Breezewood?
Yes, Bud Shuster. He was the chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and thus controlled the purse strings for transportation funding.
Where exactly in the U.S. Code is this law? I would like to read it.
I'm sure it can be found somewhere online. I had heard of the arrangement from people working at the DOT and PTC.
Then please post the link. This gap has been discussed extensively on roads forums over the years, and nobody has cited an actual federal law that prohibits the connection.
Quote from: Mr_Northside on November 14, 2011, 04:06:33 PM
Quote from: deanej on November 14, 2011, 12:23:13 PM
If we changed the owners there would at least be a chance that the new owners would be capitalists who recognize that situations change, rather than crybabies who would rather that government bend over to keep them lazy rather than look out for the common good.
While I'm not sure what the "If we changed the owners" means exactly.... I do agree that the protection of the status quo in Breezewood seems fairly unnecessary. Breezewood is still going to be the only "oasis" of choice & convenience from miles around. If you're heading west on I-70, there really isn't much to choose from once you get past Hagerstown until Breezewood. The Turnpike does have some service plazas, but with widely spaced exits, Breezewood is still a potentially convenient stop (especially if you don't want any of the stuff at a service plaza)...
I'd think it would almost be better to get the traffic that has no intention of stopping in Breezewood businesses to just stay out of Breezewood. As mentioned in posts above, I'm sure they'd take the simplest approach with a "direct connection", and just add 2 ramps where I-70 crosses the PTC "stub", leaving all the current connections to US 30 intact. It would make Breezewood more convenient for those who wish to patronize a business there.
Exactly my point, but elucidated in much greater detail!
And it would have the same benefit, whether heading east or west on I-70. That includes the traffic between I-99 and MD I-70 (which includes the ideal route between Washington, D.C. and Buffalo NY).
When I served on the community advisory committee for the PATP/I-95 connection project, the PA Economy League presented case studies (the locations of which currently elude me) which showed that in many cases (not all), bypassing a set of businesses actually increases the number of customers patronizing said businesses.
This is because above a certain level of congestion, prospective customers begin to stay away from the area. Even if prospective customers are traveling through, they tend to avoid stopping for the businesses because it's such a pain the neck (or other anatomical feature). They want to spend as little time as possible there.
Removing the through-traffic that has no intention of patronizing the businesses makes it more convenient for those who would like to stop, making it more likely they will do so. This doesn't always result in increased business, but it often does. Of course, it depends on many factors.
I suspect that with all the advertisement the Breezewood businesses already engage in, should a bypass be built, the increase in intentional patronage would overcome the decrease in incidental (impulse) patronage.
Quote from: Beltway on November 14, 2011, 04:38:57 PM
Quote from: PAHighways on November 14, 2011, 02:49:36 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 14, 2011, 02:18:58 PM
Quote from: PAHighways on November 14, 2011, 01:04:37 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 14, 2011, 12:18:37 PM
Quote from: PAHighways on November 14, 2011, 10:43:43 AM
It wasn't the state that caved. They went over the Commonwealth's head to every roadgeek's favorite US Representative and got it canned at the federal level.
Bud Shuster? Are you saying that the U.S. Congress passed a law prohibiting the I-70 connection at Breezewood?
Yes, Bud Shuster. He was the chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and thus controlled the purse strings for transportation funding.
Where exactly in the U.S. Code is this law? I would like to read it.
I'm sure it can be found somewhere online. I had heard of the arrangement from people working at the DOT and PTC.
Then please post the link. This gap has been discussed extensively on roads forums over the years, and nobody has cited an actual federal law that prohibits the connection.
As I said, I only heard scuttlebutt about this measure if it actually exists but I never found proof which is why I never added it to any history page on my website. Also, I only said they went to Bud Shuster for help killing the connection, not that it was signed into as a bill.
Quote from: PAHighways on November 15, 2011, 05:59:13 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 14, 2011, 04:38:57 PM
Quote from: PAHighways on November 14, 2011, 02:49:36 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 14, 2011, 02:18:58 PM
Quote from: PAHighways on November 14, 2011, 01:04:37 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 14, 2011, 12:18:37 PM
Quote from: PAHighways on November 14, 2011, 10:43:43 AM
It wasn't the state that caved. They went over the Commonwealth's head to every roadgeek's favorite US Representative and got it canned at the federal level.
Bud Shuster? Are you saying that the U.S. Congress passed a law prohibiting the I-70 connection at Breezewood?
Yes, Bud Shuster. He was the chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and thus controlled the purse strings for transportation funding.
Where exactly in the U.S. Code is this law? I would like to read it.
I'm sure it can be found somewhere online. I had heard of the arrangement from people working at the DOT and PTC.
Then please post the link. This gap has been discussed extensively on roads forums over the years, and nobody has cited an actual federal law that prohibits the connection.
As I said, I only heard scuttlebutt about this measure if it actually exists but I never found proof which is why I never added it to any history page on my website. Also, I only said they went to Bud Shuster for help killing the connection, not that it was signed into as a bill.
<<< got it canned at the federal level >>>
I would be interested in knowing how that could happen, other than it being codified into federal law.
Otherwise the federal govt could not prevent the state from building it if the state funded it with toll revenue bonds and state tax funds.
Quote from: Beltway on November 15, 2011, 09:18:58 PM
I would be interested in knowing how that could happen, other than it being codified into federal law.
Otherwise the federal govt could not prevent the state from building it if the state funded it with toll revenue bonds and state tax funds.
Bud was a very powerful man who controlled the transportation dollars, so he could make or break projects. If there is a specific law, and knowing his track record (i.e. I-99 designation), it was probably tacked onto some other bigger piece of legislation as to bury it in paper.
Quote from: PAHighways on November 16, 2011, 07:58:55 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 15, 2011, 09:18:58 PM
I would be interested in knowing how that could happen, other than it being codified into federal law.
Otherwise the federal govt could not prevent the state from building it if the state funded it with toll revenue bonds and state tax funds.
Bud was a very powerful man who controlled the transportation dollars, so he could make or break projects. If there is a specific law, and knowing his track record (i.e. I-99 designation), it was probably tacked onto some other bigger piece of legislation as to bury it in paper.
He was only one representative out of 435, and had proportionally little power over what Congress did as a whole.
I won't believe the previous claim until someone cites the exact place where this is in federal transportation legislation.
Also, Shuster left office in 2001, so he has been out of the picture for 10 years already.
Quote from: Beltway on November 16, 2011, 09:12:08 PMHe was only one representative out of 435, and had proportionally little power over what Congress did as a whole.
I didn't say over Congress.
Quote from: Beltway on November 16, 2011, 09:12:08 PMI won't believe the previous claim until someone cites the exact place where this is in federal transportation legislation.
I'm sure you could find it via Google (http://www.google.com).
Quote from: Beltway on November 16, 2011, 09:12:08 PMAlso, Shuster left office in 2001, so he has been out of the picture for 10 years already.
It should go without saying that this happened before he left office.
This whole Breezewood discussion is the prime example of why state DOTs should operate toll roads (as Kentucky did) instead of having separate, independent commissions operate them that do not always cooperate with the larger agency.
Dear PAHighways and Beltway: You will stop this thread of conversation. Now. Next post continuing the "you look it up! no, you! NO YOU!!!" gets a temp ban. ~yr friendly mod
Quote from: hbelkins on November 17, 2011, 06:56:52 PM
This whole Breezewood discussion is the prime example of why state DOTs should operate toll roads (as Kentucky did) instead of having separate, independent commissions operate them that do not always cooperate with the larger agency.
I agree with this statement.
Of course, the often redundancies in the bureaucracy of the 2 separate agencies (and the $$$ it wastes) is, in itself, reason enough.
Quote from: Beltway on November 08, 2011, 10:01:28 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 08, 2011, 07:59:13 PM
Not just on the N.E. Extension, but I would love to see the federal government force the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission and PennDOT to remediate the state's numerous Breezewoods (and come to think of it, there's a "Breezewood" at the Pocono interchange on the N.E. Extension).
I don't see how the federal government could force a state to build a highway.
Not directly - but because the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission issues bonds that are tax-favored in the federal tax code (in other words, the interest on Turnpike bonds is exempt from most federal tax), Congress could easily mandate that before such bonds are declared to be exempt from federal tax, the Turnpike must obtain certification from Federal Highway Administration that it has direct connections to all intersecting highways of functional class expressway or freeway. I believe the only states that would be impacted are Pennsylvania, New Jersey (there's a "breezewood" in Bellmawr where the Turnpike does not connect at all to N.J. 42/I-76/ACE) and perhaps Florida (there's also a "breezewood" in Fort Pierce).
Quote from: hbelkins on November 17, 2011, 06:56:52 PM
This whole Breezewood discussion is the prime example of why state DOTs should operate toll roads (as Kentucky did) instead of having separate, independent commissions operate them that do not always cooperate with the larger agency.
Maryland's Transportation Authority (MdTA) cooperates pretty well with the Maryland Department of Transportation and its modal administrations (mostly State Highway Administration, also Maryland Transit Administration, MTA).
Maybe because the chair of the MdTA board is also the Secretary of Transportation?
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 19, 2011, 09:41:13 AM
Congress could easily mandate that before such bonds are declared to be exempt from federal tax, the Turnpike must obtain certification from Federal Highway Administration that it has direct connections to all intersecting highways of functional class expressway or freeway. I believe the only states that would be impacted are Pennsylvania, New Jersey (there's a "breezewood" in Bellmawr where the Turnpike does not connect at all to N.J. 42/I-76/ACE) and perhaps Florida (there's also a "breezewood" in Fort Pierce).
It would be silly to require it on parallel highways that cross (Fort Pierce and to the south) and reasonable connections via other roads (I-87 and US 209 near Kingston). Perhaps it should be required only if projected traffic counts exceed a certain amount or the current connection has an unacceptable level of service that would be improved with direct connections (which may actually be true for some movements at Fort Pierce). There is a crossing with no interchange at the Turnpike and SR 417 south of Orlando though (there are plans to build a full interchange). Ohio has a couple as well, and New York has at least one (I-87 and NY 85).
I just don't think such a thing should be required. We've inherited a system that we know has flaws, but sometimes the cost of providing a connection between freeways is incomaptible with the benefits. Sometimes doing so would hurt the toll road significantly by providing a much easier free bypass. They are a for-profit agency and therefore should be allowed to determine how best to continue to earn profits. In almost all cases, agencies operate by reinvesting in improvements, so why not let them determine the improvements that best serve their users?
Quote from: NE2 on November 19, 2011, 10:09:16 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 19, 2011, 09:41:13 AM
Congress could easily mandate that before such bonds are declared to be exempt from federal tax, the Turnpike must obtain certification from Federal Highway Administration that it has direct connections to all intersecting highways of functional class expressway or freeway. I believe the only states that would be impacted are Pennsylvania, New Jersey (there's a "breezewood" in Bellmawr where the Turnpike does not connect at all to N.J. 42/I-76/ACE) and perhaps Florida (there's also a "breezewood" in Fort Pierce).
It would be silly to require it on parallel highways that cross (Fort Pierce and to the south) and reasonable connections via other roads (I-87 and US 209 near Kingston). Perhaps it should be required only if projected traffic counts exceed a certain amount or the current connection has an unacceptable level of service that would be improved with direct connections (which may actually be true for some movements at Fort Pierce). There is a crossing with no interchange at the Turnpike and SR 417 south of Orlando though (there are plans to build a full interchange). Ohio has a couple as well, and New York has at least one (I-87 and NY 85).
I thought that Ohio had remediated all of its "breezewoods?"
I know there used to be several in the past, but I believe that the Ohio Turnpike mainline is now directly connected to all crossing freeways and expressways.
Quote from: Steve on November 19, 2011, 10:40:26 AM
I just don't think such a thing should be required. We've inherited a system that we know has flaws, but sometimes the cost of providing a connection between freeways is incomaptible with the benefits. Sometimes doing so would hurt the toll road significantly by providing a much easier free bypass. They are a for-profit agency and therefore should be allowed to determine how best to continue to earn profits. In almost all cases, agencies operate by reinvesting in improvements, so why not let them determine the improvements that best serve their users?
I respectfully disagree.
Toll roads and toll crossings in the United States, with few exceptions, are part of a
national network of highways and other modes of transportation. That makes them fair game for federal regulation, including getting rid of "breezewoods." Stated differently, if Pennsylvania wants to retain its "breezewoods," then it should not have the benefit of favorable federal tax treatment of interest paid on Turnpike Commission bonds.
I assert that if the PTC were
really a profit-making operation (as in a private-sector concession, similar to the Indiana Toll Road and Highway 407 in Ontario - neither of which have "breezewoods"), the Pennsylvania Turnpike's many "breezewoods" would quickly be remediated. But I understand that the PTC is a major source of political patronage jobs, I don't think that either party wants to privatize the Pennsylvania Turnpike system.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 19, 2011, 11:18:32 AM
I thought that Ohio had remediated all of its "breezewoods?"
I-475, SR 10, I-271, SR 11
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 19, 2011, 11:32:13 AM
I assert that if the PTC were really a profit-making operation (as in a private-sector concession, similar to the Indiana Toll Road and Highway 407 in Ontario - neither of which have "breezewoods")
The Indiana Toll Road has one at SR 912, and only five other freeway interchanges (one of which is partial). Highway 407 was originally planned as a free road, and (at least near the west end) I believe interchanges were designed before it became a toll project.
I have a completely different definition of "Breezewood" than, it appears, most here do. I don't consider the lack of freeway-to-freeway connections on intersecting routes (such as I-76 and I-81) to be a "Breezewood." To me, that means when you have to use a surface route to stay on the same interstate. I don't think Pennsylvania should be forced to connect I-76 and I-81, or Ohio to connect I-80 and I-271, but the gap in I-70 is inexcusable.
Quote from: NE2 on November 19, 2011, 11:52:48 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 19, 2011, 11:18:32 AM
I thought that Ohio had remediated all of its "breezewoods?"
I-475, SR 10, I-271, SR 11
Ohio 10 has an interchange with the Turnpike. Had one since the Ohio Turnpike opened.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 19, 2011, 01:23:24 PM
I have a completely different definition of "Breezewood" than, it appears, most here do. I don't consider the lack of freeway-to-freeway connections on intersecting routes (such as I-76 and I-81) to be a "Breezewood." To me, that means when you have to use a surface route to stay on the same interstate. I don't think Pennsylvania should be forced to connect I-76 and I-81, or Ohio to connect I-80 and I-271, but the gap in I-70 is inexcusable.
I don't see much of a difference ... Interstates are a system, and conceptually there is no difference whether you use one or several on a trip.
For instance, Pittsburgh to Allentown, using I-76 Turnpike, I-81 and I-78. I-76 and I-81 at Carlisle conceptually would be a "Breezewood" in making you take surface roads to make a connection in what should be a seamless Interstate highway trip.
Quote from: Beltway on November 19, 2011, 11:11:10 PM
For instance, Pittsburgh to Allentown, using I-76 Turnpike, I-81 and I-78. I-76 and I-81 at Carlisle conceptually would be a "Breezewood" in making you take surface roads to make a connection in what should be a seamless Interstate highway trip.
For that trip, you have three other full freeway options:
- US 15 to PA 581 to I-83 to I-81
- I-83 to I-81
- I-283 to I-83 to I-81
Quote from: hbelkins on November 19, 2011, 11:47:44 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 19, 2011, 11:11:10 PM
For instance, Pittsburgh to Allentown, using I-76 Turnpike, I-81 and I-78. I-76 and I-81 at Carlisle conceptually would be a "Breezewood" in making you take surface roads to make a connection in what should be a seamless Interstate highway trip.
For that trip, you have three other full freeway options:
- US 15 to PA 581 to I-83 to I-81
- I-83 to I-81
- I-283 to I-83 to I-81
I was aware of all of them, but I-81 is clearly the most direct and least congested route between I-76 and I-78 (or for that matter to continue on I-81 northward toward Scranton).
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on November 19, 2011, 10:47:57 PM
Ohio 10 has an interchange with the Turnpike. Had one since the Ohio Turnpike opened.
Er no. The interchange is with old SR 10 (Lorain Road).
^^^
Remediating that situation would be a royal PITA as you have (from west to east) the partial exit of I-480, current OH 10 crossing the turnpike and the exit with old OH 10.
Quote from: mightyace on December 08, 2011, 07:20:44 PM
^^^
Remediating that situation would be a royal PITA as you have (from west to east) the partial exit of I-480, current OH 10 crossing the turnpike and the exit with old OH 10.
Not sure what ODOT and OTC's thinking was on that interchange when it was completed in the early 80s. They could have done something akin to what was constructed at US 42 & I-71 with the turnpike.
Ohio still has not directly connected I-77 and the Ohio Turnpike just outside Cleveland and I-280 and the Turnpike outside Toldeo, they are not true Interstate to Interstate connections.
Quote from: goobnav on December 09, 2011, 09:07:32 AM
Ohio still has not directly connected I-77 and the Ohio Turnpike just outside Cleveland and I-280 and the Turnpike outside Toldeo, they are not true Interstate to Interstate connections.
Yes they have...
I-280 Ends at a traffic light after going under the Ohio Turnpike, that is not a freeway to freeway end, you have to turn . The exit for the Ohio Turnpike from I-77 connects to OH 21, former US 21, still not freeway to freeway.
See link below for I-280 end at the Turnpike:
http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-280_oh.html
Quote from: goobnav on December 09, 2011, 01:25:05 PM
The exit for the Ohio Turnpike from I-77 connects to OH 21, former US 21, still not freeway to freeway.
There has been direct "freeway to freeway" access between the Ohio Turnpike & 77 for a couple of years now (with OH 21 in the middle)
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Fairlawn,+OH&hl=en&ll=41.274065,-81.627645&spn=0.020384,0.045447&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=43.799322,93.076172&vpsrc=6&hnear=Fairlawn,+Summit,+Ohio&t=k&z=15
Quote from: goobnav on December 09, 2011, 01:25:05 PM
I-280 Ends at a traffic light after going under the Ohio Turnpike, that is not a freeway to freeway end, you have to turn .
Nope.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.interstate-guide.com%2Fimages280%2Fi-280_oh_st_03.jpg&hash=26c32eba06a3f2bc0379870d39051f4182d5a1c6)
Take a closer look at the picture NE2 posted of I-280 @ I-80/90 near Toledo. That is not a Breezewood. That is most certainly a freeway-to-freeway connection.
There are no traffic lights, and (except for the toll booths) no stops involved. Those are direct ramps to and from I-280 to the Turnpike.
Doesn't matter if a 1/4 mile south of the exit and entrance ramps it turns into OH-420 and has a stoplight. At that point, it is not an interstate. You're not forced to drive past the truck stops to get on or off the Turnpike (though I certainly stopped there frequently on one of my many trips to and from Cleveland).
Quote from: JREwing78 on December 09, 2011, 09:13:39 PM
Take a closer look at the picture NE2 posted of I-280 @ I-80/90 near Toledo. That is not a Breezewood. That is most certainly a freeway-to-freeway connection.
There are no traffic lights, and (except for the toll booths) no stops involved. Those are direct ramps to and from I-280 to the Turnpike.
Doesn't matter if a 1/4 mile south of the exit and entrance ramps it turns into OH-420 and has a stoplight. At that point, it is not an interstate. You're not forced to drive past the truck stops to get on or off the Turnpike (though I certainly stopped there frequently on one of my many trips to and from Cleveland).
I have not been through there since 2008 (going south on I-280 to then enter the Ohio Turnpike headed east), but even then, there was no Breezewood-style signalized intersection there.