Breezewood

[Brandon]

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.

[cpzilliacus]

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).

[cpzilliacus]

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.

[cpzilliacus]

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) at Fort Pierce.

[Beltway]

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 :-)]

[Beltway]

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) 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?

[sparker]

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) 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.     

[cpzilliacus]

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).

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.

[cpzilliacus]

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) 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.

[Beltway]

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.

[Beltway]

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) 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.

[sparker]

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.

[Beltway]

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.

[Avalanchez71]

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) 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.

[Avalanchez71]

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.

[kphoger]

All of us are cool. Whether other people know it or not is irrelevant.

I didn't mean temperature.

[Marf]

a time before being a roadgeek was cool

Nonsense.  Have you been to a roadmeet?  None of us are cool.

Speak for yourself.

No, I do not think we are cool. We need to make ice puns, so chill out.

[roadman65]

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) 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.

[kphoger]

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) 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.

[cpzilliacus]

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.

[kphoger]

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.

[plain]

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.

[jeffandnicole]

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.

[thenetwork]

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. 

[texaskdog]

I know how to fix it.  Just make I-76 into I-70 and renumber the rest.