Breezewood

[jeffandnicole]

For what it's worth, public outreach is required for federally-funded projects through NEPA, including coordinating with stakeholders, so no state can ignore either local citizens or elected officials, etc.

They have to meet with them. They don't have to listen to them.

Not true.  For major projects like this proposed one, public outreach would trigger the need for the transportation agency to respond to every public comment.

For instance, on the I-81 Viaduct Project, NYSDOT responded to every comment, including entirely moving the BL-81 roundabout from MLK, Jr. to Van Buren and including installing sound walls along current I-81.

Of course, not every hare-brained idea is going to influence a project.  This is true when the transportation agency has data or information to the contrary, such as choosing a different alternative to rebuilding the viaduct or tunneling through Syracuse.  But, those ideas, which started in the public, were considered and responded to.

In short, yes, they have to listen to them, but they don't have to alter their project to accommodate every comment due to some of them inevitably being injustified.

"Thank you for your comment" is a response I see often. That's not exactly listening.

The DVRPC publishes NJ's TIP every 2 years, asking for comments.  People comment.  Many of the answers includes responses that lack any sort of desire to address the issue, such as "The DVRPC has a 4% limit of funding on widening projects. And this suggestion wasn't included in the 25 year advanced outlook".  So they have an arbitrary limit, and an unreasonable method that discounts changes to land use which means traffic problems are almost guaranteed to form.  But apparently it's all kosher.

And there's been many projects with public comment sessions where, at least in NJ where, if they answered the comments it wasn't public. 

[Rothman]

For what it's worth, public outreach is required for federally-funded projects through NEPA, including coordinating with stakeholders, so no state can ignore either local citizens or elected officials, etc.

They have to meet with them. They don't have to listen to them.

Not true.  For major projects like this proposed one, public outreach would trigger the need for the transportation agency to respond to every public comment.

For instance, on the I-81 Viaduct Project, NYSDOT responded to every comment, including entirely moving the BL-81 roundabout from MLK, Jr. to Van Buren and including installing sound walls along current I-81.

Of course, not every hare-brained idea is going to influence a project.  This is true when the transportation agency has data or information to the contrary, such as choosing a different alternative to rebuilding the viaduct or tunneling through Syracuse.  But, those ideas, which started in the public, were considered and responded to.

In short, yes, they have to listen to them, but they don't have to alter their project to accommodate every comment due to some of them inevitably being injustified.

"Thank you for your comment" is a response I see often. That's not exactly listening.

The DVRPC publishes NJ's TIP every 2 years, asking for comments.  People comment.  Many of the answers includes responses that lack any sort of desire to address the issue, such as "The DVRPC has a 4% limit of funding on widening projects. And this suggestion wasn't included in the 25 year advanced outlook".  So they have an arbitrary limit, and an unreasonable method that discounts changes to land use which means traffic problems are almost guaranteed to form.  But apparently it's all kosher.

And there's been many projects with public comment sessions where, at least in NJ where, if they answered the comments it wasn't public.

Comments on the TIP are not the same as comments on major projects conducted through NEPA-required public outreach.

[Plutonic Panda]

This is all a bunch of bullshit. It's fucking motherfucking unbelievable this can't be fixed.

[Max Rockatansky]

Tis the law though.  That mindset has rarely been able to clear serious NEPA challenges.

[hbelkins]

In the realm of the hypothetical, I have wondered how it would play out if the feds came in and said "You know what, this is needed, and we got this" - That USDOT would cover 100% the construction costs.... Neither PennDOT nor PA-TPK would have to adjust their long-term budgeting plans at all.  (Obviously, after the initial construction, ongoing maintenance would have to be paid for / taken care of by either PennDOT or the PTC) - I genuinely wonder how it would all play out if they tried that.

Why would the PTC agree to that? The PTC doesn't care. It's not their problem. PTC traffic breezes by (no pun intended) a few miles to the south between Pittsburgh and Harrisburg. Anyone who uses the Breezewood exit is transitioning between a PTC and PennDOT facility.

I'm no expert on Pennsylvania laws and regulations, but I'd think that if PTC wanted to put in a direct connection, it could do it without the public input/comments of the local populace, since in theory the project would be paid for by toll dollars and not tax dollars.

I also don't understand the law that prohibited the direct connection. All of Kentucky's toll roads connected directly to the interstates, and most (if not all) of them had a toll booth between the interstate and the first exit. The Mountain Parkway had a toll booth around MP 14, two miles from the Clay City exit. The Cumberland Parkway's first eastbound toll booth was between I-65 and US 31E at Glasgow. The first exit on the eastbound Bluegrass Parkway had a toll booth at the KY 52 interchange.

[vdeane]

I also don't understand the law that prohibited the direct connection. All of Kentucky's toll roads connected directly to the interstates, and most (if not all) of them had a toll booth between the interstate and the first exit. The Mountain Parkway had a toll booth around MP 14, two miles from the Clay City exit. The Cumberland Parkway's first eastbound toll booth was between I-65 and US 31E at Glasgow. The first exit on the eastbound Bluegrass Parkway had a toll booth at the KY 52 interchange.

Basically, any state that took federal funds to build connections between the interstates with toll roads had to agree to remove the tolls once the bonds were paid off.  Pretty much every state either agreed to do that or spent their own money building the connections, PA was the exception.  In hindsight, PA should have agreed, and it wouldn't have affected them (beyond the connections existing) since the states that made that agreement successfully lobbied Congress to repeal the law (and most of them ultimately reneged on their agreements).

Why would the PTC agree to that? The PTC doesn't care. It's not their problem. PTC traffic breezes by (no pun intended) a few miles to the south between Pittsburgh and Harrisburg. Anyone who uses the Breezewood exit is transitioning between a PTC and PennDOT facility.

Well, they're supposed to serve the traveling public.  If they're myopically focusing only on their road and not what happens around that, then they aren't adequately doing that, and should be replaced.

[Bitmapped]

Why would the PTC agree to that? The PTC doesn't care. It's not their problem. PTC traffic breezes by (no pun intended) a few miles to the south between Pittsburgh and Harrisburg. Anyone who uses the Breezewood exit is transitioning between a PTC and PennDOT facility.

Well, they're supposed to serve the traveling public.  If they're myopically focusing only on their road and not what happens around that, then they aren't adequately doing that, and should be replaced.

By H.B.'s logic, PTC shouldn't have rebuilt the Cranberry interchange to allow a direct connection to I-79.

The benefits to PTC in reconfiguring Breezewood come in two forms:

• Increased revenue. Right now, PTC loses money because the inconvenience of dealing with Breezewood pushes some drivers to I-68. A friction-free transition from free I-70 to the Turnpike would likely attract additional traffic. It might also keep some traffic now that takes US 30 to Bedford.
• A reconfiguration would allow PTC to abandon at least some of the existing spur, eliminating maintenance and reconstruction costs.

[jeffandnicole]

Well, they're supposed to serve the traveling public.  If they're myopically focusing only on their road and not what happens around that, then they aren't adequately doing that, and should be replaced.

In theory, Acts 44/89 accomplishes this task.  Sure, it's done in a heavy-handed way and focuses on 1 or 2 primary regions, but giving toll money to other state transportation organizations would be argued that they're focusing on other transportation issues.

In reality, the PTC is an agency authorized by the Commonwealth of PA to oversee the PA Turnpike.  Other than coordinating with PennDOT and other state agencies as necessary for interchanges traffic, construction, detours and the like, it's not really the PTC's job to focus on other roads.  That's PennDOT's or the local transportation agency's responsibility. 

A reconfiguration would allow PTC to abandon at least some of the existing spur, eliminating maintenance and reconstruction costs.

How?  The existing spur is still going to be required for Turnpike traffic to get to/from Breezewood.  Unless they eliminate the Breezewood exit completely, which isn't going to go over well with Breezewood.

[Bitmapped]

Well, they're supposed to serve the traveling public.  If they're myopically focusing only on their road and not what happens around that, then they aren't adequately doing that, and should be replaced.

In theory, Acts 44/89 accomplishes this task.  Sure, it's done in a heavy-handed way and focuses on 1 or 2 primary regions, but giving toll money to other state transportation organizations would be argued that they're focusing on other transportation issues.

In reality, the PTC is an agency authorized by the Commonwealth of PA to oversee the PA Turnpike.  Other than coordinating with PennDOT and other state agencies as necessary for interchanges traffic, construction, detours and the like, it's not really the PTC's job to focus on other roads.  That's PennDOT's or the local transportation agency's responsibility.

PTC pays for lots of upgrades to PennDOT roads to facilitate improved access to Turnpike interchanges, sometimes well away from the interchange itself. They are also working on the Scranton Beltway project now to help divert traffic from I-81.

A reconfiguration would allow PTC to abandon at least some of the existing spur, eliminating maintenance and reconstruction costs.

How?  The existing spur is still going to be required for Turnpike traffic to get to/from Breezewood.  Unless they eliminate the Breezewood exit completely, which isn't going to go over well with Breezewood.

Build a trumpet where the Breezewood Spur crosses the I-70 mainline and you can remove the rest of the spur between there and US 30.

[jeffandnicole]

A reconfiguration would allow PTC to abandon at least some of the existing spur, eliminating maintenance and reconstruction costs.

How?  The existing spur is still going to be required for Turnpike traffic to get to/from Breezewood.  Unless they eliminate the Breezewood exit completely, which isn't going to go over well with Breezewood.

Build a trumpet where the Breezewood Spur crosses the I-70 mainline and you can remove the rest of the spur between there and US 30.

That would appear to significantly increase reconstruction costs. Anything beyond no-build is more expensive.

And not sure where decreased maintenance costs come into play. I would think a Trumpet adds in at least one new overpass, which requires ongoing inspections every few years increasing maintenance costs as well. Flat pavement and traffic light maintenance costs by comparison are quite low.

[Plutonic Panda]

It should be a directional Y type interchange.

[vdeane]

It should be a directional Y type interchange.

You still need local access.  Perhaps a four level stack between the modern Turnpike and I-70?

A reconfiguration would allow PTC to abandon at least some of the existing spur, eliminating maintenance and reconstruction costs.

How?  The existing spur is still going to be required for Turnpike traffic to get to/from Breezewood.  Unless they eliminate the Breezewood exit completely, which isn't going to go over well with Breezewood.

Build a trumpet where the Breezewood Spur crosses the I-70 mainline and you can remove the rest of the spur between there and US 30.

That would appear to significantly increase reconstruction costs. Anything beyond no-build is more expensive.

And not sure where decreased maintenance costs come into play. I would think a Trumpet adds in at least one new overpass, which requires ongoing inspections every few years increasing maintenance costs as well. Flat pavement and traffic light maintenance costs by comparison are quite low.

Doesn't the existing interchange have a loop ramp?  I wonder if there would be enough room to fit in a trumpet with existing I-70 (eliminating the rest of the Breezewood stub) without even widening those bridges to the west if one lane went with I-70 and the other local.

[pderocco]

A reconfiguration would allow PTC to abandon at least some of the existing spur, eliminating maintenance and reconstruction costs.

How?  The existing spur is still going to be required for Turnpike traffic to get to/from Breezewood.  Unless they eliminate the Breezewood exit completely, which isn't going to go over well with Breezewood.

Build a trumpet where the Breezewood Spur crosses the I-70 mainline and you can remove the rest of the spur between there and US 30.

I think it would be best to turn that crossover into a full Y, and abandon one of the roads into Breezewood. If they abandon the western one that comes to the traffic light, they could perhaps use some of that real estate for a business or two. If they abandon the eastern one with the loop at the end, they would end up lengthening the old abandoned pike by half a mile. Either way, it would be a fairly sharp curve on I-70.

[Henry]

A reconfiguration would allow PTC to abandon at least some of the existing spur, eliminating maintenance and reconstruction costs.

How?  The existing spur is still going to be required for Turnpike traffic to get to/from Breezewood.  Unless they eliminate the Breezewood exit completely, which isn't going to go over well with Breezewood.

Build a trumpet where the Breezewood Spur crosses the I-70 mainline and you can remove the rest of the spur between there and US 30.

I think it would be best to turn that crossover into a full Y, and abandon one of the roads into Breezewood. If they abandon the western one that comes to the traffic light, they could perhaps use some of that real estate for a business or two. If they abandon the eastern one with the loop at the end, they would end up lengthening the old abandoned pike by half a mile. Either way, it would be a fairly sharp curve on I-70.

If it were up to me, I'd eliminate the western spur and rebuild the rest of the interchange into a New Stanton-style setup, with a large sweeping loop for I-70 to go through and the eastern spur being modified to join the Interstate on the right side. Then the free land could be redeveloped into a new business park or even a Walmart/strip mall for local interests and travelers who want to stop into the town. Quite radical, but that opens the door to many possibilities.

[thenetwork]

I just think two ramps for I-70 Toll to I-70 Free connections are all that's needed.   All other connections between I-70 to I-76 or US-30 can use the existing configuration. 

That would thin out enough non-stop thru traffic in Breezewood proper and would likely encourage more people to stop for services, as it would be easier to get between, in and out of the services that currently exist there.

[MASTERNC]

I just think two ramps for I-70 Toll to I-70 Free connections are all that's needed.   All other connections between I-70 to I-76 or US-30 can use the existing configuration. 

That would thin out enough non-stop thru traffic in Breezewood proper and would likely encourage more people to stop for services, as it would be easier to get between, in and out of the services that currently exist there.

I would agree.  Leaving the Sheetz across from the I-70 signal took forever the last time I stopped there.  Less traffic would hopefully shorten the light cycle.

[Gnutella]

Why would the PTC agree to that? The PTC doesn't care. It's not their problem. PTC traffic breezes by (no pun intended) a few miles to the south between Pittsburgh and Harrisburg. Anyone who uses the Breezewood exit is transitioning between a PTC and PennDOT facility.

Well, they're supposed to serve the traveling public.  If they're myopically focusing only on their road and not what happens around that, then they aren't adequately doing that, and should be replaced.

By H.B.'s logic, PTC shouldn't have rebuilt the Cranberry interchange to allow a direct connection to I-79.

The benefits to PTC in reconfiguring Breezewood come in two forms:

• Increased revenue. Right now, PTC loses money because the inconvenience of dealing with Breezewood pushes some drivers to I-68. A friction-free transition from free I-70 to the Turnpike would likely attract additional traffic. It might also keep some traffic now that takes US 30 to Bedford.

Good news is, the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission is such a greedy transportation agency that likes to suck every nickel and dime out of people's pockets that I'm sure a direct connection with I-70 will be built soon. 

[The Ghostbuster]

A direct connection between tolled Interstate 70 and non-tolled Interstate 70 will likely never be built. If such a connection were to have happened, it would have happened well before now. After all, it has only been 68 years since the Interstate System debuted. That is plenty of time to build an Interstate 70 toll to Interstate 70 non-toll connection. The existing connection is likely the only one that will ever exist.

[Ted$8roadFan]

The Wall Street Journal did a video about Breezewood:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0C7rb9a4mk

[jeffandnicole]

The Wall Street Journal did a video about Breezewood:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0C7rb9a4mk

Yep, that was posted on the previous page. https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=21214.msg2940642#msg2940642 .  That's why this thread came back from a 4 year hiatus.

[MASTERNC]

There actually may be light at the end of the tunnel - a direct I-70 interchange.  The PTC is looking for a design firm to reconstruct the interchange and the Turnpike in that section.  Think this is the biggest step we've seen towards an interchange yet?  Still a long way to go but it's positive news.

https://www.paturnpike.com/news/details/2024/09/24/pa-turnpike-to-redesign-breezewood-interchange-with-a-connection-to-interstate-70

[Gnutella]

There actually may be light at the end of the tunnel - a direct I-70 interchange.  The PTC is looking for a design firm to reconstruct the interchange and the Turnpike in that section.  Think this is the biggest step we've seen towards an interchange yet?  Still a long way to go but it's positive news.

https://www.paturnpike.com/news/details/2024/09/24/pa-turnpike-to-redesign-breezewood-interchange-with-a-connection-to-interstate-70

Hallelujah, make it happen! Ironically, this will probably even help Breezewood, since it'll still be located at the junction of two Interstates, and with less traffic to deal with.

Also, I'd like to see the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission become a leader in reconfiguring toll interchanges to more traditional designs with smaller footprints, now that open-road tolling enables it.

[Bitmapped]

Also, I'd like to see the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission become a leader in reconfiguring toll interchanges to more traditional designs with smaller footprints, now that open-road tolling enables it.

PTC is changing the Beaver Valley/PA 18 interchange to a folded diamond as part of the reconstruction there. I suspect, and support, doing conversions as conditions warrant. In the PA 18 example, reconfiguring the interchange facilitates replacement of the Beaver River bridge on a new alignment and eliminates the need for two additional bridges.

I don't think there's a general need to rebuild double-trumpet interchanges just because they can be reconfigured now. I'd rather see PTC focus on locations that lack direct connections like US 219 (especially), PA 28, I-99, and I-81.

[mgk920]

IMHO, the Breezewood commercial area has been dying like a suburban mall for many years now and should be put out of its misery - this RFP is decades overdue.  With this being part of an ongoing 'open road' tolling process, I am kind of expecting a 'REAL' interstate-to-interstate' connection with a minor spur to US 30 to come out of this.  The PTC has a chance to start over with a 'clean slate' here.

Mike

[thenetwork]

I'm probably in the majority when I say "I'll believe it when I see it"....


...IF I'm still around by that time.