Breezewood

[jeffandnicole]

The easiest way would be to use that space to the north of 76 to curl 70 into the current interchange from 76 to the local roads, but that would not be the most ideal solution and lower speeds could still cause backups.

I had previously posted this admittedly poor drawing in another thread to suggest exactly that sort of thing. I suppose the same general design could work if it were moved south to where the Turnpike passes over, and the terrain looks like it might be slightly better there. Sorry about the poor drawing. I have trouble drawing lines with a mouse. In this picture, blue would be the I-70 mainline as relocated and green would be ramps. Red denotes the old I-70 that could be removed, although it could also be left in place as an exit.

This alone won't work, because it doesn't provide I-70 West access to Breezewood, and it'll lack a connection from Breezewood to I-70 East.  Removing those red lines would provide that access.

Others have referenced a Y interchange, which I don't think would be favored either because I-70 has a very tight ROW just south of the Turnpike, with a church on one side and "stuff" (homes?  businesses? Can't tell) on the other side.  I doubt the PTC would really favor knocking out locals, especially a church, in favor of an interchange.

I suspect 1995hoo is on the right track with the loop ramps, even though they are much hated.  If not in that exact area pictured above, then nearby.  The current ramp bridge over the Turnpike has to come down, and there is room to rebuild the overpass in the vicinity of the current interchange while creating access to I-70.

[1995hoo]

This alone won't work, because it doesn't provide I-70 West access to Breezewood, and it'll lack a connection from Breezewood to I-70 East.  Removing those red lines would provide that access.

....

I think the green lines in the diagram would provide the access you describe. It's admittedly a little hard to see. If you were heading west on I-70 (coming up from the bottom of the picture) and you wanted to access Breezewood, you would take the exit shown in green on the right just before the loop and use the existing local road that's there. (The green loop seen there is intended to provide access from Breezewood to westbound I-70.) If you were in Breezewood, or coming west on US-30, and you wanted to head east on I-70 towards Hancock/Baltimore/DC, you would use the existing ramp to the Turnpike and then take the ramp shown in green that connects to the blue eastbound loop ramp.

But, upon reflection, it would make more sense just to preserve the existing part of I-70 there for local access. I don't know why I didn't draw it that way when I came up with that original idea. Part of what I was trying to do with that drawing was to avoid knocking down existing properties.

....

Others have referenced a Y interchange, which I don't think would be favored either because I-70 has a very tight ROW just south of the Turnpike, with a church on one side and "stuff" (homes?  businesses? Can't tell) on the other side.  I doubt the PTC would really favor knocking out locals, especially a church, in favor of an interchange.

....

I haven't been that way in a few years, but I remember way back in my Boy Scout days (admittedly, that's now over 30 years ago) there was an X-rated movie store at the first interchange south of the Turnpike. It always got loads of attention from all of us, but for some funny reason none of our fathers was ever willing to stop there.

[jeffandnicole]

This alone won't work, because it doesn't provide I-70 West access to Breezewood, and it'll lack a connection from Breezewood to I-70 East.  Removing those red lines would provide that access.

....

I think the green lines in the diagram would provide the access you describe. It's admittedly a little hard to see. If you were heading west on I-70 (coming up from the bottom of the picture) and you wanted to access Breezewood, you would take the exit shown in green on the right just before the loop and use the existing local road that's there. (The green loop seen there is intended to provide access from Breezewood to westbound I-70.) If you were in Breezewood, or coming west on US-30, and you wanted to head east on I-70 towards Hancock/Baltimore/DC, you would use the existing ramp to the Turnpike and then take the ramp shown in green that connects to the blue eastbound loop ramp.

Oh yeah, I see them now. Probably a little tight, but plenty of room to widen them out to increase the radii and make it workable.

[Bitmapped]

This helped, per the article: "Making the direct connection became an easy call, Compton said, when designers estimated it would cost about the same amount, $170 million at today's prices, to make a new direct connection or revitalize the existing alignment."

This is a key factor to remember when discussing plans for the new configuration - PTC figures they can build the new interchange for a similar cost to what it would take to rebuild the existing Turnpike spur (original Turnpike alignment). That would suggest most or all of the original alignment will be abandoned and that it's the PennDOT-maintained I-70 spur that will remain.

My guess is that the new interchange will be at where the Turnpike mainline crosses I-70 as it would allow the Turnpike spur and its associated bridges to be removed entirely. I wouldn't be surprised to see something like a diamond or parclo with a flyover thrown in to serve the I-70 WB movement. This would give free flow for the I-70 movements (or all Interstate-to-Interstate movements, depending on how you configured it). There's not really a need for free-flowing movements serving the spur into Breezewood.

[Bobby5280]

Here's a quick mock-up of what I think they could end up building:



I took advantage of how the I-70 lanes going North-South under I-76 flare out on the way into Breezewood. New I-70 main lanes could be built in between the old lanes, which would make the old lanes turn into right exit/entrance ramps.

[The Ghostbuster]

I don't care what configuration a direct connection between the Pennsylvania Turnpike and Interstate 70 is built in, as long as one is constructed.

[Gnutella]

To my surprise, apparently there is growing support from the powers that be in Breezewood to pursue this project. 

They acknowledge that there has been a decrease in the traffic volume and would like to have Breezewood reimagined as a destination for outdoor tourism. 

Article:  https://www.unionprogress.com/2024/09/25/breezewood-area-supports-pennsylvania-turnpike-push-for-direct-link-to-interstate-70/

I never thought I'd see the day when this would happen.  The status quo at Breezewood was viewed as a cash register for Bedford County.    A "drive" along the corridor with Google Maps Streetview reveals the decline of businesses in this strip.  A number of the parcels now sit abandoned or exist in a forlorn condition. 

This is me being a jerk by saying that's one reason I might oppose it.  TPTB wanted it this way and even got the state legislature to step in and put a halt to plans the PTC and PennDOT had decades ago for a direct connection.  Now the Powers want that connection, but not for the good of the motoring public -- they want it because now they think it's to their benefit.  F*ck 'em, I say.  What they've got now is what they wanted; they can continue living with it.  Let the businesses board up.  Heck, re-route I-70 along I-79 and I-68 (concurrent with the former and decommissioning the latter) and further dry up the town.

(Yes, I'm a little looped right now.)

Business ownership in Breezewood is probably very different now than it was the last time a plan for a direct connection with I-70 was shot down.

[mgk920]

With EZPass and photo by plate toll collection becoming the standard on the PATurnpike, the need for 'trumpet' access interchanges is gone and the highway can be redone more like a normal interstate.  Thus, that along with the dying of the highway commercial area at Breezewood like with modern malls and suburban office parks (most recent Google air images show only the two major truck stops there as being busy) means that the engineers essentially have a 'clean slate' from which to start.  I am anticipating I-70 to the southeast to directly feed into the PATurnpike mainline with a normal high speed directional 'T' interchange with local access to what is left of Breezewood being from I-70 to the southeast via the existing 'half diamond' that is just south of the Turnpike mainline and a new convectional diamond interchange between the Turnpike mainline and that local road that is just west of I-70, everything 'piggybacked' like at the recently redone I39/90/I-43 in Beloit or I-41/WI 29/32 (Shawano Ave) in the Green Bay area here in Wisconsin.  In this. the existing Turnpike I-70 access roadway (original Turnpike mainline) can be 'trailed' westward to that local road that is just east of the existing 'trumpet' tollgate.  Those travelers (mainly long haul commercial truck drivers) who would normally patronize those truck stops will continue to do so.

Mike

[Bobby5280]

The problem with building a standard Y interchange on the South edge of I-76, where I-70 first crosses under I-76, is that there is a bunch of existing properties sitting in the way.

Lighthouse Assembly of God, a towing business and at least one or more residential homes are along Lighthouse Road, to the right of I-70. On the left side of I-70 there are even more residential homes and other businesses, not to mention a good bit of active farm land. A bunch of that would be erased by a Y interchange in that location.

The concept I drew up a couple posts above would not remove any existing structures. Everything along Breezewood Road and Lighthouse Road would remain untouched. The existing I-76 bridges going over I-70 are already wide enough to handle merging traffic from a new I-70/I-76 interchange. The merging activity would be positioned at a good distance away from the existing Breezewood trumpet interchange into the turnpike. The loops in the new interchange concept have wide curve radii, which would allow faster travel speeds.

[Mr_Northside]

My guess is that the new interchange will be at where the Turnpike mainline crosses I-70 as it would allow the Turnpike spur and its associated bridges to be removed entirely. I wouldn't be surprised to see something like a diamond or parclo with a flyover thrown in to serve the I-70 WB movement. This would give free flow for the I-70 movements (or all Interstate-to-Interstate movements, depending on how you configured it). There's not really a need for free-flowing movements serving the spur into Breezewood.

This is mostly my line of thinking.  If one of the primary goals of this whole project (especially from the PTC perspective) is to get rid of the spur/original alignment, even though they'll have to take out some properties/buildings, I think what they'll do is build a diamond interchange with current "free" I-70 @ the mainline Turnpike crossing, and then a "Y" interchange around it. 
A sort-of template is what the PTC did connecting Toll-43 (Mon-Fayette) to US-119 in Uniontown.  There is still a diamond interchange with PA-51 within all the "Y" ramps for TPK-43 on US-119 (Obviously a main difference is @ Uniontown the "Y" ramps lead to a distinct freeway (TPK-43), and PA-51 continues as it's own, whereas in Breezewood the ramps will merge (or split from, depending on direction of travel) with Free I-70 heading east [south].
I could even see them taking a page out of the I-95 interchange playbook, and only building the freeway-freeway ramps for the continuous I-70 movements, and holding off on the freeway movements to/from the Turnpike east of Breezewood "until demand dictates they are needed" (and those movements using the diamond interchange until then).

With EZPass and photo by plate toll collection becoming the standard on the PATurnpike, the need for 'trumpet' access interchanges is gone and the highway can be redone more like a normal interstate. 

Not to veer too off-topic, but I'm kind of surprised at how many people really - actively - want to get rid of all the trumpets. I guess I just have a soft spot for the trumpet.
In reality I suspect as the years and decades go by, it will be a mixed bag.  They're already converting the Beaver Valley interchange as part of the bridge replacement project. The page for the Monroeville <-> Irwin reconstruction project mentions that Irwin is going to be re-constructed - but I have yet to see what it will look like.  But some interchanges will probably stay as they are - I believe Donegal will always be the trumpet that is there.  Same with Somerset.
Not going to sidetrack more by analyzing every interchange there is...

[jeffandnicole]

I think most of the trumpets will stay as well. They work, and other than a new overpass over the widened roadway, eliminating the toll booth, and associated ramp revisions, most of the existing roadway can remain. People tend to think "oh, just demolish businesses and homes. They will get all the money they deserve". Which shows that people generally have no idea that eminent domain is a very upsetting process to people that are forced to sell longtime homes and businesses, gov agencies will typically lowball offers because they want to pay as little as possible, and by doing so they're wiping out many employment sources to local areas, especially rural areas.  Peoples and municipalities can be supportive of widenings and such because the ROW generally exists, they get sound barriers out of it, etc. Tell them they will remove a perfectly fine trumpet and take out ratables, and they will be less accommodating.

[D-Dey65]

To my surprise, apparently there is growing support from the powers that be in Breezewood to pursue this project. 

They acknowledge that there has been a decrease in the traffic volume and would like to have Breezewood reimagined as a destination for outdoor tourism. 

Article:  https://www.unionprogress.com/2024/09/25/breezewood-area-supports-pennsylvania-turnpike-push-for-direct-link-to-interstate-70/

I never thought I'd see the day when this would happen.  The status quo at Breezewood was viewed as a cash register for Bedford County.    A "drive" along the corridor with Google Maps Streetview reveals the decline of businesses in this strip.  A number of the parcels now sit abandoned or exist in a forlorn condition. 

from Pittsburgh Union Progress
"Wehling said the turnpike has been a strong supporter of the trail effort, including installing a trail head at the Sidling Hill Service Plaza this summer. That trail head will provide access to 600 miles of trails within a 25-mile radius, including trails in Buchanan State Forest, Bicycle PA Route S and Raystown Lake."

I still say the PTC should've installed the Sideling Hill Service Plaza where the old turnpike meets the new turnpike. That way they could add the trail head along the eastbound lanes and use only the former turnpike between Breezewood and the newer section of the turnpike for the bike trail.


I'd be okay with a west to north loop ramp from US 30 to the connecting road to the turnpike, but the Gateway Plaza and TA Truck stop are blocking it. A directional T interchange would be good for the US 30/I-70 interchange, but that's being blocked by Sheets and the Days Inn.

Here's a quick mock-up of what I think they could end up building:



I took advantage of how the I-70 lanes going North-South under I-76 flare out on the way into Breezewood. New I-70 main lanes could be built in between the old lanes, which would make the old lanes turn into right exit/entrance ramps.

I like this idea for the direct access between I-70 and I-76. I still wish the double trumpet would be kept anyway.

[vdeane]

Count me as another person who doesn't understand all the trumpet hate here.  They have their place.  The main issue with the PTC ones is that they're very small, not that they're trumpets.  I could see some being removed over time where ROW allows when the bridges come due for replacement, but otherwise?  Why spend a bunch of money to rip them out when they work fine?  I'm much more interested in fixing the "connections" to the interstate system and other freeways.  And if function/ROW says a trumpet is the best option, why spend more for a Y?  Flyover ramps aren't cheap, and I don't see the I-76 W to I-70 E moving having enough traffic to warrant one, although one still might be the best option depending on ROW and what they come up with.

Since Donegal was mentioned, I took a look at it and it might actually make a good opportunity to realign PA 711 on the existing trumpet and remove the existing curve/bridge on that route.  It looks to me like connecting them and re-configuring the ramps could be done with only taking yard space and maybe an abandoned building.

[The Ghostbuster]

If I'm not mistaken, trumpet interchanges were very common on toll roads that were constructed before the debut of the Interstate System. I personally don't mind trumpet interchanges, although it is apparent that not everyone feels that way.

[Bitmapped]

Since Donegal was mentioned, I took a look at it and it might actually make a good opportunity to realign PA 711 on the existing trumpet and remove the existing curve/bridge on that route.  It looks to me like connecting them and re-configuring the ramps could be done with only taking yard space and maybe an abandoned building.

PennDOT spent a lot of money in the past couple years relocating PA 31 at the Donegal interchange. I can't see them being interested in dropping more money. There's also a significant elevation difference between the Donegal ramps and PA 711 behind it that isn't easily fixable.

Here's a quick mock-up of what I think they could end up building:



I took advantage of how the I-70 lanes going North-South under I-76 flare out on the way into Breezewood. New I-70 main lanes could be built in between the old lanes, which would make the old lanes turn into right exit/entrance ramps.

There's a significant elevation difference in this the land in this photo. The earthmoving costs for this ramp configuration would be enormous and it would cause a lot of unnecessary uphill and downhill for traffic going to/from I-70. I guess you're trying to minimize taking of buildings, but you're taking a ton more land than would be required otherwise. You also don't address the problem of providing access to/from Breezewood.

I am anticipating I-70 to the southeast to directly feed into the PATurnpike mainline with a normal high speed directional 'T' interchange with local access to what is left of Breezewood being from I-70 to the southeast via the existing 'half diamond' that is just south of the Turnpike mainline and a new convectional diamond interchange between the Turnpike mainline and that local road that is just west of I-70, everything 'piggybacked' like at the recently redone I39/90/I-43 in Beloit or I-41/WI 29/32 (Shawano Ave) in the Green Bay area here in Wisconsin.  In this. the existing Turnpike I-70 access roadway (original Turnpike mainline) can be 'trailed' westward to that local road that is just east of the existing 'trumpet' tollgate.  Those travelers (mainly long haul commercial truck drivers) who would normally patronize those truck stops will continue to do so.

I don't foresee this happening. There's a significant amount of traffic that uses US 30 to go between I-99 and I-70, plus you have the truck traffic that will want to patronize the businesses in Breezewood.

If they were to do this, PennDOT is going to want PTC to do a rebuild of South Breezewood Road (old PA 126). It needs some widening (some parts aren't 12-foot lanes, and it generally lacks shoulders) and it doesn't have a thick enough base to handle lots of truck traffic.

[epzik8]

Here's a quick mock-up of what I think they could end up building:



I took advantage of how the I-70 lanes going North-South under I-76 flare out on the way into Breezewood. New I-70 main lanes could be built in between the old lanes, which would make the old lanes turn into right exit/entrance ramps.

There's a significant elevation difference in this the land in this photo. The earthmoving costs for this ramp configuration would be enormous and it would cause a lot of unnecessary uphill and downhill for traffic going to/from I-70. I guess you're trying to minimize taking of buildings, but you're taking a ton more land than would be required otherwise. You also don't address the problem of providing access to/from Breezewood.

Not to mention all the tree removal.

[vdeane]

PennDOT spent a lot of money in the past couple years relocating PA 31 at the Donegal interchange. I can't see them being interested in dropping more money.

Did you miss the part when I said "when the bridges come due for replacement"?  I'm not saying "now now now now NOW!!!" like everyone else here is - in fact, I'm specifically arguing against that.

[jeffandnicole]

If I'm not mistaken, trumpet interchanges were very common on toll roads that were constructed before the debut of the Interstate System. I personally don't mind trumpet interchanges, although it is apparent that not everyone feels that way.

NJ Tpk to I-195 is a trumpet. NJ Tpk to/from I-287 is a trumpet. NJ Tpk to/from I-278 is a trumpet. NJ Tpk to/from US 1-9 is a Trumpet.  NJ Tpk to/from US 1-9 Truck is a trumpet.  PA Tpk to/from I-176 is a trumpet.  PA Tpk to/from I-283 is a trumpet.  OH Tpk to/from I-76/80 is a trumpet.

Just pointing out people forget that it's not uncommon for trumpets to exist. They work. Well. They focus on Breezewood thinking a Y interchange is the only option here, but it's far from the only option. 

[ilpt4u]

If I'm not mistaken, trumpet interchanges were very common on toll roads that were constructed before the debut of the Interstate System. I personally don't mind trumpet interchanges, although it is apparent that not everyone feels that way.

NJ Tpk to I-195 is a trumpet. NJ Tpk to/from I-287 is a trumpet. NJ Tpk to/from I-278 is a trumpet. NJ Tpk to/from US 1-9 is a Trumpet.  NJ Tpk to/from US 1-9 Truck is a trumpet.  PA Tpk to/from I-176 is a trumpet.  PA Tpk to/from I-283 is a trumpet.  OH Tpk to/from I-76/80 is a trumpet.

Just pointing out people forget that it's not uncommon for trumpets to exist. They work. Well. They focus on Breezewood thinking a Y interchange is the only option here, but it's far from the only option.

Heck IDOT uses some trumpets for free interstate connections: Both I-39 and I-74/northern exits at I-55 in Bloomington/Normal are trumpets, at consecutive interstate freeway interchanges

I-74 at I-155's northern terminus is a trumpet at Morton IL

I-72 and I-172 in Western IL is another IDOT interstate trumpet, as is I-80 at the infamous IL I-180 interchange

[Bitmapped]

If I'm not mistaken, trumpet interchanges were very common on toll roads that were constructed before the debut of the Interstate System. I personally don't mind trumpet interchanges, although it is apparent that not everyone feels that way.

NJ Tpk to I-195 is a trumpet. NJ Tpk to/from I-287 is a trumpet. NJ Tpk to/from I-278 is a trumpet. NJ Tpk to/from US 1-9 is a Trumpet.  NJ Tpk to/from US 1-9 Truck is a trumpet.  PA Tpk to/from I-176 is a trumpet.  PA Tpk to/from I-283 is a trumpet.  OH Tpk to/from I-76/80 is a trumpet.

Just pointing out people forget that it's not uncommon for trumpets to exist. They work. Well. They focus on Breezewood thinking a Y interchange is the only option here, but it's far from the only option.

Heck IDOT uses some trumpets for free interstate connections: Both I-39 and I-74/northern exits at I-55 in Bloomington/Normal are trumpets, at consecutive interstate freeway interchanges

I-74 at I-155's northern terminus is a trumpet at Morton IL

I-72 and I-172 in Western IL is another IDOT interstate trumpet, as is I-80 at the infamous IL I-180 interchange

You all are describing two different interchange configurations: trumpet and double trumpet. Trumpets are a generally lower-speed but acceptable way of joining three approaches. They do tend to have operational problems when the loop ramp has a high volume of traffic unless the loop has a very diameter to allow for higher speeds. For an example where a trumpet loop was a problem, see the east/south I-70/I-79 interchange where the loop was replaced by a flyover.

Double trumpets are much more common in the context of toll roads. They perform poorly at higher traffic volumes because they introduce weaving in what is often a very short merge area. Ohio had one of the rare examples of a double trumpet that didn't involve toll roads at the interchange of I-71 and I-76 near Lodi, OH. It was radically reconfigured about 15 years ago with half the movements taken out of the double trumpet to eliminate weaving.

[Bobby5280]

There's a significant elevation difference in this the land in this photo. The earthmoving costs for this ramp configuration would be enormous and it would cause a lot of unnecessary uphill and downhill for traffic going to/from I-70. I guess you're trying to minimize taking of buildings, but you're taking a ton more land than would be required otherwise. You also don't address the problem of providing access to/from Breezewood.

The land where I drew the "Y" interchange concept has some minor hills to deal with. There is a much bigger ridge just to the East of Breezewood. The terrain is not all that bad. It's less controversial to deal with that than force several families and businesses off their property. Regarding the tree removal, massive amounts of trees get removed in all kinds of highway projects. They're doing that here in Oklahoma with the I-44 turnpike widening between Tulsa and OKC.

Also, the interchange concept does not remove access to Breezewood. As I stated earlier, the existing I-70 lanes running North-South into/from Breezewood remain intact. New I-70 lanes would be built in between the existing lanes, turning the old lanes into exit ramps leading to/from Breezewood.

[mgk920]

If they were to do this, PennDOT is going to want PTC to do a rebuild of South Breezewood Road (old PA 126). It needs some widening (some parts aren't 12-foot lanes, and it generally lacks shoulders) and it doesn't have a thick enough base to handle lots of truck traffic.

I was also pondering using one of the existing I-70 roadways for this purpose.  Don't forget, too, that this entire project will create a lot of surplus ROW to be vacated and sold off.  There are OODLES of ways to go about doing this.

Mike

[vdeane]

Also, the interchange concept does not remove access to Breezewood. As I stated earlier, the existing I-70 lanes running North-South into/from Breezewood remain intact. New I-70 lanes would be built in between the existing lanes, turning the old lanes into exit ramps leading to/from Breezewood.

What about access from I-76?  The current turnpike "interchange" (really the original alignment and part of the old Breezewood interchange mashed together into a Frankenstein road) is planned for removal once the direct connection is built.

[bmitchelf]

Also, the interchange concept does not remove access to Breezewood. As I stated earlier, the existing I-70 lanes running North-South into/from Breezewood remain intact. New I-70 lanes would be built in between the existing lanes, turning the old lanes into exit ramps leading to/from Breezewood.

What about access from I-76?  The current turnpike "interchange" (really the original alignment and part of the old Breezewood interchange mashed together into a Frankenstein road) is planned for removal once the direct connection is built.

If they just leave it, they could provide all access and remove the current I-70 lanes that go to the traffic light.

[pderocco]

Regarding the tree removal, massive amounts of trees get removed in all kinds of highway projects. They're doing that here in Oklahoma with the I-44 turnpike widening between Tulsa and OKC.

I would think Georgia Pacific would pay for the privilege of cutting down all those trees.