I-895 (Baltimore Harbor Tunnel Thruway)

[1995hoo]

Good call on delaying the project until after the new Key Bridge has been built and opened to traffic. And with I-95's own toll plaza having been demolished and replaced with a toll gantry, the erecting of the new I-895 toll gantry means that all three crossings will now have their respective ones on the same side of the river (not counting the ones at Childs Street), whereas the old toll plaza on I-895 was the only one that was on the opposite side of those on I-95 and I-695.

With all due respect, what difference does it make whether the toll collection points are on the same side of the river?

[boilerup25]

Good call on delaying the project until after the new Key Bridge has been built and opened to traffic. And with I-95's own toll plaza having been demolished and replaced with a toll gantry, the erecting of the new I-895 toll gantry means that all three crossings will now have their respective ones on the same side of the river (not counting the ones at Childs Street), whereas the old toll plaza on I-895 was the only one that was on the opposite side of those on I-95 and I-695.

With all due respect, what difference does it make whether the toll collection points are on the same side of the river?

Probably has something to do with the location of exit ramps.

[epzik8]

If there's a bright side to being stuck in nearly stationary traffic in the Harbor Tunnel, it's discovering the older-style MDTA mile markers on the sidewalls of the tunnel:

[MASTERNC]

If there's a bright side to being stuck in nearly stationary traffic in the Harbor Tunnel, it's discovering the older-style MDTA mile markers on the sidewalls of the tunnel:

I'm guessing the fire exits are at the ends of the tunnel judging by the distances listed?

[epzik8]

If there's a bright side to being stuck in nearly stationary traffic in the Harbor Tunnel, it's discovering the older-style MDTA mile markers on the sidewalls of the tunnel:

I'm guessing the fire exits are at the ends of the tunnel judging by the distances listed?

They are.

[epzik8]

Harbor Tunnel tolls have been moved to the north end of the tunnel, which was much earlier than I expected. Also love that they spent money on vertical height clearance signs.

[1995hoo]

Harbor Tunnel tolls have been moved to the north end of the tunnel, which was much earlier than I expected. Also love that they spent money on vertical height clearance signs.

I haven't been through the Harbor Tunnel in many years, probably not since 2009 or 2010. But I was looking at Google Street View and noticed these odd "Wipers OFF Please" signs at the old toll plaza. Anyone know what the reason for those was? Did wipers tend to flick rainwater onto the toll collectors?

[jmacswimmer]

Harbor Tunnel tolls have been moved to the north end of the tunnel, which was much earlier than I expected. Also love that they spent money on vertical height clearance signs.

The new gantry is located next to the former Fort McHenry Tunnel toll plaza on I-95, just south of the Canton Viaduct (I took this in September, when the gantry appeared finished but wasn't yet activated):



Even though the toll plaza is no longer collecting tolls as of yesterday, it will not be removed for several more years until after the Key Bridge replacement is open. The removal will be part of a larger project reconfiguring exits 8 & 9 on either side of the toll plaza as well as replacing the bridges carrying I-895 over Frankfurst Ave & Childs St. As the current construction phasing calls for single-lane traffic similar to what was done with the Canton Viaduct to the north of the tunnel, MDTA will not proceed with this project until the Key Bridge can serve as a detour route once again.

https://mdta.maryland.gov/I895TollPlaza

I haven't been through the Harbor Tunnel in many years, probably not since 2009 or 2010. But I was looking at Google Street View and noticed these odd "Wipers OFF Please" signs at the old toll plaza. Anyone know what the reason for those was? Did wipers tend to flick rainwater onto the toll collectors?

That's always been my assumption as well - I remember driving on the PA Turnpike years ago during a downpour and consciously making the effort to turn my wipers off prior to reaching the booth at Breezewood, thinking I would soak the toll collector.

[Dirt Roads]

I haven't been through the Harbor Tunnel in many years, probably not since 2009 or 2010. But I was looking at Google Street View and noticed these odd "Wipers OFF Please" signs at the old toll plaza. Anyone know what the reason for those was? Did wipers tend to flick rainwater onto the toll collectors?

That's always been my assumption as well - I remember driving on the PA Turnpike years ago during a downpour and consciously making the effort to turn my wipers off prior to reaching the booth at Breezewood, thinking I would soak the toll collector.

Back in days-gone-by, we were taught in Driver's Ed courses to turn wipers off at all drive-through windows and toll booths.  I realize that West Virginia (being a "turnpike state") may have had a biased reason for such teachings.  But today, I feel like I'm the only person in the drive-through that turns off their wipers.

[epzik8]

Harbor Tunnel tolls have been moved to the north end of the tunnel, which was much earlier than I expected. Also love that they spent money on vertical height clearance signs.

The new gantry is located next to the former Fort McHenry Tunnel toll plaza on I-95, just south of the Canton Viaduct (I took this in September, when the gantry appeared finished but wasn't yet activated):

Now that you've posted this, I realize that I've driven under this many times this year, but half the time it's been at night and thus I didn't realize it was the new toll gantry.

[jeffandnicole]

I haven't been through the Harbor Tunnel in many years, probably not since 2009 or 2010. But I was looking at Google Street View and noticed these odd "Wipers OFF Please" signs at the old toll plaza. Anyone know what the reason for those was? Did wipers tend to flick rainwater onto the toll collectors?

That's always been my assumption as well - I remember driving on the PA Turnpike years ago during a downpour and consciously making the effort to turn my wipers off prior to reaching the booth at Breezewood, thinking I would soak the toll collector.

As a former toll collector, your assumption is generally correct.  In normal speed, the wipers probably won't get the toll collector wet.  But if the wipers were operated at their high speed motion, the rain would definitely splash onto the collector and into the booth. 

[Beltway]

The Fort McHenry Tunnel was opened in November, 1985.

The I-95 construction through the City of Baltimore qualified for and received 90% federal-aid funding from the U.S. Highway Trust Fund, for design, right-of-way and construction, with the remaining 10% coming from state funds. This 90/10 funding ratio was standard for all of the Interstate highways that were built after the 1956 federal highway act that established the Interstate Highway System, and these Interstate highways were without toll collection facilities, and were toll-free. Due to the projected very high cost of the Fort McHenry Tunnel project, where even the state's 10% share was estimated at over $80 million (and that was in late-1970s dollars), the state of Maryland and the City of Baltimore asked the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) fund the whole 100% of the project's cost, and to allow tolls to be collected via a toll plaza built immediately east of the tunnel, with the toll revenue designated to pay off the 10% share in installments. The FHWA granted this funding request, and specified that the tunnel would become toll-free after the state share was paid off via the tolls.

The Fort McHenry Tunnel was built under a very specific understanding: FHWA agreed to fund 100% of construction upfront only because the tunnel was, by far, the most expensive project in the entire Interstate system from 1956–1996, and Maryland simply could not afford its 10% share. The tolls were approved strictly as a temporary repayment mechanism -- nothing more. Everyone involved understood that once Maryland's 10% was recovered, the tunnel would become a normal, toll‑free Interstate facility. Instead, Maryland folded the tunnel into the statewide MDTA toll system and kept collecting tolls for decades, long after the repayment obligation was met. Maryland never had any rightful claim to the tunnel's toll revenue in perpetuity; the tolls were never meant to be a permanent cash stream. If the state wanted to honor the original agreement, it could transfer the tunnel to MSHA and remove the tolls exactly as intended. As it is, they have dishonored the agreement.

[Mapmikey]

Is/was the Harbor Thruway ever under an arrangement where its toll would be dropped?

Because if not you can't really drop the toll on the Fort McHenry Tunnel...just like the Elizabeth River tunnels in Norfolk.

Either they're both free or both tolled. Otherwise the free route will be overburdened.

But Maryland should have been upfront about that.

[Beltway]

Is/was the Harbor Thruway ever under an arrangement where its toll would be dropped?
Because if not you can't really drop the toll on the Fort McHenry Tunnel...just like the Elizabeth River tunnels in Norfolk.
Either they're both free or both tolled. Otherwise the free route will be overburdened.
But Maryland should have been upfront about that.

The Elizabeth River tunnels were retolled to finance a $1.4 billion project to build a parallel Midtown Tunnel, major rehabs on the 3 older tunnels, and extend the Midtown Tunnel approach freeway to I-264. No federal funds involved.

Traffic balance is an important concept and I mention that on my Fort McHenry Tunnel website article, concerning the three harbor crossings. That was written in 1997 when the Fort McHenry Tunnel was 12 years old and probably had not paid off that 10% share. And of course I had no idea that the toll-financed bridge would ever collapse.

I probably need to update the article with the capsule I wrote just upthread.

I have not heard of plan whereby the Harbor Tunnel would have its toll dropped.

From an administrative standpoint, all the crossings could be transferred to MSHA and operate as toll-free Interstate highways.

[Mapmikey]

What they could've done once the FHT was paid off was to then take the remaining toll on 895, cut it in half, and charge that in both tunnels to preserve traffic balance.

[vdeane]

Also worth noting that the toll states successfully lobbied Congress to remove any requirement to de-toll their facilities that got federal aid decades ago.

[Beltway]

Also worth noting that the toll states successfully lobbied Congress to remove any requirement to de-toll their facilities that got federal aid decades ago.

Many of them didn't get any federal aid on their tollroads.

The Fort McHenry Tunnel is a special case as I outlined.

The only similar case that I know of is the West Virginia Turnpike and AFAIK that was 90:10 federal:state when rebuilt in the 1980s.

[vdeane]

Also worth noting that the toll states successfully lobbied Congress to remove any requirement to de-toll their facilities that got federal aid decades ago.

Many of them didn't get any federal aid on their tollroads.

The Fort McHenry Tunnel is a special case as I outlined.

The only similar case that I know of is the West Virginia Turnpike and AFAIK that was 90:10 federal:state when rebuilt in the 1980s.

Maryland and Delaware were in that set.  IIRC Massachusetts and Maine were as well - maybe it concerned the interchanges between the Turnpikes and the free interstates?  The Thruway and PA Turnpike were not.

[Beltway]

Many of them didn't get any federal aid on their tollroads.
The Fort McHenry Tunnel is a special case as I outlined.
The only similar case that I know of is the West Virginia Turnpike and AFAIK that was 90:10 federal:state when rebuilt in the 1980s.

Maryland and Delaware were in that set.  IIRC Massachusetts and Maine were as well - maybe it concerned the interchanges between the Turnpikes and the free interstates?  The Thruway and PA Turnpike were not.

Quote:
Planning for the Northeastern Expressway, as the John F. Kennedy Memorial Highway was called originally, began in 1955. The turnpike was envisioned as 42 miles of four-lane, divided highway running from White Marsh Boulevard to the Maryland-Delaware line. Today, the highway, designated Interstate 95 as part of the national interstate highway system, is a popular travel route for interstate and commuter traffic.

The highway was developed as an interstate toll facility to hasten the construction of a safe and convenient thoroughfare through the northeastern part of Maryland. If the highway had been built using traditional federal highway-funding programs, the turnpike would have been completed seven years later than planned.
https://mdta.maryland.gov/Toll_Facilities/JFK.html
. . . . .
Maryland's own documentation makes clear that the JFK Highway was built as a toll facility specifically to avoid the seven‑year delay that would have come with programming it for 90:10 Interstate funding. Delaware opened its Turnpike the same day as a seamless continuation of that facility, operated under a toll authority and integrated with the Delaware Memorial Bridge system. Under the 1956 Interstate Act, federally funded Interstate mileage had to be "free from tolls of all kinds," so a tolled Delaware Turnpike could not have used Interstate construction dollars. It was almost certainly financed on the same accelerated, non‑federal model as Maryland.

Maine and Massachusetts fall into the same category as the early turnpike‑era toll roads: they were financed and built before the 1956 Interstate Act created the 90:10 program. The Maine Turnpike opened in 1947 and the Mass Pike began construction in 1955, so neither could have used Interstate construction funds. Both were toll‑authority bond projects later designated as Interstates once they met standards. That's the same logic that applies to Maryland's JFK Highway and almost certainly to the Delaware Turnpike: if a facility opened as a toll road, it wasn't built with 90:10 Interstate money.

[vdeane]

Maine and Massachusetts fall into the same category as the early turnpike‑era toll roads: they were financed and built before the 1956 Interstate Act created the 90:10 program. The Maine Turnpike opened in 1947 and the Mass Pike began construction in 1955, so neither could have used Interstate construction funds. Both were toll‑authority bond projects later designated as Interstates once they met standards. That's the same logic that applies to Maryland's JFK Highway and almost certainly to the Delaware Turnpike: if a facility opened as a toll road, it wasn't built with 90:10 Interstate money.

I was referencing the interchanges.  Note that Maine and Massachusetts don't have Breezewoods.  I suppose I shouldn't be surprised - after all, I don't think I've ever seen you not ignore something that you can't argue against.  Alas, I don't remember where I saw the forum post mentioning the states that would have been required to de-toll once the bonds were paid off per federal law if they hadn't gotten Congress to repeal that requirement, and given that you're you, I can't say I'm particularly motivated, either.

[Beltway]

Maine and Massachusetts fall into the same category as the early turnpike‑era toll roads: they were financed and built before the 1956 Interstate Act created the 90:10 program. The Maine Turnpike opened in 1947 and the Mass Pike began construction in 1955, so neither could have used Interstate construction funds. Both were toll‑authority bond projects later designated as Interstates once they met standards. That's the same logic that applies to Maryland's JFK Highway and almost certainly to the Delaware Turnpike: if a facility opened as a toll road, it wasn't built with 90:10 Interstate money.

I was referencing the interchanges.  Note that Maine and Massachusetts don't have Breezewoods.  I suppose I shouldn't be surprised - after all, I don't think I've ever seen you not ignore something that you can't argue against.  Alas, I don't remember where I saw the forum post mentioning the states that would have been required to de-toll once the bonds were paid off per federal law if they hadn't gotten Congress to repeal that requirement, and given that you're you, I can't say I'm particularly motivated, either.

Hardly anybody has "Breezwoods" outside of PA. Frankly I am confused about what actually you are trying to say. I thought you were saying that some tollroads were built with federal funds, and you mentioned four states, so I replied to that.

I also did not know of any federal legislation requiring de-tolling of turnpikes.

[vdeane]

Hardly anybody has "Breezwoods" outside of PA.

Yeah, because most states were either willing to use state funding to build the connections (either toll or DOT) or commit to de-tolling the Turnpike when the bonds were paid off.  PA wasn't willing to do either.

[Beltway]

Hardly anybody has "Breezwoods" outside of PA.

Yeah, because most states were either willing to use state funding to build the connections (either toll or DOT) or commit to de-tolling the Turnpike when the bonds were paid off.  PA wasn't willing to do either.

Very few detolled, I think only VA and CT.

This has been discussed exhaustively on roads forums for over 25 years, many news articles written about it, and there are at least 3 different reasons argued back and forth.

I am not sure which, but the bottom line is that the other states managed to connect them from the beginning, well there were 3 or 4 connection exceptions depending on definition.

PA had 10 and 3 have been added so far.

[vdeane]

Very few detolled, I think only VA and CT.

KY as well, but in any case, promising to remove the tolls and actually following through are, of course, two completely different things.  And, as I mentioned, someone had previously mentioned somewhere on the forum about Congress succumbing to pressure to let many states off the hook from those promises.

[Beltway]

Very few detolled, I think only VA and CT.

KY as well, but in any case, promising to remove the tolls and actually following through are, of course, two completely different things.  And, as I mentioned, someone had previously mentioned somewhere on the forum about Congress succumbing to pressure to let many states off the hook from those promises.

I am somewhere in the middle on the subject of detolling of turnpikes. Billions have been spent widening the NJ and PA turnpikes, for example, and those funds came from new issues of toll revenue bonds.