Breezewood

[thenetwork]

I am cornfused.  Would any of the Breezewood businesses' property actually be taken in building the direct connexion?  Or, is their concern just about losing their "captive audience".

If you did EZ-Pass only ramps from Free-70 to the Pike where those two mainlines cross, with the east-to-east connection a right ramp and a flyover from west-to-west, you would bypass the "town" and the old PA Tpk alignment (now the Breezewood Toll Plaza) completely tearing down little to no buildings.  So it is more the "town" being afraid nobody will stop for services there anymore.

[_Simon]

I am cornfused.  Would any of the Breezewood businesses' property actually be taken in building the direct connexion?  Or, is their concern just about losing their "captive audience".

It wouldn't at all.  And that's my point.  If the PTC owns the land (they do) and they want to build a connector, and they have done the required EIS and met all federal and statutory requirements, then they can.  They don't need to ask anyone. 

The part where they to appeal to a community or work with landowners is over because no further land is needed.  Jeffandnicole seems to think that local businesses or individuals seem to have some input into the process of what a state authority is doing on state property with state resources beyond the normal input that authority civilly consumes based on its own policies (not laws).  The PTCs funds are not subject to public approval because they're an authority.  They don't need to have a hearing like local or county government would to approve funding, and they don't need a public hearing for land acquiring, zoning, or land use change because they already own the ROW and it's already not part of the local municipalities zoning.

For example, show me any public hearing ever done related to new highway ramps and I will sort it into of four groups: information finding, land use/zoning, funding, legislative.  None of these considerations are required for PTC to add a pair of ramps.  Look at any previous example where a turnpike commission added new ramps that didn't require any new land.  Project briefings and press releases aren't public hearings and public hearings also don't mean veto power.  No business miles away should even be considered during a project like this unless they themselves are the source of the traffic.


SM-G955U

[Beltway]

1) Why and how during the same era did the PTC build interchanges with these other PennDOT Interstate highways -- I-376 Monroeville, I-70 New Stanton, I-283 and I-76 Valley Forge.

In part because these weren't constructed during the same era. With the exception of I-283, the other direct connections you mention were built around 1950, years prior to the 1956 Act–which contained the Section 113 prohibition on use of funds for connections to toll facilities.
If the 1921 model of 50-50 funding for approved federal aid projects was still in force in 1950 and these projects qualified, the PA Dept. of Highways received at most 50% of the construction cost of that direct interchange. Otherwise, the cost was paid out of the PDH's own funding sources. So at one extreme, the 1950 PDH (in decent fiscal health) possibly received 50% funding to build direct connections–and on the other, a debt-crippled 1970 PennDOT receives 0% to build a direct connection. It's not hard for me to understand why these early direct connections were built and later ones (I-80, I-81) weren't.
Yes, I-283 was built after 1956. But it seems that the PDH was also able to exploit a bit of a loophole. The restriction in Section 113 says that federal funds could be used "to a point where such project will have some use irrespective of its use for such toll road, bridge, or tunnel" . As I can best interpret that passage, federal funds could be used to build I-283 up to the PA 283 interchange, but not beyond it. And by strategically placing the 283/283 interchange less than 500 feet from the Turnpike's existing Harrisburg East interchange, the PDH reduced its out of pocket liability to a few hundred feet of grading and concrete.

The I-476 interchange concept was approved in the 1970s and was completed in 1992, and that involved a complex connection between a PennDOT Interstate and two PTC highways.

The I-176 interchange was completed in 1996.

Both are within the original Interstate construction era.

If the I-70 ramps had been built we wouldn't even be having this discussion today.

I am not at all convinced that "Section 113" was interpreted correctly, and if it was that a new federal-aid highway bill of 1962 or later didn't eliminate that stricture.  After all, the apparent practices elsewhere would indicate that there was no such stricture after about 1965.

Richard Weingroff's webpage concerns me in that it may have pulled the punches that were deserved, or perhaps engaged in revisionist history.  Given the federal-state relationship between FHWA and the state highway administrations, he may be reluctant to give the state its due, while at the same time having felt a lot of pressure from untold numbers of inquires from around the country to FHWA about Breezewood, to publish some kind of answer to the question.

PennDOT's debt problems after 1970 would not have affected the eligibility for 90% federal funding for Interstate construction.  PennDOT did a decent job of getting all of its authorized Interstate highways built in a timely fashion, and the only ones deleted were I-695 and I-895.

2) Why didn't the PTC enter into the agreement, knowing that payoff of all toll revenue bonds would be many years if not decades into the future?  If they ever would be paid off given future improvement needs that would necessitate more toll revenue bonds?

My interpretation of Section 113 is that the PTC would have needed to agree to end tolls when existing bonds were paid. In other words, perpetually issuing new bonds to ensure that the Commission remained in debt forever (as is its current mode) wouldn't have been allowed.

See my comments above about Section 113.  That obviously didn't occur with the turnpikes in NJ, NY, OH and IN.  As things transpired, all those turnpikes needed large amounts of capital and new toll revenue bond issues to fund major maintenance and expansion projects, and AFAIK none have ever had any plans to stop tolling.

But beyond the peculiarities of federal funding, I think another major factor in the development of the current Breezewood configuration is timing and lack of coordination. According to Jeff Kitsko, "free"  I-70 was completed from the Maryland line to Breezewood in 1964–so my guess is that it would have been under design probably around 1962. At that point, a 1961 PTC study had recommended a bypass of the Rays and Sideling Hill Tunnels, but selection of a final alignment and design work wouldn't be complete until 1966 and the bypass wouldn't open until late 1968.
And with the knowledge that the Turnpike in Breezewood would be bypassed–but without solid plans showing exactly how–and in the "build it now"  ethic of the times and I-70-earmarked federal dollars burning a hole in its pocket, the PDH just built I-70 to the only fixed point it knew would be there in ten years: US 30.

Given the close timing of those years, there would have been ample time to coordinate the designs of I-70 and the new turnpike alignment.  Besides, by 1966 they knew where to build two ramps between what would be the old turnpike stub (access highway to US-30) and I-70, they could have awarded the contract by 1968.

[Flint1979]

Isn't the southern end of I-99 somewhat like Breezewood? Only exception would be I-99 isn't a through route but rather ends there. Another one I remember in Ohio was the exit between I-475/US 23 and the Turnpike, they cross and you have to take Dussel Dr and Reynolds Road to make the connection. I guess Breezewood is sort of different considering I-70 is a through route there and doesn't end there.

[webny99]

Isn't the southern end of I-99 somewhat like Breezewood? Only exception would be I-99 isn't a through route but rather ends there. Another one I remember in Ohio was the exit between I-475/US 23 and the Turnpike, they cross and you have to take Dussel Dr and Reynolds Road to make the connection. I guess Breezewood is sort of different considering I-70 is a through route there and doesn't end there.

This was discussed a bit upthread (on the previous page), and I think you just answered your own question. A 2di on a surface street is very much unique to Breezewood, setting it apart from all the other non-connections that exist.

[_Simon]

Isn't the southern end of I-99 somewhat like Breezewood? Only exception would be I-99 isn't a through route but rather ends there. Another one I remember in Ohio was the exit between I-475/US 23 and the Turnpike, they cross and you have to take Dussel Dr and Reynolds Road to make the connection. I guess Breezewood is sort of different considering I-70 is a through route there and doesn't end there.

This was discussed a bit upthread (on the previous page), and I think you just answered your own question. A 2di on a surface street is very much unique to Breezewood, setting it apart from all the other non-connections that exist.

It's also the case for I-78 in Jersey City but thats not as big of a deal because there isn't a freeway on the other side of the Holland tunnel (yet), and traffic had to come to a crawl to traverse the tunnel anyway.  Breezewood is the only place where you have to stop and take a local road for seemingly no reason to continue your cross-state interstate travel.  This is a 70mph highway that most people are on for an hour or more if they're in this part of the state.

It literally feels like a tourist trip. 

SM-G955U

[theroadwayone]

I am cornfused.  Would any of the Breezewood businesses' property actually be taken in building the direct connexion?  Or, is their concern just about losing their "captive audience".

If you did EZ-Pass only ramps from Free-70 to the Pike where those two mainlines cross, with the east-to-east connection a right ramp and a flyover from west-to-west, you would bypass the "town" and the old PA Tpk alignment (now the Breezewood Toll Plaza) completely tearing down little to no buildings.  So it is more the "town" being afraid nobody will stop for services there anymore.

I had that idea; thanks a lot for stealing it.

[VTGoose]

Also, DOT isn't going to get an appraisal done, then suddenly throw out free money well above the appraised price.  They're going to offer the appraised price.  That's the whole purpose of the appraisal!

I've never heard someone saying having their property bought out from them is like winning the lottery.  It's usually a very stressful, upsetting experience.

If you believe the State is lowballing you on their offer, you absolutely have the right to take the State to court.

The owner of a truck stop at I-81 exit 150 condemned by VDOT did just that and pocketed more money than what the state initially offered.

See https://goo.gl/82DoX9 (Roanoke Times article).

[1995hoo]

Isn't the southern end of I-99 somewhat like Breezewood? Only exception would be I-99 isn't a through route but rather ends there. ....

Don't forget, also, the Turnpike's Bedford interchange that you use to connect to I-99 was built long before the Interstate designation was applied to US-220 north of the town.

[cpzilliacus]

Don't forget, also, the Turnpike's Bedford interchange that you use to connect to I-99 was built long before the Interstate designation was applied to US-220 north of the town.

Agreed.  But the lack of direct freeway connections between "free" expressways and freeways and the Pennsylvania Turnpike now is a deliberate policy decision by PennDOT, the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission and (especially) elected officials in Pennsylvania. Never mind the unwanted extra fuel consumed and the crashes that would not otherwise occur. 

[jemacedo9]

Don't forget, also, the Turnpike's Bedford interchange that you use to connect to I-99 was built long before the Interstate designation was applied to US-220 north of the town.

Agreed.  But the lack of direct freeway connections between "free" expressways and freeways and the Pennsylvania Turnpike now is a deliberate policy decision by PennDOT, the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission and (especially) elected officials in Pennsylvania. Never mind the unwanted extra fuel consumed and the crashes that would not otherwise occur. 

That...except for 12: I-79, I-376 (east), I-70 (west), US 15, I-83, I-283, I-176, I-76 (east), I-476, PA 309, US 1, US 22/I-78 (though none of those are high-speed).

Which leaves 10: I-376 (west), PA 28, US 219, I-99/US 220, I-70 (east), I-81 Carlisle, US 222, I-95 (being "worked"), I-81 (Dunmoore), I-81 (Clarks Summit).

[hbelkins]

Also, DOT isn't going to get an appraisal done, then suddenly throw out free money well above the appraised price.  They're going to offer the appraised price.  That's the whole purpose of the appraisal!

I've never heard someone saying having their property bought out from them is like winning the lottery.  It's usually a very stressful, upsetting experience.

If you believe the State is lowballing you on their offer, you absolutely have the right to take the State to court.

The owner of a truck stop at I-81 exit 150 condemned by VDOT did just that and pocketed more money than what the state initially offered.

See https://goo.gl/82DoX9 (Roanoke Times article).

Story doesn't say who sued whom.

[jeffandnicole]

Also, DOT isn't going to get an appraisal done, then suddenly throw out free money well above the appraised price.  They're going to offer the appraised price.  That's the whole purpose of the appraisal!

I've never heard someone saying having their property bought out from them is like winning the lottery.  It's usually a very stressful, upsetting experience.

If you believe the State is lowballing you on their offer, you absolutely have the right to take the State to court.

The owner of a truck stop at I-81 exit 150 condemned by VDOT did just that and pocketed more money than what the state initially offered.

See https://goo.gl/82DoX9 (Roanoke Times article).

Story doesn't say who sued whom.

I would imagine the truck stop owner filed the lawsuit.  Per the below, VDOT already paid the owner $6.28 million.

When the transportation agency took the 12-acre parcel in 2013, it placed the $6.28 million it believed the property was worth in an account designated for its owner, HPT TA Properties Trust, a real estate investment trust based in Maryland.


After that amount was distributed to HPT, the company continued to argue that it was entitled to a larger sum for the loss of its land and business. A jury trial was scheduled for November to determine what that amount would be.

[hbelkins]

^^^

That's typical for eminent domain proceedings. The state will place the amount of money it's offering into an escrow account, even if it has to file a condemnation suit.

[Mr_Northside]

Agreed.  But the lack of direct freeway connections between "free" expressways and freeways and the Pennsylvania Turnpike now is a deliberate policy decision by PennDOT, the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission and (especially) elected officials in Pennsylvania. Never mind the unwanted extra fuel consumed and the crashes that would not otherwise occur. 

I don't know the result is deliberate.... though it's been stated the process of a connection being built - when it comes to planning & budgeting is now very dependent on local support.  Not just the notions of businesses objecting (as the case has been in Breezewood), but just local support for getting something done.
Cranberry was the antithesis of Breezewood in this respect (maybe not at first) - instead of traffic having to use local roads to connect from the Turnpike to 79 being viewed as a good thing, since Cranberry was getting huge (business and population wise), the lack of a direct-connection was seen as a detriment to the area (and not the only way to keep businesses in business), and support built to force PennDOT & the PTC to build the connection.

I guess, another way to put it, is even if the Breezewood businesses issued a decree that they would no longer actively oppose a pair of ramps to fix Breezewood - unless the citizens in the area also clamored for the connection to get done, PennDOT & the PTC probably wouldn't make it any kind of priority, or put it on their radar.

It may sound like a joke, cause it certainly isn't practical at all, but the best way to get Breezewood "fixed" would be for everyone that hates it to move to Bedford or Fulton counties (maybe even a county further out than those in PA) and push your "new" representatives to get the funding to make it happen (then move back to wherever)

[_Simon]

It may sound like a joke, cause it certainly isn't practical at all, but the best way to get Breezewood "fixed" would be for everyone that hates it to move to Bedford or Fulton counties (maybe even a county further out than those in PA) and push your "new" representatives to get the funding to make it happen (then move back to wherever)

Or just bring it up to Trump and have him call it "a real shame" on Twitter while he pushes his big infrastructure funding agenda.  Either way it's absurd enough on its own that simply describing the problem publicly enough should induce enough embarrassment for someone to build a pair of ramps.   



SM-G955U

[sparker]

It's not as if there already hasn't been 40+ years of public comment on the Breezewood situation; it certainly isn't hidden from public view!   It seems that in some quarters (particularly PTC and their fellow agencies) the status quo has been internalized (and likely, in some minds, amortized!); it's old news at this point.  If an outcry from the driving public would turn the tables in this situation, it would likely have happened by now.  It's possible that the solution would be to back up the Brinks' truck to Breezewood, offload part of its contents, then drive to Harrisburg and unload the rest!  Then one can argue about the format of the solution.

[_Simon]

It's not as if there already hasn't been 40+ years of public comment on the Breezewood situation; it certainly isn't hidden from public view!   It seems that in some quarters (particularly PTC and their fellow agencies) the status quo has been internalized (and likely, in some minds, amortized!); it's old news at this point.  If an outcry from the driving public would turn the tables in this situation, it would likely have happened by now.  It's possible that the solution would be to back up the Brinks' truck to Breezewood, offload part of its contents, then drive to Harrisburg and unload the rest!  Then one can argue about the format of the solution.

The political landscape is changing as the age of people in power shift.  All you need is a popular infotainment company like Vox or Wendover Productions to do one of their awesome "anomoly" videos on this and a whole new generation of social justice soldiers will spray PTC with their angst.  Let's not be defeatist here,  it's completely within our power as a message board to get the right people's attention on this issue by leveraging the power of the masses,  even if no one involved lives near Breezewood.

SM-G955U

[kkt]

It's still a major interchange.  It's not like nobody would be getting off the highway to get a snack and some gas even if there was a direct freeway connection.
</preaching to the choir>

[empirestate]

It's not as if there already hasn't been 40+ years of public comment on the Breezewood situation; it certainly isn't hidden from public view!   It seems that in some quarters (particularly PTC and their fellow agencies) the status quo has been internalized (and likely, in some minds, amortized!); it's old news at this point.  If an outcry from the driving public would turn the tables in this situation, it would likely have happened by now.  It's possible that the solution would be to back up the Brinks' truck to Breezewood, offload part of its contents, then drive to Harrisburg and unload the rest!  Then one can argue about the format of the solution.

The political landscape is changing as the age of people in power shift.  All you need is a popular infotainment company like Vox or Wendover Productions to do one of their awesome "anomoly" videos on this and a whole new generation of social justice soldiers will spray PTC with their angst.  Let's not be defeatist here,  it's completely within our power as a message board to get the right people's attention on this issue by leveraging the power of the masses,  even if no one involved lives near Breezewood.

Just get Breitbart or HuffPost to aggregate one angry tweet and three outraged replies to that tweet, lead with the story on a Wednesday, and you'll have it rebuilt by Sunday.

[thenetwork]

If and when the Penna Turnpike goes totally ticket-less and becomes Ez-Pass and Toll By Plate only, I think the pressure to do some sort of direct connection of the I-70s will increase tenfold because "Why do I still have to drive in a big 5-minute circle if the toll booths are gone?"

[_Simon]

[sparker]

..........it's completely within our power as a message board to get the right people's attention on this issue by leveraging the power of the masses,  even if no one involved lives near Breezewood.
SM-G955U

Maybe it's cynicism forged by age, but I lived through the '60's -- and all I can say about "leveraging the power of the masses" is easier said than done!  It's all in the follow-through -- and that tends to be subject to dissipation in short order (it happened back then -- and was called the '70s).

Just get Breitbart or HuffPost to aggregate one angry tweet and three outraged replies to that tweet, lead with the story on a Wednesday, and you'll have it rebuilt by Sunday.

HuffPost would likely frame it as a "David & Goliath" story about the put-upon little town besieged by every institution and industry that makes driving possible; Breitbart would probably re-cast the story as the failure of the Interstate system as a public good and how it should be privatized and driven by the profit motive.

If and when the Penna Turnpike goes totally ticket-less and becomes Ez-Pass and Toll By Plate only, I think the pressure to do some sort of direct connection of the I-70s will increase tenfold because "Why do I still have to drive in a big 5-minute circle if the toll booths are gone?"

Now this might actually portend a solution -- make the "Breezewood Block" the sole slowdown rather than one of two on the I-70 thoroughfare (the toll booth being the other, of course).

[jeffandnicole]

If and when the Penna Turnpike goes totally ticket-less and becomes Ez-Pass and Toll By Plate only, I think the pressure to do some sort of direct connection of the I-70s will increase tenfold because "Why do I still have to drive in a big 5-minute circle if the toll booths are gone?"

Dreaming. 

The same question will play out all over the PA Turnpike, because of the Trumpet interchanges used.  Many people need to circle around to get to various interchanges today. While these issues aren't Breezewoods, the PA Turnpike sees what improvements can be done to make it easier on travelers at busy interchanges.  For example, they already made it easier for people at the Lansdale Interchange so they wouldn't have to circle all the way around.

[kphoger]

..........it's completely within our power as a message board to get the right people's attention on this issue by leveraging the power of the masses,  even if no one involved lives near Breezewood.
SM-G955U

Maybe it's cynicism forged by age, but I lived through the '60's -- and all I can say about "leveraging the power of the masses" is easier said than done!  It's all in the follow-through -- and that tends to be subject to dissipation in short order (it happened back then -- and was called the '70s).

But Millenials are well known for taking great initiative to do something big, even when it doesn't affect their personal lives in any way.
[/sarc]