Breezewood

[roadman65]

Sixth, Seventh, and Eigth Streets in Philadelphia.should be closed off.  Doing this would solve the problem and provide continuous movement on I-676 at almost no cost.  Of course there are tight turns in both directions there that would limit speed but in the long run it would be quite beneficial to the motoring public.

The real way to close that gap is a flyover. Adding a level completely opens things up for WB and EB traffic. But that violates the sightlines of the monument in the middle.

you could "fix" it on paper by having i-676 end at i-95. Have US30 be an exit from the freeway, have 676 on the NJ side be NJ42 and have that connect to the bridge. There, no more breezewood situation.

I like this approach.  76 will end at BK Horse Pike.  Nj 42 takes over the full routing of the NS Fwy from us 30 to Atl city

The ben should not be used as a freeways connector.  It should only be used to connect to center City
Thru traffic to reach areas west of Philly should use the Walt.

It would be nicer if NJDOT asked AASHTO to transfer this lost mileage to NJ 24 in North Jersey to be an x78 designation as, really, that should be an interstate being it connects to two of them already.

[SteveG1988]

Sixth, Seventh, and Eigth Streets in Philadelphia.should be closed off.  Doing this would solve the problem and provide continuous movement on I-676 at almost no cost.  Of course there are tight turns in both directions there that would limit speed but in the long run it would be quite beneficial to the motoring public.

The real way to close that gap is a flyover. Adding a level completely opens things up for WB and EB traffic. But that violates the sightlines of the monument in the middle.

you could "fix" it on paper by having i-676 end at i-95. Have US30 be an exit from the freeway, have 676 on the NJ side be NJ42 and have that connect to the bridge. There, no more breezewood situation.

I like this approach.  76 will end at BK Horse Pike.  Nj 42 takes over the full routing of the NS Fwy from us 30 to Atl city

The ben should not be used as a freeways connector.  It should only be used to connect to center City
Thru traffic to reach areas west of Philly should use the Walt.

It would be nicer if NJDOT asked AASHTO to transfer this lost mileage to NJ 24 in North Jersey to be an x78 designation as, really, that should be an interstate being it connects to two of them already.

Interstate 76 enters new jersey, continues to Atlantic City, NJ55 starts mid-span of ben franklin bridge and runs to i-76, splits off as it does today to head down towards NJ47. Current NJ42 after the ACE exit, is NJ42. This will work better if NJ55 gets connected to the parkway, you could use it as a way to encourage easier access down to Cape May and Wildwood.

But this is a fictional highway, so i think this is all we should really post about it here.

[Avalanchez71]

I didn't realize that I-78 was such a late comer to the game.
Breezewood will likely continue if PA politics continues the way it is.

[cpzilliacus]

I didn't realize that I-78 was such a late comer to the game.
Breezewood will likely continue if PA politics continues the way it is.

Again, this has to be corrected at the federal level, since it is unlikely that Pennsylvania elected officials care about remediation of breezewoods.

Congress has the power to set conditions on the issuance of bonds by entities like the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (because bonds issued by the PTC are exempt from federal taxation).  Those conditions could include a prohibition on breezewoods. 

If Congress were to put PTC on notice that their federal tax exemption would be cancelled if they failed to remediate the breezewoods, then the breezewoods would be gone within a year or two.

[jeffandnicole]

I didn't realize that I-78 was such a late comer to the game.
Breezewood will likely continue if PA politics continues the way it is.

Again, this has to be corrected at the federal level, since it is unlikely that Pennsylvania elected officials care about remediation of breezewoods.

Fixed.  No elected official, especially in today's environment of just trying to find money to do routine maintenance and some expansions, will demand something be changed just because it's not proper. 

While THE breezewood is a huge issue because it plants traffic lights on a signed interstate, the other breezewoods confirm 100% to not only yesterday's MUTCD, but today's MUTCD.  There's no requirement that two intersecting roads shall have an interchange connecting the two.

[Beltway]

While THE breezewood is a huge issue because it plants traffic lights on a signed interstate, the other breezewoods confirm 100% to not only yesterday's MUTCD, but today's MUTCD.  There's no requirement that two intersecting roads shall have an interchange connecting the two.

But there was an understanding when the Interstate system routes were allocated, that there would not be gaps in routes.  This not only includes a continuous I-70 route, but also Interstate traffic connecting between two Interstate routes (such as between I-76 and I-81).

[kphoger]

While THE breezewood is a huge issue because it plants traffic lights on a signed interstate, the other breezewoods confirm 100% to not only yesterday's MUTCD, but today's MUTCD.  There's no requirement that two intersecting roads shall have an interchange connecting the two.

But there was an understanding when the Interstate system routes were allocated, that there would not be gaps in routes.  This not only includes a continuous I-70 route, but also Interstate traffic connecting between two Interstate routes (such as between I-76 and I-81).

A stoplight within I-70 itself is indeed a "gap in routes".  But a stoplight between I-76 and I-81 is not.

[sparker]

While THE breezewood is a huge issue because it plants traffic lights on a signed interstate, the other breezewoods confirm 100% to not only yesterday's MUTCD, but today's MUTCD.  There's no requirement that two intersecting roads shall have an interchange connecting the two.

But there was an understanding when the Interstate system routes were allocated, that there would not be gaps in routes.  This not only includes a continuous I-70 route, but also Interstate traffic connecting between two Interstate routes (such as between I-76 and I-81).

A stoplight within I-70 itself is indeed a "gap in routes".  But a stoplight between I-76 and I-81 is not.

But it is indeed interesting to note that all the instances of non-connection between crossing/adjoining Interstates involve toll facilities; PA being the most egregious of the lot.  Ohio has corrected most of their previous "disconnects" over the last 30 years, but PA has not elected to follow suit with their remaining cases except for two locations (I-79, I-176).  What is perplexing to me is the failure of the governing body (BPR or FHWA, embedded in the Commerce Dept. before 1968) to set some basic but comprehensive connectivity requirements for toll facilities "grandfathered" into the network -- which has allowed local and state political considerations to determine such matters.       

[Beltway]

But there was an understanding when the Interstate system routes were allocated, that there would not be gaps in routes.  This not only includes a continuous I-70 route, but also Interstate traffic connecting between two Interstate routes (such as between I-76 and I-81).

A stoplight within I-70 itself is indeed a "gap in routes".  But a stoplight between I-76 and I-81 is not.

It is a gap in the Interstate system.  Interstate trips were meant to be seamless,  and some trips will utilize two or more Interstate routes, of which there are many examples.

[Beltway]

But it is indeed interesting to note that all the instances of non-connection between crossing/adjoining Interstates involve toll facilities; PA being the most egregious of the lot.  Ohio has corrected most of their previous "disconnects" over the last 30 years, but PA has not elected to follow suit with their remaining cases except for two locations (I-79, I-176).  What is perplexing to me is the failure of the governing body (BPR or FHWA, embedded in the Commerce Dept. before 1968) to set some basic but comprehensive connectivity requirements for toll facilities "grandfathered" into the network -- which has allowed local and state political considerations to determine such matters.       

Good point, as BPR and FHWA has had comprehensive design requirements and standards for the new Interstate highways themselves.

[vdeane]

But it is indeed interesting to note that all the instances of non-connection between crossing/adjoining Interstates involve toll facilities; PA being the most egregious of the lot.  Ohio has corrected most of their previous "disconnects" over the last 30 years, but PA has not elected to follow suit with their remaining cases except for two locations (I-79, I-176).  What is perplexing to me is the failure of the governing body (BPR or FHWA, embedded in the Commerce Dept. before 1968) to set some basic but comprehensive connectivity requirements for toll facilities "grandfathered" into the network -- which has allowed local and state political considerations to determine such matters.       

Even more interesting is that the I-76/I-376 interchange isn't freeway/freeway, despite both roads being part of the Turnpike system!

[Beltway]

But it is indeed interesting to note that all the instances of non-connection between crossing/adjoining Interstates involve toll facilities; PA being the most egregious of the lot.  Ohio has corrected most of their previous "disconnects" over the last 30 years, but PA has not elected to follow suit with their remaining cases except for two locations (I-79, I-176).  What is perplexing to me is the failure of the governing body (BPR or FHWA, embedded in the Commerce Dept. before 1968) to set some basic but comprehensive connectivity requirements for toll facilities "grandfathered" into the network -- which has allowed local and state political considerations to determine such matters.       

Even more interesting is that the I-76/I-376 interchange isn't freeway/freeway, despite both roads being part of the Turnpike system!

And not a "grandfathering" issue as that interchange with the Beaver Valley Expressway was built in 1992, plus the expressway was PA-60 until the I-376 designation was applied in 2010.

[Flint1979]

Breezewood just basically a tourist trap. There aren't many people that live around there and it thrives from a gap on I-70. I-70 is a through route here and to continue on it you have to exit the highway and stop at traffic lights to remain on the same highway.

[sparker]

Breezewood just basically a tourist trap. There aren't many people that live around there and it thrives from a gap on I-70. I-70 is a through route here and to continue on it you have to exit the highway and stop at traffic lights to remain on the same highway.

I'd refer to it as more as a traveler trap than a tourist trap; if it weren't for the uniqueness of the configuration and overall situation, there would be little reason for dollars to change hands at that particular location.  It's a captive-audience cash cow, plain & simple. 

[Flint1979]

Breezewood just basically a tourist trap. There aren't many people that live around there and it thrives from a gap on I-70. I-70 is a through route here and to continue on it you have to exit the highway and stop at traffic lights to remain on the same highway.

I'd refer to it as more as a traveler trap than a tourist trap; if it weren't for the uniqueness of the configuration and overall situation, there would be little reason for dollars to change hands at that particular location.  It's a captive-audience cash cow, plain & simple.

Yeah that makes more sense I guess.

[Beltway]

Breezewood just basically a tourist trap. There aren't many people that live around there and it thrives from a gap on I-70. I-70 is a through route here and to continue on it you have to exit the highway and stop at traffic lights to remain on the same highway.

I'd refer to it as more as a traveler trap than a tourist trap; if it weren't for the uniqueness of the configuration and overall situation, there would be little reason for dollars to change hands at that particular location.  It's a captive-audience cash cow, plain & simple. 

Never once since 1972 when I first went thru there has any of my cash been spent there.

[_Simon]

1.  The reason Breezewood is ridiculous isn't the surface street (I grew up near the Holland Tunnel where I-78 does the same shit),  it's the fact that the two freeways **CROSS OVER EACH OTHER** and don't connect.   You actually have to drive OVER the highway you ultimately need to get on,  back track on a surface road,  and the drive UNDER where you just were.   That's why it's ridiculous,  it's not like the two legs don't get close enough so there's a gap;  the two legs cross each other without any ramps.  It's almost as ridiculous as I-276/I-95 being built to cross without any intersection. 

2.  This cements my feelings in why local business should have absolutely no input to the equation of where people need roads.   Local communities?  Sure -- don't divide them.   Environment?  Sure -- build around sensitive areas.   Local businesses in Breezewood?  Why are they better than the millions of other local businesses that need to drive on I-70?   This is the same type of issue created when businesspeople are able to buy land up near where near highways are going in and then have control over the area.   This needs to stop -- it's businesses being put in front of the common person's needs once again.

3.  I think it's about  time the businesses in Breezewood started getting prank calls from fake news asking them how they feel about the new upcoming connection     I really want to know which businesses freak out vs which ones don't even understand the significance of the anomaly.

[kphoger]

This cements my feelings in why local business should have absolutely no input to the equation of where people need roads.   Local communities?  Sure -- don't divide them.   Environment?  Sure -- build around sensitive areas.   Local businesses in Breezewood?  Why are they better than the millions of other local businesses that need to drive on I-70?   This is the same type of issue created when businesspeople are able to buy land up near where near highways are going in and then have control over the area.   This needs to stop -- it's businesses being put in front of the common person's needs once again.

But local businesses are owned by members of the local community.  How do you disconnect the two?

[_Simon]

This cements my feelings in why local business should have absolutely no input to the equation of where people need roads.   Local communities?  Sure -- don't divide them.   Environment?  Sure -- build around sensitive areas.   Local businesses in Breezewood?  Why are they better than the millions of other local businesses that need to drive on I-70?   This is the same type of issue created when businesspeople are able to buy land up near where near highways are going in and then have control over the area.   This needs to stop -- it's businesses being put in front of the common person's needs once again.

But local businesses are owned by members of the local community.  How do you disconnect the two?

They're more than just "local businesses" if they profit from the opportunity of commuters and travelers.  "Local businesses" is what they don't want to become.  Entities, local or not, shouldn't really have a say unless they own property near where the construction would be.  The businesses that have nothing to do with i-70 and are profiting from mere bureaucratic discourse have no say in the matter.  It's one thing if they were in the right of way needed for such a connector, but they're not.  The people that have no choice in the matter are the greater benefactors of a connection.  Opportunists that set up shop there in the 70s and 80s have had their shot at getting rich.  If people actually need those services, they'll exit.  Everyone else is just having their time wasted.

The reality is that these businesses (that would fight the connection) have no interest in serving breezewood,  they're there because that's where thousands of cars have to stop every day.

SM-G955U

[kphoger]

This cements my feelings in why local business should have absolutely no input to the equation of where people need roads.   Local communities?  Sure -- don't divide them.   Environment?  Sure -- build around sensitive areas.   Local businesses in Breezewood?  Why are they better than the millions of other local businesses that need to drive on I-70?   This is the same type of issue created when businesspeople are able to buy land up near where near highways are going in and then have control over the area.   This needs to stop -- it's businesses being put in front of the common person's needs once again.

But local businesses are owned by members of the local community.  How do you disconnect the two?

They're more than just "local businesses" if they profit from the opportunity of commuters and travelers.  "Local businesses" is what they don't want to become.  Entities, local or not, shouldn't really have a say unless they own property near where the construction would be.  The businesses that have nothing to do with i-70 and are profiting from mere bureaucratic discourse have no say in the matter.  It's one thing if they were in the right of way needed for such a connector, but they're not.  The people that have no choice in the matter are the greater benefactors of a connection.  Opportunists that set up shop there in the 70s and 80s have had their shot at getting rich.  If people actually need those services, they'll exit.  Everyone else is just having their time wasted.

The reality is that these businesses (that would fight the connection) have no interest in serving breezewood,  they're there because that's where thousands of cars have to stop every day.

Let me reword this...

You are in favor of letting citizens of a community band together to block a road project if it would divide their community in half, yet you advocate preventing those same citizens from banding together to block a road project if it would hurt their businesses.

Either they should have a say in where the road goes, or they shouldn't.  Their motives shouldn't matter.

[_Simon]

This cements my feelings in why local business should have absolutely no input to the equation of where people need roads.   Local communities?  Sure -- don't divide them.   Environment?  Sure -- build around sensitive areas.   Local businesses in Breezewood?  Why are they better than the millions of other local businesses that need to drive on I-70?   This is the same type of issue created when businesspeople are able to buy land up near where near highways are going in and then have control over the area.   This needs to stop -- it's businesses being put in front of the common person's needs once again.

But local businesses are owned by members of the local community.  How do you disconnect the two?

They're more than just "local businesses" if they profit from the opportunity of commuters and travelers.  "Local businesses" is what they don't want to become.  Entities, local or not, shouldn't really have a say unless they own property near where the construction would be.  The businesses that have nothing to do with i-70 and are profiting from mere bureaucratic discourse have no say in the matter.  It's one thing if they were in the right of way needed for such a connector, but they're not.  The people that have no choice in the matter are the greater benefactors of a connection.  Opportunists that set up shop there in the 70s and 80s have had their shot at getting rich.  If people actually need those services, they'll exit.  Everyone else is just having their time wasted.

The reality is that these businesses (that would fight the connection) have no interest in serving breezewood,  they're there because that's where thousands of cars have to stop every day.

Let me reword this...

You are in favor of letting citizens of a community band together to block a road project if it would divide their community in half, yet you advocate preventing those same citizens from banding together to block a road project if it would hurt their businesses.

Either they should have a say in where the road goes, or they shouldn't.  Their motives shouldn't matter.

I'm not in favor of the former either.. I don't think anyone has a business case to stand in the way of the greater good,  I'm just saying it's more understandable that a major freeway was delayed because an urban neighborhood had to be relocated vs something as petty as "the gas stations and restaurants don't want to lose business", which is an obvious rebuttal that's been there every time every highway or bypass had ever been built anywhere in America.

Some of us aren't old enough to remember the generations of businesses that used to be on the main thoroughfare, were bypassed in the 50/60s with state/us highways and then again in the 70s with interstates.   Businesses shifting is a normal part of building roads.

SM-G955U

[Avalanchez71]

What is the average "delay" in this area anyway?  What gives one the right to have an interstate anyway?

[Beltway]

What is the average "delay" in this area anyway?  What gives one the right to have an interstate anyway?

There is and has been no "right" to have an Interstate highway... but it has been a national -policy- since 1956 to have a national Interstate Highway System composed of freeways with 4 or more lanes.

[jeffandnicole]

They're more than just "local businesses" if they profit from the opportunity of commuters and travelers.

So, do away with the blue service sign program, billboards, and anything else that attract travelers to local businesses?

Entities, local or not, shouldn't really have a say unless they own property near where the construction would be.  The businesses that have nothing to do with i-70 and are profiting from mere bureaucratic discourse have no say in the matter.

Many states disagree with you.  Nearby business owners are local companies, and local companies contribute to the local economy.  They absolutely have a right to be involved in the process.

Also, see "United States of America Constitution, First Amendment Rights."   

Because highway departments are part of the Government, local businesses, and everyone else in the entire world for that matter, are allowed to have a say.  Now, do the DOTs and Governments necessary have to listen to them and do as they say?  No.  But people and businesses are most definitely permitted to have a say in the process.

What is the average "delay" in this area anyway?  What gives one the right to have an interstate anyway?

Interstates routes were designed primarily to connect cities.  No idea how they decided on the routing between cities; when to combine 2 routes into 1, etc.

[kphoger]

... local business should have absolutely no input to the equation of where people need roads.   Local communities?  Sure -- don't divide them.

You are in favor of letting citizens of a community band together to block a road project if it would divide their community in half ...

I'm not in favor of the former either.

Well, hopefully you can understand my confusion as to where you stand.