User Proposals for the Abandoned PA Turnpike

[cl94]

Are there any negatives to fixing the road and reopening it to traffic? I assume that the cost would be high but you could have develop along the roadway since it no longer functions as the PA Turnpike.

You would have to find other roads to connect the road with.  There are a few small roads that go over/under the original Turnpike.  But this area is extremely rural - the existing roads are narrow with very little traffic (such as this example: https://goo.gl/maps/rqiYjSBEn3p )  There's no reason for anyone to develop this area.  If Breezewood's top complaint is if they take the indirect connection away no one will visit the existing motels and fast food joints, that's not saying much for the possibility of further development in the area.

Which is precisely why the thing should be spruced up and promoted as a tourist attraction to generate traffic. More local traffic = less opposition to a direct connection

[The Nature Boy]

Are there any negatives to fixing the road and reopening it to traffic? I assume that the cost would be high but you could have develop along the roadway since it no longer functions as the PA Turnpike.

You would have to find other roads to connect the road with.  There are a few small roads that go over/under the original Turnpike.  But this area is extremely rural - the existing roads are narrow with very little traffic (such as this example: https://goo.gl/maps/rqiYjSBEn3p )  There's no reason for anyone to develop this area.  If Breezewood's top complaint is if they take the indirect connection away no one will visit the existing motels and fast food joints, that's not saying much for the possibility of further development in the area.

Which is precisely why the thing should be spruced up and promoted as a tourist attraction to generate traffic. More local traffic = less opposition to a direct connection

How much of a tourist attraction could you make it though? It's essentially an abandoned highway in rural Pennsylvania that is really only on the way for people who are traveling from the Midwest to DC. Only a few of us would go out of their way to go to it.

[CanesFan27]

Are there any negatives to fixing the road and reopening it to traffic? I assume that the cost would be high but you could have develop along the roadway since it no longer functions as the PA Turnpike.

You would have to find other roads to connect the road with.  There are a few small roads that go over/under the original Turnpike.  But this area is extremely rural - the existing roads are narrow with very little traffic (such as this example: https://goo.gl/maps/rqiYjSBEn3p )  There's no reason for anyone to develop this area.  If Breezewood's top complaint is if they take the indirect connection away no one will visit the existing motels and fast food joints, that's not saying much for the possibility of further development in the area.

Which is precisely why the thing should be spruced up and promoted as a tourist attraction to generate traffic. More local traffic = less opposition to a direct connection

How much of a tourist attraction could you make it though? It's essentially an abandoned highway in rural Pennsylvania that is really only on the way for people who are traveling from the Midwest to DC. Only a few of us would go out of their way to go to it.

There are a plenty of people within four hours of this area.  Pittsburgh, Baltimore, DC, Philadelphia.  You can attract hikers, bikers for day trips or possible weekend excursions.  The Great Allegheny Passage is a rail trail that attracts thousands of visitors each year (partly due to its length) but because of the proximity to Pittsburgh and DC and people that want to just have a one day or multiple day excursions. 

Is it feasible - I am not sure- but the attraction of outdoor activity on something like the old PA Turnpike can and 'unofficially' has to a large amount of people not that far away.

[cl94]

Are there any negatives to fixing the road and reopening it to traffic? I assume that the cost would be high but you could have develop along the roadway since it no longer functions as the PA Turnpike.

You would have to find other roads to connect the road with.  There are a few small roads that go over/under the original Turnpike.  But this area is extremely rural - the existing roads are narrow with very little traffic (such as this example: https://goo.gl/maps/rqiYjSBEn3p )  There's no reason for anyone to develop this area.  If Breezewood's top complaint is if they take the indirect connection away no one will visit the existing motels and fast food joints, that's not saying much for the possibility of further development in the area.

Which is precisely why the thing should be spruced up and promoted as a tourist attraction to generate traffic. More local traffic = less opposition to a direct connection

How much of a tourist attraction could you make it though? It's essentially an abandoned highway in rural Pennsylvania that is really only on the way for people who are traveling from the Midwest to DC. Only a few of us would go out of their way to go to it.

There are a plenty of people within four hours of this area.  Pittsburgh, Baltimore, DC, Philadelphia.  You can attract hikers, bikers for day trips or possible weekend excursions.  The Great Allegheny Passage is a rail trail that attracts thousands of visitors each year (partly due to its length) but because of the proximity to Pittsburgh and DC and people that want to just have a one day or multiple day excursions. 

Is it feasible - I am not sure- but the attraction of outdoor activity on something like the old PA Turnpike can and 'unofficially' has to a large amount of people not that far away.

The novelty of walking through a tunnel would attract quite a few people.

[inkyatari]

I vote making it a hiking trail

Aren't there planes to make it a bicycle trail?

That would be a runway, not a bicycle trail. (Check what you said again.)

Oops.  Just caught that.

[jeffandnicole]

Are there any negatives to fixing the road and reopening it to traffic? I assume that the cost would be high but you could have develop along the roadway since it no longer functions as the PA Turnpike.

You would have to find other roads to connect the road with.  There are a few small roads that go over/under the original Turnpike.  But this area is extremely rural - the existing roads are narrow with very little traffic (such as this example: https://goo.gl/maps/rqiYjSBEn3p )  There's no reason for anyone to develop this area.  If Breezewood's top complaint is if they take the indirect connection away no one will visit the existing motels and fast food joints, that's not saying much for the possibility of further development in the area.

Which is precisely why the thing should be spruced up and promoted as a tourist attraction to generate traffic. More local traffic = less opposition to a direct connection

How much of a tourist attraction could you make it though? It's essentially an abandoned highway in rural Pennsylvania that is really only on the way for people who are traveling from the Midwest to DC. Only a few of us would go out of their way to go to it.

There are a plenty of people within four hours of this area.  Pittsburgh, Baltimore, DC, Philadelphia.  You can attract hikers, bikers for day trips or possible weekend excursions.  The Great Allegheny Passage is a rail trail that attracts thousands of visitors each year (partly due to its length) but because of the proximity to Pittsburgh and DC and people that want to just have a one day or multiple day excursions. 

Is it feasible - I am not sure- but the attraction of outdoor activity on something like the old PA Turnpike can and 'unofficially' has to a large amount of people not that far away.

The novelty of walking through a tunnel would attract quite a few people.

We have now circled around back to this post on page 1: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19720.msg2207161#msg2207161 .

A novelty? Yes.
So much so that an organization organized specifically to do as such couldn't get any community or municipal support?  No.

[The Nature Boy]

Are there any negatives to fixing the road and reopening it to traffic? I assume that the cost would be high but you could have develop along the roadway since it no longer functions as the PA Turnpike.

You would have to find other roads to connect the road with.  There are a few small roads that go over/under the original Turnpike.  But this area is extremely rural - the existing roads are narrow with very little traffic (such as this example: https://goo.gl/maps/rqiYjSBEn3p )  There's no reason for anyone to develop this area.  If Breezewood's top complaint is if they take the indirect connection away no one will visit the existing motels and fast food joints, that's not saying much for the possibility of further development in the area.

Which is precisely why the thing should be spruced up and promoted as a tourist attraction to generate traffic. More local traffic = less opposition to a direct connection

How much of a tourist attraction could you make it though? It's essentially an abandoned highway in rural Pennsylvania that is really only on the way for people who are traveling from the Midwest to DC. Only a few of us would go out of their way to go to it.

There are a plenty of people within four hours of this area.  Pittsburgh, Baltimore, DC, Philadelphia.  You can attract hikers, bikers for day trips or possible weekend excursions.  The Great Allegheny Passage is a rail trail that attracts thousands of visitors each year (partly due to its length) but because of the proximity to Pittsburgh and DC and people that want to just have a one day or multiple day excursions. 

Is it feasible - I am not sure- but the attraction of outdoor activity on something like the old PA Turnpike can and 'unofficially' has to a large amount of people not that far away.

The novelty of walking through a tunnel would attract quite a few people.

Wouldn't the novelty wear off after a couple of trips though?

I agree that it should be a bike trail but I'm not sure how much you invest in making it a "tourist attraction" (which I assume means buying ads, building a gift shop....etc).

[froggie]

As I recall, the main "lack of support" came from Fulton County, who saw it as a way to further feed Breezewood business interests and they wouldn't get much in return for what they were asked to contribute.

Now if financials could be found/arranged such that Fulton County wouldn't have to pay, you might wind up with the municipal support...

[jeffandnicole]

As I recall, the main "lack of support" came from Fulton County, who saw it as a way to further feed Breezewood business interests and they wouldn't get much in return for what they were asked to contribute.

Now if financials could be found/arranged such that Fulton County wouldn't have to pay, you might wind up with the municipal support...

The chances that one county will pay the millions necessary for improvements in another county are nil.  Are taxpayers of the county Breezewood is located in going to want to see their taxes go to improve something in another county?  If they want to promote something and increase tourism, they'll just find a reason to do it in their own county.

Not to mention now you have to get into a whole lot of sharing agreements.  Who will pay what?  If a cop is needed due to an issue, who pays for that?  It sounds like little things, but these are the issues local government goes through all the time.