Breezewood

[thenetwork]

They could even offer to make the logo signs free as a concession for building the connection.  Free logo signs, the "main" road still going to Breezewood, and a business route would IMO be a very fair compromise to get a direct connection built.

There are probably too many businesses to fit on the one standard logo sign per type (vehicle services, lodging, restaurants).  Standard practice is to only list the top ones ranked by business size or total revenue (practice varies by state).

As a further concession, offer to provide as many logo signs as needed so that every Breezewood business will be on a logo sign!

The MUTCD now allows for up to twelve logos on up to two sign panels per service.  Probably still won't be able to fit every business in Breezewood who would want a LOGO, not to mention finding space for all the additional signs, but it's a thought.  Of course, not sure if PTC would be amenable to providing service signs on the Turnpike that would potentially take business away from their own plazas.

Again, PTC should allow an exception to additional Gas/Food logo signs there for EB I-70 approaching Breezewood. Those continuing on I-76 East have probably made their decision (logo signs or not) if they are making a pit stop at Breezewood or if they will use a Service Plaza or later exit on the pike.

Adding the extra logo service signs on the PTC is really only to pacify the NIMBY's in Breezewood as a "compromise" for the two I-70 direct connection ramps that "could" (but in reality, probably won't) affect their businesses.

[jeffandnicole]

They could even offer to make the logo signs free as a concession for building the connection.  Free logo signs, the "main" road still going to Breezewood, and a business route would IMO be a very fair compromise to get a direct connection built.

There are probably too many businesses to fit on the one standard logo sign per type (vehicle services, lodging, restaurants).  Standard practice is to only list the top ones ranked by business size or total revenue (practice varies by state).

As a further concession, offer to provide as many logo signs as needed so that every Breezewood business will be on a logo sign!

The MUTCD now allows for up to twelve logos on up to two sign panels per service.  Probably still won't be able to fit every business in Breezewood who would want a LOGO, not to mention finding space for all the additional signs, but it's a thought.  Of course, not sure if PTC would be amenable to providing service signs on the Turnpike that would potentially take business away from their own plazas.

Again, PTC should allow an exception to additional Gas/Food logo signs there for EB I-70 approaching Breezewood. Those continuing on I-76 East have probably made their decision (logo signs or not) if they are making a pit stop at Breezewood or if they will use a Service Plaza or later exit on the pike.

Adding the extra logo service signs on the PTC is really only to pacify the NIMBY's in Breezewood as a "compromise" for the two I-70 direct connection ramps that "could" (but in reality, probably won't) affect their businesses.

Have you actually looked up how many businesses are in the area?  I'm finding:

6 or 7 gas stations

8 hotels/motels

10 or 11 restaurants/dining options

So I'm not sure how big you think Breezewood is, but even 2 signs per type of business is more than enough to satisfy the current offerings available.

[briantroutman]

^ I think the issue–as far as the PTC is concerned–is that the agency does not sign food or fuel services at all on sections of the Turnpike covered by service plazas. To the contrary, the PTC routinely posts signs for the next service plaza, even if it's 10 or 20 miles away, immediately prior to an interchange–almost as if saying "Don't exit now...there's a service plaza coming up" .

The lack of signage for off-Turnpike food and fuel might be dictated by the PTC's contract with HMSHost, although I don't know this for sure.

So if the PTC was to make an exception and sign fuel and food when it normally wouldn't, I think the rationale would be that the Breezewood businesses are effectively a service to motorists following I-70 who wouldn't have access to subsequent service plazas anyway.

But on the westbound approach from "free"  I-70, this isn't an issue, and it appears that most (if not all) businesses could get a logo sign without PennDOT needing to make any exceptions. If I'm reading the rules correctly, and the cap is 24 logo panels divided among four signs, that would be:

LODGING - 1 sign, 6 logos
FOOD - 2 signs, 12 logos
GAS - 1 sign, 6 logos

[Beltway]

Have you actually looked up how many businesses are in the area?  I'm finding:
6 or 7 gas stations
8 hotels/motels
10 or 11 restaurants/dining options
So I'm not sure how big you think Breezewood is, but even 2 signs per type of business is more than enough to satisfy the current offerings available.

No Wendy's!  How can any serious business area not have the one restaurant where you can get a hamburger at 10:00 am?

[hbelkins]

Don't forget -- businesses pay to have their logos on those signs. Some businesses might choose not to pony up.

[jeffandnicole]

Don't forget -- businesses pay to have their logos on those signs. Some businesses might choose not to pony up.

Remember...in this whole hypothetical example, the logo signs were to be free as a concession for building a direct interchange.

[Bitmapped]

One thing that isn't being mentioned here is the oft-discussed extension of I-68 west from Morgantown to the Ohio River. New Martinsville is the most frequently mentioned western terminus since it's where the current route from Morgantown to the river (WV 7) terminates. But if the route could be angled northward to connect with the WV 2/US 250 freeway, which connects with both I-70 and I-470, it might become a more viable alternative to the Turnpike and Breezewood.

The only westward corridor that makes sense is US 50 to US 33. That gives you the diagonal connection to I-70 while making use of current freeway/expressway routes that are more heavily traveled. There's no demand to head due west.

From http://www.route2i68.com/maps/

The most often mentioned proposed terminal is Moundsville, not New Martinsville. This extension isn't anywhere on WVDOH's radar, even their previously released lists of pipe dreams.

One of the county commissioners from Marshall County (Moundsville) keeps periodically trying to float the project because he thinks it would be good for the natural gas fracking industry. He's suggested that Marshall County might try to pay for it themselves, at least the portion in Marshall County. He doesn't have the faintest idea how much a project like this would cost and there's no way a toll road along this corridor would fly since it's no shorter than the existing I-70/I-79 routing between Morgantown and Wheeling.

The other problem with a routing ending in Moundsville is how to get it up to I-70. Neither OH nor US 250/WV 2 have good high speed/high volume interchanges with I-70 or I-470. The OH 7 corridor is overall in better shape but still has some at-grade intersections that would be hard to remove, and using it would require ODOT's involvement. Glen Dale and Moundsville would be hard to bypass on the WV and there's no good route from the ridge down to the river valley.

[SteveG1988]

Should we move this to fictional highways, now that we are discussing the potential for moving i70 to a differnet roadway

[sbeaver44]

Have you actually looked up how many businesses are in the area?  I'm finding:
6 or 7 gas stations
8 hotels/motels
10 or 11 restaurants/dining options
So I'm not sure how big you think Breezewood is, but even 2 signs per type of business is more than enough to satisfy the current offerings available.

No Wendy's!  How can any serious business area not have the one restaurant where you can get a hamburger at 10:00 am?

There had been a Wendy's on North Breezewood Rd by the Bob Evans until about 2 years ago.  It closed.

Nexus 6P

[roadman65]

Should we move this to fictional highways, now that we are discussing the potential for moving i70 to a differnet roadway

Well we have not turned it over to the nature of that idea, as we are talking about improvements to a rather current situation that has taken place for well over 50 years.

[PHLBOS]

Would it be overkill to make the former I-70 stub-end and/or the old pike an I-x70?  How about a green, business route I-70 shield for both, plus US-30 between them.

It would absolutely be overkill to do either of those things.
But since you mention it, I like the Business I-70 idea, just due to how ridiculous it would be.

The above arrangement would preserve access to Breezewood services for those who need it...while not inconveniencing those who don't. If the old 70 lanes need any number beside "TO US 30" , I think BL-70 would be ideal–providing useful guidance to motorists while giving a small (and appropriate) concession to Breezewood businesses.

Actually, the old 70 would be a candidate for Business Spur 70, aka BS-70; very fitting IMHO. 

[vdeane]

BL-70 would also go on the PTC ramps to Breezewood and along US 30.

[PHLBOS]

BL-70 would also go on the PTC ramps to Breezewood and along US 30.

While true, such is an unnecessary concurrency IMHO.

[ekt8750]

There's a bill on the governor's desk to expand casino gambling to, among other places, truck stops. I could see this being a setback to any bypass of Breezewood cause we know full well that stop would definitely apply for and get a license. Welcome to Pennsylvania.

[briantroutman]

BL-70 would also go on the PTC ramps to Breezewood and along US 30.

While true, such is an unnecessary concurrency IMHO.

I know there are many roadgeeks who dislike most concurrences; personally, I'm fine with them. But I think that this case (i.e. a direct I-70 connection is created but the existing access to and from Breezewood remains) is a nearly ideal situation for a business loop because it would serve the needs of almost all stakeholders.

For through I-70 motorists (at least those who have any idea what a BL is), "LOOP"  would provide some reassurance that they can follow the BL for services and keep proceeding toward their final destination without having to double back.

For the Breezewood businesses which stand to be bypassed by a direct connection, having green 70 shields on their street would be something of a consolation prize. (My understanding is that this desire to appease bypassed businesses was the impetus for the BL/BS program originally.) 

By the way, for anyone following this thread but not "Redesigning Interchanges" , I posted a few I-70 direct connection concepts here.

[kphoger]

There's a bill on the governor's desk to expand casino gambling to, among other places, truck stops. I could see this being a setback to any bypass of Breezewood cause we know full well that stop would definitely apply for and get a license. Welcome to Pennsylvania.

Oh, don't worry, I'm sure all the tax revenue will end up going to some good cause.

Yeah, right.

[GreenLanternCorps]

My son's class is heading to Gettysburg and Washington, DC next week. 

Guess where the buses are stopping for gas...



I held my tongue when Breezewood was mentioned at the meeting, not wanting to bore 150 fellow parents with a history of toll roads and the Interstate system.

[vdeane]

BL-70 would also go on the PTC ramps to Breezewood and along US 30.

While true, such is an unnecessary concurrency IMHO.

How would it be unnecessary?  The PTC ramps don't have another designation, and IMO are a bit long for "ramps" anyways, neither end of the route would be in a concurrency, and it shows the I-70 travelers how to get to the businesses and back again, for both directions.

[PHLBOS]

BL-70 would also go on the PTC ramps to Breezewood and along US 30.

While true, such is an unnecessary concurrency IMHO.

How would it be unnecessary?  The PTC ramps don't have another designation, and IMO are a bit long for "ramps" anyways, neither end of the route would be in a concurrency, and it shows the I-70 travelers how to get to the businesses and back again, for both directions.

I just looked at the area via Google Maps and forgot about the ramp from US 30 to the Turnpike being very long.  That, along with Briantroutman's earlier comments (see Reply #139), justifies the short concurrency BL-70 would have w/US 30.  I hearby recant my earlier BS-70 suggestion.

[jwolfer]

My son's class is heading to Gettysburg and Washington, DC next week. 

Guess where the buses are stopping for gas...



I held my tongue when Breezewood was mentioned at the meeting, not wanting to bore 150 fellow parents with a history of toll roads and the Interstate system.

I find myself biting my toungue about lots of road geek stuff in polite company LOL.

One of my friends was surprised to see US17  in Orlando.. he thought it was a Jacksonville only road... I resisted the urge to educate (read bore) him about the entire route from Punta Gorda all the way to Virginia

Z981

[1995hoo]

My son's class is heading to Gettysburg and Washington, DC next week. 

Guess where the buses are stopping for gas...

I held my tongue when Breezewood was mentioned at the meeting, not wanting to bore 150 fellow parents with a history of toll roads and the Interstate system.

Back in the 1980s, when my Boy Scout troop made our annual ski trip to Seven Springs, there was a scheduled stop "to regroup" at the McDonald's in Breezewood. Essentially the idea was that all the cars were to stop there so as to make sure everyone was accounted for and nobody got lost prior to entering the Turnpike because of the longer distances between exits on there. (Obviously, given the date, this was all before mobile phones, sat-navs, etc.) There was another scheduled stop in Somerset to make sure everyone got OFF the Turnpike properly. It was never clear to me what exactly would have been done had someone missed the exit or otherwise gotten lost.

As much as Breezewood is an annoyance, I have to concede that under those circumstances in those days it was a logical point for a stop of that sort. Indeed on a different camping trip to eastern Pennsylvania one year, the parent leading the way (who was supposedly from the area) led everyone onto the Turnpike going in the wrong direction, so I guess stopping to regroup wasn't necessarily a bad idea.

[jeffandnicole]

My son's class is heading to Gettysburg and Washington, DC next week. 

Guess where the buses are stopping for gas...

I held my tongue when Breezewood was mentioned at the meeting, not wanting to bore 150 fellow parents with a history of toll roads and the Interstate system.

While the area in general is not right when it comes to normal interstate policy, what you see is what you get.  If buses want to make it their fueling stop, they are fully in their right to do so.  Maybe they also have a fueling agreement with one of the stations there making it convenient for them, or maybe their fueling calculations make this the best area to stop in to prevent an additional stop along the way, or running too low of fuel.

Not only would you bore them, but the reaction would've been less than favorable.

[20160805]

My son's class is heading to Gettysburg and Washington, DC next week. 

Guess where the buses are stopping for gas...



I held my tongue when Breezewood was mentioned at the meeting, not wanting to bore 150 fellow parents with a history of toll roads and the Interstate system.

I find myself biting my toungue about lots of road geek stuff in polite company LOL.

One of my friends was surprised to see US17  in Orlando.. he thought it was a Jacksonville only road... I resisted the urge to educate (read bore) him about the entire route from Punta Gorda all the way to Virginia

Z981

I find myself biting my tongue a LOT when it comes to weather, personally - it's very much a topic of interest for me, and most of the people who use it as small talk know nothing about it.

[Rothman]

Neither do meteorologists, given how well they predict the weather.

[sparker]

My son's class is heading to Gettysburg and Washington, DC next week. 

Guess where the buses are stopping for gas...

I held my tongue when Breezewood was mentioned at the meeting, not wanting to bore 150 fellow parents with a history of toll roads and the Interstate system.

While the area in general is not right when it comes to normal interstate policy, what you see is what you get.  If buses want to make it their fueling stop, they are fully in their right to do so.  Maybe they also have a fueling agreement with one of the stations there making it convenient for them, or maybe their fueling calculations make this the best area to stop in to prevent an additional stop along the way, or running too low of fuel.

Not only would you bore them, but the reaction would've been less than favorable.

The circumstances are likely similar to a NASCAR "competition caution"; if you've gotta slow down anyway, may as well make a pit stop so you don't have to do so later!