Breezewood

[briantroutman]

South Breezewood is missing a movement to I-70 westbound...

As far as I can tell, that "missing"  ramp South Breezewood was intentionally omitted for two reasons.

The first is that it's unnecessary: It duplicates the access to Breezewood that's already provided by the parallel South Breezewood Road. The PDH appears to have allowed space for the fourth ramp to be added–perhaps anticipating that a direct I-70 connection would be added later and therefore adding the ramp would be justified in the future.

As to the other reason, notice that the exit on I-70 westbound is not signed "South Breezewood"  but rather "US 30 WEST - Everett" . They're trying to encourage westbound US 30 traffic to exit there and use South Breezewood Road to bypass the I-70/US 30 at-grade intersection. So at South Breezewood, they're trying to reduce any possible traffic conflict for Everett-bound traffic making a left at the base of the ramp from I-70 westbound.

Regarding Exits 151, 156, and 163–these are extremely low volume local interchanges. PA 915 has an AADT of 200 at its interchange with I-70; the other side of the interchange is SR 3017 with an AADT of 300. PA 731 has an AADT of 250 near its interchange with I-70. After the demise of the struggling Days Inn at Exit 156, none of these interchanges hosts any consumer-oriented businesses, nor do they provide access to any business parks, housing developments, or anything resembling towns. These interchanges' volumes are so low that they don't merit comparison to the under-engineered interchanges between New Stanton and Washington (Pa.), which are being addressed.

In a perfect world with unlimited funds, I'd prefer that even these low-volume exits between Breezewood and Warfordsburg be better engineered with gentler curves and longer accel/decel lanes. But that not being the case, they're not a priority, and they have almost zero impact on through I-70 traffic.

[sparker]

If direct ramps were built between free I-70 and the Turnpike mainline itself (rather than the "old" pike), even if only the movements to and from the west were included, would that mean decommissioning I-70 north of that point, for the last mile or so to the T-intersection with US-30?  They would also have to add the I-70 designation to the pike mainline for the short stretch between the existing trumpet and the new interchange.

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.

Decommissioning any portion of I-70 would result in a functional "demotion" to a state highway; PA DOT could designate and/or sign those segments at their discretion. 

[Mr_Northside]

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.

[kphoger]

I voted "Yes", because beating a dead horse sounds kind of gross.

[hbelkins]

As to the other reason, notice that the exit on I-70 westbound is not signed "South Breezewood"  but rather "US 30 WEST - Everett" .

Are those ancient all-text button copy signs still there?

[briantroutman]

^ I was last there a few years ago, but at that time, they were.

[20160805]

The entire Breezewood interchange situation is pretty clusterscrewed anyway; what would have been wrong with doing the attached?

[The Ghostbuster]

Although I like the new (fictional) interchange between Interstate 70 and the Pennsylvania Turnpike (Interstate 76), the town still needs some sort of non-interstate connection. Perhaps it could be a little further to the east or west.

[briantroutman]

Regardless of whether Breezewood deserves access to I-70 and the Pennsylvania Turnpike, I think US 30 and the communities along it should have that access. And even if we don't like the Breezewood business community's obstructionism, numerous motorists (and especially truckers) legitimately need the services available there.

If a nonstop connection is ever built, I think the most cost-effective high-speed solution would involve building a couple of gentle two-lame ramps completing the two through movements...while largely leaving the existing Breezewood interchange unchanged. I think it goes without saying that both new ramps would be AET.

While it would be nice to have them, I don't think high-speed ramps connecting the other 70-76 movements would really be worth their cost.

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.

[Beltway]

Regardless of whether Breezewood deserves access to I-70 and the Pennsylvania Turnpike, I think US 30 and the communities along it should have that access. And even if we don't like the Breezewood business community's obstructionism, numerous motorists (and especially truckers) legitimately need the services available there.
If a nonstop connection is ever built, I think the most cost-effective high-speed solution would involve building a couple of gentle two-lame ramps completing the two through movements...while largely leaving the existing Breezewood interchange unchanged. I think it goes without saying that both new ramps would be AET.
While it would be nice to have them, I don't think high-speed ramps connecting the other 70-76 movements would really be worth their cost.
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.

I would definitely agree that the existing I-70 roadways should continue to end at US-30 as they do currently.

My solution would be two ramps added to connect southerly I-70 to the Turnpike connector highway (the segment of the bypassed original turnpike, that connects US-30 to the mainline Turnpike).  That would fully connect I-70 to both directions of the Turnpike, thru the toll plaza.

The I-70 thru route is important, but other movements are important as well.  Connecting southerly I-70 to easterly Turnpike is important, for example long distance traffic using the route that includes I-68, I-70, and I-76 east of Breezewood.

[sparker]

Regardless of whether Breezewood deserves access to I-70 and the Pennsylvania Turnpike, I think US 30 and the communities along it should have that access. And even if we don't like the Breezewood business community's obstructionism, numerous motorists (and especially truckers) legitimately need the services available there.

If a nonstop connection is ever built, I think the most cost-effective high-speed solution would involve building a couple of gentle two-lame ramps completing the two through movements...while largely leaving the existing Breezewood interchange unchanged. I think it goes without saying that both new ramps would be AET.

While it would be nice to have them, I don't think high-speed ramps connecting the other 70-76 movements would really be worth their cost.

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.

A reasonable idea if there ever was one.  Movement from either westward movement of I-70 or 76 to the eastward movement of the other route would be minimal except for local traffic, which in all likelihood isn't particularly disturbed by the present discontinuity of I-70, so may as well leave those movements as is.  I might add (possibly gratuitously!) that any community whose economic well-being is dependent upon maintaining a "forced march" through their midst by interrupting a transcontinental through route perhaps doesn't warrant more than a passing nod to their situation -- certainly not to the point of deferring to their wishes.  If they want to be a "virtual service plaza", they need to advertise the fact that they're there and they feature relatively convenient access -- like every other community adjacent to an Interstate.  They've gotten special treatment for about 50 years now; it's high time for a sea change!

[thenetwork]

Regardless of whether Breezewood deserves access to I-70 and the Pennsylvania Turnpike, I think US 30 and the communities along it should have that access. And even if we don't like the Breezewood business community's obstructionism, numerous motorists (and especially truckers) legitimately need the services available there.

If a nonstop connection is ever built, I think the most cost-effective high-speed solution would involve building a couple of gentle two-lame ramps completing the two through movements...while largely leaving the existing Breezewood interchange unchanged. I think it goes without saying that both new ramps would be AET.

While it would be nice to have them, I don't think high-speed ramps connecting the other 70-76 movements would really be worth their cost.

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.

A reasonable idea if there ever was one.  Movement from either westward movement of I-70 or 76 to the eastward movement of the other route would be minimal except for local traffic, which in all likelihood isn't particularly disturbed by the present discontinuity of I-70, so may as well leave those movements as is.  I might add (possibly gratuitously!) that any community whose economic well-being is dependent upon maintaining a "forced march" through their midst by interrupting a transcontinental through route perhaps doesn't warrant more than a passing nod to their situation -- certainly not to the point of deferring to their wishes.  If they want to be a "virtual service plaza", they need to advertise the fact that they're there and they feature relatively convenient access -- like every other community adjacent to an Interstate.  They've gotten special treatment for about 50 years now; it's high time for a sea change!

Adding the two direct-connecting ramps, despite the NIMBY's likely protests, will not bring much of a loss to the Breezewood businesses.  Most drivers already know when they approach Breezewood if they are planning to stop for gas/food/restrooms/lodging there or if they want to get on and off the US-30 stretch as quickly as possible. Adding two convenience ramps isn't going to make many drivers say "I'll just pee/get gas/eat/rest... at the next exit instead".

Both PennDOT and the Turnpike could install a series of Blue Logo Signs approaching Breezewood, listing ALL available facilities (if they don't do it already) there and label that short stretch BL-70. 

[vdeane]

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.

[Beltway]

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!

[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!

It's permissible to use 2 signs, up to 6 logos each, for each type if need-be.

[jeffandnicole]

I'm sure billboards can be put up to allow businesses to advertise on them as well.

[roadman]

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.

[briantroutman]

^ Right–I was just about to say: The PTC posts logo signs for lodging and attractions but does not sign food or fuel services on sections of the Turnpike covered by service plazas. Of course the approach from "free"  I-70 could be signed with all services.

But I have to say that fitting most if not all businesses within the allotted sign space might not be as difficult as you think. For all of the hyperbole about Breezewood being a "blaze of Las Vegas neon" , it's not a very happening place these days. Actually, I was there about a week ago, and it reminded me of a dying rust belt shopping mall with about as many storefronts and sign frames vacant as there were filled.

[hbelkins]

Are there really that many businesses in that short segment of US 30? I've been through Breezewood on 30 -- or at least as far as Tannery Road. There's nothing beyond the Quality Inn going east, and nothing of note west of South Breezewood Road.

[Beltway]

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.

So, up to --
24 vehicle services
24 lodgings
24 restaurants

I'm sure that Breezewood doesn't have that many on any type.

[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.

So, up to --
24 vehicle services
24 lodgings
24 restaurants

I'm sure that Breezewood doesn't have that many on any type.

No - up to 12 logos split between 2 sign panels, so 6 on each panel.

[ixnay]

Imagine the politics involved when one of those businesses must be omitted from its category sign for lack of room.

ixnay

PS: I voted no, it's not a dead horse.

[briantroutman]

I don't recall the exact number and configuration, but in general, there really isn't an unusually high number of standalone G/F/L businesses in Breezewood. From what I recall driving through there about two weeks ago, there were:

Four chain hotels: Holiday Inn Express, Quality Inn, Days Inn (which was a Best Western until recently), and an Econo Lodge
Two truck stops: TA (Gateway), Flying J
One full-service restaurant: Bob Evans
About four fast food joints: McDonald's, Hardee's, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut
About four gas stations: Sunoco, Shell, Sheetz (maybe one other)
One Starbucks

So, roughly speaking, there aren't many (if any) more than six of each category (gas, food, lodging). The number goes up, though, if you count the separate branded "storefronts"  that are inside some of the businesses. The Gateway/TA truck stop contains a Dairy Queen inside (in addition to its Gateway full-service restaurant), and the auto-oriented fuel pumps are nominally branded as a Valero station. The Flying J's restaurant is branded as a Perkins and I believe it's gas pumps are branded Shell. I believe that one gas station has a Subway counter inside and another has an "express"  version of a Dunkin' Donuts. The total number of restaurant "brands"  that make some kind of appearance in Breezewood might be twice the six allowed. But even then, that's no greater than many typical interchanges in suburban and exurban areas.

When assigning priority for a limited number of logo sign panels, PennDOT gives priority based on closeness to the terminal of the exit ramp. I'm not sure if the PTC does the same, but if so, a completely different set of businesses would have priority on the I-70 services signs vs. the Turnpike services signs.

[Beltway]

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.

So, up to --
24 vehicle services
24 lodgings
24 restaurants
I'm sure that Breezewood doesn't have that many on any type.

No - up to 12 logos split between 2 sign panels, so 6 on each panel.

So, up to --
12 vehicle services
12 lodgings
12 restaurants

?

[briantroutman]

My interpretation of the MUTCD restrictions on specific services (logo) signage is as follows:

No more than six logos per sign
No more than two signs per service category
No more than four signs per interchange

So this would max out an interchange at 24 businesses total, regardless of how they're divided between the categories (gas, food, lodging, etc.).

In other words, you could have twelve restaurants and twelve hotels, but you would be doing so at the cost of listing any gas stations, attractions, campgrounds, or 24-hour pharmacies.



Edited to add: Here are relevant lines from the Part 2J of the MUTCD.

Standard:
01 The number of Specific Service signs along an approach to an interchange or intersection, regardless of the number of service types displayed, shall be limited to a maximum of four.
...
04 No service type shall appear on more than two signs.

Standard:
01 Each Specific Service sign or sign assembly shall be limited to no more than six logo sign panels.
...
04 Where logo sign panels for more than six businesses of a specific service type are displayed at the same interchange or intersection approach, the following provisions shall apply:
A. No more than 12 logo sign panels of a specific service type shall be displayed on no more than two Specific Service signs or sign assemblies;