Penn Pike opens four new bridges near Lehighton on NE Extension I-476

[PAHighways]

All that is needed are two ramps...and changes in ownership at every business to people who do not believe said ramps would equal the economic destruction of Breezewood.

[Beltway]

All that is needed are two ramps...and changes in ownership at every business to people who do not believe said ramps would equal the economic destruction of Breezewood.

The ownership of the businesses at Breezewood, are irrelevant to the decision of whether I-70 should be a continuous Interstate highway.

[signalman]

Business owners are the one who've held back a full freeway to freeway connection at Breezewood.  Sadly, new owners of said businesses will likely oppose it also.  They're all there to make money. Of course they want the most potential customers to pass by. 

[Beltway]

Business owners are the one who've held back a full freeway to freeway connection at Breezewood.  Sadly, new owners of said businesses will likely oppose it also.  They're all there to make money. Of course they want the most potential customers to pass by. 

No, the state has caved in to those business owners.  Business owners have no right to demand that a gap be left in the national Interstate highway system, when the right-of-way would not impact them.

Besides, they would still have easy-on and easy-off access to their businesses.

[PAHighways]

It wasn't the state that caved.  They went over the Commonwealth's head to every roadgeek's favorite US Representative and got it canned at the federal level.

[Beltway]

It wasn't the state that caved.  They went over the Commonwealth's head to every roadgeek's favorite US Representative and got it canned at the federal level.

Bud Shuster?  Are you saying that the U.S. Congress passed a law prohibiting the I-70 connection at Breezewood?

[vdeane]

If we changed the owners there would at least be a chance that the new owners would be capitalists who recognize that situations change, rather than crybabies who would rather that government bend over to keep them lazy rather than look out for the common good.

[PAHighways]

It wasn't the state that caved.  They went over the Commonwealth's head to every roadgeek's favorite US Representative and got it canned at the federal level.

Bud Shuster?  Are you saying that the U.S. Congress passed a law prohibiting the I-70 connection at Breezewood?

Yes, Bud Shuster.  He was the chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and thus controlled the purse strings for transportation funding.

[Beltway]

It wasn't the state that caved.  They went over the Commonwealth's head to every roadgeek's favorite US Representative and got it canned at the federal level.

Bud Shuster?  Are you saying that the U.S. Congress passed a law prohibiting the I-70 connection at Breezewood?

Yes, Bud Shuster.  He was the chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and thus controlled the purse strings for transportation funding.

Where exactly in the U.S. Code is this law?  I would like to read it.

[PAHighways]

It wasn't the state that caved.  They went over the Commonwealth's head to every roadgeek's favorite US Representative and got it canned at the federal level.

Bud Shuster?  Are you saying that the U.S. Congress passed a law prohibiting the I-70 connection at Breezewood?

Yes, Bud Shuster.  He was the chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and thus controlled the purse strings for transportation funding.

Where exactly in the U.S. Code is this law?  I would like to read it.

I'm sure it can be found somewhere online.  I had heard of the arrangement from people working at the DOT and PTC.

[Mr_Northside]

If we changed the owners there would at least be a chance that the new owners would be capitalists who recognize that situations change, rather than crybabies who would rather that government bend over to keep them lazy rather than look out for the common good.

While I'm not sure what the "If we changed the owners" means exactly....  I do agree that the protection of the status quo in Breezewood seems fairly unnecessary.   Breezewood is still going to be the only "oasis" of choice & convenience from miles around.  If you're heading west on I-70, there really isn't much to choose from once you get past Hagerstown until Breezewood.  The Turnpike does have some service plazas, but with widely spaced exits, Breezewood is still a potentially convenient stop  (especially if you don't want any of the stuff at a service plaza)...

I'd think it would almost be better to get the traffic that has no intention of stopping in Breezewood businesses to just stay out of Breezewood.  As mentioned in posts above, I'm sure they'd take the simplest approach with a "direct connection", and just add 2 ramps where I-70 crosses the PTC "stub", leaving all the current connections to US 30 intact.  It would make Breezewood more convenient for those who wish to patronize a business there.

[Beltway]

It wasn't the state that caved.  They went over the Commonwealth's head to every roadgeek's favorite US Representative and got it canned at the federal level.

Bud Shuster?  Are you saying that the U.S. Congress passed a law prohibiting the I-70 connection at Breezewood?

Yes, Bud Shuster.  He was the chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and thus controlled the purse strings for transportation funding.

Where exactly in the U.S. Code is this law?  I would like to read it.

I'm sure it can be found somewhere online.  I had heard of the arrangement from people working at the DOT and PTC.

Then please post the link.  This gap has been discussed extensively on roads forums over the years, and nobody has cited an actual federal law that prohibits the connection.

[Beltway]

If we changed the owners there would at least be a chance that the new owners would be capitalists who recognize that situations change, rather than crybabies who would rather that government bend over to keep them lazy rather than look out for the common good.

While I'm not sure what the "If we changed the owners" means exactly....  I do agree that the protection of the status quo in Breezewood seems fairly unnecessary.   Breezewood is still going to be the only "oasis" of choice & convenience from miles around.  If you're heading west on I-70, there really isn't much to choose from once you get past Hagerstown until Breezewood.  The Turnpike does have some service plazas, but with widely spaced exits, Breezewood is still a potentially convenient stop  (especially if you don't want any of the stuff at a service plaza)...

I'd think it would almost be better to get the traffic that has no intention of stopping in Breezewood businesses to just stay out of Breezewood.  As mentioned in posts above, I'm sure they'd take the simplest approach with a "direct connection", and just add 2 ramps where I-70 crosses the PTC "stub", leaving all the current connections to US 30 intact.  It would make Breezewood more convenient for those who wish to patronize a business there.

Exactly my point, but elucidated in much greater detail!

And it would have the same benefit, whether heading east or west on I-70.  That includes the traffic between I-99 and MD I-70 (which includes the ideal route between Washington, D.C. and Buffalo NY).

[qguy]

When I served on the community advisory committee for the PATP/I-95 connection project, the PA Economy League presented case studies (the locations of which currently elude me) which showed that in many cases (not all), bypassing a set of businesses actually increases the number of customers patronizing said businesses.

This is because above a certain level of congestion, prospective customers begin to stay away from the area. Even if prospective customers are traveling through, they tend to avoid stopping for the businesses because it's such a pain the neck (or other anatomical feature). They want to spend as little time as possible there.

Removing the through-traffic that has no intention of patronizing the businesses makes it more convenient for those who would like to stop, making it more likely they will do so. This doesn't always result in increased business, but it often does. Of course, it depends on many factors.

I suspect that with all the advertisement the Breezewood businesses already engage in, should a bypass be built, the increase in intentional patronage would overcome the decrease in incidental (impulse) patronage.

[PAHighways]

It wasn't the state that caved.  They went over the Commonwealth's head to every roadgeek's favorite US Representative and got it canned at the federal level.

Bud Shuster?  Are you saying that the U.S. Congress passed a law prohibiting the I-70 connection at Breezewood?

Yes, Bud Shuster.  He was the chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and thus controlled the purse strings for transportation funding.

Where exactly in the U.S. Code is this law?  I would like to read it.

I'm sure it can be found somewhere online.  I had heard of the arrangement from people working at the DOT and PTC.

Then please post the link.  This gap has been discussed extensively on roads forums over the years, and nobody has cited an actual federal law that prohibits the connection.

As I said, I only heard scuttlebutt about this measure if it actually exists but I never found proof which is why I never added it to any history page on my website.  Also, I only said they went to Bud Shuster for help killing the connection, not that it was signed into as a bill.

[Beltway]

It wasn't the state that caved.  They went over the Commonwealth's head to every roadgeek's favorite US Representative and got it canned at the federal level.

Bud Shuster?  Are you saying that the U.S. Congress passed a law prohibiting the I-70 connection at Breezewood?

Yes, Bud Shuster.  He was the chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and thus controlled the purse strings for transportation funding.

Where exactly in the U.S. Code is this law?  I would like to read it.

I'm sure it can be found somewhere online.  I had heard of the arrangement from people working at the DOT and PTC.

Then please post the link.  This gap has been discussed extensively on roads forums over the years, and nobody has cited an actual federal law that prohibits the connection.

As I said, I only heard scuttlebutt about this measure if it actually exists but I never found proof which is why I never added it to any history page on my website.  Also, I only said they went to Bud Shuster for help killing the connection, not that it was signed into as a bill.

<<< got it canned at the federal level >>>

I would be interested in knowing how that could happen, other than it being codified into federal law.

Otherwise the federal govt could not prevent the state from building it if the state funded it with toll revenue bonds and state tax funds.

[PAHighways]

I would be interested in knowing how that could happen, other than it being codified into federal law.

Otherwise the federal govt could not prevent the state from building it if the state funded it with toll revenue bonds and state tax funds.

Bud was a very powerful man who controlled the transportation dollars, so he could make or break projects.  If there is a specific law, and knowing his track record (i.e. I-99 designation), it was probably tacked onto some other bigger piece of legislation as to bury it in paper.

[Beltway]

I would be interested in knowing how that could happen, other than it being codified into federal law.

Otherwise the federal govt could not prevent the state from building it if the state funded it with toll revenue bonds and state tax funds.

Bud was a very powerful man who controlled the transportation dollars, so he could make or break projects.  If there is a specific law, and knowing his track record (i.e. I-99 designation), it was probably tacked onto some other bigger piece of legislation as to bury it in paper.

He was only one representative out of 435, and had proportionally little power over what Congress did as a whole.

I won't believe the previous claim until someone cites the exact place where this is in federal transportation legislation.

Also, Shuster left office in 2001, so he has been out of the picture for 10 years already.

[PAHighways]

He was only one representative out of 435, and had proportionally little power over what Congress did as a whole.

I didn't say over Congress.

I won't believe the previous claim until someone cites the exact place where this is in federal transportation legislation.

I'm sure you could find it via Google.

Also, Shuster left office in 2001, so he has been out of the picture for 10 years already.

It should go without saying that this happened before he left office.

[hbelkins]

This whole Breezewood discussion is the prime example of why state DOTs should operate toll roads (as Kentucky did) instead of having separate, independent commissions operate them that do not always cooperate with the larger agency.

[Alps]

Dear PAHighways and Beltway: You will stop this thread of conversation. Now. Next post continuing the "you look it up! no, you! NO YOU!!!" gets a temp ban. ~yr friendly mod

[Mr_Northside]

This whole Breezewood discussion is the prime example of why state DOTs should operate toll roads (as Kentucky did) instead of having separate, independent commissions operate them that do not always cooperate with the larger agency.

I agree with this statement. 
Of course, the often redundancies in the bureaucracy of the 2 separate agencies (and the $$$ it wastes) is, in itself, reason enough.

[cpzilliacus]

Not just on the N.E. Extension, but I would love to see the federal government force the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission and PennDOT to remediate the state's numerous Breezewoods (and come to think of it, there's a "Breezewood" at the Pocono interchange on the N.E. Extension).

I don't see how the federal government could force a state to build a highway.

Not directly - but because the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission issues bonds that are tax-favored in the federal tax code (in other words, the interest on Turnpike bonds is exempt from most federal tax), Congress could easily mandate that before such bonds are declared to be exempt from federal tax, the Turnpike must obtain certification from Federal Highway Administration that it has direct connections to all intersecting highways of functional class expressway or freeway.  I believe the only states that would be impacted are Pennsylvania, New Jersey (there's a "breezewood" in Bellmawr where the Turnpike does not connect at all to N.J. 42/I-76/ACE) and perhaps Florida (there's also a "breezewood" in Fort Pierce).

[cpzilliacus]

This whole Breezewood discussion is the prime example of why state DOTs should operate toll roads (as Kentucky did) instead of having separate, independent commissions operate them that do not always cooperate with the larger agency.

Maryland's Transportation Authority (MdTA) cooperates pretty well with the Maryland Department of Transportation and its modal administrations (mostly State Highway Administration, also Maryland Transit Administration, MTA). 

Maybe because the chair of the MdTA board is also the Secretary of Transportation?

[NE2]

Congress could easily mandate that before such bonds are declared to be exempt from federal tax, the Turnpike must obtain certification from Federal Highway Administration that it has direct connections to all intersecting highways of functional class expressway or freeway.  I believe the only states that would be impacted are Pennsylvania, New Jersey (there's a "breezewood" in Bellmawr where the Turnpike does not connect at all to N.J. 42/I-76/ACE) and perhaps Florida (there's also a "breezewood" in Fort Pierce).

It would be silly to require it on parallel highways that cross (Fort Pierce and to the south) and reasonable connections via other roads (I-87 and US 209 near Kingston). Perhaps it should be required only if projected traffic counts exceed a certain amount or the current connection has an unacceptable level of service that would be improved with direct connections (which may actually be true for some movements at Fort Pierce). There is a crossing with no interchange at the Turnpike and SR 417 south of Orlando though (there are plans to build a full interchange). Ohio has a couple as well, and New York has at least one (I-87 and NY 85).