Breezewood

[hbelkins]

We had our own little "Breezewood influence" situation occur here in Kentucky. Several years ago, a proposal was on the books to build a short expansion of the Mountain Parkway by bypassing the commercial section of US 460 in Salyersville with a new route to run south of the current one. Magoffin County has traditionally had one of the highest unemployment rates in the state. The current US 460 strip is called "Restaurant Row" by locals. It has a McDonald's, Wendy's, Subway, Dairy Queen, Lee's Famous Recipe Chicken, a now-closed food court that included an Arby's, three or four gas stations, and several other businesses (auto parts stores, dollar stores, grocery store, bank, etc.) There were also two motels that were destroyed by a tornado and were not rebuilt. Local interests fought hard against the bypass, saying taking through traffic off of US 460 would kill those businesses in a town that's already struggling economically. Those interests won, and the bypass was scrapped in favor of widening existing US 460 and building a series of frontage and backage roads to provide access to the businesses. That project was incorporated into the current Mountain Parkway expansion project now under construction.

There's currently one traffic light along the strip; at the end of the Mountain Parkway at US 460. The new road will have at least four traffic lights and a reduced speed limit, probably 45 mph. This is going to create a bottleneck in what's planned to be a high-speed corridor all the way from I-64 to just shy of US 23.

There are no services to speak of for more than 50 miles along that stretch of the Mountain Parkway. You don't find 24-hour gas until Campton, and that's inconvenient to get to due to a lack of a full interchange at KY 15. There are two gas stations at Slade (Exit 33) but I'm not sure if they are 24-hour or not. It's not until you get to Stanton (Exit 22) that you have a full complement of services (McDonald's, Arby's,, Long John Silver's, Hardee's, Dairy Queen).

Anyone who needs food or gas or a restroom break is going to stop in Salyersville, and exit the parkway if necessary. Myself, I don't stop there unless I need to. Sometimes I'll grab a bite to eat there, but I try not to buy gas there because it's expensive. I don't think a bypass would kill that business district, especially since the majority of businesses there are not "highway businesses."

So the local business interests succeeded in killing a highway project that would have been better for the traveling public in general for their own interests.

Sounds like a modern-day "Breezewood" to me.

[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. 

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

I've only been through it a few times in my life since I don't usually use the PA Turnpike. I take I-80 to I-99 and then US 322 to Harrisburg and then use I-83 to get to Baltimore just to avoid the Turnpike. It takes about 45-60 minutes longer but I never really care about that.

[Avalanchez71]

We had our own little "Breezewood influence" situation occur here in Kentucky. Several years ago, a proposal was on the books to build a short expansion of the Mountain Parkway by bypassing the commercial section of US 460 in Salyersville with a new route to run south of the current one. Magoffin County has traditionally had one of the highest unemployment rates in the state. The current US 460 strip is called "Restaurant Row" by locals. It has a McDonald's, Wendy's, Subway, Dairy Queen, Lee's Famous Recipe Chicken, a now-closed food court that included an Arby's, three or four gas stations, and several other businesses (auto parts stores, dollar stores, grocery store, bank, etc.) There were also two motels that were destroyed by a tornado and were not rebuilt. Local interests fought hard against the bypass, saying taking through traffic off of US 460 would kill those businesses in a town that's already struggling economically. Those interests won, and the bypass was scrapped in favor of widening existing US 460 and building a series of frontage and backage roads to provide access to the businesses. That project was incorporated into the current Mountain Parkway expansion project now under construction.

There's currently one traffic light along the strip; at the end of the Mountain Parkway at US 460. The new road will have at least four traffic lights and a reduced speed limit, probably 45 mph. This is going to create a bottleneck in what's planned to be a high-speed corridor all the way from I-64 to just shy of US 23.

There are no services to speak of for more than 50 miles along that stretch of the Mountain Parkway. You don't find 24-hour gas until Campton, and that's inconvenient to get to due to a lack of a full interchange at KY 15. There are two gas stations at Slade (Exit 33) but I'm not sure if they are 24-hour or not. It's not until you get to Stanton (Exit 22) that you have a full complement of services (McDonald's, Arby's,, Long John Silver's, Hardee's, Dairy Queen).

Anyone who needs food or gas or a restroom break is going to stop in Salyersville, and exit the parkway if necessary. Myself, I don't stop there unless I need to. Sometimes I'll grab a bite to eat there, but I try not to buy gas there because it's expensive. I don't think a bypass would kill that business district, especially since the majority of businesses there are not "highway businesses."

So the local business interests succeeded in killing a highway project that would have been better for the traveling public in general for their own interests.

Sounds like a modern-day "Breezewood" to me.

They have earned my business in Salyersville.  Henderson has as well.  If I-69 is built and had SR 9009 bypassed Salyersville they may not have earned my business.  Looks like it is more then hype to me.

[_Simon]

... 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.

To clarify further,  I mean that I agree that care should be placed in selecting new alignments that won't cause neighborhoods to NIMBY the project.   I don't mean that businesses or otherwise should be able to fight it just because it happens to be in their town.  In no other legal precedent is someone able transfer that type of liability to the state (or even a private firm).   If your business is doing bad because the community's population, trends, needs, or purchasing power change,  you have to absorb that.   If your business is relocated to fit in a highway,  sure -- you get a say and a right to be compensated;  but these businesses are miles from where they are directly impacted.   In no other type of urban renewal project do businesses get compensated because of changes to traffic patterns.   

[_Simon]

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

Absolutely not.   Those are not only informational for motorists but also a revenue generating opportunity.   Once roads have sufficient fiber or other connectivity,  the BBS's need to be fully digital VMSs with sensors so that businesses can pay the DOT per view (per passing car) which is how all modern advertising is billed anyhow.    The logos for businesses would go away during hours they are closed (saving drivers frustration and the business ad money)  and others could even pay for a custom banner (imagine a "BREAKFAST" banner under the McDonalds logo during breakfast hours,  or a "DRIVE THRU" under Taco bell after 9 PM when the dining room closes).   Also billboards and other services are not inputs into the equation of where highway connections should go.   Come on,  there's a difference between businesses having presence and having veto-power over a highway ramp that everyone that doesn't live in Breezewood wants (and that any driver could see belongs there).

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.

Again -- if their land is being taken, if their road access is being controllers,  or if they are incurring damages that are legally compensated under existing precedents,  sure.    If they're just some 7-Eleven a few blocks away that wants to lobby against a highway connector because it's really good for them that 100% of the people on the interstate have to exit in Breezewood,  then I would argue against that.   History shows that local businesses are *always* against a bypass, highway, or anything that takes travelers elsewhere.   Look up any public hearing about any new highway that was built ever.  That's not a reason not to build a road.  This type of gap is unacceptable in an interstate highway. 

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

The First Amendment prevents laws from being passed to restrict speech,  it has absolutely nothing to do with the State's sovereign immunity and exemption to any type of damages incurred as a result of changing traffic patterns.   Businesses can lobby and bitch and moan -- (that's also not related to the First Amendment unless someone's trying to pass a law against it),  but that's not getting an official input into the traffic engineering being done by PennDOT.   That's just businesses making an investment in an interest.  Traffic engineers and DOT officials need to understand that *of course* local businesses that get to have a monopoly on interstate traffic are going to want to keep doing that.  Nowhere else in the country can Perkins and Shell have entrances on a road beginning with "I-"anything.   If only there was room for a TA and a Sheetz. 

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.

That's not true at all.   Look up everything Robert Moses ever did;  public authorities are held to different standards and the Pennsylvania Turnpike authority can develop on any land it or the state owns the rights to (it acts as the state's proxy).   It has the authority to float bonds, own land, and do private deals.  Public hearings are required for only certain parts of the land acquisition/zoning process and the requirements and process varies widely from municipality to municipality (or in NJ, municipality type).   I'm not saying they wouldn't hold one,  but if the EIS was done and they owned the land,  I don't see why they need to.  They didn't hold a public hearing along the lines of "does anyone local care if we leave a huge stretch of abandoned highway to rot because we don't want to pay for the condemnation?", did they?

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.

Well anyone can have a say in anything.   You're responding to my "say" in the Breezewood discussion   I "say" that companies shouldn't have a say with where my highway goes.  I can't just build a competing interstate that *doesn't* go through Breezewood.  The highway is for the defense of the country and the use of the people and the businesses there can be accommodated fine with their existing exit.  People can easily get off and on to get gas or coffee -- there is no unfair aspect to building a connector.  PennDOT isn't lining such a said connector with it's own gas stations and restaurants.  It would be a completely different story if the businesses were going to compete with a state-run service area or something.  These businesses are still the closest thing around.

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

Interstates run through parts of Wyoming and Iowa where no one lives.  There is no minimum requirement to having an interstate highway;  it's part of the national defense network and any study done (unless the study is being funded in a joint venture by Sunoco, Perkins, and McDonalds) is going to find that the addition of two small ramps are going to not only increase productivity and traffic capacity,  but also decrease pollution/emissions in the area,  and save commuters in general days off their lives.   

[jeffandnicole]

Again -- if their land is being taken, if their road access is being controllers,  or if they are incurring damages that are legally compensated under existing precedents,  sure...

What are they getting a say in? If their business is being taken, then they aren't exactly getting a say. If the business is forced to move elsewhere, then it falls to your other complaint...that then the business is far enough removed from the highway that they no longer get a say.

Everything you're doing is basically giving the government unlimited authority to do whatever they want.

[Beltway]

Again -- if their land is being taken, if their road access is being controllers,  or if they are incurring damages that are legally compensated under existing precedents,  sure...

What are they getting a say in? If their business is being taken, then they aren't exactly getting a say. If the business is forced to move elsewhere, then it falls to your other complaint...that then the business is far enough removed from the highway that they no longer get a say.
Everything you're doing is basically giving the government unlimited authority to do whatever they want.

I don't see anyone suggesting "giving the government unlimited authority to do whatever they want."

There are a lot of reasons that have been posted, about why two ramps should be built where I-70 crosses over the turnpike access highway, to complete the freeway connection for I-70.  The existing looping route thru Breezewood would remain in place for those travelers who want to use services there.

The US-30 businesses are entitled to an opinion on the matter, but they are not entitled to veto power.

[kphoger]

Nowhere else in the country can Perkins and Shell have entrances on a road beginning with "I-"anything.

Sorry, I just had to.  Yes, I know that's not what you meant.

[bzakharin]

Nowhere else in the country can Perkins and Shell have entrances on a road beginning with "I-"anything.

Except I-78 in Jersey City. Well, not Perkins, but Shell. And 7-Eleven and McDonald's. And many other things.

[kphoger]

Nowhere else in the country can Perkins and Shell have entrances on a road beginning with "I-"anything.

Except I-78 in Jersey City. Well, not Perkins, but Shell. And 7-Eleven and McDonald's. And many other things.

Not to mention a few business in Laredo.

[Avalanchez71]

Did the Breezewood threads get merged?

[kphoger]

Did the Breezewood threads get merged?

Oh, so it's not just me?  I thought I was crazy, because I didn't see any purple text.

[briantroutman]

Here we go again...dusting off the tired old book of Breezewood myths.

Nowhere else in the country can Perkins and Shell have entrances on a road beginning with "I-"anything.

And they don't here, either. US 30 in Breezewood is not I-70.

The road isn't posted as I-70; it's not inventoried in PennDOT's system as SR 0070. PennDOT's location referencing system does account for the Breezewood mileage in its location referencing system numbers. FHWA's Interstate log doesn't account for the surface mileage in Breezewood (nor does it include the PTC's Breezewood connector, for that matter) in its inventory of I-70 mileage in Pennsylvania.

It's a discontinuity in the route.

The US-30 businesses are entitled to an opinion on the matter, but they are not entitled to veto power.

And they don't have veto power, either.

The federal government created this situation by prohibiting the use of federal funds to construct direct connections to toll roads (where a free alternative existed). I don't know when the restriction was lifted, but I've read that by the late '70s, PennDOT was in a position where it was using every dime of its funding just to satisfy debt service on money borrowed for past construction. To my knowledge, the department has been in dire financial straits ever since.

Now we're in an environment where the PTC is obligated to write a nearly half-billion-dollar check to PennDOT every year to cover transit subsidies. At the same time, the Commission is compelled by law to continue construction on the Mon-Fayette, Southern Beltway, and I-95 interchange projects. And they're also faced with replacing deteriorating sections of a 70+ year-old highway.

The bottom line is that a nine-figure project to speed up Thanksgiving weekend traffic and soothe the nerves of roadgeeks isn't in the cards at all. So the business interests of Breezewood can "veto"  all they want. Unless federal funds suddenly appear, it's not happening anyway.

[vdeane]

Wasn't there a push a while ago to fix it after a major accident that got halted the nanosecond the businesses got wind of it?

[02 Park Ave]

It is outrageous that these business people can inconvenience the motoring public for the sake of their obscene profits.

[Beltway]

The US-30 businesses are entitled to an opinion on the matter, but they are not entitled to veto power.

And they don't have veto power, either.
The federal government created this situation by prohibiting the use of federal funds to construct direct connections to toll roads (where a free alternative existed). I don't know when the restriction was lifted,

I periodically hear this claim, but as far as I have been able to determine it is an urban legend.

The prime piece of evidence is the numerous places where original Interstate highways were constructed with a direct connection to a tollroad, almost universal in other states excepting PA.

but I've read that by the late '70s, PennDOT was in a position where it was using every dime of its funding just to satisfy debt service on money borrowed for past construction. To my knowledge, the department has been in dire financial straits ever since.
Now we're in an environment where the PTC is obligated to write a nearly half-billion-dollar check to PennDOT every year to cover transit subsidies. At the same time, the Commission is compelled by law to continue construction on the Mon-Fayette, Southern Beltway, and I-95 interchange projects. And they're also faced with replacing deteriorating sections of a 70+ year-old highway.

Managerial problems on the part of PennDOT and PTC, due to the choices they have made in the past.

[briantroutman]

Wasn't there a push a while ago to fix it after a major accident that got halted the nanosecond the businesses got wind of it?

One Democratic state senator, Michael Dawida, was involved in an accident in Breezewood in 1989 and briefly pushed a resolution in Harrisburg directing PennDOT to study building a connection. Fellow state senator and Republican powerbroker Robert Jubelirer did not support the resolution, and it never went anywhere.

Now was that because Jubelirer was in the Breezewood interests' pocket? Possibly, but Breezewood wasn't even in his district at the time. But even if Jubelrier hadn't opposed it, that doesn't mean a push for a direct connection would have gone anywhere anyway. At the time Jubelrier and his ally in Washington Bud Shuster were keen to seize any available funding to build the US 220 freeway that would eventually become I-99. Would they have wanted to see their precious funds transferred to Breezewood? And likewise across the state with their own constituents begging for local transportation improvements.

I periodically hear this claim, but as far as I have been able to determine it is an urban legend.

An urban legend started by the FHWA's own disinformation machine: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/tollroad.cfm

[kphoger]

I periodically hear this claim, but as far as I have been able to determine it is an urban legend.

An urban legend started by the FHWA's own disinformation machine: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/tollroad.cfm

I present the pertinent portions below:

Okay, Smarty Pants, What About Breezewood, Pennsylvania?

This peculiar arrangement occurred because of Section 113 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956. Under Section 113(b), Federal-aid funds could be used for approaches to any toll road, bridge, or tunnel "to a point where such project will have some use irrespective of its use for such toll road, bridge, or tunnel." In other words, a motorist could use the toll facility or not. Under Section 113 (c), the State highway agency and toll authority could use Federal-aid highway funds to build an interchange between a toll-free Interstate and an Interstate turnpike (i.e., the motorist would have no choice but to use the toll road). However, the State highway agency, the toll authority, and the BPR would have to enter into an agreement to stop collecting tolls when the bonds were retired.

The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (PTC), which had no desire to stop collecting tolls, decided not to use the State's Federal-aid funds for the I-70 connection.

SEC. 113. TOLL ROADS, BRIDGES. AND TUNNELS.

(b) APPROACHES HAVING OTHER USE.
– The funds authorized under this title, or under prior Acts, shall be available for expenditure on projects approaching any toll road, bridge, or tunnel to a point where such project will have some use irrespective of its use for such toll road, bridge, or tunnel.

(c) APPROACHES HAVING NO OTHER USE.
– The funds authorized under section 108 (b) of this title, or under prior Acts, shall be available for expenditure on Interstate System projects approaching any toll road on the Interstate System, even though the project has no use other than as an approach to such toll road: Provided, That agreement satisfactory to the Secretary of Commerce has been reached with the State prior to approval of any such project (1) that the section of toll road will become free to the public upon the collection of tolls sufficient to liquidate the cost of the toll road or any bonds outstanding at the
time constituting a valid lien against said section of toll road covered in the agreement and their maintenance and operation and debt service during the period of toll collections, and (2) that there is one or more reasonably satisfactory alternate free routes available to traffic by which the toll section of the System may be bypassed.

[jeffandnicole]

To be sure, the businesses can only talk to their elected officials.  The elected officials can always go to PennDOT/PTC and say, "hey, look, we have a problem here but don't want to hurt the businesses.  Is there a happy medium we can come up with?"

The elected officials are the ones that are truly stopping this from happening. 

Also to note: If they were making obscene profits, one would think more businesses would try to crowd in here.  Instead, businesses have closed.  I don't think they're exactly making a huge profit, but rather it's the elected officials trying to keep traffic - and the associated tax revenue - coming in.  And many of the businesses are national chains.  Close down any one of these and their effect on the companies' bottom line is nill.

Now, a location that can impact a bottom line is the Vegas Strip.  A Denny's there shut down for remodeling for a few months, and it actually created a notable impact on the financial statements!

[bzakharin]

I periodically hear this claim, but as far as I have been able to determine it is an urban legend.

So what is the actual reason it was not built as part of I-70?

[Avalanchez71]

They could have kept the Breezewood of Idaho in place.  Now I-90 blocks the sun out of view of many places in Wallace.

[Mr_Northside]

Managerial problems on the part of PennDOT and PTC, due to the choices they have made in the past.

Actually, a lot of that (the PTC payments) is Act 44 (and modified by Act 89), which was politicians thinking they could also milk a tolled I-80 to add to this pool of money.  The Feds predictably denied it, but the payment obligations stayed.  There is just 300+ miles of highway they thought would help generate that revenue that isn't (because, once again, they were too stupid to realize the Feds were going to shoot it down)

[sparker]

They could have kept the Breezewood of Idaho in place.  Now I-90 blocks the sun out of view of many places in Wallace.

There was never much of an organized push to make the Wallace gap a permanent situation; I-90 would have either gone through or around the town, although a bypass on the adjacent hillside would have meant problematic construction (unstable hillsides in the Bitterroots), which is one of the main reasons why an in-town viaduct was eventually built. 

[Avalanchez71]

It didn't seem like much of an issue when I went through.  What a waste of money.

[Beltway]

I periodically hear this claim, but as far as I have been able to determine it is an urban legend.

An urban legend started by the FHWA's own disinformation machine: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/tollroad.cfm

I present the pertinent portions below:

Okay, Smarty Pants, What About Breezewood, Pennsylvania?
This peculiar arrangement occurred because of Section 113 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956. Under Section 113(b), Federal-aid funds could be used for approaches to any toll road, bridge, or tunnel "to a point where such project will have some use irrespective of its use for such toll road, bridge, or tunnel." In other words, a motorist could use the toll facility or not. Under Section 113 (c), the State highway agency and toll authority could use Federal-aid highway funds to build an interchange between a toll-free Interstate and an Interstate turnpike (i.e., the motorist would have no choice but to use the toll road). However, the State highway agency, the toll authority, and the BPR would have to enter into an agreement to stop collecting tolls when the bonds were retired.
The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (PTC), which had no desire to stop collecting tolls, decided not to use the State's Federal-aid funds for the I-70 connection.

SEC. 113. TOLL ROADS, BRIDGES. AND TUNNELS.
(b) APPROACHES HAVING OTHER USE.
– The funds authorized under this title, or under prior Acts, shall be available for expenditure on projects approaching any toll road, bridge, or tunnel to a point where such project will have some use irrespective of its use for such toll road, bridge, or tunnel.
(c) APPROACHES HAVING NO OTHER USE.
– The funds authorized under section 108 (b) of this title, or under prior Acts, shall be available for expenditure on Interstate System projects approaching any toll road on the Interstate System, even though the project has no use other than as an approach to such toll road: Provided, That agreement satisfactory to the Secretary of Commerce has been reached with the State prior to approval of any such project (1) that the section of toll road will become free to the public upon the collection of tolls sufficient to liquidate the cost of the toll road or any bonds outstanding at the
time constituting a valid lien against said section of toll road covered in the agreement and their maintenance and operation and debt service during the period of toll collections, and (2) that there is one or more reasonably satisfactory alternate free routes available to traffic by which the toll section of the System may be bypassed.

OK, several points.

1) Why and how during the same era did the PTC build interchanges with these other PennDOT Interstate highways -- I-376 Monroeville, I-70 New Stanton, I-283 and I-76 Valley Forge.

2) Why didn't the PTC enter into the agreement, knowing that payoff of all toll revenue bonds would be many years if not decades into the future?  If they ever would be paid off given future improvement needs that would necessitate more toll revenue bonds?

3) How did the other turnpikes in IN, OH, NJ, MA and NY get nearly all such interchanges built 1960s-1980s when they have never stopped collecting tolls?

4) We're only talking about two ramps to connect I-70 to the turnpike access highway.  Back in 1970 prices they could have been built for $1 million.  Lack of federal funds would not prevent the PTC from using toll revenue bonds to build the ramps, nor would it prevent PennDOT from using state highway funds bonds to build the ramps.