Gettysburg residents are being misled—plain and simple. The images presented of the proposed Station Project and the “transit station” on North Stratton Street distort scale and perspective to make an overbuilt project look small, open, and compatible with its surroundings. It is not. These visuals are not honest representations; they are marketing tools, a carefully crafted illusion meant to quiet opposition, not show what will actually be built.
What is very real is what we stand to lose: our current transit station on Carlisle Street, a valuable public asset that will be torn down and destroyed. Approximately $1.5 million in taxpayer funds built the existing station. Now we are being asked to accept something inferior—potentially funded again with public dollars. It is an appalling waste. And why? The developer said it plainly in this newspaper on October 18, 2019: “One of the site’s challenges is there’s not a lot of frontage on Carlisle Street.” When he sought tenants, frontage “immediately was the objection.” To solve that problem, he said, plans call for tearing down the Gettysburg Transit Center. In other words, the station’s street frontage is needed so retail space will be more visible and more profitable—for his tenants. That is a private benefit, not a public one. The entire Station Project reflects this priority, pushing density and commercial gain ahead of function, safety, and community need.
Our current transit station is fully enclosed, protecting riders from winter cold, wind, and rain. It provides a safe and comfortable place to wait. The replacement? An outdoor platform with a roof—exposed to the elements and wholly inadequate. This is not an upgrade. It is a downgrade that strips away basic shelter. Approving such a plan would directly contradict the Planning Commission’s obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare.
And the problems do not stop there. The proposed site for the new transit station on North Stratton Street cannot safely handle the current bus traffic of 86 trips per day. Maneuvering constraints and congestion are not theoretical concerns; they are predictable outcomes.
Residents should remember how we got here confronting the completely inappropriate Station Project development: a narrow 3–2 Borough Council vote in 2018 changing the zoning to incentivize taller buildings despite strong public opposition. That vote does not bind today’s decision-makers. The Planning Commission has both the authority and the responsibility to reject what does not serve the public.
We are not powerless. This project can still be stopped. Speak up, show up, and demand better.
Peggy Rock