ROUTE 29 SLIP RAMPS
Chester County,
Pennsylvania
DRAFT MINUTES
Meeting # 7
DATE:
September 13, 2000
TIME:
7:00 P.M.
LOCATION:
Desmond Great Valley Hotel
Malvern, PA
ATTENDEES:
REPRESENTING:
Citizens Advisory Committee:
Kim Colket Schuylkill Township
Judy DiFilippo Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors
Bill Fulton Chester County Planning Commission
Mike Herron Transportation Mgrs Assoc. of Chester Co
Maynard Honesty East Whiteland/Tredyffrin Jnt Trans. Auth.
Lee Ledbetter Schuylkill Township Board of Supervisors
Wendy Leland Charlestown Township & Zoning Board
Gwen Miley Centocor, Inc
John Martin Charlestown Township & Zoning Board
Joseph Maxwell Great Valley Association
Katherine Pettiss Great Valley School Board
Charles Phillips Charlestown Planning Commission
Peter Quinn Greater Valley Forge TMA
Alternates:
John Engle Shared Medical Systems
Sue Staas Charlestown Planning Commission
Jeffrey Thomas The Vanguard Group
Project Study Team:
Jeff Davis PA Turnpike Commission
Walt Green PA Turnpike Commission
Christina Hampton PA Turnpike Commission
Jay Roth KCI Technologies, Inc
John Urick STV Inc.
CAC Facilitation Team
Joan Kober Right Management Consultants
Seth Lieberman Right Management Consultants
Other Representatives
Scott Brady DVRPC
INTRODUCTION,
PROTOCOL AND RATIFICATION OF MEETING MINUTES
Seth
Lieberman of Right Management Consultants opened the meeting and announced that
it was the seventh CAC meeting. He
again pointed out that the first several rows of seats were reserved for CAC
members and alternates. Other
attendees were to be observers only.
Lieberman
asked if there were any modifications to the minutes from last month’s
meeting. The minutes were
then ratified with no corrections.
REVIEW OF MEETING AGENDA
Seth
Lieberman presented the agenda that was discussed at the July 13th
CAC meeting. Much of the meeting
will revolve around getting information back to the CAC.
The agenda
included:
·
Welcome
·
Review of
ground rules
·
Approval of
minutes from July 13th meeting
·
Discussion
of Origin & Destination and Zip Code studies
·
Discussion
of additional inputs to upcoming re-run of the simulation
·
Discussion
of updates regarding responses to Chester County Planning Commission questions
·
Report on
costs of 3 originally proposed alternatives
Lieberman
asked if there were any questions about the agenda.
A committee member asked about the amount of time that will be devoted to
discussion of the Origin & Destination and Zip Code studies.
Lieberman responded that there is some flexibility in the schedule, but
that there is a lot to cover. Additional
discussion of the studies may need to take place at the next meeting.
ORIGIN & DESTINATION/ZIP CODE STUDIES
Walt Green began the discussion of these studies by pointing out the visual zip code plot diagram. Seth Lieberman invited everyone to walk up to look at the visual. He also passed out copies of the studies to anyone who didn’t receive it in the mail.
Walt Green
explained that he would be reporting on what was done and why it was done.
Green continued by pointing out that in 1996 the Pennsylvania Turnpike
Commission (PTC) began looking at a number of locations that might be suitable
for the construction of slip ramps. During
this process two questions were continuously raised regarding the Route 29 slip
ramps that are now under study:
·
Where do
people come from to get to Great Valley?
·
Where do
people who use the Valley Forge interchange come from?
One of
the factors that lead to the studies conducted in 2000 was a preliminary Origin
& Destination study conducted by KCI Technologies in late 1996 and early
1997.
·
This study
was conducted at all interchanges in the Philadelphia area on a particular day
·
Mail cards
were handed out to drivers exiting the Turnpike
·
There was a
response rate of approximately 34%
The
Turnpike Commission hired Wilbur Smith to conduct an independent survey of
traffic movements outside the interchanges for the entire Turnpike system.
·
The goal of
this study (also a postcard study) was to find out where people came from and
where they were going
·
The top 30
origins and destinations were compiled for major
interchanges.
·
The top
origin and destination — Montgomery County to Chester County — accounted for
18% of the trips to the Valley Forge Interchange.
·
People were
also asked to indicate if they would use E-Zpass.
·
These was a
response rate of about 30%
A
third study was conducted at the Valley Forge Interchange by Pennoni Associates
in March of 2000.
·
Drivers at
the interchanges were interviewed prior
to going through the toll booths
·
The survey
was cut short due to a major accident on the Turnpike — only about 30% of
potential drivers were interviewed between 7:00 am and 8:30 am.
·
All drivers
who indicated that their destination was
Charlestown, Exton or Malvern were asked the following:
If there was a Route 29 slip ramp, would you use it?
149 of 192 drivers interviewed said that they would use it.
Area
agencies and businesses were asked to provide the zip code origin from which
employees travel to work. PTC
was given the names of 162 businesses in Great Valley — study team members
also walked through the area to get additional information. Most of the zip code information was provided by larger firms
such as SMS and Vanguard. Some of
the smaller firms would not give out this information.
·
All data was
plotted on the visual displayed at the front of the room — plotted all of
Chester County, Bucks County, Montgomery County, Philadelphia, New Jersey with a
range from about Hunterdon County south to Burlington & Salem Counties.
Also added zip codes tabulated for Berks County, Lancaster County,
Dauphin County, York County, Luzerne County, Northampton County, Lehigh County
and the states of Delaware and Maryland. People
come to Great Valley from all of these origins.
·
After the
numbers were plotted, PTC made certain assumptions about routes used by drivers
to get to Great Valley
·
Some of
these assumptions include the following:
ü
Everyone
driving from Bucks County would most likely use the Turnpike
ü
Drivers from
the Lansdale area might use the Turnpike, but drivers beyond Lansdale could use
another route
·
PTC only
wanted to discover how many drivers currently use the Turnpike
ü
The numbers
in black on the visual represent people that currently use the Turnpike to get
to Great Valley
ü
The numbers
in red are people who never use the Turnpike
ü
The survey
indicated that 2,281 people (9.8% of all zip codes surveyed) use the Valley
Forge Interchange of the Turnpike.
ü
78% to 90%
of the cars that exit at Valley Forge are doing so for work related activities
ü
80% to 90%
of drivers surveyed during peak hours came from a location east of Valley Forge
ü
50% to 54%
of drivers exiting at Valley Forge use Route 202 south to get to their
destination
ü
41% of
people exiting at Valley Forge are traveling to Chester County
Walt
Green reported that a group of people visited the PTC office on September 12th.
These individuals asked if they could reproduce materials to give to
other people. Green explained the
difficulty of doing that due to the large size of the visual and the multiple
colors used. Jeff Davis suggested
that the visual be photographed digitally.
The project team will reproduce and distribute one copy of the visual to
each municipality. Walt Green
reminded the group that there is a lot of information at the PTC office about
all studies that have been completed. Any
individuals interested in viewing the information should call Walt Green
directly to make an appointment.
Green asked
if there were any questions. A
committee member asked about the daily volume of vehicles traveling through the
Valley Forge Interchange during peak hours.
A project team member responded that about 59,000 vehicles are processed
each day — over 3,000 exiting per hour at peak hours.
The CAC member reiterated the need to get peak hour numbers.
Another member noted that percentages bear out the numbers.
A project team member explained that each existing
exit lane processes about 250 vehicles per hour ; 400
vehicles per hour can be processed if
drivers are only taking tickets to enter the Turnpike; 600 to 900 vehicles per
E-Z pass lane can be processed.
A
committee member asked if all 3 originally proposed Route 29 slip ramp
alternatives are still viable. Green replied that these are all still
possibilities. Another member
pointed out that additional alternatives have been suggested by the CAC. These
additional alternatives are still under evaluation.
A committee
member questioned the logic of moving vehicles from one congested area to the
slip ramps as that would just create a back-up at the slip ramp.
Walt Green answered that
this issue is being addressed in
Fort Washington. There will be a
coordinated, closed loop traffic signal system to control flow of traffic. The
signal system will control slip ramp traffic and will also control existing
traffic on the local roads.
A
committee member pointed out that if you examine the King of Prussia numbers, it
looks like it would make more sense to construct the proposed slip ramp at
Valley Forge. Walt Green indicated
that PTC hasn’t been able to find a suitable location — other
non-highway development is already
taking place at prime locations. Improvements
to the Valley Forge Interchange are being made.
New lanes are being built — 4 of these will be EZ Pass (2 lanes in each
direction) PTC has
been asked to look in Montgomery County at
potential slip ramps east of the Schuylkill River.
A
committee member noted that the number of people who work at Great Valley is a
very small percentage of total traffic — will diverting this small percentage
really make a difference? A
committee member explained that if 300 to 500 vehicles can be diverted from
Valley Forge, the capacity of the interchange effectively increases — there
will be 500 less vehicles sitting in a line on the Turnpike waiting to get
through the interchange. This
improvement will make travel safer by reducing traffic congestion at peak hour.
A committee member didn’t understand how this would make the situation
better — it would just result in more congestion and unsafe conditions around
Route 29. Green explained that
PTC’s original plan was to tie the construction of two bridge widenings to the
construction of slip ramps at Route 29. The
plan, however, has been modified and the bridges will be constructed separately
— with or without slip ramps. The
bridges will make it easier for townships, PennDOT or developers to widen Route
29 to 4 lanes in the vicinity of the Turnpike.
Referring
to the display board for the Fort Washington slip ramp, another member mentioned
that improvements made to the Turnpike as a result of slip ramps are shown in
one color. Another color shows
PennDOT improvements. The
member wanted to know how these improvements were coordinated.
Walt Green used Fort Washington as a good example of the type of
coordination that would take place between a municipality, PennDOT and the
Turnpike Commission. Slip ramps and
improvements on 10 miles of Route 309 are being coordinated as PennDOT wants to
detour traffic onto many Upper Dublin roads during Route 309 construction.
PTC has entered into a cooperative agreement with Upper Dublin
— cooperative efforts will include installation of closed loop traffic
signals, street widening and provision of funds to alleviate drainage problems.
A
committee member wanted to know how the cooperation with Upper Dublin came
about. He also asked about making
it happen at Route 29 slip ramps. Jay
Roth answered that there is some closed loop signal work being designed for
Route 29 in the vicinity of Route 202. Walt
Green stated that East Whiteland and Charlestown have to agree to cooperative
efforts.
Walt
Green continued by pointing out a few details on the visual display:
·
Route
113 (lateral route) is shown in green.
·
The Turnpike
is shown in yellow and Route 29 is shown in blue going north to south.
·
Route 202
from north to south is pink and Route 422 is not color coded
·
If
you study the visual, you will see why people on Route 422 will
not come to the Turnpike and then head east.
When PTC first began studying the proposed slip ramps, numerous travel
time runs were made into Great Valley. Runs
were made from the intersection of Route 29 and Route 422 into Charlestown and
from there to Valley Forge. Other
runs were made from Route 29 to Route 23 and then to Valley Forge.
Final runs were made down 422 directly to the Valley Forge interchange. Using
Route 422 directly to Valley Forge was the quickest route.
A committee member asked how approved development square footage and the resulting increase of commuters to the area would be factored into the rerun traffic model. A project team member explained that Jay Roth, Bill Fulton and Scott Brady are looking into this issue. A technical committee member reported that information on this additional square footage was recently sent to Scott Brady. Another CAC member added that huge numbers of employees shown on the visual display are coming from the southwest, northwest and west – she believes that a good many of new employees will come from that area rather than from the east. This member continued by asking if development from the east is at its maximum level. Walt Green replied that he wasn’t sure of that and, in fact, many people drive a great distance every day to get to Great Valley.
A
committee member asked if the black numbers on the display visual substantiate
proposed slip ramp construction. In
addition, he continued by asking whether additional slip ramps need to be
considered to get more traffic off congested roads..
Walt Green replied that there may be other slip ramp construction — for
example, at the proposed Vanguard facility at Route 113 (Jeff Davis added that
ramps at 113 are currently being discussed).
However, most of traffic leaving Vanguard will never touch a local road
— ramps will connect directly to the Turnpike. Green further explained that considering slip ramps at
Route 401 would be difficult since it is purely a residential area.
A committee member asked how numbers from studies would be reflected in the future DVRPC model. Walt Green replied that the studies substantiate DVRPC numbers from previous model runs. Green feels that study numbers are very conservative — they are based on existing conditions. Walt Green urged committee members to send him an e-mail (at wgreen@paturnpike.com) or call him (at 610-292-3795 ) if they want to see the visual display. Jeff Davis will get the visual reproduced and distributed to municipalities.
DISCUSSION OF ADDITIONAL INPUTS TO UPCOMING RE-RUN OF TRAFFIC SIMULATION
Scott
Brady of DVRPC recapped the last CAC meeting discussion about population,
employment and induced development projections.
He explained that a technical committee has been established to develop a
2025 forecast for population and employment — the best preliminary estimate
possible. The committee is
comprised of representatives from DVRPC, KCI Technologies and the Chester County
Planning Commission . Brady
explained that this new forecast is needed as the last study was done in 1995
and 1996 — a lot of new development has taken place or been announced since
then.
Scott Brady
continued by explaining that Schuylkill Township has offered to be the first
municipality in the development of population and employment forecasts.
Three experts from Schuylkill Township have volunteered to meet with the
technical committee to review Schuylkill Township projections.
Brady
outlined the current steps in the process:
·
Chester
County Planning Commission sent out a letter to municipalities requesting
information on population and employment. This
agency conducted a very thorough review of all proposals sent to them.
·
Recommended
2020 population and employment numbers developed by Chester County are now
available
·
Chester
County will take these numbers to the townships and municipalities for
verification
·
A technical
committee member explained that all information will be brought back to the CAC
after municipalities have agreed on numbers
A
committee member asked about the logistics of getting all municipalities to
review the numbers. Seth Lieberman
explained that the technical committee would be in charge of contacting the 9
most affected areas. Bill Fulton
will send letters to the Chairman of the Supervisors in the boroughs of Malvern
and Phoenixville. He will also send
letters to the townships of East Whiteland, Charlestown, East Pikeland,
Schuylkill, Tredyffrin, West Pikeland and West Vincent.
Seth emphasized the importance of giving townships a deadline for
returning feedback to the technical committee.
Bill Fulton explained that this is difficult to do — townships need
ample time to carefully study the numbers so they should have some say on how
much time they’ll need. He
continued by explaining that some townships might agree with the initial numbers
while others might need to revise the numbers.
Seth
Lieberman stated that he would like to schedule another CAC meeting in 8 weeks.
In response to this request a committee member reiterated the need to
determine how long it will take townships to provide feedback.
It is very important to achieve alignment at the township level so that
DVRPC is provided with numbers that are as accurate as they possibly can be.
Scott Brady
agreed that township involvement is essential as they’re on the front line.
He commended Chester County on the initial work that they’ve completed
— however, input from townships is still needed.
He emphasized the danger in letting the process drag on for a long period
of time.
Lieberman
asked if work with Schuylkill Township could begin soon rather than waiting for
buy-in from all townships and municipalities. Lieberman also felt that just mailing a letter to townships
and municipalities was not enough — dialogue must also be part of the process.
A representative from the CCPC volunteered to host a meeting as the key
is to get DVRPC real numbers. The
project study team and technical committee should be included in any of these
meetings.
A
committee member asked whether any other townships or municipalities (besides
Schuylkill Township) have been asked to participate in the process.
The representative from the CCPC indicated that letters to all townships
and municipalities would be sent out on September 14th.
The CCPC representative will establish a timeline with each of the
townships and municipalities for review of numbers and return of feedback.
The
representative from Schuylkill Township indicated that their results could be
reported at next week’s planning commission meeting.
A representative from Charlestown Township reported that the topic can be
put on agenda at Planning
Commission meeting on the 4th Tuesday of the month.
Seth Lieberman asked the Charlestown representative to provide an
estimate of when Charlestown would be able to provide feedback.
The representative estimated late October or early November although he
couldn’t speak for the township supervisors.
Scott
Brady reported that he would bring the following to a future CAC meeting:
·
The network
used for the last round of the model run
·
The
locations where traffic counts were taken — these counts served as the basis
of calibration for the last run of the simulation.
Brady will
ask the townships to look at the network and traffic count locations to verify
that everything that should be included, in fact, is included.
It’s vital that data used to re-run the simulation is accurate.
Brady
continued by explaining that traffic analysis zones were discussed a year ago
— tracts were subdivided and local facilities were added to get better loading
of the model. Charlestown was one
traffic analysis zone that was split into several sub-zones. As part of the new model simulation, additional traffic
counts will be taken at locations indicated on the map. Brady emphasized the need for input from the townships and
municipalities on any new areas/facilities to be considered for inclusion in the
network.
A committee
member asked whether Brady’s display could be reproduced. Brady indicated that he would get one copy for each
municipality to use at planning meetings.
UPDATES
ON RESPONSES TO CHESTER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION QUESTIONS
Jeff
Davis recapped the status of 26 issues raised by the Chester County Planning
Commission in their letter of December 20, 1999. The project team presented some initial responses to the
issues at the April CAC meeting. In
a letter sent to CCPC in May, 2000, the issues and corresponding responses were
organized into 5 categories:
traffic
volumes and level of service, safety, mitigation of land use and traffic,
environmental and miscellaneous coordination. Davis explained that he would like to review all
26 issues in order to determine present status of each issue. It was suggested that each issue be categorized as:
Has been addressed (H)
Wait to address when additional alternatives are identified and traffic
is re-run.
(W)
Open (O)
The
following issues were discussed, classified and labeled (from A to Z)
A.
Data
should be provided to support the basic premise that these ramps are needed by
the employment centers along Route 29. This
could be done by reviewing zip code information for employee residences from a
representative sampling of companies in the corridor. Classified as W
B. Clarification is needed on the level of service analysis of the no-build scenario. A proper comparison of future conditions must include an accurate list of the traffic improvements that are assumed for each scenario. (Response) A committee member asked for an explanation of the term “level of service.” Jay Roth responded by explaining that level of service refers to a determination of how well a signalized intersection or segment of a roadway processes vehicles. There are acceptable levels of service based on the amount of delay that vehicles experience at an intersection and there are unacceptable periods of delay associated with the same. Roth continued by pointing out that a level of service analysis that was done last year is available. However, the Planning Commission and PTC have agreed that it’s a waste of time to look at that analysis since the numbers are most likely going to change. Classified as W
C.
The detailed worksheets on the level of service
analysis must be carefully reviewed for accuracy.
Classified as W
D.
Turnpike interchanges in the metropolitan area and
throughout Pennsylvania have a tendency to generate land uses that are highway
oriented and generally not consistent with the area north of the Turnpike.
This matter should be investigated thoroughly, and in the event the ramps
are constructed, the Turnpike Commission must identify a comprehensive strategy
to assist Charlestown and Schuylkill Townships with a growth management program.
Classified as W
E.
The municipalities should have a direct role in the review and
approval of a landscaping plan for the entire interchange area. (Response) Jeff
Davis shared the landscaping plan used for the slip ramp area in Upper Dublin.
This plan includes an extensive amount of trees and plantings.
Also, PTC cooperated in moving several large trees to other locations.
Classified as H
The rest of the issues raised by the Chester County Planning Commission will be addressed at a future meeting.
REPORT ON COSTS
FOR ORIGINAL THREE ALTERNATIVES
A handout was provided that listed the major cost components for the three alternatives originally presented to the public in February, 1999. Jeff Davis reported that alternative 3 would be the least expensive to build. A committee member asked about the cost of building bridges. Davis explained that a typical four lane bridge crossing the Turnpike would cost at least $1,000,000 (one million) to build.
OTHER
COMMENTS
Walt Green urged everyone to talk to townships and large organizations about setting up a public transportation plan. The zip code study indicates that about 1,300 people from zip code 19460 (Schuylkill Township, Phoenixville Borough and Charlestown Township) travel to Great Valley each day. Use of the new Chester Valley TMA Phyler and carpooling or ridesharing would help alleviat3 much of the problem right now.
ACTION
ITEMS
|
ACTION |
BY WHOM |
COMMENT |
|
Send one
copy of visual associated with zip code and origin/destination studies to
each municipality |
Walt
Green, Jeff Davis |
|
|
Send
letter simultaneously to all townships & municipalities in regard to
review of employment and population data |
Bill
Fulton, Chester County Planning Commission |
Bill
Fulton has also agreed to host a meeting with townships &
municipalities if needed |
|
Provide a
copy of visual used by Scott Brady at 9/13/00 CAC to each municipality |
Scott
Brady, DVRPC |
To be
distributed at next CAC meeting |
|
Bring
network used for last run of the simulation to a CAC meeting |
Scott
Brady, DVRPC |
|
NEXT
MEETING
Date: Tuesday, November 21, 2000
Time: 7:00 P.M.
Location: Desmond Great Valley Hotel
One Liberty Boulevard
Malvern, PA 19355
(610) 296-9800
Minutes prepared by Joan Kober