Minutes taken by Joshua Klayman, Key
Management Strategies, Inc.
ATTENDANCE
Members
Alternates
Melissa Carta
Mark Cassel
Kim Colket
Sandra Gorman
Mike Herron
John Grib
Lee Ledbetter
John Snyder
Gwen Miley
Sue Staas
John Martin
Pat Wood
Katherine Pettiss
Terry Woodman
Peter Quinn
Maryann Severance
Pete Wilson
Additional
Individuals
Chris Merrill, Reporter, Philadelphia
Inquirer
Steven Burgess, Charlestown Land Owner
Kevin Kuhn, Charlestown, Supervisor
Hugh Willig, Charlestown, Supervisor
Seth Lieberman of Key Management
Strategies, Inc. opened the meeting and welcomed everyone.
Lieberman then reminded the group that the seats in the front were
reserved for CAC members or alternates—speaking members of this meeting.
He also informed the group of the presence of Chris Merrill, a
reporter from The Philadelphia Inquirer, and introduced Joshua
Klayman, of Key Management Strategies, Inc.
Lieberman continued by asking if
there were any modifications to the minutes from the last meeting. Kim Colket said,
“I was in attendance and Norm Vutz was in attendance as an
alternate.” Lieberman
stated that the sign-in sheet would be passed around this evening to
ensure that everyone is accounted for.
Another member stated that, since
he was not present at the May 5, 2000 meeting, he was unable to
“champion” some of the proposed alternatives, which were described in
the minutes as “We don’t understand” or “Need more information”.
The member wanted to know whether he would have the opportunity to
explain those alternatives. Seth
Lieberman responded by saying that, tonight, the group would go over the
alternatives that had not been defined.
The meeting minutes from May 5,
2000 were approved, based on the comments above
MEETING
AGENDA
Seth Lieberman explained that the
agenda for the meeting was:
·
Welcome/ground rules
·
Minutes
·
Future Meetings
·
Population, Employment & Induced
Development Projections (presented by Scott Brady of DVRPC)
·
Define Alternatives
·
Assess Pros & Cons
FUTURE
MEETINGS
Seth
Lieberman stated that, during the May 5th meeting, several CAC
members commented that the group had not yet fully gathered the facts
necessary to provide community recommendations.
Lieberman explained that, following the meeting, he had created a
proposal, presenting the group’s concerns and requesting approval for
additional meetings, which he had subsequently submitted to the PA
Turnpike commission. Although the meeting extension has not officially been
approved, Lieberman stated that he had been given permission to talk about
the additional meetings.
Prior
to the June 13, 2000 meeting, Lieberman had written a preliminary meeting
timeline on a flip chart, which he revealed to the group for feedback. Lieberman planned for four (4) additional meetings, which he
numbered “7” through “10”.
MEETING MONTH CONTENT DESCRIPTION
·
#7
September Review progress on
the O&D and Zip Code study status.
·
#8
November Define Matrix of
Alternatives.
6 Months Interim: Lieberman
stated that it will take a relatively long time to update the modeling and
that, perhaps, a newsletter could be created to keep CAC members informed
of progress.
·
#9
May*
Question and answer session, dynamic meeting.
Group would prepare a pamphlet containing information for members to share
with the organizations
that they represent.
·
#10
June 2001*
Final input on the alternatives.
(*As a result of discussion, meeting #9 was moved to April, and meeting
#10 was moved to May, 2001.)
After
explaining the proposed meeting timeline and descriptions, Lieberman
acknowledged that members would need to make significant commitments to
the upcoming meetings. He
continued by saying that, fortunately, there should be sufficient time for
CAC members to plan for and set aside evenings for the meetings.
Lieberman
then opened up the discussion to the larger group, asking for questions
and/or clarifications.
One
group member asked, “Is the ultimate meeting agenda saying that we are
not looking for consensus from this group at all?”
Lieberman responded affirmatively, stating that he was not looking
for a majority vote.
Another
member continued, “We’re extending the alternatives to a significant
number. Is there a winnowing
down process?” Lieberman
responded that yes, during meeting #8, the group would run a no-build and
a few other alternatives together to evaluate the results.
A third
member asked, “Is it reasonable to expect the model to be able to run
for 5 or 6 alternatives instead of 2 or 3?”
Lieberman stated, “As far as I know, there is some willingness to
run alternatives if they are viable.
There is an enormous expense.
Maybe we don’t need to run all of them; we would decide that in
meeting 8 in November.”
Lee
stated, “I like the flow, but I’m concerned about how stretched out it
is. Is this your opinion or
do we really need the hiatus or can it be compressed?”
Lieberman answered, “I believe that it is necessary to have the 6
month hiatus to give time for the process and to respect your time, as
well as with the expense being paid for my time, and not have you
reconvening when nothing has been decided.
I think that this is the most logical, but I am open to having that
discussion.”
Another
member stated, “It may also be lost opportunity.
Somewhere in the middle of that is Trammel Crow, somewhere in the
middle of that, they’ll need to move on.
I agree that you
don’t want to waste time. If
it takes 6 months then it takes six months.”
Terry W. continued, “I agree with Lee, I’d rather have it
tighter with a tighter goal. Maybe
we could even bump it up a month away from June in the summer.”
Lieberman asked Scott Brady if that would be unreasonable.
Scott
Brady of DVRPC replied that, no, it would not be ridiculous to schedule a
meeting in April, but that “people would have to dedicate time for
this.” They will be working
on other projects, too. I
would agree with the member that the meeting could be moved up earlier,
but then it may need to be pushed back again due to lack of pertinent
information, workload, etc.
Another
member suggested that the hiatus between meetings #8 and #9 remain, but
that maybe meetings #6 and #7 could be moved closer together, as well as
meetings #7 and #8.
Other members responded to that
suggestion by stating that people might not turn out for a meeting held in
August. Seth Lieberman
replied that part of the reasoning for the meeting timeline was “to give
some time for gathering of additional data.”
Another
member responded, “At some time in there, townships are going to be
asked to review data and comment on it in a timely manner.”
Another member responded, “That is going to drive everything: how
fast the townships respond.”
As
a result of the discussion, meeting #9 was moved to April and meeting #10
was moved to May, 2001.
Following
the date changes for meetings, the discussion continued:
Lieberman
reaffirmed that he believed that the most important thing is to have two
fairly compressed meetings at the beginning, then a 6-month hiatus,
followed by two final meetings and a recommendation.
A
member asked, “Do there need to be two months between #7 & #8?” Lieberman stated that he suspected “that there will be more
data gathering between the meetings.
We will define data needed today.”
He explained, “We once had two meetings, four weeks apart and it
didn’t really help.”
Jeff suggested that since the O&D,
and maybe the Zip Code, data would be ready in August, “It might be
smart to send out the O&D and Zip Code information before the meeting
for people, and then distribute it to all CAC members in August.”
Lieberman stated that Key Management Strategies, Inc. would
distribute the information.
Another
member inquired, “Does that mean that the alternatives can be moved to
October?” Lieberman
replied, “My gut says that things will not go that quick.
I’m hoping that this will accomplish it.
I am willing to have a discussion in the September meeting if
things go differently.”
A
member asked, “We’ve been told that the model is expensive—Can we
get some ballpark of how expensive it is?
That way we can decide how many alternatives to run.”
No definitive answer was given.
Another
member asked, “Do we have to do a run for each alternative?”
The response: “Yes, but they can be done pretty much
simultaneously.”
Seth
Lieberman then asked if there were any additional questions about future
meetings. He invited the
group to email him with any other suggestions or comments about the
meeting schedule.
Sue stated, “I suppose that at some
point somebody from the Turnpike has to bless this and from something that
you’ve said at the meeting, it doesn’t sound like it’s been
approved.” The response
from the Turnpike was that the future meetings had been “recommended to
be approved” and that most items that are “recommended to be
approved” are approved.
It was stated, “We had already had discussions with Seth prior to
the last CAC meeting about continued meetings.”
At that
point, Seth Lieberman introduced Scott Brady and said, “I’d like Scott
to talk about the Population, Employment & Induced Development
projections. And then, I want
us to define what we’ve gained and what that missing information is.”
Population,
Employment & Induced Development Projections:
Scott
Brady, DVRPC
Scott
Brady said, “Good evening,” and introduced himself to the group. Brady continued by saying that CAC members might remember him
from the November 9, 1999 CAC meeting, at which time Brady had given a
presentation on slip ramp modeling.
Brady then referred to a particular slide from that presentation,
which had been included in the handouts; the slide showed a table that was
broken down by townships and “talked about the future 2020 population,
employment, and changes from 1990 to that time.”
Brady
continued by stating that, following those original projections, the
mid-decade census projections were made available and that the DVRPC had
used that newly available information to develop 1997 as well as revised
2020 projections. However,
many other developments have or are proposed to take place, including the
Trammel Crow announcement.
Brady
explained, “This time, we will go about it differently.”
Instead of relying on these 2020 projections developed with the
counties, which are supposed to have gathered information from the
townships, a technical committee has been established.
The technical committee is composed of DVRPC, KCI Technologies (the
Turnpike’s traffic consultant), and the Chester County Planning
Commission. The commiscommittee’sion’s
s
goal is “to develop a 2025 forecast for population and
employment—our best preliminary
estimate.” These numbers will then be taken to the township boards,
presented by Chester County Planning Commission.
“We will say that this is our forecast and this is why this
forecast is believed to be correct, but you people are the ones who really
know. You (the townships)
hear what the developers say and you hear this every month at your
township supervisors’ meeting. We
want your input, change the estimates a little bit here, or tell us
we’re nuts, but you tell us how to change it.”
Scott
Brady explained that he had purposely separated out population and
employment from induced development.
“In the prior models,” he stated, “there were no projections
of induced development. You
can go to conference session after conference session where some people
will say that there is no such thing as induced development and others
will say induced development is substantial (i.e., 20% or more.)”
Brady
asserted that the technical committee will address this issue by looking
at the background information—the “Township Character” (e.g., Rural,
wanting to remain rural)—in order to develop a number of indices, which
will then help to specify a percentage of induced growth for each
township. These preliminary numbers will then be taken to the township
supervisors, and if they think that the percentage should be higher or
lower, they should provide the committee with a reason and the committee
will take a closer look at it. “We
are not going to use the official
numbers; we are going to let the townships give input.”
That way, Brady stated, “Township leaders will not be able to say
that something was not considered.
Scott
Brady then encouraged group members to ask questions.
One
member asked, “Are there any inputs for any companies that are in the
counties that are not municipally based?” (e.g., Vanguard is based in
East Whiteland.) Brady
responded that DVRPC has traditionally based the numbers on township
numbers, not the specific employer numbers and requested that the member
please address a note to Seth Lieberman about that.
Lee
asked, “When will you be doing this work for us?”
Scott Brady replied that “a lot will matter on what happens in
the Chester County Planning Commission.”
Brady explained that the Chester County Planning Commission has
“lost two of their transportation planners to consultants, so they are
doing a lot of work with a skeleton staff.”
He continued by saying that DVRPC was helping out and “We want to
review the technical papers on induced demand to boil some of these papers
down to abstracts for you. We
will, if you request, make the technical papers available to you.”
However, the township can not “take the information for six
months to look it over, because that starts at the front end of the
modeling process and affects the entire timetable.”
Lee
then asked, “Can we earmark a meeting ahead of time to schedule a public
meeting?” Scott responded,
“We’re depending on the CAC members to coordinate that with your
township. We need to plan to
present the preliminary numbers at the September meeting, which needs to
be set tonight.”
Stating
that “No one knows the townships better than themselves,” Lee asked,
“Is there a way that we can bring each township into the process even as
you even begin to develop the projections?
Can we start at the beginning with township supervisors?”
Scott replied that he would need approval from the Chester County
Planning Commission in order to do that.
Someone
said, “We need to go public and have a public mtg. And the township
supervisors would say, ‘Why didn’t you contact us sooner?”
Scott Brady responded, “I can’t speak for Bill Fulton on that,
but I would be more than willing for that.”
Lee
volunteered Schuylkill Township as a guinea pig for a workshop and/or
public meeting, if Scott Brady “thought that it would help.”
Lee explained that Schuylkill Township offered a good balance,
because it is neither the largest, nor the smallest township and offers a
midpoint between rural and developed areas.
Seth
Lieberman made the suggestion, “What if you had a technical meeting and
had the township planning commission people go to technical meeting?” Scott Brady felt that that would be an excellent idea.
Seth
thanked Scott for his time and presentation. Lieberman then acknowledged
that Scott is making a sincere effort to ensure a “good process” and
to make that process as complete and transparent as possible.
Lieberman
continued by stating that he had heard a lot of comments about members not
having enough facts and data to “make a good, fact-based decision.” Lieberman said that he would like to spend some time during
the current meeting defining that missing information. He asked, “What data is needed in order to say there should
be or shouldn’t be a slip ramp.” Lee indicated that he did not
understand what Lieberman meant, and Lieberman added, “Specifically,
data that is needed that we don’t already have.”
GROUP-SPECIFIED
INFORMATION/DATA NEEDED IN ORDER TO MAKE INFORMED RECOMMENDATIONS
1.
Origin and destination data
2.
Baseline
traffic that exists today, and how far can we go from the slip ramps to
measure that traffic.
3.
What
developments will be made on existing local roads (by PennDot, etc.) for
each alternative?
4.
The answers to the 26 Chester
County Planning Commission Questions.
5.
Outstanding building permits,
municipality zoning, and township form 537 plan.
6.
Environmental data (watershed,
etc.)
7.
Visual impact.
8.
How much does it cost to build
certain things.
Employers
have been approached for information on where employees live. 162 firms
have been contacted. Zip code
data has been obtained from 30 of the larger firms.
·
“Can
we see it graphically in a map to help the townships decide?”
“Yes.
The zip codes are being plotted. Originally, we weren’t looking
at Chester County: We were looking at Montgomery County, Bucks County, New
Jersey and Philadelphia. Now we are looking at employees from the West,
because of the interest of the CAC in a possible “all move” electronic
interchange.
·
“Actually,
I was just asking about employers in the area that you may have missed
that would be relevant.”
“The
county commissioners promised us that information in February of 1999, and
it never materialized. As a
result, we used the 162 companies from the Great Valley Chamber of
Commerce.”
·
“I
thought that the zip codes were used to show the addresses of
employees.”
No,
only the areas where the work trip originates.
This ensures privacy. “It doesn’t show zip codes from Lancaster
County. A lot of employers
won’t give that information.” The
idea was to determine how many people working in Great Valley use the
Valley Forge Interchange coming to and from work.
·
“Yeah,
but now you don’t know the overall picture.”
“No,
that is why we went back and replotted data to include Chester County.
Everyone has ideas on how to get the information, but no one has
been able to get it—It’s a privacy issue.
Montgomery, Bucks, Jersey, Chester are included---we might not have
all of the smaller, far-off counties.
All of the data collected will be there.”
2.
Baseline
traffic that exists today, and how far can we go from the slip ramps to
measure that traffic. You are going to add traffic to a road system that
already exists.
·
A member stated, “From the traffic
commission, a five to ten mile radius may be better.”
Scott Brady replied that we
examined traffic in a radius of several miles from the change to the
highway system in order to measure the effects of that change to the
highway system. As you get
further away from that change, effects diminish.
·
Sue stated that the CAC members are
afraid that the modeling, which needs to use this data, will not capture
the info and things from five miles away could cause things to go wrong.
In addition, she stated, “The data that we had was extrapolated
by KCI from old studies. We
now need good baseline data from intersections (current) to extrapolate
from.”
Scott Brady
replied that he believed that the member was referring to one of his
slides, which showed a sample of the forecast.
Brady explained that, though the slide zoomed in on the area of the
slip ramps, his group had studied a much larger area than the slide
showed. He stated, “In the
actual report, we have examined very large areas for modeling to see how,
if you change traffic patterns in one area, it will affect other areas.
The oldest traffic count data that we used was 3 years old, but we will
completely reexamine and recount every location.”
Brady specified that, in addition to counting everything “above
the level of a local road in the Federal Functional Classification
system”, his group will count several locations on local roads.
[Sue would like to suggest certain
intersections for Scott to study; she will give that information to Joshua
Klayman. Scott Brady stated
that, if people have existing traffic counts that they would like to have
included, they should submit them to Scott.
Sue will find out the information from the Charlestown Township
traffic study.]
·
“Several
miles—does that mean Phoenixville?”
Scott
Brady replied that the borough of Phoenixville was represented in the
model, but the data wasn’t gathered in the borough of Phoenixville.
·
Lee asked if PennDot roads were the
only roads above the level of local roads.
Scott
Brady replied that the Federal functional classification does contain
PennDot roads, but they also go beyond that to include roads that “could
be considered collectors.” Brady
continued by stating that, during the February CAC meeting, Brady had
listed the exact roads in Lee’s township included in the model.
·
Depending upon the alternative, would
PennDot work with the slip ramp to
accommodate the traffic on single-lane direction roads?
J.
Roth, KCI, explained "We took a look at the build scenario and
determined which roadways and intersections needed upgrades
to accommodate the
traffic distributions and related levels of service to a
point that is equivalent or better than the no-build
condition." He
then stated that PennDOT, PA
Turnpike Commission, the municipalities and developers
would coordinate the upgrades to accommodate the overall traffic changes.
3.
Can
we make available our information on what improvements will be made on
existing local roads taking each alternative separately?
When the traffic model is re-run to determine the traffic
changes
Associated with different slip ramp alternatives and adjacent
developments, the intersections and roadway segments in the study
area will be reevaluated. The results of this analysis will be made
available for review.
This same information has been requested by the Chester County
Planning Commission.
4.
The answers to the 26 Chester
County Planning Commission Questions.
“In the April Meeting, there was a list of approaches to
respond to. We responded to
the Chester County Planning Commission.
We can forward that information to members.
In June, we received a letter from the Schuylkill Township with
recommendations that was sent out to the Governor.
Attached to that letter were questions about DVRPC modeling, and
they (DVRPC) were required to respond.
At the end of the meeting, the responses of DVRPC to the Schuylkill
Township will be available.”
5.
Outstanding building permits,
zoning for municipalities, and township form 537 plan.
Scott Brady
indicated that Chester County Planning Commission is already in possession
of the development proposal information but that the technical committee
definitely needs access to the zoning information for each township.
Brady stated that the type of zoning will affect the levels of
induced growth projections.
·
A member stated, “I thought that we
were using zip codes to look at origins of employee trips.” The member said that the idea had been that a
good amount of the traffic was coming from the south, and not from the
turnpike—not having to do with the Valley Forge interchange.
The member asked, “Where are the employees coming from?”
Walt
responded that the turnpike had been planning to show who
comes to Great Valley. Walt
continued by stating that the whole idea behind the zip code study was to
prove that the traffic information was correct; this is why he asked
who used Valley Forge interchange. Walt stated that he plotted “for
every company that sent me a zip code.”
This included Philadelphia, Montgomery and Southern Chester County,
but did not plot for Delaware County.
·
Lee, having looked over the list of
roads to be studied in Schuylkill Township, said that the roads listed
were appropriate. He then
asked, “If we (the Townships) tested, at our nickel, additional
roads—with a traffic consultant—would you be willing to include
additional roads?”
Scott Brady replied that, while that should be fine, DVRPC does reserve the right to examine, approve or reject the counts of the traffic consultant.
Lee volunteered, to Brady and DVRPC, “If we know in advance when you are testing, we can simultaneously address different roads.”
·
“Do you use data from developers?”
Scott Brady replied, “Usually developers must conduct a traffic study for townships when they have a technical proposal; they are definitely valid counts after being reviewed internally as stated earlier".”
Scott said that he would refer people to the traffic count section. “It’s all public data. We give you the actual, 24-hour, intersection and vehicle classification counts with every project report; you can definitely review it.”
·
“When will the next round of counts
be made?”
“We have
several sites that we always do as part of our regular traffic counting program. In November, as part of this project’s
schedule we would schedule some others. ...We
typically try to avoid counting in the summer."
6.
Environmental
data (watershed, etc.)
Walt has the
environmental reports for the study area that was considered in the
development of alternatives.
7.
Visual impact
Lieberman
stated that CAC members should assume that all of those answers will be
provided once the group determines the alternatives.
8.
How much does it cost to build
certain things?
· “A lot of the alternatives do not have any idea of economic standpoint. How do we get rid of pie in the sky ideas?
Lieberman
reminded the group members that list of alternatives had been developed
through brainstorming, listing everything that came to mind in the hopes
of coming up with some new ideas.
· “What is economically feasible, not only unit costs but roadway costs and bridges? When you get down to some of the more viable alternatives, those costs will make a differences.”
· “Provide the cost of what it’s costing to build the slip ramps and bridges elsewhere. Potential bridges could be built. How much does a bridge spanning the turnpike cost? What about relative costs of alternatives?”
· “We need someone sitting here to say, ‘Do you know the cost issues associated with this?’ Don’t you think that KCI should be able to give us a ballpark? If we are trying to condense the meetings, then it is not feasible to go through all of these alternatives.”
·
Lee cautioned that, once cost is
included, one has to consider “fully burdened cost.” (e.g., What would
the alternative cost vs. mass transit, buses, etc.)
Lee continued by saying that the group would be “getting into one
aspect of a very complicated system that goes beyond what the CAC knows
how to do.”—or what it is being asked to do.
“Bridge span vs. intersection vs. tunnel is crazy.
The question about cost: Are
you wondering how much the turnpike commission is willing to spend?”
Lee continued, “With the new information added in, I doubt that
the option that costs six times more than the least option is going to be
run through the simulation. Ask the Turnpike commission if they are willing to spend
this? That is a non sequitur
if the option is actually good for the community.
Look at the minutes of meeting number 5; you’ll find that only
two of the alternatives involved building a major road.
It had to be somewhere in Great Valley in order to avoid going
through residential or major environmental areas—they have already been
ruled out. The cost
of gates isn’t important if it doesn’t matter since we can’t do it
anyway.”
Seth Lieberman suggested that the CAC
members allow “cost“ to be a topic at future meetings.”
Lieberman then displayed a flip
chart listing the alternatives generated by the CAC members and asked
group member to indicate whether they needed more information about
certain options.
ALTERNATIVES
(Comments in parenthesis)
1.
Fly-over
2.
Under turnpike
3.
Diamond
4.
No build
5.
Larger off ramp extending almost to Rte. 202 and into GV Corp
Center. (*Has since
been eliminated, see below.)
6.
Slip ramps that funnel onto
limited access roads- e.g., turn Rte. 29 into limited access to 202.
(“Limit every company that
has a driveway and take them out of business.”
“We don’t want to get back into cost.
We are still brainstorming.”)
7.
Ramp across Trammel Crow quarry property directly to northern part
of corporate center. (“How is this different than the two above it?”
“I almost think of something towards Swedesford Road, moving the
slip ramp location further south.” “Making a parallel route to 29 somewhere around SMS.”)
8.
Ramp to 422 West of Valley Forge.
(“Take people off of 422 onto the turnpike Westbound to have
limited access to avoid some of the traffic coming from Phoenixville. The
only place where 422 comes near the Turnpike is
Valley Forge. It’s an
additional slip ramp, working in tandem with the slip ramp to Great
Valley. But that still
doesn’t resolve where the slip ramp exits.
It’s an effort not to use the local roads coming from
Phoenixville.”)
After defining the aforementioned
alternatives, Seth Lieberman stated that the group would assess the
alternative “Slip ramps that funnel traffic onto limited roads—e.g.,
Turn route 29 into limited access.”
Lieberman passed out yellow pads of paper
Lieberman requested that
supporters of the specified alternative explain it to the larger group,
and Lee volunteered.
Lee stated that it is frustrating
to exit the Turnpike, as at the Pocono Interchange, and come to a
signal-controlled intersection as part of the trip to access I-80. Lee explained that he objects to sending a high volume of
traffic to a traffic signal. “The
slip ramp should dump you into the limited access road. Limited access
would be like 202, where you can only get on or off with exits,
accelerating and decelerating, as opposed to stop lights.”
Lee
conceded that, for Route 29 to become a limited access road, there would
need to be an interchange to Great Valley Parkway and Swedesford Road.
He said that the stoplight would be removed, as well as the nearby
gas stations, etc. In order
to handle local traffic, Lee suggested creating a cloverleaf or an
interchange for other destinations.
Seth thanked Lee and asked CAC
members to list the pros and cons of the alternative.
He then asked the members to put their initials on the yellow
sheets.
Next, Seth Lieberman suggested
that the group list the pros and cons for “Longer Off-ramp Extending
almost to RT. 202 and into Great Valley Corporate Center (Keep slip ramp
traffic to a minimum.)” Lieberman
asked if anyone supported the alternative, noting that it would direct
traffic through existing businesses.
No one supported the alternative, so it was eliminated.
The next meeting was tentatively scheduled for Wednesday, September 13, 2000.