July 29, 2000
Senator Robert J. Thompson
15 W. Gay Street
First Floor
West Chester, PA 19380
Hon. Carole Rubley
Member, PA House of Representatives
Suite-2A (Lower Level)
500 Chesterbrook Boulevard
Chesterbrook, PA 19087-5603
Re: Noise Abatement Program, Route 202, Section 300
Dear Senator Thompson and Representative Rubley,
Representative Rubley as you will recall the Great Valley Association held a meeting on May 26, 1999 in the Tredyffrin township building in order to discuss the noise abatement program for the impending construction of Section 300 of the Route 202 project. At that meeting we presented a video relating the use of a crumb rubber/asphalt mix used with great success by the Arizona DOT. You were kind enough to attend that meeting and to speak to the group on this subject. Please understand that the Association has no interest in this matter other than to protect the quality of life for the residents of the Valley.
At that time we also noted that, as a member of the Citizens Advisory Committee to the DRVPC for this project, the Association had made a recommendation at the April 5,1999 meeting of the Committee to considered asphalt rather than concrete for the road surface for better noise abatement. This section of the highway courses through a highly residential area in the Great Valley (Attachment #1) and the noise from Route 202 is excessive.
The Association also commissioned an ambient noise study in May 1999. The results of the study showed that the present noise level is in excess of the warrants needed for sound walls. This study is a part of the official record of the Advisory Committee. To its credit the DRVPC/Penn DOT acknowledged the need for sound walls for the north side stretch of Route 202 Section 300 starting at North Valley Road and ending at approximately the Great Valley Corporate Center among other locations. We are pleased with that outcome.
Nevertheless, we have also repeatedly stressed that the road surface is just as important as the sound walls for noise abatement. In fact with the addition of two additional lanes, one in each direction, one could persuasively argue that the addition of sound walls would only assure that future noise is no worse that at present without this expansion. That is the reason that we are writing to you today.
At an update meeting sponsored by the Greater Valley Forge Transportation Management Association (GVFMTA), Penn DOT and Tredyffrin township on May 22, 2000, we were distressed to learn from Mr. Lawrence Link, Penn DOT’s Project Manager that there are no plans to use asphalt on the new road surface despite our recommendation of a year ago that other technologies be evaluated (Attachment #2) too. The reason given was that there are sinkholes in the Great Valley, therefore concrete has to be used. We disagree and strongly object to this approach.
Concrete will not prevent sink holes e.g., King of Prussia. If one should occur it is expensive to repair, and the repair may cause undue commuter delay. Other this one episode one would be hard put to cite any location on Section 300 where sinkholes have been a problem. On the other hand asphalt is much smoother than concrete therefore quieter, it is also less expensive, easier to maintain and safer.
Asphalt technology has been vastly improved over the past decade or two. It has been successfully used on the Pennsylvania Turnpike including the Great Valley, on I-95 in Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and Wisconsin, which has harsh winter weather.among other locations. Asphalt is even used on Route 202 on the approach to West Chester, PA and is used extensively through out Europe including the famous autobahn in Germany.
As noted earlier asphalt is smoother and quieter than concrete. It would contribute greatly to quality of life for the residents who live along the Route 202 corridor, which cannot be ignored. The General Accounting Office (GAO) in a report to Congress in 1999 stated that concrete joints are a major source of roughness in pavements and may produce rougher (smoothness) readings that asphalt roads. The GAO recommended that the Federal Highway Administration make consistent the way in which pavement smoothness is measured. To measure smoothness we understand that asphalt is typically asked to meet or beat 12" per mile on a profile-a-graph versus concrete, which typically must meet or beat 30" per mile on the same scale.
If our understanding is correct and concrete is twice as rough as asphalt it will be, at a minimum, twice as noisy.
In all of the CAC meetings that we attended on behalf of the Great Valley Association not once did we hear any reference to the parameters to be used for road smoothness other than our petition to consider asphalt. Road noise is a major environmental issue. The residents of our community have a right to know what the smoothness parameters are and how one road surface compares to another, especially on a project such as this one that is eighty percent federally funded.
In view of this and before the planning for Section 300 goes beyond the very preliminary stage it is at now we respectfully request that a public meeting be held as soon as possible at which invitations will be sent to those experts for each technology i.e., asphalt and concrete. The purpose of this meeting is to review the road surface options/technology for Route 202 Section 300 and to decide which option offers the best return to the resident/ taxpayers of the Great Valley. The return should be measured from the aspects of the quality of life i.e. quietness, and safety as well as maintenance and expense
We further request that this meeting be sponsored by you and Senator Robert Thompson. The Great Valley Association would be pleased to provide whatever assistance needed to help bring about this public service event.
Yours truly,
Joseph F. Maxwell
President
Senator Rick Santorum
Senator Arlen Specter
Congressman Curt Weldon
Tredyffrin Board of Supervisors, Chairman – Paul Olsen