Question 1

Why was the previous alternative dismissed in 2014?

JMT Admin · Accepted Answer

PennDOT considered an alternative that involved the replacement of the existing raised concrete traffic islands with full width paved shoulders and concrete median barrier separating mainline SR 0001 traffic from service road traffic. The alternative would eliminate the intermediate crossovers requiring entrance and exit at the northern and southern endpoints of the service roads and would replace the existing West Interchange Road overpass. This alternative was presented at a public officials’ meeting, open house public plans display, and town hall meeting in May and September 2014. The public raised concerns involving increased traffic volumes along the service roads, increased emergency services response times to incidents along mainline SR 0001, and lack of noise mitigation.

A traffic study was completed at the time this alternative was being developed. The results of that study determined there would be an increase in traffic volumes along the service roads (the southbound service road ranges from an 18.0% increase to a 625.0% increase with northbound ranging from 28.0% to 760.0% between 2050 no build and 2050 build conditions). It was determined this alternative would meet the need of improving current design standards; however, it would not meet the needs of safety or improving system continuity and driver expectations. 2050 No Build Frontage Road Volumes 2050 Build Frontage Road Without Crossovers Volumes
Improving system continuity and driver expectations. This alternative would not improve system continuity due to the continued indirect manner in which the traffic would need to travel to access between SR 0001 and PA 413, or access between SR 0001 and Old Lincoln Highway and Highland Avenue. Additionally, this alternative would not improve driver expectations because the expectation for SR 0001 in this area would be to have interchanges providing access between major crossing arterials.
Existing roadway configurations and traffic conditions contribute to safety concerns in the project area. The alternative does not meet the safety need because the post construction design is very similar to the existing although it does remove the potential crash clusters at the intermediate crossovers. Additionally, per the local EMS feedback, the alternative would potentially excessively increase EMS response times because they would not be able to access SR 0001 by crossing over the concrete islands since there would be proposed concrete median barrier separating the service roads from SR 0001.

For those reasons, coupled with the public’s concerns, this alternative was dismissed from further study. The detailed traffic analysis can be found in the U.S. 1 Frontage Road Traffic Assessment Technical Memorandum, dated July 2012, located in the project technical file.

Question 2

Why was the previous alternative dismissed in 2014?

JMT Admin · Accepted Answer

PennDOT considered an alternative that involved the replacement of the existing raised concrete traffic islands with full width paved shoulders and concrete median barrier separating mainline SR 0001 traffic from service road traffic. The alternative would eliminate the intermediate crossovers requiring entrance and exit at the northern and southern endpoints of the service roads and would replace the existing West Interchange Road overpass. This alternative was presented at a public officials’ meeting, open house public plans display, and town hall meeting in May and September 2014. The public raised concerns involving increased traffic volumes along the service roads, increased emergency services response times to incidents along mainline SR 0001, and lack of noise mitigation.

A traffic study was completed at the time this alternative was being developed. The results of that study determined there would be an increase in traffic volumes along the service roads (the southbound service road ranges from an 18.0% increase to a 625.0% increase with northbound ranging from 28.0% to 760.0% between 2050 no build and 2050 build conditions). It was determined this alternative would meet the need of improving current design standards; however, it would not meet the needs of safety or improving system continuity and driver expectations. 2050 No Build Frontage Road Volumes 2050 Build Frontage Road Without Crossovers Volumes
Improving system continuity and driver expectations. This alternative would not improve system continuity due to the continued indirect manner in which the traffic would need to travel to access between SR 0001 and PA 413, or access between SR 0001 and Old Lincoln Highway and Highland Avenue. Additionally, this alternative would not improve driver expectations because the expectation for SR 0001 in this area would be to have interchanges providing access between major crossing arterials.
Existing roadway configurations and traffic conditions contribute to safety concerns in the project area. The alternative does not meet the safety need because the post construction design is very similar to the existing although it does remove the potential crash clusters at the intermediate crossovers. Additionally, per the local EMS feedback, the alternative would potentially excessively increase EMS response times because they would not be able to access SR 0001 by crossing over the concrete islands since there would be proposed concrete median barrier separating the service roads from SR 0001.

For those reasons, coupled with the public’s concerns, this alternative was dismissed from further study. The detailed traffic analysis can be found in the U.S. 1 Frontage Road Traffic Assessment Technical Memorandum, dated July 2012, located in the project technical file.