The second Public Advisory Committee (PAC) meeting for the S.R. 0021 Section C10 Transportation Improvement Project was held on August 27, 2003 at the German Township Municipal building.  The purpose of this PAC meeting was to update the committee on the status of the project.  Members of the project team in attendance were Tom Brado and Jim French, representing PENNDOT District 12-0, and Ed Jones, Troy Gallaher and Tim Bliss, all representing L. Robert Kimball & Associates, the facilitator. 

The meeting was opened by Jim French, PENNDOT Project Manager, briefly welcoming everyone for attending and introducing the project team.  He gave a short overview of the project, explaining that a consensus on the line and grade has been established and the project has been designated as a Categorical Exclusion Evaluation (CEE), which allows the project to proceed into the design field view phase for approval.  Mr. French went on to point out that the existing 120 feet legal right-of-way corridor was utilized as much as possible.  He also emphasized that the locations of the jughandles, based on spacing criteria, was one of the main issues that was to be resolved at this meeting.

Ed Jones, Kimball Project Manager, followed by presenting a Power Point presentation outlining the agenda for the meeting, which included an overview of critical PAC ground rules, issues from the last PAC meeting that were addressed, the environmental status, jughandle locations, line and grade and project schedule.  Hard copies of the PAC presentation were provided to each member and alternate in attendance.                                                                                     

Following the review of the PAC ground rules, Mr. Jones discussed unresolved or partially addressed issues from the last PAC meeting, starting with the topic of median barrier.  He explained that median barrier is necessary due to two reasons.  One reason is the volume of traffic that is utilizing this roadway and the other is safety.  The fatality rate was 29 times the state-wide average, with seven different accidents involving ten fatalities occurring in five years.  The majority of the accidents involved oncoming or head on collisions.  Through the use of concrete median barrier, angle collisions are reduced by preventing vehicles from crossing four lanes of traffic and rear end collisions are reduced by restricting left turns to designated locations.

Mr. Jones also explained that upon evaluating the intersections within this section, none satisfy the criteria as established in signal warrants for the placement of a traffic signal, with the exception of the intersections at S.R. 0166 and S.R. 3013, which currently have traffic signals.

A suggestion had been made by Marc Durant to provide a left turn lane at the S.R. 0166 intersection.  Mr. Jones explained that the substandard super elevation rate through the curve at the intersection does not meet current standards and would need revised, which would require improving almost one half mile of the two mile A20 section, which is beyond the scope of this project.  Mr. French also added that this intersection was just recently done as a betterment project and the geometry and super elevation through the intersection is not conducive to just adding left turn lanes without redesigning the entire intersection.  Mr. Kelecic and William Reahard expressed concern about safety issues at this intersection.  Mr. Kelecic said a number of accidents are occurring at this intersection from vehicles running over the mountable curb.  Mr. Reahard said some eastbound traffic on S.R. 0021 will travel across the Sweet Pea parking lot to get onto Leckrone Road, while others wanting to go westbound from Sweet Pea’s parking lot will go through the gap between the mountable curb at the end of the eastbound left turn lane and the intersection.  He also said some traffic in the westbound left turn lane will travel over the mountable curb to avoid waiting on the traffic signal.  Mr. French said he would talk to the traffic unit about this issue.

Mr. Jones continued the presentation by reviewing the environmental status.  He stated the project wetland boundaries have been delineated.  Concerning hazardous waste sites, five sites were identified, with further study recommended on three locations with underground storage tanks.

The criteria for determining jughandle locations were reviewed by Mr. Jones. This was prior to a walk through of each jughandle location.  He addressed each jughandle and explained why it was placed in its current location and asked if anyone had any comments.  Mr. Lewis Ansel suggested moving jughandle #1 to the east of Springer Road across from the Locker Room Bar.  Businesses on the north and to the west of Edenborn Road would benefit, as well as EMS and fire response.  Mr. Jones also mentioned that Lardin Farm Road was to be used a temporary turn around.  Mr. Ansel and Mr. Mike Kelecic said this road is not suitable unless it is proposed to be widened.  Following the analysis of the jughandle locations, Mr. French asked the PAC committee, except for the evaluation of moving Jughandle #1 and the reevaluation of Lardin Farm Road, were there any other issues with the location of the jughandles and did the PAC agree with the locations.  There were no other issues discussed and the PAC was in general consensus with the locations.

Mr. Jones proceeded with reviewing the status of the line and grade.  A consensus has been obtained from the district on the line and grade, which minimizes impacts, meets design criteria and maximizes the use of the existing 120 feet right-of-way corridor utilizing 2:1 cut and fills.  The shift of 30 feet to the south around McClellandtown eliminates the displacement of the entire row of McClellandtown residents near S.R. 0021.  He stated there are still approximately five residential and five businesses that are potential displacements.  However, as the design progresses there may be fewer displacements.                            

The presentation was concluded with Mr. Jones reviewing the project schedule.  He said the environmental and cultural resources evaluation would be complete in October, with the CEE document completed and submitted in December.  The second public meeting is to be scheduled in October.  Two weeks prior to the meeting a letter will be sent out to the PAC committee members.  They will also be notified several days prior to the meeting.  Their responsibility is to inform the public of the upcoming meeting.  He also stated that the design field view plans are scheduled to be submitted in December, with the geotechnical investigations and recommendations to be completed in the summer of 2004.