Community Meeting Summary

The purpose of this meeting was to update the CAB on the status of the transportation re-evaluation process, review the draft preliminary alternative alignments generated by the CAB members at the November 2003 meeting; and to engage the CAB in the identification of the most feasible, cost-effective alignments to be the focus of the project team for the completion of Step 4 (Preliminary Alternatives Analysis) of PennDOT’s Ten Step Transportation Project Development Process.

Welcome – Lugene Keys (LK) opened the meeting, welcoming the group and reviewed the plans for the evening session. LK requested that each meeting attendee introduce him or herself and state what interest or organization they were representing. LK then turned the meeting over to PennDOT Project Manager William Oshnack (WO).

Project Update – WO remarked that this project was among a number of transportation projects statewide selected for re-evaluation while other projects were stopped. He explained that the re-evaluation means that we are to look at what we could afford to build in the future rather than design projects that we do not have funding available to build. PennDOT is proceeding with the Laurel Valley Transportation Project as planned, no major changes have been made except that we are not going to be looking at anything that we don’t have the funds to build. During the re-evaluation period, several meetings were held. It was during this time that the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (PTC), who took part in some of the re-evaluation meetings, was made aware of Westmoreland County Planning Department’s concept for a Turnpike connector from Sony to the Turnpike (a new interchange at Carpentertown where Route 981 passes under the Turnpike). This connector is not expected to be a full-blown turnpike interchange like the one at New Stanton, but rather a slip-ramp interchange that would be accessible by EZ pass only. The PTC is also looking at two other locations across the Commonwealth – west of the Irwin Interchange is one of those 2 locations. PennDOT and the PTC are currently working with KCI to develop a scope of work for the turnpike connector project.

Draft Preliminary Alternative Alignment/Potential Impacts Matrices Review – Gus Drizos (GD) asked the CAB members to refer to their handouts during his presentation. The handouts included a 11 x 17 copy of the draft preliminary alternative alignments developed at the November 2003 CAB meeting and two preliminary environmental features impact matrices (2-lane and 2-lane/4-lane combinations). There were approximately 16 build alignments developed at the last meeting. The project team refined these alternatives into 32 alignments – 16 of them were 2-lane corridors and 16 were combination 2 –lane/4-lane corridors. The CAB’s goal for this session was to identify 6 to 8 alignments to be carried forward into Step 5 – Detailed Studies. The alignments will need to meet the project needs, which include economic development, capacity, infrastructure and safety. WO noted that the alignments stopped at Route 30, but the study area extends to Blairsville. The re-evaluation process could result in a reduction in the size of the study area however; areas north of Route 30 could be addressed by spot improvements or online treatments depending on how much funding is available.

GD pointed out that the preliminary environmental impact matrices reflect early stage impacts that are estimated on the high side. For example, if one of the alignments crosses over a residential property, it will appear on the impact matrix as a displacement. Until a more detailed investigation with more detailed photogrammetry is performed on the alignment, which occurs in Step 5 Detailed Studies – the next phase of the project, we will not know for sure whether the property would have to be taken in part or total. With regard to the performance measures handouts, traffic performance measures will be derived from the information provided by SPC, and the socio-economic performance measures will be determined with input from the CAB.

The SPC will help answer the question of when we need to go from a 2 lane to a 4-lane facility. The first phase of construction could be a 2-lane roadway, but PennDOT may purchase right-of-way for 4 lanes for widening at a later date. SPC’s traffic information will help determine when PennDOT may need to consider building a 4- lane roadway, i.e. what design year between now and 2030 is projected to require a 4-lane roadway. GD pointed out that while the no-build is listed on the impact matrix, it would not meet project needs.

Identification of Feasible, Cost-Effective Draft Preliminary Alternative Alignments – GD and WO asked the CAB to provide their input on narrowing down the number of draft preliminary alternatives by first reviewing the large maps and impact matrices that were set up for the group exercise. Following their review of this information, they would proceed with a discussion of the pros and cons of each alignment. The group would then be asked to come to a consensus on the alignments to be studied further.

Members of the CAB expressed a range of questions ranging from whether the road would be limited access to how the project was going to be addressed at either end of the study area. As a result of this dialogue it was suggested that the CAB take a 5-minute break, and then regroup to discuss the direction to be taken from this point. Upon reconvening, the CAB was able to come to a consensus on how they wanted to narrow down the number of alignments to be studied further.

It was decided that the project team would first evaluate the 16 two-lane and the 16 combination 2-lane/4-lane alignments and then return to the CAB at the next meeting with their proposed list and discussion on how the determinations were made. The CAB membership would provide their input at that time. Everyone agreed that their time would be better spent if PennDOT and the consultants would identify the alignments that they believe will meet the project needs, are the most feasible, and cost-effective and bring those back to the CAB for their review and consideration. Many members commented that PennDOT and the consultants have the engineering and environmental expertise and that the members do not. Other members noted that there were constraints that were obvious to everyone such as areas that would have to be bypassed like Pleasant Unity and Norvelt, and other areas that could possibly be improved online. LK asked the CAB to provide specific language as to what they wanted the project team to do. The CAB agreed upon the following list of items:

· Keep at least one alignment off-line

· Look closer to Route 981 and bypasses around communities

· Upgrade what you can and bypass the rest

· Feasible bypasses that meet project need

· Does the Routes 981/30 project take into account the traffic generated by a new Route 981/Turnpike interchange connecting the Sony area to the Turnpike?

· Eliminate others and discuss why

· For the alternatives that upgrade Route 981 online, how do we maintain safety for existing residences that live along Route 981? (Safety is one of the identified project needs. This design/safety issue will be more fully addressed as the project proceeds into Step 5 – Detailed Studies, and beyond through final design.)

Open Discussion – LK advised the CAB members that Don Scott, the new Mount Pleasant Township Supervisor had submitted an application for membership. The CAB agreed that the Mount Pleasant Township Supervisors should be represented on the committee, and welcomed Don to the Board. It was also noted by the project team members that the CAB members’ interest in the project and their continued participation in CAB meetings was greatly appreciated. LK noted that there was an excellent response from those members and alternates in advance of the meeting regarding their plans to attend although some individuals indicated that they did not receive their postcard meeting announcements.

Schedule Next Meeting/Conclude – The date of the next scheduled meeting will be announced in the near future, and this session of the CAB concluded at 8:30 pm.