 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
 |
Why are two new highways in eastern Lancaster County being studied? Can’t the US 30 and PA 23 projects be combined into one?
Separate studies for the two roadways are being conducted because there are two different problem areas to address. That’s because each roadway corridor exhibits uniquely distinct travel characteristics.
PA 23 is driven primarily by local traffic, particularly daily commuters. There are numerous manufacturers located in the New Holland area, including New Holland North America, the county’s fifth largest employer. Between 80 and 90 percent of the traffic in the corridor is local, with an origin or destination in the study area. Increasing traffic volumes have led to congestion. Therefore, the PA 23 Corridor Study is addressing three problems:
1. Congestion and safety problems arising from the conflicts between the motorized and non-motorized vehicles on the road;
2. Increasing use of parallel, secondary roads to avoid congestion; and the
3. Potential for congestion to affect the retention of jobs in the region.
US 30, on the other hand, is heavily traveled by commuters, tourists, local residents and long-distance haulers. Large trucks make up over 15% of the total traffic volume and 85% of this truck traffic is through-traffic, with no origins or destinations in the study area. Seasonal peaks (summer weekends in particular) can cause traffic on US 30 to increase by 80-85% over the average daily traffic volume. These conditions lead to the need for improvements because of:
1. Existing and projected congestion at intersections and on highway segments along US 30;
2. High crash and fatality rates on US 30; and
3. Diverse and competing uses of the roadway by different types of vehicles.
The areas in which both roadway corridors are located have experienced double-digit population growth over the last 20 years, which has led to the increased travel demands.
That’s fine, but isn’t it possible for one new highway to serve the needs of both roadways?
All available evidence says no. A number of studies of routes 23 and 30 have been conducted over the years, beginning in the 1960s. The 23/30 Traffic Relief Route Environmental Study was completed in 1988. During this study, a total of seven potential alternatives were evaluated. Some alternatives were newly developed by transportation planners, some had been previously proposed by various local agencies, and one was newly proposed by leaders of the Old Order Amish community (Alternative 7). Four of these alternatives were combined traffic relief routes, wishbone-looking highways which brought together a PA 23 relief highway with a US 30 relief highway, to connect to a single interchange with the Lancaster Bypass (Alternatives 1, 2, 5 and 6). The other three alternatives incorporated two separate highways that would parallel routes 23 and 30.
The study determined that specific alternatives be dismissed from further study: Alternatives 1 and 2 because of "extreme impacts" (in part because of their length) and Alternatives 5 and 6 because they would "inadequately satisfy traffic needs". The study finally concluded with the recommendation "… that separate environmental impact statements be prepared for both roadways and that the concept of combined relief for Routes 23 and 30 be abandoned."
Regarding US 30, the study further stated that "… the transportation needs of Route 30 involve a mixture of traffic types that might be best served by an alignment unaffected by Route 23 …". Which is to say that the two roadways have different travel characteristics and different solutions and that an improvement of PA 23 would not reduce traffic on US 30, and vice versa. This is the same conclusion of the recent traffic analysis involving a sophisticated regional transportation model that did not exist when this early study was done.
I’m curious now about the alternative proposed back then by the Old Order Amish Community
Here is a partial description of Alternative 7 from The 23/30 Traffic Relief Route Environmental Study report:
"… this alternative begins at the west along Route 30 with an interchange just above Route 340. From this point the corridor closely follows the AMTRAK trackage eastward north of Smoketown, where it bends to the south to cross Route 340 in the town of Bird-in-Hand. The corridor continues southward, turning to the east to pass through the small towns of Ronks, Gordonville, Leaman Place and Kinzer. Immediately east of Kinzer the corridor leaves the AMTRAK right-of-way, and turns farther to the south, to follow Route 30 as either an upgrade of that roadway or as a parallel limited access facility. The corridor terminates with an interchange at the Route 30 [Coatesville] bypass.
This alternative also includes a northerly connection to Route 23 using the partially constructed alignment [the Goat Path]…."
The PA 23 relocation alternatives currently under consideration would use the Goat Path as proposed by Alternative 7.
Two of the US 30 alternatives currently under study, the Southern Relocation and South of Gap/North of Paradise Relocation alternatives, are similar to the central portion of the old Alternative 7. Alternative 7, however, is a longer alternative (18 miles versus 13 miles) extending further eastward and westward than the alternatives under current consideration.
Extending the current alternatives at either end to connect with either the Coatesville or Lancaster bypass can be undertaken as a separate project in the future. The current alternatives will be developed to allow for these future extensions to take place.