Sie sind auf Seite 1von 5
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 orrice oF SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION August 11, 2015 Honorable Robert Teplitz Senate of Pennsylvania 15 East Wing Harrisburg, PA 17120-3015 Dear Senator Teplitz: This is in response to your letter dated July 20, 2015, regarding the U.S. Routes 11/15 Rock Slope Safety Improvement Project. Your concerns regarding the closure of U.S. Routes 11/16 at the “Marysville Section” of the project are understood and appreciated, as is your inclusion of suggested solutions, which have already been considered and explored in the Process, and incorporated where appropriate Please note that the project was preprogrammed in 2005 as part of HATS's planning and public involvement process, and we have taken many preliminary steps to the start of work. These include completion of the PA 34 Roundabout, the Market Street Bridge in Duncannon, the West Main Street Bridge in Marysville, and we are now resurfacing parts of US 322 this year, all in advance of the anticipated closure in Marysville. PennDOT officials also have repeatedly discussed the projects at our annual legislative briefings held by District 8. In 2014, PennDOT officials also met with the same business owners you hosted in your office, and we adjusted our project schedules and scopes of work based on their expressed needs. This included keeping traffic open in the “Duncannon Section’ and splitting the project into two contracts. Both changes resulted from public involvement. The Department is always concerned with the safety of both motorists and workers within a construction area as well as the effects a project will have on motorists, emergency responders and the business community. There are significant added constraints in the Marysville Section that do not exist at the Duncannon Section that have made closure of the roadway necessary to complete the work. This includes a much narrower roadway width in which to work, higher and steeper grades on the western side of the roadway, additional rock slopes on the eastern side to contend with, and the Norfolk Southern Railroad being in even closer proximity, which eliminates the ability to widen as we did at the "Duncannon Section.” The anticipated larger scale pieces of equipment, in addition to the challenging and risk-based means of the entire construction operation and flexible movement needed for the “Marysville Section,” is expected to take up the full width of the existing roadway to reach the 250 feet heights of rock removal on the western rock face. The “Marysville Section” is expected to have larger tree and rock fall effect patterns, unpredictable in nature, dropping from far greater heights than what we are able to manage with assurance of added protection for motorists and the railroad at Duncannon Honorable Robert Teplitz Page 2 August 11, 2015 Despite the above mentioned constraints, the Department still considered several options for this project other than a full closure of the “Marysville Section’, but the options have produced inherent risks that we cannot afford to ignore in the pursuit of convenience. These included alternating one lane of traffic flow using temporary traffic signals and also limiting traffic to one directional flow in the AM or PM peak hours. For clarity, there is not sufficient width to maintain even a single, reliable and safe traffic lane. Secondarily, even if a lane were plausible, there is no assurance a temporary protection system could then be implemented that would be high enough to meet the continual safety needs of travelers through the work zone during construction. These inherent risks also include motorists’ human nature of rubbernecking and their unsafely reacting to continual falling debris that could land close to or on their vehicles. This could create traffic accidents in the work zone even if a travel width could be ascertained. As you mention in your letter, safety is the priority, and is the Department's core value, and is why this project is moving forward. Equally, we believe we have exhausted considerations for safely maintaining even limited traffic during construction, The anticipated 90-day closure period is a result of the critical path work required on the two steeper slopes on the western side of the roadway. Our focus remains on limiting the time of both the closure and overall timeline of impact. Our goal is to have the contractor concurrently perform the eastern side work tasks and other work zone tasks during the same period of the required roadway closure for the western slopes. To that end, we have already mitigated the closure period by taking the unusual steps of requiring the contractor to work at least six days a week, 15 hours a day, using multiple crews and performing concurrent work tasks. While we are still working on the contract provisions and final details, financial incentives also will be used to help encourage the contractor to further expedite the work and reduce the closure period. Recognizing that a road closure would result in significant traffic disruption throughout the region, the Department and our consultants, using feedback from a number of stakeholders, including regional and local EMS representatives, have been evaluating scenarios to reduce the adverse impacts related to a U.S. Routes 11/15 road closure while also maintaining a safe work area for all. This includes having a more direct local and emergency access route available for Marysville Borough residents and points south towards Harrisburg. We anticipate the River Road route will be heavily taken advantage of by the locals, while regional through traffic is directed to use U.S. Routes 22/322 or alternate detours during incidents. Local and regional EMS representatives have been meeting regularly to proactively plan for and mitigate impacts the project would have on emergency response times. Marysville Borough staff has been actively planning and performing some preparatory roadway work to improve the safety and efficiency of the River Road local access in anticipation of the 2016 Marysville Project and our coordination with them and the EMS representatives will continue. Incident Management Plans have been developed with regional EMS partners should 1- or 2-lane closures occur on U.S Route 22/322, including transferring traffic to more immediate detours we have established upon notification by an incident commander and requiring the contractor to open up one or two lanes of traffic through the U.S. Routes 11/15 work zone, depending on the need. The Incident Management Plan to open lanes through the work zone will be activated during times of longer duration closures of U.S. Routes 22/322 that are anticipated to occur infrequently. The River Road local and emergency access route will also remain open. Honorable Robert Teplitz Page 3 August 11, 2015 To address businesses and others with truck delivery needs, we will be lifting the truck restriction along U.S. Routes 11/15 during the closure period allowing trucks to travel south with local deliveries towards Marysville from the U.S. Routes 22/322 Interchange. Coordination with various local businesses are on-going. Local access to all businesses will remain and entrances to all businesses and residential parcels will not be affected because they exist outside the work zone. ‘We have used a variety of venues to encourage public involvement, and we intend to continue to ramp up communications as we approach the closure timeline. We will be holding a Public information sharing meeting in the future. While we recognize that our website and media outreach can reach thousands of our users daily, we will share the project and closure information material at a local public meeting for individuals who may prefer to receive complex information in person. The meeting will be an open house format with project personnel available to answer questions one-on-one. In summary, the Department and its consultants are approaching the project design and anticipated construction considering the safety of motorists and workers in the construction zone, while attempting to minimize disruption to the travelling public. | highly encourage you to review the materials in the link www dot state.pa.us/penndot/districts/district8.nsf/D8Roadwork?OpenFrameSet and click on Future Projects. It contains detailed material, including illustrations depicting some of the topics discussed above, that youlothers may find helpful ‘Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mark A. Malhenzie, Senior Project Manager, at 717-783-5080. We appreciate your cooperation and assistance in ‘our task of planning, designing and constructing better transportation facilities for the citizens of Pennsylvania. Sincerely, Leslie S. Richards Secretary of Transportation cc: Michael C. Keiser, P. E. District Executive Roeper. Loca GovERnnEnT BxhocRaric ewan ‘The Honorable Leslie Richards Secretary of Transportation ‘Commonwealth Keystone Building, 8" floor 400 North Street Harrisburg. Pennsylvania 17120-0041 Dear Secre ary Richards: Fam writing with regard to the planned closure of Route 11/15 in Ma County for three months next summer. Thousands of daily commuters to jobs in state government and elsewhere in the capital region will be affected, as will anyone who lives in the vicinity of the project who might need police. fire, or ambulance service. In addition, the closure Will have a significant economic impact on the businesses along the highway, many of which rely on the revenues generated during that particular time period to sustain themselves and their employees for the rest of the year. Potential customers are simply not going to drive nearly 30 miles along the proposed detour to finally reach their destination. ‘The accident that resulted in the closure of Route 22/322 today, causing tratlic delays throughout the region, was a perfect illustration of the importance of keeping Route 11/15 open as an alternate route, Quite coincidentally, I had already agreed to the request of several local business owners to convene a meeting on this issue in my Perry County office this morning. I ippreciate the time that Mike Keiser and Cindy Cashman of PennDOT spent with us discussing the issue, and I believe that everyone found the meeting to be both positive and productive. However, the irony was not lost on any of the participants that the PennDOT representatives Were late to the mecting because of the traffic situation, Obviously. saf iy must be the priority, which is why the project is being done in the place. Following up on the meeting. 1 would just make the following Wo requests. First, itis critical that PennDOT hold a public mevting on the project. ‘The outreach that has occurred so far, in the form of press releases and private meetings with select stakeholders, is insufficient Feed eet of the impact. | know that itis not always a pleasant experience to have to defend a controversial decision in a public forum, but |also beliees tng doing so is a key part of the process of earning public support for ~or al least acceptance of nc decisions. I would be happy to participate in and help publicize such a meeting, Second, | would ask that PennDOT actively explore other alternatives to the current plan with the goal of minimizing the imp: ed above. Such alternatives could include: limiting the closure in terms of time of day, duration, and location; managing the traflic by re- candi through-Nowing traffic but allowing continued access to the local business and/or Gresging contractors with greater expertise who ean accommodate our concer additio consideration should be given to resurfacing altemate routes such as River Rowd to handle the additional traffic load, 1 for your attention to this matter of great importance to my constituents, | look ing from you soon, Sincerely, State Senat ce: ‘The Honorable Mary Isenhour Secretary of Legislative Affairs RECEIVED PA. DEPT. OF TRANS. JUL 24 2015 SECRETARY'S OFFICE

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen