ML080230335
| ML080230335 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 05/31/2003 |
| From: | Orth-Rodgers & Associates, Wilkes Univ |
| To: | Lackawanna County, PA, Regional Planning Commission, Luzerne County, PA, Planning Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| TAC MD3021, TAC MD3022 | |
| Download: ML080230335 (76) | |
Text
Long Range Transportation Plan for the Lackawanna-Luzerne Transportation Study Area (2003-2025)
Prepared for:
The Lackawanna County Regional Planning Commission and The Luzerne County Planning Commission Prgporidhy:
Orth-Rodgen & Associates, Ine.
230 South Brood Street Philudelphilo, PA 19102 Wilkes University Center for Geographic Information Systems May 2003 oltA Jeb NO. b00018
?
kl E
I dabe oU LConents Pape Numberr ACKNOW LEDGEMENTS...................................................................................................................
1 TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE.................................................................................
1 COORDINATING COMMITTEE.........................................
1 TECHNICAL COM MITTEE..............................................................................................................
2 INTRODUCTINON..................................................................................................................
3.........3 TRANSPORTATION HISTORY.......................................................
5 CANALS & RAILROADS....................................................................................................................... 5 ELECTRIC RAIL & TROLLEY......................................................................................................................
5 TURNPIKES & HIGHWAYS
............................................................. 6 GREENWAYS
& TRAILS....................................................................................................... 7 TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS.....................................................................................
9 THE EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM.............................................................................
11 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................................
11 EXISTING HIGHWAY SYSTEM.................................................................................................................. 11 TRAFFIC VOLUMES................................................................................................................................. 11 CRASH HOT SPOTS..............................................................................................................................
12 LACKAWANNA COUNTY..........................................................................................................................
12 LUZERNE COUNTY.................................................................................................................................
12 CONGESTED AREAS........................................................................................................................... 22 PUBLIC TRANSIT SYSTEMS...................................................................................................................... 25 ACTIVE FREIGHT AND PASSENGER RAIL..................................................................................................
25 BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN TRAILS................................................................................................................ 29 PARK-AND-RIDE FACILm ES....................
32 TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATIONS................................
............................................... 33 AIRPORTS.........................................................................................
33 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT TRENDS AND ISSUES....................
......................................... 34 POPULATION TRENDS............................................................................................................................
34 HOUSING TRENDS........
34 EMPLOYMENT TRENDS............................................................................................................................ 35 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT CENTERS............................................................................................. m................ 35 THE LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN...........................................................................
41 FISCAL ASSESSMENT..............................................
....... 41 AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DETERMINATION............................................................................................ 41 PROJECTS OF REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE 42 PLAN EVALUATION......................................................................................................................
47 APPENDICES Appendix A Acronyms Appendix B TIP - 2003-2025 Appendix C Minutes Fiaures and Tables Page Number FIGURE 1 GOALS AND OBECTIVES................................................................................................................ B FIGURE 2 TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS.............................................................................................. 9 FIGURE 3 METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION....................................................................................... 10.
FIGURE 4 RESIDENTIAL HOUSING..................................................
............................................................ 34 FIGURE 5 EMPLOYMENT STATISTICS..................................................................................................... 35 FIGURE 6 UNEMPLOYMENT RATES................... z..................................................................................... 35 TABLE 1 LACKAWANNA COUNTY CRASH HOT SPOTS (INTERSECTIONS)..................................
15 TABLE 2 LACKAWANNA COUNTY CRASH HOT SPOTS (MiD-BLOCK SEGMENTS)................
16 TABLE 3 LUZERNE COUNTY CRASH HOT SPOTS (INTERSECTIONS)...................................................................
17 TABLE 4 LUZERNE COUNTY CRASH HOT SPOTS (MID-BLOCK SEGMENTS).......................................................... 19 TABLE 5 LEVEL OF SERVICE.....................................
.................... 22 TABLE 6 LACKAWANNA COUNTY, AREAS OF CONGESTION.............................................................................. 23 TABLE 7 LUZERNE COUNTY, AREAS OF CONGESTION................................................................................... 24 TABLE 8 PARK-AND-RIDE FACILITIES...................................................................................................... 33 TABLE 9 POPULATION STATISTICS..................................................................
34 TABLE 10 KEYSTONE OPPORTUNITY ZONES...............................................................................................
38 TABLE 11 EARTH CONSERVANCY............................................................................................................
38 TABLE 12 SCRANTON PLAN
........................................................................................................................ 39 TABLE 13 WILKES-BARRE/SCRANTON AIRPORT..........................................................................................
39 TABLE 14 GREATER PITTSTON AREA........................................................................................................
40 TABLE 15 CAN DO VACANT LAND............................................................................................................ 40 TABLE 16 PROJECTS OF REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE - LACKAWANNA COUNTY...........................................
- .............. 45 TABLE 17 PROJECTS OF REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE - LUZERNE COUNTY.................
........................ 46 TABLE 18 TEA-21 PLANNING FACTORS EVALUATION m................................................ 47
Maps Page Number MAP 1 STUDYAREA..................................................................................................................................
4 MAP 2 LACKAWANNA COUNTY TRAFFIC VOLUME 13 MAP 3 LUzERNE COUNTY TRAFFIC VOLUME
................................................................................................... 14 MAP 4 LACKAWANNA COUNTY CRASH HOT SPOTS..............
20 MAP5 LUZERNE COUNTY CRASH HOT SPOTS..............................................................
.................................. 21 MAP 6 LACKAWANNA COUNTY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION..............................................................................
26 MAP 7 LUZERNE COUNTY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION....................................................................................
27 MAP 8 HAZLETON PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION........................................................................... 28.
MAP 9 LACKAWANNA COUNTY AIRPORTS, PARK & RIDE, RAIL AND TRAILS.......................................................
30 MAP 10 LUZERNE COUNTY AIRPORTS, PARK & RIDE, RAIL AND TRAnS................................
31 MAP 11 LACKAWANNA COUNTY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT CENTERS...................................................................... 36 MAP 12 LUZERNE COUNTY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT CENTERS...........................
I......................... 37 MAP 13 LACKAWANNA COUNTY PROJECTS OF REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE.............................................................. 43 MAP 14 LFZERNE COUNTY PROiECT OF REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE...........................................
44
)i
Lackawanna/Luzerne County Long Range Transportation Plan ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Long Range Plan for the Lackawanna-Luzeme Transportation Study Area was prepared under the authority of the Lackawanna-Luzeme Transportation Study Coordinating Committee and its Technical Committee. The Lackawanna-Luzeme Transportation Advisory Committee has provided invaluable assistance in the development of the Long Range Plan. We gratefully acknowledge their contributions.
TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE Luzerne County Lackawanna County COORDINATING COMMITTEE Ellen Ferretti Alaimo John Tomcho, Director Pennsylvania Environmental Council, NE PA Office James Burke, Former Director Voting Members Lackawanna County Coordinated Transit Frank DeSanto System PA Dept. of Transportation City of Scranton Luzerne County Transportation Department Charles M. Mattel, PE, Chairman George Parker John Cosgrove, Director District Engineer Oty Engineer Carol Duda, Director Lackawanna Heritage Valley Authority Operation Overcome Dennis Lebo City of Wilkes-Barre Harry Duckworth Assistant to the Deputy Secretary for Planning Mayor Thomas D. McGroarty Tom Lawson, Chairman Northeast Freight Transfer TGreater Wilkes-Barre Chamber LLackawanna County Transit Representative-Lackawanna County Transportation Task Force Michael Lavelle Joseph JI Corcoran, County Commissioner Colin Holmes, Executive Director William Harris, Director of PlanningZoningInc County of Lackawanna County of Lackawanna Transit System City of Wilkes-Barre Craig Smith AAA Representative Transit Representative-Luzeffe County Tom McGeehan Harry D. Lindsay, Executive Director John Gruzenski, Acting Director Citizen Bernard McGurl, Executive Director Lackawanna County Regional Planning Luzeme County Transportation Authority Donna Palermo, President Lackawanna River Corridor Association Commission Greater Hazleton Chamber of Commerce Linda MeMn Luzeme County Aviation Representative Sierra Club Adrian F. Merolli, Executive Director Barry Centini, Airport Director L
Ted Patton, Vice-President Luzerne County Planning Commission Wilkes-Barre/Scranton International Airport Martz Trailways Co Kari Pfeiffenberger Scranton Chamber of Commerce Louis Barletta, Mayor Judy Rimple City of Hazleton Anthracite Scenic Trails Association (ASTA)
Bill Risse, Director Lackawanna County Public Relations Dept Non-Voting Members Merle Mackin, Executive Director Luzeme County Convention and Visitors' Bureau Keith Williams lackawanna County Railroad Authority Federal Transit Administration Center for Independent LivingLakwnaCutRalodAtoiy FerlTnstdmitain Attorney Larry Malski, Executive Director John Garrity Lackawanna County Railroad Authority Federal Transportation Administration Federal Highway Administration Federal Aviation Representative Spencer Stevens Jim Fels Federal Highway Administration Federal Aviation Administration 1
May 2003
Lackawanna/Luzerne County Long Range Transpoirtation plan TECHNICAL COMMITTEE Voting Members PA Dept. of Transportation Robert T. Doble, PE, Chairman PaDOT District 4-0 Office Foster C. Sankey, PE PaDOT District Office
'Bob Raves Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Lackawanna County Randy Castellani, County Commissioner County of Lackawanna Dominick T. Surace, PE County Engineer County of Lackawanna Steve Pitoniak, Senior Planner Lackawanna County Regional Planning Commission Luzerne County James J. Brozena, PE County Engineer Robert Connolly Luzerne County Redevelopment Authority Nancy Snee, Senior Planner Luzeme County Planning Commission City of Scranton George Parker City Engineer Transit Representative-Lackawanna County Kurt Kempter County of Lackawanna Transit System Transit Representative-Luzerne County John Gruzenski, Acting Director Luzerne County Transportation Authority Transit Representative-City of Hazleton Robert Flume Department of Public Services Aviation Representative-Lackawanna Co.
Wyrewood A. Gowell Wilkes-Barre/Scranton International Airport Aviation Representative-Luzerne Co Barry Centini, Airport Director Wilkes-Barre/Scranton International Airport Lackawanna County Railroad Authority Attorney Larry Malskd, Executive Director Lackawanna County Railroad Authority City of Wilkes-Barre Gerald Ryan, PE City Engineering Northeastern Pennsylvania Alliance (NEPA)
Cameron Moore NEPA Non-Voting Members Federal Highway Administration Spencer Stevens Federal Highway Administration Federal Transit Administration John Garrity Federal Transportation Administration Federal Aviation Representative Sharon DaBoin Federal Aviation Administration Preparation of the plan was provided by:
Orth-Rodgers & Associates, Inc.
Marcia R. Shiffman, Associate Juliet Martin, Planner III Jordan Smith, Planner II J. Devin Gargan, GIS Specialist Wilkes University Center for Geographic Information Bill Toothill, GIS Coordinator James Thomas, GIS Analyst Lackawanna County Regional Planning Commission Harry D. Lindsay, Executive Director Stave Pitoniak, Senior Planner Luzerne County Planning Commission Adrian F.. Merolli, Executive Director Nancy Snee,Senior Planner 2
May 2003
Lackawanna/Luzerne County Long Range Transportation Plan INTRODUCTION This document presents the Long Range Transportation Plan (2003-2025) for the Lackawanna-Luzeme Transportation Study (LLTS) Area. The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) expired on September 30, 1997, and was replaced by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21' Century (TEA-21).
The LLTS (Figure 1, LLTS Area) acting as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for Lackawanna County and Luzerne County is required to prepare a twenty year Long Range Plan. Originally prepared and adopted in 1994, and updated in 1997, the plan must be updated every three years to comply with TEA-
- 21. The Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) assisted in the preparation of the plan.
This plan creates a concise document to assess the current status of transportation planning conditions in the LLTS Area and to identify new initiatives. Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping is utilized throughout the plan to illustrate the LLTS Area transportation system and its related components. The purpose of this plan is:
" To identify plan goals and objectives and create performance standards for transportation initiatives; and
" To describe current modes of transportation in the LLTS Area and their baseline conditions; To update the Long Range Transportation Plan for the 2003-2025 period;
" To identify major transportation initiatives programmed for the LLTS Area;
" To consider the TEA-21 seven metropolitan planning factors.
The Lackawanna/Luzeme Long Range Transportation Plan is organized into the following chapters:
" Introduction
" Transportation History of Lackawanna and Luzerne Counties
" Goals and Objectives of the Plan The Transportation Planning Process
- The Existing Transportation System
" Future Trends and Issues Long Range Transportation Plan Projects of Regional Significance
" Plan Evaluation Appendices A record of public involvement activities for this plan, including the LLTS Transportation Advisory Committee, Technical Committee, Coordinating Committee andpublic hearing minutes, is included in the Appendices. Map I on the following page highlights the Lackawanna/Luzerne Counties Long Range Transportation Plan study area.
)
33 May 2003
Map I Study Area Lackawanna I Luzerne Counties Long Range Transportation Plan Legend Interstate Routes PA Routes
-Major Rivers County Boundaries f
Highlighted Study Area major cies Study Area View. 1 inch equals 5.5 miles 5.5 0
5.5 Miles J'
Pennsylvania Vew.1 Inch equals 55 miles 55 0
55 Miles I Dats: Ocober 2D02 4
Lacka wanna/Luzerne County Long Range Transportation Plan TRANSPORTATION HISTORY Both Lackawanna and Luzeme Counties have a rich transportation history that dates back to the region's roots in mining. The area contained one of the most productive anthradte coal deposits in the world, but its successful mining depended on reliable transportation over the mountains to New York and New England. Turnpikes, canals, railroads and roads succeeded one another as the primary transportation system.
The following section describes the transportation history of the LLTS Area from its beginnings with the canals and railroads to present day modes of travel. Each major sector of the transportation system has been summarized by category, including:
Canals & Railroads Electric Rail &Trolley
- Turnpikes & Highways Greenways & Trails developed in the region to transport coal and other products. By the mid 1800's, other railroad companies had built lines and were purchasing interests in valuable coal lands along these routes. By 1868, 163 miles of railroads crossed Luzerne County. Railroads continued to be constructed throughout Lackawanna and Luzerne Counties through the 1920's.
In 1995, a report titled *Transportation Options in the Pocono Corridor" was completed. The recommended option was to expand passenger rail service based upon the type of trips forecast, (tourist, inter-city, and commuter), a strong activity center at each end of the mutes (Scranton, New York City), and public and private bus systems for passenger distribution. The existence of rail right-of-way from Scranton to Mt Pocono and the recent acquisition of right-of-way from Mt Pocono to Analomink by the Monroe County Railroad Authority provide an uninterrupted alignment to the New Jersey border. The State of New Jersey gained ownership of the Lackawanna Cut-off and the Delaware River Bridge and track that encompasses the right-of-way from Slateford Junction to Port Morris with connections at Port Morris, to the existing Morristown Une into New York. The report recommended placement of multi-modal terminals at key locations to provide an integrated transportation system for the region. Service on the commuter line is antidpated to begin by 2006.
A September 1999 study assessed the railroad assets In the Scranton to Wilkes-Barre corridor including freight, passenger, and trolley/light rail service potential. The study results indicated that the passenger market was too limited to support expanded service.
The existing freight service between Scranton and Wilkes-Barre was found to be adequate. *The trolley excursion/light rail alignments were found to be the most promising for expansion. In fact, the Trolley Museum constructed by the Lackawanna Heritage Valley Authority was opened and the LCRA Laurel Une now serves as the route of the historic trolley operation.
)
With the dedine of the coal market by 1930, many of the railroads were consolidated or abandoned. By 1960, only three railroads remained In Lackawanna County. Many railroads were purchased by salvagers who sold the rail and dug coal from beneath the right-of way. Some were converted to asphalt roads. Today there are over 150 miles of inactive rail lines in the Lackawanna and Luzerne region, some of which are being converted into active recreational trails. In 1984, the Lackawanna County Rail Authority (LCRA) was incorporated and operates the rail system in Lackawanna County.
The LCRA acquired the Scranton to Carbondale Rail Line in 1985, the Scranton to Mt. Pocono Rail Line in 1991, the Diamond Branch line In 1999, and the Laurel Une in 1999. In 1994, Luzeme County, through the Luzeme County Rail Corporation (LCRC) took over ownership of the former Pocono Northeast Rail Company.
Environmental studies have been undertaken to evaluate commuter and intercity passenger service between Scranton, Pennsylvania and New York City, New York with a transfer in Hoboken, New Jersey.
Canals & Railroads By 1830,the area had two canals: the North Branch Canal and the Delaware & Hudson Canal. The digging of the canals coincided with the beginning of the railroad era. The Delaware & Hudson built a gravity railroad line between Carbondale and Honesdale in 1829.
Between 1830 and 1930, an extensive rail system was Electric Rail & Trolley In 1844, Scranton was one of the first cities in the country to have an electric trolley system, earning the city the name, "Scranton, the Electric City." As a result, Scranton drew visitors from all over the
/
5 May 2003
Lacks wannalL uzerne County Long Range Transportation plan county. By the early 1900's, two electric lines, the Laurel Une and the Northern Electric Une, were operating in Scranton. The Northern Electric Line operated until 1934. The Laurel Line provided service until 1952.
The Wilkes-Barre/Hazleton Railway, also known as the "Short ink,"
was a third-rail electric system and one of the first interurbans to operate on a fenced right-of-way without grade crossings. The railway, with a total of 33 bridges and a 2,684-foot-long tunnel through Wilkes-Barre Mountain, was completed in 1907. During the 1920's, the line continued to operate despite growing competition from automobiles and trucks since there was no convenient highway link between Wilkes-Barre and Hazleton. The completion of PA Route 309 resulted in heavy losses to the company, leading to the closure of the railway in 1933.
In December 1939, Wilkes-Barre became the second city in Pennsylvania, after Philadelphia, to operate a trackless trolley system. In August 1958, the Wilkes-Barre Transit Corporation, operators of the trolley system, was taken over by American Transportation Enterprises. All of Wilkes-Barre's trackless lines were abandoned within three months.
Stage one originates at the Steamtown train platform and follows the Laurel Line electric interurban railroad to Roaring Brook and includes the Iron Furnaces. Stage two will begin in late 2002. The trolley excursion will operate on a Red Arrow Car #76, built by 1.G.
Brill in 1926 and will continue to the Interstate 81 overpass through a 4,750' long tunnel and will eventually continue to the County Visitor Center on Montage Mountain Road.
Turnpikes & Highways The 'Philadelphia-Great Bend Turnpike," built by Henry Drinker in 1819, also known as the Drinker Turnpike, was one of the most popular routes in the region.
The Drinker Turnpike generally followed the route of the present Penn-Can Highway, I-81.
Until about 1960, the Drinker Turnpike was the connecting link between the Lackawanna Valley, the Poconos and New York.
The improvement of the first roads for use by automobiles progressed relatively slowly in northeastern Pennsylvania. By 1927, PA Route 2 (Lackawanna Trail) was improved from Philadelphia to Binghamton. For $1, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania purchased 25 miles of the abandoned Lackawanna Railroad, north of Clarks Summit, and converted it to an asphalt highway that became part of Lackawanna Trail. Also in the 1920s, Roosevelt Highway (PA Route
- 7) merged with PA Route 19 at Indian Orchard and continued through Honesdale and Carbondale to Scranton.
In 1950, the only state highway in Luzerne County was US Route 11.
Northeastern Pennsylvania was not linked to the primary highway network-until 1957 when the Northeast Extension of the Pennsylvania Turnpike was completed.
During the 1960s, construction of the interstate highwaý system with connections in northeastern Pennsylvania began to take shape.
By the mid 1960s, 1-81E (from Dunmore southeast to Stroudsburg, now called 1-380) and 1-84 (connecting Scranton with Port Jervis) were both in the planning stages, as was the East Scranton Expressway connecting 1-81 with downtown Scranton and the Lackawanna Valley Parkway. The East Scranton Expressway was never constructed, but the North Scranton Expressway and the Central Scranton Expressway were built In 1961 and 1966, respectively.
By 1966; 1-81 was completed from Scranton to Binghamton to the north and south to Wilkes-Barre. It was completed south through Hazleton in 1968. The section from Scranton to Harrisburg is known as the Anthracite Expressway. By 1966, the Keystone Shortway (I-
- 80) was completed through Luzerne County and construction was continuing westward. The entire Shortway was opened in 1970. By 1974, all sections of the Pocono Expressway (1-380) were under constructioni, except the 1-84 interchange. I-84.was completed in 1976. The last phase of the North Crossvalley Expressway was completed in November 1991 ahd connected with 1-81. The South Crossvalley Expressway (PA Route 29) connecting US Route 11 with 1-81, was completed in the mid-1980's. Overall, the North Crossvalley expressway was built in four sections over a 24-year period.
Today, northeastern Pennsylvania has a well-developed highway network of over 300 miles of turnpike and interstate routes. The Northeastern Extension of the Pennsylvania Turnpike (1-476) provides a direct link to Philadelphia. 1-80 and 1-84 provide east-west travel, while 1-81 and 1-380 provide a north-south link. This roadway network rnakes it possible to reach New York City or Philadelphia within three hours and Boston or Baltimore within six hours.
The Lackawanna Valley Industrial Highway (LVIH), now known as US Route 6 or the Governor Casey Highway, was completed in September of 1999. Extending between Scranton and Carbondale, the roadway opened up access to the Lackcawanna Valley and has improved traffic operations, provided relief for traffic congestion and improved safety conditions for US Route 6 (Business Route 6) and other Lackawanna Valley roadways. The improved access to the Lackawanna Valley facilitates economic redevelopment activities by increasing access to existing businesses and supporting new development opportunities in the valley.
In a related significant developm ent, a Land Use and Transportaffon Plan for the Governor Casey Highway was prepared for the 12 affected municipalities in the corridor. These municipalities include:
the City of Carbondale; Archbald, Blakely, Dickson City Borough, Dunmore, Jermyn, Jessup, Mayflield, Olyphant and Throop Boroughs; and Carbondale and Fell Townships. Presently, the Plan has been adopted by 11 of the 12 municipalities. The purpose of this plan was to assure that development would be consistent with the traffic capacity and net overload the new highway network. This Plan was a required mitigation activity as part of the Governor Casey Highway construction, to reduce secondary development Inmpacts.
The Electric City Trolley Museum was opened on October 30, 1999. The museum collection provides a showcase of the electric railway history of eastern Pennsylvania. The museum was created by the Lackawanna Heritage Valley Authority and is located on the Steamtown National Historic Site. In addition to numerous displays and exhibits, the museum operates a trolley excursion that began on April 18, 2001. This excursion is being implemented in two stages.
6 May 2003
Lackawanna/Luzerne County Long Range Transportation Plan In December 1999, the Hazleton Southwest Beltway was opened. The new mile-long road connects PA Route 309 with 1-81 at Interchange 141, located between Exit 138 in McAdoo and Exit 143 in Hazleton.
The $10.25 million dollar project removes regional truck traffic from local roads and provides direct access from 1-81 to Commerce Center, Hazleton's only industrial park. The beltway also opens up approximately 200 acres for economic development in Hazleton's Enterprise Zone. This project represents the fourth segment of a five-segment highway system proposed in the 1960's. The fifth and final segment will connect the Heights Beltway with Stockton Road when constructed.
The construction of Exit 168 off 1-81 was completed in 1999. This interchange links to Highland Park Boulevard in Wilkes-Barre Township and provides access to the First Union Arena. In August 2002, the Highland Boulevard and Mundy Street connecting road was opened to traffic.
Greenways & Trails In February of 1997, the Luzerne County Board of Commissioners and Luzerne County Community College hosted a public visioning session to review outdoor recreational opportunities emerging within the region. Numerous organizations attended the meeting, many of which were not aware of the work being done by other groups. As a result, a coalition was formed to unite the resources of each group.
On October 27, 1997 the Luzeme County Greenways and Open Space Advisory (Greenway Alliance) was formed. Today there are over 40 organizations involved in the Greenway Alliance.
Since 1999, both the Lackawanna County and Luzeme County Planning Commissions have engaged in the development of a Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan for the MPO region. An inventory and mapping of all known non-motorized network fadlities is now complete. Major route connections from each county into the state network were the focus of the initial studies. Current studies are evaluating future system expansion opportunities to develop connector routes and to identify future network improvements for inclusion on the Transportation Improvement Program.
Currentiy, the Greenway Alliance is working to support a number of new greenway and trail projects within the county, including the Susquehanna Warrior Trail; the Back Mountain Trail, the Delaware &
Lehigh National Heritage Corridor/Black Diamond Trail, and the Pittston to Wilkes-Barre Rail with Trail.
Lackawanna County has two established trails and a number of proposed trails that comprise its trail system. The county's largest trail authority is the Lackawanna Heritage Valley Authority. Individual communities manage the Lackawanna River Heritage Trail and work with other non-profit groups throughout the county to develop trails. The Rail-Trail Coundil of Northeastem Pennsylvania also works within Lackawanna County and manages the D&H Rail Trail that follows the Delaware and Hudson rail bed through the county and into New York State.
7 May 2003
Lackawanna/Lluzerne County Long Range Transportation plan Figure 1 Goals and Objectives Overall Goal:
Develop, maintain, and manage an adequate, safe, accessible, and environmentally-sound intermodal transportation network to provide for the efficient movement of people and goods within Lackawanna and Luzerne Counties.
~oais
-uj=tuv=
Gioals
/%k
.. 4.;
0pJmuves; Maintain and Improve Existing Transportation Facilities Improve Safety of Transportation Facilities Provide Transportation Services that Support Sound Land Use Planning Protect the Environmentand Conserve Energy Provide More Effective and Enhanced Public Transport Options Maintain and Upgrade Facilities at all Airports Maintain and Improve Regional and Interstate Freight Access Support Greenway Project Development Educate and Involve the Public in the Transportation Planning Process Provide regular program of maintenance Reconstruction and resurfacing of roads and bridges Upgrade b-affic signals and signage Idenbfy service defidencies Update Congestaon Management Systems to idenbty congested corrdors Continue to improve access to interstates and prinpal arterials Study accdent-prone areas and recommend improvements Continue on-going brdge inspection program Assess impacts of major transportabton projects on communities via coordinated environmental review Encourage traffc impact studies to support local and regional economic goal Promote energy conservation through reduction in tafflc congeston Support alternative transportation modes to reduce the volume of sngie-ocwpant vehides Provide park-n-ride fadlities to promote carpooling Update short and long-term strategic transit plans Periodically conduct management audit to evaluate overall operalion Consider technological improvements to Increase system efficdency Comply with ADA requirements Promote intermodal faciliies to support and expand transit and other modes Update short and long-term airport management plans Actively pursue expanded carrer service Continue and expand rail service to serve shipper, indcuding intermodal fadlib'es Identify impediments to freight movements Identi-y existing rights-of-way suitable for transportation fadlities Prepare Open Space Master Plan Prepare Bcycie/Pedestbian Plan Encourage expanded partiapation on the Transportation Advisory Committee Continue publication of quarterly newsletter I
8 May 2003
Lacks wanna/lLuzerne County Long Range Transportatibn Plan TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS The purpose of a long-range transportation plan is to direct region-wide transportation decision-making for urban areas throughout the country over a 20-year period. The process is governed by the aean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and the seven planning factors of TEA-21. These laws require a coordinated and comprehensive transportation planning process that looks at all transportation systems and the movement of both people and goods. This federally regulated document is adopted by state transportation agendes, transit authorities, and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO).
The transportation systems indude roadways, transit, airports, pedestrian and bicyde facilities, and freight movement fadlities, as well as measures that reduce congestion through use of alternative transportation strategies such as ride-sharing, carpooling, and transit use. Since the LLTS Area is an air quality non-attainment area, the plan must be tested to determine and ensure that it meets air quality conformity standards. Since the plan is also a living document, any air quality changes significant to the plan must also be evaluated for air quality conformity on an on-going basis.
The process of developing the LLTS Long Range Plan involves input from a variety of persons and agencies interested in transportation issues. As a result, three committees have been developed to partidpate throughout the planning process (see Figure 3):
" The Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) includes individuals representing a variety of public and non-profit agendes such as the chambers of commerce, environmental groups such as the Sierra Club, Pennsylvania Environmental Coundil, and private companies such as AAA, industry representatives, trucking and shipping firms, and bus companies.
The Technical Committee indudes professionals and public officials that provide guidance on transportation planning issues to the Coordinating Committee, the decision-making body of the MPO.
The Coordinating Committee holds public hearings and takes official action on the Long Range Transportation Plan. Members of the Coordinating Committee include representatives from PennDOT, Lackawanna and Luzerne Counties, various transportation modes, and the cities of Scranton and Wilkes-Barre.
Under current regulations, the Long Range Plan must be updated on a three-year basis. The current plan is prepared and undergoes review by the TAC (see Figure 2). An air quality conformity determination is then made on the Plan and changes, if required, are made. As part of the approved public involvement procedures, the plan is made available to the public for a 30-day period with an additional five-day period to reply to comments. At least one public meeting/hearing is also held to gather input on the plan and the air quality conformity determination.
The Plan is reviewed by the Technical Committee and Coordinating Committee and formally adopted by the MPO Coordinating Committee. The plan is then submitted to PennDOT, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA).
Figure 2 Transportation Planning Process 9
May 2003
Lackawanna/Luzerne County Long Range Transportation Plan The Transportation Planning Process undertaken by the LLTS requires submission of certain 'products' periodically.
These indude the following:
Long Range Plan Update - An update is required every three years.
The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) - The TIP is updated every two years; it consists of the first four years of the 12-year program.
The TIP is fiscally constrained based upon antidpated funding availability.
Adoption of the 12-Year Plan The Congestion Management System Plan prepared by both counties.
Development of an annual Unified Planning Work Program for the LLTS MPO.
Preparation of quarterly invoices and annual reports to document progress on the Work Program activities.
Figure 3 Metropolitan Planning Organization Coordinating Committee PennDot (2 members)
Lackawanna County (2 members)
Luzeme County (2 members)
City of Scranton City of Wilkes-Barre County of Lackawanna Transit System Wilkes-Barre Scranton International Airport Luzerne County Transit Authority Luzeme County Rail Authority (non-voting member)
Federal Highway Administration (non-voting member)
Federal Transit Administration (non-voting member)
Federal Aviation Administration (non-voting member)
Technical Committee PennDot (3 members)
Lackawanna County (2 members)
Luzeme County (2 members)
Lackawanna County Regional Planning Commission Luzeme County Planning Commission City of Scranton City of Wilkes-Barre City of Hazleton-Transit Representative County of Lackawanna Transit System Lackawanna County Railroad Authority Luzeme County Transit Authority Wilkes-Barre Scranton International Airport (2 members)
Northeastern Pennsylvania Alliance Federal Highway Administration (non-voting member)
Federal Transit Administration (non-voting member)
Federal Aviation Administration (non-voting member)
Transportation Advisory Committee Rails to Trails & Greenways Organizations AAA
" Private Industry Public Agendes
" Disabled & Elderly Organizations Trucking Representatives
" Chambers of Commerce
" Para-Transit Operators
" Tourism Agendes 10 May 2003
Lackawanna/Luzerne County Long Range Transportation Plan The Pennsylvania Turnpike Northeast Extension is a direct route n1 lum. eepeia
- -one l;,
THE EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM from 1-80 north to Wilkes-Barre and Scranton terminating at 1-81.
The Pennsylvania Turnpike Northeast Extension provides access to Introduction regional centers to the south, induding Allentown and the greater serveoer*major*;ppulation-entewsmalr'b--S 3W n
d The Lackawanna and Luzeme County existing highway system Philadelphia area connecting to 1-76. 1-380 intersects 1-80 in syburban*areas7F v6lumes are lower on the local and country provides local access to Scranton, Wilkes-Barre, Hazleton and Monroe County and runs north into Lackawanna County where it r.oadawhere daily traffic volumes typically fall below 10,000 AADT.
regional access to New York City, Philadelphia, and other major intersects with 1-84 going east to New York and New England, and I-81 in Scranton going north. US Route 6 and US Route 11 converge y__
northeast cities.
Existing conditions and improvements to this inSrno.UMot-0roie ietacs et cosnrhr e
system are discussed and mapped in the following section.
in Scranton. US Route 6 provides direct th w
aroug northern n
b
~~~~~~Pennsylvania to Ohio. US Route 11 runs southwest through i:
in.!l*L's*ea*i*"*
Scranton and Wilkes-Barre, connecting them with Harrisburg and i-f.I*'fYi*:eo Public transit in the LLTS Area is based out of the cities of Scranton, erNew York State.
D un Kingston Borough (with the hub located in Wilkes-Barre), and Hazieton. The County of Lackawanna Transit System (COLTS), the
- In the ten year period between 1992 and 2001, traffic has grown on Luzerne County Transportation Authority (LCTA), and the City of all interstate highways in both counties including significant growth Hazeton manage these syst in Average Annual Daily Truck Traffic (AADTT). On Some roadway The Lackawanna County Rail Authority (LCRA) and the Luzeme segments, truck traffic has in fact increased at a greater rate than County Rail Corporation (LCRC operate rail services within the LLTS passenger vehicle traffic during this 10 year period. For example, on Area.y ServicesoincludeLfreightrand limitedvpassengernrail.
T-!Interstate 81 near the Lackawanna and Luzerne County border,
-iArea.
Services include freight and limited passenger rail.
I tukvlmsireedb12%o8,0AD'-Cmpedo truck volumes Increased by 125% or 8,500 AAD1T compared to Bike and pedestrian trails in the LLTS Area are listed.by coaunty and passenger vehicle traffic which increased only by 44% or almost desribed ind pdestailn thais section.
Ahe number ofA e
seatral are ln 15,500 vehides. On Interstate 81 near the US Route 6 interchange, described in detail in this section. A number of.these trails are truck traffic increased by 73% or 6,000 AADI-T compared to currently in construction, while others are still in the planning.....
pst r trfic increased by 6or60 32% or edeto Many of these trails will eventually link together creating a larger local trail network, with some connecting to regional trail systems i
Interstate 80 is an east-west transcontinental route traversing the like the 165-mile Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor.
1 southern section of Luzerne County. Between 1992 and 2001, Finally, airports in the LLTS Area are inventoried. These include the PAincreases in traffic volumes on 1-80 have ranged from 24% to 110%
Wilkes-Barre/Scranton International Airport, Seaman's Field, the
- PA Routes 6 &, ciaris Simmi or from 4,550 to over 15,000 AADT. Histoic traffic volume data has WyoinglleyAirportan d
IntherHaetiona A irport. Theaman's Fielkte re shown that truck traffic has increased at a much faster rate than SrnWyoming Valley Airport and the Hazleton Airport. The Wilkeso n
Barre On a more local level, several major highways improve access to the passenger vehicles on sections of 1-80 in Luzeme County. For Scriane carriersnaind l rpovidg psseongr srrv uic. nregion's expressway system and work to relieve traffic Congestion.
example, on Interstate 80 at the Luzeme/Carbon County border airline carriers and providing passenger service.
The Governor Casey Highway (US Route 6) ties into the major there has been a significant increase in truck traffic of 47% or an thoroughfares of 1-81, 1-380, and Business Route 6. PA Route 309 additional 2,600 trucks to over 8,100 AADTT compared to only a
_ Existing Highway System in Luzerne County weaves its way through Wilkes-Barre and 13% increase or 1,500 additional passenger vehides. On Interstate Lackawanna and Luzere Counties are home to a diverse highway X
intersects the boroughs of Kingston, Courtdale, Forty-Fort, Ashley 80 near Interchange 260 (1-81), truck traffic increased at a higher network-1-0 rf and the Greaer Hazleton area. Te S h
y Expr ay rate of 79% or 3,900 additional AADTT compared to passenger Luzerne County providing direct access east to New Jersey aid New (PA Route 29) connects to US Route 11 through the Boroughs of vehicles which grew at a lower rate of 56% or 5,900 additional cars.
ne.workrne 80ounsy prwm eas t and est eathog thew soternsalyo a
ndNe th Gratr.a.etn.re.-
Th
-u wnrshvaie Exprhessa NorHo t
1 m a
e a
Plymouth and Sugar Notch, and Hanover Township, to the No However, Interstate 80 near the Luzeme/Columbia County border Y
ork City, less than 100 miles away, and easy access to Ohio and Cosal Xrsw states.
north and south from 1-80 are 1-81 and Crossvalley Expressway.
had constant growth in both truck and passenger vehicle traffic - a 1-380, as well as 1-476, the Pennsylvania Turnpike Northeast 110% increase during this 10 year period.
Traffc Volumes Extension. 1-81 runs north through Hazleton and Wilkes-Barre in On Interstate 84 in Lackawanna County, there was a greater F
Luzerne County and Scranton in Lackawanna County, into upstate
., Traffic volumes in Lackawanna and Luzerne counties are measured Oa New York and runs southbound to Harrisburg and the Maryland in terms of Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT), which is the increase in truck volume compared to passenger vehidyes which only border.
average of daily traffic for every day of the year, including weekend rose by 9% compared to 45% trucks. Lastiy, traffic on Interstate and holidays.-As-sbownion--Mal
&-in3ousent--00*Jr'afficT
.t 380, which connects to Scranton and Wilkes-Barre via Interstate 80 lumes are
.highesttthr jMay2003 11 May 2003
Lackawanna/Luzerne County Long Range Transportation Plan increased at the same rate between 1992 and 2001 with truck and passenger vehicle increases of 25 percent Crash Hot Spots Crash hot spots were identified through a survey of local, county and statewide police agencies working within Lackawanna and I-Luzerne Counties in Pennsylvania. Each police department was asked to identify the top two most dangerous intersections or segments of road within their jurisdiction. Additionally, PENNDOT provided an
- analysis and evaluation of other crash spot locations and augmented the data supplied by the local police. Fifty-five intersections and 18 segments were identified as hot spots in Lackawanna County and 76 intersections and 26 segments were identified in Luzerne County based on analysis of accident reports between January 1, 1996 and December 31, 2000 (Tables 1-4). For some of the crash hot spots, improvements are under preliminary design, in construction or have already been implemented. This data provides a basis for identifying future safety projects in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
Lackawanna County PENNDOT and local police have identified and evaluated 55 crash hot spot intersections in Lackawanna County. Eighteen crash hot spot locations reported 20 or more accidents in the five year study period. These indude the intersection of Keyser Avenue and US 11 (North Scranton Expressway) in Scranton City with 94 crashes, the most countywide. Improvements have been designed and the intersection is under construction.
Progress is underway for other hot c-ash spot intersection locations.
Out of the 55 identified intersection crash hot spots, thirteen percent of the intersections have completed construction, five percent of the intersections are under construction and twenty percent of the intersections are under design. Improvements to other selected Intersections range from low cost safety items such as, installation of 3-way stop signs to studies on new interchanges (Table 1).
Local police and PENNDOT also identified 18 crash hot spot mid-block segments in Lackawanna County. These indude Interstate 81 northbound and Interstate 81 southbound from Clarks-Summit, Exit 194 to the Luzeme County Une, which was the worst mid-block segment with 749 crashes reported during the five year period. Two of the mid-block segment crash hot spots are under design and one mid-block segment crash hot spot is under study to alleviate the number of crashes (Table 2).
Luzeme County In Luzerne County, PENNDOT and local police identified 76 crash hot spot intersections. Twenty-seven crash hot spot locations reported 20 or more accidents during the study period (Table 3). Similar to Lackawanna County, various steps have been taken to improve identified crash hot spot intersections. Out of the 76 identified intersection crash hot spots, seven percent of the intersections have completed construction, thirty-two percent of the intersections are under design and five percent of the intersections are under construction. Examples of improvements to other intersections include the removal of signals, signalization upgrades, and reconfiguration of one-way roads.
In addition, local police and PENNDOT identified 26 crash hot spot mid-block segments in Luzeme County (Table 4). This indudes 1-81 N.B. & 1-81 S.B from Nanticoke, Exit 164 to Lackawanna County tine, which was the worst mid-block segment with 430 crashes reported between the time period of 1996 and 2000. Out of the 26 mid-block crash hot spots identified, one mid-block segment has completed construction, one mid-block segment is under construction and one mid-block segment is under design.
12 May 2003
. ~
L 771i.
f~73 fIT7i C.IifZ.]
I Susquehanna County I
Wyoming County Wayne County Luzerne County
/
Map 2 Legend Average Annual Daily Traffic Lackawanna County 10,000-29,999 I10,000 - 29,999 Traffic Volume -2001 0,000-49,999 50,000 - 69,999 Lackawanna I Luzerne Counties
[
70,000 and Above Long Range Transportation Plan County View: I Inch equals 3 miles 30 3 Mi.
Lackawanna County Boundary Municipal Boundaries I/
County Boundaries
- ,Lackwanna County Cities Dde:Mey 2003 13
Sullivan Wyoming County Lackawanna County Traffic Volume - 2001 Lackawanna I Luzeme Counties Long Range Transportation Plan
- Legend Average Annual Daily Traffic 1 - 9,999
-10,000
- 29,999 30,000- 49,999
-50,000
- 69,999 70,000 and Above Susquehanna River EJ Lawne County Boundary Municipal Boundaries C]County Boundaries C]Luxrnle County Clties S
Carbon County County View. I Inch equals 3.75 miles 3.75 0
3.75 Milea
'f 14
Lackawanna/Luzerne County Long Range Transportation Plan Table £ Lackawanna Count, Crash Hot Spots (Intersections)
P
- a of COMMENTS MAP ID County Municipality Location Signalized Listing Source Crashes 1
35 Springbrook Township PA 307 & F5A 690 YES Local Police/PENNDOT 25 Done 7/31/00 2
35 Archbald Borough SR 6006 & PA 247 YES Local Pollce/PENNDOT 18 Working on under Low Cost Safety 3
35 Archbald Borough SR 6006 & SR 101 0(Betty Street)
YES Local Police/PENNDOT 8
Working on under Low Cost Safety 4
35 Jefferson Township PA 348 & SR 2003(Cortez Road)
NO Local Police 12 5
35 Dickson City Borough Commerce Boulevard& Walmart YES Local Police N/A Under construction 6
35 Throop Borough PA 347 North & SR 2008 YES Local Porice/PENNDOT 12 7
35 Throop Borough PA 347 South & SR 2008 YES Local Pollce/PENNDOT 7
8 35 Throop Borough Underwood Road & SR 2008 NO Local Police 6
9 35 Throop Borough Keystone Ind. Park Road & SR 2008 NO Local Police 2
Previously placed three -way stop in November of 1997.
10 35 South Abington Township US 6 & SR 4021(S. Abington Road).
YES Local Pollce/PENNDOT 23 Done 8124/0 1 11 35 South Abington Township US 11 & SR 4032(Shady Lane Road)
YES Local Police/PENNDOT 19 Done 8/24/01 12 35 South Abington Township PA 307 & SR 4032 (Shady Lane Road)
YES Local Police/PENNDOT 18 13 35 Blakely Borough PA 347 & Main Street YES Local Police/PENNDOT 12 New signal & turn lane added May of 2002 14 35 Blakely Borough SR 6006 & PA 347 ramps (SR 8018)
NO Local Police.
13 Under design for signal installation.
15 35 Olyphant Borough Delaware Avenue & Jackson Street N/A Local Police N/A 16 35 Moscow Borough PA 690 & PA 435(Southern Int.)
NO Local Police 3
Signal under design 17 35 Moscow Borough PA 690 & PA 435(Northem Int.)
NO Local Police 1
Signal under design 18 35 Scott Township PA 247 & PA 107 NO Local Police N/A 19 35 Scott Township PA 632 & PA 347(near Scranton Times)
BEACON Local Poi~ce/PENNDOT 16 20 35 Archbald Borough SR 6000 & Burlington Plaza YES Local Police 6
21 35 Elmhurst Township PA 435 & Gardner Road(TR 330)
NO Local Police 2
22 35 Scranton City SR 6011 (Green Ridge) & Sanderson YES PENNDOT 19 Green Ridge Corridor 23 35 Carbondale Township US 6 & SR 6006 NO PENNDOT 18 Under design 24 35 Scranton City SR 3020(Linden Street) & SR 3025(Wyoming Avenue)
YES PENNDOT 17 Scranton CBD 25 35 Scranton City SR 0011 (Pittston Avenue) & Hickory Street YES PENNDOT 19 26 35 Dickson City Borough 1 -81 & Main Street Interchange(Exit 190)
YES PENNDOT 41 New interchange being discussed 27 35 Scranton City SR 0011(Cedar Avenue) & Elm Street YES PENNDOT 18 28 35 Scranton City SR 3020(Linden Street) & Frenklin Avenue YES PENNDOT 18 Scranton CBD 29 35 Scranton City SR 3025(Wyomlng Avenue)& SR 6011(Green Ridge)
YES PENNDOT 17 Green Ridge Corridor & Low Cost Safety Im provernent made.
30 35 Clifton Townsh.ip SR 0435 & SR 2013(Clafon Beach Road) & Phillips Road BEACON PENNDOT 15 Signal under design for highway occupancy permit 31 35 Moosic Borough SR 0011 (Pittston Avenue) & Washington Street/Bimey Plaza YES PENNDOT 17 Under design, Birney Plaza 32 35 Scranton City SR 0011 (Mulberry Steet) & Washington Avenue YES PENNDOT 28 Scranton CBD 33 35 Scranton City SR 3025(Wyoming Avenue) & Popular Street NO PENNDOT 16 Added-to Scranton CBD 34 35 Scranton City SR 0011 (Pittston Avenue) & Orchard Street NO PENNDOT 15 35 35 Scranton City SR 3013(S. Main Street) & SR 3014(Luzeme Street)
YES PENNDOT 16 Main Street Corridor 36 35 Dickson City Borough SR 6006 & Scott Road YES PENNDOT 17 37 35 Scranton City SR 6011 (Green Ridge) & Washington Avenue YES PENNDOT 15 Green Ridge Corridor 38 35 Scranton City SR 0011(McDade ExpJIMulberry Street) & Mitlin Avenue YES PENNDOT.
21 Scranton CBD 39 35 Scranton City SR 001 1(Mulbeny Street) & Penn Avenue YES PENNDOT 29 Scranton CBD 40 35 Scranton City SR 0011 (Mulberry Street) & Franklin Avenue YES PENNDOT 22 Scranton CBD 41 35 Duemore Borough SR 0347 & Industrial Park Road YES PENNDOT 24 I6 house design 42
- 35.
Taylor Borough SR 3013(N. Main Street) & SR3012(Oak Street)
YES PENNDOT 24 Under design (Acker) 43 35 Scranton City SR 3023(Adams Avenue) & SR 0011 (Mulberry Street)
YES PENNDOT 40 Scranton CBD 44 35 Scranton City SR 3025(Wyoming Avenue) & SR 0011 (Mulbery Street)
YES PENNDOT 39 Scranton CBD 45 35 Scranton City SR 3027(Mulberny Street) & Jefferson Avenue YES PENNDOT 29 Scranton CBD 46 35 Scranton City SR 6011(Harnison Avenue) & SR 3027(Muiberry Street)
YES PENNDOT 26 Scranton CBD 47 35 Scranton City US 11 & SR 8025 (Spruce Street Complex)
NO PENNDOT 19 48 35 Scranton City SR 0081 & SR 8013(Business RT. 6 RampsXExft 191)
NO PENNDOT 17 15 May 2003
Lackawanna/Luzerne County Long Range Transportation Plan MAP ID I C... ty I M..I.i, 1
T r
r
~1 countyl Municipt U Of city Location Signalized Listing Source COMMENTS aitty -
Location Signalized Listing Source
- Of COMMENTS 49 35 Moosic Borough SR 0081 & SR 8003(Davis Street on ramp to 1-81 N.B)
NO PENNDOT 28 Under constructon 50 35 Scranton City SR 307& 6307(Keyser Avenue) &US 11 (North Scranton Exp.)
YES PENNDOT 94 Under construction 51 35 Scranton City US 11 (Bimey Avenue) & SR 3016 (Davis Street)
YES PENNDOT 25 52 35 Scranton City US 11. & SR 3023(Pittston Avenue) & Birch Street YES PENNDOT 24 53 35 Blakely Borough PA 347 & SR 1037(Dundaff Street)
NO PENNDOT 19 Done 2001 (Reconstructed) 54 35 Scranton City SR 3023(Washington Avenue) & Gibson Street YES PENNDOT 17 55 35 Scranton City US 11 (Central Scranton Exp.) & SR 3029(Seventh Street) Interchange YES PENNDOT 22 Scranton CBD Note: Crashes listed by PennDOT are reportable crashes from 11111996 to 12/31/2000 from the PENNDOT Crash Records System.
TabI~~ I at4rawannu. rn,,nh, (.~eh MM C.,Me (Ml,4~RIntr Con..,~..I&O MAP ID County Municipality Location Listing Source I Crashes TComments A
35 B
35 C
D E
F G
H J
K L
M N
0 P
Q R
35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 MOOstc Borough. Scranton City Dunmore Borough, South Abington Township South Abington Township, Scott Township. Benton Township.
Dickson City Borough Carbondale Township Dunmore Borough, Roaring Brook Township, Elmhurst Township, Jefferson Township, Madison Township Jefferson Township, Roaring Brook Township Madison Township Jefferson Township Throop Borough Olyphant Borough Olyphant Borough Olyphant Borough Scranton City Scranton City, Dickson City Borough Clarks Summit Borough Dunmore Borough Taylor Borough Scranton City Scranton City I
1-81 N.B. & 1-81 S.B. from Luzeme County line to Clarks-Summit, Exit 194(Congested Conidor Area) 1-81 N.B. & 1-81 SB. from Clarks-Summit, Exit 194 to the Susquehanna County line.
US 6(Gov. Casey Highway) @ Exit 7 1-84 E.B. & 1-84 W.B.
PA 348 near Mobile Gardens Trailer Park SR 2005(Aperdeen Road)
SR 2002(Wimmero Road)
Underwood Road(local)
PA 347(South Valley Avenue)
East Scott Streettocal)
SR 1016(North Valley Avenue)
SR 6006 from the end of N. Scranton Expressway to 1-81 SR 6006 from 1-81 through the Viewmont Mall area to the K-Mart area US 6(State Street) From Grove Street to the House of China PA 347(O'Neill Highway) from 1-81 to Keystone Ind. Park Road SR 3012(Oak Street) from Third Street to Railroad Overpass SR 6307(Keyser Avenue) area of Keyser Avenue Shopping Center SR 3013(N. Main Street) from Howell Street to Schlager Street Local Police Local Police Local Police Local Police Local Police Local PolIce Local Police Local Police Local Police PENNDOT PENNDOT PENNDOT PENNDOT PENNOOT PENNDOT PENNDOT 20 215 N/A 18 7
N/A 22 N/A 6
19 46&30&48 33 29 15 19 16 PENNDOT 749 PENNOOT 219 Under design Under study Under design N/A Not Available Note: Crashes listed by PennDOT are reportable crashes from 111/1996 to 1213112000 from the PENNDOT Crash Records System.
PENN DOT I
16 May 2003
Lackawanna/Luzeme County Long Range Transportation Plan Table 3 Luzerne County Crash Hot Spots (Intersections)
MAP ID County Municipality Location Signalized Usting Source
- of Crashes COMMENTS 1
40 Butler Township PA 309 & St. Johns Road(T-427)
NO Local Police 10 Under Design 2
40 Nanticoke City Broad Street & Hanover Street NO Local Police N/A 3
40 Plymouth Borough US 11(E. Main Street) & Bridge Street(SR 2005/Carey YES Local Police 8
Signal being removed Avenue) 4 40 Pittston City SR 2037(Kennedy Boulevard) & Dock Street(Burger King)
NO Local Police 6
5 40 Nanticoke City SR 2002(Main Street) & Koscluszko Street YES Local Police 5
Under design 6
40 West Hazleton Borough PA 93(N. Broad Street) & Monroe Avenue YES Local Police/PENNDOT 27 Hazleton - W. Hazleton Corridor under design 7
40 Pittston City SR 2006(N. Main Street) & SR 2032(Parsonage Street)
NO Local Police 2
Under design 8
40 Jenkins Township SR 2004(N. River Road) & SR 1021(Eighth Street)
YES Local Police 15 Under design wt 8th. Street Brg.
9 40 Hughestown Borough SR 2032(Pareonage Street) & SR 2030(Center Street)
NO Local Police 1
Created three way stop 10 40 Yatesville Borough SR 2028(Pittston Avenue) & Hale Street NO Local Police 1
11 40 Forty Fort Borough PA 309(Exdt 4 Ramps/SR 8033) & SR 1006(Rutter Avenue)
YES/NO Local Police/PENNDOT 6
Signal revised for PA 309 off ramps 2001 12 40 Lehman Township PA 118 & SR 1049(Outlet Road) & Market & Meeker &
NO Local Police 4
MfaView 13 40 Lehman Township-.
PA 118 & Trojan Road(T-799)
NO Local Police 7
14 40 Butler Township PA 309 & SR 3022rT-429(Butler Dr.) -
YES Local Potice/PENNDOT 17 15 40 Wilkes-Barre Township SR 6309 & SR 2063 (Highland Pk. Boulevard)Coal Street YES Local Police/PENNDOT 21 16 40 Wilkes-Barre Township SR 6309 & Walmart/Sheetz Drive YES Local Police 12 17 40 Laflin Borough PA 315 & SR 2026(Laflin Road)
YES Local Police/PENNDOT 11 Under design 18 40 Loflin Borough PA 315 & SR 2017(Yatesville Road(Pittston Avenue)
NO Local Police[PENNDOT 15 Under design 19 40 Kingston Township PA 309 & EJW. Center Street(T-846)
YES Local Police/PENNDOT 16 20 40 Sugadoaf Township PA 93 & SR 3026(Airport RoadyKiwanis Boulevard YES Local Police/PENNDOT 22 Done 2002 21 40 Sugadoaf Township PA 93 & SR 3020(Tomhicken Road)
YES Local Police/PENNDOT 15 Done 2002 22 40 Swoyersville Borough SR 101 0(Main Street) & Shoemaker Street NO.
Local Police 3
23 40 Swoyersville Borough SR 1010(Main Street) & SR 1017(Slocum Street)
NO Local Polc 9
24 40 Kingston Township PA.309 & SR 1036(Carverton Road)
YES Local Police/PENNDOT 29 & 28 25 40 Yatesvllle Borough Intersection of Stout Street N/A Local Police N/A.
26 40 West Hazleton Boro PA 93(Susquehanna Avenue) & Deer Run Road YES Local Police/PENNDOT 18 Done 2002 27 40 Plymouth Borough US 11 (W..Main Street) & Coal Street/Flat Road YES Local Police/PENNDOT
-5 Plymouth CBD under design 28 40 West Pittston Borough US 11N(Wyoming Avenue) & Boston Avenue YES Local PoIica/PENNDOT 10 Kingston CBD under design 29 40 Kingston Borough US 11 (Wyoming Avenue) & Bennet Street YES Local Police 16 Kingston CBD under design 30 40 Kingston Borough US 11 (Wyoming Avenue) & SR 1D09(Market Street)
YES Local PoIica/PENNDOT 31 Kingston CBD under design 31 40 Forty Fort Borough US 11 (Wyoming Avenue) & SR 1006(River Street)
YES Local Police/PENNDOT 20 Forty Fort CBD under design 32 40 Kingston Borough US 11 (Wyoming Avenue) & Union Street YES Local Police/PENNDOT 17 Kingston CBD under design 33 40 Plains Township PA 315 & SR 2020(Jumper Road/Main Street)
YES Local Police/PENNDOT 16 Under construction 34 40 Plains Township PA 309(EFdt 3 Ramps/SR 8031) & SR 2004(N. River Street)
YES.
Local Police/PENNDOT 37 35 40 Pittston Township US 11 (Pittston By-Pass) & Pittston Plaza YES Local Police/PENNDOT 12 36 40 West Pittston Borough US 11 & Luzeme Avenue YES Local Police 7
37 40 Wyoming Borough US 11(Wyoming Avenue) & Midway Shopping Center YES Local Police 13 38 40 Wilkes-Barre City SR 1011 (North Street) & SR 2004(River Street)
YES PENNDOT 21 & 21 W.B. CBD 39 40 Wilkes-Berre City SR 2014(Academy Street) & Franklin Street YES PENNDOT 20 W.B. CBD 40 40 Dallas Borough PA 309 & PA 415 YES PENNDOT 21 41 40 Wilkes-Bane City SR 2007(South Street) & Franklin Street
. YES PENNDOT 19 W.B. CBD 42 40 Kingston Borough US 11 (Wyoming Avenue) & Cade Street NO PENNDOT 18 Analyzed wl/Kingston CBD 43 40 Plains Township SR 0081(Exit 47 ramps/SR 8015) & SR 0309 & SR 0115 NO PENNDOT 36, 32 & 15 44 40 Wilkes-Bane City SR 2004(S. River Street) & Ross Street YES PENNDOT 15 W.B. CBD 45 40 Hanover Township SR 2002(Sans Soucf) & Dundee Road NO PENNDOT 16 17 May 2003
Lackawanna/Luzeme County Long Range Transportation Plan MAP ID County Municipality Location Signalized Listing Source
- of Crashes COMMENTS 46 40 W. Pittston Borough US 11 & SR 1027 (Tunk. Avenue) & Erie Avenue YES PENNDOT 17 Being studied 47 40 Wilkes-Barre City PA 309(Exit 1 ramps/SR 8045) & PA315 & SR 6309 YES PENNDOT 17,23,83,31, & 28 48 40 Wilkes-Barre City SR 2007(South Street) & SR 2012(Washington Street)
YES PENNDOT 17 W.B. CBD 49 40 Wilkes-Barre City Market Street & Washington Street YES PENNDOT 30 W.B. CBD 50 40 Hazle Township PA 924 & SR 6001 (All ramps on western side 1-81)
YES PENNDOT 15
.Being studied 51 40 Hazle Township PA 309 & Otd Airport Road NO PENNOOT 15 Under design 52 40 West Hazleton PA 93 & PA 924(Susqusehanna Avenue) & Washington Avenue YES PENNDOT 15 Hazleton - W. Hazleton Corridor u6der design Borough 53 40 Wilkes-Barre SR 8013 & SR 6309 & SR 2005 (Blackman Street)
YES PENNDOT 18 Township 54 40 Hazie Township PA 309 & 23' Street NO PENNDOT 30 Recommended One-Way 55 40 HazTe Township PA 309 & SR 3026(Airport Road)
YES PENNOOT 20 Underdesign 56 40 Hazleton City PA 93(Broad Street) & Locust Street YES PENNDOT 28 Hazleton - W. Hazleton Corridor under design 57 40 Dallas Township PA415&PA118 YES PENNDOT 33 Under consitruction 59 40 Edwardsville Borough US 11 (Wyoming Avenue) & SR 1007(Northampton Street)
YES PENNDOT 25 Kingston CBD under design 60 40 Wilkes-Barre City Market Street & Franklin Street YES PENNDOT 22 W.B. CBD 61 40 Wilkes-Barrm City SR 2C04(River S.) & SR 1009(Market Steet)
YES PENNDOT 53 W.B. CBD 62 40 Hanover Township SR 2O05(Carey Avenue) & SR 2002(Sans Souci)
YES PENNDOT 17 Being studied 63 40 Wilkes-Barre City SR 2010(Hazle Street) & SR 2005(Blackman Street)
YES PENNOOT 20 Traffic is wordng on with Wilkes-Barre City 64 40 Wilkes-Barre City S. Washington Street & SR 101 1(North Street)
YES PENNOOT 22 W.B. CBD 65 40 Wilkes-Barre City SR 2014(Academy Street) & Main Street YES PENNOOT 23 W.B. CBD 66 40 Wilkes.-ser City SR 6309 & SR 2020(Scetf Street) & SR 2009("ldder Street)
YES PENNDOT 26 Under design 67 40 Plains Township PA 115 & East Mountain Boulevard YES PENNDOT 16 Kil be done with Exdt 168 Connector 68 40 Hazleton City PA 0093 & Lincoln Street NO PENNDOT 15 69 40 Wright Township PA 309 & Crestwood Industrial Park Road YES PENNDOT 18 70 40 Larksville Borough US 11 & Chestnut Street YES PENNOOT 16 Under design with Carey Avenue Bridge project 71 40 Sugarloaf Township PA 93 & -80(Esit 38 ramps/SR 8002)
NO PENNDOT 15 72 40 Hazleton City PA 93 & SR 3017(Poplar Street)
NO PENNDOT 31 Hazleton - W. Hazleton Corridor under design 73 40 Pittston, Jenkins PA 315 & SR 8017(1-81 ramps, EBit 175)
YES/NO PENNDOT 17 Township 74 40 Dupont Borough PA 315 & SR 2035(Suscon Road) & Wilson Street YES PENNDOT 21 75 40 Hazleton City PA 924 & Locust Street NO PENNDOT 21 76 40 Lake Township PA 29 & PA 118 YES PENNOOT 17 N/A Not Available Note: Crashes listed by PennDOT are reportable crashes from 11111996 to 12I3112000 from the PENNDOT Crash Records System.
18 May 2003
Lackawanna/Luzeme County Long Range Transportation Plan Table 4 Luzeme County Crash Hot Spots (Mid-Block Segments)
MAP ID County Municipality Location Listing So Comments A
40 Wright Township Church Road (Local)
Local Police N/A B
40 Pittston Township 1-81 N.B. and 1-81 S.B. from Nanticoke, Exit 164 to Lackawanna County line.
PENNDOT 430 (Congested Corridor Area)
C 40 Lehman Township Old Route 115 (not 118) near Lake Lehman H.S. and PSU-W.B. (Iocal)
Local Police N/A D
40 Plymouth Township, Jackson Twp PA 29 From US 11 to Chase Road Local Police 77 E
40 Jackson Township. Lehman Township, PA 29 From Chase Road to Moon Lake Park Local Police 42 Plymouth Township F
40 Plains Township, Wilkes-Barre City PA 309 N.B. & PA 309 S.B. in the ama of Erdtl of North Cross Valley Local Police 70 G
40 Hunlock Township, Union Township SR 4016 From US 11 to SR 4005 Local Police 88 H
40 Fairmont Township, Ross Township PA 118 From SR 4024 to SR 4011 Local Police 57 I
40 Wright Township PA 309 from Crestwood Avenue to Crestwood Plaza (Mr. ZTs)
Local Police 29 J
40 Plymouth Township US 11 From Hunlock Township To W. Nantlicoke Brg.
Local Police 72 K
40 Plymouth Township US 11 From W. Nanticoke Brg. To Plymouth Borough Local Poiice 32 L
40 Wyoming Borough US 11 N.B. & US 11 S.B. @ Midway Shopping Center Local Police 41 M
40 Wyoming Borough US 11 N.B. & US 11 S.B. between 8th & 10th streets Local Police 28 N
40 Hazleton City PA 93(Broad Street) From Church Street to Locust Street PENNDOT 20 Intersections are on Hazleton -West Hazleton Corridor 0
40 Hazleton City PA 93(Broad Street) From near Linden Street to near Diamond Avenue PENNDOT 42 Intersection at Broad Street & Diamond Street done P
40 Hanover Township SR 2002(Sans Saucd) From Dundee Road to Old K-Mart Shopping Center PENNDOT 35 Under design Q
40 Hanover Township SR 2002(Sans Soudi) The Business Area to Carey Avenue PENNDOT 38 R
40 Edwardsville Borough US 11 (Wyoming Avenue) From K-Mart to West Side Mal PENNOOT 34 S
40 Edwardsville Borough, Kingston Borough US lItNyoming Avenue) From West Side Mait through Northampton Street PENNDOT 28 T
40 Bear Creek Township PA 115 Near Turnpike Brg.
PENNDOT 15 U
40 Hanover Township PA 309 N.B. & PA 309 S.B. Curve before Pine Run Road PENNDOT 15 V
40 Kingston Township PA 309 N.B. & PA 309 S.B. Near Hillside Drive PENNDOT 24 New signal installed at Hillside Drive W
40 Platns Township PA 315 N.B. & PA 316 S.B. Near Woudlands PENNDOT 30 Under construction X
40 Jenldns Township SR 2004(Main Street) From Courtright Street to near Carey Street PENNDOT 17 Y
40 Wilkes-Barne Township SR 6309 N.B. & SR 6309 S.B. Area near Walmart and Sam's Club PENNDOT 19 Z
40 Wilkes-Barre City SR 2005(Blackman Street) From near Gould Lane to 133' past Main Street PENNDOT 18.
N/A Not Available Note: Crashes listed by PennDOT are reportable crashes from 1/1/1996 to 12/31/2000 from the PENNDOT Crash Records System.
19 May 2003.
20
sia county/
- \\"Map 5
/n.
Coun Luzerne County Crash Hot Spots
-j Lackawanna I Luzerne Counties Long Range Transportation Plan Legend PA Routes Hazieon cty Inet
-Susq~uehanna River
."H azleto Ciy-ns t LuzernneCountyBou nldary ATI Municipal Boundaries 9~
County Boundaries Luzerne County Cities 11Crash Hot Spot ID (Intersections)
A Crash Hot Spot ID (Segments)
Crash Hot Spots (number ot accidents)
Crash Hot Spot (intersectlons) 1 1-6 e
7-13 Monroee 14-19 County 20-28 Wilkes-Barre City Inset 29-53 Crash Hot Spot (Segments)
Columbia County 42-A/.4 WO 43-88 89-430 39 25 -42 4
.4 V
4 4 County ViVw. I inch equals 3.75 miles 3.75 0
3.75 Mies 7/
16 15__
62i" 21
Lackawanna/Luzerne County Long Range Transportation Plan Congested Areas Both Lackawanna and Luzeme Counties initiated a Congestion Management System (CMS) in the mid-1990s. In July 1995, both counties completed a Phase I Congestion Management System Report for the LLTS Area which established the Congestion Management System goals and objectives. A definition of congestion was determined to evaluate the traffic conditions and a series of performance measures were developed to further analyze the congested areas. Hourly traffic volume thresholds on various roadway types (expressways, arterials, rural arterials, and city streets) were established to use as a 'rule of thumb" indicator of congestion.
At intersections, Level of Service (LOS) is measured in terms of delay, ranging from LOS A with 0 to 5 seconds delay to LOS F with more than 60 seconds delay. Along the corridors, the delay is measured in speed of travel. LOS is assigned to the roadways based upon the average travel speed compared to the posted speed of the roadway. For the LLTS Area, intersections or corridors were considered congested if they performed worse than LOS 'DV in urban and LOS 'C' in rural areas during peak hours and LOS 'C' in both urban and rural areas during off-peak hours.
Table 5 Level of Service
- 011M, Represents free flow, Individual motorists are unaffected by the presence of other vehicles on die roadway. The individual can select speed and muneuver without interference from "4st ' other veh ile.
t
- Represent slightly less freedom to maneuver. The presence of other notorit. in tha ZE~a, traffic streaem is now noticeabe. but desired speed can still be selected freely.
"S Repreaents stable flow. Moorists are now signsiicasdy affected by interaeu.on. with others In the traffic stream. The selection of speed is Influenced by others and.u.euniability is achieved through careful decisions. However. overall crtic flow is still relatively smooth.
F1 tf Represents oclonal unstable flow. Speed and freedom to maneuver are restricted. Any adiinltaffcsams ioperatoerolm 3
Representm unstable flow. Operating condition are ae or near full capacity. Speeds are
-1/4A~,typically reducced, passing opportunities and gaps in traffic ore infrequent.
Represents full congaesion. Trafc flow is forced or broken down. Thin condicon
.cis
_v when dhi amount of traffic approathing a section of roadwcay e..ceds the amount that con pass through It. Long queues form and stop-ad-go waces form in she queues.
Several 'high growth' areas were pinpointed for close monitoring to enable the MPO to manage congestion proactively. Those areas identified in the 1995 report included:
In Lackawanna County,.
Moosic Mountain area of Jessup
" South Abington and Scott Townships Montage Mountain/Mcosic area
" Carbondale and Fell Townships a
US Route 6 corridor north of Archbald In Luzerne County.
Business Route 30 ighland Park Boulevard/Mundy Street Corridor PA Route 315 corridor [North Crossvalley Expressway to the Pennsylvania Turnpike (1-476) interchange]
Sans Sou Parkway/Middle Road/PA Route 29 Corridor Humboldt Industrial Park in g
- dmmne fii port Beltway The CMS Phase U Report, completed in 1996 and updated in 2002 used the criteria adopted in the Phase I Report-to rank congested corridors and intersections. Under the CMS Plan, the areas of congestion will continue to be monitored regularly and updated oh an annual basis.
Lackswanna County Phase II CMS Report In Lackawanna County, 13 corridors and six intersections were evaluated as part of the Phase If CMS Report (see Table 6).
Lackawanna County had anticipated studying in detail one or two of the areas yearly, starting with the high priority areas first.
However, because the Governor Casey Highway and other roadway construction had resulted in altered traffic patterns within the county, it was not feasible or prudent to conduct detailed studies of the congested corridors/sub-areas until the Governor Casey Highway was in operation and other construction projects were completed. The studies were placed on hold and resumed in 2001 with analysis of all corridors and intersections for new prioritization.
22 May 2003
Lackawanna/Luzerne County Long Range Transpoltation Plan The areas of congestion in Ladcawanna County are:
Table 6 Lackawanna County, Areas of Congestion Munidpality Corridor Location Priority status Blakely Borough Main Street - Lackawanna Avenue to Gino Merli Moderate No projects planned Drive City of Carbondale Downtown Central Business District High Signals under design Clarks Summit State Street - West Grove Street to Winola Road Low No projects planned Borough Dickson City Borough Main Street - Boulevard Avenue to Lackawanna Moderate No projects planned Avenue Dunmore Borough Blakely Street - Jessup Avenue to Cherry Street High No projects.planned Jessup Borough Constitution Avenue - Bridge Street to Main Low No projects planned Avenue Moosic Borough Montage Road - Davis Street to Ski Area High Reconstruction underway Old Forge Borough Main Avenue - Drakes Lane to Taylor Borough Moderate No projects planned Line City of Scranton Jefferson Avenue - Mulberry Street to Central Low No projects planned Scranton Expressway City of Scranton Main Avenue - Eynon Street to Lackawanna Moderate No projects planned Avenue City of Scranton Keyser Avenue - Continental Road to Market High Construction underway in Street northern section South Abington Northern Boulevard - Layton Road to Wels Low Construction complete Township Market County-wide 1-81 High Study underway Municipality Intersection Location Priority Status Clarks Green Borough Grove Street and S. Abington Road Moderate No projects planned Dunmore Borough Green Ridge Street and Monroe Avenue Low No projects planned Olyphant Borough Burke By-pass at South Valley Avenue/Scott High No projects planned Street City of Scranton Main Avenue and Market Street Moderate No projects planned City of Scranton Moosic Street and Harrison Avenue Low No projects planned Throop Borough Sanderson Avenue/Cypress Street/Dunmore High No projects planned Street Luzerne County Phase J7 CMfS Report The 1996 Luzeme County Phase U CMS Report identified eight corridors and six intersections for a more detailed study. Five detailed studies were subsequently prepared for the following areas:
H Main Street Corridor, W(aw May/June 1995)
" Intersection of River Road and Eighth Str ets O
(August/September 1995)
Main Street/ Kennedy Boulevard Coupi J.une 1996)
" Church Street (PA Route 309) Corridor, Citytty N(Febnuary 1997)
PA Route 6309 Corridor, Blackman Street to Mundy Street (September/October 1997 Detailed studies were completed at the Main Street (US Route 11) Bridge Street intersection in Plymouth Borough in 1995.
Recommendations were put forth to improve the delay problem experienced by northbound traffic during morning peak hours. These recommendations included a short-term parking ban in the northbound right-turn lane during the morning peak.
In the long term, implementation of appropriate signalization and intersection improvements were part of the planned Carey Avenue Bridge Replacement Project.
The Carey Avenue Bridge Replacement project, currently under construction, is expected to solve the problems found as a result of the 1995 CMS report.
A detailed study of the River Road/ 8 Street Bridge in Jenkins Township was conducted in August/
September 1995. The study concluded that a problem exists at the intersection during peak hours due to the lack of a left-trin lane northbound on River Road onto the bridge and inadequate green time for the 8 t Street Bridge traffic. The 8 t Street Bridge replacement design is now underway.
Of the ten corridors/intersections listed on the CMS network in Luzerne County, seven are listed on the current Transportation Improvement Program.
These corridors/intersections will have follow-up monitoring in future CMS reports to evaluate changed conditions and determine whether additional improvements are required (see Table 7).
The Luzeme County Phase 11 CMS Report was updated in 2002 and findings indicated that most of the network has seen improvements in congestion'levels. Areas of intense commercial activity, such as Route 6309 in Wilkes-Barre Township and Kidder Street in Wilkes-Barre City, are currently undergoing improvements. Funding constraints on the current TIP will make it difficult for additional projects in congested areas to be added in the near future.
23 May 2003
Lackawanna/Luzerne County Long Range Transpoltafton Plan The areas of congestion in Luzeme County are:
Table 7 Luzerne County, Areas of Congestion Municipality rCorridor Location 1Priority Istatus PA Route 6309-Blackman Street to Mundy Wilkes-Barre Township Street High On TIP Wilkes-Barre City CBD Moderate Under construction Hazleton Church Street-22nd Street to 15th Street Moderate No projects planned Hazleton Broad Street-Diamond Street to Poplar Street Moderate Design underway Main Street-Chestnut Street to Hanover Plymouth Borough Street Moderate On TIP Main Street-PA Route 2024 to Ft Jenkins Pittston City Bridge Moderate No projects planned Hanover Township, Wilkes-Barre Township, Plains Township, Laflin Borough, 1 Exit 164 to Lackawanna County Line High Study underway Jenkins Township, Pittston Township, Dupont Borough, Avoca Borough Plains Township, Laflin PA Route 315 Corridor from North Crossvalley Moderate.
Under construction Borough, Jenkins Township, Interchange to PA Route 476 Interchange Pittston Township Munldpality
]Intersection Location Ipriority IStatus ooingston Township, Dallas PA Route 309 North Back Mountain Moderate Completed Borough, Dallas Township e
IRiver Road and 8r Street combined with High Under design Jenkins Township Street Bridge Project Hig Jndrdesign South Brad Sreet Valmont Parkway 24 May 2003
Lackawanna/Luzerne County Long Range Transportation Plan
.Public Transit Systems There are three public transit systems in the LLTS Area. They are based in the cities of Scranton and Hazleton and Kingston Borough.
Intermodal facilities are also being planned for the cities of Scranton, Wilkes-Barre, and Hazleton to house both public and private bus operators (see Maps 6, 7 and 8).
COL TS COLTS was founded in 1972 and currently operates 26 routes in Lackawanna County and extends into Luzeme County providing interconnection with the Luzeme County Transportation Authority routes. COLTS is the only public carrier within Lackawanna County and operates a fleet of 30 buses. Paratransit services are contracted out to private bus carriers who provide door-to-door service through the Lackawanna County Coordinated Transportation System.
Current projects by COLTS indude the completion of a feasibility study for the implementation of an intermodal transportation center in Scranton. The center would house several transit operators including COLTS, Martz Trailways and Greyhound Capital Trailways, and is expected to be complete by the end of 2004. The center will also provide ticketing and other passenger servicesfor the planned Scranton to New York City passenger rail service.
addies,;Mndayithrouigý.
rdyýX r
costing $0.30 each. The oCTA'lotl f 36 buses, 15 of which are handicapped-accessible. The LCTA main terminal is located in Kingston with a transit hub in Wilkes-Barre.
City of Hazleton The City of Hazleton in Luzeme County operates nine bus routes Monday through Friday, with limited service on weekends. Fares range from $0.75 to $1.25. Public transit currently operates ten 30-foot New Flyer buses, one 40-foot Neoplan, and two paratransit buses. The City has also recently purchased a trackless trolley that will run on existing bus routes pending establishment of a separate trolley route.
Future projects indude the development of an intermodal bus center in downtown Hazleton.
Active Freight and Passenger Rail Both Lackawanna and Luzeme Counties offer freight service, while Lackawanna County also offers limited.
passenger rail service.
Lackawanna County The Lackawanna County Railroad Authority (LCRA), an organization formed in 1984 to save the Scranton to Carbondale line from private sector liquidation, oversees Lackawanna County rail operations. Since its formation, the LCRA has secured over $15 million in federal, state, and local grants to rehabilitate the rail line and rail crossings, and to establish access for new shippers and receivers.
The LCRA currently owns and operates over 55 miles of rail line that services 25 active shippers. These shippers transported 6,054 carloads of freight in the year 2001. The Scranton to Carbondale line is a freight-only line, while the Scranton to Mt. Pocono line provides both freight and passenger service. In addition, the LCRA recently added five new miles of line to its service area providing passenger and freight access from Scranton to Moosic Borough.
The Canadian Pacific Railway (CP) also operates within Lackawanna County. The CP has transported freight on rail lines running locally between Harrisburg, Sunbury, Taylor, and Scranton, Pennsylvania and Binghamton, New York since 1991. The CP connects to the LCRA at its intermodal terminal located in Taylor. In addition to the CP, the LCRA also connects to the Norfolk Southern (NS) Railway in Monroe County. As the Scnfn to Carbodaeeai Line coordinating body for Lackawanna County, the LCRA meets twice a Seraton to ML Poconow RalLIne year with the CP and NS to discuss rail routes, new services and c
, it. pi-...............
customers.
AI I I : EF.Q The National Park Service Steamtown National Historic Site excursions use the Mt Pocono line for travel between Scranton and Moscow, while the Laurel Line will serve as the route of the Lackawanna County Historic Trolley Operation.
Future plans for passenger rail service include a commuter train from the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area to Hoboken, New Jersey.
The train will offer additional travel options for Pennsylvania commuters to New Jersey and New York through use of the Lackawanna Cut-off Line that transfers into the Morris Line to Hoboken. Total travel time is estimated at less than 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> with service anticipated to begin in 2006.
Ticketing, baggage, and boarding for Steamtown trolley service and New Jersey Transit Scranton-to-Hoboken passenger rail service will be located at the intermodal transit center in Scranton.
Construction is expected to be completed by the end of 2004.
j,,6EtoIdC~G~L~Oc~flLtoO San U, Luzemne County
'- -imzerfiit.ounty~f Corporation.(C 56n.. ier Sbanchesi-tibiW -d~Wriifi8 hia~nover Industrial Park Branch, the Avoca Branch, and the Mountain Branch. LCRC purchased the line in 1996. "
Future studies planned by the LCRC indlude a rail line feasibility and expansion study and a passenger rail from Wilkes-Barre to Scranton.
25 May 2003
Map 6 Lackawanna County Public Transportation Lackawanna I Luzeme Counties Long Range Transportation Plan Legend Bus Routes Interstate Routes PA Routes County, Township, and Other Roads Lackawanna River
-J Lackawanna County Boundary Municipal Boundaries CI county Boundaries r
Scranton City Boundary 12 Bus Route ID Number A-BUS ROUTE INDEX 12 - Jessup 14 - Drinker 15 - Chestnut Street 18 - Petersburg 21 - East Mountain 22 - W'itermantle 23 - Oakmont 25-Valley View 26 - Hiltop 27-Minooks 28 - Pittstion 31 - Old Forge 32 - Sibley 35 - Keyser Valley 36 - Lafayette 37 - Washburn 38 - Orem 41 - High Works 42 - Allied Services 43 - Bangor 44 - Viewmont Mall 48 - Dalton 49 - Waverly 52 - Carbondale 53 - Marywood 54 - Green Ridge 55 - Shopper's Special View. 1 Inch equals I mile 1
0
,1 WMss Deft: October 2002
Map 7 Luzeme County Public Transportation Lackawanna I Luzeme Counties
-*w Long Range Transportation Plan Legend Bus Routes
_.~
Intenstate R~Routes i
Mm-PA Routes County, Township, and Other Roads Susquehanna River r.,
Luzerne County Boundary
_g j*
Munlicpal Boundaries
- 4.
County Boundariles L__ uzene County City Boundaries IN 1
Bus Route ID Number
~BUS ROUTE INDEX I - Miners Mill/ Hudson 3 - Heights
)
5 - Persons GIne 6 - Dallas 7 - Georgetown 8-Swoyorsvllle / Luzerns I Pringle I Atherton Park 10 - Wyoming Valley Mall I1I - West Pittston 112
- Larksville 13 -Ashley
__ýv.
.14
- Nantlcoke / Glen Lyon 15 - Nanticoke / Middle Road l6e 16 - Old Forge 17 - East Side Connector 1-Shopper's Delight 22 -Plymouth-*
~View:
1 Inch equals 1.5 rrdles LI~1...................................
- ....."........Ve nheul
.~e
- 1.
1.5 Mo-27
Map 8 3,.
3 ~
3 I
~'1'
'3 43 3
- j3.~.
Luzerne County Public Transportation Hazleton Public Transit Lackawanna I Luzerne Counties Long Range Transportation Plan Legend Blue Une Bus Route GOen Line Bus Route Interstate Routes PA Routes County, Township, and Other Roads J L.zrnne County Boundary Municipal Boundaries County Boundaries
[
Hazleton City Boundary 1
Bus Route ID Number View, 1 Inch equals.75 miles 0.75 0
"0.75 MiWe Date: Cdbr 2002
Lackawanna/Luzerne County Long Range Transportation Plan Bike and Pedestrian Trails In 1999 and 2000, the Planning Commissions began to develop a Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan for the MPO region by reviewing the trail and on-road networks, both formal and informal, used by bicyclists and pedestrians. The process followed the outline for the Commonwealth's 1984 Statewide Bicyde and Pedestrian Plan.
The first round of mapping listed all known non-motorized networks and then focused on one system in each county that had the potential to connect with a statewide network.
The Lackawanna County portion of the Plan sarpment Trail, photo courtesy of Earth Conservancy consists mainly of US Route 6 and possible detour mutes. The Luzerne County portion of the Plan considers primarily a northeast/southwest route following the Susquehanna River from Duryea to Hanover Township with a tie-in to Route L, the Department's eastern north/south corridor.
Continuing work on the Plan will include updating the routeInventory to include collector routes, coordination with PENNDOT and local project sponsors to identify improvement projects to improve the bicycle and pedestrian network including new construction, resurfacing, restoration and similar projects.
Lackawanna and Luzerne Counties have a number of existing trails extending throughout the region (see Maps 9 and 10). Several of the trail projects are new segments of existing trail systems such as the Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor and the Lackawanna River Heritage Trail, which cover major portions of northeast Pennsylvania. Other proposed trail projects will expand recreational activities locally. The following is a list of trail projects, both existing and proposed, along with the agency responsible for the development and a brief description.
Lackawanna County Lackawanna River Heritage Trail: The Lackawanna Heritage Valley Authority is working with communities and non-profit groups to develop a 40-mile, mum-use trail. Several sections of the trail are open for public use, other sectionshave been acquired but notideveloped, with final sections to be acquired in the near future. The trail will eventually run from Pittston City, Luzeme County, into Old Forge, Lackawanna County, where it will link with the D & H rail trail in Carbondale. Developed portions of the trail include a 1.5-mile segment between Scranton and Taylor and a 3-mile segment extending from Blakely Borough through Jessup Borough to Monroe Street in Archbald. The completed trail will be owned and maintained by a number of different entities including local municipalities and non-profit organizations.
Roaring Brook Conidor: The 12-mile Roaring Brook Corridor trail will originate in Dunmore, and extend through Elmhurst Township to Moscow, along an abandoned rail line.
Countryside Conservancy: The Countryside Conservancy has received initial funding for a rail-frail along the Northern Electric rail line. The trail will extend two to three miles from Clarks Summit through Glenburn Township to Dalton Borough.
D&H Rail Trail: The Rail-Trail Council of Northeastern Pennsylvania owns and manages this trail, which follows the Delaware and Hudson rail bed from Simpson to Stevens Point, PA. The trail extends north of Lackawanna County to the New York State border. The trail is open and usable for a range of activities induding hiking, biking, snowmobiling, and possible ATV use. The organization has acquired ISTEA funds for additional improvements that may indude a link to both the proposed Delaware & Hudson Gravity railroad trail and the Lackawanna River Heritage Corridor Trail System.
Delaware & Hudson Gravity Railroad Beds: There is a potential trail project planned along the Delaware and Hudson Gravity Railroad Beds running from Carbondale through COinton Township and into Wayne County.
Pennsylvania Coal Company Gravity Rail Beds: There is a potential trail project in the Borough of Dunmore and in Jefferson Township along the Pennsylvania Coal Company Gravity Rail Beds.
Luzerne County Back Mountain Tralt Sponsored by the Anthracite Scenic Trails Association (ASTA), the Back Mountain Trail runs along the original Lehigh Valley Railroad line. It starts in Luzerne Borough and currently extends for 2.2 miles. Upon completion in 2004, this bicyde/pedvestrian trail will run for 14 miles out to Harvey's Lake.
Susquehanna Warrior Trail: The Susquehanna Warrior Trail, sponsored by the Susquehanna Warrior Trail Council, is a proposed.18.5-mile trail that will run parallel to Route 11 from Larksville Borough south to Salem Township, ending at the Pennsylvania Power & light River Lands Park. The trail is currently in the planning stage, with construction on the first nine miles between Shickshinny and West Nanticoke scheduled to begin by the end of 2001. The trail will be open to hikers and bikers and provide links to the Escarpment Trail, Back Mt. Trail, PP&L River Lands, and the Levee Trails.
Susquehanna Levee Trails: The Luzeme County Flood Protection Authority is constructing a series of four levees along the Susquehanna River, which will be supplemented by multi-use trails located on the top of the levee. The system will feature 15 miles of levees and 10 miles of trails. On the west bank of the Susquehanna River, the First Residents' Path, extending through parts of Wyoming and Forty Fort Boroughs, features accounts of Native Americans and early settlers. The Anthracite Heritage Walk that winds through the Boroughs of Kingston and Edwardsville highlights the area's coal industry. The Plymouth Passage illustrates the diversity of cultures and industries that shaped Plymouth Borough. On the east bank of the river, the Riverside Ramble highlights the architecture, business, arts and agriculture of Wilkes-Barre City and Hanover Township. The trail, in Forty-Fort Borough and Kingston Borough, is complete and open to the public.
Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor: Upon completion, the National Heritage Corridor will offer 165 miles of uninterrupted trail along the Delaware Canal and Railroad. The Corridor runs through four counties from just outside Bristol, Pennsylvania in Bucks County to the City of Wilkes-Barre in Luzeme County. The trail is complete from Bristol north to White Haven, with the remaining northern portion under study. The corridor trail will weave through state, county, and local parks, state game lands, numerous towns and cities, and offer opportunities for various types of recreation including bicycling, canoeing, fishing, horseback riding, hiking, cross-country skiing, and snowmobiling.
/
29 May 2003
I (F]
cz-J m
rn~
£~
~_
I
(...-J I.
Susquehanna County Wyoming County Wayne County iJ Map 9 Legend Mapk 9nd Leen Roaring Brook Corridor Lackawanna County p Pran Rde (Fadsrn)
(Lackawanna* & Wyoming Airports, Park & Ride, N Country Side Conservancy (Northern Electric Ry)
Valley RR - Erie/Lackawanna)
R lD&H Gravity RR (light track and loaded track)
- (
Airports Rails, Trails N
D&H RR and O&W Ry
'v Railroads Lackawanna I Luzerne Counties N
Lackawanna River Heritage Trail (CNJ & O&W)
Interstate Routes Long Range Transportation Plan J,
Lackawanna RiverHertage Trail (O&W)
PA Routes eN Lackawanna River Heritage Trail (CNJ & O&W RR)
Lackawanna River N
Lackawanna River Heritage Trail (CNJ) O R
Lackawanna County Boundary Cc R
H e
Municipal Boundaries CountyView: Inch equals 3 miles N
Pennsylvania Coal Co. Gravity RR (loaded track)
C county Boundaries 0
3 Mil-Proposed Existing Flood Control Levee Lackawanna County Cities Dae. October 202 30
Map 10 Luzerne County Airports, Park & Ride, Rail, Trails Lackawanna I Luzeme Counties Long Range Transportation Plan Wilkes-Barre/Scranton International Airport Legend Park and Ride (Existing)
SPark and Ride (Proposed)
Ashley Planes Trail Back Mountain Trail Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corridod Black Diamond Trail Susquehanna Warrlor Trail West Side Levee Trail Weastide Trail Project WilkesBarm to Duryea East Side Levee Trail Airports N
Railroads Interstate Routes.
PA Routes Susquehanna River 7
L-em County Boundary Municlpal Boundaries I--
County Boundaries Luzeme County Cities Columbia County County View. 1 inch equals 3.75 miles 3.75 0
3.75 Miles Carbon County
/
31
Lackawanna/Luzerne County Long Range Transportation Plan Hazleton Trail: The proposed Hazleton Trail consists of a four-mile segment of a larger 12-mile corridor from Hazleton to Lehigh Gorge. The western trailhead begins at the junction of PA Route 93 and the Gardner Highway in New Coxeville, with the trail running east to the eastern trailhead at the end of Beryllium Road. This will be a mixed-use trail that will link to the Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor at the Lehigh Gorge State Park.
Luzerne County Rail-with-Trail: The City of Pittston has obtained funding for completion of the first phase of the Luzerne County Rail-with-Trail. The multi-use trail will be implemented in three phases. Phase One will serve as the middle link between a northern extension to Duryea and Old Forge in Lackawanna County, and a southern extension toWilkes-Barre. The proposed trail will total 11.6 miles and run along an active rail line. The Luzeme County Rail-wih-Trail will also serve as a connector trail for a number of existing and planned trails in northeastern Pennsylvania. These include the Susquehanna Warrior Trail, the Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor, the Lackawanna River Heritage Trail, and the D&t-Trail in Lackawanna County.
Mocanaqua Loop Trail: Earth Conservancy has developed a rugged ridge-top and rnountain bike trail overiooking the Susquehanna River on the northern reach of Penobscot Mountain. This trail consists of a trailhead facility at the river and a series of four looping trails covering a total of 8 miles. The first 3-mile segment of this trail, from the trailhead to the ridgetop, will form the first one-third of the larger Escarpment Trail, a proposed mile Mocanaqua to Nanticoke trail. There is a potential for the Escarpment Trail to connect to the Susquehanna Warrior Trail in the future.
Ashley Planes: Earth Conservancy is developing the $1 million Ashley Planes Heritage-Park at the historic Ashley Planes rail area in portions of Ashley Borough and Fairview and Hanover Townships. Old railroad beds, which were once used to transport coal from the Wyoming Valley to large urban markets, will be converted into hiking and biking trails that will link to other regional trails. Interpretive signs and a Visitor's Center will highlight the historic relevance of this site as well as route visitors through some exceptionally scenic places within the 441-acre Ashley Planes.
WestSide TrailProject= The Westside Trail Project is in the proposal stage. The trail is tentatively set to start in Wyoming and run north, parallel to US Route 11, where it will split, with one side running back towards the mountain and the other looping down to the Susquehanna River through Exeter Township to West Pittston. The trail will meet again and terminate near the point at which Hicks Creek empties into the Susquehanna River.
ASTA Trail Project The Anthracite Scenic Traits Assodation has accepted the Deed of Easement on a 15.5 mile trail between White Haven Borough and Laurel Run Borough. This segment is part of a 150-mile trail that will eventually extend from Bristol to Wilkes-Barre. Construction on the first link of the trail is expected to get underway in 2004.
Park-and-Ride Fadlities Lackawanna and Luzeme Counties have constructed park-and-ride facilities to encourage ride-sharing and reduce single occupancy vehicle use. Usted below are the existing park-and-ride facilities within each county (see Table 8). Three new park-and-ride lots are proposed in Luzerne County in addition to the expansion of an existing park-and-ride lot in Pittston Township. These projects are induded on the current Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
32 May 2003
Lackawanna/Luzerne County Long Range Transportation Plan Table 8 Park-and-Ride Facilities Founded in 1929, the airport is owned by Luzeme County and operated by Lackawanna County Number of Parking Spaces oming Valley Aviation. The airport does not house any airlines and operates as a general aviation airport that provides two runways, ramp services, fueling, and maintenance to individual planes. The Jefferson Township at 1-84, Exit 8 86 spaces, 4 handicapped airport is currentiy working on a Master Plan to identify future projects. Recently, the airport has undergone a series of safety improvements including runway lighting and security fencing.
Carbondale Township at Meredith Street and the Governor Casey Highway (US Route 6) 30 spaces, 3 handicapped e Hazleton Airport is owned by the City of Hazleton and operated by Koro Aviation.
The airport consists of one runway and provides the following services: storage hangers, refueling, and a Jess*p Borough at Moosic Lake Road (PA Route 247) and the terminal building available for use by privately-owned and company-owned planes. Hazleton Airport Governor Casey Highway (US Route 6) 29 spaces, 2 handicapped is also home to the Ripcords, a Parachute Club. The airport conducted an obstruction study to analyze how trees and other long-term obstructions impact the slope on airplane approaches.
Luzerne County aman's Field has been in operation for over fifty years and is located in Factoryville, PA.
48 spaces, 2 handicapped The airport has developed from a small grass strip to an airfield which operates 24-hours a day. The Pittston Township at Oak.Street/PA Route 315 (On TIP expansion to 124 spaces) airport isa public use, privately owned airfield with a 2,500 foot asphalt runway. The airfield is utilized Sugar Notch Borough at PA Route 29/Maln Road 51 spaces, 3 handicapped primarily by general aviation aircraft as well as some corporate planes. Facilities and services offered at the airport indude major and minor aircraft repair, hangar rentals, tiedowns and aircraft instruction and Wilkes-Barre Township at BR 6309 at Casey Avenue 70 spaces, 4 handicapped rental services.
Nuangola park-and-ride, Rice Township ON TIP Tomhicken park-and-ride, Sugarloaf Township ON TIP Butler park-and-ride, Butler Township ON TIP Transportation Management Associations The Back Mountain Transportation Management Association (TMA) was initiated in 1991 through a combined effort involving PennDOT, Luzerne County, Jackson, Lake, and Kingston Townships and Dallas Borough, business representatives, and the private community. Members of the TMA work together to A/
I 14 solve local transportation problems and establish transportation policies for the Back Mountain area. No other TMAs are currently planned for the LLTS Area.
. Airports e airport was founded in 1945 when Luzerne and LackawanC.ountiefsenterdntb--
rement to co-sponsor and operate the facility. Although the airport is jointly operated, nearly all of its property is located within Luzerne County. Past airport projects inciuded terminal expansions in 1958 and 1982, and a 1,050 ft. runway extension.
Today, the airport is home to US Airways, Comair, Continental Express, Delta, Northwest Airlines, and United Express. Services include over sixty daily flights to eight major hubs. Airport projects currently in progress include construction of a new terminal building, a parking garage, surface parking, an aircraft parking apron, and three new access loop roads. The airport also has several parcels of vacant land zoned commercial/industrial and available for development.
.l3 33 May 2003
Lackawanna/Luzerne County Long Range Transportation Plan FUTURE DEVELOPMENT TRENDS AND ISSUES Future development within the LLTS Area is influenced by a number of different conditions. These include population,
- housing, employment opportunities, vacant
- land, accessibility, and transportation improvements. Population and housing trends are presented below. Employment statistics by sector and unemployment rates for the region have been considered. Finally, major vacant land parcels owned by both public and private organizations are listed and mapped to identify future growth areas. This inventory will assist in identifying future transportation improvements required to support economic development in the LLTS area.
Population Trends Demographically, both Lackawanna and Luzeme Counties have been experiencing a decrease in population between 1990 and 2000, most of which can be attributed to a dedining economy and relatively high unemployment rates. Lackawanna County has seen a 2.6 percent decrease in residents, with a loss of 5,744 people, while Luzerne County has decreased in population by 2.7 percent or 8,889 residents (see Table 9). Both Scranton and Wilkes-Barre underwent the largest population decline from 1990 to 2000.
Scranton lost 5,390 people or 6.6 percent of its residents and the City of Wilkes-Barre declined by 4,400 people or 9.3 percent of its residents. The cities of Hazleton, Pittston, and Nanticoke in Luzeme County also experienced population loss, each losing between 1,200 and 1,400 people from 1990 to 2000.
Dunmore Borough in Lackawanna County was second in population decline, losing a total of 1,385 residents.
In Lackawanna County, growth patterns seem to follow a circular formation and increase from Scranton outward, with the largest growth occurring along the perimeter of the county. South Abington Township increased the most with 2,261 people, followed by Moscow Borough with 356, Madison Township with 332, Springbrook Township with 270, Greenfield Township with 241, and Moosic Borough with 236 people.
With the exception of Hazleton, the municipalities experiencing the greatest population decline in Luzerne County are generally located along the 1-81 corridor, north of Rice Township. The northwestern comer of the county gained population between 1990 and 2000, induding 554 people in Dallas Township. In the southern half of the county, a duster of five municipalities experienced growth. The population of these five municipalities increased by the following: Dorrance Township-331, Rice Township-553, Wright Township-908, Fairview Township-979, and Butler Township-1,146.
In the northeast section of Luzerne County, Pittston Township experienced a ten-year gain of 725 people.
During the next twenty years, the population of both Lackawanna and Luzerne Counties is expected to decline. During the time period of 2000 to 2020, it is expected that Lackawanna and Luzerne Counties will decline by 1.96 percent and 0.43 percent, respectively and the State of Pennsylvania will remain stable and grow by 2.34 percent Table 9 Po pulation Statistics Actual Projections Change 1990 -2000 Change 2000 -2020 1990 2000 2020 Percent Number Percent Number Pennsylvania 11,882,643 12,281,054 12,569,017 3.35%
398,411 2.34%
287,963 Lackawanna County 219,039 213,295 209,111
-2.62%
-5,744
-1.96%
-4,184 Luzerne County.
328,149 319,250 317,870
-2.71%
-8,899
-0.43%
-1,380 Source:. U.S. Census 1990, 2000, Pennsylvania State Data Center, Preliminary Population Projections Housing Trends Housing stock increased in both counties between 1990 and 2000. Lackawanna County Increased by a ten-year total of 4,848 new housing units and Luzerne County increased in size by 7,637 units (See Figure 4).
However, the annual rate of construction experienced a decline after 1990, the peak construction year for each county. In 1990, Lackawanna. County constructed 620 new housing units and Luzerne County constructed 1,200 new housing units. By 1999, construction was down to 400 homes In Lackawanna County and 600 homes in Luzerne County.
Figure 4 Residential Housing New Residential Housing Units 1.200 1n Im I=e IM1 1*4 IMS IMe Im9
'M
'9 34 May 2003
Lackawanna/Luzemne County Long Range Transportation Plan Employment Trends Occupation statistics for both counties in 1999 closely mirrored state averages. Employment by the service industry dominated both counties, accounting for 37.6 percent of the 96,246 total. employed persons in Lackawanna County and 33.6 percent of the 142,764 people employed within Luzeme County. The retail trade sector ranked second as the highest employer within both counties with 19.3 percent and 18.4 percent respectively, while the manufacturing sector ranked third with 18.5 percent and 17.9 percent respectively in each county (see Figure 5).
Figure 5 Employment Statistics Future Development Centers There are a number of economic development initiatives underway in both Lackawanna and Luzerne Counties to encourage reinvestment in the region. Keystone Opportunity Zones (KOZ), located throughout both counties, and th tie oare development initiatives.
The majority of these properties in Lackawanna County are located within the City of Scranton or along I-
- 380, 1-81, and the Pennsylvania Turnpike Extension. I.
accompanies this section to inventoreech ajor development site, available parcels, and development potential, Including location, acreage, access, and infrastructure (see Maps 11 end 12)..
Keystone Opportunity Zones Several KOZs were established in 1999. The purpose of these KOZs includes returning mine-scarred land to productive use, accommodating new major employers to improve job opportunities, directing new investment into areas that have suffered economic decline, and linking job creation and community-building to increasing economic opportunity. Luzeme and Lackawanna counties contain more than 4,600 acres in a wide range of sizes and settings across nine subzones (see Table 10):
Lomorno
- County, Employment By Sector. iaaa
-0AWJcuHu, lFomst,, &fIthin, OarmjCIO a
- Rd. Trad o FRE.
u 5.ks Lackawanna County &nployment By Sector,
- AgdwAum, Fomaty,.
& FIthlnq a M king~t~
DUntnmlon&Ob~dt~
Rea owwiTrade
- p Adek~d*etlaon The unemployment rate, while still slightly higher than the state average of 4.2 percent in 2000, has been decreasing since 1992. In Lackawanna County, the 2000 unemployment rate was 4.3 percent, a significant decrease from the 5.2 -percent of 1999. Luzeme County experienced a 5.3 percent unemployment rate In 2000, also lower than its 1999 rate of 5.9 percent (see Figure 6).
Figure 6 Unemployment Rates
)
35 May 2003
Map 11
--,c o i ch eus 0.75 mles Lackawanna County Future Development
.Centers A"
Lackawanna I Luzerne Counties Wyoming County Long Range Transportation Plan R;
Legend A W4 Carbondale Industrial Park B
Covington Park IT JC Glenmaura Corporate Center D
FormaerGOEX Site E SIM KOZ Zone 8 F =
KOZ ZoneS
-Wayne County i
GM Mid Valley Industrial Park HI PEI Power Corp.
I Scott Technology Park
.J I Shady Lane Business Park K M Valley View Business Park/
?
~ Scranton View: 1 inch equals 2 miles Jessup Smail Business Center Le Intrstate Routes
--1PA Routes US and County Routes L*:
Lackawanna River F--
Lackawanna County Boundary Municipal Boundaries
[
County Boundaries D
"If.X
-- ~V~~
Lackwanna County Cities County View: 1 Inch equals 3.75 miles 3.75 0
3.75 MIes L;
\\D f1 DsN: -
2003 36
)
Sullivan County Wyoming County L a ck aw a n n a C o u nty 04 Y;
C m C tCounty Carbon County "ls
.nde Columbia County Wilkes-Brreew. 1 Inch Is Coun SculilCut Map 12 Luzerne County Future Development Centers Lackawanna I Luzeme Counties Long Range Transportation Plan Legend A
KOZ Zone 1 (CAN DO)
B
- KOZZone 2 C
KOZZone 3 D
KOZ Zone 4 E
KOZ Zone5 (Earth Conserv.)
F KOZ Zone 6 G
KOZ Zone 7 (includes Greater Pittston Area)
H Wilkes-Barre I Scranton Airport I F Former GOEX Site Interstate Routes PA Routes Other Roads (Milkes-Barre View)
Susquehanna River Luzeme County Boundary Munlcipal Boundaries I*
County Boundaries I
Luzenne County Cities County View. I Inch equals 3.75 miles 3.75 0
3.75 Miles Dat.: Otb. 2DO2 37
Lackawanna/Luzerne County Long Range Transportation Plan Table 10 Keystone Opportunity Zones Subzone Acres Description/Strategy Location 1
1,056 Designed to coordinate land Hazle/Butler Townships, Luzeme County redamation and job creation for Hazleton 2
46 Designed to develop Hazleton, Luzeme County neighborhood dusters of blighted properties 3
292 Environmentally Wright Township, Luzeme County contaminated property targeted for expansion by Harris Semiconductor 4
818 Includes mixture of publicly Greater Nanticoke Area School District, and privately-owned Luzeme County blighted properties 5
1,122 Reclamation of mine-Hanover Area School Disbict, Luzerne scarred and distressed land County for Industrial use 6
294 Proposed to stimulate new Wilkes-Barre Area School District, Luzeme capital investment in the County CBD.
113 Designed for indusbial use Pittston Area School District, Luzeme County 8
648 Mine-scarred land requiring Scranton, Lackawanna County remediation for industrial and residential use 9
648 Foriner mineland intended Carbondale, Lackawanna County for commercial and Industrial use Earth Conservancy The Earth Conservancy, a non-profit organization established in 1992, acquired approximately 16,300 acres of former Blue Coal land in Luzeme County. The property had been in bankruptcy litigation since the early 1970s. It consisted of scattered parcels of land throughout the Wyoming Valley and in Wilkes-Barre, most of which had undergone underground or surface anthracite coal mining since the early 1800s. Long-range land planning efforts undertaken by the Earth Conservancy have identified approximately 6,100 acres of the total 16,300 acres as being suitable for development (see Map 12).
The Earth Conservancy has classified 2,000 of the developable parcels, located in Hanover Township, Newport Township, and the City of Nanticoke along PA Route 29, into the following categories:
parkland/open space, residential, industrial, institutional, commercial, resort/residential, and mixed use.
The following land holdings were highlighted in the Earth Conservancy's 1999 mixed-use plan as having the most significant value to the future development of the Wilkes-Barre region (see Table 11):
Table 11 Earth Conservancy Parcel Time of Availability Issues to Address Hanover 6 0-5 yrs.
Water and sewer extensions required Hanover 7A 0-5 yrs.
Water and sewer extensions required, landfill site within parcel Hanover 7B 5-10 yrs.
Utility extensions required Hanover 8 5-10 yrs.
Difficult topography and acess Hanover 9 5-10 yrs.
Requires connector highway for access Hanover 10 0-5 yrs.
Wetlands on part of parcel Hanover 12 0-5 yrs.
Difficult topography Hanover 13a 5-10 yrs.
Mine scarring Hanover 13b (west) 5-10 yrs.
Utility extensions required Hanover 13b (east) 5-10 yrs.
Undergoing reclamation work Hanover 13c Beyond 10 yrs.
Utility and roadway extensions required Hanover 13d Beyond 10 yrs.
Difficult topography, requires roadway and utility extensions Nanticoke 2 0-5 yrs.
Overhead wires divide parcel Scranton Plan In Lackawanna County, the Scranton Chamber of Commerce has developed an industrial marketing program called the Scranton Plan.
The plan provides on site selection assistance to businesses and maintains a detailed list of available industrial, office, and commerclal buildings and development sites.
The following is a list of available development sites within the greater Scranton area (see Table 12):
38 May 2003
Lackawanna/Luzerne County Long Range Transportation Plan Table 12 Scranton Plan Number Name of Lots Acres Location and Access Adjacent to PA Route 507 in Moosic, one-half mile from 1-80, on-site rail Former Goex site 1
172 access Sady Lane Business Park 5
2.92-16.28 Industrial/Office park on Skyline Dr, 2.5 miles west of 1-81 and 1-476 KOZ site 1
32 KOZ site with access to 1-81, 1-84 and 1-380 via PA Route 6 Industrial park adjacent to Rt 435 in Covington Township, 2 miles from Covlngton Park 1
950 1-380 Industrial land in Scranton near Throop and Dunmore off 1-80, Boulevard Marvine site 1
ISO Avenue Mid Valley Industrial park in Throop, Olyphant, and Jessup, one-half mile from the Industrial Park 22+
121+
GoV. Casey Highway (US Route 6)
Power park located near the Gov. Casey Highway (US Route 6), LCRA PEI Power Park 15+
4.9-32.9 rail aos Scott Technology Park 25 2.3-7.6 Technology park in Scott township, one mile from 1-81 Business Park tt Carbondale ards 8
1.36-5.06 Business park directly served by PA Route 106,.rail line access 1enmaura orporate Center I
N/A Corporate center with direct access to 1-81 via Montage Mountain Road Table 13 Wilkes-Barre/Scranton Airport Area Acres Location and Description Access is dependent upon construction of Navy Way Road/PA Route 315 and foreign trade zone connector road, gas, sewer and water currently 1
40 unavailable.
2 32 Direct access to airport and facilities; all utilities available 3
N/A Parcel with all utiles located in the corporate aviation ramp area Area contains three hangars totaling 11,000 sq. ft. with direct airfield 4
N/A access 5
11 Parcel with all utilities but limited access via a residential road 6
46 Access to airport via Spruce Street and PA Route 315 7
2 Access to 1-81 and Exit 178 via Spruce Street and PA Route 315 Parcel with electric, access will be provided via future road to southeast 8
19 side of airport Direct access to airport facilities, Navy Way Road extension will provide 9
3 access to Foreign Trade Zone Direct access to two active rail lines and interstate system; airport 10 170 access requires construction Greater Pittston Area The Greater Pittston Chamber of Commerce, Office of Industrial and Development Sites, has identified a number of development opportunities located in the center of a labor market extending from the City of Hazleton through the Greater Wilkes-Barre/Scranton area into Carbondale. The following is in addition to several KOZ properties discussed previously in the report (see Table 14).
Wilkes-iarre/Scranton Airport The Wilkes-Barre/Scranton Airport also has several development opportunities available. Land holdings have been divided into ten different areas surrounding the airport, both with and without airport airfield access. The lots range In size from 2 acres to 170 acres and are zoned for commercial and industrial uses (see Table 13).
39 May 2003
Lackawanna/Luzerne Countmy Long Range Transportation Plan Table 14 Greater Pittston Area Name Acres Location and Access Zoned for industrial use; location Is adjacent to Commerce Road and Vogelbacher Industrial Park 547 1.5 miles from 1-476 and 1-81; rail access and utilities on-site CA.N DO The Community Area New Development Organization (CAN DO) was founded in 1956 as a private, not-for-profit economic development corporation for the Greater Hazleton area of Luzerne County.
CAN DO purchases land throughout the area, develops it into business and industrial parks, and installs the&
necessary infrastructure. CAN DO currently owns two industrial parks and one business park with 700,000 sq. ft. of rental space (see Table 15).
Table 15 CAN DO Vacant Land Property Total Acres Vacant Acres Description and Location Valmont Industrial 550 35 Located in West Hazleton Borough and Park Hazle Township, adjacent to PA Route 93 and 1-81, one mile from Hazleton Airport Humboldt Industrial 700 125 Humboldt west, north, and southwest are all Park (West, North, additions to the original Humboldt building; and Southwest) the facdilities are located 6 miles from Hazleton Airport and are adjacent to an active rail line.
CAN DO Corporate Phase 1-195 Phase 1 -100 Construction is In two phases; located Center Phase H1-700 Phase HI - N/A adjacent to 1-80 at PA Route 309 in Butler Township 40 May 2003
Lackawanna/Luzerne County Long Range Transportation Plan THE LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN The Long Range Transportation Plan is an evolving document in which projects move through the three phases of engineering, right-of-way acquisition, and construction. The 20-year timeframe of the Long Range Transportation Plan incorporates the adopted fiscal years 2003-2006 Transportation Improvement Program. The TIP is a fluid document It is regularly updated, i.e., as projects are completed, costs are refined, etc. (Appendix B includes the 2003-2006 TIP, together with the FFY 2007-2025 projects).
Following are the major transportation) projects (cost $5 million or more) in the first four-year periods.
Funding allocated to each of the three phases is identified using the following key: Roadway - R; Bridge - B; Urban - U. Significant transportation enhancement projects (cost $1 million or more) are identified as Enhancement - E. Please note that project costs estimates are subject to change.
Lackawanna County
- Valley View Business Park (U) - $7,590,000 Exit 182 (Davis Street) Reconstruction (R) - $21,500,000 K
Keyser Avenue Betterment (R) - $2,000,000 Lackawanna River Heritage Trail (E)
- $1,531,000 Rail-Trail Council NEPA (round 1) (E) - $1,289,000 Luzerne County Broad Street Improvements (R) - $7,805,500 Connect Exit 168/115 (R) - $7,200,000
- Sans Soud to LCCC (R) - $22,440,400 Coal Street Realignment (U) - $10,440,000 Airport Access Road (Wilkes-Barre Scranton International Airport (B) - $7,100,000
- Ashley Planes Historic Trail (E) - $1,000,000 Fiscal Assessment The current TIP totals almost $268,800,000 for the four-year period. Of this total, 83 percent are federal funds, 15 percent are state funds, and 2 percent are local share funds. To determine fiscal constraint for the years 2007 through 2025 of the Long Range Transportation Plan, the funding levels for the first four years were extrapolated by straight-line projection for those remaining years of the Plan, and compared to the estimated costs listed for the projects in years 2007 through 2025. (See Appendix B).
As shown in the table below; the funding for the current TIP is almost $268,800,000 or approximately $67 million per year. Assuming the same level of federal, state and local funding for the next 19 years (not adjusting for inflation), the funding available for the costs shown for the projects in the years 2007 through 2025, will be approximately $1.277 billion. Based on the estimated costs shown for the projects in the years 2007 through 2025, about $58.2 million per year will be needed to cover the costs of those projects.
Since this yeariy amount is less than the amount allocated for the current TIP, there should be no difficulty in maintaining fiscal constraint for the 19-year period of the Plan.
The un-programmed available funding during this 19-year period ($171,419,250) could be utilized to cover costs related to the following four factors:
- 1.
Low project cost estimates
- 2. Actual project construction and/or Right-Of-Way cost overruns
- 3. The effect of inflation
- 4. New, unexpected projects Therefore, it is considered prudent to have this reserve funding available for the continued success of the long range transportation planning effort.
FFY 2003-2006 4 year total 1 year average
$268,761,000
$67,190,250 FFY 2007-2025 (19 years)
Maximum costs (not induding inflation)
$1,276,614,750 Anticipated costs (not induding inflation)
$1,105,195,500 Funding Reserve
$171,419,250 Air Quality Conformity Determination Federal regulations require that transportation plans and programs be in conformity with the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990 before the plans can be approved or federal funds distributed. The CAAA define conformity as "conforming to the Implementation Plan's purpose of eliminating and reducing the severity and number of Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) violations and achieving and maintaining status."
The CAAA mandate air quality improvements and the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for Pennsylvania defines the means to achieve these improvement goals. The Pennsylvania conformity SIP revisions were submitted to EPA on August 13, 1998. The CAAA require that an MPO determine that the Long Range Plan (LRP) and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) conform to the SIP before the LRP and TIP can be adopted.
The Scranton/Wilkes-Barre MPO area is currently listed as a marginal non-attainment area for ozone. This denotes a minimal violation and the least demanding requirements. Conformity analyses for the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre MPO's 2003-2006 TIP and 2003-2025 LRP were prepared in April, 2003. These.
analyses used the measure of "less than 1990" conformity test to demonstrate that vehicle emissions would be reduced in the future compared to 1990.
Only 48 projects contained in the 2003-2006 TIP and 2003-2025 LRP were deemed to have an impact on air quality. The results of the analysis of these 48 projects indicate that the levels of VOC and NOx, the precursors of ozone formation, will be less than they were in 1990 for all the milestone years. Therefore, the 2003-2006 TIP and the 2003-2025 LRP conform with the current Implementation Plan and satisfy the conformity requirements of the CAAA as well.
To further address the VOC and NOx reductions in the later years of the LRP, emission reduction strategies such as decreasing VMT, speed changes, smoothing traffic flows, and use of alternative fuels will help reduce air pollution and maintain conformity standards'.
The Executive Summary of the air quality conformity resultsare attached as Appendix D.
Air Quality Conformity Analysis Report for the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre MPO, Ozone Non-Attainment Area, prepared by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, April 17, 2003.
41 May 2003
Lackawanna/Luzerne County Long Range Transportation Plan Projects of Regional Significance Projects from each county that are significant to the regional transportation system, but may not total $5 million or more are listed in Tables 17 and 18. These were identified as the top projects from six major transportation categories: Highway, Bridge, Transit, Signal, Enhancement and Other. They include primarily projects that total $1 million or more; however, projects not totaling $1 million dollars, but having a large impact on the regional transportation network were also considered (see Maps 13 and 14).
42 May 2003
LA LJ
~J L.
L J
LJ J
L--J
ý---i
.J
-- _-J L
Susquehanna County Wayne County Map 13 Interstate 81 Widening Legend Arport Lackawanna County Lackwanna River Heritage Trail
- Srtole okCity Passenger Rall AV Railr.oads Projects of Regional Significance InterstateRoutes Lackawanna Intelligent Transportation System Lackawanna / Luzeme Counties V
View PABRPutes Long Range Transportation Plan ValleyVew Business PerkAcces kawanna River Moosic Mountain Nature Conservancy Lackawanna County Boundary 0
2 - Business Route 6 Widening (5 lanes)
E Municipal Boundaries X
3 - East Market Street Bridge #1 county Boundaries 4-West Lackawanna Avenue Bridge 6 - COLTS Intermodal Center Lackwanna County Cltes County View. 1 Inch equals 3 miles 7 - Carbondale Signal System 3
3 Wa S-Main Street. Hospital Street & Gino Merl] Drive Signal Date: Oder 2002 10 - Central New Jersey Railroad Building 43
Sullivan County Map 14 Luzerne County Projects of Regional Significance Lackawanna I Luzerne Counties Long Range Transportation Plan Monroe I
County Legend Airport Access Road 115I1-81 Connector LCCCfSans Soud Connector Coal Street 1-81 Widening Hazleton Signals
...... Plymouth Signals
..... Kingston Signals
..... Forty-Fort Signals Back Mountin Trail Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor O
5 - 8th Street Bridge 6-Hazleton Intennodal Center 7 -Wilkes-Sarre Intennodal Cente, Airports
/,
Railroads
=
Interstate Routes PA Routes Susquehanna River r
Luzerne County Boundary Municipal Boundaries C-county Boundaries
'J Luzerne County Cities T
County View:
Inch equals 3.75 miles 3.75 0
3.75 Miles Date.: Ocdb 2002 44
Lackawanna/Luzerne County Long Range Transportation Plan Table 16 Projects of Regional Significance - Lackawanna County Project Type MPMS PA Route Description Municipality Estimated Cost Highway Valley View Business Park Access 8342 6
Construction of a two lane road between PA Route 247 (Moosic Lake Road) in Jessup Borough and PA Route Archbald/Jessup
$7,477.000 1012 (Salem Road) in Archbald Borough. The road will provide access to approximately 1,000 acres of mine-scarred land zoned for industrial development along US Route 6.
Business Route 6 Road Widening (5 8370 6006 Construction of a new overpass and interchange above PA Route 347, and widening of the present three lane Blakely
$6,983,000 lanes) facility to five lanes for approximately 1.5 miles. This will complete the widening of US Route 6 and Business Route 6 between Archbald Borough and Clarks Summit Borough from a three lane to a five lane facility.
Bridge East Market Street Bridge #1 7908 Local Involves the replacement of a structure built as a temporary bridge 20 years ago and removal of unused railroad Scranton
$1,300,000 tracks; an "S" curve in the area will also be straightened to improve sight in the corridor.
West Lackawanna Avenue Bridge 7764 Local.
Needs work to restore one closed travel lane, repair sidewalks for safety and aesthetic improvements to parapets Scranton
$100,000 and walls.
Transit Scranton/New Jersey Passenger Rail 57729 Local Lackawanna County and Monroe County in Pennsylvania, and Morris, Sussex and Warren Counties in New Various
$10,000 Jersey have been working for a number of years to restore passenger rail service between Pennsylvania and New Jersey due to traffic congestion on the 1-380 and 1-80 corridors. The Major Investment Study is nesring completion and the rail right-of-ways have been purchased. The project should move into the engineering phase in 2002 for resumption of service by 2006.
(
COLTS Intermodal Center N/A Local COLTS has begun engineering work on a facility in the Scranton Central Business District to bring all existing and Scranton
$4,500,000 future modes of transit travel together under one roof. The facility will be utilized by the COLTS transit buses, local taxi services, the Martz/Greyhound bus companies, the Lackawanna County Trolley excursion, and future New York City passenger train service.
Signals Carbondale Signal System 8375 6
Upgrade the existing signal network as'outlined in the report done for the LCRPC by GSGS&B in the late 1980s.
Carbondale
$440,000 Main Street, Hospital Street and Gino 8399 1023 Upgrade the system to current standards and remove numerous utility poles that currently create a traffic hazard.
Blakely
$372,000 Marti Dr. Signal Enhancement Lackawanna River Heritage Trail 47948 Local This trail system will provide non-motorized transportation facilities extending from up-state New York to the Various
$1,531,000 Chesapeake Bay. The Lackawanna Heritage Valley Authority has purchased numerous portions of abandoned rail right-of-ways along the Lackawanna River and has currently restored 10 miles for use by the public.
Central New Jersey Railroad Building.
57486 Local Utilizing various public and private funding sources, private developers are attempting to restore this former Scranton
$125,000 freight handling facility of the CNJ railroad into commerdal/office space. Funding from the Enhancement Program will be used to replace the roof preserving the structural integrity of the building until additional funding is obtained.
Moosic Mountain Nature Conservancy 57529 Local The Conservancy will utilize various funding sources to purchase neady 1,400 acres of unique habitat for use by Jessup
$500,000 the public. This property was the original site of the Moosic Mountain Business Park that has nowbeen moved off the mountaintop and closer to US Route 6.
Other Intelligent Transportation System 57695 Various PennDOT District 4-0 has undertaken numerous projects to improve the volume capacity of the transportation Various
$800,000 network in the county. These tools include the Highway Advisory Radio (HAR), variable message signboards S) and video cameras at various locations on the network.
45 May 2003
Lackawanna/Luzeme County Long Range Transportation Plan Table 17 Projects of Regional Significance - Luzerne County Pro~ect T pe
-PS-A-oueDe--
to Highway PA Route Description Municipality Estimated Cost Wilkes-BarraeScranton International Airport Access Road: 47955 81 Extend Access Road from Navy Way around the southern end of the extended Avoca Borough. Dupont Borough, Pittston Township $55,800,000 R*econstruction of Exit 178 of I-81 runway to a point near Radar Hill; Reconstruct Interchange at Exit 178.
115/1-81 Connector 9128 115/81 Construct new three lane road with right-of-way provided for four lane restricted Plains Township, Laurel Run Borough, Wilkes-Barre
$26.000.000 access highway.
Township LCCC/Sans Souci Connector 9234 2002 Construct new four lane arterial with right-of-way with new half diamond Hanover Township, Newport Township
$42,000.400 interchange and roadway widening.
1-81/PA Turnpike Study 81 Study of widening 1-81 from Exit 164 to Exit 194.
Hanover Township, Luzeme County to South
$400,000 Abington Township, Lackawanna County Coal Street 9223 Reconstruct, realign and extend Coal Street to Union Street Wilkes-Barre City
$10,440,000 Bridge 8th Street Bridge 8677 1021 Replace existing structure with new bridge.
Jenkins Township, Wyoming Borough
$21,300,000 ranslt Hazteton Intermodal Center 63835 N/A Construct intermodal center.
City of Hazleton
$8,000,000 Wilkes-Barre Intermodal Center 6115 N/A Construct intermodal center.
City of Wilkes-Barre
$17,000,000 Signals Hazleton Signals 9227 93 14 traflic signals to be studied and inter-connected from the Hazleton By-pass in Hazle Township. Hazleton City, West Hazleton
$1,500,000 Hazle Township to Washington Street in West Hazleton; Corridor Improvements.
Borough Plymouth Signals 9237 11 Flat Road to Carey Avenue; upgrade and interconnect.
Plymouth Borough
$400.000 kirngston Signals 9238 11 Kingston Borough, from the Susquehanna River to U.S. Route 11; upgrade and Kingston Borough
$1.200,000 connect.
Enhancement Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor 65662 N/A Trail acquisition and master planning of 20-mile-long rail-to-trail from Oliver Mills, City of Wilkes-Barre, Wright Township. Dennison
$335,000 south to 1-80, with environmental clearance and design for 8:5 mile, Phase 1 Township, Fairiew Township, Hanover Township, section from 1-80 north to PA Gamelands 119.
Plains Township. Whttehaven Borough, Penn Lake Park Borough, Laurel Run Borough, Ashley Borough Back Mountain Trail 65663 N/A This 1,400-foot-long trail will link the Back Mountain Trail to the College Dallas Township, Kingston Township, Harveys Lake
$52,000 Misericordia campus. This link will offer trail users a mid-way entrance to the Back Borough, Luzeme Borough, Dallas Borough Mountain Trail as well as access to ample parking, restroom facilities, a snack bar, Other a library, and other recreational facilities.
Intelligent Transportation System 5722 81 Improve highway safety via message boards and other means.
Various
$1,200,000 46 May 2003
Lackawanna/Luzerne County Long Range Transportation Plan PLAN EVALUATION The Seven Planning Factors of TEA-21 The 1997 plan looked at the sixteen "metropolitan planning factors" identified by ISTEA to use for evaluating the Long Range Plan. TEA-21 reduced the number of "metropolitan planning factors" to seven. Table 18 - TEA 21 Planning Factors Evaluation evaluates the consistency of the goals and objectives of the Long Range Transportation Plan with the TEA-21 planning factors.
Table 18 TEA-21 Planning Factors Evaluation PLAN EVALUATION Goals Objectives TEA-21 Planning Factors Support the economic vitality. of Increase the safety and Increase the Protect and enhance the Enhance the integration the metropoltan areas, seotrity of the accessibility and and connectivity of the Promote effident system Emphasize the preservation temtooiaars, scrtofte "aesiityad enviroinment, promote trnprainsse, maaeetndfth otlg especially by enabling global transportation system for mobility options ene
- Conseron, transportation system, management and of the exstng.
imprgovserqualtyon afn pd peadrih competitiveness, productivity, motorized and non-available to people and eneronervation and arooss and between mndes, operation tranportstion and efficiency motorized users f.ht ipeople and freight Provide regular program of maintenance X
X Reconstructlon and resurfacing of roads and brdges X
X Maintain and Improve Upgrade traffic signals and signage X
X existing transportation Identify service defideencies X
X faclities' Update Congestion Management Syorri to IdentUr, congested corridors X
XXX Continue to Improve access to Intertaltes and principal arterials x
X Study acddent prone areas and Improve safety of recommend Improvements X
X X
transportation facilities Continue on-going bridge inspection program X
Assess impacts of major transportation projects on Provide transportation communities via coordinated services that support sound environmental review X
X X
land use planning Encourage traffic impact studies to support local and regional economic goals X
x X
X Promote energy-conservation through reduction In traffic congestion X
X Protect the environment Support alternative transportation and conserve energy modes to reduce the volume of sIngle-oocupant vehides X
X X
X Provide park-n-ride facilities to promote carpooling X
X
)
I 47 May 2003
Lackawanna/Luzerne County Long Range Transportation Plan Goals Objectives TEA-21 Planning Factors Support the economic vitality of Increase the safety and Increase the Protect and enhance the Enhance the integration the metropolitan areas, security of the accessibility and Prvlectand promote and connectivity of the Promote effient system Emphasize the preservation especially by enabling global transportation system for mobility options e
- ent, transportation system, management and of the existing competitiveness, productivity, motorized and non-available to people and ipro ve and aaross and between modes, operation transportation system and efficlency motorized users freight reprove quality of life for people and freight Update short and long-term strategic transit plans X
X X
Provide more effective and enhanced public transport options X
X X
Periodically conduct management Provide more effective and audit to evaluate overall operation X
X X
X enhanced public Consider technological transportation options improvements to increase system efficiency x
x Comply with ADA requirements X
X Promote Intennodal facilities to support and expand transit and other odes X
X X
Update short and long-term airport Maintain and upgrade management Plans X
X X
facilities at atl airports Actively pursue expanded carder service X
X X
Continue and expand rail service to Maintain and improve serve shippers, including regional and interstate Intermodal fadlities X
X X
X freight acess Identify impediments to freight movements X
X Identify existing rights-of-ways Support greenway project suitable for transportation facilities X
X development Prepare Open Space Master Plan X
X X
_ Prepare Bicyde/Pedestrian Plan X
X X
X X
Encourage expanded participation Educate and involve the on the Transportation Advisory public in the transportation Committee X
X X
X X
X X
planning process Contine publication of quarterly naewsletter X
_____X_
________X The LLTS Long Range Plan incorporates and addresses all seven planning factors. Lackawanna and Luzeme Counties are both striving for growth and economic development and have a number of agencies in place, such as the Earth Conservancy and CAN DO, to promote future development centers. The current transportation system is slated for a number of large, regionally significant construction projects aimed at reducing existing congestion and increasing safety, as well as renovating existing roadways and bridges. Numerous public transportation projects are under study to improve accessibility and mobility within the LLTS. These indude construction of inter-modal transit centers, passenger rail service and additional park and ride lots. Environmental protection and enhancement goals are also being met through numerous trail construction projects which will serve to link existing recreational opportunities and preserve historically significant places.
48 May 2003
Lackawanna/Luzerne County Long Range Transportation Plan APPENDICES Appendix A Acronyms Appendix B
- TIP - 2003-2025 Appendix C
- Minutes Appendix D
- Air Quality Conformity Analysis Report (Volume I - Executive Summary)
)
May 2003
Lackawanna/Luzerne County Long Range Transportation Plan Appendix A-Acronyms ACT 3 - Urban Transit Assistance (Operating &.Capital - Dedicated)
ADA - Americans with Disabilities Act ASTA - Anthradte Scenic Trails Assodation AVLS -- Automatic Vehide Locator System CAN DO - Community Area New Development Organization CB - State Capital Budget CC - Coordinating Committee CMS - Congestion Management System COLTS - County of Lackawanna Transit System CP - Canadian Pacific FHWA - Federal Highway Administration FTA -- Federal Transit Administration GIS -:.Geographic Information System HPT - HazletonPublic Transit IMS - Intermodal Management System ISTEA - Intermodal Surface Transportation Effidency Act ITS - Intelligent Transportation System KOZ - Keystone Opportunity Zone LCRA - Lackawanna County Rail Authority LCRC - Luzerne County Rail Corporation LCRPC - Lackawanna County Regional Planning Commission LCTA -* Luzeme County Transit Authority LLTS - Lackawanna-Luzerne Transportation Study LOS - Level of Service LVIH - Lackawanna Valley Industrial Highway (now known as the Governor Casey Highway)
MPO - Metropolitan Planning Organization NS - Norfolk Southern PennDOT - Pennsylvania Department of Transportation PNER - Pocono Northeast Rail Company PTAF - Act 26 Public Transportation Assistance Funds (Capital
,Project Dedicated)
TAC -- Transportation Advisory Committee TEA 21 - Transportation Equity Act for the 21t Century TIP - Transportation Improvement Program TMA - Transportation Management Assodation UPWP - Unified Planning Work Plan 5303 - Metropolitan Planning Funds (FTA) 5307 - Urbanized Area Formula Funds (FTA) 5309 - Capital Program - Earmarked (FTA)
A-1 May 2003
APPENDIX B - TIP 2003-2025 LACKAWANNA-tUZERNE LONG RANGE PLAN PROJECT DATABASE 2003-2025 Prognrm MPMS Description County SR Sect. Phase Year Fund Cat FFY 2003-2006 BRDGF 7763 LACKAWANA AVE BRIDGE 35 7302 BRG, CON 3
BON
$500, s0
$0
$000,000
$0
$1300000 BR0G I
7763 LACKAWANA AVE BRIDGE 35 7302 BRG' CON 4
BON
$5000.00 so
$a
$500$0 BRDG 777.0 OLIVE ST VIADUCT 1 35 I BRG0 PE 3
BOF
$1500
$0
$150.000
$0
$50.000 BMtG 7792 MAIN ST BRG, OLD FORGE 35 3013 272 FD 1
BON
$40.000
$40,000
$0
$$_$_4__00 aRDG 783r HIARRISON AVE BRIDGE 35 6011 273 PE 2
BON
$250.000 50
$250.000
$0 BRDG 7830 HARRISON AVE BRIDGE 35 6011 273 FD 3
BON
$500,000
$5 so
$500,00
$0
$10,110,000 B01G 7838 HARRISON AVE BRIDGE 35 6011 273 CON 4
EON
$500.00C
$500000 BRDG 7847 T-442 BURCHER AVE BR 359 721 B1 ROW 1
BOF
$25.000
$25.
SO'
$0
$0 0B10 7847 T-442 BURCHER AVE SR 35 7310 BRG CON 3
BOF
$600000C
$60.._
$0 ERDG 7850 T412 BRG NO. 5,JEFFERSON 35 7210 BRG FlD BOF
$80,000
$00.00 0
$90
$0 0RDG 7850 T412 BRG NO. 5,JEFFERSON 35 7210 BRG ROW
.2 BOF
$20,00
$20.00 so
$0
$0 BRDG 7850 T412 BRG NO. 5,JEFFERSON 35 7210 BRG CON_ 3 BOF
$6000.00
$0
$0
$600,000
$0t 6110 7S52 -347 BRIDGE 1, COVINOTON 35 7205 0RG ROW 1
I0N-
$17.00D
$17,000
$0 so 00 0110 7052 T-347 BRIDGE 1, COVINGTON 35 7205 BRG ROW 1
BOF
$19,00
$19.0 00
$0
$0
.0 BRDG 7800 T-347 BRIDGE 1. COVINGTON 35 7205 BRG CON 1
BOF
$170.000
$170.000
$0 so 0
0RDG 0
7002 T-347 BRIDGE 1, COVINGTON 3E 7205 BRGI CON 1
BOF
$190000
$190.000 00
$0
$0 BRDG 7897 G1LMARTIN ST BRO#5 35 7401 ERG CON 2
BOF
$340,000
$0
$340..
so
$6
$0 6BRDG 7897 GILMARTIN ST BR #5 35 7401 BRG CON 2
BOF
$380,000
$0
$380000
$0
$So BRDG 7690 N.. MAIN ST. BRIDGE 1 35 3013' 0001 ID 2
BON
$235,000_
$S
$235,000
$0
$s so 010DG 75905 M.DISON AVE BR 2JERMYN 35 7408 BRG ROW
$20,000
$20,000 BRDG1 7900 MADISON AVE BR 2JERMYN 35 7408 BRG CON
$180.0.0
$180,000 s
BR0DG 7900 MADISON AVE BR 2,JERMYN 35 7408 BRG CONt
$720.000
$720,000 BRDG 7900 EAST MARKET BRIDGE #1 35 1W B
ROW 1
BOF
$2205,00
$225,00(
$s
$0
$0 BRDG 7900 EAST MARKET BRIDGE #1 35 7302 BRRG CON 1
BOF
$900,000
$900.000
$0
$0
$0 00 BR1G 7905 EAST MARKET BRIDGE #1 35 7302 BRG CON 2
BOF
$500,000
$0
$5000 00
$0 BR0G 7912 ROCKWELL AVE. BRIDGE 35 7302 BRG ROW 1
BOF
$20,00c
$20.00
$0 BRDG 7912 ROCKWELL AVE. BRIDGE 35 7302 ERG CON 3
BOF
$500.000
$0
$500.000
$5
$1,000.000 BRDG 7912 ROCKWELL AVE. BRIDGE 35 7302 BRG CON 4
BOF
$500,000
$5
$0
$0
$500011X BRSG 7930 GLEN ST. BRG, SCRANTON 35 0
$70,000
$70,000 HRST 7930 GLEN ST. BRG. SCRANTON 35 0
ROW
$15,000
$15,000 BRDG 7930 GLEN ST. BRG, SCRANTON 35 0
CON
$500.00(
$500,000 BRDG 7939 KEYSER AVENUE BRIDGE 35 3011 271 FD 075,000
$75,000 61RDG 7939 KEYSER AVENUE BRIDGE 35 3011 271 CON
$100,000
$100.000
$0 BRDG 7939 KEYSER AVENUE BRIDGE 35 3011 271 CON
$30_0,000
$300.000 BRDG 8040 6 1T AVE. BRG..CARBONDALE
-35 0 BRG
. CON 1
BOF
$300,000
$300,000 0
$0
$0 BRDG 804(0 TH AVE-BRG..CARBONDALE 35 0 BRG CON 2
BOF
_00
__0 Lo
$600_
so B01D0 8045 SALEM ST. BRG.. CARBONDALE 351 106 272 CON 2
EON
$1,300.000
$0
$1.300.001D
$0
$0
$0 BRDG 0046 WINOLA ROAD BRGJPALLS CK 35 307 273 PE
-$100,000
$100,000 BRDG 0046 WINOLA ROAD BRGJFALLS CK 35 307 273 FD
$55,000
$55.00(
$470,000 0R1G 0046 WINOt.A ROAD BRGJFALLS CK 35 307 273 ROW
$40,000
$40,00o BRDG 0040 WINOLA ROAD BRGJPALLS CK 35 307 273 CON
$430,000
$430.000_
BON-8056 MARION ST1 MEADOWBRK 35 0 BRG F$
010,000
$10.000 BRDG 8050 MARION STI MEADOWBRK 35 0 BRG ROW
$5.000
$5.000
$01 BRDG1 8050 MARION ST/ MEADOWBRK 35 0 BRG CON 1-_$50.000
$50000 BRD0 00509MONSEY AVIMEADOWBRK 35 6 B R
$5,050
$5,000 R
$01 ERD 80590 M.NSEY AVI MEADOWBRK 351 0 BRG CON
$s,$50,000 5001
- The funding in the column Indudes all phases of project Implementation that are not identified in the cunent Tnansportation Imprnvment Program (T1P). It si not meant to be solely for the phase Identlflsd in the specific One.
B-1
Progran MPMS Description County SR Sect. Phase Year Fund Cat Foa 23-t BRDG 8067 MAPOUSE I MNA5OWBRK 35 0 BRG CON
$50,000
$501
$0 BRDG 8075 MIOLTKE ST. NO. 1 35 0 BRG ROW
$5,000
$.000
$0 BROG 8075 MOLTKEST. NO. 1 35 0 BRG CON
$100000(
$100.000 BRDG 80W7 T-470 BRIDGE. LA PLUME 35 7211 8RG PE 1
B
$120,004
$120.000
$0
$$0$$
BRDG 8087 T-470 BRIDGE. LA PLUME 35 7211 BRG FD 2
BOF
$80.000
$0
$80.000
$0
$0 BRDG 8057 T-470 BRIDGE. LAPLUME
.35 7211 BRG ROW 3
BOF
$30,0M
$0 so 330,000 BROG 8087 T-470 BRIDGE. LA PLUME 35 7211 BRG CON 4
$8005000 S_
S$
$0
$800,000 BRDG 8104 GREENRIDGE/MEAOOWBRK 35 6011 270 CON
$150,004
$0 ShRDG 8150 FALL BROOKCK35 106 270 FD 1
BON
$140.000
$140,000
$0
$0
$0 EROG 8150 FALL BROOK CK BR.FELL TWP 35 106 270 ROW 2
BON
$20.000
$0
$20,000
$0
$0
$400.000 PR.DG 8150 FALL BROOK CK BRFELLTWP 35 106 270 CON 3
SON
$740,00 0
$0
$7405000
$0 BRDG 8151 LUNDAFFCKBRG-GREENFIELD 35 106 271 PE I
BON
$160.00
$160,000
$0
$0
$s BROG 8151 OUNDAFFCKBRG-GREENFIELD 35 106 271 FD 2
BON
$80.000
$0
$80,.00
$0
$0 BRDG 8151 DUNDAFFCKBRG-GREENFIELD 35 106 271 ROW 2
BON
$50,00 SO
$50.000
$0
$0
$0 BRDG 8151 DUNDAFFCKBRO-GREENFIELD 35 106 271 CON 3
BON
$400.000
$S
$0
$400,000
$0 BRDG 8151 DUNDAFFCKBRG-GREENFIELD 35 106 271 CON 4
BON
$390,000 s0
$0
$390,000 BROG
-8153 LAYfTON RD SRG.S.AINGTON 3
h,1o P
0 5,8
- 8.
08 BRDG 8153 LAYTON RD BRG.S.ABINGTON 35 1027 270 FD 1
BOO
$9.30,00
$90,00
$0
$0
$0 3 R G 8 1 53 L Y O R B G 8 A I G O 35 1027 270 R O W 1
B o oC
$3 0.000
$3 0,000
$0
$0
$0
$0 BRDG 8153 LAYTON RD BRG.S.ABINGTON 35 1027 270 CON 3
BO
$3580.00
$0
$0
$90,000
$0 BRDG 0154 ACI(ERYCKBRGtGLENBURN 35 4010 270 PE 1
B00
$120.00
$120.00
$0
$0
$0 BRDG 8154ACKERLYCKBRG. GLENaURN 35 4010 270 FD 2
BON
$120.0
$0
$120,000
$0
$0 BRDG 8154 ACKERLYCKBRG, GLENaURN 35 4010 270 ROW 2
BOF
$10.000
$0 510.00
$0
$0 BRDG 8154 ACKERLYCKERG, GLENBURN 35 4010 270 CON 3
BOF
$60
$0
$0
$680000 so HCON 812 EXIT 51 RECONST.(EXIT 188 35 81 2953 CON 1
NHS
$01 S0 sos
$0 HCON 8162 EXIT 51 RECONST.(EXIT188 35 81 295 CON 1
SXP
$8
$0 VI
$0
$0 HCON 8162 EX0T 51 RECONST.(EXIT 188 35 81 295 CON 1
TOLL
$0
$0
$0
$0
$(
BRDG 8173 RERLy CK.-ABINGTON TWP 35 407 270 FD 2
BON
$40.000
$0
°000
$0 80 SRDG 8173 ACKERLYCK.BINGTONTWP 35 407 270 PE 2
$100,000
$100,000 BRDG 8173 ACKERLY CKGAINGTON TWP 35 407 270 ROW 3
$20,000
$20 000 BROG 8173 ACKERLY CK.,ABINGTON TWP 35 407 270 CON 3
$320.000
$320,0001 BRDG 8179 STEGMEIERS POND BR,LEHIGH 35 2016 270 RFD 1
$40,000
$40.000 BRDG 8179 STEGMEIERS POND BRULEHIGH 35 2016 270 ROW 1
$20,000
$20.0000
$0 BRDG 8179 STEGMEIERS POND BR, LEHIGH 35 2016 270 CON 3
$41 0DW0_
$410100C SPDG 8103 U8 6@ PA 347 BRIDGE 3516006 2721 CON I
BON
$2,296.00(
$2,296,000 80
$0
$0 BRDG 8189 US6 @ PA 347 BRIDGE 35 6008 272 CON 2
BON
$1.744,0(
$0
$1,744,000
$0
$0 HRST 8204 GREENRIDGE& SANDERSON35 8011 212 ROW 2
$T0
$8,000 00
$8.
S0
$0 HRST 8204 GREENRIDGE &SANDERSON 351 6011 212 ROW 2
TOLL
$2,
$0
$2.
00
$0 HRST 8204 GRENRIDGE &SANOERSON 356011 212 CON 2
$320,000
$0
$320,000
$0
$0 HRST 8204 GREENRIDGE & SANDERSON 35 6011 212 CON 2
TOLL
$800.00
$3
$20.000
$0
$0 SAMI 8203 UTATE & GROVE ST.(T) 35 601 210 CON 2
$600.000
$$000
$0
$0
$0
$O SAM 8AS.
105 35 3011 203 FD I
$600.000
$300.
$0
$0
$0 SAMt 6212KEYSERAVENUESAIII18 35 3011 203 CON 3
$675.000 s0
$0
$675,000
$0
$0 SAMI 8212 KEYSER AVENUE SAMI, 185 35 3011 203 CON
- 3.
Sx]
$1,.125,000
$0
$1125,0
$0 RST 5221 LACKAWANNA TRAIL (BETT.)
35 6
$200,000
$200.000
$(
HRST 8221 LACKAWANNA TRAIL (BETT.)
35 6
214 PE 1
TOLL
$50,000
$00.00 s0 0$
HRST 8221 LACKAWANNA TRAIL (BETT.)
35 6
214 FD 2
$80,000
$0
$80,00
$0 HRST 8221 LACKAWANNA TRAIL (BETT.)
35 6
214 FD 2
TOLL
$30,000 0,060
$0 HRST 8221 LACKAWANNA TRAIL (BETT.)
35 6
214 CON 3
STF
$400.0
$400,000
$5,350,000 HRT 82211 LACKAWANNA TRAIL (BERT.)
HRST 21LCAAIARI(ET 35 8
214 CON 3
TOLL
$1o0 80010.;005$
HRST 8221 LACKAWANNA TRAJL (BETT.)
3s 8
214 CON 4
STF
$1,040.
$0
$0
$1,040,000 HRST 8221 LACKAWANNATRAIL 0ET7) 25 B
214 CON 4
TOLL
$280.
0
$0
$0
$260,000 The funding in the column includes all phas of project Inmplernentaton that am not Identified In the curent Trnsportatlon Imrprovment Progrm (TIP). It is not meant to be solely for the phase Metfn6ed In the specic ne.
B-2
Progmm MPMS Descripton County SR Sect Phase Year Fund Cat FFY 20A3-2006 BRDG 8229 1-81/MAIN AVE&RIVER 35 81 270 PE 1
SON
$100.000
$100,000 SO
$0 BRDG 8229 1-1/MAIN AVE&RIVER 3
81 270 DFD 2
SON
$100,000 so
$100,000
$0
$0 so BRDG 8229 1-81/MAIN AVE&RIVER 35 81 270 ROW 3
BON
$50,000
$s
$0
$50,000
$0 BRDG 8229 1-81/MAIN AVE&RIVER 35 81 270 CON 4
BON
$1,900,00 so
$1
$0
$1,900.000 BRDG 8232 1-81 BR PRESERVATION 35 81 CON 2
BON
$1,000,000
$(
$1.000.00J so
$0 BRDG 8232 -81 BR PRESERVATION 35 81 CON 3
BON
$2,000,000
$S
$2,000.000
$0
$4,000,000 BRDG 8232 -81 BR PRESERVATION 35 81 CON 4
BON
$3$0000000
$0
$3,000,000 HRST 8276 SCOTT TECH PARKDRIVEWAY 35 632 203 F
$32.000
$32,000
$0
$0 HRST 8270 SCOTT TECH PARK RIVEWAY 35 033 203 FD I
TOLL
$8,000
$8.000
$0 so
$0 HRST 8276 SCOTT TECH PARKDRIVEWAY 35 632 203 CON 2
STP S160,000
$(
$10,000
$0
$0
$300,000 HRST 8276 SCOTT TECH PARKDRIVEWAY 35 632 203 CON 2
TOLL
$40,000
$40,000
$0
$0 HRST 8276 SCOTT TECH PARKDRIVEWAY 35 632 203 CON 3
STF
$240,000
$240.00
$0 HRST 8276 SCOTT TECH PARKXDRIVEWAY 35 632 203 CON 3
TOLL
$60,000
$60,000
$0 BRDG 0307 PA438/TUNKHANNOCK 35 438 272 FD 1
BOF
$80,000
$80.000
$0 so BRDG 8307 PA438/TUNKHANNOCK 35 438 272 CON 2
BOF
$680,000
$0
$680,000
$0
$0 IRST 8316 IMPROVE EXIT 190 35 81 241 PE 1
$1.100.000
$1,100,000
$0
$0 so IRST 8316 IMPROVE EXIT 190 35 81 241 FD 2
IM
$405,000
$0
$405,000
$0
$0 IRST 8310 IMPROVE EXIT 10 3`=
51 241 FD 2
SX)0
$135,500
$8
$135,000
$0
$4.109,500 IRST 0216 IMPROVE EXIT 100 35 81 241 ROW 3
IM
$250,000
$0
$0
$250,000
$0 IRST 8316 IMPROVE EXIT 190 35 81 241 CON 4
IM
$2.060,000
$8
$0
$2,060,000 SAM:
0322 SCRANTON CED NETWORK 35 0 CBD CON 3
TAQ
$300,000
$S
$0
$300,000
$0
$0 SAMI 8322 SCRANTONCBD NETWORRK 35 0 CBD CON 4
TAO
$1.700.000
$0
$0
$1,700,000 HRST 8326 KEYSTONE IND.PARK RD 35 5
000 FD 2
STU
$80,000
$8
$00.000
$0
$0 HRST 0326 KEYSTONE INo.PARK RD 35 0
000 ROW 2
STU
$5.000
$0
$5.000
$0
$0 SO LRST 8326 KEYSTONE IND.PARIK RD 30 O00ff CON 3
STU
$250.000
$0
$0
$250.000
$0 HCON 8342 VALLEY VIEW BUSINESS PARK 35 247 204 PE 1
SX-
$200.000
$200,000
$0
$S
$0 H{CON 0342 VALLEY VIEW BUSINESS PARK 30 247 204 FE TOLL 000.000 050,000
$8 SO HCON 0342 VALLEy VIEW BUSINESS PARK 35 247 204 PE 1
$80000
$800,00
$8
$0 HCON 8342 VALLEY VIEW BUSINESS PARK 30 247 204 FD 1
TOLL
$150.00
$150.000
$0
$0
$0
$0 HCON 8342 VALLEY VIEW BUSINESS PARK 35 247 204 ROW SS0 040,00
$40,000 so
$8
$0 HCON 0342 VALLEY VIEW BUSINESS PARK 35 247 204 ROW I
TOLL
$10,000
$10.000 so
$0 so HCON 8342 VALLEY VIEW BUSINESS PARK 30 247 204 CON 2
SX0
$5,232,0
$50.232.000
$8
$0 HCON 8342 VALLEY VIEW BUSINESS PARK 30 247 204 CON 2
TOLL
$1.308,
$1.308.000 so so 5RDG 0360 PA 247 WILDCAT RD BR 35 247 273 FD 1
SON
$100.000
$100,00.
$0
$0
$0 BRDG 8=0 PA 247 WILDCAT RD BR 35 247 273 ROW 2
BOO
$20,00
$0
$20,000
$0
$s so BRDG 8360 PA 247 WILDCAT RD BR 35 247 273 CON' 3
BON
$490.00
$0 S490,0.0 so BRDG 8370 RT 6 WIDENING @ PA 347 35 60000 222 CON 1
$2,140.6
$2,140,600
$0 so
$f
$0 SAMI
&391 US 6 AND PLANK ROAD 3
6 223 PE TAQ
$100,000
$100,000
$0 so so
$5658000 SAM:
8391 US 6 AND PLANK ROAD 350 223 CON 3
TAO 2O00.00o
$08 200,000
$8 SAM 8394 DUNMORE SIGNAL NETWORK 35 347 207 FD I.
TAQ
$250,000
$250,000
$0 8o
$8 SAMI 8394 DUNMORE SIGNAL NETWORK 35 347 207 CON 4
TAQ
$500,000
$0
$0
$0
$500_000 SAMI 8400 BIRNEY PLAZA 35 11 214 FD 1
$50.000
$50.000
$0
$0 so SAM]
8400 SIRNEY PLAZA 35 11 214 ROW 2
$100,000
$0
$100,000
$8
$8
$8 SAMI 0400 BIRNEY PLAZA 35 11 214 CON 2
$400,000
$0
$400.000
$0
$8 SAMl 8401 MAIN ST/MAIN AVE CORRIDOR 35 3012 203 FD I
TAO
$150,000
$150.000
$0
$0 so SAMl 8401 MAIN ST/MAIN AVE CORRIDOR 30 3013 203 CON 2
TAQ
$600,000
$0
$800,000
$0$
$0 8RDG 0637 RIVER ROAD BRG. OVER R.R.
4 2004 370 FO 2
BON
.$80,000
$0
$80.000
$0
$8 BRDG 8637 RIVER ROAD BRG. OVER R.R 4
2004 370 ROWB SON
$40,000
$0
.$40,000 S
$8 so The funding in the column includes at phases of project Implementation that am not identfied in the current Transportation Improvement Program (TP). It Is not meant to be soly for the phase identified in Oe specific fine.
0-3
Program MPMS Description County SR Sect. Phase Year Fund Cat ToYal Amount IFFY 2003-2006 BRDG 8677 8TH STREET BRIDGE 40 1021 370 PE I
BON
.50
$500.$00.0 so
$0
$0 BRDG 8677 8TH STREET BRIDGE 4
1021 370 FD I
BON
$400,00(
$400.000
$0
$0
$0 RRDG 8677 8TH STREET BRIDGE 40 1021 370 ROW 3
BON
$400,0(
$0
$0
$400.000 SO
$17.000,000 BRDG 8677 8TH STREET BRIDGE 40 1021 370 CON 3
BON
$2,000.$2000.000
$0 BRDG 8677 8TH STREET BRIDGE 40 1021 370 CON 4
BON
$1003,080 0(
so
$0$,
$0$1.00000 SMI 0724 6309 CORRIDOR @ SPRING ST 40 6309 309 PE 2ST
$10,000
$0
$10,-000
$3 SAMI 8724 6309 CORRIDOR @ SPRING ST 40 6309 309 FO 2
$600.000
$0
$600,000 so S5,3_0,000 rRDG 8742 MILL CREEK BRIDGE 40 2035 371 UTL BON
$30,000
$30,000
$0 00
$0 BRDG 8742 MILL CREEK BRIDGE 40 2035 371 ROW 1
BON
$10.000
$10,000
$0
$0
$0
$2,000,000 BRDG 8742 MILL CREEK BRIDGE 40 2035 371 CON-1 SON
$1.780,000
$1.7800,00
$0 s0
$0 BRDG 8743 PLYMOUTH BORO BRIDGE 40 2005 370 PE 2
BON
$60,000 SO
$$000ss BRDG 8743 PLYMOUTH 8ORO BRIDGE 40 2005 370 FD 3
BON
$30,000
$S
$0
$30,000
$0
$0 ERDG 8743 PLYMOUTH BORO BRIDGE 40 2005 370 CON 4
BON
$500 ;0
$0
$0
$0
$500,000(
EIROG 6748 T-860 BRIDGE, HANOVER TWP 40 7101 BRG CON 1
BOF
$500800
$000,000
$3
$0 0o
$0 R
8755 N..MAIN ST. T-388 BRG #4 40 0 BRG FD I
BPOF
$190.00(
$1505,00
$s so S
BRDG 8755 N. MAIN ST, T-388 BRG #4 40 0 BRG ROW 1
BOF
$10.0
$10,000
$0
$0
$0 BRDG 8755 N. MAIN ST. T-388 ORG #4 40 0 BRG CON 3
BOF
$600,000
$0
$0
$600100
$0 BRDG 8756 T375 HOLLENEACK BRG 40 7215 BRG ROW I
BQF
$20,000
$20,000
$0
$0
$0 8RDG 8750 T375 HOLLENBACK BRG 40 7215 BRG CON 1
BOF
$630.000
$630.000
$0
$09
$S
$0_
BRDG 1
8758 T358 SLEEPY HOLLOWUUTER 40 7204 BRG CON 1
BOF
$418.000
$418,000
$$0
$0 so
$0 BRDG 877 M ARY ST BR T-43{FAIRVIEW) 40 7211 BRG CON I
BOF
$600,000
$600.000s
$0
$0
$0 BRDQ 8787:RVER ROAD MINE ENTR 40 2004 371 FD B2 ON
$30,800 so
$30,000
$0
$0
$970,000 BRDG 8788 RIVER RD BRG @ MILL CREEK 40 2004 372 FD 2
BON
$80,000
$0
$80,000
$0
$0 BRDG 8788 RIVER RD BRG @ MILL CREEK 40 2004 372 ROW 2
BON
$50r000 so
$50,000
$0
$0
$3._00_00_
BRDG 8793 CLEVELAND STBRG. PLAINS 40 7103 BRG FD I
BOF
$60.0(X
$60.000
$0
$0
$0 BRDG 8793 CLEVELAND ST BRG. PLAINS 40 7103 BRG UTL 3
BOF
$8,000
$a
$8,000
$0
$0 BRDG 8793 CLEVELAND ST BRG, PLAINS 40 7103 BRG ROW 3
BOF
$2500.
$0
$0
$25.000
$0 BRDG 8793 CLEVELAND ST BRG, PLAINS 40 7103 BRG CON 3BOF OP 610.0_
$0
$0
$910.000
$0 LRST 58021 DR M LUTHER KING RLV 401 0
000 CON STU
$300,
$390,000
$0 1.610.000 LRST 8821 DR M LUTHER KING BLV 40 0
000 CON STU
$2.000.00
$0
$2.000.000
$0 BRDG 88604 BRANCH FORGE CK..NEWPORT 403001 370 FD 1
BON
$70,000
$70.00 2
$0
$0 BRDG 8864 BRANCH FORGE CK..NEWPORT 40 3001 370 ROW 1
SON
$40,000
$40,000
$0
$0
$0 so BRDG 8864 BRANCH FORGE CK..NEWPORT 40 3001 370 CON 2
BON
$730.000
$0
$730,000
$0 so BRDO 8867 GARDNERS CK. BRIDGE 40 2039 370 FD ROF
$15,000
$18,000
$0
$($
BRDG 8867 GARDNERS CK. BRIDGE 40 2039 370 ROW 3
ROF
$10,000 so
$10,000
$0
$0 BRDG 8867 GARDNERS CK. BRIDGE 40 2039 370 CON 3
BOF
$700.000
$0
$700,000
$0_
RDG
. 8880 NESCOPECK CK BRIDGE 40 3014 370 PE IBOF
$200.004
$200,000
$0
$0 so BRDG 8868 NESCOPECK CK BRIDGE 40 3014 370 FD 2
BOF
$352000 0
$35.01K
$0
$0 BRDO 8868 NESCOPECK CK BRIDGE 40 3014 370 ROW 3
BOF
$10,0001
$0
.$10000
$so BRDG 8868 NESCOPECK CK BRIDGE 40 3014 370 CON 3
BOF
$500,00(
$0
$00,000
$0 BRDO 8868 NESCOPECK CK BRIDGE 40 3014 370 CON 4
BOF
$50.000
$0
$0
$0
$500000(
HCON 8890 AIRPORT ACCESS.ROAD 40 0
FD ISXF
$8w000
$8w-000
$(
$0
$0 HCON 8890 AIRPORT ACCESS ROAD 40 0
FD I
TOLL
$200.000
$200,00
$0
$0 so ICON 8090 AIRPORT ACCESS ROAD 40 0
ROW 2
SXP
$800.000 so
$800,000
$0
$0 ICON 8890 AIRPORT ACCESS ROAD 40 0
CON 2
$1240.000
$0
$1,240.00
$0
$S HCON 8890 AIRPORT ACCESS ROAD 40 0
CON 2
SXF
$200,00
$0
$200.000
$0 j 7000 ICON 8890 AIRPORT ACCESS ROAD 40 0
CON 2
TOLL
$360,000
$0 S360,000
$0
$0 ICON 8890 AIRPORT ACCESS ROAD 40 0
CON 3
$1.600.00
$0
$0
$1,000,000
$0 ICON 8890 AIRPORT ACCESS ROAD 40 0
CON 3
TOLL
$400.000
$0
$0
$400=
$0 ICON 8890 AIRPORT ACCESS-ROAD 40 0
CON 4
sTP
$1.200.00 0
$0 ICON 8890 AIRPORT ACCESS ROAD 40 0
CON 4
TOLL
$300,000
$0
$0 S
$300.00_
- The funding in Ihe column includes al phanes of project implementaSon that am not identified in the current Transportaton imprvement Program (TIP). It Is not meant to be solely tor the phase identi8ed in the specitc fine.
B-4
P*.go MPUS I
Descuiption County SR Sect. Phas Year Fund Cat ToY 2
-0unt BRDG 8900 IARVEY'S CKBRGPLYMOUTH TWP.
40 29 374 CON 2
EON
$250.03 2
$20000 BRDG 8900 HARVEY'S CKBRGPLYMOUTH TWP.
40 29 374 CON 3
- ON
$1.000,15O
$0
$1000 GOO BRDG 8911 T-392 BRIDGE, CONYNGHAM 40 7205 BRG ROW 3
BOF
$20,000
" $0
$0
$20.000
$0 BRDG 8911T-392BRIDGE, cONYNGHAI 40 7205 BRG CON 3
BOF
$550.000
$0
$0
$550,000
$0 S
8912 COUNTY RD BR #30.OORRANCE 40 7208 BRG FD 1
BOF
$90,.00 0 $$000 o
$0SO BRDG 8912 COUNTY RD R #30.DORRANCE 40 7208 BRG ROW 2
BOF
$20.000
$0
$20,000 so
$0 W0 BRDG 8912 COUNTY RD BR #30,DORRANCE 40 7208 9RG CON 2
$400,000
$0
$400 000
$0_
$0 R
813 GOUNTY RD BR#294DORRANCE 0 7208 0
FD I
BOF
$90,000
$50.090
$0
$0
$0 BROG 8913 COUNTY RD BR #29,DORRANCE 40 7208 0
ROW 2
BOF
$20.000
$20.000
$0
$0 so BRDG 8913 COUNTY RD BR #29,DORRANCE 40 7208 0
CON 2
BOF
$400,000
$0
$400.000
$ $0 BRDG 8920 OLD RTE 11 BRGKINGSTON TWP.
40 7220 BRG CON 1
BOF
$5000000
$500,050
$0
$0
$0
$0 3RDG 89220RD0#3,BROMHUNLOCKCK 40 7222 BRG CON 3
BOF
$560
___(
$0
$0
$580,000
$0
$0 IRST
-8903 R 93 CUMBING LANES 40 93 303 PE 2
$4509009
$0
$459,000
$0
$0
$15,0001000 HIRST 8984 -81 TO SCHUYLILL (BET) 40 924 M01 UTL I
$720.00
$720,000
$0
$0
-RST 8964 1-81 TO SCHUYLKILL (BETT) 40 924 301 CON I
STh
$250,000
$250,000
$0
$0
$0
$12.750,000 NRST 8964 1-81 TO SCHUYLKILL (BETT) 40 924 301 CON 2
STh
$1,500,000
$s
$1.500.M
$0 1
HIRST 8964 '-81 TO SCHUYLKILL (BETT) 40 924 301 C$N 3
STr
$1.7500(
$0
$1 750.00(
$0 BRDG 8979 WAPWALLOPEN CK.HOLLENBACK 40 3012 370 PE 3
BOF 25,000
$0
$25,0G(
BRD 8979 WAPWALLOPEN CKHOLLENBACK 40 3012 370 FD 3
BOE
$15.000
$0
$0
$115. 00$
NRT 8993 PA 315CoiduowBeRtt 40 315 306 CON
.1 TST
$1,700,000
$1,700.00
$0
$(
$M
$0
-00G 5012 LILY.LAKE RD. BRIDGE 81 40 3005 370 CON
$500.000
$500o000
$0 BRDG 9013 LILY LAKERD. BRIDGE#2 40 3000 371
-0, 9RDG 9013 ULY LAKE RD. BRIDGE #2 4
3005 371 ROW
$50.00
$20.000 BRDG 9013 ULY LAKE RD. BRIDGE #2 40 3005 371 CON
$380:000
$380,000 BRDG 9021 CHERRY HILL RD BR/HUNTINGTON 0 4000 370 ROW$
BRDG 9027 CHERRY HILL RD BRIHUNTINGTON 40 4008 370 CON
$300,
$20_00_
$300.000
$0 BRBG 9034,ARNEY STREET BRIDGE 40 7304 BRG FD 2
BOF
$150.
$100,000
$0
$0
$0 BRDG 9034 BARNEY STREET BRIDGE 4s 7304 BRG CON 4
$600.00(
$60015O0 BRDG 9037 IDNEY ST.
$RG, W-B CITY 4D 7284 I CON 4
BOF$
$0
$0-
$0
$000.000 BROS 9038 REGENT ST. BRIDGE. W.B 4~ 7304 BRG CON 4
$6001000!
$600,00_
$0 BRDG 9037 SOUTH FRANKLIN ST BRW-B 4CI 704 BRG UT 80BO
$10,000ul 1
$0
$0 BRDG 9039 SOU3FRANKLIN ST BRW-B 40 7304 BRG ROW C
B01
$100.000
$0
$0
$0
$0 BROG 9039 SOUTH FRANKLIN ST BR.W-B 40 7384 BRG CO' 1
BOF 9800.000 9500.000
$0
$0 BRDG 904, WALLER STREET BR. W-B 40 7304 BRG UTL I
80
$10,000
$10,000
$5
$0
$0 6R G 904 0 WA ULE T1STREET BR. W.0 40 7304 BR D ROW 1
801
$10,90 0
$10 5000
$0 0
$0 BROG 9040 WALLER STREET BR, W-B 40 73D4 BRG CON 1
BOF
$800,00(
$100000
$0
$0
$80 SAB I 9 50 1 LR 2002 S DUNDEE R,
40 20 4 30 ROW 1
0ST 920.00(
2 0.500
$ 0
$0 SAMB 9054 LR 2002& DUNDEE RD 40 2502 301 CON 2
5TF
$9050005
$0
$500.
$0 SAMB 9054 SR 2002& DUNDEE RD "40 2002 301 CON 31 ST
$500
$0(
$0
$0
$500,900
$0 SAMB 9085 4EARCREEKRD&315 40 2035 303 ROW 2
$10.000
$0.00
$0
$0 SAMJB '
906' 7EARCREEKRD&318
-40 2030 30 3 CON 2
"rST
$90,00
$0 980.0
$0 hCON 9122 bELTW/AY TOSTOCKTON RD
- 40. 3032 302 FE 4
SmI
$100,00(
$0
$0
$(9 91005050 91.120.091 H9CO 912 0
O2NECT EXIT&
189115 40 115 30 RD I
NH3
$ 900,00
$50000
$0
$0
$0 SMCON 912 CONNECT EXIT18/115 40 115 2303 ROW 2
5ST
$500:09O
$0 00,000
$0
$0
$20500000 HCON 9128 CONNECT EXIT188/115 40 115 30C CON 3
$1,100,000
$0 90
$1,100,00$0 HCON 9128 CONNECTEXIT108I115 40 110 30 CON 4
$3,40,001
$0
$0
$0
$31400.0
$1000 HRD S 91 8, IU ON ST.
ERG.
NANTICOKE 40 7302 BR3 ROW O N 90.000
$80,000
$0
$0 BR OG 9161 UNION ST. BRG.NANTICOKE 40 7302 ERG CON 2
EO N
$ 800,000 90 $
00.000
$ 0
$0 20_ 500_001 8000 9128 CONTY RD 1 6
BRG.1.KINGSTON 1
W1.
40 7220 CRG 3 18
$ 060,000
$60.1S00
$0
$0
$0 BRED 9169 CNTY RD 18 BRG1,KINGSTON TWP.
40 7220 BRG ROW BO3
$20,000
$0
$0
$20
$0
$0 9ROG 9165 CNTY RD 16 BRG.1.KINGSTON TWP.
$ 50000(
$0
$0
$5_$0 The funding In the column includes all phases of project Implemenrtatlon that amr not Idenbed in the curnnt Transportaon Improvement Program (TIP). It Is not meant to be solely for ft phase Idenafled in the specific line.
B-5
Program MPMS Desciption County SR Sect Phase Year Fund Cat FFY 2003-2006 HRST 918713,15 @OLD BOSTON ROAD 40 315 307 CON 1
$400,000
$400.000
$0
$0
$0 HRST 9187 315 @ OLD BOSTON ROAD 40 315 307 CON 2
$600.000
$0
$600.000
$0
$0 BRDG -
9210 BLUE RIDGE TRAIL BRG 4(0 3007 370 P9 BOF 5200,000
$200.000
$0
$0 BRDG 9210 BLUE RIDGE TRAIL BRG 40 3007 370 FD 2
BOF
$70,000
$0
$70.000
$0
$0
$0 BRDG 9210 BLUE RIDGE TRAIL BRG 40 3007 370 CON 3
BOF S630000
$630s000
$0 HRST 9214 PA239 WIDENING 0 RR.TRACK 40 239 1 RO-I STP
$200,000
$200,000
$0
$0 50 HRST 921M4 PA239 WIDENING Q RR.TRACK 40 239 302 CON 21 SP
$800.000
$0
$800000 so
$0
$1.300,000 HRST 9214 PA239 WIDENING @ RR.TRACK 40 239 302 CON _
TOLL
$200,000
$s
$200.000 so
$0 LRST 922T COAL ST. REALIGNMENT 0
0STP
$200,
$200,00
$0
$0 LRST 9223 COAL ST. REALIGNMENT 40 0
UTD Sip
$40.
$40.00
$0
$0
$0 LROT 9"223 OAL ST. REALIGNMENT 40 0
ROW 1
$200.00
$200.
$0 LRST 9223 COAL ST. REALIGNMENT 40 0
CON 2
$3,000,000
$0
$3,000,000
$0
$0 LRST 9,23 COAL ST. REALIGNMENT 40 0
CON 3
$3,000,000
$0
$3,000,000
$0 LRST 9223 COAL ST. REALIGNMENT 40 0
CON 4
$4,000.000
$0
$0
$4,000,000 SAMI 9227 HAZLETON SIGNALS 40 92 391 D
TAO
$300,000
$200.0
$0 SAMI 9227
=HAZLETON SIGNALS 40 93 391 CON 2
TAQ
$1,200,000.
$0
$$1,00,000
$0
$0o_
NOON 9234 A N TS SOUCI TO LCCC 3
3 D
SXF
$1,00000 01.000.000
$0 HCON 9234 SANS SOUCI TO LCCC 40 3046 301 ROW 2
SXAP
$1,000,000
$0
$1,000.000
$0
$0 HCON 9234 SANS SOUCI TO LCCC 40 3046 301 CON 2
S
$,602,000
$1 0 8,602,000
$0
$19,900,000 HCON 9234 SANS SOUCI TO LCCC 40 3046 301 CON 3
$1.737,0 so
$0
$1.737.600
$0 NOON 9234 SANS SOUCI TO LCCC 40 3046 301 CON 3
$3,100,
$0
$0
$3,100,800
$0 HCON 9234 SANS SOUCI TO'LCCC 40 3046 301 CON 4
$7.00000
$0
$0 s
$0
$7,00000.0 SAMI 9237 Plymouth Signals US 11 40 11 319 CON 1
TAQ 400.00
$400r00
$0
$0
$0
$S SAMI 9241 CONNECT PITTSTON SIGNALS 240 204 302 C
TAQ 4_46$0$
SAMI 9242 PA 309 & Airport Rd.L(Bet) 40 309 329 CON
.1 CAQ
$1 600000
$14.600,00.
$0
$0
"___-_$0
$0
-AM 9243 SHOEMAKER& Bh ST(BETT) 40 1021 302 ROW I
TAQ
$700,000
$70,000
$0
$0
$0 SAMI 9243 SHOEMAKER & 801 ST (E:h 40 1021 302 CON TAQ_$__$A
$0
$so0 BRDG 46945 CORTEZ RD. BR. JEtF--ERSON T 40 2021 025 CON O
I _
$SO0P0_
$1.250.00
$0
$0 SAMI-47387 YEARLY RAIL LINE ITEM 35 0
CON BT
$125309.000
$5309.000$
$0$
SAMI 47387 YEARLY RAIL UNE ITEM 35 0
CON 2
STX
$309,000
$0
$309.000
$0
$0
$0 SAMI 47387 YEARLY RAIL LINE ITEM 35 0
CON 3
STX
$309.000 s $
$309.000
$0 SAMI 47387 YEARLY RAIL LINE ITEM 35 0
CON 41 STX
$309,000
$0 0
$0
$309.000 HRST 47623 ROCK GLEN 2 COUNTY RD. (BEn-)
40 93 308 CON 1
$1,200.000
$1,200.000
$0
$0
$0 HRST 47623 ROCK GLEN 2 COUNTY RFl (BErT) 40 83 308 CON 1
TOLL
$30000
$30000
$0
$0
$0 EN 4948 LACK. RIVER HERITAGE TRAIL 35 0
CON 1
$1,531,00C
$1.531.0
$0
$0
$0 LRST 47952 BEAR CK BOULEVARD,PLAINS 40 oOo ROW 1
STU
$75.000
$75.0(
$0
$0
$o LRST 47952 BEAR CK BOULEVARDPLAINS 40 0
000 CON I
STU1.
0
.8Go
$0
$0$
IRST 47955 RECONSTUCT EXIT 178 AVOCA 40 81 397 PE I
IM
$5000
$500.000
$0
$0
$0 IRST 47955 RECONOTUCT BlOT 178 AVOCA..
40 81 397 RD 2
IM
$1,500.000
$0
$1,500.0000
$0 RST 47955 RECONSTUCT EXIT 178 AVOCA 40 81 397 ROW 3
IM
$1,000.00
$0 $
1,000,000
$0
$35,000.000 IRST 47855 RECONSTUCT EXIT 178 AVOCA 40 81 397 CON 3
IM
$2,000.000
$0
$0
$2 IRST 47955 RECONSTUCT EXIT 178 AVOCA.
40 81 397 CON 4
IM 0$2900,000
$0
$0
$2.0_0,000 H-RST 47965 BROAD ST. BETTERMENT.
40 93 307 RD 1
SX4
$750,000
$700.00
$O HRST 47966 BROAD ST. BETTERMENT 40 93 307 ROW.
2 SXP
$2500,00
$0
$2 0
$0
$0 HRST 47900 BROAD ST. BETTERMENT 40 93 307 CON 2
$495,000
$S
$400000
$0 HRST 47866 BROAD ST. BETTERMENT 40 93 307 CON 2
SlIP
$920.0
$920,000
$0
$0 HRST 47966 BROAD ST. BETTERMENT 40 93 307 CON 3
$1800,000
$5
$0
$1,6000,000
$0 HRST 47966 BROAD ST. BETTERMENT 40 93 307 CON 4
$3,615,5010
$0
$0
-$0
$3.685,500 SAMI 50703 NIUARGOLA PARK & RIDE Z
81 396 PE 21 TAQ
$30,000
$0
$30,000
$0
$0 SAMI 50703 NUANGOLA PARK & RIDE 40 81 396 RD 2
TAQ
$30,005
$0
$30,000
$0 so SAMI~~~s 50$0UNG AK&
IE1$
SAMI 50792 NUANGOLA PARK & RIDE 40 81 396 ROW 3
TAQ
$50,000
$0o
$50,000
$0 SAMI 50703 NUARGOLA PARK & RIOB 40 81 396 CON 3
-TAQ
$500_00
___$ 0
$0
$500,000 so
$_$_$_01 The funding in the column includes all phases of project implementation that am not Identifled In the cunent Transportaion Improvement Program (iP). It is not meant to be solely for the phase identified in the specific line.
)
B-6
Program MPMS Description County SR Seot. Phaso Yeor Fund Cat PSY 2003-2006 HCON 50714 WIDEN HAZLETON AIRPORT RD 40 3026 301 ROW 2
$100,
$0
$100.000
$0 so 00.0 HCON 50714 WIDEN HAZLETON AIRPORT RD 40 3026 301 CON 4
$400,000 so 0$0
$0.0460 BRDG 50805 EAST CENTER ST BRG (T846) 40 0 BRG UTL
$10.0-0
$101000 BRDG 50000 EAST CENTER ST BRG (T846) 40 0 BRr ROW
$10.(0.
$10.000 BRDG 50805 EAST CENTER ST BRG 040 40 0 BRG CON
$340,_00
$3_0,DO_
HRST 50579 CENTRAL CITY EXPRESSWAY 35 3022 203 FD 1
NHS
$90,000
$90.00 so HRST 50879 CENTRAL CITY EXPRESSWAY 35 3022 203 FD 1
TOLL
$10,000
$10.000
$0
$0
$O HIRST 50079 CENTRAL CITY EXPRESSWAY 351 3022 203 CON 2
NHS
$315,000
$a
$315,000
$0
$0 HRST 50879 CENTRAL CITY EXPRESSWAY 35 3022 203 CON 2
TOLL
$35,000
$35100
$0
$0 SAM) 51149 SR315 &AVOCAAIRPORTRO 40 315 301 CON.
1 TSP
$150,000
$150T 0 0 0
$0,
$0
$S
$0 LRST 01350 COUNTY ROAD RESURFACING 30 0
1 CON, 1
STU
$200,000
$200.000
$so
$0
$0
$0 LRST 51351 CNTY RD(MAYFED TO CAR0 35 0
1 CON 3
STU
$200,000 o
$0
$20,000
$0
$a LRST 51352 CNTY RD(RUSHBK TO CDALE) 35 0
CON 2
STU
$350.000
$350,000
$0
$S0
$S BRDG 5620 STANTON STREET BRIDGE 40 0 BRG_ CON
$600.000
$6005
$0 BRDG 56622 NESBITT ST BR, LARKSVILLE 40 0 BRG FU
$60$00(
$60.000 BRDG 56022 NESBITT ST BR, LARKSVILLE 40 0 BRG ROW
$33,009
$3300s BRDG 56622 NESBITr ST BR, LARKSVILLE 40 0 BRG CON
$600,000
$600.000 BRDG 56699 EVANS ST/ TOBYS C LUZ.
40 1054 37a UTL I
BOF
$80.000
$80,000
$O
$o
$0 BRDG 56699 EVANS STITOBY'S CK. LUZ.
40 1054 370 ROW 1
BOF
$100,000
$100.000
$so so s
BROS 06099 EVANS STITOBYS CR, LUZ 40 1054 370 CON 2
BOF
$600,000
$0
$600.000
$0(
$S BRDG 56699 EVANS ST/ TOBY'S Cr, LLIZ.
40 1054 370 CON 3
$600,000 so
$0
$600,000
$S LRST 56749 ABBOTT ST.. P.AJNS TWP.
40 0
Fl I
STIJ
$110,000
$110.000
$0
$0
$0 LRST 56749 ABBO'T ST., PLAINS TWP.
40 0
ROW 2
S1TU
$50,000
$0
$50.000
$0
$0 so IRST 56749 ABBOTT ST., PLAINS TWP.
40 0
CON 2
S'T
$650,000
$(
$650.000
$0
$(
HRST 56984 LACKA.BETTERMENT FFY 2003 35 0
CON STP
$020,000
$520,000
$0 HRST 56954 LACKA.BETTERMENT FFY 2003 35 0
CON 1
TOLL
$130,000
$1000 so
$0
- $(
HRST 56989 LUZ BETTERMENT FFY 2004 40
.0 CON 2
ST2
$600,000
$0
$6000.
HRST 56989 LUZBETTERMENTFFY2004 40 0
CON 2
TOLL
$150,00
$0
$150100.
$0 SAMF 57001 LACKA GUIDE RAIL FFY 2003 36 0
CON TSP
$800010 48,0
_000
$0
$0 "s
SAMS 57002 L.AC GUID RAIL FFY 2004 35 0
CON 2
TS
$800.000
$0
$800,000
$0
$0 so SAMI 57005 LUZ GUIDE RAIL FFY 2003 40 0
CON 1
$750,000,
$750.000 so
$0
$0 SAAM 57006 LUZ GUIDE RAIL FFY 2004 40 0
CON 2
$7500.00
$0
$750,000 so
$0
$0 HIRST 57316 CONYNGHAMIMOCANAQUA CURVE 40 239 303 CON 1
SW,
$160.000
$160,050
$0
$0 s
HRST 57316 CONYNGHAM/MDCANAQUA CURVE 40 239 303 CON 1
- TOLL,
$40.00
$40,000 00
$o
$0 so LRST 57317 AST MOUNTAIN BETTERMENT 35 0
CON 1
STU
$3,000.000
$3,000,000
$_0
$0 BROG 57007 ROARING BK& ERIE RRBR 35 84 270 PE 31 SON
$100,001
$0 so
.$100.000
$0
$2,800.00O BRDG 57667 ROARING BK & ERIE RR BR 35 84 270 FD 4
SNBU
$100,00
$0
$0
$100,000 BRDG 57671 BR.HARVEYS CREEK BRIDGE 40 1012 370 PE 2
$40.000 S40.000 BRDG 57671 BR.HARVEY"S CREEK BRIDGE 40 1012 370 Fl 2
$50,000
$50,000 BRDG 57671 BR.HARVEY'S CREEK BRIDGE 40 1012 370 UTL 2
$5,000
$5000$
BROG 57671 BR.HARVEY'S CREEK BRIDGE 40 1012 370 ROW 2
$5,
$5,000 BRDG 57671 BR.IARVEY'S CREEK BRIDGE 40 1012 370 CON
$300.,
$300,000 BRDG 57673 LITTLE WAPWALLOPEN CK BR 40 2042 370 F0 2
$4000
-40,000 GROG 57572 LITTLE WAPWALLOPEN CK SR 40 2042 370 ROW 2
$OR,000
$20.
$20 BRDG 57672 LITTLE WAPWALLOPEN CK BR 40 2042 370 CON 3
$320.000
$320r00(
SAMS 57692 DAVIS & UNION U MAIN ST.
35 3010 202 CONI CA1
$400.
$400,000 o
$0 SAMI 57692 DAVIS & UNION @ MAIN ST.
35 3010 202 CON 1
TOLL 00
$100,000 O$
so_$_
HRST 578953SR 435 & 690. MOSCOW 35 435 205 CON 1
TOLL
$120,000
$120,000 a0
$0 HfRST 57693 SR 435 & 690. MOSCOW 30 435 205 CON 1
TSU
$480,000
$n
$0n The funding in the column bnuudes ant phases of poject Implementation that arm not identied in the cunrent Transportation mprovmnent Program (TiP) It Is not meant to be solely for the phase identfied in the specfic lne.
B-7
Program MPMS Descapdon County SR Sect. Phase Year Fund Cat F
2003-2006 A
HRST 57694 dEI-YSTREET IMPROVEMENT 35 1010 202 CON I
$320,000 3 20,000
$0
$0
$00 HRST 57694 RETTY STREET IMPROVEMENT 35 1010 202 CON 1
TOLL
$80.000 580,000
$0_
$(
$0 SAMI 57699. OP SAFETY (LACKAWANNA) 35 0
CO 1
$400,000
$450,000 so
$0
$0 SAMW 57699 T'IP SAFETy (LACKAWANNA) 35 0
CON 2
$450,000
$0
$400,000 C$($
SAMI 57609 TIP SAFETY (LACKAWANNA) 35 0
CON 3
$4500 0
$0
$450,000 SANI 57699 TIP SAFETy (LACKAWANNA) 35 0
CON 4
$450.0
$0
$C
$(
$450,000 R S T
-57702 1-81/PATn R N P IK E S TIJ DY 3
0 T D 1
IM
$4 00,000
$400.
$ 450.000
$s o_
$0 LRST 07704 G ILENMAJRA BLVD. LOOP ROAD 3
0 CON 3
ST I
$10 0
$100.0so 0
$ 0 0
$5 O0,00 CKAWANP35 0
CO LRST 577504 GLENMAURA (002
/MONTAGE) 5 0
STU
$100,OW
$100,000
$0
$0 so
$0 LRST 57705 GLENMAQJRA (502/MONTAGE) 35 0
CON 2
STU
$400,
$400$000.
0
$0
$500.
H S OT 577 50 KENNEDY DRIVE/COUNTY ROAD 35 1012 C2 ROW 5N2
- 32.
$3 3,00 0
$0
$0
$s NRST 577"06 ENNEDYDRIVE/COUNTYROAD 30 1012 202 RDW 1
TOLU
$8000 w8,500
$O iRST 077 506 ENNEDY DRIVE/COUNTY ROAD 35 1012 202 CON 1
STU 340,000 s240
.050
$0 HRST 5770 RENNEDY DRIVE/COUNTY ROAD 35 1012 202 CON 1
TO LL
$60,000
$60,'S00
$0 51A I
20 2 331 1
$50.000
$50,000
$0 SAMI 57706 PA 309 AN D ST. JOHNS 40 3
50 331 PD 1
ST E
550.000
$50,000
$0
$40 0000 SAMI 57750 PA 309 AND ST. JOHNS 40 309 331 ROW 2
$40,000
$0
$4000 SAMI 57750 PA 30 9 AND ST. JOHNS 40 350 331 CON 3
ST.
5600000 40.0 0
$600,00 SAMI 57712 TOM /ICKEN RD PARK & RIDE 40 9s3 30o PE 2
TA U
$50,000
$0
$50,00 o 0
EAMI 07712 TOMHICREN RD PARK & RIDE 40 93 350`
PD 3
TAO
$50,000$0$
$0,0 AMI 07712 TOMHICKEN RD PARK A&
RIDE 40 93 350 UTL 3
TAO
$20,00
$0 0
$ 0
$20,00 0 s0 EAMI 07712 TOMHICKEN RD PARK & RIDE 40 93 309 ROW 2
TA O
$50,$o0
$0
$50,00
$3 SAMI 57712 TOMHPCAE0 RD PARK & RIDE 40 63 30 9 CON 3
TA O
$250.00G
$0
$250 000S MO O 57729 SC ANTON-NYC RR 35 330 PP ST U
$510.000
$50,00
$10.0 0
$0 rENH 57730 ENHANEMNT SUPPLEM3NTAL 35 0
CON 2
STF
$7654000
$0
$75,.00
$s
$5
$0 0TE RN 57731 EPA3 A
NT SUPPLEMENTAL 40 390 3
CON 2
$1
,437 0
50
$0
$10 437100
$0 so SAMI 57733 712 A
(LUZERD E) 40 0
CON
-1 T 0
$45,00 50
$40so00
$ 0 SAM I 57733 TIP EAFE T y (LU P-ERNE) 40 0
CON 1
TOLL
$50,0 50
$45.000 s$
SAM]
57733 TIP SAFEly (LUZERNE) 40 0
CON 2
STE:
$405,5000
$0 0405.000
$(0*
SAW(
07733 TIP SAFETy (LUZERNE) 40 0!
CON 2
TOLL ___$45.0
$0
$45,000 S A M I 5 17 A.S H L E Y SIG N A L S 4 0 950 3
3 0 1 PD 3
T S P
$ 1 50,0 0 0
$ 0
$ 0
$ 1 0 0,0 0 0 s
SAM I 57737 ASHLEY SIGNALS 40 2003R 3 51 CON T TS P
$30 0,000 so
$0 2300,$00
$0 so HRST 2577
.1 MIDDLE RIOADHANOVER T& p 4D 2008 309 CON 1
5TA
$3 30,0 0
$0
$0
$0 0
$0 HRST 57738 MIDDLE ROAD/HANOVER TWp 40 2000 302 CON 1
TOLL
$250 000 000
$20
$0 H R S T 59 05 7 S P R IN G B R RO K T W P D R A INA G E 35 600 2 02 CO N 1
5T 5
$640, 550
$640.050
$ O HRST 59857 SPRINH N RC O KE TWP DRAINAGE 35 6
00 20 2 CON S
TO IL
$160,000
$$1 0 5
$0 so so HCON 62685 MACKAWAN NA CO UNTY A LC 35 0
CON 1
NHS
$350,000
$35
.0
$0
$0
$00 HCON 626 8 UZERNE CO UNTY AUC 40 CON 1
S Tr
$3 0,000
$350 50 0
$_ SO _$_
6295 8 IEMOVE WEAVE CONDITION
.35 600 5 201 CON 2
ST2P 400,0
$400.
0
$0
$0 HRST -
62950 REMOVE WEAVE CONDITON 35 6006 201 cON 5
70OLL,J1000(
_____$0
$100,00
$0
$0 HR5T 62 900 b]T 7 IM PROVE M ENTS 3
6 224 FD 1
ST P
$80,000 60,000
$0
$ 6 0$
HRST 6296 0 EX4T 7 IMPROVEMENTS 35 22 4
D 1
TOLL
$20,000
$20,000 0
$0 0
H RST 6296 0 ET T7 IMPROVEMENTS 3 5Y 6 224 CON 2
$160,000
$0
$160,000
$0 s$
HRST 62960 6T 0 T7 IMPROVEMENTS 3Y 22,4 CON 2
TOLL
$45,000
$0
$40,000
$0 E$
HRST 62965 A
iHL ROCK PENCE 40 210 30 1 CON 1
S
$ 1450.000
$450,00 5
$0 o
H R S T 6 25 0 0 PA S1 1 R O C K E N C E 4 0 1 1 5. 3 0 0 C O N 1
T O L L
$ 5 0,0 0 0 95 0,00 0
$ 0
$0 HRST 6296 I:A 309 ROCK FENCE 40 320 333 CON 1
$450.000 00$0
$0 HRST 6296 9 PA 309 ROCK FENCE 40 30 9 330 CON 1
TO IL
$50,000
$50,000
$0
$0 0
ER OG 6 3 13 6
u p 4 -0 3 -B R 1 4
1 8 1 F Y2 C O N 1
6 0 0
$ 0 1
$ 2,06 1 60 0
$ 0
$ 0s o
B T0 0
6 21 07 mNu p 4 -
03.-B R 1 4 0 61 F Y 3 C O N I
T O LL
$ 29 3,1 0 00 1 0 0$
B R D 0 6 2 3 9 6 IRI D G E C S T M A R Y C E M E T E RY 3 5 8 1 2 7 1 P R 1
EO N
$ 55 0 00 0 0
$.5 0 0, 00 s o HIRS0 63394 6RIDGE 1ST MARY CEMETERY
.35 81 271 CON 4
TON LL
.000,000 so5
$10D
$0
$.000.$C The Eunding in the column includensOa phases Of pro~ect Implementauon that are not Moentfled in~ thesoret Transportolion Improovenent Program (TIP). 0t1000no meant to be solely tar She 14.55 identlfled /n1the specific line.
B÷8
Program MPMS Descdption County SR Sect Phase Year Fund Cat Amount HRST 63437 EDDY CREEK BOX OLYPHANT 35 347 251 CO0 2
ST 560.-
$0
$560.0
(
$$0 HRST 63437 EDDY CREEK BOX. OLYPHANT 35 347 251 CON 2
TOLL
$140.
$0
$140.00
$s so SAMI 63591 MARKET AND PIERCE SIGNALS 40 1009 302 CON 1
TAQ
$200,000
$200,00 0
$0
$0 SAMI 63591 MARKET AND PIERCE SIGNALS 40 100.
302 CON 2
TAO
$1000000
$0
$1,000,000 so 0(
IRST 63662 LLTS INTERSTATE/PM 3
81 0
COiN IM 11$50000
$1.500.000
$0
$0 IRST 63662 LLTSINTERSTATE/PM 35 81 0
CON 2
IM
$4,00.00 s
$4.500.0 0
$0 IRST 63662 LLTS INTERSTATEJPM 35 81 0
CON 3
IM
$3,000,000
$0
$3.000.;
$0 IRST I
838 2LLTS INTERSTATE/PM 35 81 0
CONI 41 IM
$3.000;00C
$S so
$0
$3.000.000 SAMI 6
83704 LACKA CO. GUIDERAJL 2005 35 0
1 CON 31 TSP
$800.000
$1
$0
$800,000
$S
$0 SAMI 63705 LACKA CO GUIDERAIL 2006 35 0
CON 41 TSP
$500.000
$0 _
$0
$8000
$0 SAMI 63706 LUZ. CO GUIDERAIL 2005 40 0
CON 3
$750000
$so So
$750,000 so so SANI 63707 LWI. CO. GUIDERAIL 2006 40 0
CON 4--
$750.00
$0
$01
$0
$750.000 SAMS 63718 TP SAFETY (LUZ 2005) 40 0
-CON 3
$450,._
$0
$0
$450,000
$0 50 SAMI 63719 TIP SAFETY (LUZ 200 7 40 0
CON 4
TSP 450.00
$0 0
$0 450.000
$0 HRST 63730 Luz-Betterment FFY 2005 40 0
CON 3STP
$600,
$0
$600.,00 so
$0 HRST 63730 Lu. Betterment FFY 2005 401 0
CON 3
TOLL
$150.00
$0
$0 150,000 HRST 63731 LUB eterment FEY 2000 40 0
CON 4
$600000
$a
$0
$0
$000,
$0 HRST 63731 Lu8o Bettment FY2006 40 0
CON 4
TOLL
$150,000 0
$0
$150.
TONH 63823 Hodtage TIrai, May.lId 35 0
1 CON 1
SXF
$375,000
$375,000
$0 so so so SAMI 64067 ITS LINE ITEM 35 0
CON 1
$400,000 S400,000
$0
$0
$0 SAMI 64067 ITS UNE ITEM 35 0
CON 1
TOLL S150.000
$100,000
$0
$0
$0 SAMI 64067 ITS LINE ITEM 35 0
CON 2
STO
$400,000 so
$400,000 s$0 SAM:
64867 ITS UNE ITEM 35 0
CON 2
TOLL
$100,000
$0
$100,000
$0
$0
$0 SAMI 64067 ITS UNE ITEM 35 0
CON 3
$400,000
$0
$400,00
$0 SAMI 64067 ITS LINE ITEM 35 0
CON 3
TOLL
$100,000 s0
$0
$100,000
$0 SAMI 64067 ITS LINE ITEM 35 0
CON 4
$400,500
$0 5o
$0 S400,000 SAMI 64067 ITS LINE ITEM 35 0
CON 4
TOLL
$100.000 s0
$0
$0
$100,000 HCON 64076 EIGH3TH STREET CONNECTOR-40 0
STUDY 2
$200,000
$0
$200.000
$0 00 HRST 64077 LLTS BIKE/PED LINE ITEM 35 0
CON I
$320,000
$320,000
$0 0
HRST 64077 LLTS BIKE/PED LINE ITEM 35 0
CON 1
TOLL
$80,000
$80,000
$0
$0 HRST 64077 LLTS BIKE/PED LINE ITEM 35 0
CON 2
STW
$320,000
$320.000
$0
$0 HRST 64077 LLTS BIKE/PED LINE ITEM 35 0
CON 2
TOLL
$80,000
$0
$80,00
$0 HRST 64Q77 LLTS BIKE/PED UNE ITEM 35 0
CON 3
$320,000
$0
$0
$320.
HRST 64077 LLTO BIKE/PED LINE ITEM 35 0
CON 3
TOLL
$80.000 Sao..
HRST 64077 LTS BIKE/PED LINE ITEM 35 0
CON 4
$320.000
$r
$320,000 HRST 64077 ILTS BIKE/PED LINE ITEM 35 a
CON 4
TOLL
$80,000
$9
$0
$5
$80000(
HRST 64180 KEYSER AVE UNNAMED CREEK 35 3011 205 FP 1
$80,000
$00,000
$S
$0
$0 HFRST 64108 KEYSER AVE UNNAMED CREEK 35 3011 205 FD 1
TOLL
$20,000
$20.00
$S
$0
$0 HIRST 64180 KEYSER AVE UNNAMED CREEK 35 3011 205 CON 1
$24,000
$24.000
$0
$0
$s FRST 64186 KEYSER AVE UNNAMED CREEK 35 3014 205 CON I
TOLL
$0.
$6.
$0
$0
$0 FRST 64188 KEYSER AVE UNNAMED CREEK 35 3011 205 CO 2
$320,00
$0
$320.050
$0
$0 HRST 64188 KEYSER AVE UNNAMED CREEK 35 301I 205 CON 2
TOLL
$80.09 so_0.0
$0 00
$0 s
HRST 64229 STONE BOX REPLACEMENT 40( 3004 351 CON STP
$400,000
$400.000
$0
$0 HRST 642291 ýSTONE BOX REPLACEMENT 40( 3004 351 CON 1
TOLL
$100,00*
$100,000 so
$0
$0 HRST 64229 STONE BOX REPLACEMENT 40 3004 351 CON 2
$400,00)
SO 5400,00o
$0 so HRST 64229 STONE BOX REPLACEMENT 40 3004 351 CON 2
TOLL
$100,0
$100,0 m1
$0 SA 64235 TRAFFIC SIGNAL UPGRADE042 35 0
CON 4
TAO
$1 000.000 SO$
$1,000.G000 SAMI 64236, RAFFIC SIGNAL UPGRADE0434 40 0
CON 4
TAO 0O
$0'
$0
$1,000,000 00 TENH 64279.TO ENHANCEMENT LINE 35 0
C STE
$733,000
$723.0
$0
$(
$0 TENH 84279
-TS ENHANCEMENT LINE 35 0
CON 2
$733,000 so
$733,050
$0
$0
$0 64279 LLTS ENHANCEMENT LINE 30 0
CON 3
$733,000 s
$733,000 TENH 64279 ILTS ENHANCEMENT LINE 35 0
CON 4
$723,000
$(_
so_
___.0
" The fan/ing in the column includes an phases of project Implementation fhat ame not Identiid in the went Transportalti Improvement Program (TIP). t I not meant t be solly for Ie Phase idenfied In the specifc fne.
B-9
Program MPMS Descrption County SR Sect. Phase Year Fund Cat FFY 2003-2006 HCON 64476 DENAPLES ROW CLAIM 35 6 ROW ROW 1
NHS
$10.000,000
$10.000.000
$0
$0 HCON 64476 DENAPLES ROW CLAIM 35 6 ROW ROW 2
NHS
$9.600,000
$0
$9.600, S
$0 HCON 64476 DENAPLES ROW CLAIM 35 6 ROW ROW 3
NHS
$9,400,00(
$0
$9.400.000
$0 HCON 64476 DENAPLES ROW CLAIM 35 6 ROW ROW 4
NHS
$9
__0_00C
$0O
$(
$0
$9000000 SAMI 64481 BUTLER TWP PARK& RIDE 40 309 393 PE 3
TAQ
$100,0
$00
$100,000
$0
$500,000 SAM!
64481 BUTLER TWP PARK & RIDE 40 309 393 FD 4
TAQ
$500000
$0_
$1
$0
$50,000 LRST 65046 'rK ROUTES IMPROVEMENTS 35 0
CON 3
STU
$350.00.
$7
$350.000
$0
$0 LRST 65047 -K7 Route K072 (W-B BLVD) 40 CON 3
STU
$300,6000 00
$0
$350,0001 S0
$0 HRST 65050 UNSPECIFIED DESIGN$
35 0
1 S1T
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$0
$0
$1 s
TENH
" 65662 OSLAWARE&LEHIGH HER.CORR.
40 0
CON 1
$268,000
$268,000
$0
$0 TEN
. 65662 OELAWARE&LEHIGH HER.COR.
40 0
CON 1
TOLL
$07,000
$67,000
$0
$0 TENH 65663 9ACK MOUNTAIN TRAIL PH 3 40 0
CON 1
$41,600
$41.600
$0 so
$0 TENH 65663 BACK MOUNTAIN TRAIL PH 3 40 0
CON 1
TOLL
$10.400
$10,400
$0
$C
$0 TENH
.65664 PITTSTON RIVERFRONT PARK 40 0
CON 1
$276,600
$276.00
$0
$5
$0 TENH 65664 PITTSTON RIVERFRONT PARK 40 0
CON I
TOLL
$690200
$69,200
$0
$$0 TENH.
65673 CENTRAL NJ RR BUILD. PH2 35 0
CON 1
$96.000
$96,00
$0
$0 so
$0 TENH 65673 CENTRAL NJ RR BUILD. PH2 35 0
CON 1
TOLL
$2406000
- 096,
$0 so
$0 TENH 65674 RESTORE BOSTON & MAINE 35 0
CON 1
$160.000
$160.000
$0
$S
$0
$0 TENH
.65674 RESTORE BOSTON & MAINE 35 0
CON 1
TOLL
$40 '00
$40,0
$0 so
$0 TERN 65675 PROVIDENCE SQUARE REDEVEL 35 CON STE
$30
$300,000
$0
$0 TENH 65675 PROVIDENCE SQUARE REDEVEL 35 0
CON 1
TOLL
$730000
$3000
$0
$O
$0 LEN/
657 0-=IICA 6
/
CN ITI
$70,,~
$0SO$
TENH 65676 ERIE LACKA. DINING CAR 35 0
CON 1
$22O
$22.400
$0
DINING CAR 35 0
CON 1
TOLL
$5,
$5,600
$0
$0
$0 TENH 65677 D&H TRANSPORT. MUSEUM
.35 0
CON 1
$4.00C
$4,000 so
$0
$0 rENH 65677 D&H TRANSPORT. MUSEUM 35 0
CON 1
TOLL
$10
$1,000
$0
$0
$0 Urban Flexible 35
$13.340.000 ITS 35
$5,350-Lntersote 'ro, FFY 2005 35
$2.000,000.
- ld Force (3 signals) 35
$500-000 STUDYAJPDATE TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM-PITTSTON. SCRANTON 35
$1,250.000 STUDY/UPDATE TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM-SOUTH MAIN AVENUE, SCRANTON 35
$ $1,250.000 REHABIIUTATION/RECONSTRUCTION VARIOUS COUNTY BRIDGES 35
$2.0000,000 PARK AND RIDE LOT - KEYSER AVENUE. SCRANTON 35
$500,000 PARK AND RIDE LOT. TIGUE STREET DUNMORE 35
$250.000 PARK AND RIDE LOT - DAVIS STREET. MOOSIC 35
$220.000 PARK AND RIDE LOT - CLARKS SUMMIT
-_35
$500.000 3ACK MT. AREA SIGNALS 35
$26000,000 1-81 WideniV 40,
$5_O,00.000 15th SL Brdde-PA Route 315 Connector "40
$94,000,000 INewpo__-S__c______r Connector
.401
$66,000.000 INanfcoke-Newport Connector 40
$53,000000 River Rd. from N. Crvlley xpy. To PItston Cit 40
$33,300,000_
Mban
_F_
__ble 40
$11,403.000 N. River SL. from North SL -Cmossvaey. Expy.
40
$80.000,000 I
WiEliams SL Connector to PA Route 315 40 W$300005000 Interstate pro, FFY 2006 35
$2.000,000 int40state PM, FFY 2005 40$2 000.000 T
I n te erstate P M h
FFY 2006 40$nT0T0y The funding In the column includes all phases of project implementation that are not Identified In the current Transportation improv.ement Program (TIP). it is not meant to be solely for the phase Identifed In the specim lrine.
B-10
Program MPMS Desription County SR Sect. Phase Year Fund Cat y 2003Tota Usrman Blvd-cannec PA Ave & Wilkes-Barre Blvd.
40
$2,000,00(1 McAlpine & Maln I Man & Hawthorne 40
$450-000 Na,,,,,
(3 ".
40
$40 D
__,_.000 West Pittston (3 signals) 40
$400,G00 "SR3034. Main St & Buter Ave Raon.. Drainage
$40.40
__40,00C Sans Souci Pkwy., Franklin Jct & Breaker Rd.
40
$2,086,000 PA 309 Linkage Road. Wright Twp, Rice Twp 40
,,, $7,790,000 S ug ar N otd-Nw p rt C on n40
,, $62.000-0 SR 1019 (Dennl"on St) Swoynrsvtlle Borough 40
$229,00O IS R 1 0 1 0 Ma in S )
w ityer B o r ug 4 0
$ 5 4 9,0 0 0 SR 3022 (South StL & SR 940, Vine-Juniper St 40
$1_75.00o PA Rto 115 So*th, SR 2041 to SR 2038 40
$900.000 Intersacton of PF9 115 a
SIR 2038.
40
$500.00(
N. MaIn St. Parsonage to Panama St.
40 Plank & Mill Sts., Jenkns Twp. To Duryea Bor.
40
$400.00(
Willa-SLt; Church St to Main St 40
$135,005 Bla23man SL,. Re 309 to S. Main St 40
$300.00(
Laird St. Etns.ion - S'on St.to N. Washington St 40
$500,000 AVOCA BOROUGH S GNALS
._$500100a NANTICOKE CiTY SIGNALS
_$50,00_
HAZL P-AND RT. 424 PARK AND RIDE LOT
$500.000 PLAINS TWP. RIVER RD & RT 309 PARK AND RIDE LOT
$500.00(
TOTAL
- The funding in the coluhn Indudes an ptasesof project implernentalton that era not Identified in the current Transportation Imtnraoecnent Program (TIP). It is not meant to be solely for the phase identified In the sl*pefic Olne.
B-11
P~mg,,m I MPMS Descrption I Counfty I SR ISectI Phase IYear Total Amount Fund Cat FFY 2003-2006 EM
$c
- The flunding In the column includes all phases of project implementation that are not identified in the curent Transportation Improeament Program (TIP). It ts not meant to be solely for the phase Identified in the specific line.
B - 12
Programi MPMS Description County SR Iect Phase I Year Total Amount Fund Cat FFY 2003.2006 Transit 6552M Multi-Modal Center construction 40 so
$o w-
-M.- EU The funding In the column Includes at phases of project implementation that are not identified in the current Transportation impovement Program (TIP). It is not meant to be solely for the phae Identifed in the specific tine.
B-13
.,.. I MPMS Description ProgrCounty Dsitn 4
IjSR SecttPhase Yew4 Fun~dCat Tos n
-IL IT
$c so 5445."00
$445,000 C,(
$445,000 M
- The funding In the column Includes all phases of project Implementation that aem not Identified In the cuarent Trannpowtagon lrprovement Program (TIP). It Is not maent to be solely for the phase Identified in the specdifc line.
B-14
Lackalwanna/Luzerne County Long Range Transportation Plan Appendix C MINUTES LACKAWANNA/LUZERNE TRANSPORTATION STUDY (LLTS)
METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (MPO)
TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITrEE (TAC)
JULY 25, 2000 MEETING MINUTES The LLTS MPO Transportation Advisory Committee met on Tuesday, July 25, 2000 at 12:00 PM at Muggs Restaurant Two new members, Julie McMonlgle and John Tomchko, were among the members present (See attached sign-in sheet for full attendance list) Ms. McMonigle is serving as a permanent proxy for Ellen Alaimo who represents the Pennsylvania Environmental Councl. Mr.
Tomchko.replaces Jim Burke of the Lackawanna County Coordinated Transportation System.
After introductions of all present, Chairman Bernie McGur1 called for review and comments on the minutes from the February 2 meeting. There being no comments, corrections, additions or deletions, Mr. McGurl called for a motion to approve the minutes. Ted Patton made the motion, Merle Maddcn seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
The main agenda item was the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Steve Pitoniak,:Lackawanna County Regional Planning Commission, explained that the TIP is formulated through the efforts of both planning-commissions, PaDOT District 4-0 and central office. It is a fiscelly-constrained document that contains highway and bridge projects as well as line item rail funding and enhancement projects. Mr. Pitoniak went on to explain that this is the first time that TIP highway funds have ever been used to fund enhancement projects. The enhancement projects receiving TIP funds will be funded either in 2001 or 2002.
One of the main comments raised concerned the format of the TIP
- that it does not provide enough Information about each project. Several committee members felt that it would be beneficial to have a brief description of each project Mr Horutz of PaDOT explained that the new computer system does not provide a project description at this time. Mr.
Honrtz stated that some of the other MPOs or LDDs had taken it upon themselves to prepare a brief description of the projects.
Linda Melvin raised questions about specific projects, such as the Clarks Summit By-Pass and Route 247 shoulder widening. Ms. Melvin also asked whether projects ever get tmrned down for reasons other than lack of funding - in other words, does the MPO have criteria that they use to determine the projects that get on the TIP. Ms. Snee and Mr. Pitoniak replied that most new projects arise from priority lists from each county.
Maintenance, rehabilitation or restoration projects usually arise fhom the District's assessment of need. The criteria used by the county planning commissions for new projects are primarily congestion relief, safety improvement, or economic development The projects listed on the TIP are not in any prioritized order. Projects are let on the basis of readiness to be constructed.
Judy Rimple stated that she would like to see an Intermodal transportation guide that would indude not only bike trails but also bike lanes on existing roadways. She asked how she could develop a project that would provide for a bike lane from Route 309 in the Back Mountain over Carverton Road to Frances Slocum State Park. Ms. Snee suggested that she go through the Luzeme County Planning Commission to get the project placed on the County's Highway/Bridge Priority List and from there make its way onto the TIP. Bob Doble said that she could also coordinate such a project through the District's Bicycle Coordinator, Dick Cochrane, since all of the roads Involved in such a project would be state routes. Ms.
Rimple also raised the question of the role of the TAC in relation to the TIP.
Ms. Snee suggested that one of the roles the TAC could play would be to formulate criteria by which all new projects should be evaluated, such as their impact on the environment and their capacity to promote urban sprawl. Mr. McGud suggested that a sub-committee be formed to work on those crita.
Mr. McGurl commended the planning commissions and PaDOT for their efforts in putting the TIP together.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 2:00 PM.
Lackawanna/Luzerne Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)
Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) Meeting Minutes September 10, 2002 The Lackawanna/Luzeme MPO TAC met on Tuesday, September 10, 2002 at 12:00 PM at Muggs Restaurant, Moosic, PA. The following committee members attended: Donna Palermo, Ellen Alaimo, Tom Lawson, Bernie McGuri, Judy Rimple, and John Tomcho. Also in attendance were Steve Pitoniak, Lackawanna County Regional Planning Commission, Nancy Snee, Luzerne County Planning Commission, Richard Cochrane and Ted Srrinsld, PENNDOT District 4-0, and Marcia Shiffman, Orth-Rodgers and Associates.
Chairman Bernie McGurl called the meeting to order at 12:45 PM. Following introductions by the committee, Mr. McGuri called for a motion to approve the minutes of the June 20, 2002 meeting. There being no corrections, additions, or deletions, Steve Pitoniak made a motion to approve the minutes, Tom Lawson seconded, and the motion carried unanimously.
Next, Marcia Shiffrnan, the consultant on the Long Range Plan, presented an overview of the Plan via a PowerPoint presentation. Ms. Shiffman briefly described the highlights of the Plan and then asked for questions. A copy of the draft plan and two copies of the brochure or poster of the plan were also available to review. Several comments were received from the committee members present regarding the Plan. (See attached list).
Following discussion of the Long Range Plan, Ted Slivinski discussed the proposed funding levels of NEXT TEA. Based on information received at a PENNDOT meeting held in Harrisburg a few weeks ago, there is great uncertainty pertaining to the amount of money that is going to be appropriated and/or obligated under the next transportation bil, although Dstrict officials feel that it will eventually be comparable to what the state and MPO have received in the past.
Under Other Business, Mr. McGurl brought up the issue of approaching stormwater and sewer issues on a regional basis as is transportation planning. He stated the need to work with agencies responsible for controlling these two systems and the need for a regional policy plan.
Also under Other Business, Mr. Lawson spoke about the Safe 80 committee that he and other users of the interstate serve on regarding a stretch of I-80 in the Poconcs. The purpose of the committee is to discuss ways to make that heavily-traveled part of the interstate safer. He wondered if a similar committee would be helpful for the stretch of 1-81 between Wilkes-Barre and Scranton. Those present thought it would be a good idea. Ms.
Snee suggested that he come to the next MPO meetings and make that proposal.
There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 2:30 PM.
C-i May 2003 C-1 May 2003
Lackawanna/Luzerne County Long Range Transportation Plan Lackawanna/Luzerne Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)
Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC)
January 29, 2003 Meeting Minutes The Lackawanna/Luzeme MPG TAC met on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 at 12:00PM at Muggs Restaurant, Monsic, PA. The following committee members were in attendance: Judy Rimple, Bernie McGuri, Chairman, Donna Palermo, Ellen Ferretti, Tom Lawson, and Ted Patton.
Also in attendance were Steve Pitoniak, Lackawanna County Regional Planning Commission, Nancy Snee, Luzerne County Planning Commission, Bob Doble, George Roberts, and Ted Slivinsld, PENNDOT District 4-0.
The first order of business was review and approval of the September 10, 2002 meeting minutes. There being no corrections, additions, or deletions, Mr. McGurl called for a motion to approve the minutes. Judy Rimple made the motion, Ted Patton seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
The second item on the agenda was review of the final draft of the Long Range Plan. Several members suggested some minor changes that need to be made to the Plan. Mr. Pitoniak explained that two major changes had been made to the Plan since the Committee last reviewed it.
Based on comments from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) representative, the Air Quality Conformity section and the Fiscal Constraint section had been revised to more fully explain those processes. Ms. Snee added that several typographical errors and/or omissions had been corrected since the last draft had been reviewed by the Committee, and that It was hoped that this would be the final draft before the Plan is adopted.
The only significant change that the Committee recommended involved the traffic volume map on page 14. The Committee feels that these volumes are low and could be Indicative of the traffic In one direction only. Overall, the Committee was pleased with the format of the Plan and its readability, charts, maps and photos. (A detailed list of the suggested changes/corrections is attached.) Mr. Lawson would like to have the Planning Commission make a presentation to all the Chambers of Commerce In the area once the Plan has been adopted. After a detailed discussion of the Plan, Mr. McGurl called for a motion to approve the Long Range Plan contingent upon the suggested changes being made. Tom Lawson made the motion, Judy Rimple seconded, and the motion carried unanimously.
Under Other Business, Mr. Pitoniak informed the Committee that:
the Planning Commissions were in the process of adopting the next Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP), the document that lays out all of the contract items the Planning Commissions and transit providers have with PENNDOT. There are a few new studies induded in the 2003-2004 UPWP induding a study of 1-81 in which the Planning Commissions will partner with PENNDOT to create an 1-81 Task Force. The Task Force will study the congestion on the interstate and connecting roadways and recommend possible short-term and long-term solutions. The Planning Commissions and PENNDOT will also study the possibility of using the Pennsylvania Turnpike for diversion of traffic from 1-81 through Luzeme and Lackawanna Counties. This diversion could be viewed as a short-term option (10-15 years) to help alleviate congestion while parts of the interstate are being widened, or as a permanent option. A part of this study is already underway by Pennonni Associates and the proposed study by the Planning Commissions will jive with the on-going study.
In addition to the 1-81 studies, the Lackawanna County Regional Planning Commission will undertake a traffic study on Main Avenue/Street in the City of Scranton, Dickson City and Blakely Borough to Kennedy Drive in Archbald. The signal system and important intersections will be looked at to see if improvements can be made to traffic flow.
Also under Other Business, Mr. McGurI posed the question as to whether PENNDOT had ever considered extending Keyser Avenue corridor down to Duryea Borough over the Susquehanna River to connect to US Route 11.Mr. Doble said that there was some discussion about providing another roadway from the west side to 1-81 in the area of Pittston or Jenkins Township. However, no firm plans have been submitted.
Ellen Feretti and Bernie McGurl informed the Committee that there will be two public meetings on the Lacdawanna and Luzeme Counties Open Space Plan on February 4 in Scranton and on February 5 at LCCC in Nanticoke, and that all interested people are invited to attend.
Mr. Pitoniak gave the committee an update on the Scranton - NYC Passenger Rail Service project. 30% of the engineering phase is completed.
$40 million in funds have been allocated to be used for hardware such as diesel engines, train stations, and the like. Service is expected to begin in the fall of 2006.
Mr. Doble discussed the status of the federal transportation budget with the Committee, explaining that the transportation bill has still not been passed. This situation could start affecting the progress of projects in our region in 3 to 6 months. The federal budget Issue is a serious one since there is a possibility that the amount of funds the state receives for transportation planning once the bill has been passed could be less than in previous years.
Mr. Doble then gave an overview of the progress on several major on-going projects and informed the group that projects on Wilkes-Barre Boulevard, S. Main Street in Wilkes-Barre, a signal project in Plymouth, Meadow Run, and an emergency flood protection project In Bear Creek have been recently bid.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 2:00 PM.
C-2 May 2003 C-2 May 2003
Lackawann~a/Luzerne County Long Range Transportation Plan Revised Date 04/17/2003 AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY ANALYSIS REPORT FOR THE SCRANTOWNI ULES-BARRE MPO
~3ZONE NONATTAINMIENT AREA VOLUME I -Ellug=V SIUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS
- 1.
INTRODUCTION............................................
D-2 1.1 Purpose......
........... D-2 1.2 Coverage....
...... D-2 1.3 Docum ent Contents...........................................................................................
D-2 1.4 Limitations D-2
- 2.
SUM M ARY......................................................
D-3
- 3.
ANALYSIS....................................................................................................................
D-3 3.1 Overview............................................................................................................
D-3 3.2 Background........................................................................................................
D-3 3.3 Long Range PlanwTransportation Improvement Program.................
D-4 3.4 Traffic Param eters...............................................................................................
D-5 3:5 Other Param eters.................................................................................................
D-5 3.6 Transportation Control M easures.......................................................................
D-5 3.7 Emissions...........................................................................................................
D -6 3.8 Discussion.........................................................................................................
D-6
- 4.
FINANCIAL CONSTRAINT.......................................................................................
D-6
- 5.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION........................... :.............................................................. D-6
- 6.
CONFORMITY STATEMENT
. D-6 Prepared by:
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation TABLES 1
Summary of Total Highway VMT.................................................................................. D-7 2
Summary of Total Highway VOC Emissions...............................
D-7 3
Summary of Total Highway NOx Emissions................................................................
D-7 CHARTS 1 VOC & NO. Graph..................................................................................... D-7 DRAFT D-l May 2003 D-I May 2003
Lackawanna/Luzerne County Long Range Transportation Plan
- 1. INTRODUCTION The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) mandate improvements in the nation's air quality. The means for achieving these goals are defined in State Implementation Plans (SIPs).
Of Penusylvania's sixty-seven counties, thirty-seven are classified as nonattainusent under EPA's one-hour-ozone standard, eight are classified as maintenance areas and twenty-two are in an attainment status. Of the nonattainment counties, five are listed as severe, twenty are marginal and twelve are classified as nonattamimnt insufficient data.
Several of the nonattainment and maintenance areas have developed, or are in the promces of developing, travel demand-forecasting models, which are used to perform conformity analyses. These areas include the Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Reading, Lehigh Valley, Lancaster and Harrisburg nonattainmeant areas.
The Scranton/ Wilkes-Barre MPO area is currently listed as a marginal nonattalnment area for ozone, which denotes a minimal violation, and the least demanding requirements.
Since vehicular ernissionscontribute to ozone violations, the Act requires transportation planners in nonattainment and maintenance to consider the air quality impacts of their proposed plans, programs, and projects. These activities, if subject to federal involvement, must be shown to conform toethe applicable SIP.
1.1 Purpose The CAAA directs the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to implement regulations, which willprovide for reductions in pollutant emissions. Subsequently, the US EPA promulgated a Final Rule on Transportation Conformity (40 CFR Pan 51) on November 24, 1993. A statewide Conformity SIP revision was submitted to EPA on August 13, 1998. This conformity determination complies with the procedures set forth in Pennsylvania's Conformity SIP.
Conformity for the Scranton/ Wilkes-Barre MPO nonattainsent area can be determined by either the "less than 1990" conformity test or the "buildfao-build" test. The less than 1990 test must demonstrate emissions reductions in future milestone years versus what they were in 1990.
The build/no-build emissions test evaluates emissions generated by implementing a TIP or LRP versus a do nothing approach. For the purpose of this report, the lews than 1990 test will be applied.
1.2 Coverage This report considers the impacts within the Scranton/
Wilkes-Barre MPO ozone nonatuainmeat area. Lackawanna and Luzeme Counties are included in the analysis.
Ozone is a secondary pollutant; it is not directly discharged into the atmosphere. Instead, it is produced by the reaction of several emissions in the presence of sunlight Volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NO,.) are prinmay reactants.
Emissions from highway vehicles within these areas have been analyzed using MOBILE5B, the currently approved EPA computer model. The modeling procedures are described in more detail later in this report. Emissions ofboth VOCs and NO, have been analyzed.
The Final Transportation Conformity Rule (Sect 51.428 (b) (5)) states that, "an emissions analysis shall be performed for any years in the time span of the transportation plan provided they ame not more than ten years apart and provided the analysis is performed for the last year of the plan's forecast period.
In this vein, 1990 is shown as the base year the CAAA was enacted and the year from which all SIP emission reduction percentages are calculated. 1999 is the next milestone year as it represents the current conditions of the highway system. 2006 is used as another milestone year for the emissions analysis, because the Commonwealth will adopt the 2003 Transportation Program (including MPO TIPs and the rural portion of the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)) in August. TheSTIP coincides with the first four years of the 2003 Transportation Program (years 2003 through 2006). The next milestone year, 2015, coincides closely with the second and third four-year periods of the 2003 Program (years 2007 through 2014). Finally, to coincide with the last year of the MPO/ADD Long Range Plans (LRPs), 2025 was chosen as the final milestone year.
Certain projects were excluded upon determination that they would not impact regional emissions (e.g., reconstructing bridges, resurfacing projects, etc.) in accordance with 40 CFR Part 51. These projects are referred to as "Exempt" Other projects are referred to as "Not Significant," and include projects which are not exempt by definition, but whose air
_quality impacts are too small to quantify through current modeling practice. Consequently, those projects, which were analyzed for their enmissions impact in this conformity report, are noted as "Significant."
1.3 Document Contents The conformity analysis for the Scranton/ Wilkes-Barre MPO area is divided into two volumes. Volume I is the executive sumnmary of the analysis. It consists of six sub-sections:
Section one provides introductory material and defines the purpose of the report. Further, it describes the scope of the study: its geographical coverage, the time frame considered, and the emissions, which have been analyzed The limitations of the study, primarily related to constraints affecting the analysis, are also presented here.
Section two provides a summary of the analysis. This information is also presented in graphic form in Tables 1 and 2 at the end of this report.
A more detailed discussion Of the analysis is presented in section three, which provides an overview of the study process and background information on the relation between vehicular emissions and ozone. The Long Range Plan and Transportation Improvement Programs are discussed, with a focus on projects that might significantly affect emissions.
Traffic parameters used in the modeling process are presented and other parameters are also discussed. This section also includes a discussion of the emission tables developed during the analysis, and presenting the implications of these results.
The fourth section of this report discusses the "financial censtralnts" of the Long Range Plan and Transportation Improvement Programs.
Section five discusses the public participation process of the conformity analysis. This process includes the advertisements of availability of the LRP/TIP and accompanying conformity documents, as well as any comments or responses related to the documoents.
The sixth, and final, section concludes this report by summarizing the results of the analysis and stating a conclusion regarding the conformity of the Long Range Plan and Transportation Improvement Programs to the State Implementation Plan, and the Clean Air Act, as amended.
Volume HI of this report contains the technical data used to conduct the conformity determination. Key variables, such as vehicle miles traveled (VMT), vehicle hours traveled (VIHT), average speed and VOC and NOx emissions are shown. In addition, the LRP/TIP for the region, MOBILE5B set-up files and other variables are shown. Copies of Volume II am available from PENNDOT's Air Quality Section upon request.
1.4 LimItations The Final Conformity Rule asserts that the conformity process must include an evaluation of proposed capital facility investments. This is required to assure that such expenditures, which are typically irreversible, are not made without consideration of air quality consequences, and that CAAA requirements are currently being implemented.
In order to proceed with its planned projects, each MPO must adopt a conformity resolution. To that end, this study has proceeded with reasonable assumptions and the best date available. The intent of this analysis is to provide an even-handed comparison within these limitations, applying the same assumptions to each of the milestone scenarios within any given year. Reasonable effort has also been extended to provide an evaluation of anticipated improvements from pollutant levels in 1990 to the levels in the future years considered in this analysis.
It should be noted that there are several key differences between this conformity submission and those submitted in previous years, including the 1990 Base Year Inventory that was submitted in 1993. These changes include:
" New Traffic Data-Updated traffic information from PENNDOT's Roadway Management System database is used for the calculations. This information represents 1999 conditions. Previous submissions utilized older data representing 1996 traffic data.
" Updated Growth Rates-For each conformity round, updated PENNDOT growth rates arm determined and projected to future years. Updated HPMS Adjustments-1990 VMT is always adjusted to the 1990 HPMS totals. However, the adjustments used for other years are based on the base ear of traffic data used for the analysis. For example, past conformity D-2 May 2003 D-2 May 2003
Lackawanna/Luzerne County Long Range Transportation Plan submissions used 1996 traffic data adjusted to 1996 HPMS VMT totals. This submission utilizes 1999 traffic data adjusted to 1999 HPMS VMT totals.
Updated Pattern Data-Based on 1999 traffic count data, new hourly patterns and vehicle mix distributions are calculated and used for the emissions analysis.
- Base Project Conditions-The base conditions summarized in PENNDOT's RMS database are updated using available information from project data forms. For each project analyzed as part of the conformity analysis, data forms ae collected. These data forms provide information on the current conditions and the project improvements. The RMS database is updated to ensure consistency with the collected project data.
These changes make it difficult to directly compare the conformity emissions to those presented in the 1990 inventory.
- 2.
SUMMARY
As required by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA), a study of vehicle emissions was performed for the Scranton/ Wilkes-Bare WO area. The study compared the base 1990 emissions for VOC and NO, to future emission projections (less than 1990 test).
2 For the Scranton! Wilkes-Barre MPO area, forty-eight (48) projects on Use Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2003 TIP and LIP will have an impact on air quality. The regional evaluation of the TIP/luRP indicates a lower level ofVOC and NOx emissions in future years compared to the base year, 1990.
To further address VOC and NO, reductions in the later years of the LRP, strategies such as reduction in VMT, speed changes, smoothing of traffic flows, use of alternative fuels, and other factors will be the key to reducing air pollution levels and producing a conforming LRPI'IP.
Some of these efforts have been mandated by the CAAA, and the state has committed to executing others.
- 3. ANALYSIS This section of the report presents the premises for the analysis and the results of the modeling. In addition, it provides background information to support the conclusions.
3.1 Overview The study used a set of computer programs and databases to estimate vehicle miles of travel and operating speeds, and to subsequestly calculate emission factors and total emissions. These programs provide a comparison of vehicular emissions from the 1990 base year with future milestone years. The programs rely on a variety of input factors, which are discussed in more detail below.
Key traffic parameters include daily vehicle miles of travel (DVMT), average speeds, and vehicle type mix.
These input factors are calculated by the Post Processor for Air Quality (PPAQ) computer program from highway databases containing traffic volumes and descriptions of physical characteristics. In addition, roads am broken into six functional classifications (Intemstate, Other Principal Arterials, Minor Arterials, Major Collectors, Minor Collectors and Local Roads) in three settings:, urbanized area, small urban area, and rural area.
The existing DVMT was determined for each roadway class/setting by multiplying the length of road by the number of vehicles using the road per day. Additional adjustments were applied to reflect average summer weekday conditions, and to align DVMT totals with those reported for the (HFMS). This existing DVMT was then projected to the flanore years by applying a local growth factor derived from both historic traffic volume growth trends and trip-end growth, as related to past and future projected population and employment growth. Using the latest planning assumptions, population growth, employment growth, and land use trends have been considered in the analyses to as great an extent as possible.
Speed data was calculated for each highway segment and hour of the day, based on the capacity and traffic volume. Thus, avermge speeds reflect physical highway cionditions, the effects of traffic signals, and congestion caused by traffic volume. For future conditions, congestion (and thereby speed) is affected by traffic growth and other changes in physical conditions due to LRP and/or TIP improvement projects.
Other input parameters used include information about the types of vehicles using the road and environmental factors.
Since local data provides a useful distinction for this comparative analysis, county specific data was used to describe the vehicle fleet on the highway. The environmental factors used in this analysis (e.g., ambient temperature) were established based on historic records for peak ozone events within the county.
The 1990 CAAA requires air quality improvements in nonattainment and maintenance areas through transportation conformity and that this be demonstrated according to the Final Conformity Rule. This analysis demonstrates that a conforming TIP and LRP will result in fewer emissions in future milestone years when compaed to the base year, 1990. For the Scranton/
Wilkes-Barre MPO area, emissions generated from the LRP/TIP meetUthese requirements.
3.2 Background
Ozone is a strong irritant to the eyes and upper respiratory system. It hampers breathing and also damages crop* and rubberized materials and it is the main.component of smog. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) have bem established for a number of pollutants.
Ifa region experiences more than three violations of a standard over a three-year period, it is considered to be nonattainment for that pollutant At this time, the standard for ozone is a maximum one-hour average exposure of 0.12 parts per million (ppm).
Ozone is focmed by chemical reactions occurring under specific atmospheric conditions. Two of the important classes of compounds in these reactions am hydrocarbons (including VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOJ. Both of these are compounds present in vehicular exhaust. In addition, hydrocarbons may be.produced by evaporation and by displacement of vapors in the gas tank during refueling By controlling these emissions, ozone formation can be controlled.
The actual reactions occurring in the atmosphere are complex and the subject of ongoing research. However, it is known that the formation of ground level ozone is a photochemical oxidation process, activated by sunlight In addition, higher concentrations are associated with warm temperatures and high-pressure systems involving temperature inversions and low wind speeds. Under these stagnant conditions, emissions tend to accumulate, rather than disperse.
The role that each component plays in the formation of ozone is also complex. Increases in NO, could lead to an increase in ozone, depending on the time of suspension in the atmosphere and it's transport to other polluted aress.
Reductions in NOx emissions would achieve regional ozone reductions. On the other hand, reductions in VOC are most often important for local ozone reduction.
Transportation accounts for significant portions of man-made emissions. On average, mobile sources contribute approximately 36% of the hydrocarbons, 45% of the oxides of nitrogen, and 78% of the carbon monoxide emissions from man-made sources. For VOCs, the rare of emissions (expressed in grams per mile) generally decreases with an increase of vehicle speed. This trend is most dramatic for VOC and CO at low speeds. However, both VOC and CO exhibit a slight increase in emission rates from vehicles traveling above 40 miles per hour.
For NOx. however, the rate of change is a more gradual decline with increasing speed up to approximately 25 miles per hour. Above that speed, vehicle NOX emissions increase gradually. At 40 mph, the NOx emissioirs increase rapidly, due, in part,ot the higher enigine temperatures associdted with higher speeds. Thus, while iscrasing speeds generally reduces VOC emissions, increasing speeds often create NO, emissions increases (see Chart 1). There is no simple way to solve both issues without producing an overall LR.P and TIP with a mix of strategies that reduce the NO, increases.
Recognizing the contribution of transportation sources to air pollution; the federal government initiated an emission control program in 1968. These requirements are periodically revised, based on the effectiveness of existing controls. In addition, cleaner burning fuel and controls at refueling stations have worked to decrease the emissions rates of gasoline powered cars, and to some extent diesel vehicles. Additional federal new vehicle and fuel control programs are planned for the period 2004-2010. Increasing VMT, however, tends to absorb portions of the reductions attributable to cleaner cars and fuels.
In order to assure that emission controls me working properly, vehicle inspection and maintenance (KM) programs have been adopted in some nonattainment areas.
These programs have the added benefit of improving the fuel efficiency of vehicles on the road. Currently, Pennsylvania has an enhanced I/M programin two regions:
Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. An enhanced I/M program utiliýzng On-Board Diagnostics (OBD) technology will be expanded to several other nonattainment areas (eight counties) of the state in the future. The Scranton/
)
D-3 May2003 D-3 May 2003
Lackawanna/Luzerne County Long Range Transportation Plan Wilkes-Barre MPO area will not be included in this expansion.
3.3 Long Range Plan/Transportatlon Improvement Program The complete Transportation Improvement Program and Long Range Plan for the Scranton/ Wilkes-Banre MPG trea are included in Volume B1, Appendix A, for highways, and Volume IL Appendix B, for transit service projects.
Detailed assessments were only performed for those projects on the LRP and TIP which may have a significant effect on emissions in accordance With 40 CFR Part 51.
Essentially, only those projects, which would increase capacity or significantly impact vehicular speeds were considered. Projects such as bridge replacements and roadway restoration projects, which constitute the majority of the LRP/TIP list, have been excluded from consideration since they ame not expected to significantly alter the volume or speed of traffic.
The following LRP/TII AQ significant highway projects are included in this analysis. They are also dspicted on a map at the conclusion of the executive summary.
Lackawanna County:
I. Keyser Avenue SAMI-This 3.67 corridor safety improvement project involves widening the roadway for lefi-tum lanes and updating traffic signals at 3 intersections on Keyser Avenue (SR 3011). The project extends from Continental to Keyser RR Bridge in Taylor Borough and the City of Scranton.
- 2. Scranton CBD Network-This project involves updating and interconnecting 50 traffic signals in the City of Scranton Central Business District.
- 3. Dunmore Signal Network-This project involves updating and interconnecting eleven traffic signals on SR 347, the O'Neil Highway from University Drive to Greenridge, in Dunmore and Throop Boroughs.
- 4. Carbondale Signals-This project involves updating and interconnecting eight traffic signals on the Main and Church Street corridors in the City of Carbondale.
- 5. Valley View Business Park - This project involves the construction of a new roadway on new alignment between SR 247 and Salem Road. It is located in Olyphant and Jessup Boroughs.
- 6. Main Street/ Main Avenue Corridor-This project involves updating and interconnecting traffic signals at twelve intersections between Green ridge Street and Kennedy Drive in the City of Scranton and the Boroughs of Dickson City, Blakely and Archibald.
.7. Old Forge.{3 signals) N - This project involves the instillation of 3 new traffic signals in the municipality of Old Forge.
- 8. Scranton City - Pittston Ave. Signals. This project involves updating the existing traffic signal systemn.
- 9.
Scranton City - South Main Ave. Signals. This project involves updating the existing traffic signal system.
- 10. Scranton - Keyser Ave. Park-and-Ride - This project involves the construction of a new 50-space Park &
Ride lot 11 Dunmore - Tigue St Park-and-Ride - Thisproject involves the construction of a new 50-space Park &
Ride lot
- 12. Moosic -Davis St Park-and-Ride-This project involves the construction of a new 70-space Park &
Ride lot
- 13. Clark Summit Park-and-Ride - This project involves the construction of a new 50-space Park & Ride lot.
Luzerne County:.
- 1. Widen Route 924 in Hazel Township - This project involves widening PA 924 for 4.14 miles from I-81 to Schuylkill County Line.
2-Connect Exit 46 and Route 115 - Construct a new two lane roadway (1.75 miles) to connect East Mountain Road to Exit 46 in Plains, Wilkes-Bane and Laurel Run Townships.
- 3. Hazelton Signals-This 4.5 mile project involves updating and interconnecting traffic signals at 12 intersections in the City of Hazelton and Hazelton Borough.
- 4. Sans Souci to LCCC - Constroct a new four lane roadway (5 miles), with a new interchange at Route 29, extending from Sans Souci to the Luzeme County Community College. The project is located in Hanover Township and the City of Nanticoke.
- 5. Plymouth Signals - This 1.63 mile project involves updating and interconnecting traffic signals on US 11 from Flat Road to Carey Avenue in Plymouth Borough.
- 6. Kingston Signals - This 2.99 mile safety improvement involves updating and interconnecting traffic signals on Wyoming Avenue (US 11), Market Street and Pierce Street in Kingston Borough.
- 7. Forty Fort Signals - This 2.03 mile safety improvement involves updating and interconnecting traffic signals on River Street and Wyoming Avenue in Forty Fort Borough.
- 8. PA-315 Corridor Highway-This 3.63 mile project involves various intersection improvements (widening for center-torn lanes, updating traffic signals, etc.)
along PA-315 from the Cross Valley Expressway to Pocono Downs in Plains, Jenkens, Laflin and Pittston Townships.
- 9. Airport Beltway Widen-This 2.8 mile project involves widening the existing Hazelton Airport Beltway (SR 3026) to five lanes.
- 10. Nuangola Park and Ride - This project involves the construction of a new Park and Ride lot at the Exit 43 Interchange (SR 2042) of 1-81.
- 11. Tomhicken Road Park and Ride - This project involves the construction of a new Park and Ride lot near Exit 41 oflaterstate 81 in Sugnrloaf Township.
- 12. Butler Township Park and Ride - This project involves the construction of a new Park and Ride lot at the intersection of US 80 and PA 309 in Butler Township.
- 13. Airport Access Road - This project involves the construction of a connector 2-lane roadway, connecting PA 35 and commerce Rid. in Eastern Distribution Center.
- 14. Beltway to Stockton Road - This project involves the extension of a 2-lane existing beltway in Hazle Twp.
- 15. PA 309, Linkage Road - This project involves the construction of a 2-lane connector road between SR 2045 (Main Rd.) and PA 309 (Mountain Blvd.)
16.1-81 Widening - This project involves widening 1-81 from 4 lanes to 6 lanes in multiple municipalities in the Scranton area.
- 17. Newport-Shickshinny Connector - This project involves constructing a 2-lane connector Rd. form PA 239 to SR 3004 (Kimnr St.)
- 18. Nanticoke-Newport Connector-This project involves constructing a 2-lane connector Rd. from SR 3004 to Nanticoke City.
- 19. River Rd-N. Crossvalley Exp. To Pittston City. This project involves widening the roadway from 2 lanes to 4 lanes, from PA 309 to the Pittston City boundary.
- 20. N. River St from North St. to Crossvalley Ex4. - Thins project invovlves an extension of Water St, from Cournight St, to theN. CrosssvaUey Expy. to form a couplet w/River St 2 1. Williams St. Connector to PA Route 315 - This project involves constructing a 2-lane connector road between William St. and PA 315.
- 22. Back Mountain Area Signals - This project involves the interconnection of 9 traffic signals along the Route 309 corridor.
- 23. West Pittston (3 signals)- This project involves interconnecting 3 traffic signals along US 11.
- 24. Sugar Notch/Newport Connection - This project involves a connector road from SR 2008 (Kirmar St) to PA 29 (S. Crossvalley Expy.)
- 25. Avca Borough Signals - This project interconnects 2 existing traffic signals and the instillation of I new proposed traffic signal along US I.
- 26. Hazel Twp: PA 1-81 & RT 424 Park-and-Ride-This project involves constructing a new 50-spaos park and ride lot in a location close to an 1-81 interchange.
- 27. Bear Creek Twp: PA TI & PA 115 P&aR-This project involves the constructing a new 50-space Park & Ride lot in the vicinity of PA Turnpike interchanges.
D-4 May 2003
Lackawanna/Luzerne County Long Range Transportation Plan
- 28. Plains Twp: River Rd & RT 309 P&R - This project involves constructing 50 new spaces for a Park & Ride lot near the N. Crossvalley Expy.
The following list of LRP/TIP AQ significant transit projects are included in this analysis. These projects are not depicted on the maps at the conclusion of the executive Lackawanna County:
- 1.
This project involves purchasing twelve buses for the Hazelton fleet.
- 2. This project involves purchasing sixteen buses for the Hazelton fleet.
- 3. This project involves purchasing thirty buses for the County Of LackawannaTransit System (COLTS) fleet Luzerne County'.
I. Purchase seven buses for the Luzerae County Transportation Authority's fleet
- 2. Purchase ten buses for the Luzeme County Transportation Authority's fleet
- 3. Purchase fifly-seven buses for the Lozerne County Transportation Authority's fleeL
- 4. Purchase sixteen Buses for the Luzerne County Transportation Authority's fleet 3.4 Traffic Parameters
.Trafc parameters within the emissions modeling provide the basis for comparison of the emissions budget versus build conditions. Emission factors vary with average speed and vehicle type mix. Daily emissions arc calculated by multiplying the emission factor (expressed in grams per vehicle mile) and traffic volumes (expressed in daily vehicle miles of travel).
The PENNDOT Bureau of Planning and Research provided the traffic data in subsets. All romdways within the study arem have been grouped into the six (6) functional classifications, as listed in section 3.1. Similar classes have been established for urban, small urban, and rural settings, for a potential total of eighteen (18) distinct subsets. It is possible that there are no roadways of a given category within the study ares.
Annual Average Daily Tralfic (AADT) volumes on individual reoadway segents were generated ronm PENNDOT HPMS and Roadway Management System (RMS) databases. Actual traffic counts are completed at thousands of sites around the state at least once every three years. Separate from the HPMS, there are 60 permanent counting stations that provide data on growth trends and periodic fluctuations in traffic volumes (e.g., seasonal variations). Adjustment factors developed from these permanent station records are applied to the HPMS data.
Individual roadway segments are designated within RMS to one of the six (6) functional classifications and to one of the three settings. RMS also records the length of roadway for each segment, the number of lanes, and the traffic volume. A computerized tabulation of daily vehicle miles of travel (DVMT) for each roadway class and setting is genesated by multiplying the ADT and the length for each segment, and summing the products. In addition, PENNDOT has developed temporal variation data, which describe both the hourly variation of traffic volumes within a day, the daily variation within a week, and the monthly variation over the year. The AADT volumes were adjusted to reflect average weekday conditions in July, the peak ozone season, and were also disaggregated to hourly vohunes within the day to support detailed speed estimation.
Using historic data, PENNDOT also provided growth rates of DVMT for each county and highway functional class. As a standard process under RMS, growth is evaluated for ten traffic pattern groups, which are determined by functional class and geographic setting. That data was refined for this study by reviewing longer-term data, which had been collected at the county level. The Sreliability of these historic trends for predicting future growth was assessed by considering other local factors, including pist and future projected population, employment, and trip end growth.
Speeds were calculated for both 1990 and future conditions by the Post Processor for Air Quality (PPAQ) computer system, and were validated against data from PENNDOT's ongoing speed monitoring program. The PPAQ software contains procedures to calculate the capacity of each highway segment, giving c.esideratis n the physical ausrihts of Sthe. highway.
(functional class, number of lanes, geographic setting), the effects of traffic congestion are then accounted for by comparing traffic volumes to this capacity for each hour of the day, and calculating the speeds which will result-Speeds are forecasted by adjusting the link attributes to reflect future physical improvements, changing the traffic volumes to reflect growth or other actions, and recalculating capacities and speeds. This approach has proven to be appropriately sensitive to the variety of factors, which affect congestion and speed.
The traffic data was developed using the projection process described above. Conditions were evaluated for the years 1999, 2006, 2015, and 2025. The roadways affected by the LRP/TIP projects as listed were further analyzed to determine operational changm, which may result from implementation of the LRPFTIPs. In this way, emission characteristics were daveloped for the region.
The traffic data serves as the regional population, employment, travel, and congestion estimates required by the CAAA, and uses the areas latest planning assumptions.
Travel, represented by DVMT, reflects population and employment trends. The speed estimation procedure serves as a measure.of congestion, and is consistent with on-going, established monitoring programs. The estimates were coordinated with other data resources, such as the local planning departments. The RMS and HPMS data are available in published formats.
With supplemental analysis performed by PPAQ, both speed and vehicle type mix data were used in application of the MOBILESB computer model. The emission factors (expressed in grams per vehicle mile) derived by the model were then multiplied by the appropriate VMT for each functional class / setting / time period to calculate the total emissions (in kilograms per day). Off-system adjustments were made using the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) methodologies and the PAQ-I emissions model developed by the consulting firm of Michael Baker Jr., Inc.
for PENNDOT.
3.5 Other Parameters MOBILESB includes a variety of input parameters, which characterize the environmental setting, the vehicle fleet, the condition of emission controls, and the volatility of gasoline. A set of sample input files has been provided in Volume 11, Appendix C, of this document Five separate runs of the program were performed. They include: a 1990 Base year, 1999 current conditions, 2006 TIP year, 2015 interim year, and 2025 LRP year, with the outputs of VOC and NO, recorded for each.
In looking artist sampleimpk pst fit, a nsmobe of the parameters indicate use of MOBILE5B default or uncotrrected values. Either the default assumptions were determined to be appropriate, or there was a lack of site-specific data to warrant an adjustment For ali data, assumptions were applied uniformly to the baseline, TIP and LRP cases, providing an unbiased comparison.
MOBILESH allows a calculation for refueling losses.
This analysis might be useful for estimating the effectiveness of a vapor recovery system. Furthermore, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has indicated that it will treat these emissions in the stationary, not mobile, source category. Therefore this component has not been calculated-Minimum and maximum diurnal temperature data in the local area parameter and scenario records have been developed by DEP following a review of historic records in*
14 regions across the state (see Volume II, Appendix C2).
These temperatures represent conditions occurring during recent "worst case" ozone events.
An in-use Reid vapor pressure (RVP) of 8.7 pounds per square inch (see Volume II; Appendix C3) has been used for 2006 TIP through 2025 LER scenarios.
Emission rates vary depending on the age of the vehicle, the fuel used, the length of time the vehicle has been operating, and whether the engine was cold when it was started. The effect of start condition also varies depending on the emission control system. This study used national average percentages.
3.6 Transportation Control Measures No Transportation Control Measurmes (TCMs) have been incorporated into the SIP for the Scranton/ Wilkes-Barre MPO area because the SIP emissions control strategy, where applicable, is sufficient for attainment and maintenance purposes.
)
£3-S May 2003 D3-5 May 2003
Lackawanna/Luzerne County Long Range Transportation Plan 3.7 Emissions The results of the computer modeling show improvements in emissions when compared to the 1990 base year for both TIP and LRP conditions. The following tables present the basic variables used to project the total emissions, and the total emissions assuming five scenarios:
- 1.
Base Year Network - 1990 summer traffic volumes and the base highway network.
- 2.
Current Conditions-1999 summer traffic volumes and the base highway network plus those projects completed by the end of calendar year 2002.
- 3.
TIP Future Network - 2006 somer traffic volumes and the base highway network plus those FFY 2003 TIP AQ significant projects scheduled for completion by the end of calendar year 2006.
- 4.
Interim Future Network - 2015 summer traffic volumes and the base highway network, plus those AQ significant projects which are on the 2003 Program but not in the FFY 2003 TIP. "
- 5.
LRP Future Network - 2025 summer traffic volumes and the base highway network, plus those AQ significant projects which are scheduled for completion after 2015 or are not on the 2003 Program.
3.8 Discussion This analysis demonstrates lower VOC and NO, emissions than 1990 Base Year levels. Therefore, implementation of the LRP and TIP, as defined in the study, will not adversely affect air quality.
Further measures directed at reducing vehicle trips may become increasingly important in future transportation plans and programs. Transit and internodal alternatives may saerve as a means for achieving these reductions. The current plan and program present several appropriate means of achieving this. Additionally, transit and intersodal alternatives can be incorporated into preluiminary engineering for highway projects.
with PENNDOT, has developed an estimate of the cost to maintain and operate the existing roads and bridges in the Scranton/ Wilkes-Barre MPO area and have compared that with the estimated revenues and maintenance needs of the new roads.
- 5. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION This LRP and TIP have undergone the public participation requirements and the comment and response requirements set forth in the Final Conformity Rule, the Final Statewide/Metropolitan Planning Rule and Pennsylvania's Conformity SIP. The documentation of the public notice for the hearings, comments and the responses to comments can be found in Volume IL Appendix D.
- 6. CONFORMITY STATEMENT The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) require that a Metropolitan Planning Organization (VPO) determine that a Long Range Plan (LRF) and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) conform with the applicable State Implementation Plan (SIP) before the LRP and TIP are adopted. No Federal agency may approve, accept, or fund a LRP/TIP or its component projects unless the LRP/TIP have been found to conform to the SIP. Under the Act, conformity is determined by applying three criteria; that "the transportation plans and programs-(i) Are consistent with the most recent estimates of mobile source emissions; (Hi) Provide for the expeditious implementation of transportation control measures in the applicable implementation plan; and (iii) With respect to ozone and carbon monoxide non-attainment areas, contribute to annual emissions reductions consistent with sections 182(b)(1) and 187(a)(7)"
Each new transportation plan and TIP must be found to conform before the transportation planTip are approved by the MNO or accepted by DOT.
As specified under the first item, the most recent estimates of highway emissions for the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre MPO area have been developed as apart of this study.
The analysts indicate that the ozone precursors, VOC and NOx, will be less in all milestone years than they were in 1990. Consequently, the overall precursor emissions will be reduced, satisfying the third criterion-I The Scranton/Wilkes-Barre MPO area was not.
considered to be nonatteinment for ozone (prior to the CAAA). As a result, no transportation control measures were included in previous state implementation plans.
Consequently, the second criterion is not applicable.
Therefore, the Long Range Plan and Transportation Improvement Programs for the Scrantot/ Wilkes-Barre MPO area conform with the current implementation plan, and satisfies the conformity requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.
- 4. FINANCIAL CONSTRAINT The Planning Regulations, Sections 450.322[b) (11) and 450.324 (e) require the LRP and the TIP to be financially constrained while the existing transportation system is being adequately operated and maintained. Only projects for which construction and operating funds are reasonably expected to be available are included. The Lackawauna Luzeme Transportation Study (LLTS), the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) in conjunction D-6 May 2003
Lacka wanna/Luzerne County L ong Range Transportation Plan TABLE I Summary of Total Highway Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
Average Summer Weekday Scranton/ Wilkes-Barre MPI Area VOC and NOx Emissions Factors (gm/m vs. mfph.)
- )
TABLE 2 Summary of Total Highway VOC Emissions Average Summer Weekday Scranton/ Wilkes-Barre MPO Area TABLE 3 Summary of Total Highway NOx Emissions Average Summer Weekday Scranton/ Wilkes-Barre MPO Area 6
5*
4 3,
2 14.
Grams/Mile R661 n
- 7 10o 20 3.0:i. 40.i* 50'**' 60s~
All emissions shown in kilograms per day, as calculated for a day representing "worst case" ozone conditions.
D-7 May 2003