ATTENDANCE. Chairman Kufro called the meeting to order at 1:32 p.m. 2. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 6, 2016

Transcription

1 READING AREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY MINUTES OF THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 3, 2016 AT THE BERKS COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION CONFERENCE ROOM ON THE FOURTEENTH FLOOR OF THE BERKS COUNTY SERVICES CENTER ATTENDANCE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE Christopher Kufro PennDOT 5-0, Chair* Vanessa Koenigkramer, PennDOT 5-0 for Raymond Green, PennDOT Central Office Alan D. Piper, Berks County Planning Commission Dave Kilmer, SCTA/BARTA Deb Hoag, City of Reading Ralph E. Johnson, City of Reading Michael Golembiewski, Berks County Planning Commission *Tie-breaking Vote only TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEMBERS NOT ATTENDING Terry Sroka, Reading Regional Airport OTHERS Kathy Dimpsey, FHWA Regina Zdradzinski, Berks County Planning Commission David Berryman, Berks County Planning Commission Devon Hain, Berks County Planning Commission Matt Boyer, Commuter Services of PA Genesis Ortega, Congressman Charlie Dent Joe Romano, Larson Design Group 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Kufro called the meeting to order at 1:32 p.m. 2. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 6, 2016 Chairman Kufro asked if there were and questions or comments to the October 6, 2016 Technical Committee Meeting minutes. MOTION: Mr. Kilmer made a motion to approve the October 1, 2016 Technical Committee minutes. Mr. Golembiewski seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 1

2 3. BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR Mr. Piper stated that there is an updated committee list in the packets. For the Technical Committee, Mr. Ralph Johnson was officially appointed to replace Mr. Charlie Jones. Next week, Mr. Golembiewski will become an official member of the Technical Committee, instead of an interim appointee. Mr. Piper stated, on the Coordinating Committee side, there are a number of changes. Commissioner Scott resigned. Commissioner Barnhardt will take his place and Mr. Kilmer is taking Commissioner Barnhardt s spot as the SCTA/BARTA representative. Mrs. Shannon Rossman, Berks County Planning Commission s Executive Director, will be designated alternate for both James Mason on the Coordinating Committee and for Mr. Piper and Mr. Golembiewski on the Technical Committee. 4. REVIEW OF FFY 2016 FOURTH QUARTER PROGRAM REPORTS Mr. Piper stated that it was a really good year for the state and most of the regions. Statewide for highway and bridges, PennDOT programmed 115% of their base funding and 95% of their discretionary funding for an overall level of 110% of the STIP amount. The differences are accounted for by extra money that comes from other areas. Mr. Piper stated that the Interstate Program did better. Their total for highway and bridge was 135% of the programmed amount and 88% of additional funding for a total of 124% of the TIP amount. Mr. Piper stated that the Reading Urban Area went way over. The total programmed for highway and bridges was 140% and the total base was 133%. There was 64% of additional funding and a net total of 129% of our TIP amount programmed for the 2016 fiscal year. Mr. Piper stated the Reading MPO falls pretty high on the list for just being a single county. 5. PENNDOT REQUESTED AMENDMENTS/MODIFICATIONS TO FFY TIP Ms. Koenigkramer gave an update on Amendments/Modifications to FFY Highway TIP from October 1, 2016 through October 27, Amendments: There was one Amendment adding additional funding of $10.16 million for the Penn Street Bridge (See next agenda item). Administrative Actions: There was one Administration Action reallocating funds within existing projects and one Interstate Administrative Action adding funding for architectural surface treatments for the Airport Road Bridge over I-78. 2

3 6. CONFIRMATION OF PENN STREET BRIDGE TIP AMENDMENT E-BALLOT Mr. Piper stated that there is a memorandum included in the packet that stated the pertinent information relating to the need for an additional $10.16 million for the Penn Street Bridge project to meet the low bid amount. PennDOT reviewed the bids and determined that they are acceptable. Funding sources include shifting funds from the following projects: SR 2017 Bridge, SR 4044 Bridge, RATS Bridge Preservation and Repair 4, SR 222/SR 73, and CMAQ and Highway/Bridge Reserve Line Items. It was received last Thursday and circulated to the Technical Committee as an E-ballot. We received sufficient votes for approval from the Technical Committee. Having sufficient votes from the Technical Committee, it went to the Coordinating Committee Thursday afternoon. Sufficient votes were received from them on Friday. A response was sent to the Department Friday afternoon. By Monday morning, Ms. Dimpsey received it from PennDOT and approved it. Ms. Dimpsey thanked Mr. Piper for copying her on the e- ballot. Otherwise, the approval would not have happened as quick. MOTION: Ms. Hoag made a motion to accept the E-ballot results on the amendment and pass it along to the Coordinating Committee for approval. Mr. Kilmer seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 7. REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION ON 2017 MEETING SCHEDULE Mr. Piper stated that we are keeping the same meeting schedule for The Technical Committee meetings will be held the first Thursday of each month. The Coordinating Committee meetings will be held the third Thursday of every other month beginning January There are two potential exceptions to this schedule, both of which are on the Technical Committee side. For the July meeting, the first Thursday is on July 6 th, which falls in the middle of July 4 th week. At the discretion of the committee, would it be better to push the meeting back to July 13 th? Chairman Kufro thinks it is a good idea. The second recommendation is, rather than holding the September 7th meeting, we would have another joint meeting with the Coordinating Committee on September 21, 2016 at the Reading Regional Airport. MOTION: Mr. Golembiewski made a motion to forward the 2017 Draft meeting schedule to the Coordinating Committee with the two recommended changes. Mr. Kilmer seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 8. UPDATE ON FEDERAL CERTIFICATION REVIEW Mr. Piper stated that the Federal Certification Review was held last Tuesday and Wednesday. Tuesday was spent with FHWA staff reviewing our whole planning process. Thursday included follow- up discussion and reviewing Title VI, EJ and language issues. There were also two public meetings for municipal representatives and the public to meet 3

4 with the review team. There were a total of approximately 6 people that attended the two meetings. Mr. Piper stated that the MPO received a good reception from the review team for the products put out last year, particularly the Long Range Transportation Plan, the TIP and the Congestion Management Process. There are always ideas brought up to do better in terms of the public outreach efforts. Mr. Piper stated that FHWA allows 30-days from the last day of the meetings to receive written comments from anyone in the community. By the end of 2016 or early 2017, a draft report will be submitted with the findings. The draft report will come back to the MPO for a review of factual issues included in report but not the findings of the review team. The final report will come out in the spring of Ms. Dimpsey stated that the final report will come out no later than March 15, 2017, which is four years from the previous report. She said that FHWA was very pleased. The LRTP was cited as a Best Practice for Pennsylvania. They had a difficult time coming up with other recommendations. Overall, the MPO did a great job. Mr. Piper thanked them for the great review and also for the staff that worked on the plans. 9. DISCUSSION/RECOMMENDATION ON RATS PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS/LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY PLAN UPDATE PROCESS Mr. Golembiewski stated that, even though the results from the Certification Review have not been received yet, it became clear in some of the discussions that of our outreach efforts need to be enhanced. Berks County is becoming more diverse. We, as an MPO, need to address that in our written products and our outreach efforts including how we advertise meetings, where we advertise, locating various communities that we need to reach out to and how we contact them. Originally, we were going to do a staff-generated update to both the Public Participation Plan and the Limited English Proficiency Plan by updating the data, looking at the past and figuring out what works and what does not work. Through discussions held on Wednesday morning as well as some of the input we received from members of the public, it became clear that we need to do more than just a staff-generated update. We would like to form a Citizens Advisory Committee in order to get the public involved at the beginning of the process. Mr. Golembiewski stated that, with updated Census numbers, Vietnamese has just put us over the threshold as a second language group we may need to address. There are just fewer than 1,000 persons in Berks County that speak Vietnamese and do not speak English very well. Only 135 of those persons live within the City of Reading. One of our objectives is to figure out where in Berks County to the rest of the Vietnamese live, how do we reach out to them and get publications and notices to them. We are asking for help from the community to make this happen. 4

5 Ms. Dimpsey asked if the Citizens Advisory Committee would be making recommendations or approving ideas brought forth. Mr. Golembiewski said the committee would be making recommendations to this committee who would in turn make a recommendation to the Coordinating Committee. Mr. Golembiewski stated that we will reach out to the groups and organizations that we are aware of. As part of that outreach effort, we would ask them to spread the word and give us any information they have. We have invested in the Survey Monkey tool that will be used as well. One of the questions that were brought up to us by one of the federal reviewers was, since we get little participation, do we reach out and ask people why they don t participate. We should have an answer to this question, but we do not. We will reach out to the public the process. Chairman Kufro asked if this process would be started before the March 15, 2017 date. Mr. Golembiewski stated that the original goal was to have the Public Participation Plan and the Limited English Proficiency Plan recommended to the Coordinating Committee in November 2016 to go out for public comment. Since this will now be done through a citizen- based effort, it will not happen right away. Ms. Dimpsey stated that the March 15, 2017 date pertains only to the report due date for FHWA. Mr. Piper stated, technically, the MPO has four years after that date to make any recommendations. Ms. Dimpsey stated that FHWA did not identify any corrective actions during the evaluation; just recommendations were given. Mr. Piper stated that doing an update and reevaluation to these plans is in our work program every year. If we can go through the process and get things done prior to starting the round of the next update for all of the major plan processes, it will then be in place and will have a much better outreach source in place as the plans are initiated. MOTION: Mr. Kilmer made a recommendation to the Coordinating Committee to pursue the updates to the Public Participation Plan and the Limited English Proficiency Plan through a Citizens Advisory Committee. Ms. Hoag seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 10. UPDATE ON BERKS COUNTY OPTIONAL $5 REGISTRATION FEE PROCESS Mr. Piper stated that the Berks County Commissioners put an ordinance on the table a month ago regarding the Optional $5 Registration Fee for Local Use created through Act 89. It was approved unanimously by the board and the ordinance was submitted to PennDOT. Under the ordinance, the $5 registration fee will go into effect on March 1, PennDOT will include an additional $5 on each vehicle registration for any non-exempt vehicle that has an address listed in Berks County. That money goes back to PennDOT where it is assigned to a dedicated account and then it will be distributed to the county in June and December of each year, similar to when Liquid Fuels funds are distributed. Based on 2014 data, there were approximately 380,000 non- exempt vehicles in Berks County. Assuming 100% of those owners would pay 5

6 the $5 fee, it would be in the neighborhood of $1.9 million. There are certain classes of trailers that have 5-year registrations. Since their registration is only paid once, there is only one $5 fee paid to cover the 5-year period. Also, there is a provision in Act 89 that will go into effect at the beginning of 2017 that would allow the public the opportunity to purchase a 2-year registration. You would still pay the annual fee for each of the two years but would only pay the $5 fee once. There was some discussion regarding the state legislature wanting to revoke this provision, however, that was not adopted. For lack experience, we assumed that only 30% of the people might take advantage of the 2-year registration. A projection of 70% of total revenue being received would still yield $1.3 million per year. Included in the resolution, the Berks County Commissioners have stated that they will retain all of the funds for use on improvements to county-owned bridges. The legislation allows that funds could be distributed to municipalities for similar uses, but the Commissioners said no for right now because 53% of the county s 59 bridges are structurally deficient. 11. CITY OF READING REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSION-ROCKLAND STREET TAP Ms. Hoag stated that there are concerns about if the City is going to invest additionally to redo the design for the Rockland Street TAP and if that could be done in a timely manner. The requirement was to have the project out for bid within ninety (90) days of when the funds were obligated. Chairman Kufro stated that there is no time extension. Ms. Hoag said the money was obligated October 5, 2016, which gives them until the beginning of December The initial schedule with the PennDOT consultant PM was to have all of the bid documents in to PennDOT for review about four weeks in advance of when the City would advertise, which would have had them submit the documents yesterday. Chairman Kufro asked if the plan was being revised or down scoping or stay within the intent of the original scope. Ms. Hoag stated that at the public meeting, it became problematic for many members from the public to support the idea of reducing Rockland Street to a single lane in each direction. There were more concerns with the impacts of slowing traffic down, but it would protect the people who are turning left. The thought now is to try to keep the lanes the way they are (2 lanes in each direction with no left turn lanes). There was an initial look to see if bicycle lanes could be added by narrowing the lanes. Mr. Piper stated that when RATS approved the project, it was the concept that was approved. It was doing a road diet on a street and that is how it was ranked and got approved for its funding. What appears to be promoted now as the project is nothing more than street aesthetics and no practical change to the function of the highway. If that is what we are looking at, is that the same project RATS approved? Ms. Dimpsey asked if that means sidewalks and curbs or does it mean planting. Landscaping alone is not eligible. Streetscape usually includes sidewalks. Ms. Hoag said part of the discussion was can you put a bicycle lane at the same elevation as the sidewalk. It would still be within the right-of-way. Could that be done because it would not impact the travel lanes? It will still allow for the alternate method. There have been discussions about whether the designer has notations on the 6

7 number of pedestrians and bicycles using the corridor, but are not separated with the original traffic counts. That was not the focus and people have not brought up the fact that bicycles were not mentioned. There was discussion to revisit the counts and pulling out the amount of bicycles using the area and seeing what other ways things could be redesigned. It is understood that the entity that has paid for design and would pay to do any redesign would want some kind of commitment that the project would be able to move forward. Mr. Golembiewski asked if anything has happened, design-wise/government-wise, since City Council tabled this on September 12, 2016, or is the plan just sitting there. Ms. Hoag stated that there has been discussion regarding the options, what is the right-of way, and is it possible to do something different with the plan to maintain two lanes of traffic each way and still have the bicycle lanes. The answer was no to the current design being properly updated to go forward for bidding purposes. Chairman Kufro stated that the most important thing is to see if the scope still matches the intent of what was selected. Mr. Piper said not to waste time trying to prepare detailed plans until you have an idea of what that scope will be. Chairman Kufro stated that, if the original intent was a road diet with traffic calming and the current proposals do not even touch any of that, he doesn t see how this matches the intent of what was originally being done. It is not looking good with the time line. You need something that matches the intent that would suit all of the involved parties. The community does not want a road diet and that is what the project was selected for. Mr. Piper asked if the city can take the original plan and move forward and do it. Mr. Johnson said yes at their own peril. Ms. Dimpsey stated that it is public input; not public direction. Ms. Dimpsey stated that because there was additional public input, there needs to be a re-evaluation of the environmental documentation and it must be updated. She said that pure landscaping is not eligible for TAP anymore. Sidewalks and bicycles facilities are eligible and incidental landscaping along with it is eligible. Chairman Kufro asked if lighting is eligible. Ms. Dimpsey stated that it depends on what the scope of the lighting is used for; pedestrian, safety, ornamental, etc. Ms. Hoag stated that the lighting was originally going to be down the center of the street but had to meet PennDOT regulations for street lighting. The intent was for pedestrian lighting, so lighting was only needed on either side of the street at a lower level. The city was told they needed more lights to light the entire street. That is not what the desire of the plan was. Ms. Dimpsey was curious if the MPO has backup projects. Mr. Piper stated that we are still waiting for the state to tell us what statewide TAP projects were selected this year. He is not sure if there are backup projects or not. This is not a current year project; this is a 2014 year project. The State has still not selected the 2016 year round. The word is that the recommendations have been made months ago. They were late selecting the multimodal projects, which only came out a few weeks ago. The only projects that have funding approval right now under the TAP, are those funds that were locally approved, which is the project for 18 th Wonder and approximately $300,000 towards Birdsboro s Sidewalks and Curb Cut Improvement Program. Ms. Dimpsey stated that maybe Birdsboro Borough needs more curbs. Mr. Piper stated that we funded what was available to that project and the rest was submitted to the state. Mr. Golembiewski asked, if the funds came from a 2014 program, can they be applied to a 2016 project. Mr. Piper was not sure if those funds 7

8 would technically disappear on October 1, Ms. Dimpsey stated that, generally, all the old funds are used first across the state, so there is no lapse issue. Technically, the city project was obligated first and is still within the 90-day window. The funds may need to be reallocated on December 5, Mr. Kilmer asked if there are other 2014 projects still going on. Mr. Piper said there are quite a few projects that have not been implemented yet. Chairman Kufro asked how much the Rockland Street project would cost. Ms. Hoag said $292.7 thousand. Mr. Piper gave information on the projects that are still out there that have not been implemented. They are: Crosswalks on Lancaster Avenue between Shillington Borough and Cumru Township - scheduled to be let this fall. Sinking Spring Borough - scheduled to be let this fall Boyertown Borough Colebrookdale Railroad No let date scheduled Mr. Piper stated that the project managers can only do so much when the applicants are not given the information. Chairman Kufro asked, what if the Mayor of Reading decides to go through with the Rockland Street Project. Mr. Johnson apologized for being late. He just had a conference call with the Wyomissing Foundation, which has funded the engineering up to this point. He asked if the City of Reading is eligible for an extension for the Rockland Street Project. If so, how long would the extension last? Chairman Kufro stated that there is no extension. Mr. Johnson also asked if there is a chance to receive any more funding. If the Wyomissing Foundation could receive more funding and a time extension, they would try to design a different design. Reading Ms. Hoag s notes, he doesn t think the proposed design would have met the criteria anyway. He will go back and tell them this project is probably dead. The last idea proposed is to move the bicycle lane behind the curb and try to put a bicycle lane on the street side of the curb on the north side. There are utility poles on that side of the street. There should be enough room for four lanes. That is not a road diet and doesn t meet that criterion. It is a good project but the opposition is overwhelming. The public came out in force in a meeting with the local neighborhood community, which became very hostile. Their point was that they were not consulted earlier in the process, which is a legitimate complaint. At the official meeting held by City Council, there were a lot more people in opposition than in favor of the project. Chairman Kufro stated that the project is still open until December 5 th. If this project would go away, it does not prevent the sponsor from redesigning something completely different and resubmitting the project for funding again in a future year. Mr. Johnson stated that the City of Reading should have included the citizens earlier to avoid the opposition. Mr. Johnson stated that there is an official group in that area that is very strong called the College Heights Community Council, which has been in existence for a very long time. They are the city s strongest neighborhood group and they were not included in the initial presentation to the neighborhood. That was a mistake. Some of the 8

9 people in opposition told the traffic engineer that he didn t know what he was talking about. Chairman Kufro stated that these latest actions are a good example of public participation and that the city s intentions were good. 12. COMMUTER SERVICES UPDATE Mr. Boyer handed out the Spring-Summer Program Update. He stated that the Best Work Places for Commuters program and awards were mentioned. Commuter Services Try Transit Month events were held with BARTA and they obtained new Emergency Ride Home Program applications. Over the past 6 years, over 350 ERH applications were received by Commuter Services from BARTA riders. 13. PENNDOT UPDATE ON BRIDGES Chairman Kufro gave an update on Bridge projects. (See Attachment) Mr. Piper stated that the contractors were given Notice to Proceed for the Penn Street Bridge. The contractors will begin mobilizing immediately. Within the next four weeks, they will be moving in their equipment and will begin offsite work that relates to drainage, construction, milling, grubbing, and construction on non-roadway portions of the bridge. This can all happen before the Buttonwood Street Bridge is open. Any of the actual roadway changes that restrict the number of lanes must wait until then. As of yesterday, the Buttonwood Street Bridge project is still scheduled for completion by April 24, There will be regular scheduled progress meetings for the Penn Street Bridge. It will be a six stage project. Work will be started in the middle lanes of the bridge, then on the north side then on the south side. The estimated completion date for the project is December 19, Mr. Piper stated that the construction plan is still intended to stay the same as was presented in the preliminary plans meeting. There will be three lanes open at all times; two lanes out and one lane in and at least one sidewalk open at all times. 14. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Piper stated that he received notice on Tuesday from the Department that they will be making supplemental funding available to MPO s to be applied to either their highway/bridge or transit UPWP work programs. There will be a maximum statewide of $1 million for the highway side and a maximum statewide of $1.275 million on the transit side. We think that we are within our financial envelope for what we think we can spend per year on the highway side, so we are not proposing to request anything additional. The transit side is distributed to an area by formula. If we want to use it, we have $30,000 that is available to the area. Mr. Kilmer was notified of this to see if SCTA/BARTA was interested in the funding. The Department said not to ask for the funding if you are not going to use it. The funding would have to be used by July 2018, since we have a two year UPWP. Since this funding has been offered, SCTA/BARTA has put together a scope to 9

10 request funding of the $30,000 coming from the Reading area to be combined with additional money from the Lancaster area and matched with some of their regular federal funds to do a full two-county system wide Transit Development Plan Update. Mr. Kilmer stated that one thing to look at is to see if there is a need to provide service between the two counties. That is going to be one of the major work tasks to evaluate that need now that the two entities have somewhat merged. They were going to program funds out of FY 2017 in both urbanized areas to do a combined TDP update. It has been five years for BARTA and more than 4 years for Lancaster. Mr. Kilmer would like to get both entities on the same schedule. Mr. Kilmer stated that $30,000 will be requested for both BARTA (Berks) and Red Rose Transit Authority (Lancaster) and SCTA will provide the match out of their regular accounts. Mr. Golembiewski asked if one document will cover both counties. Mr. Kilmer said yes. Mr. Golembiewski asked if we can apply funds from two MPO s for one product. Mr. Piper said as long as they are careful of how the money is spent. Mr. Kilmer agreed. He said the document will be structured so there will be Lancaster portion, a Reading portion and the combined results of the two. MOTION: Mr. Golembiewski made a motion to recommend to the Coordinating Committee to move forward with making a submission and requesting the addition of this into the FFY UPWP. Mr. Piper seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Mr. Piper stated that a notice was received from FHWA stating that they are soliciting funding opportunities under the 2017 Fast Lane Program, which is for use on the National Freight Network. There is a limited initial network in place, which covers the Interstate system and Turnpike. This includes I-176 and I-78. There is also a link from I-176 to our main intermodal terminal in Sinking Spring. Mr. Piper submitted a request to PennDOT and FHWA questioning why the routing follows US 422 from I-176 to Lancaster Avenue (SR 3222), Lancaster Avenue through Shillington to SR 724, SR 724 to Penn Avenue (SR 422) in Sinking Spring, SR 422 to Columbia Avenue (SR 3016) and Columbia Avenue to the facility on Mountain Home Road. Mr. Piper questioned why the route does not follow the West Shore Bypass (US 422) all the way from I-176 to the US 222/US 422 Interchange in Wyomissing and then continue on either US 422 (Penn Avenue) all the way to Columbia Avenue or follow US 222 south to its interchange with SR 724 and then proceed to the facility from there. The only reason he can surmise is that it was in place based on old mapping that still followed US 222 prior to the opening of the new US 222 South. If we are going to make a request for Fast Lane funds they can only be applied somewhere on this network. Do we have an opportunity here? Is there something specific that the MPO can go through? Chairman Kufro stated that PennDOT s Central Office has their own list of statewide projects. The MPO in the Lehigh 10

11 Valley has a list of projects they are considering. He asked about the I-78 Truck Climbing Lane project. If we get the money for it, it will free up funds from that project for use elsewhere. Mr. Piper said it would be a big plus if we can get the project up there. Chairman Kufro stated that you have to have a project that can advance by a certain point and that meets the criteria. He thought that maybe there was a possibility of a project in the Sinking Spring area but that is not to the point where construction would happen soon. Chairman Kufro restated that it has to be a project ready for construction. Mr. Piper stated that we do have the West Shore Bypass project. This is certainly something to think about for future rounds. Chairman Kufro mentioned the truck climbing lanes or the Cabela s interchange, which is the Hamburg Bridge Widening project. It is good to free up money to spend it elsewhere within the MPO. Technically, both projects are Interstate projects. Mr. Piper stated that, if it is Interstate money, it does not come out of the MPO allocation. The Interstate System is set up as its own MPO, except on occasion when we have extra money at the end of a fiscal cycle and the Department borrows it. Mr. Piper stated that he was surprised there was only a 30-day window to prepare and submit applications. Ms. Dimpsey stated that she believes this will be an annual program. If a project is applied for this year and does not get picked, just apply again next year. Mr. Piper asked who needs to do this. Chairman Kufro stated that it is best to come from the MPO. He mentioned the I-78 project to Central Office and they thought it was a good idea. Central Office is focused on a big project in York County. We need big projects that are ready to be started. Mr. Piper stated that applicants can apply now through December 15, MOTION: Mr. Piper made a motion to recommend to the Coordinating Committee to consider making a submission of the I-78(12M)-Truck Climbing Lane project. Mr. Kilmer seconded the motion and it was unanimous. Mr. Piper stated that there is also something we need to do by the end of That is designating Critical Rural and Critical Urban Freight Corridors. These are roads in Berks County in addition to this interim freight network. We would forward recommendations to the state and the state would consider them for inclusion in a statewide submission. The state has a very limited number of miles that it is allowed to add to this network and were not looking at big roadway sections. They were looking more at close-in miles that hit major freight generating facilities. One of the criteria being used is whether or not the road has greater than 25% truck traffic. Ms. Hoag asked, if there is a limited amount of miles, how do we resolve the Lancaster Avenue question and not have those miles count toward the requested additions. That question needs to be answered. Mr. Piper said any routes within the census defined urban area would be considered a Critical Urban Freight Corridor and anything outside of that would be considered a Critical Rural Freight Corridor. 11

12 Mr. Piper stated that, looking at the whole county, the connections that would be the most beneficial to Berks County would be the Rt. 61 Corridor from US 222 to I-78, the US 222 N Corridor to the Lehigh Valley or even the US 422 East Corridor, which would depend on what the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) is doing with their recommendation relating to US 422. Rt. 183 to I-78 or the entire Rt. 100 Corridor might be other corridors to look at as a link but that are not as critical. The Rt. 100 Corridor also depends on what is being recommended in the Lehigh Valley and the DVRPC area. Mr. Johnson asked by getting this designation, how does this help us. Mr. Piper said that it makes those roads that are formally designated by the state eligible for a completely separate pot of funding from the National Freight Program. It can only be applied to roads that fall within that network. Mr. Johnson asked, if this is based on old data, how does this work. Ms. Dimpsey stated that this is only the Interim National Highway Freight Network. It can be resolved. Mr. Johnson said that the new US 222 South Corridor is coming off of the Turnpike, which is a heavy truck run. He cannot understand why it is not showing up with the data. Mr. Piper said it was double checked against the data. Other than the Interstate, we don t have anything that meets the 25% criteria. Mr. Golembiewski reported the truck percentages of each corridor. 10% - 17% Trucks Rt. 61 (US 222-Schuylkill Co. line) 10% - 17% Trucks US 222 North - 16% - 21% Trucks Rt % - 13% Trucks 422 East - 6% - 9% Trucks 222 South - 7% -17% Trucks Rt % - 10% Trucks I-78 East - 30% - 43% Trucks (Already part of the network) I-78 West 29% - 34% Trucks (Already part of the network) This information came from PennDOT s online traffic monitoring system (ITMS). Mr. Piper stated that, in the end, if they are looking at a limited number of miles, we might want to look at close in routes in and around the Reading urban area that are extensions off of this with lines to major freight generators. Mr. Piper stated that more work needs to be done in order to come back with a recommendation. This will be carried over into January

13