Dear neighbors:
An informational meeting was held on June 23rd for our neighborhood and Gwynedd View/Rose Lane neighbors about the upcoming construction on Rt. 202. Penn Dot has active plans to build the 202 parkway from Welsh rd north and for major improvements to the 202/Welsh rd intersection. You can check the website called
www.us202.com for lots of info about the parkway but it does not seem to include the section called 65N that was addressed at the meeting. We should all try to stay informed - the project is scheduled to begin in January! I have copied below a letter to the neighborhood from Gwen Douse, a neighbor on Claudia way. She addressed most of the issues from the meeting. I have inserted additions in blue to clarify what was said at the meeting. Hope you find this helpful.
Carol Pfister
July 3, 2008
Dear Neighbors,
Below is a list of concerns I sent to Kate Harper, followed by her response, regarding the PENNDOT meeting held on June 23rd with our neighborhood and Gwynedd View Road neighbors. Potentially, construction and the after-math could increase volume of traffic through Gwynedd Knoll. We have requested another meeting with PENNDOT in the fall and want our township and elected officials present as well. Construction is planned to begin next winter/spring. We need to unite and take immediate and appropriate steps now, so that the integrity of our neighborhood is preserved. Larry Comunale, township manager, and Kate Harper, state rep., have been involved with our situation. Questions, comments, and concerns can be addressed below, as well as to members of the Board of Supervisors, listed on Lower Gwynedd's web site:
Best wishes,
Gwen Douse
Larry Comunale lcomunale@lowergwynedd.org
Kate Harper Kharper@pahousegop.com
· First, Carol's summary of the plan: Gwynedd View and Swede Rd will be closed at the ends where they intersect with 202 by the WaWa. They will become a cul-de-sac. This whole project is called section 65N - includes 202 and the parkway and related roads.
The 202 parkway will be built from Welsh Rd to connect to 611. That will start from the current 202 just about where Swede Rd now cuts off to the right, just south of Bacco. It will be 4 lanes wide with a bike lane.
The intersection of 202 and Welsh Rd will be improved to 2 lanes in each direction from Stump Rd to the Assi shopping center (approx.) There will be an easy right turn from 202 north to Welsh Rd in the new configuration. The current 202 will be expanded to 4 lanes plus a turn lane from Hancock to past Welsh Rd.
Sound walls will be built on our side of 202, using the designs approved back several years ago.
202 south of Hancock down to Sumneytown will not be changed in this project.
They are still planning to straighten out Meetinghouse Rd and intersect with 202 but the light originally agreed upon is now not included since the numbers do not indicate a need.
Due to the anticipated traffic for our neighborhood of people trying to avoid the Welsh Rd intersection during construction, Penn dot is proposing to build the much debated "porkchop" at the Hancock Rd entrance. It will be a temporary structure of barrels. Emergency services have agreed to this idea. This means you can only turn north on 202 coming out of Hancock Rd. And you can only enter Hancock Rd coming north on 202. No one will be able to go straight through on Hancock from the Upper Gwynedd side either.
The construction time for the parkway and the 202 improvements is planned for 12 to 18 months, finishing in 2010.
PENNDOT is basing major decisions on 2001 data.(They admitted that the traffic number surveys used were taken in 2001.)
· The closure of Gwynedd View Road at 202 will add MORE traffic to our development (residents of Gwynedd View Road as well as cut-through drivers using that street to avoid the congested corridors)
· The fact that the 202 Parkway project (which I had read was developed by/pet project of Governor Rendell), is only partially being funded/thus only partially being constructed is ridiculous; our representatives MUST continue the fight for FULL funding due to the exploding population in this area!
· Since 65 N was the section that PENNDOT chose to build, that segment should be extended at least to Sumneytown Pike, not just South of Hancock-the entrance to Gwynedd Knoll!
· A major culprit contributing to the traffic problems in this area is the out-dated 63 corridor-PENNDOT has no major plans to improve it.
· During construction we were told that Hancock, will be a right turn in/right turn out on 202, which should help alleviate traffic since southbound traffic and Upper Gwynedd side of Hancock traffic will not be able to enter our neighborhood; for Gwynedd Knoll residents our right turns out will lead straight into the traffic back-ups created from construction, which is the price we will need to pay for our safety; however drivers heading north on 202, stuck in traffic, will easily be able to turn into our neighborhood, and this could be a considerable amount of traffic.
· We asked that a traffic light be installed immediately at 202 and Meetinghouse Road (something which we thought had already been promised) to help us and others at least be able to head north on 202; the township is willing to pay for it; Penn Dot says there are plans to straighten out Meetinghouse Road (which we have heard for many years!), so they won't be in that light; these plans are at least four years away!!! We need help now! (The blinking light solution is like putting a band-aid on cancer!)
· Ed Brandt had requested that Hancock on Upper Gwynedd's side be turned into three lanes to help alleviate traffic-right, center, left-PENNDOT said NO; his request would also help with the flow of traffic
· Underlying all these issues seems to be money; for the safety of our community we need action NOW for these corridor improvements in this area-what do we need to do to get action instead of hearing about plans that never seem to materialize-it is so frustrating!
Dear Gwen,
I spent most of the last two days in hearings on whether we should sell/lease the Turnpike to generate cash to do road improvement projects. Needless to say, one of the real issues here is money and the fact that the jump in petroleum prices has caused road construction costs to rise precipitously is not helping. However, the real issue is that the gas tax is not generating enough cash to fix our aging bridges and still do "improvement" projects. Needless to say, few legislators are anxious to increase gas taxes with gas prices topping $4 per gallon. We either find more money, or scale back projects, or slow them down. PENNDOT has chosen to slow them down and divert money to bridges to avoid having a bridge collapse and kill people.
Having said that, let me explain. Some parts of the route 202 project continue to move forward. Section 650, which we (LGT and I) years ago persuaded PENNDOT to consider part of the Route 202 By Pass/Parkway (section 700) is moving. Section 650 starts at Hancock and goes toward Welsh Road. Section 700 starts at Welsh Road with the new road.
As part of that project, Lower Gwynedd and I persuaded PENNDOT to consider the residents' idea of stopping through traffic from Hancock through your development to accommodate the construction and to give us a chance to see how it helps with the cut through problem. We were successful in that, but it took many meetings and discussions. Hopefully that will help. I know the Township also offered "traffic calming" but apparently your neighbors were not united in supporting that as a solution.
I recognize that your neighbors believe that meetinghouse Road should have a light now and I appreciate the Township's offer to help with the costs.
However, I think its important for us to continue to stress the need to realign Meetinghouse Road to accommodate the new post office and fire station. We had hoped PENNDOT would agree to split that section of roadway from the 600 section and add it to 650, but so far they have not done it. They are considering, however, moving forward on improvements to Evans and Welsh and Evans and Sumneytown which should help traffic move along those parallel routes and provide some much needed stormwater drainage as well.
As for being at the last meeting, I wanted to be there but was in Session in Hbg. I sent Kathy Rusch who called me with a full report. She attends the 202 meetings and is quite knowledgeable.
I can assure you that you have excellent advocates at the Township level and in me for your traffic concerns. Out of the 203 House members, I am sure Transportation Secretary Biehler recognizes a mere handful on sight and I am one of them -- because of my persistence on these issues. I appreciate that you are frustrated. We are as well, and are working hard every day to try to get the traffic moving and the projects up and running.
We welcome your support, we listen to your ideas, and absent the ability to be in two places at the same moment, or to wave a wand and make it happen, we are all doing everything we can do, and we will continue to do everything we can do. Thanks for letting me know how you feel about this -- and don't worry about 2001 data. If we wait to test the traffic again when the light is ready to be installed, I'll bet it fits the PENNDOT criteria and we can get that light.
Kate Harper
