long-range transportation plan - northern tier ntrpdc lrtp_finaldraft.pdf · this long-range...

Long-Range Transportation Plan 2015–2040 Final Draft 2.10.2015

312 Main Street Towanda, Pennsylvania 18848

Brian Baker, Regional Planning Program Manager

This work was sponsored by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration.

The contents of this plan reflect the views of the author(s), who is (are) responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the United States Department of Transportation, or the Federal Highway Administration at the time of publication. This plan does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

Table of Contents

Northern Tier Regional Planning & Development Commission i

Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................................... ii

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. ES-1

1 Plan Purpose and Preparation ........................................................................................... 1

2 The Northern Tier Region ................................................................................................... 5

3 NT's Transportation System ............................................................................................. 29

4 Regional Direction ................................................................................................................ 69

5 Transportation Policy .......................................................................................................... 71

6 Project Selection and Prioritization .............................................................................. 75

7 Financial Analysis .................................................................................................................. 79

8 Benefits and Burdens .......................................................................................................... 85

9 Environmental Screening ................................................................................................... 87

10 Planning Activities ........................................................................................................... 103

Acronyms ................................................................................................................................................... 109

Appendix A – 2014–2040 Highway, Bridge, and Transit Projects

Appendix B – Maps

Appendix C – Local Coordinated Plan

Appendix D – Studies Completed by Northern Tier since 2009

Appendix E – Public Participation Plan

Appendix F – Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program Guidance and Project Application

ii Long Range Transportation Plan, 2015-2040

Acknowledgements The Northern Tier Regional Planning and Development Commission (NTRPDC) expresses its appreciation to the following individuals for their guidance, insights, and participation toward the successful completion of this long-range transportation plan update. Their active review of preliminary documents, constructive dialogue, and enthusiastic service is greatly valued.

Rural Transportation Advisory Committee Bradford County Doug McKlinko, County Commissioner Ray Stolinas, County Planning Director Richard Biery, County Citizen Sullivan County Bob Getz, County Commissioner Mike Hufnagel, County Planner Donald Hottenstien, County Citizen

Susquehanna County Allan Hall, County Comissioner Leonard Wheatley, Township Supervisor Rudy Mattes, Township Supervisor

Tioga County Mark Hamilton, County Commissioner Jim Weaver, County Planning Director Fred LaVancher, County Citizen

Wyoming County Thomas Henry, County Commissioner Nicole Boling, County Planning Director Jean Ruhf, Endless Mountain Visitor's

Bureau Director PennDOT Justin Batiuk, District 3-0 Marie Bishop, District 4-0 Carey Mullins, PennDOT Central Office Federal Highway Administration, USDOT Deborah Suciu-Smith Northern Tier Regional Planning and Development Commission Brian Baker, Regional Planning Program

Manager Ethan Sexton, Regional Planner Matthew Williams, Community

Development Program Manager

Planning Consultants Michelle Brummer, AICP, Gannett Fleming Dennis Lebo, Gannett Fleming

Executive Summary

Northern Tier Regional Planning & Development Commission ES-1

long range transportation plan

2015-2040

This long-range transportation plan (LRTP) aims to guide development and maintenance of the Northern Tier’s multimodal transportation system, promoting efficient mobility that is aligned with the economic development and conservation goals of the Northern Tier Regional Planning and Development Commission’s (NTRPDC’s) five-county service region—Bradford, Tioga, Sullivan, Susquehanna, and Wyoming counties. The LRTP, which considers a 25-year planning horizon, includes projects and planning activities to maintain, improve, and, where appropriate, expand the region’s multimodal transportation system through 2040—updating the previous 2009–2035 LRTP. The LRTP was developed with the direction of NTRPDC’s Rural Transportation Advisory Committee (RTAC), input from transportation stakeholders gathered during meetings in November 2013 and January 2014, and in coordination with PennDOT’s Central Office, Engineering Districts 3-0 and 4-0, and the Federal Highway Adminstration (FHWA).

Since 2009 Since its previous LRTP was completed, NTRPDC has conducted several planning studies that relate to the condition and improvement of the transportation system—regionwide as well as in specific communities. All were completed prior to the passage of the Commonwealth’s Act 89 of 2013 , which increased funding for transportation in Pennsylvania for the next five years. While funding has increased, extensive deferred maintenance will take years to address.

Meanwhile, activity related to the Marcellus shale industry fluctuates but continues to impact the region, often with high volumes of heavy truck traffic supplying materials to new natural gas well sites and removing waste hydrofracturing fluid across the state and local highway network. The industry has also increased the use of the rail network to import materials.

In addition, several state and federal initiatives have influenced transportation planning practices in Pennsylvania:

• PennDOT has continued to emphasize Asset Management (including timely preventative maintenance) to preserve and extend the lifecycle of its facilities.

• PennDOT has implemented Linking Planning and NEPA (LPN), its protocol for early coordination on avoidance and mitigation of potential environmental impacts.

• PennDOT introduced Performance-based Planning as a means to measure the condition and trends of various aspects of the transportation system, including asset conditions, safety, and funding, among others, to inform system needs.

• To address one of the most concerning asset conditions—structurally deficient bridges—PennDOT continues to emphasize essential bridge projects through its project selection and prioritization guidance.

ES-2 Long-Range Transportation Plan, 2015–2040

• Congress authorized Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) as the current transportation funding authorization. The legislation consolidated funding programs, reformed the environmental review process, and reduced separate bicycle and pedestrian funding. Bicycle and pedestrian projects are now eligible for funding through the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP). MAP-21 also calls for a national freight policy and provides incentives for state freight planning.

Projects and Analysis More than 700 projects are presented in this LRTP. The vast majority of these projects address structurally deficient bridges on the state highway system. Many more will maintain or improve highway pavement conditions. Others will improve the safety of the system, which may reduce crashes and fatalities.

Projects expected to be undertaken within the next four years based on urgency and available funding are known as the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Projects on the TIP, as well as the projects likely to be undertaken within the following two four-year periods, are known as the Twelve-Year Program, or TYP. The LRTP has a 25-year planning horizon, and therefore also lists longer-range projects worthy of consideration through 2040.

NTRPDC has included PennDOT Central Office and District programmed projects and priorities, namely:

• Projects on the 2015 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), including carryover projects from the 2013 TIP

• “Decade of Investment” projects identified by PennDOT to be funded as part of Pennsylvania Act 89 of 2013

• Projects to address state-owned structurally deficient bridges • Projects to address local structurally deficient bridges greater than 20 feet long

The list of projects includes four line items to reserve funds for local needs that may arise:

• Safety Study Implementation line item • Local road line item • Local bridge line item • Towanda/Wysox Congestion Relief Projects line item

Benefits and Burdens (Environmental Justice) Because the majority of LRTP projects are system preservation projects or safety improvements to the existing system—not new construction—benefits are expected to be shared among users and the majority of burdens are expected to be temporary impacts to users and nearby residents. If new construction projects are added to the LRTP, project-level analysis of the benefits and burdens will be needed to ensure that minority and low income populations are not unfairly impacted.

Environmental Impact Avoidance

ES-3


2015-2040

NTRPDC recognizes that any project or action will have desired effects on the transportation system as well as other impacts to the community and the environment during and after construction. Based on years of project development and construction, it also recognizes that many impacts are predictable and furthermore manageable from the outset of project identification and planning. Its environmental analysis demonstrates that most projects could affect at least one resource category, but that most impacts would be temporary given the project emphasis on system preservation.

Planning Activities In addition to the capital improvement projects identified in this plan, Northern Tier’s transportation planners can support the region’s development and environmental directions through ongoing planning activities. Some of these activities are related to the transportation infrastructure itself while others are cooperative and coordinating activities that will help to identify and develop candidate transportation projects or that will advance community and economic development initiatives.

ES-4 Long-Range Transportation Plan, 2015–2040

Intentionally blank for two-sided printing

Plan Purpose and Preparation

Northern Tier Regional Planning & Development Commission 1

1 Purpose This Long-Range Transportation Plan aims to guide development and maintenance of an efficient transportation system, promoting efficient mobility that is aligned with the economic development and conservation goals of the Northern Tier Regional Planning and Development Commission’s (NTRPDC’s) five-county service region: Bradford, Sullivan, Susquehanna, Tioga, and Wyoming counties. NTRPDC serves as the Rural Planning Organization (RPO) for Pennsylvania’s Northern Tier, and thus is responsible for regional long-range transportation planning. NTRPDC also leads the region’s Rural Transportation Advisory Committee (RTAC) and works closely with partners at all levels of government for the ongoing development, maintenance, and operation of the region’s multimodal transportation system. This LRTP includes an analysis of the region and projects and planning activities to maintain, improve, and, where appropriate, expand the region’s transportation system.

This LRTP has been developed in accordance with Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21), the current federal transportation legislation, enacted in 2012.

While the federal planning requirements for Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) do not formally extend to Rural Planning Organizations (RPOs), Pennsylvania's RPOs, including NTRPDC, have signed memorandums of understanding with PennDOT that hold them to the same planning requirements as MPOs. NTRPDC works with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation’s (PennDOT’s) Central Office and two local engineering districts, as well as the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to fulfill these requirements. NTRPDC works in collaboration with representatives from county government (elected officials and planning department staff), transit authorities, aviation, rail and trail organizations, business, and industry. The Northern Tier’s Rural Transportation Advisory Committee functions as a

Figure 1: Northern Tier’s member counties and location

The region’s transportation system includes: 7,478 linear highway miles

1,776 state and 342 local bridges, 3 airports,

138 miles of rail, and 2 public transportation providers.

2 Long-Range Transportation Plan, 2015-2040

technical planning committee, and meets at regularly scheduled intervals. As such, the Northern Tier is well organized to respond to a federal planning requirement for the RPO, if so revised by the FHWA planning regulations.

The long-range transportation planning process is intended to consider the near- and longer-term transportation needs of the region, prioritize the most needed projects, and align them with projections of available funding through data analysis and local input. The LRTP is updated approximately every five years to ensure that transportation investment policies and projects remain responsive and directive to the region’s needs and evolve to maintain consistency with current state and federal initiatives. The prioritized list of projects (known as the transportation program) is revisited every two years to ensure it properly reflects regional priorities and available funding.

Preparation The LRTP was developed with input from the Rural Transportation Advisory Committee, transportation stakeholders from meetings held in November 2013 and January 2014, and in coordination with PennDOT’s Central Office, Engineering Districts 3-0 and 4-0, and FHWA.

Current and Emerging Issues Since the 2009–2035 LRTP, a number of state initiatives have influenced transportation planning practices in Pennsylvania:

• PennDOT has continued to emphasize Asset Management tools to preserve and extend the life cycles of its facilities.

• PennDOT has implemented Linking Planning and NEPA (LPN), its protocol for early coordination on avoidance and mitigation of potential environmental impacts.

• PennDOT introduced Performance-based Planning as a means to measure the condition and trend of various aspects of the transportation system, including asset conditions, safety, and funding, among others.

• Pennsylvania’s Legislature and Governor Corbett passed Act 89 of 2013, which increased state and local funding for the transportation system in light of deteriorating statewide infrastructure condition.

• To address one of the most concerning asset conditions, PennDOT has continued to emphasize the reduction of structurally deficient bridges through its project selection and prioritization guidance.

In addition, MAP-21 revised transportation funding policy in several ways. MAP-21:

• consolidated funding programs; • instituted a performance-based program focused on safety improvement, which

PennDOT had been anticipating for several years;

3


2015-2040

• reformed the environmental review process; • reduced dedicated bicycle and pedestrian funding, but made them eligible for funding

through the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP); and • called for a national freight policy and provided incentives for state-level freight

planning.

In the Northern Tier region, recent and longstanding transportation issues persist: • Prior to the passage of Act 89, limited funding deferred much-needed maintenance and

improvement to state and local transportation facilities, including structurally deficient bridges.

• Activity associated with the Marcellus shale industry fluctuates, but it continues to impact the region with high volumes of heavy truck traffic supplying materials to new natural gas well sites and removing wastewater across the state and local highway network. It also has increased use of the rail network to import materials for gas extraction and pipeline construction.

Plan Overview This LRTP for the 2015–2040 planning period provides:

• an overview of the most significant trends and issues affecting transportation in Pennsylvania’s Northern Tier;

• a framework for transportation decisions to support community development and economic development;

• a financial plan, consistent with state and federal transportation regulations that require long-range plans to be fiscally constrained and determined by Year of Expenditure;

• an analysis of social and environmental impacts of representative projects; • a listing of projects and line item reserves to be funded with projected state and federal

revenue; and • a meaningful basis for implementation through various planning activities and

commitments to environmental coordination. The more than 700 projects listed in this LRTP (see Appendix A) were screened and prioritized according to selection criteria that reflect regional, state, and federal priorities. Projects expected to be undertaken within the next four years based on urgency and available funding are known as the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Projects on the TIP, as well as the projects likely to be undertaken within the following two four-year periods, are known as the Twelve-Year Program, or TYP. The LRTP has a 25-year planning horizon, and therefore also lists longer-range projects worthy of consideration through 2040.


Public Participation Early in the planning process, transportation staff from NTRPDC invited county officials and agencies to discuss transportation conditions and needs and transportation’s support of community and economic development. Outreach sessions were conducted county-by-county to focus discussion on local transportation facilities. County commissioners, county planners, economic development agencies, conservation districts, and municipal representatives were invited to participate. Approximately 30 people participated directly in the discussion of transportation conditions and needs and transportation’s support of community and economic development. Comments made by participants are noted in Chapters 2 and 3. Themes among these discussions included:

• Improve driver navigation. • Reduce crashes and crash severity. • Reduce road and bridge infrastructure impacts on waterways, floodplains, and wildlife. • Reduce maintenance costs. • Improve infrastructure to serve businesses. • Improve safety. • Improve design to current standards for modern vehicles, modern speeds. • Improve asset management. • Reduce congestion at known bottlenecks. • Evaluate transportation improvements periodically after completion to ensure that they

are achieving the intended results. • Improve mobility for all modes. • Enhance communities. • Increase the number of highways that receive priority maintenance, especially with

regard to winter travel reliability. • Increase Interstate system access, particularly in support of economic development. • Improve highway access and access management. • Expand mobility choices. • Increase access to fuel choices and efficiency.

After the draft plan was assembled, it was made available for public review at the NTRPDC office in Towanda, as well as at the planning offices in each county and on the NTRPDC website (NorthernTier.org). Additionally, copies were made available upon request.

The RTAC hosted a public meeting on December 8, 2014, at the Towanda Country Club to hear public comments on the draft plan.

The LRTP was formally adopted by the RTAC in March 2015.

The Northern Tier Region


2 This chapter characterizes the region’s 182,000 residents, its resource- and service-based economy and workforce, its land use patterns, and its sensitive environmental resources. See Map 1, Major Communities, and Map 2, County Subdivisions, for geographic context.

People Population Growth Population trends are one of many indicators that provide a glimpse as to how well an area is faring economically. The Northern Tier region has historically experienced steady population growth. During the 1990s, the region grew by 4,355 residents for a growth rate of less than 2.5 percent. Between 2000 and 2010, growth in the number of permanent residents was much slower— only 1,655 people and less than 1 percent—and slower than Pennsylvania’s 3.4 percent statewide population growth. Population growth rates varied significantly by county. Sullivan County experienced population losses, with a growth rate of -2 percent, while Susquehanna and Tioga counties experienced positive rates at or above 1.5 percent. It is important to note that these figures do not account for the influx of workers associated with the boom of Marcellus shale gas extraction See Table 1 and Figure 2.

Table 1: Historical and Projected Population Change, 1980 – 2040, Northern Tier

Bradford Sullivan Susquehanna Tioga Wyoming Northern

Tier PA Population Count, 1980 62,919 6,349 37,876 40,973 26,433 174,550 11,863,895 Population Count, 1990 60,967 6,104 40,380 41,126 28,076 176,653 11,881,643 Population Count, 2000 62,761 6,556 42,238 41,373 28,080 181,008 12,281,054 Population Count, 2010 62,622 6,428 43,356 41,981 28,276 182,663 12,702,379 Change, 1980-2010 -297 79 5,480 1,008 1,843 8,113 838,484 -0.5% 1.3% 16.0% 2.5% 9.7% 5.2% 7.1% Change, 2000-2010 -139 -128 1,118 608 196 1,655 421,325 -0.2% -2.0% 2.6% 1.5% 0.7% 0.9% 3.4% Population Count, 2010 62,622 6,428 43,356 41,981 28,276 182,663 12,702,379 Projection, 2020 64,106 6,608 42,335 43,227 28,460 184,736 13,230,170 Projection, 2030 65,812 6,531 41,525 44,136 28,146 186,150 13,759,594 Projection, 2040 67,051 6,482 40,133 44,325 27,269 185,260 14,132,588 Change, 2010-2020 1,484 180 -1,021 1,246 184 2,073 527,791 2.4% 2.8% -2.4% 3.0% 0.7% 1.1% 4.2% Change, 2010-2040 4,429 54 -3,223 2,344 -1,007 2,597 1,430,209 7.1% 0.8% -7.4% 5.6% -3.6% 1.4% 11.3%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau; Pennsylvania State Data Center


Looking ahead to 2020 projections, all counties except for Susquehanna are expected to experience a positive growth rate, resulting in 1.1 percent growth across the region. Long-term to 2040, the region is projected to grow by 1.4 percent. As shown in Table 1, 3,487 people are expected to be added to the population between 2010 and 2040 when the population peaks; the population is then projected to drop by 890 residents.

The 2010–2040 projection shows more significant differences among the counties. Susquehanna and Wyoming counties are projected to have negative growth rates lower than -3.5 percent (population losses), while Bradford and Tioga counties are projected to have positive rates over 5.5 percent (population gains). Not only are the differences in growth rates more distinct, but some of the county growth rates switch from positive to negative values and vice versa between the 2000-2010 decade and the projected 2010–2040 years. Statewide, Pennsylvania is projected to experience a growth rate of 11.3 percent over this 30-year period—more than eight times the projected growth rate of the Northern Tier region.

Figure 2: Historical and Projected Population Change, 1980–2040

Source: U.S. Census Bureau; Pennsylvania State Data Center

Population Composition

The “graying of Pennsylvania” has been a common topic of transportation and economic planning in recent years. It focuses on the declining percentage of youth and the increasing percentage of seniors, which can affect demand for transportation services, especially those used by non-drivers.

The number of residents below 18 years of age declined by double-digit percentages during the 2000–2010 decade. The age demographics for the Northern Tier region are changing in a completely different direction than that of the state, which shows a 23 percent increase in the under 18 age group. The youth population in the Northern Tier is projected to decline through 2020, then slowly rebound in some counties through 2040. See Table 2.

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200,000

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040

Num

ber o

f Res

iden

ts

Wyoming

Tioga

Susquehanna

Sullivan

Bradford

Northern Tier 7


2015-2040

Table 2: Historical and Projected Youth Population (Less than 18 years), 1980–2040


Tier PA Population Count, 1980 19,669 1,780 11,407 12,198 8,426 53,480 3,123,296 Population Count, 1990 16,547 1,410 10,838 10,394 7,738 46,927 2,794,810 Population Count, 2000 16,022 1,366 10,764 9,812 7,164 45,128 2,370,830 Population Count, 2010 14,377 1,154 8,049 7,982 5,953 37,515 2,922,221 Change, 1980-2010 -5,292 -626 -3,358 -4,216 -2,473 -15,965 -201,075 -24.1% -30.2% -27.2% -30.5% -36.5% -28.0% -5.2% Change, 2000-2010 -1,645 -212 -2,715 -1,830 -1,211 -7,613 551,391 -10.3% -15.5% -25.2% -18.7% -16.9% -16.9% 23.3% Population Count, 2010 14,377 1,154 8,049 7,982 5,953 37,515 2,922,221 Projection, 2020 13,337 1,098 7,243 8,459 5,423 35,558 2,667,993 Projection, 2030 14,222 1,217 7,418 8,840 5,404 37,101 2,750,978 Projection, 2040 14,616 1,350 7,098 8,961 5,237 37,261 2,803,141 Change, 2010-20 -1,041 -56 -807 477 -531 -1,957 -254,229 -7.2% -4.9% -10.0% 6.0% -8.9% -5.2% -8.7% Change, 2010-40 239 196 -952 979 -717 -255 -119,081 1.7% 17.0% -11.8% 12.3% -12.0% -0.7% -4.1%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

According to the 2010 Census, the region was home to 37,515 residents 65 years and older. This age group comprised 17.9 percent of the total population. The 2000–2010 data show that there were double-digit growth rates for this age group across all counties in the region, except Sullivan. This senior population was relatively larger and grew faster than that of Pennsylvania’s 15.4 percent senior population and 2.1 percent senior population growth rate. See Table 3.

Short-term projections (2010–2020) reveal that all counties except Tioga County will experience increases in the senior population, with growth rates in that age group ranging from 27 percent to 39 percent. Long term to 2040, this age group is projected to increase dramatically across all jurisdictions with increases ranging from 23.1 percent in Sullivan County to 66.7 percent for the entire state.


Table 3: Historical and Projected Senior Population (Greater than 64 years), 1980–2040


Tier PA Population Count, 1980 7,657 1,036 4,922 4,909 2,959 21,483 1,530,933 Population Count, 1990 8,940 1,275 6,185 6,151 3,537 26,088 1,829,106 Population Count, 2000 9,865 1,434 6,546 6,608 3,717 28,170 1,919,165 Population Count, 2010 11,152 1,557 7,845 7,562 4,528 32,644 1,959,307

Change, 1980-2010 3,495 521 2,923 2,653 1,569 11,161 428,374 55.9% 65.1% 75.1% 63.7% 73.5% 64.7% 33.7% Change, 2000-2010 1,287 123 1,299 954 811 4,474 40,142 13.0% 8.6% 19.8% 14.4% 21.8% 15.9% 2.1% Population Count, 2010 11,152 1,557 7,845 7,562 4,528 32,644 1,959,307 Projection, 2020 14,521 1,977 10,167 9,697 6,293 42,655 2,535,935 Projection, 2030 17,596 2,209 12,209 11,470 7,537 51,021 3,172,518 Projection, 2040 17,285 1,916 11,600 11,127 7,428 49,356 3,265,555

Change, 2010-20 3,369 420 2,322 2,135 1,765 10,011 576,628 30.2% 27.0% 29.6% 28.2% 39.0% 30.7% 29.4% Change, 2010-40 6,133 359 3,755 3,565 2,900 16,712 1,306,248 55.0% 23.1% 47.9% 47.1% 64.0% 51.2% 66.7%


Northern Tier 9


2015-2040

Figure 3: Youth (<18 years) and Senior (65 years and older) Population Trends, 1980–2040

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, PA State Data Center The combined trends of a declining youth population and an increasing senior population will significantly impact future transportation demand and services in the region. A declining youth population can stress school bus fleets that must cover the same service areas even when student populations (and thus state and federal revenue) decline. An increasing elderly population can result in decreased peak period traffic, increased leisure/health care-related trips during off-peak hours, and a need for public transportation for those who are unable to operate a personal vehicle.

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040

Num

ber o

f Res

iden

ts <

18

Wyoming

Tioga

Susquehanna

Sullivan

Bradford

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040

Num

ber o

f Res

iden

ts 6

5+

Wyoming

Tioga

Susquehanna

Sullivan

Bradford


Population Density

Another important demographic indicator of transportation needs (particularly public transportation needs and challenges) is population density. With a population density of 46 people per square mile, the Northern Tier is among Pennsylvania’s least densely populated regions. The region has some of the state’s largest counties by land area and many of its smaller municipal populations. Only two municipalities have populations over 5,000: Sayre Borough and Athens Township—adjacent communities in northern Bradford County. These and seven other boroughs have population densities greater than the Pennsylvania average of 284 persons per square mile, and are therefore classified as urban but in fact are small town communities. See Table 4.

Table 4: Northern Tier Population Density, 2010

Population Size in Square Miles

Persons per Square

Mile Municipalities

Bradford 62,622 1,147 55 51 Boroughs 18,999 13 1,422 14

Urban - Athens, Sayre, Towanda 11,873 5 2,423 3 Townships 43,623 1,134 38 37

Sullivan 6,428 450 14 13 Boroughs 1,189 5 217 4 Townships 5,239 444 12 9

Susquehanna 43,356 823 53 40 Boroughs 10,485 15 692 13

Urban - Forest City, Great Bend, Hallstead 3,948 2 2,468 3

Townships 32,871 808 41 27 Tioga 41,981 1,134 37 39

Boroughs 13,625 17 783 10 Urban - Mansfield, Wellsboro 6,888 7 970 2

Townships 28,356 1,116 25 29 Wyoming 28,276 397 71 23

Boroughs 4,703 4 1,281 5 Urban - Factoryville 1,158 1 1,544 1

Townships 23,573 394 60 18 Northern Tier 182,663 3,955 46 166 Pennsylvania 12,702,379 44,743 284 2,566 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Summary File 1, Table DP-1

Northern Tier 11


2015-2040

Diversity and Minority Populations

It is the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA’s) longstanding policy to ensure nondiscrimination in federally funded activities. Furthermore, it is FHWA's continuing policy to identify and prevent discriminatory effects by actively administering its programs, policies, and activities to ensure that social impacts to communities and people are recognized early and continually throughout the transportation decision-making process, i.e., from planning through implementation. Long-range transportation plans refer to racial and ethnic minorities, as well as those living in poverty, as “Environmental Justice” populations. The intent is avoid unfair distribution of the benefits and burdens of transportation infrastructure and services. Northern Tier acknowledges that the benefits and burdens of transportation decisions across population groups will need to be considered, from project planning through construction.

Table 5: Racial Composition

Population White Black/ African

American

American Indian/ Alaska Native

Asian

Other Race/ More

than One Race

Hispanic

Bradford 62,622 61,035 311 154 339 776 702 Sullivan 6,428 6,163 168 26 20 51 92 Susquehanna 43,356 42,510 156 57 123 498 564 Tioga 41,981 40,852 333 91 183 518 437 Wyoming 28,276 27,545 208 54 95 371 437 Northern Tier 182,663 178,105 1,176 382 760 2,214 2,232 % of Total NT Population 97.5% 0.6% 0.2% 0.4% 1.2% 1.2% Pennsylvania 12,702,379 10,406,288 1,377,689 26,843 349,088 542,471 719,660 % of Total PA Population 81.92% 10.85% 0.21% 2.75% 4.27% 1.20%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Summary File 1, Table DP-1

As shown in Table 5, in 2010 the Northern Tier had small percentages of minority populations (totaling 2.5 percent) and a small Hispanic population (1.2 percent). In contrast, Pennsylvania’s non-white population in 2000 was more than 18 percent. Minority populations grew steadily in the region and across Pennsylvania by 0.4 and 3.5 percentage points, respectively, since 2000. See Table 6.


Table 6: Minority Composition Trend, 1990–2010 (percent of total population)

Racial Minority (Non-White) Ethnic Minority (Hispanic) 1990 2000 2010 1990 2000 2010

Bradford 0.9% 2.1% 2.5% 0.4% 0.6% 1.1% Sullivan 1.7% 4.4% 4.1% 0.4% 1.1% 1.4% Susquehanna 0.7% 1.5% 2.0% 0.4% 0.7% 1.3% Tioga 1.2% 1.9% 2.7% 0.3% 0.5% 1.0% Wyoming 1.0% 1.7% 2.6% 0.5% 0.7% 1.5% Northern Tier 1.0% 1.9% 2.5% 0.4% 0.6% 1.2% Pennsylvania 11.5% 14.6% 18.1% 2.0% 3.2% 5.7% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, (dataset), Table # (year)

Table 7 shows the rankings for the 10 most racially diverse counties in the region. These 10 municipalities contain 27 percent of the region’s minority population. Several are among the most densely populated municipalities. The most diverse municipality is Colley Township, where more than 92 percent of its minority population consists of Blacks/African-Americans. Around half of the minority populations of Sayre Borough and Athens Township consist of Asians, which is significantly higher than the region or county averages (15–16 percent). The proportion of Blacks/African-Americans in the minority groups for Mansfield, Friendsville, and Factoryville boroughs are much higher than the regional average of 18 percent and even higher than the state-wide average of 60 percent.

Table 7: Ten Most Racially Diverse Northern Tier Municipalities, 2010

Total Population Of Minority Race Predominant Minority Race

Colley Township 694 162 23% 150 Black/ African-American Meshoppen Borough 563 61 11% 29 Other Race/ More than One Race Mansfield Borough 3,625 373 10% 232 Black/ African-American Friendsville Borough 111 9 8% 7 Black/ African-American Factoryville Borough 1,158 96 8% 64 Black/ African-American Laceyville Borough 379 21 6% 18 Other Race/ More than One Race Forksville Borough 145 8 6% 5 American Indian/ Alaska Native Sayre Borough 5,587 234 4% 116 Asian Athens Township 5,251 204 4% 105 Asian Tunkhannock Borough 1,836 79 4% 28 Black/ African-American Total 19,349 1,247

Percentage of Northern Tier's Total Racial Minority Residing in these Communities 27%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Summary File 1, Table DP-1

With respect to ethnicity, the Hispanic population does not make up a significant portion of the total population, even in the top 10 municipalities. Not surprisingly, the four most racially diverse municipalities, including Mansfield Borough, home of Mansfield University, are also in the top 10 most ethnically diverse municipalities. See Table 8.

Northern Tier 13


2015-2040

Table 8: Ten Most Ethnically Diverse Municipalities, 2010

Total Population Of Hispanic Ethnicity

Meshoppen Borough 563 57 10% Laceyville Borough 379 30 8% Colley Township 694 40 6% Factoryville Borough 1,158 46 4% North Branch Township 206 8 4% Mansfield Borough 3,625 111 3% Jessup Township 536 16 3% New Albany Borough 356 10 3% Brookfield Township 421 11 3% Alba Borough 157 4 3% Total 8,095 333

Percentage of Northern Tier's Total Hispanic Population Residing in These Communities 15% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Summary File 1, Table DP-1

Income/Poverty Rates

For transportation planning purposes, the FHWA defines “low income” as a household income below the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ poverty rate, which is based on income and the size of the household.

The region had a poverty rate of 13.7 percent in 2010, which has been climbing since 2000. The census data from 1980 to 2000 show that there was a drop in poverty rates among most of the counties in the region, bringing them closer to the state average; regional poverty rates were even decreasing while the state’s poverty rates remained relatively constant. The region’s poverty rate does not differ significantly from the state’s poverty rate of 13.1 percent. Although it does not have the lowest poverty rate, Sullivan County is the only county in the region that has had a decreasing poverty rate throughout all of the previous three decades. See Table 9.

Table 9: Low Income/Poverty Rates, 1980–2012 1980 1990 2000 2006-2010 ACS* 2008-2012 ACS* Bradford 13.6% 13.3% 11.8% 13.6% 14.1% Sullivan 22.3% 18.0% 14.5% 15.5% 13.9% Susquehanna 18.5% 12.1% 12.3% 11.3% 12.2% Tioga 21.9% 14.6% 13.5% 15.8% 15.7% Wyoming 10.7% 11.1% 10.2% 10.9% 12.3% Northern Tier 16.5% 13.1% 12.2% 13.2% 13.7% Pennsylvania 10.5% 11.1% 11.0% 12.4% 13.1%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau *American Community Survey


Economy and Workforce Travel

Travel Times to Work

The mean travel time to work for resident workers (people who live within the Northern Tier’s five counties and work in or outside the region) is 24.9 minutes, slightly less than the state average of 25.8 minutes. See Table 10.

Since public transportation is not widely available in rural areas and traffic is usually light, the average travel time is expected to be lower than the state average. However, commute distances are longer and accessibility to major freeways is limited, increasing travel times for many workers. A further analysis of modal split and commuting patterns will reveal some of the underlying causes for the travel times in the counties.

Generally, people are spending more time commuting in the Northern Tier and Pennsylvania today as compared to travel time to work in 1980. This may be due to changes in the local and regional economy (what types of jobs are available and where they are located) over the past few decades.

Table 10: Mean Travel Time to Work (in minutes), 1980–2012

1980 1990 2000 2008-2012 American Community Survey

Bradford 18.6 17.8 22.6 22.6 Sullivan 23.9 21.8 25.3 26.4 Susquehanna 22.8 22.2 26.2 26.6 Tioga 19.8 19.5 23.1 23.3 Wyoming 22.0 21.4 26.2 25.9 Northern Tier 21.4 20.5 24.7 24.9 Pennsylvania 21.9 21.6 25.2 25.8


Mean travel time strongly correlates to commuting patterns, with those counties that retain more commuters having shorter mean travel times than those counties that retain fewer commuters (see next section). As would be expected, the three counties that export approximately half their resident workforce (Susquehanna, Sullivan, and Wyoming) have the region’s highest mean travel times to work.

Figure 5 shows the Northern Tier’s relationship with four of the nearby economic centers: Scranton, Wilkes-Barre, and Williamsport, as well as Binghamton and Elmira, NY. The figure demonstrates that—with the exception of Sullivan County and western Tioga County—most of the region is within a 45-minute drive of a metropolitan center.

Northern Tier 15


2015-2040

Figure 4: Iso-chronal Map of Drive Times from Regional Economic Centers, 30- and 45-minute Intervals

Source: Gannett Fleming

Net Labor Outflows Drive Regional Commutation Patterns

The region’s geographic location, surrounded by four relatively large economic centers, has a profound influence on its commuting patterns. Three of the region’s counties (Susquehanna, Sullivan, and Wyoming) send approximately half their resident workforce to employment destinations in other counties.

For workers who commute within the region, the most significant journey-to-work numbers show a significant number of workers from Bradford and Susquehanna counties employed at destinations in Wyoming County. Tioga County sends more than 700 workers into Bradford County. Cross-county commuting among the remaining counties in the region is fairly unremarkable, with no more than 400 moving from any one county to another. See Figure 5.


Figure 5: Northern Tier Inter-County Commuting Patterns

Wyoming County’s laborshed exhibits a strong relationship with neighboring Lackawanna and Luzerne counties. This is due to the presence of Proctor & Gamble in Mehoopany, as well as major employers such as Keystone College near the Wyoming County border. Wyoming County serves not only as a labor source to Lackawanna and Luzerne, but also as an employment destination, with 18 percent of its jobs being filled by workers from those two counties.

Overall, all the Northern Tier counties experience a net labor outflow. That is, there are more workers than jobs. Susquehanna County in particular experiences the highest such outflow, with a net loss of more than 8,300 workers. See Figure 6.

Figure 6: Northern Tier Worker Commuter Flows, 2000


Northern Tier 17


2015-2040

Table 11 and Table 12 show commutation patterns for the five Northern Tier counties. Table 11 shows where the region's resident workers are commuting to for employment, while table 12 shows the origins of the region's workers.

Table 11: Residents Working in their County of Residence, 2006–2010 American Community Survey

County of Residence

Bradford Sullivan Susquehanna Tioga Wyoming

Total Resident Workers 27,583 2,623 19,688 18,538 13,652

Coun

ty o

f Em

ploy

men

t

Bradford 73.5% 13.7% 1.0% 4.0% 1.6% Broome (NY) 2.0% 0.1% 18.5% 0.0% 0.1% Chemung (NY) 7.2% 0.0% 0.0% 5.6% 0.0% Columbia 0.0% 2.4% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% Lackawanna 0.5% 0.5% 13.5% 0.1% 22.1% Luzerne 0.3% 1.1% 1.2% 0.0% 15.7% Lycoming 0.7% 11.2% 0.0% 2.1% 0.0% Potter 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 2.0% 0.0% Sullivan 0.5% 53.4% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% Steuben (NY) 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 6.1% 0.0% Susquehanna 0.5% 0.0% 48.9% 0.0% 1.9% Tioga 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 74.7% 0.0% Tioga (NY) 4.8% 0.3% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% Wyoming 3.0% 8.8% 7.6% 0.1% 52.2% Other 4.9% 8.5% 7.8% 5.0% 6.1%

Outflow within Northern Tier 21,732 1,992 11,335 14,628 7,613

78.8% 75.9% 57.6% 78.9% 55.8% Outflow beyond Northern Tier 5,851 631 8,353 3,910 6,039

21.2% 24.1% 42.4% 21.1% 44.2% Source: U.S. Census Bureau


Table 12: County-to-County Commutation Patterns (percent of total workers), 2006–2010 American Community Survey

County of Employment

Bradford Sullivan Susquehanna Tioga Wyoming

Total Workers 25,560 1,876 11,811 16,524 12,214

Coun

ty o

f Res

iden

ce

Bradford 79.3% 7.0% 1.2% 2.2% 6.8% Broome (NY) 0.6% 0.0% 2.4% 0.0% 0.0% Chemung (NY) 3.3% 0.3% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% Columbia 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% Lackawanna 0.2% 0.0% 6.9% 0.0% 9.8% Luzerne 0.2% 1.5% 0.2% 0.0% 8.3% Lycoming 1.1% 9.1% 0.0% 1.5% 0.0% Potter 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 2.6% 0.0% Sullivan 1.4% 74.7% 0.1% 0.0% 1.9% Steuben (NY) 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 2.9% 0.0% Susquehanna 0.7% 0.6% 81.6% 0.0% 12.2% Tioga 2.9% 1.4% 0.0% 83.8% 0.1% Tioga (NY) 6.2% 0.0% 0.3% 0.2% 0.0% Wayne 0.1% 0.2% 3.0% 0.0% 0.1% Wyoming 0.9% 0.0% 2.2% 0.0% 58.4% Other 2.8% 4.2% 2.0% 6.2% 2.1%

Inflow from Northern Tier 21,770 1,571 10,052 14,229 9,693

85.2% 83.7% 85.1% 86.1% 79.4% Inflow from beyond Northern Tier 3,790 305 1,759 2,295 2,521

14.8% 16.3% 14.9% 13.9% 20.6% Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Beyond mere roadway or transportation/capacity needs, this baseline data should inform decision-making related to future planning strategies, e.g.: Should the region position itself and recognize the benefits of being a bedroom community? Should it further analyze commuter patterns by industry to identify outbound commuter skill sets and wages paid, and market potential employers accordingly. In any event, the data prove just how critical transportation infrastructure is to the Northern Tier’s economy.

Northern Tier 19


2015-2040

Journey to Work by Travel Mode

Like most regions in Pennsylvania, most journey-to-work trips are done by private automobile. Nearly 90 percent of all workers reported using a private automobile in getting to work, and more than 78 percent drove alone. This is an increase of nearly 7 percentage points since the 1990 Census and one percent since the 2000 Census. See Table 13 and Table 14.

Wyoming County had the highest percentage of single-occupant vehicle (SOV) trips of any county (80.9 percent), with Susquehanna County at a close second (80.3 percent). Sullivan County experienced the greatest increase in SOV as a mode, at nearly 10 percentage points. Carpooling accounted for nearly 11 percent of all commuting trips in the Northern Tier, with Wyoming County reporting the highest rate (11.5 percent). Carpooling was much more common in the 1980s, when more than 26 percent of workers carpooled—more than double today’s figures. Use of carpooling as a means of journey to work has dropped in all counties except Wyoming County since 2000, especially in Sullivan County where it dropped by 4 percent.

Walking to work is uncommon among Northern Tier counties. As a region, only 4.3 percent of all workers walk to work. As a region, the percentage of workers walking to work has generally remained unchanged since the 2000 Census.

The Northern Tier has a relatively high percentage of workers working from home, at 4.9 percent. Susquehanna County has the highest rate in the state, with 5.5 percent. While Tioga County had the highest proportion of at-home workers in the 2000 Census, that number has now dropped significantly from 5.2 percent to 0.5 percent. This drop in at-home workers is most likely caused by the 4 percent decrease in total workers in the county, since the use of the SOV mode has only increased slightly and most other modes like carpooling and walking have decreased.

Table 13: Journey to Work by Travel Mode (percentage of workers), 2006–2010 ACS

# Workers

Single Occ.

Vehicle Carpool Public

Trans. Bicycle Walk Other Work at Home

Bradford 27,068 77.9% 11.0% 0.5% 0.4% 4.6% 1.1% 4.5% Sullivan 2,575 80.9% 9.3% 0.5% 0.0% 1.7% 1.7% 2.9% Susquehanna 19,128 80.3% 10.4% 0.2% 0.0% 0.6% 0.7% 5.5% Tioga 18,152 76.8% 10.9% 0.4% 0.1% 0.5% 0.7% 5.5% Wyoming 13,360 79.4% 11.5% 0.3% 0.0% 0.7% 0.8% 4.4% Northern Tier 80,283 78.6% 10.8% 0.4% 0.2% 0.8% 0.9% 4.9% Source: U.S. Census Bureau


Table 14: Mode Split (percentage of workers), 1980–2010 Single Occupant Vehicle Carpool

1980 1990 2000 2006-2010 ACS* 1980 1990 2000 2006-2010

ACS* Bradford 58.4% 72.7% 77.5% 77.9% 24.3% 11.8% 11.4% 11.0% Sullivan 49.4% 65.4% 70.7% 80.9% 31.1% 16.1% 13.3% 9.3% Susquehanna 56.3% 72.5% 78.3% 80.3% 28.0% 15.1% 12.5% 10.4% Tioga 56.3% 67.2% 75.0% 76.8% 26.5% 15.9% 12.7% 10.9% Wyoming 61.8% 75.5% 81.3% 79.4% 27.0% 15.3% 10.9% 11.5% Northern Tier 57.7% 71.7% 77.5% 78.6% 26.3% 14.2% 12.0% 10.8%

Walk Work at Home

1980 1990 2000 2006-2010 ACS* 1980 1990 2000 2006-2010

ACS* Bradford 9.9% 6.3% 4.9% 4.6% 5.7% 6.8% 5.0% 4.5% Sullivan 8.8% 8.0% 10.2% 4.7% 9.4% 7.7% 4.5% 2.9% Susquehanna 7.9% 4.3% 3.8% 2.9% 6.6% 6.8% 4.4% 5.5% Tioga 10.4% 8.8% 5.7% 5.6% 5.6% 6.6% 5.2% 0.5% Wyoming 5.9% 4.5% 3.2% 3.5% 4.2% 3.7% 3.6% 4.4% Northern Tier 8.9% 6.2% 4.7% 4.3% 4.5% 6.2% 4.6% 4.9% Source: U.S. Census Bureau *American Community Survey

Household Access to a Vehicle

Rural regions such as the Northern Tier typically have a higher degree of reliance on the private automobile for mobility. Because of this, it is not unusual to see that the region’s rate of households without access to a vehicle is nearly half of the state’s rate of nearly 11.4 percent. Among the region’s counties, Wyoming County’s and Susquehanna County’s households have the highest rate of access to a vehicle, at approximately 95 percent. See Table 15.

Table 15: Percentage of Households by Vehicles Available in the Household, 1990–2010

0 Vehicles 1 Vehicle 2 Vehicles 3 Vehicles 4 or more

1990 2000 2010 1990 2000 2010 1990 2000 2010 1990 2000 2010 2010

Bradford 8.1 7.0 6.9 36.5 33.1 30.5 40.2 42.3 40.5 11.5 17.7 15.9 6.0 Sullivan 9.4 5.8 5.8 38.3 34.6 30.0 39.0 40.6 42.6 9.3 18.9 14.4 7.1 Susquehanna 8.3 6.4 4.9 33.9 31.6 29.3 40.9 42.6 42.8 11.8 19.4 15.7 7.3 Tioga 8.0 5.9 6.3 36.7 34.4 29.9 41.1 41.1 40.4 10.9 18.8 17.1 6.3 Wyoming 7.3 5.4 5.0 32.2 30.3 28.3 41.9 43.1 41.6 12.8 21.2 17.7 7.4 Northern Tier 8.1 6.4 6.9 35.3 32.7 30.5 40.8 42.2 40.5 11.6 18.7 15.9 6.2 Pennsylvania 15.2 12.8 11.4 35.3 34.9 33.8 35.7 37.5 37.0 10.1 14.8 12.8 5.0

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006–2010 American Community Survey, Table DP04

Northern Tier 21


2015-2040

There isn’t a large variance in vehicles available across the counties in the Northern Tier but the data show that there is a decreasing trend in vehicle availability for households with less than three vehicles. Note that the 2010 data for three vehicles and four or more vehicles must be added together to make a comparison to three or more vehicles in the previous years. There has been a significant increase in vehicle availability for households with three or more vehicles. In the Northern Tier, there has been a 7.3 percent increase in in the three or more vehicles available category. These data are consistent with the increasing trend in the use of the SOV mode and the decrease in other modes such as carpooling and walking.

Table 16 shows that households with no workers make up the largest portion of households without access to a vehicle. The percentage of households in this category are higher for “urban” residents. This is presumably due to the limitations of owning a vehicle in a city (high parking costs and limited street parking), the accessibility to public transportation, and the close proximity of destinations. The state average for households in this category is 5 percent higher than the Northern Tier average; statewide there are more urban households. As the number of workers in the households increases, the accessibility to a vehicle increases significantly because the workers need a method of transportation for employment. Further, having a source of income makes vehicle ownership more feasible.

Table 16: Households Without Access to a Vehicle, 2010

Households 0 workers 1 worker 2 worker 3+ workers Total

# % # % # % # % # % Bradford 24,861 1,212 5 368 1 79 0 54 0 1,713 7

Urban 4,862 516 11 179 4 31 1 37 1 763 16 Rural 19,999 696 3 189 1 48 0 17 0 950 5

Sullivan 2,436 129 5 10 0 3 0 0 0 142 6 Susquehanna 17,225 641 4 146 1 57 0 6 0 850 5

Urban 1,823 195 11 21 1 0 0 0 0 216 12 Rural 15,402 446 3 125 1 57 0 6 0 634 4

Tioga 17,182 839 5 204 1 42 0 0 0 1,085 6 Urban 2,788 336 12 81 3 10 0 0 0 427 15 Rural 14,394 503 3 123 1 32 0 0 0 658 5

Wyoming 11,023 425 4 109 1 18 0 0 0 552 5 Urban 357 27 8 10 3 0 0 0 0 37 10 Rural 10,666 398 4 99 1 18 0 0 0 515 5

Northern Tier 72,727 1,212 2 368 1 79 0 54 0 1,713 2 Pennsylvania 4,940,581 353,711 7 165,550 3 35,370 1 7,247 0 561,878 11

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006–2010 American Community Survey, Table B08203

Through the decade ending in 2012, the total change in the number of in-state registered vehicles has varied widely throughout the region. All but one county (Wyoming) experienced growth in excess of the state rate of 10 percent. Comparing the values in the last two columns of Table 17, the change in in-state registered vehicles does not seem to be correlated with the change in population.


The Northern Tier region shows a 13.5 percent increase in in-state registered vehicles while only a small increase in population (0.8 percent). This is contrasted with the statewide figures of only a 9.8 percent increase in in-state registered vehicles but a 3 percent population increase.

Table 17: In-state Registered Vehicles (2000–2011), Northern Tier

In-State Registered Vehicles,

2012

Change in In-State Registered Vehicles,

2000–2011

Change in Population, 2000–2011

Bradford 71,578 15.6% -0.4% Sullivan 8,140 9.6% -1.3% Susquehanna 47,470 17.6% 2.5% Tioga 49,294 24.5% 1.1% Wyoming 34,223 3.9% 0.9% Northern Tier 210,705 13.5% 0.8% Pennsylvania 11,107,777 9.8% 3.0% Source: Center for Rural Pennsylvania

Public Input on Economic Development and Workforce Travel

Public Comment Response: LRTP Priorities Should…

1. Commercial vehicles are driven by out-of-state drivers who are unfamiliar with driving in the mountainous terrain and weather conditions of the Northern Tier.

Improve driver navigation (selection of routes), thus reducing maintenance and crashes. Implement effective education, and possibly variable message signage to inform drivers of changing conditions.

2. Commercial vehicles drive illegally on local roads, resulting in unusual wear and tear to the roads and trucks becoming stuck at sharp turns, small bridges, etc., thus blocking the road. Technology has exacerbated the issue, i.e., GPS and devices/services such as Garmin/TomTom that give inappropriate directions.

Improve driver navigation, thus reducing maintenance. Specifically, improve effective signage of truck limitations and explore regulations with penalties for violations.

3. The proposed I-99 needs to be completed and designated as an Interstate for communities to be able to advertise their proximity and access to the Interstate system. One private access is the last obstacle to designation.

Complete I-99 designation and increase Interstate system access to improve economic development potential.

4. A new business park is planned for the Lawrenceville/Westfield area of Tioga County. PA 49 and 349 will be access routes.

Improve highway access to planned development sites. Specifically, assess current conditions and needed improvements.

Northern Tier 23


2015-2040

Built Environment

Community Character and Land Use Patterns Communities in the region range in character from small towns and villages, most established during the lumber and railroad era, to farms and forest landscapes. Population growth, and the development needed to house residents and employ workers, has been steady, but across such a large region, the impact is quite small. Many buildings from the 19th century predominate the boroughs as well as the countryside. Building reuse and modification is common. New non-farm construction typically occurs along the margins of established communities, i.e. along, state highways. Some expansion by relocation is occurring among medical and other community-serving institutions. The Marcellus shale industry has been the driver of community service expansion and even some housing.

Through comprehensive planning, counties provide guidance to municipalities on land use planning for development and conservation (and associated transportation and other infrastructure planning). Each of the counties has a comprehensive plan and an open space plan. See Table 18. The common values espoused in these plans include:

• Conservation of rural and small town land use patterns, character, and ways of life • Minimal development of (i.e., loss of or impact to) large, scenic, and productive open spaces • Minimal regulations on agriculture and forestry.

Table 18: Municipal Land Use Controls, Northern Tier Comprehensive Plan Recreation, Greenways, and Open Space Plan Bradford 2004 2006 Sullivan 2010 2010 Susquehanna 2003 2010 Tioga 2006 2010 Wyoming 1997 2010 Source: Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED)

Although the counties lead comprehensive planning, the authority for land use control in Pennsylvania lies with the municipalities. The state planning code is the enabling legislation that empowers municipalities to adopt, administer, and enforce various plans and ordinances geared toward community development, including land use, which has a tremendous impact on travel demand by residents and businesses.

A review of the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development’s (DCED’s) municipal statistics summary shows that municipalities in the region are not using all of the land use management tools that are available to municipal government. Within the Northern Tier, just over half (90) have a municipal comprehensive plan, though fewer (65) have a municipal planning commission to review and guide development proposals. More detailed land management ordinances such as zoning or subdivision and land development ordinances are less common. This


general lack of planning at a municipal level can contribute to uncoordinated development, including inadequate transportation infrastructure. A community without zoning could have heavy use of its roads by trucks, requiring frequent maintenance or improvement; a community with zoning could concentrate uses that generate heavy traffic in one location and build the access road to withstand the loads. Table 19 shows the total number of land use management plans and ordinances in place, by county.

Table 19: Municipal Land Use and Development Controls, Northern Tier

Municipalities Comprehensive Plan

Zoning Ordinance

Subdivision/Land Development

Ordinance

Planning Commission

Bradford 51 22 14 5 municipal; 46 county

21

Sullivan 13 5 3 3 municipal; 10 county

4

Susquehanna 40 18 7 9 municipal; 31 county

11

Tioga 39 24 16 11 municipal; 28 county

19

Wyoming 23 14 10 5 municipal; 18 county

10

Total 166 90 56 41 municipal 65

% of Total 54% 34% 25% municipal 39% Source: DCED

Public Input on Transportation and Community Development and Character


5. Community growth is contingent upon economic development. More utilities and amenities are needed to make land shovel-ready and attract business. A Mormon visitor center/museum is planned in Susquehanna County and would create demand for restaurants and lodging.

Improve infrastructure to serve businesses.

6. Improvements can have a negative impact on local character. Examples: • Daylighting or other tree clearing can

remove or fragment a seasonal element of scenic viewsheds.

• Approved traffic signal stems/standards that complement community character are not available

Enhance communities. Specifically, encourage context-sensitivity in maintenance activities and in design.

Northern Tier 25


2015-2040

Natural and Cultural Environment

Geography All five Northern Tier counties are located squarely within the Appalachian region. The northern majority of the region lies within the Allegheny Plateau, a portion of the much larger Appalachian Uplands that run from New York State to Alabama. This portion of the plateau exhibits significant topographical relief and mountain peaks that have been softened by glacial action and erosion. The southern portion of the region lies in the more rugged Ridge and Valley province of the Appalachian region. See Map 4, Topographic Features.

Climate Climate is an important factor in this rural region where travel options are limited, particularly in winter. Daily highs range from 34 degrees in January to 82 degrees in July; lows, from 16 degrees in January to 59 degrees in July. Precipitation ranges from 2 to almost 4 inches per month; average annual rainfall is 35.75 inches and average annual snowfall is 36 inches.

Sensitive Environmental Resources Over the past decade PennDOT and NTRPDC have implemented environmental planning practices to streamline the project delivery process. PennDOT has established the Linking Planning and NEPA (LPN) protocol to document projects, needs, and environmental contexts and engage environmental agencies in advance of project programming. Northern Tier has compiled environmental features and related transportation recommendations in its Scenic Corridors database and facilitated open space planning across four of its member counties in the Northern Tier Open Space Plan.

The following sections provide a brief introduction to sensitive resources in the region— specifically, those included in the LPN protocol. Chapter 9, Environmental Analysis, provides a more thorough inventory and an assessment of the potential impacts of planned transportation projects on these varied resources.

Sensitive Lands

Much of the Northern Tier’s land surface is environmentally sensitive. More than half of the region can be characterized by steep slopes (>12 percent) while another third can be classified as fertile farmland. Table 20, as well as Map 3, Environmental Features, shows the distribution of the region’s environmentally sensitive lands by county.


Table 20: Environmentally Sensitive Land (in acres), Northern Tier Environmental Feature Bradford Sullivan Susquehanna Tioga Wyoming Northern

Tier

Floodplains 42,544 7,221 29,990 30,710 17,692 128,158

Prime Farmland 64,141 16,355 61,974 52,491 22,813 217,775

Farmland of Statewide Importance

353,237 33,652 190,638 284,564 65,044 927,135

Steep Slopes (>12 percent) 346,913 138,784 273,572 393,683 138,576 1,291,528

Wetlands 20,492 7,817 19,774 11,571 12,849 72,502

Total 827,327 203,829 575,948 773,019 256,974 2,637,098

Source: Northern Tier GIS; Gannett Fleming

Sensitive Waters The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection classifies each water body for existing and designated human and other biological uses based on water quality. These uses can be explored using PA DEP’s eMapPA application. The highest ranking classifications are High Quality (HQ) and Exceptional Value (EV) cold water fisheries.

In addition, the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission classifies streams by their ability to support trout populations and varied fishing experiences. Wild Trout, Class A Wild Trout, and Wilderness Trout stream classifications are the classifications considered sensitive by PennDOT’s Linking Planning and NEPA protocol. These classifications, among others, are mapped on the Commission’s interactive map.

Designated Conservation Lands

A little over 8 percent of the Northern Tier’s land is comprised of state forest. Much of these lands were originally owned by lumber and land holding companies. The Tioga State Forest is the largest state forest in the region, spanning 161,890 acres across Bradford and Tioga counties. The 114,552-acre Loyalsock State Forest spans Sullivan and Lycoming counties. There are no state forests in Susquehanna or Wyoming counties.

There are several State Game Lands (SGL) in the region, totaling nearly 300 square miles. These lands are managed by the Pennsylvania Game Commission for hunting, trapping, and fishing. Each county has some SGL acreage, but Sullivan County is home to the largest acreage at 34 percent of the region’s state game lands.

There are five state parks in the region totaling more than 5,500 acres. Ricketts Glen and Worlds End are located in Sullivan County; Mt. Pisgah, in west-central Bradford County; and Salt Springs in Susquehanna County. There are no state parks in Wyoming County.

http://www.emappa.dep.state.pa.us/emappa/viewer.htm

http://fishandboat.com/specreg.htm

Northern Tier 27


2015-2040

See Table 21 for the distribution of state lands by county.

Table 21: State Lands (in acres), Northern Tier Environmental Feature Bradford Sullivan Susquehanna Tioga Wyoming Northern Tier

State Forests 25,160 43,327 0 139,674 0 208,161

State Game Lands 54,857 64,472 14,190 25,412 29,425 188,355

State Parks 1,310 2,562 397 1,297 0 5,566

State Parks 1,310 2,562 405 953 0 5,566

Total 81,327 110,361 14,587 166,383 29,425 402,082

Historic and Archeological Resources Historical and archeological resources are those sites, buildings, other structures, and districts that have been evaluated and deemed significant to local, state, or national history. Resources with a status of listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and known archeological sites, as well as any locally designated historic sites, are considered in the LPN protocol. In the Northern Tier, there are 47 sites listed on the National Register (including National Historic Districts: Athens, Towanda, Wyalusing, Eagles Mere, Montrose, Wellsboro, and Tunkhannock ); 176 sites eligible for listing; and 771 known archeological sites. Additionally, there is one locally designated historic district in Wellsboro, numerous century farms, and 89 local bridges that have been evaluated as historic. Finally, additional survey work has captured data on another 236 sites for future evaluation.

Air Quality

The USEPA has determined that air quality in the region is attaining established goals. In recent years, Tioga and Wyoming counties were provided specific funding (CMAQ funds) to help mitigate the effects of air pollution from motorized vehicles. Currently, funding continues.

NTRPDC has developed a process to solicit and select air quality mitigation projects. See Appendix F.


Public Input on Transportation and the Environment


8. Trucks/commercial vehicles carry high volumes of diesel fuel and chemicals for long-distance travel. The fuels and chemicals pose a hazard to the environment in the event of a crash that results in tank failure.

Increase driver safety, reduce crashes, and reduce environmental hazards. Prevent crashes by design, if crashes are recurring in one or more locations, and/or by user with public notices and public serve announcements; respond, mitigate, and prevent spill hazards—address through county hazard mitigation management plans.

9. Roads and bridges that parallel streams and/or are located in the floodplain disturb floodbanks, causing banks to fail/slump and erode into the stream and roads to collapse. Floodwaters block vehicular passage. Bridge center piers block the flow of storm/flood debris and cause retention of additional floodwater.

Reduce road/bridge infrastructure impacts on waterways and floodplains. Consider relocation of road and/or reinforcement of bank, and redesign bridges with no center pier upon replacement.

10. Stormwater management, pollution control, and erosion and sediment control relevant to road design and construction are, at times, ineffective. What is most efficient for the roadway may be least effective in protecting the waterway. Dirt and gravel roads are common across the region and maintained by municipalities and gas companies who do not always follow the nuanced maintenance practices appropriate to these road types.

Reduce road/bridge infrastructure impacts on waterways and floodplains. Educate dirt and gravel road maintenance staff on proper maintenance practices.

11. Apply cost-effective practices in Pennsylvania that have proven to work in other states. Examples include: low-flow bridges, level spreaders, constructed wetland cells for stormwater management, wildlife tunnels and bridges, and aquatic organism passage, e.g., fish ladders, at dams.

Improve design, reduce maintenance costs, and reduce road/bridge infrastructure impacts on waterways, floodplains, and wildlife. Specifically, research innovative practices applicable to the region and request support from PennDOT’s Central Office to design and install.

NT’s Transportation System


3 Chapter 3 of the LRTP provides an overview of transportation conditions within the region, spanning aviation, bicycle and pedestrian, highway and bridge, public transportation, and rail freight modes.

Highway and Bridge Inventory and Assessment

Highways by Jurisdiction There are more than 7,700 linear miles of roadway criss-crossing the Northern Tier. While the region has only 1.4 percent of the state's total population, it has nearly 7.4 percent of Pennsylvania’s state-owned roadways. Bradford County has the region’s largest roadway network, at nearly 2,500 miles. With only 565 linear miles of roadway, Sullivan County has the smallest roadway network in the region, and the fourth-smallest in the state. See Table 22.

Table 22: 2013 Mileage by Jurisdiction County PennDOT

Linear Miles

Other Agency Linear Miles

Local Municipal

Linear Miles

Total Linear Miles

Bradford 896.01 1.76 1,592.39 2,490.16 Sullivan 243.84 22.17 298.87 564.88 Susquehanna 793.16 0.00 1,059.75 1,852.91 Tioga 628.83 38.96 1,140.55 1,808.34 Wyoming 364.79 0.00 397.37 762.16 Northern Tier 2,926.63 62.89 4,488.93 7,478.45

as % of NT Total 39.13% 0.84% 60.02% Pennsylvania 39,786.57 1,579.15 78,008.48 119,936.03 Source: PennDOT

Total miles declined in all but Wyoming County as a result of reductions in other agency miles. This reduced total mileage in Sullivan and Tioga counties by just over 8 percent and nominally affected Bradford and Susquehanna counties.


Highway Travel by Jurisdiction

Table 23: 2013 Daily Vehicle-Miles Traveled (DVMT) Travel Demand by Roadway Jurisdiction

PennDOT DVMT

Other Agencies DVMT*

Local Municipal

DVMT Total

DVMT Bradford 1,366,196 4,479 357,603 1,728,278 Sullivan 185,222 56,423 21,818 263,463 Susquehanna 1,332,943 0 86,296 1,419,239 Tioga 1,299,938 99,153 168,584 1,567,675 Wyoming 705,643 0 65,119 770,762 Northern Tier 4,889,942 160,055 699,420 5,749,417

as % of NT Total 85.05% 2.78% 12.17% Pennsylvania 202,391,130 4,018,939 47,446,221 270,213,634 *Includes State and Federal Agency Miles Source: PennDOT

A review of the five-year trend in highway travel by jurisdiction (2009-2013) indicated that overall travel is up more than 15 percent in Bradford County, down almost 7 percent in Susquehanna County, and up 3 to 6 percent in the remaining counties. Travel changes are more significant on state highways (6 percent and higher) than on local roads, except in Susquehanna County where state highway travel declines were essentially offset by local road travel increases.

Highways by Functional Classification Roadways generally perform two functions, to varying degrees: providing traffic mobility (serving through travel) and providing land access (connecting to driveways of homes and businesses) and can be grouped (or "ranked") in terms of the proportion of mobility vs. access they provide.

PennDOT has functionally classified its network of roadways since the mid-1960s. The classifications group streets and highways into a hierarchy based on their primary function. PennDOT defines this hierarchy of roadways as follows:

• Interstate System – The Interstate System consists of all presently designated freeway routes meeting the Interstate geometric and construction standards for future traffic. The Interstate system is the highest classification of arterial roads and streets and provides the highest level of mobility, at the highest speed, for long uninterrupted distances. Interstate 81 through Susquehanna County is currently the only Interstate in the Northern Tier region.

• Other Arterials – These consist of limited-access freeways, multi-lane highways, and other important highways supplementing the Interstate system that connect, as directly as practicable, the nation’s principal urbanized areas, cities, and industrial centers; serve the

Northern Tier 31


2015-2040

national defense; and connect at suitable border points with routes of continental importance. US 6, US 15, and US 220 are arterials in the Northern Tier region.

• Collectors – Collectors provide both land access service and traffic circulation within residential neighborhoods, commercial and industrial areas, and downtown city centers. Collectors connect local roads and streets with arterials and provide less mobility than arterials, at lower speeds and for shorter distances. The Berwick Turnpike and PA 467 in Bradford County; PA 42, PA 154, and PA 487 in Sullivan County; US 11 in Susquehanna County; PA 249, PA 349, and PA 660 in Tioga County; and PA 92 and PA 307 in Wyoming County are examples of collectors.

• Locals – The local roads and streets provide a high level of access to abutting land but limited mobility.

Mileage by classification is provided in Table 24.

Table 24: 2013 Mileage by Functional Classification of Highways Federal Aid Linear Miles Non-Federal Aid

Linear Miles Total Linear Miles

Inter- State

Other Frwy/ Expwy

Other Princ Arter

Minor Arter

Major Coll Minor

Coll Local

Bradford 0.0 4.6 60.4 121.9 163.8 216.3 1,923.2 2,490.2 Sullivan 0.0 0.0 0.0 58.3 65.9 38.0 402.7 564.9 Susquehanna 27.2 0.0 0.0 99.4 181.4 181.2 1,363.7 1,852.9 Tioga 0.0 35.1 43.9 96.0 144.4 162.0 1,326.9 1,808.3 Wyoming 0.0 0.0 30.1 55.5 52.0 66.6 558.0 762.2 Northern Tier 27.2 39.7 134.4 431.1 607.5 664.1 5,574.5 7,478.5

as % of NT Total 0.36% 0.53% 1.80% 5.76% 8.12% 8.88% 74.54% Pennsylvania 1,856.0 858.0 4,409.0 8,496.0 12,592.0 7,255.0 84,470.0 119,936.0 Source: PennDOT

The distribution of miles across the functional classification system has been steady over the past five years. The only increase was in major collector mileage in Tioga County (4 percent). The largest declines were in local mileage in Sullivan and Tioga counties (11 percent each).


Highway Travel by Functional Classification Among the various highway functional classifications, minor arterials carry the largest percentage of daily vehicle-miles traveled (DVMT) (24.24 percent) followed by local service roads at 19.72 percent. Together, Interstate 81 and US 15 (other freeway/expressway) rank a close third, carrying 18.55 percent of total traffic. See Table 25.

Table 25: 2013 Travel by Functional Classification of Highways

Federal-Aid DVMT Non-Federal-Aid

DVMT

Inter- State

Other Frwy/ Expwy

Other Princ Arter

Minor Arter

Major Coll

Minor Coll Local

Bradford 0 52,216 444,565 451,650 239,241 105,433 435,173 Sullivan 0 0 0 114,215 44,573 10,001 94,674 Susquehanna 616,821 0 0 266,734 257,607 109,383 168,694 Tioga 0 397,593 220,825 343,878 212,730 78,073 314,576 Wyoming 0 0 280,411 217,307 100,469 51,685 120,890 Northern Tier 616,821 449,809 945,801 1,393,784 854,620 354,575 1,134,007

as % of NT Total 10.73% 7.82% 16.45% 24.24% 14.86% 6.17% 19.72% Pennsylvania 63,784,230 22,993,206 54,657,755 51,599,923 32,515,006 5,561,900 39,101,614 Source: PennDOT

Statewide, the five-year trend in travel demand by functional classification averaged a 5 percent decline. In the Northern Tier, travel demand on the higher order highways increased dramatically—as much as a 44 percent increase in travel on Bradford County’s principal arterials.

Table 26: Five-Year Trend in Travel by Functional Classification of Highways (2009–2013)

Federal-Aid DVMT Non-Federal-Aid

DVMT

Total DVMT

Inter-State

Other Frwy/ Expwy

Other Princ Arter

Minor Arter

Major Coll

Minor Coll Local

Bradford 15.04% 44.47% 5.89% 23.57% 12.96% 0.57% 15.27% Sullivan 24.69% -7.58% 23.82% -12.66% 2.79% Susquehanna -15.29% 2.71% 1.81% -0.18% -1.18% -6.70% Tioga 16.92% -5.51% 18.03% 29.02% -1.44% -26.19% 2.10% Wyoming 14.43% 7.25% -3.89% 1.22% -4.77% 5.55% Northern Tier -15.29% 16.70% 20.26% 9.59% 11.82% 3.90% -10.35% 3.74% Pennsylvania -4.54% 2.39% -6.65% -6.31% -6.58% -0.35% -1.59% -4.52% Source: PennDOT

Northern Tier 33


2015-2040

Highways by Maintenance Functional Classification Highway mileage by functional classifcation correlates closely with mileage by maintenance functional classification. Mileage for Class A and Class B equal Interstate and other freeway/expressway mileage, respectively. Mileage for Class C equals that of the two arterial classifications and Class D equates to the mileage of major and minor collectors. Class E equals the remaining PennDOT mileage. See Table 27 versus Table 22.

A public comment noted later in the chapter suggests that highway maintenance on non-National Highway System highways should be more predictable. This data may be a starting point for discussion of current and locally desired maintenance goals.

Table 27: 2013 Highway Mileage by Maintenance Functional Classification Linear Miles By

Maintenance Functional Classification Ramps A B C D E Total

Bradford 0.00 4.56 179.62 364.87 346.96 896.01 3.24 Sullivan 0.00 0.00 58.28 103.90 81.67 243.85 0.00 Susquehanna 27.24 0.00 99.45 362.58 303.90 793.17 3.74 Tioga 0.00 35.12 139.94 303.00 150.77 628.83 8.91 Wyoming 0.00 0.00 85.47 118.68 160.63 364.78 0.82 Northern Tier 27.24 39.68 562.76 1,253.03 1,043.93 2,926.64 16.71 NT as percent of PA 0.93% 1.36% 19.23% 42.81% 35.67% Pennsylvania 1,368.32 789.25 11,873.49 17,371.54 8,383.97 39,786.57 816.57 Source: PennDOT

Federal-Aid System The Federal-Aid Highway System are those highway eligible for financial assistance for their construction, maintenance, and operations through the Federal-Aid Highway Program. The system includes the Interstate Highway System as well as primary highways and principal secondary and feeder routes, including farm-to-market roads, rural mail and public school bus routes, local rural roads, county and township roads, roads of the county, road class, and their urban extensions chosen. The highways are selected by PennDOT and local officials and subject to approval by FHWA.

The Federal-Aid System in the Northern Tier region includes more than 1,200 state-owned miles and a mere 7.8 locally-owned miles. See Table 28. Total mileage of the Federal-Aid System in the region has not changed over the past five years.

Table 28: Federal-Aid Highway System Federal-Aid Linear Miles

State- Owned

Local- Owned

Total

Bradford 342.9 7.8 350.7 Sullivan 124.2 0.0 124.2 Susquehanna 308.1 0.0 308.1 Tioga 319.4 0.0 319.4 Wyoming 137.5 0.0 137.5 Northern Tier 1,232.1 7.8 1,239.9 Pennsylvania 24,203.4 3,356.5 27,559.9 Turnpike 551.0 Toll Bridges 9.2 Grand Total 28,120.1 Source: PennDOT


The National Highway System The National Highway System (NHS) is a network of strategic highways approved by Congress in the National Highway Designation Act of 1995. The NHS includes the Interstate System, the Strategic Highway Network, and highways serving major airports, ports, rail or truck terminals, railway stations, pipeline terminals, and other strategic transport facilities. The NHS receives dedicated funding that cannot be used on non-NHS highways.

Elements of the NHS within the Northern Tier include US 6, US 15, I-81, and US 220 north of Towanda, totaling 201.6 miles. There are no NHS highways in Sullivan County. See Figure 7 and Table 29. Over the past five years, there has been no significant change in mileage of the NHS roadways in the region.

Figure 7: Northern Tier NHS Routes

Table 29: Mileage and DVMT Travel Demand of the National Highway System DVMT

State Local Total DVMT

Bradford 65.3 - 65.3 499,575 Sullivan - - - - Susquehanna 27.2 - 27.2 616,821 Tioga 79.1 - 79.1 618,418 Wyoming 30.0 - 30.0 280,411 Northern Tier 201.6 - 201.6 2,015,225

as % of NT Total 100.00% 35.05% Pennsylvania 6,412.7 237.7 7,210.3 142,057,916 Source: PennDOT

Northern Tier 35


2015-2040

Travel on the NHS in the region has increased by 31 percent in Bradford County and 23 percent in Wyoming County, reflecting increased travel on Route 6. These figures are roughly double the statewide five-year increase in travel on the NHS of 12 percent.

From a transportation revenue standpoint, NTRPDC will receive approximately $17.2 million in designated NHS funds as part of the 2015 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). This represents approximately 8.1 percent of the region’s entire base allocation of $212.3 million. These funds can only be used on the 6.8 percent of state-owned highways that are designated as the NHS.

Highway Performance Key measures of highway performance are safety, pavement conditions, and posted and bonded roads.

Safety

Data from PennDOT’s Crash Information Systems and Analysis Divisions show that crashes in the region peaked in 2011 and have since declined. Yet in four of the five counties, crash incidences remain higher than in 2009. This mirrors the state trend. Only in Susquehanna and Wyoming counties are crashes in 2013 at their highest point of the five-year period. See Table 30.

Table 30: Total Crashes by County

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Bradford 586 771 847 776 662 Sullivan 82 105 95 93 75 Susquehanna 503 471 514 511 533 Tioga 427 552 610 511 483 Wyoming 325 346 361 348 371 Northern Tier 1,923 2,245 2,427 2,239 2,124 PA 121,242 121,312 125,395 124,092 124,149 Source: PennDOT Bureau of Maintenance and Operations, Crash Information Systems and Analysis Division

Similar trends are evident among crashes that resulted in fatalities. In this region, crash fatalities peaked in 2010 and remain at or above the number of incidents in 2009. Statewide, there were fewer fatalities in 2013 than in 2009. See Table 31.

Fatalities per unit of travel make fatality rates comparable. By this measure, the region’s fatality rate is higher than the state; Sullivan County’s null rate offsets Bradford and Tioga counties’ higher rates. See also Table 31.


Table 31: Traffic Fatalities, 2009–2013 Traffic Fatalities Fatalities per 100,000 DVMT

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Bradford 10 20 10 15 13 0.7 1.2 0.6 0.9 0.8 Sullivan 3 6 1 2 0 1.2 2.6 0.4 0.8 0.0 Susquehanna 8 12 11 15 8 0.5 0.8 0.8 1.1 0.6 Tioga 7 13 12 10 11 0.5 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.7 Wyoming 9 8 6 7 5 1.2 1.1 0.8 0.9 0.6 Northern Tier 37 59 40 49 37 0.7 1.1 0.7 0.9 0.6 PA 1,256 1,324 1,286 1,310 1,117 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 Source: PennDOT Bureau of Maintenance and Operations, Crash Information Systems and Analysis Division

Pavement Conditions The condition of the highway network is important to the operating efficiency of the system. PennDOT maintains condition information on all state-owned roads, assessing select highways annually and others by sample, and reports the data in annual performance reports, statewide and by planning region.

Roadway condition is based on the International Roughness Index (IRI) and the Overall Pavement Index (OPI):

• IRI measurements are recorded based on the level of deflections per segment of highway. The lower the IRI, the smoother the road. Using IRI ranges, highways are rated excellent, good, fair, or poor.

• OPI ratings compile the IRI with structural, surface distress, and safety factors.

IRI and OPI data are summarized for the following highway network classifications: • Interstate System • National Highway System (NHS) • Non-NHS > 2000 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) • Non-NHS < 2000 ADT

The major concern for condition ratings is the amount of the roadway system rated as “poor.”

Figure 8: Percent Segment Miles by Business Plan Network

Source: 2013 Performance Measures Annual Report -- Pavements, Northern Tier RPO

Northern Tier 37


2015-2040

Tables 32 and 33 summarize the IRI and OPI ratings across the region, as reported in the 2013 Performance Measures Annual Report for Pavements. Figure 9 illustrates “poor” ratings for highways across the network. These data and illustrations show that higher order highways are better maintained than non-NHS highways with less than an average of 2,000 daily trips.

Table 32: Current Smoothness Summary by Business Plan Network


Table 33: Current Overall Pavement Index Summary


Figure 9: Percent of Segment Miles with Poor IRI and Poor OPI



Figure 10: Surface Out-of-Cycle Segment Miles with OPI Ratings


Figure 11: Segment Miles of Pavement Potential Past Design Service Life, Out-of-Cycle


Northern Tier 39


2015-2040

Pavement Performance Goals PennDOT’s Annual Performance Report for Pavement also reports short-term targets and long-range goals for pavement conditions.

Interstate and NHS, Non-Interstate Highways

Current pavement conditions for Interstate and NHS highways fall short of both short-term targets and long-range goals by several percentage points. However, given the relatively small mileage of Interstate and NHS highways in the region, the length of highway pavement improvement needed to reach these targets and goals is fairly small; a few resurfacing projects could quickly result in significantly improved pavement conditions across the region. See Figure 12.

From this, one can conclude that PennDOT District-identified pavement improvement projects are maintaining Interstates and other NHS highways well.

NTRPDC will continue to rely on the Districts to identify and prioritize Interstate and NHS highway pavement projects.

Figure 12: Pavement Goals for Interstate and NHS, Non-Interstate Highways



Non-NHS Highways

According to 2013 conditions, non-NHS highways are performing even better than the region’s Interstate and NHS highways. Several measures are performing at optimum thresholds. Others are close to short-term targets and long-range goals by percentage points but farther by actual mileage needed to improve the ratings.

Nonetheless, the data show that PennDOT District-identified pavement improvement projects are maintaining non-NHS highways close to goal.

NTRPDC will continue to rely on the Districts to identify and prioritize non- NHS highway pavement projects.

Figure 13: Pavement Goals for Non-NHS Highways


Northern Tier 41


2015-2040

Posted and Bonded Roads Many of Pennsylvania’s older secondary and rural roadways were not designed to support the heavy truck loads they presently carry. As a result, many of these roadways can be damaged, requiring PennDOT to perform maintenance and repair activity in advance of the normal cycle (excess maintenance). PennDOT's posting and bonding policies address this problem by requiring haulers to be financially responsible for excess maintenance on the roadways they use. In this way, PennDOT can maintain its rural roadways for simultaneous use by passenger vehicles and haulers.

Posting places a weight restriction on a state or locally owned roadway and records the restriction under Section 4902(a) of the Vehicle Code. Primary highways are generally not posted, as they are designed and constructed for heavy use. Secondary routes not designed or built to carry overweight vehicles may require weight-limit postings.

Bonding is a formal agreement between the road owner and the hauler by which the hauler agrees to be responsible for any damages arising from its hauling. Bonding can be provided by a performance bond issued by an insurance company or by an irrevocable letter of credit. Other forms of security can be reviewed on a case-by-case basis at the posting authority’s discretion.

PennDOT’s online Posted/Bonded Viewer enables the public, including haulers, to view the status of posted and bonded roads (and posted and closed bridges) across the state. A snapshot of the viewer is shown in Figure 14. This snapshot depicts the extensive roads in Bradford and Susquehanna counties that have been posted or bonded, largely due to the heavy traffic associated with the Marcellus shale industry.

Figure 14: Snapshot of PennDOT’s Posted and Bonded Viewer

http://www.dot4.state.pa.us/pdotforms/vehicle_code/chapter49.pdf

http://www.dot.state.pa.us/PBV/index.htm


As of October 2014, 596 roads were bonded in the Northern Tier region. The majority of bonded roads were in Susquehanna County (232), followed Bradford County (153) and Tioga County (111); Bonded road mileage was not available. See Table 34.

Table 34: Bonded Roads, Northern Tier Number of Bonded Roads

Bradford 153 Sullivan 40 Susquehanna 232 Tioga 111 Wyoming 60 Northern Tier 596 Source: PennDOT Bureau of Maintenance and Operations

Public Input on Highway Design, Maintenance, and Safety Issues


12. Most sites in the 2012 Safety Study are still concerns. [See Appendix D for summary.]

Improve safety. Specifically, ensure previously identified sites are addressed.

13. Portions of the current highway system were designed for slower vehicles and lower traffic volumes; they now pose safety hazards for vehicles traveling at higher speeds and in greater numbers. Examples include: • Truck/commercial vehicles travel slowly on

hills, creating congestion. Need passing lanes to reduce congestion, e.g., on PA 29, between Tunkhannock and Dallas, and both north and south of Dushore.

• On-street parking along US 220 in Dushore blocks the view of vehicles attempting to enter US 220.

• Uncommon intersection controls, such as a three-way stop at a four-way intersection in Leroy.

• Horizontal S-curves, such as along PA 414 west of Leroy.

• Poor intersection alignment, e.g., right-turn “slip ramps,” <90 degree angles, including five-leg intersections which also create right-of-way confusion among drivers.

• Sight distance is limited by topography at many intersections along state highways.

Improve design for safety (modern vehicles, modern speeds). Specifically, further define locations. Evaluate alternatives, including re-grading, re-design, and speed reduction.

Northern Tier 43


2015-2040


14. I-81 interchanges do not meet current standards.

Improve highway design to current standards. Specifically, support the redesign and reconstruction of Interstate interchanges.

15. There is an increasing need for center turn lanes as high-traffic businesses develop along state corridors. Shoulders are needed along busy two-digit and three-digit state routes so that crashes can be moved to the side, allowing traffic flow to resume. Congestion occurring on busy segments of two-digit and three-digit state routes may be the cause of crashes, which cause further congestion. Access management is needed along commercial and industrial strips. Turns into and out of properties in these strips are unpredictable. Traffic signals are needed in some locations, especially where shopping centers have expanded, however, the decision would be made and expense borne by the private owner. Non-motorized access to commercial strips is poor. Need improvements to existing conditions and better design of future adjacent development to improve sidewalk and bicycle connections.

Reduce congestion and reduce crashes. Review crash stats/causes for “busy”/high-traffic segments. Determine need for center turn and/or shoulder enhancement. Requests and examples include:

• Tioga County: Route 6, add center turn lane to access Shumway Hill Road and Cherry Flats Road just east of Wellsboro (programmed for construction in 2015/2016).

• Wyoming County: SR 29 from Susquehanna River to the county line—need long turn lanes at intersections

Encourage municipalities to adopt access management provisions. Encourage intersection retrofits funded by private owners and/or municipalities in the interest of safety.

16. Guiderail is sparse in some locations. Most crashes (in Sullivan County) are single vehicle “drove off the road”-type incidents. Pavement improvements have effectively increased the depth of roadside ditches, reducing safety.

Reduce crashes and crash severity. Review crash statistics and causes. Increase guiderail in locations of recurring crashes.

17. Public roads in industrial areas are dirty and pavement markings are difficult to see. No one enforces that private business must keep public roadways clean.

Improve safety. Encourage increased enforcement.

18. Major improvements may need adjustment or refinement after installation. Post-construction evaluation of major improvements, e.g., new intersections and signal timing in Wellsboro, could ensure proper operations.

Evaluate operational improvements post-construction. Consider three-month, six-month, or one-year post-construction evaluations of intersection operational improvements.



19. Lack of money for maintenance and repair drives decision-makers to postpone improvements until replacement becomes the only option. Gas companies have improved dirt and gravel roads and even bridges, which has saved municipalities money. But improvements will take more money to maintain in the future.

Improve asset management. Specifically, support more funding for maintenance and preservation and better monitoring of conditions to prioritize maintenance projects.

20. The transportation system does not have a clear hierarchy. After the few miles of NHS roadway, the remaining roads may appear to be similar in function, i.e., all secondary roads, and therefore maintenance and improvement are similarly dispersed and seemingly unprioritized. A “secondary highway system” could be designated to receive priority maintenance/improvement. Perhaps gas companies could be involved and agree to limit most travel to the primary and secondary systems to reduce impacts on more rural/local roads and bridges.

Improve highway reliability. Consider designation of a secondary highway system that receives priority maintenance and improvement, either as a unit or through project prioritization criteria.

Northern Tier 45


2015-2040

Bridges There are 1,776 state-owned bridges longer than 8 feet in length and 342 locally owned bridges greater than 20 feet in length in the Northern Tier region. In a region with hundreds of miles of waterways, bridges are essential to mobility.

Bridges are found on all types of highways across the region. Figure 15 shows the distribution of bridges by highway type and demonstrates that bridges tend to be larger (have greater deck area) on higher-order highways.

Figure 15: Bridge Count and Deck Area Distribution by Highway Type, 2013

Minor Bridges State-owned bridges less than 8 feet long and locally-owned bridges less than 20 feet long do not require inspection per FHWA. These smaller state-owned bridges and culverts are well documented, however locally-owned bridges and culverts are not. NTRPDC is in the process of inventorying these smaller local bridges as a starting point for a local bridge management system. Data is expected to be available in the next LRTP update.


Bridge Performance Bridge performance can be measured by various conditions and the percentage of all bridges affected:

• Load Capacity-Challenged (i.e., Posted and Closed): Posted bridges have weight restrictions to prohibit heavy loads, while closed bridges prohibit all traffic from crossing. Posted and closed bridges negatively impact goods movement and emergency response. In the Northern Tier, most posted and closed bridges are on lower-system roadways (such as four-digit state routes).

• Substandard Bridges (i.e., Structurally Deficient or Functionally Obsolete): Structurally deficient (SD) bridges are structures unable to carry vehicle loads or tolerate the speeds that would normally be expected for that particular bridge in its designated system. Functional obsolescence refers to a bridge with inadequate width or vertical clearance for its associated highway system.

• Load-Challenged Bridges (Weak Link/On Deck): These are measures used to identify structures that are within 110 and 120 percent, respectively, of their legal load limit and nearing conditions that may warrant weight restriction or closure.

• Sufficiency Ratings: Ratings of individual bridge elements (deck, substructure, superstructure, etc.) and levels of traffic are factors that are important in the determination of bridge Sufficiency Ratings.

Posted and Closed Bridges Among bridges on the state system (greater than 8 feet) there are 55 structures that are either posted (weight-restricted) or closed. Nearly half of these (23) are in Susquehanna County, with an additional 15 in Bradford County. Both closed bridges are on lower-order, secondary roadways, such as four-digit state routes. See Tables 35 and 36.

Table 35: Posted Bridges Posted

Bridge Count

Ownership Bridge Length Detour Length State County Boro/Twp Min Max Max Max

Bradford 15 4 4 7 25 86 2 99 Sullivan 3 0 0 3 33 62 1 7 Susquehanna 22 14 2 6 21 102 1 27 Tioga 8 2 0 6 23 64 1 52 Wyoming 5 2 0 3 22 33 1 18 Northern Tier 53 22 6 25 Source: PennDOT

Northern Tier 47


2015-2040

Table 36: Closed Bridges

County Feature Carried Feature Intersected Municipality Ownership

Sullivan SR 4002 Fall Run Fox State Susquehanna SR 3017 Pond Brook Creek Springville State Source: PennDOT

Reporting of posted and closed bridges on local systems is not detailed here. However, these conditions are found at certain locations in the region—such as Bradford County Bridge #16 in LeRoy Township—and may or may not significantly hinder travel in the region. Further dicusssion of these conditions should follow as a local bridge selection process is developed.

Structurally Deficient Bridges Of the 1,776 state-owned bridges in the Northern Tier that are greater than 8 feet long, 235 are substandard, according to the 2013 Annual Performance Report for Bridges. This represents 13.23 percent by bridge count and 6.38 percent by bridge deck area. Both percentages are slightly lower than the statewide conditions of a 16.61 percent structurally deficient bridge count and 10.80 percent structurally deficient deck area. See Table 37.

Table 37: Structurally Deficient Bridges

Of the 342 locally-owned bridges in the region, 140 are structurally deficient—40.94 percent by count and 29.31 percent by deck area. The region has more bridges rated SD than the 35.32 percent statewide and a slightly smaller percentage of SD bridge deck area than the 29.44 percent statewide figure.


Bridge Performance Goals PennDOT’s Annual Performance Report for Bridges also reports short-term targets and long-range goals for bridge conditions. These targets and goals address SD conditions by count and deck area as measured annually but also include goals for reducing the rate of deterioration or preventing bridges from reaching an SD condition through proactive maintenance and rehabilitation. See Figure 16.

Figure 16: 2013 Bridge Performance

As demonstrated by Figure 16, state bridges are at or near goal, while local bridges are much further from goals.

Northern Tier 49


2015-2040

Figure 17, also excerpted from the 2013 Annual Performance Report for Bridges, demonstrates that SD bridge conditions by deck area and by count have improved for state bridges since baseline data was prepared in 2010, and that local bridge conditions have worsened. Figure 18 recaps change in bridge conditions since 2012, again showing progress in addressing state-owned SD bridges while local SD bridges continue to accumulate.

Figure 17: Trends in Bridge Structural Deficiency, 2010–2013

Figure 18: Annual Change in SD Bridge Condition

From these figures and trends, one can conclude that PennDOT District-identified projects for state-owned bridges are effective in improving bridge conditions and that local bridges need to be addressed more aggressively (this is a trend statewide) . Northern Tier will continue to rely on the Districts to identify and prioritize state-owned bridge projects and will expand its support of local bridge project identification and development.


Public Input on Bridges


21. I-81 bridges over the river near at Halstead and Great Bend were built in 1950s and 1960s; many other Interstate bridges have already been replaced.

Improve bridges to meet current standards. Specifically, support the replacement of Interstate bridges.

22. Need a better approach to historic bridges, such as allow an upgrade or transfer ownership and construct a modern bridge.

Improve mobility and historic preservation. Build new, transfer vehicular use at minimum, and transfer ownership.

Traffic Signals PennDOT has recently announced the launch of its Green Light - Go Program. This program provides state funds for the operation and maintenance of traffic signals along critical and designated state highways. Act 89 of 2013 created Title 75, Section 9511(e.1) [Allocation to Municipalities for Traffic Signals], which is a new grant funding program for designated corridors. PennDOT developed a similar traffic signal modernization and improvement program for critical corridors designed to improve safety and mobility by reducing congestion and improving efficiency on key state highways. The initial phase of the program is focused on PennDOT’s effort to inventory signals. A comprehensive inventory of signals may be available for the next LRTP update.

Public Input on Signals


23. Few signalized intersections along state routes have emergency preemption equipment that permit responders to clear intersections en route to emergency response sites.

Improve emergency response travel times. Inventory signalized intersections, including a field for emergency preemption equipment. Prioritize intersections without emergency preemption for improvement based on typical corridor congestion.

Northern Tier 51


2015-2040

Public Input on Other Highway-related Facilities Public Comment Response: LRTP Priorities Should…

24. Local government may not have expertise in parking design or the knowledge to scope a parking study or plan. They may need assistance with parking studies, design, and alternatives.

Improve safety. Support parking studies and plans and parking access to the transportation system with technical assistance in solicitations for professional services.

25. Park-and-rides are used before sunrise and after sunset depending on the time of year. Lighting is needed, for example at the park-and-ride at US 15/PA 49, to ensure safety.

Improve safety. Install lighting at the US 15/PA 49 park-and-ride facility.

26. Signage to attractions is inadequate, poorly placed, and confusing. Regulations limit roadside navigational signage to destinations within two miles of the highway—that is insufficient for the PA Grand Canyon. The canyon is flanked by two state parks with separate names. Some entrance signage faces the highway, which does not provide advance warning of the entrance.

Improve navigation and safety. Specifically, replace problematic signage. Provide better guidance more relevant to a rural landscape and its attractions for future wayfinding.

27. There is a need for expansion of compressed natural gas infrastructure (fueling stations) into Tioga County. County, Mansfield Borough, and EMTA at minimum are interested in converting their fleets. Some facility modification or improvements, e.g., ventilation, will be needed.

Increase access to fuel choices and efficiency. Support expansion of compressed natural gas infrastructure (fueling stations).


Public Transportation Like public highways and bridges, public transportation services receive funding from state and federal transportation agencies. These funds are budgeted through the state’s Twelve-Year Transportation Plan and the four-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).

Local transportation services in the region are provided by the Endless Mountains Transportation Authority (EMTA), currently operated by Williamsport’s River Valley Transit (RVT), and Susquehanna County Transit. Intercity bus service is provided by the Susquehanna Transit Company.

Endless Mountains Transit Authority (operated by River Valley Transit) EMTA provides fixed-route and demand-responsive public transportation services in Bradford, Sullivan, and Tioga counties. Susquehanna and Wyoming counties were part of EMTA’s original charter but are not current Authority members.

EMTA’s operations are based in Athens with a secondary maintenance facility in Mansfield. EMTA operates a fleet of 66 vehicles: 19 for fixed route and 44 for paratransit. EMTA employs 30 full-time and staff operators and mechanics, plus 11 part-time operators and 29 casual (on-call) operators.

According the Fiscal Year 2012–13 Annual Performance Report for Public Transportation in Pennsylvania (the most recent data available), EMTA’s three-county service area covers 726 square miles and serves a population of 61,852 residents. Of the service’s 125,316 total passengers, 11,437 (9.1 percent) were seniors. Total ridership over the past five years has been variable, with an overall decline of approximately 20,000 to 25,000 riders. See Figure 19. Given the region’s demographics, characterized by an aging population, seniors are expected to be a growing market in the future.

While EMTA ridership has declined, operational efficiency has improved over the past five years, as shown by the charts in Figure 20. River Valley Transit, the contract operator, is credited with achieving these efficiencies since it was contracted for operations in December 2011.

Figure 19: EMTA Ridership, FY 2008–09 to FY 2012–13

Northern Tier 53


2015-2040

The primary source of EMTA’s $1.1 million in operating funds is federal funds (53 percent), followed by state subsidy (37 percent), fare revenue (12 percent), and local subsidy (3 percent).

Shared-Ride Service

EMTA also provides shared-ride bus service to seniors and people with disabilities (PwD) in the same three-county service area. EMTA operates 32 paratransit vehicles for this service.

In Fiscal Year (FY) 2012–13, EMTA provided 63,978 shared-ride trips. This total was nearly equally split between senior shared-ride trips (46 percent) and other shared-ride trips (44 percent). Over the past five years, total trips have declined; senior trips have declined by almost 10,000 trips and trips serving PwD have risen slightly.

Shared-ride fare recovery has been mixed over the past five years but most recently in FY 2012–13 recovered approximately $5 in fares for the average ride cost of $30.45.

Facility and Fleet

In FY 2012–13, EMTA used a grant from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection to establish a public-private partnership with Williams Oil Company/Dandy Mini Marts to build a compressed natural gas

Figure 20: EMTA’s Operational Performance


(CNG) fueling facility in Athens and to purchase EMTA’s first CNG vehicle. Over time, EMTA’s transition to CNG will significantly reduce fuel expenses and greenhouse gas emissions.

EMTA continues to update its facilities and fleet. Its capital projects/purchases on the 2015 TIP include:

• Support vehicles • Garage/office improvements in

Athens and Mansfield • Purchase minibuses; accessible and

standard (non-accessible) minivans

• Support equipment • Spare components • Towanda transit center • Replacement buses

Future Operations

EMTA is adopting a new name and accompanying logo for its operating system. “BeST Transit” is a more engaging and representative name that stands for the three member counties— Bradford, Sullivan, and Tioga—of the Authority, with the “e” still reflecting the Endless Mountains.

RVT is in the process of strategic planning to determine how it will serve the region in the future— as a contract operator of EMTA (soon to be BeST) or as RVT. A completed plan is expected in early 2015.

Susquehanna-Wyoming County Transportation Through FY 2012–13, Susquehanna County Transportation provided shared-ride service within the 823 square miles of Susquehanna County to its population of 44,000, including 7,800 seniors 65 years and older. It operated as many as 20 vehicles for this service.

That year, Susquehanna County Transportation provided 28,209 shared-ride trips to seniors, PwD, and others. Senior trips comprised the majority of trips at 52 percent, followed by other shared-ride trips at 38 percent. Over the past five years, total trips have declined by roughly 10,000 trips, senior trips have declined by approximately 2,500, while trips serving PwD have risen by about 3,000. Shared-ride fare recovery has been mixed over the past five years but was near full recovery of the $25.09 ride cost in FY 2012–13. Capital funding in FY 2012–13 provided $62,000 to purchase accessible buses.

In 2014, Wyoming County joined the system. Susquehanna-Wyoming County Transportation has no capital projects in the 2015 TIP.

Northern Tier 55


2015-2040

Susquehanna Transit Company Susquehanna Transit serves communities in 19 counties with intercity travel from Williamsport to Philadelphia, Williamsport to Easton, and Harrisburg to Elmira, NY. Scheduled route service, charter service, and school bus service are available using its 13 coaches.

Total ridership has been steady over the past five years, while operating revenue, operating expense, and total subsidy per vehicle mile have increased, as shown by the charts in Figure 21.

In FY 2012–13, the majority of the $2.6 million in operating funds were sourced from revenue (51 percent), followed by federal subsidy (24 percent), state subsidy (12 percent), revenue (12 percent), and local subsidy (12 percent).

Transit Coordination In 2008, NTRPDC (the Northern Tier RPO) adopted an Interim Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan, which is included as an appendix to this LRTP. See Appendix C. This coordination plan is scheduled to be updated in 2015.

Public Input on Transit

There were no public comments related to public transportation.

Figure 21: Susquehanna Transit Company’s Operational Performance


Airports There are three public-use airports that serve the Northern Tier: the Bradford County Airport in Towanda Township, Bradford County; Wellsboro/Johnston Airport in Tioga County; and Tunkhannock’s Skyhaven Airport. Major airports immediately outside of the region include Binghamton, Elmira, Wilkes-Barre/Scranton International, and Williamsport Regional.

Bradford County Airport PennDOT's Bureau of Aviation has functionally classified the Bradford County Airport as a general aviation airport. The airport is owned and operated by the Bradford County Airport Authority, which benefits from the representation of private industry. The airport occupies a 339-acre tract near the junction of US 220 and US 6 in Towanda Township, Bradford County.

The airport, with 40 based aircraft, experiences 25,410 annual operations (take-offs and landings combined) and can accommodate aircraft as large as the Falcon 50, which has a 62-foot wingspan. Its runway is 4,300 feet long and is equipped with high intensity runway lighting (HIRL), including Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) and Runway End Identifier Lighting (REIL).

Figure 22: Aerial View of the Bradford County Airport

Aircraft operations average 69 per day, comprising of approximately 76 percent local general aviation, approximately 23 percent transient general aviation, and less than one percent military operations. The facility offers services such as flight instruction, general aviation fueling, and hangar rental. There is some tourism-related traffic for activities such as hunting, fishing, golfing, and fall foliage tours. Fly-overs of French Asylum are also done on a seasonal basis.

Northern Tier 57


2015-2040

The airport handles small corporate aircraft and business charter flights daily. The Marcellus shale natural gas industry made an impact at the airport between 2008 and 2011 with nearly 60 natural gas-related companies located in the Towanda area, but the influence from the industry has recently declined. Other companies such as Proctor & Gamble; Towanda Metadyne, Inc.; Frontier Industrial Technology, Inc.; DuPont; Panda Natural Gas Power Plant; and others utilize the airport. Offering both competitive fuel prices and maintenance services has made the airport very attractive to these nearby corporations.

The airport functions as a convenient gateway for business personnel who frequently travel long distances, playing a significant role in the economic development of the nearby communities. Air travel to and from the airport can be faster than ground travel, particularly if overnight lodging costs are avoided. Annual events such as Fly-In and Drive-In Breakfast and airshows attract both locals and commuters. The airport offers many convenient intermodal connections including taxi service, courtesy vehicles, bus service, and even bicycle and pedestrian access into Towanda.

In recent years, the airport has completed work including crack-sealing the runway, designing and building a 400-foot-long taxiway along with new drainage and lighting, constructing an eight-bay T-hangar, acquiring land for further development, purchasing new snow removal equipment, and upgrading its fuel farm after flooding.

A new airport master plan will be developed in the next year (2015) and will include an updated airport layout plan. The current plan was last updated in 1983. All facilities are less than 20 years old and no major replacements are anticipated. Airport hazard zoning is in place to protect the operation of the airport from conflicting development. Capital projects being pursued by the airport authority include:

• A new fuel station for both AV gas (2-seat and 4-seat; synthetic) and Jet-A (jet aircraft; super-clean diesel).

• A potential 700-foot runway extension and new parallel taxiway – The extra 700 feet would create a 5,000-foot runway, allowing the airport to be upgraded in classification, compete for additional Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) funds, and accommodate corporate jets to better serve the local economy. Inadequate runway length forces some area businesses to use airports in Binghamton and Avoca. The project is anticipated to cost more than $3 million to complete. Despite the support of the county commissioners, state funding is uncertain due to other priority projects in Pennsylvania.

• Aircraft parking – Airport property south of the runway is reserved in the master plan for potential future industrial development; it is currently being used for aircraft parking. The Bradford County Airport can currently park aircraft at a more competitive price than can other airports in the region, such as Elmira Regional. One future strategy for the airport may be to host more corporate business aircraft generate revenue and alleviate congestion at other facilities.


• Roadway relocation – A long-term issue includes TR 457, which used to provide a direct connection to US 220 but now encroaches onto the runway and airfield. The roadway ultimately needs to be relocated parallel to the runway, which would potentially open more property for landside development. As such, multiple funding sources may be available for this improvement—potentially including a mix of aviation, highway, and site development programs. This project has been estimated to cost more than $8 million.

• Localizer Performance with Vertical Guidance (LPV approach) – Upgrading the airport’s ground equipment for aircraft navigation controls would allow aircraft to land at the airport during inclement weather, thus preventing additional diversion to other area airports.

Wellsboro Johnston Airport

In operation since 1940, this general aviation facility in Tioga County is one of the principal airports in the region and is served by PA 362 and SR 3029 (Dexter Road), both relatively narrow country roads. At one point, the airport was the sole remaining airport owned by the state. The Borough of Wellsboro and Delmar Township agreed to form the Grand Canyon Airport Authority, which took ownership of the airport on September 25, 2001. It was initially known as the PA Grand Canyon Airport, but the name was recently changed to the “Wellsboro Johnston Airport.”

Figure 23: Aerial View of the Wellsboro Johnston Airport

The airport, with 16 based aircraft (10 single-engine, 1 multi-engine, and 5 ultra lights), handles between 3,500 and 5,600 annual operations. It can accommodate smaller aircraft with wingspans less than 49 feet. There is one 3,597-foot runway equipped with lighting. The seasonal nature of the airport’s use is evident as demand spikes during the summer months of July and August. All of

Northern Tier 59


2015-2040

the airport’s major facilities, including runway, apron, and terminal facilities, have been rated as being in “good” condition, meaning that the condition of these facilities is expected to be adequate throughout the next five years. The airport property includes a 7,200-square-foot, 6-unit T-hangar, which had been rated as being in “poor” condition, yet the authority secured a local grant within the past year to replace the roof.

Wellsboro Johnston Airport’s aircraft operations generally comprise approximately 57 percent local general aviation, approximately 39 percent transient general aviation, 4 percent air taxi service, and less than one percent military operations. The airport accommodates fuel, aircraft repair, and air taxi services, as well as flight instruction, aerial tours and photography, aircraft maintenance and modifications, aircraft parts and accessories sales, and general recreational flying.

For a general aviation facility, Wellsboro is a marginal airport in its ability to break even. A major challenge for the airport will be raising the local match needed when grants are awarded. Airport officials cite the difficulty in fundraising for small, rural airports, and—with the exception of Roger Penske and Trucklite—not many area industries are using it. There is rare freight movement through the airport. Medical helicopters have used it despite the availability of a helicopter pad just south of Wellsboro, closer to the hospital. DCNR also uses it for spraying. The airport at one time provided charter flights over the PA Grand Canyon but this practice has ceased due to the need for $10 million in liability insurance. The authority concedes it could possibly work with airport officials in Elmira in chartering these flights.

The airport functions as a convenient gateway for businesspeople who frequently travel long distances, playing a significant role in the economic development of the nearby communities. In addition, annual events such as Fly-In and Drive-In Breakfast and airshows attract both locals and out-of-town pilots. Intermodal connections are available, including taxi service, courtesy vehicles, bus service from EMTA, and bicycle and pedestrian access.

Sky Haven Airport

Sky Haven airport is a privately-owned, public-use facility located one mile south of Tunkhannock in Eaton Township, Wyoming County. The airport features an asphalt, LED-equipped runway 3,100 feet long in accordance with state minimum requirements and is in its final stages of pavement marking, grading, etc. The airport, with 65 based aircraft, experiences roughly 24,000 annual operations and can accommodate aircraft with a 56-foot wingspan; the King Air E90 is the largest in current use. Airport services include fueling, aircraft parking and hangar leasing, flight instruction, accommodations for skydiving, aircraft rental, and aircraft maintenance/restoration (exterior refinishing and painting), avionics (electronics) for smaller aircraft (e.g., Garmin installation), and short-range corporate charters.


Figure 24: Views of Sky Haven Airport

Aircraft operations mostly consist of local general aviation, recreational aviation, skydiving, transient general aviation, and some military operations. Twin-engine/business operations have increased since 2009, along with more transient trips due in large part to the Marcellus shale gas industry.

Skyhaven has made significant efforts to update its facilities and services to serve area businesses. New hangars were constructed to better serve Marcellus shale activity, and the runway extension also better serves the industry’s needs although it was planned prior to the boom. Other businesses such as Ace Robins Oil/Propane Corp., Meshoppen Stone, John Deere, and Vision Air Research use the airport for its convenient location and services.

A future goal of the airport is to work with businesses to accommodate demand for short-range corporate charters. Development for additional facilities could possibly be hindered by retailers and residential units claiming nearby land, but building heights are not an issue and these retail facilities (Walmart and Mr. Z’s Grocery Store) actually attract businesses as they provide convenient access to supplies. The land located to the south of the existing runway is not in the floodplain and would require little grading; cell phone towers and tree growth may obstruct landing areas in the future. In fact, the Wyoming County Planning Commission granted preliminary approval of the airport’s expansion projects in 2014. Eaton Township, the host municipality, has enacted Airport Hazard Zoning.

The airport’s facililities are in fairly good condition though some show signs of age, such as the office building which is a converted farmhouse from the 1960s, the existing runway which needs a new sealcoat, and the parking lots with a patchwork of pavement. The airport counts its runway extension as a completed project (although it is not fully finished) and looks to start future projects:

Northern Tier 61


2015-2040

• Add hangars:

95 feet x 105 feet (to be rented to the shop)

125 feet x 95 feet (hangar for twin-turbo prop King Air corporate aircraft) – Currently waiting for permits, easement, and utility relocation. Partially completed moving electric lines underground. The airport is currently in the process of obtaining a drainage study that would facilitate the approval of an erosion and sediment control plan, which must be granted by the county conservation district.

• Change parking/terminal layout.

• Add instrument approach. If weather is bad, pilots must land at Wilkes-Barre and drive in.

• Add paved taxiway (it is currently grass).

Given the airport’s status as a privately-owned facility, it is not eligible for federal funding. It is, however, eligible for grant funding from PennDOT’s Bureau of Aviation on projects that are not for-profit (e.g., runway extensions, line painting, etc.). The BOA may provide 50-50 grants for items such as fuel systems that generate profit.

Public Input on Airports


28. Airports have made some improvements in recent years but more are needed. Examples:

• Runway extensions and hangars at Wellsboro Johnston Airport

• Taxiway and runway extensions at Bradford County Airport

Improve aviation mobility. Specifically, support airport improvements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turboprop


Rail Freight Facilities While freight movement in the region is primarily via truck, the importance of rail service should not be underestimated. Rail freight traffic in the Northern Tier is shaped by the region's eastern position in the national rail network and by the structure of the network itself. It primarily exports extracted resources and aids in the supply and distribution of manufactured goods, construction materials, and more recently, natural-gas related supplies.

Ownership, connections, and distance combine to influence the pattern and character of current and prospective freight volume. While the Northern Tier is a corridor for substantial volumes of highway traffic on I-81, the region is less accessible from a freight rail perspective. The ability of regional rail to relieve highway congestion is constrained by network position, vertical clearance limitations, facility capacity limitations, and institutional factors.

PennDOT has nearly completed Pennsylvania’s first Freight Movement Plan, developed as an integral element of PA on Track, the state long-range transportation plan. While the need for a freight plan had been growing, MAP-21 provided the incentive needed to organize the planning effort. By way of its provisions, MAP-21 enables states to increase the federal share of project funding from 80 percent to 95 percent for Interstate projects and 90 percent for other transportation projects, including rail freight facilities.

Preparation of the Freight Movement Plan included a robust analysis of current and projected freight volumes, values, and generators by region. According to the Region 5 Northern Tier Freight Profile, truck and rail freight carriers moved 10.8 million tons of product by weight, and $5.8 billion by value in 2011. Flow volumes are expected to continue to grow based on increased demand for the region’s products, and routes used by these products will experience greater freight traffic volumes.

Pennsylvania’s freight rail lines are owned by private companies, therefore rail owners and operators are not eligible for public sector funding assistance for operations and general maintenance of their lines. They can, however, apply to PennDOT’s Rail Freight Assistance Program for capital project grants. The balance of this section identifies rail freight line owners and operators and recent grant awards.

Owners and Operators From a rail freight perspective, shippers in the region are served by primarily by shortlines and Class I railroad operators. These include:

• The Wellsboro & Corning Railroad • The Towanda-Monroeton Shippers Lifeline • The Lehigh Valley Line • Canadian Pacific Rail

Northern Tier 63


2015-2040

The Wellsboro & Corning Railroad The 38-mile Wellsboro & Corning Railroad is an important short line for industries and agriculture in Tioga County. It serves as a switching carrier for both Norfolk Southern (NS) and the Canadian Pacific (CP), connecting Wellsboro with NS’ Southern Tier line and yard in Gang Mills, NY, and CP in Corning, NY.

The railroad was owned and operated by Growth Resources of Wellsboro until it was purchased by Genessee & Wyoming in 2012. Genesee and Wyoming reports that the Wellsboro & Corning Railroad handles a variety of industrial products primarily used in natural resources extraction.

The Tioga Central Railroad of Wellsboro operates excursion and charter trains on a 34-mile segment of the line extending north from Wellsboro, Pennsylvania, to a location about three miles south of Corning, New York.

The Lehigh Valley Line Norfolk Southern owns the 56-mile rail line between Athens, in Bradford County, and Mehoopany, in Wyoming County. The line connects with Norfolk Southern’s own operations from Athens to Gang Mills, NY.

The Lehigh Railway (LRWY) operates services on the line. According to its website, LRWY utilizes seven locomotives and nine employees to operate and maintain the line. LRWY shares administrative offices and staff with the Owego and Harford Railway, Inc., the Meridian Southern Railway, LLC, and the Luzerne and Susquehanna Railway Company in Owego, NY.

Figure 25: Wellsboro & Corning Railroad

Figure 26: The Lehigh Valley Line (NS/LRWY)


Recently completed capital projects include the LRWY Mainline Flood Repair/Tie Replacement 2012 (Project LRWY-340F). Two future capital projects are planned:

1. Rehabilitation of Susquehanna River Bridge Track and Structure, 2012 RFAP Grant Project (Project LRWY-340G) LRWY received a $700,000 grant with a required $300,000 in matching funds ($1,000,000 total) from the PennDOT Bureau of Rail Freight, Ports, and Waterways Rail Freight Assistance Program (RFAP) for rehabilitation of track and bridges. Work scheduled to begin in Spring 2014.

2. Wyalusing Bridge and Track Surfacing (Project LRWY-340I) LRWY received a $367,500 RFAP grant with a required $157,500 local match for rehabilitation of the Wyalusing Bridge and track surfacing. Work is scheduled to be conducted and completes in Fall 2014.

Reading Blue Mountain and Northern owns and operates the Lehigh Valley Line from Mehoopany to Pittston Junction in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area.

The Towanda-Monroeton Shippers Lifeline The 6-mile Towanda-Monroeton Shippers Lifeline has two owners and single operator. Reading Blue Mountain and Northern acquired the northern 1.5 miles nearest Towanda in December 2010. Shaffer’s Feed Service, Inc., owns the southern 4.5 miles. Reading Blue Mountain and Northern operates the entire line.

Figure 27: The Lehigh Valley Line (RBMN)

Figure 28: Towanda-Monroeton Shippers Lifeline

Northern Tier 65


2015-2040

Canadian Pacific Rail

Of all the rail lines in the Northern Tier, CP’s line through Susquehanna County is arguably the most important—perhaps one of the top north-south lines in the northeastern United States. The line funnels traffic as it moves west to Buffalo and Toronto, north to New England and Montreal, and south to Allentown, Harrisburg, and southern New Jersey. The line connects with Reading Blue Mountain and Northern at Pittston Junction in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area, Norfolk Southern in Binghamton, NY, and CSX and ports in Philadelphia.

Public Input on Railroads

No specific comments on railroads were made, though the potential for rail freight to reduce heavy truck traffic on highways and the potential development of intermodal facilities was expressed. Real action on either of these aspects of rail freight would be initiated by the rail owners and operators.

Figure 29: Canadian Pacfic Rail


Facilities for Bicycles and Pedestrians Opportunities for bicycling and walking in the Northern Tier include signed and unsigned bicycle routes, sidewalk systems in towns, and recreational walking and bicycling trails.

The region's most significant roadway-based bicycle facility is BicyclePA Route Y, which generally follows US 6 across the region. The corridor serves as Pennsylvania's northernmost east-west, cross-state bicycle route. Roadway improvements and shoulder widening along US 6 have been identified in multiple planning documents, including the Northern Tier Open Space Plan. Other BicyclePA Routes in the region include:

• Route G, which follows US 15, PA 287, US 6, and the Pine Creek Rail Trail in Tioga County • Route J, which follows PA 14 in Tioga County • Route L, which follows SR 1009 and PA 171 through Susquehanna County

Similar shoulder widening improvements have been suggested for these corridors.

The region’s open space plan states that any shoulder improvements should be “appropriate to the posted speed and volume of the roadway.” Its preparation included an analysis of 35 “roadways identified as potential bicycle facilities in the region in order to estimate typical existing shoulder width and a recommended shoulder width. [These roadways were all outside of towns and villages, where conditions vary more widely.] …Recommended shoulder widths are taken from the PennDOT Statewide Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, Bicycle Guidelines, April 1996. These guidelines are consistent with national recommended practices, such as Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (American Association of Highway Transportation Officials, 1999).” The results of the shoulder analysis are shown in Table 5.1 of the Northern Tier Open Space Plan.

In addition to improving on-road bicycling, communities in the region have expressed an interest in developing new off-road walking and bicycling facilities. Bicycle and pedestrian trails have been a priority for the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources and its Outdoor Recreation Plan in recent years. Bicycle and pedestrian projects have also been eligible for federal TIGER grants. Unfortunately, trail projects in the region have not been funded recently.

Northern Tier 67


2015-2040

Public Input on Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities


29. New trails and trail extensions have been envisioned to provide bicycle and pedestrian connections within and between communities. Examples include: 1) Laporte to Forksville to Worlds End State Park, 2) Wellsboro to Wellsboro Junction, and 3) Mansfield to the levee. Funding is needed to advance these concepts through feasibility studies, design, and construction.

Improve non-motorized mobility. Specifically, support project-by-project and systemwide funding for study, design, and construction.

Regional Direction


4 for Development and Environmental Protection

The five counties of the Northern Tier have similar yet independent policies on development and environmental protection. Community development, economic development, and environmental protection are each elements of county planning. Economic development is the only aspect further planned and supported at the regional level as the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (or CEDS) for the Northern Tier. These policies are summarized below.

Community Development Communities of the Northern Tier generally welcome incremental expansion of established communities, improvement to housing conditions, and reinvestment in communities that have experienced decline. They discourage development that displaces their scenic farmland, historic building stock, and woodlands on a large scale.

It is important to note that Northern Tier communities were established when local transportation was by foot, wagon, or rail. Buildings at that time were constructed of wood, brick, or stone – materials available as or able to be cut into small units which could be assembled into intricate patterns on a building façade. Many residents and community leaders envision structures and other features of public space that are designed to fit into the historic scale and detailed design of buildings.

These community development values are expressed in county planning documents using language such as:

• Protect and maintain rural and small town/community character. • Conserve farmland and woodlands. • Provide facilities and services to protect the health, safety, and welfare of residents. • Enhance community character. • Use and encourage sound planning practices.

Economic Development Communities appreciate the rural landscape for its scenic qualities as well as for its economic value, e.g., agriculture and forestry. They view minimal regulation as key to the sustainability of these industries. Manufacturing retains a foothold in the region, particularly for industries that rely on raw materials derived from agriculture and forestry. Commercial and community services, however, provide the majority of employment opportunities in the region today. Due to the fact


that communities are small and dispersed, businesses that provide these services are typically small with limited wage and career development opportunities. Thus, employment alone does little to attract new talent to the region. In addition, while the region’s small towns and rural landscape are appealing to visitors, the area is not widely known as a tourist destination, lacking the national identity and name recognition (and supporting visitor infrastructure) of regions such as the Adirondacks, the Smokey Mountains, or the Rocky Mountains, for example.

As a result of these values and conditions, county and regional planning documents have established economic development goals such as:

• Support continued use of rural landscapes for agriculture and forestry with minimal regulation.

• Retain and grow business and industry. • Increase local employment, career development opportunities, and wage rates. • Develop a regional identity or brand. • Enhance tourism based on rural and small town character.

Environmental Protection Communities clearly express a desire to preserve the environment—primarily the natural environment. They outline sensitive natural resources such as floodplains, wetlands, steep slopes, and farmland soils to be protected from development and its impacts. They also value the longevity of buildings and structures, some which are valued for their historic significance. These values are expressed in goals and objectives such as:

• Minimize pollution to air and water, both surface waters and groundwater. • Minimize loss of forest. • Minimize erosion of farmland quality soils. • Identify and protect historic features, sites, and structures.

Transportation Policy


5 Transportation Objectives

The transportation system should be built and maintained to support of the regional direction for community and economic development in ways that minimize effects on the environment, particularly those environmental features that local communities value and for which they have documented the feature’s value and significance. This is truly one goal that requires the knowledge and cooperation of leaders and planners in each subject area to identify, design, and construct projects that can move the region in its desired directions. Through performance targets and measures, these same leaders and planners can assess whether the various projects have indeed had the intended effect. In some cases, the first step is to establish the first performance measurement; these performance measures are marked in the following tables as “NEW.” Targets for these performance measures will be established at a later point and are noted as “TBD.”

Transportation Infrastructure Objectives 1. Reduce risk/improve safety; assess crash data annually. 2. Manage repair and maintenance to prevent more costly rehabilitation or construction work. 3. Accelerate project delivery, especially local bridge improvements. 4. Reduce congestion and increase efficiency through operational improvements; consider

capacity improvements as a last alternative. 5. Improve connectivity between existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities. 6. Support the maintenance of rail infrastructure, including rail right-of-way. 7. Support the provision of public transportation services. 8. Consider relocation of historic bridges or their adjoining highway facilities to accomplish

historic bridge preservation and highway functionality. 9. Strengthen municipal governance and cooperation with regard to local transportation

infrastructure. 10. Encourage the formation of formal and informal transportation partnerships to finance

highway improvements in support of commercial and industrial development.


Performance Measures and Targets Performance Measure From

2013 To 2017 Target

A. Fatalities per 100,000 DVMT 0.9 0.8 B. Percentage of highway pavement with Poor IRI (smoothness)

1. Interstate 0 0 2. NHS 3.1 1.8 3. Non NHS > or = 2000 ADT 8.3 5.8 4. Non NHS <2000 ADT 34.3 45.1

C. Percentage of highway pavement with Good and Excellent IRI 5. Interstate 64.2 77.1 6. NHS 72.9 79.0 7. Non NHS > or = 2000 ADT 56.9 56.9 8. Non NHS <2000 ADT 58.3 >48.5

D. Percentage of out-of-cycle highway pavement repairs 1. Interstate (fair or poor OPI) 17.5 0 2. NHS (fair or poor OPI) 6.6 5.4 3. Non NHS > or = 2000 ADT (poor OPI) 6.0 4.1 4. Non NHS <2000 ADT (poor OPI) 1.5 <2.1

E. Percentage of structurally deficient state bridges 1. By bridge count

a. State 13.2 8.9 b. Local 40.9 19.4

2. By bridge deck area a. State 6.4 5.4 a. Local 29.3 13.3

F. Rate of local bridge improvements (e.g., number completed in the last five years) NEW TBD

G. Percentage of municipalities participating in PennDOT service programs NEW TBD 1. LTAP NEW TBD 2. Agility program NEW TBD

Northern Tier 73


2015-2040

Objectives in Support of Community and Economic Development

11. Increase accessibility through new or upgraded facilities in conjunction with planned development.

12. Maintain, enhance, and/or improve connectivity among and access to schools, parks, community centers (“downtowns” and other hubs), and health care centers.

13. Support county/municipal planning activities with technical assistance and supplemental funding, when available.

14. Support natural gas, agriculture, manufacturing, health care, and travel and tourism with adequate transportation infrastructure; develop industry-specific transportation improvement plans, if appropriate.

15. Improve airports’ capacity to serve local industry. 16. Promote scenic byways designation as a tool for tourism; support conservation of scenic

qualities with corridor management plans. 17. Support redevelopment of brownfields and other underutilized sites with transportation

improvements and enhancements.

Objectives in Support of Community Character 18. Apply appropriate scale, mapping, design, and details to new construction in designated

historic contexts and areas of defined community character. 19. Enhance community character as defined by (analytic) studies. 20. Support the relocation of aboveground utilities to underground in community centers, if

desired and documented by the local community. 21. Avoid and minimize impacts to community character as defined by (analytic) studies.


Actual To 2017 Target

H. Number of residents affected by betterment projects within one mile of schools, parks, community centers (“downtowns” and other hubs), and health care centers.

NEW TBD

I. Percentage of requests fulfilled for technical assistance and supplemental funding for county/municipal planning activities NEW TBD

J. Number of corporate flights and business charter trips at general aviation airports NEW TBD

K. Number of new permanent jobs created as a result of completed transportation projects. NEW TBD


Objectives in the Context of Sensitive Environments For Resource Identification

22. Coordinate with resource agencies to verify the presence and condition of natural and historic/cultural resources at the project site and in its surrounding physical context prior to or during project scoping.

23. Coordinate with public and private conservation organizations to determine if a project site is among conservation priorities (i.e., identified and ranked; no action taken) or in the process of conservation action (i.e., application is complete).

24. Support the ongoing evaluation and designation of historic resources with significance and historical integrity that contribute to community character and heritage tourism.

For Impact Management 25. Avoid and minimize impacts to natural and historic resources. 26. When wetland impacts are unavoidable, mitigate through wetland banking programs. 27. When forest impacts are unavoidable, mitigate through reforestation, riparian buffer

plantings, and/or community tree planting projects with priority given to the same watershed. Coordinate with agencies that provide conversation and restoration programs.

For Resource Enhancement 28. Recognize and interpret designated historic transportation structures and their significance

to communities, where locally desired. 29. Interpret significant extant and lost resources at off-road facilities, consistent with

conservation and tourism planning and in coordination with the resource owner/manager. 30. Enhance access and wayfinding (signage) to resources consistent with conservation and

tourism planning and in coordination with the resource owner/manager. 31. Add/enhance water trail access consistent with conservation and tourism planning and in

coordination with the resource owner/manager.


Actual To 2017 Target

L. Number of coordination events (calls, meetings, field views, etc.) with environmental agencies to enhance coordination and relationships

NEW TBD

M. Number of potential historic resources evaluated NEW TBD

N. Percentage of natural resource impact acres mitigated, where avoidance was not feasible

NEW TBD

O. Number of resource enhancement efforts that recognize or interpret resource value or significance as project components, or as an independent project.

NEW TBD

Project Selection and Prioritization


6 More than 700 projects are presented in this LRTP. The vast majority of these projects will address structurally deficient bridges on the state highway system—one of the performance measures outlined above. Many more will maintain the system in a “state of good repair.” Others will enhance the safety of the system, which may reduce crashes and fatalities. See Appendix A for the project listing and the Project Location Map.

New candidate projects will likely be identified before the next LRTP update. Fortunately, the list of projects in does not exhaust the anticipated funding available for transportation projects. Until project selection criteria are developed, the objectives and performances measures should be used to evaluate candidate projects for addition to the LRTP and/or TIP.

Selection Criteria Projects included on the LRTP meet at least one of the following transportation objectives, which serve as project selection criteria:

Transportation Infrastructure 1. Reduce risk/improve safety, i.e., reduce fatalities and serious injuries. 2. Reduce congestion and increase efficiency. 3. Improve connectivity, especially between existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities. 4. Support the maintenance of rail infrastructure, including rail right-of-way for rail-to-trail

conversion. 5. Support the provision of public transportation services.

In Support of Community and Economic Development 6. Increase accessibility through new or upgraded facilities in conjunction with planned

development. 7. Maintain, enhance, and/or improve connectivity among and access to schools, parks,

community centers (“downtowns” and other hubs), and health care centers. 8. Support key industries—natural gas, agriculture, manufacturing, health care, and travel

and tourism—with adequate transportation infrastructure. 9. Improve airports’ capacity to serve local industry. 10. Support planned redevelopment of brownfields and other underutilized sites with

transportation improvements and enhancements.


Projects for which Project Selection Criteria can be quantifiably estimated and for which cost estimates have been prepared will be prioritized for the projected funding. Projects without these estimates will only be listed on the Illustrative List of Transportation Needs and may be programmed with Bridge Reserve line items, once cost estimates are prepared.

Selected Projects NTRPDC selects PennDOT Central Office and District programmed projects, including:

• 2015 TIP, including carryover projects from the 2013 TIP • Decade of Investment projects • All current State SD bridges • All current Local SD bridges > 20 feet

Table 38: Selected Transportation Projects from State and District Programs

Maintain Resurface

Rehabilitate Replace

Enhance Safety or

Service

Expand Add

Extend Total STREETS & HIGHWAYS 120 3 123 PennDOT and Other State & Federal 120 3 0 Local (Municipal) - - - BRIDGES 603 603 State 408 0 County/Local >20 195 0

NTRPDC selects four line items to reserve funds for future local projects:

• Safety Study Implementation line item • Local road line item • Local bridge line item • Towanda/Wysox Congestion Relief Projects line item

See Appendix A for the 2015–2040 Highway, Bridge, and Transit Projects by program period and Map 5 for Project Locations.

Northern Tier 77


2015-2040

Projection Prioritization Of Highway Projects NTRPDC will rely on the prioritization of state highway preservation needs prepared by each PennDOT Engineering District.

Of State Bridge Projects NTRPDC will rely on the prioritization of state bridges prepared by each PennDOT Engineering District.

Of Local Bridges NTRPDC will prioritize local bridges 20 feet or longer using the PennDOT BMS2 Risk Analysis tool supplemented with additional information regarding other factors of condition, function, and performance, such as ADT/ADTT, length of detour, vehicle weight, etc. It will select the 10 highest risk bridges and contact local bridge owners for local input on need. If the local owner is interested, discussions of programming and local contribution will begin. If not interested, consideration will proceed to next-highest-risk local bridge. For local bridges less than 20 feet long, NTRPDC will finalize and follow this process to develop a Northern Tier Local Bridge Management database and to identify and prioritize projects in the off years of the TIP update cycle:

o Prepare and send a letter to counties and municipalities in the region soliciting local bridge projects ( less than 20 feet); provide table of recipient’s local bridges as identified in the Northern Tier

Bridge Database (NTRPDC’s local bridge version of PennDOT’s Bridge Management System—much smaller but contains at minimum a listing of bridge name, location, type, size, status, last inspection date, and condition);

request that any new bridges be added and that any candidates for removal be identified;

notify counties and municipalities that inspection data will be used in NTRPDC’s prioritization of local bridge projects;

request inspection data, where available; and request readiness to make a local funding commitment with (maximum 12)

months or by a specified date in advance of the TIP update. o Compile the response of potential local bridge projects and inspection data into the

Northern Tier Local Bridge Management Database; follow up with local bridge owners to request any missing data.

o Rank local bridge projects based on risk; to be defined in 2015.


o Meet with county officials, local officials of high ranking bridges, county/local bridge inspectors and PennDOT District bridge units to discuss ranked bridges and select the two highest risk local bridge projects in each county; each pair could include one county bridge and one local bridge, two county bridges, or two local bridges.

o Begin discussions of project programming and local contribution.

Unfunded Needs There are currently no unfunded transportation needs that can be specified and cost-estimated. Various planning and study documents identify additional conceptual transportation improvements and enhancements, however neither citizens, stakeholders, nor local officials have requested support, study, or alternative analysis of these concepts by NTRPDC. Documents that contain these concepts include:

• Determination of Safety Needs for the Transportation System of Pennsylvania’s Northern Tier Region, March 2012

• Northern Tier Open Space, Greenway & Outdoor Recreation Plan for Sullivan, Susquehanna, Tioga and Wyoming Counties, September 2010

• Marcellus Shale Study, November 2011 • Wellsboro Enhancement Strategy and Mobility Plan, June 2009 • Troy Mobility Plan, October 2011 • Towanda/Wysox Mobility Initiative • Bradford County Open Space, Greenways and Outdoor Recreation Plan, May 2006 As support for further investigation of these concepts is raised, NTRPDC will explore funding for eligible transportation projects. See Appendix B for summaries of these planning efforts and the status of their recommendations, including conceptual transportation improvements.

Finanical Analysis


7 By federal law, the long-range transportation plan must be “financially constrained” and contain a section outlining the amount of revenue expected over the life of the LRTP. For the LRTP to be financially constrained means that the LRTP (and the TIP) include sufficient financial information to demonstrate that proposed projects can be implemented using committed, available, or reasonably available revenue sources. A second purpose is to provide assurance that the federally supported transportation system is being adequately operated and maintained. This requirement applies to each program year for the TIP. For the LRTP, this applies to a planning horizon of not less than 20 years.

Revenue and Cost Estimation Methodology This LRTP’s time horizon spans 25 years, from 2015 – 2040. The plan must estimate the level of funding that can reasonably be expected over that period, and it must show how the plan’s projects can be accommodated within the financial constraint. The following outlines the sources of revenue expected and the process used to calculate the projected transportation revenue and project costs.

Year of Expenditure Statewide transportation planning and metropolitan transportation planning regulations require that revenue and cost estimates for the TIP and LRTP use inflation rates to better reflect costs in each “Year of Expenditure.” Regulations governing Year of Expenditure require that TIPs and LRTPs account for revenue growth and inflation, and that projects be slotted in the years in which the expenditure is expected to occur. Rural planning organizations in Pennsylsvania also comply with these regulations.

Highway Revenue Highway revenue projections are developed based on the most recent federal and state legislation. At this time, MAP-21 is the most recent federal authorizing legislation, and Congress has not taken action on a new bill beyond Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2014. Therefore, MAP-21 authorization is the best basis for developing options for future year funding. At the state level, Act 89 of 2013 is providing substantial increases in transportation funding. The highway capital revenue baseline was developed using Pennsylvania’s 2015 Transportation Financial Guidance as a base for the years 2015 – 2018. Revenues were projected to 2040. The following summarizes the revenue estimation process:


• 2015 Financial Guidance includes a baseline of federal highway funds through MAP-21 and estimates future years based on a 3 percent annual increase. State funds are based on the most recent estimates with the phased increase of Act 89 funding over a five-year period.

• Revenue figures for the years 2019–2040 were adjusted for inflation based on the Year of Expenditure Guidance according to the following rates:

o Federal highway/bridge funds – 3% annual growth o State highway/bridge funds – no annual growth

• Discretionary funding can include special federal funds or state discretionary funds. Special federal funds are usually specific project earmarks contained in federal reauthorization acts or annual federal appropriations. State discretionary dollars represent 20 percent of highway funding, which is reserved for distribution by the Secretary of Transportation to offset the impact of high-cost projects that are beyond a region’s allocation. For this plan, there was no discretionary funding assumed.

• Local and private project funding shares are difficult to estimate going forward. Recent TIPs have included minimal amounts of local funds, generally for local bridges. Since these dollars were minimal, no local funding was assumed beyond the projects in the TIP years.

The resulting revenue estimates are shown in Table 39. This covers the Twelve-Year Program periods plus the long-range or “out years” of the plan. The following represents the total available dollars by period and serves as the financial constraint for highway and bridge project funding:

Table 39: Highway Revenue Estimates, Northern Tier Transportation Planning Period

TIP 2015–2018

(actual)

TYP 2nd Period 2019–2022

TYP 3rd Period 2023–2026

Long Range 2027–2040

Total 2015–2040

Highway Revenue Estimate

$224,685,350 ($72,862,000

Federal)

$238,720,500 ($63,212,000

Federal)

$239,580,000 ($63,215,000

Federal)

$1,122,247,150 ($415,543,000

Federal) $1,825,233,000

Transit Revenue The transit revenue baseline was developed using Pennsylvania’s 2015 Transportation Financial Guidance as a base for the years 2015–2018. Federal transit funds coming to the region are generally Section 5311, non-urbanized and rural apportionments, which come through PennDOT. The program was developed for the TIP years, 2015–2018. Since there is no guaranteed funding to this region for future years, no assumptions were made beyond 2018.

Project Cost Estimation Project cost estimates are essential to LRTP and TIP decision-making. Estimating project costs to Year of Expenditure was accomplished based on 2015 Financial Guidance and Year of Expenditure Guidance. The following summarizes the process:

• All project cost estimates were updated and reflected in 2014 dollars.

Northern Tier 81


2015-2040

• A 3 percent annual inflation rate was applied based on the guidance. • The 3 percent rate was compounded. For projects in the TYP years, projects were inflated

to the specific year. For the long-range years, a middle year point of the cost band (2027–2040) was used to apply the inflation factor of 1.78.

Cost Estimation for Deficient Bridges In line with asset management objectives, all currently structurally deficient (SD) state and local bridges were addressed in the plan. Projects to address significant numbers of SD bridges were included in the TIP and TYP portions of the plan. Specific analysis was undertaken to identify any remaining SD bridges and include projects in the out years.

The Bridge Management System was used to identify all SD state and local bridges. All bridges already programmed in the first 12 years of the plan were eliminated. The remaining SD bridges were included in the out years based on the following estimation methodology:

• For each bridge, the square footage of deck area was extracted and used for cost estimation. • Unit costs were applied based on a replacement cycle cost as recommended in the

PennDOT publication “Developing Regional Long Range Plans” at $650 per square foot (fully loaded).

• The resulting cost was adjusted for inflation to the mid-point of the out-year period (2027–2040) using the inflation factor to the mid-point, and costs were then smoothed.

Investment Analysis An analysis of the composition of projects within the LRTP project listing shows that the plan’s project portfolio is strongly oriented toward bridges and system preservation projects. In fact, 36 percent of the LRTP’s planned investment through 2040 will be for bridge projects and 15 percent will be for highway restoration. Substantial reserve funds remain in the second four-year period and particularly in the out years of the LRTP (2021–2040) for additional highway restoration and system preservation projects.

Highway construction projects account for slightly over 1 percent of the 2015 TIP and 8 percent of the next four-year period, 2019–2022, funding two and eight projects, respectively. These projects include improvements to protect the highway facility—soil slide stabilization—and highway reconstruction. There are no new construction projects planned for the remaining periods of the LRTP.

Seven safety and mobility projects, formerly funded as Transportation Enhancement projects, consume approximately 2 percent of the TIP and subsequent period budgets.


HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

2015–2018 SR 154 Soil Slide Repair in Sullivan County SR 349 Ladd Rd to SR 49 in Tioga County

2019–2022 In Bradford County: SR 14 Windfall Rd to Tennessee Gas Rd SR 14 Sullivan St to W Tioga St SR 199 Satterlee St to Cayuta St SR 3020 State St to Bridge St In Sullivan County: SR 87 Wampole Run Rd to SR220 In Tioga County: I-99 Interstate Signing SR 49 Water Tower Rd to SR 287 SR 287 SR15 to Mitchell Creek Rd

Figure 30: Percentages of Highway/Bridge Project Costs by Program Category by Plan Period, Northern Tier

Projects using expressway restoration (XRST) funds to improve portions of the NHS on Route 6 and SR 42 represent just over 1 percent of the second four-year period and just over 8 percent of the last four-year period of the Twelve-Year Program. No NHS improvements are programmed for the first period or the out years of the LRTP.

Only one intermodal project, the 12-year CMAQ line item, reserving federal funds for reducing congestion in Tioga County, is programmed in the LRTP, consuming less than 1 percent of the total funds. Additional projected funds are held in reserve in the out years of the LRTP.

It should be noted that MAP-21 provided a shift in the prioritiy of federal funds to the NHS system. The NHPP category can only be used on highway or bridge projects on the NHS. Due to the increases from Act 89, the state funding could address deficiencies on the other portions of the system.

Interstate maintenance is reflected in the Interstate 2015–2018 TIP at a total cost of $151.5 million.

Northern Tier 83


2015-2040

Transit investment is reflected in the Transit 2015-2018 TIP at a total cost of $3.95 million for EMTA (now BeST Transit).

There are no bicycle or pedestrian projects identified for funding in the LRTP at this time. Such projects are, however, important to residents and visitors to the region. Project sponsors seeking funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects should contact NTRPDC to discuss their projects and potential funding. In addition, NTRPDC and the PennDOT Districts should explore appropriate accommodation of bicycle and pedestrian facilities in conjunction with planned highway maintenance and improvement projects. Refer to the Northern Tier Open Space Plan for detailed recommendations.

Benefits and Burdens Analysis


8 NTRPDC analyzed its LRTP project list to assess the impacts of its planned projects on local communities and specifically on low income and minority populations. Because the majority of projects are system preservation projects or safety improvements to the existng system, not new construction, only temporary impact to users and nearby residents are expected. Nonetheless, Table 40 was assembled to list major projects (new construction and reconstruction) by type and location.

Table 40 also indicates the municipal percentage of minority residents by race and municipal percentage of persons living below the poverty line; bold figures indicate that the municipal percentages are higher than figures for the Northern Tier as a whole. This analysis finds that all 17 listed projects could burden these populations temporarily with limited access to transportation services during construction. In preparation for these projects, NTRPDC and the PennDOT Districts should communicate the contruction schedules and potential access impacts to area residents, and make reasonable accomodations for all modes, as appropriate.

Table 40: Benefits and Burdens of 2015–2040 LRTP Projects Project Type Major Projects and

Locational Benefits and Burdens Municipal % Minority (Race) vs NT’s 2.4%

Municipal % below Poverty vs NT’s 13.7%

Highway and Bridge System Restoration or Rehabilitation (NHS and non-NHS)

No long-term change in system footprint or operations; not applicable

System Construction: Reconstruction

No Major Projects

Reconstruction Locations

SR 154 Soil Slide Repair in Forks Twp, Sullivan Co

2.5% 5.7%

SR 349 Ladd Rd to SR 49 in Westfield Boro and Westfield Twp, Tioga Co

Boro, 2.3% Twp 1.3%

Boro, 17.5% Twp, 12.7%

SR 14 Windfall Rd to Tennessee Gas Rd in Alba Boro and Troy Twp, Bradford Co

Alba, 0.0% Troy, 3.2%

Alba, 20.2% Troy, 11.3%

SR 14 Sullivan St to W Tioga St in Canton Boro, Bradford Co

0.3% 23.2%

SR 199 Satterlee St to Cayuta St in Athens and Sayre Boros, Bradford Co

Athens, 1.7% Sayre, 1.4%

Athens, 18.7% Sayre, 11.7%

SR 3020 State St to Bridge St in Towanda Boro, Bradford Co

8.4% 21.7%

SR 87 Wampole Run Rd to SR220 in Cherry Twp, Sullivan Co

5.4% 11.9%

SR 49 Water Tower Rd to SR 287 in Lawrence Boro and Lawrence Twp, Tioga Co

Boro, 1.2% Twp, 3.0%

Boro, 28.8% Twp, 10.3%

SR 287 SR15 to Mitchell Creek Rd in Troy Twp, Bradford Co

3.2% 11.3%


Project Type Major Projects and Locational Benefits and Burdens

Municipal % Minority (Race) vs NT’s 2.4%

Municipal % below Poverty vs NT’s 13.7%

System Construction: New Capacity

No Projects

Safety and Mobility No Major Projects

Project Locations

US220/SR4018 Intersection in Athens Twp, Bradford Co

1.6% 13.9%

SR220/SR2027 Intersection in Towanda Twp, Bradford Co

1.4% 16.0%

US 11 Shoulders in Lathrop Twp, Susquehanna Co

1.7% 16.0%

US 6 Center Turn Lane, Charleston Township and Wellsboro Boro, Tioga Co

Twp, 2.4% Boro, 4.3%

Twp, 5.9% Boro, 19.5%

Interstate TIP Maintenance No Major Projects

Project Location

I-81, Exit 219 in Gibson Twp, Susquehanna Co

5.9% 16.7%

Transit TIP Replacement Vehicles No Major Projects Additional Vehicles No Major Projects Component (Vehicle) Parts

No Major Projects

Facilities and Equipment No Major Projects

Project Locations

Garage/Office in Athens Twp, Bradford Co 1.6% 13.9% Garage/Office in Mansfield Boro, Tioga Co 10.3% 30.6% Transit Center in Towanda Boro, Bradford

Co 8.4% 21.7%

If new construction projects are added to the LRTP, project-level analysis of the benefits and burdens will be needed to ensure that minority and low income populations are not unfairly impacted.

Environmental Screening


9 NTRPDC recognizes that any project or action will have desired effects on the transportation system as well as other impacts to the community and the environment during and after construction. It also recognizes that inadequate environmental coordination slows project delivery and fails to serve current and future travel demand, discourages desired economic development, and ultimately costs more in time and dollars.

Toward better environmental outcomes from transportation improvement projects, NTRPDC commits to the following coordination activities:

• To update mapping and field view sites of new projects to be programmed on each TIP; share data/GIS updates with PennDOT Districts and Central Office.

• To use the Linking Planning and NEPA (LPN) system to identify, verify, and update potential environmental impacts of transportation proposals programmed on the TIP.

• To participate in project-level scoping field views with PennDOT District personnel, and to invite ACM members to field view project sites with complex environmental considerations.

• To consult with appropriate parties to identify early opportunities to avoid, minimize, and mitigate environmental impacts during project development, and to consider advanced mitigation opportunities beyond replacement toward enhancement and restoration.

• To continue to learn more about the NEPA process through training and resource-specific workshops.

Based on years of project development and construction, NTRPDC recognizes that many impacts are predictable and furthermore manageable from the outset of project identification and planning. To better anticipate needed environmental coordination, NTRPDC requested assistance from PennDOT Central Office to conduct an environmental screening potential impacts on 726 representative projects. The analysis used GIS to compare locations of projects to locations of 31 known resources, specifically those resources referenced in the LPN protocol, using statewide


datasets. It assigned a potential direct impact score of 1 to 10 based if the project was located within 200 to 300 feet of a known resource and assigned a potential indirect impact score of 1 to 10 if located within 1,000 to 3,000 feet; specific distances were used for each resource. Not all resource data sets were represented in the analysis (for example, there is no statewide data set for floodplains) but all were characterized. Where data was available, locally important resources were characterized but proximity was not analyzed.

The results of the environmental screening are shown in Figure 26. The 31 resources are grouped in six categories by topic. Potential impacts in each category may require coordination with one or more agencies.

Figure 31: Potential Direct and Indirect Impacts of 726 Representative LRTP Projects

Figure 26 demonstrates that most projects could affect at least one resource category—farmland, wetlands, and floodplains, and/or historic and archeological resources. This can be expected given that transportation systems develop along the same patterns as early settlements, which are typically on the flat and fertile valley floors and along streams and rivers. However, the LRTP project list comprises system preservation projects almost exclusively—not new facilities—and therefore most impacts would be temporary, occurring only during construction.

Northern Tier 89


2015-2040

Each of these categories of environmental resources is characterized in the following sections. The magnitude of the project with potential impacts is noted by the charts, and mitigation opportunities are presented.

Farmland Three conditions contribute to the sensitivity of farmland to transportation projects: soils, use, and land preservation.

Fertile soils conducive to agriculture are abundant in the region. Prime farmland soils and soils of statewide importance lie in the valleys and across some hillsides. They total 1.2 million acres or 46 percent of the region. Bradford County has the highest share of each. Some of these soils are cultivated while others lie under forest cover or man-made development. The likelihood of converting either of these surface conditions to active agriculture is very low in the current economy.

The agricultural industry is active across the region. About one-third of the land is engaged by farms in livestock, dairy, and crop production. Farms of all sizes are present here, however farm size is trending smaller.

Farmland preservation is available through the sale of development rights or easement. Sixty-seven farms representing over 12,300 acres of farmland—1.5 percent of active farmland, which equals 0.5 percent of the region—have been protected.

Table 41: Farmland Resources Farmland Resources

Prime Farmland Soils 946,721 acres Not all in use for agriculture; some wooded, some built Soils of Statewide Importance 222,763 acres

Land Use & Planning Acres, Percent of Region Trends

LAND USE 2002 2007 2012 Land in farms 784,745

33.88% 714,739 30.41%

785,777 31.05%

Land in farms was decreasing, recent uptick

More, smaller farms

PRESERVATION Acres of Preserved Farmland

(Ag easements)

67 farms 12,303 acres

1.5% of land in farms 0.5% of region

Steady


Potential Impacts Of the 726 representative projects, 666 lie within 200 feet of farmland soils and another 43 lie within 1,000 feet of farmland soils. The construction or ultimate footprint of these projects could affect the availability and quality of these soils for future production.

A much smaller number of projects lie in close proximity to agricultural easements. These projects could affect lands that have already been protected from development with public funds.

Given the focus on system preservation projects in the LRTP, potential permanent impacts to farmland soils and agricultural easements are few; temporary impacts during construction are more likely.

See Map 6, Farmland Encroachments, for locations of

farmland soils, use, and protected lands and project sites.

Avoidance and Mitigation To minimize impacts to farmland soils, NTRPDC will conduct the following:

1. Field view upcoming project sites with available GIS mapping to verify actual use in proximity to the project site. Field views will provide the most accurate assessment of current conditions and limitations to future use of soils for agriculture.

2. If there is real potential for impact to farmland soils engaged in active agricultural use, liaison with municipal and county planning offices to determine if the property is moving toward development and with the respective County Conservation District to assess if the property is moving toward agricultural easement.

3. Update findings in narrative and/or GIS formats and share with the respective PennDOT District and Central Office; report findings in LPN to coordinating environmental agencies, incluidng County Conservation Districts.

4. If permanent impacts to agricultural easements are unavoidable, explore project funding for a “replacement” agricultural easement at another location.

Northern Tier 91


2015-2040

Historic & Archeological Resources Because this region is rural and has not experienced extreme development pressure or significant redevelopment, many of its communities still reflect the eras of their growth in their architecture. Among older structures, some are significant for their architecture or for the people and events they hosted. These include steel truss bridges, which have been eliminated in many other regions of Pennsylvania by replacement, and sites and structures have been listed on the National Park Service’s National Register of Historic Places. Other sites and structures have been evaluated and await further application toward listing on the National Register, and still others have been surveyed but not evaluated.

Due in part to the region’s abundant waterways, which were used by early people as transportation corridors, and also thanks to careful excavations, 771 archeological sites have been documented in the region. Additional sites may lie undisturbed, particularly along the river and stream banks. Due to a historic need to cross waterways, historic local bridges are 89 and counting. There are many more local bridges whose historic significance has not been determined.

Locally, historic preservation has been limited; only one local historic district has been designated and is regulated.

Table 42: Historic & Archeological Resources Total Sites

Statewide Data

Historic Sites in CRGIS 2,083

Listed on the National Register 47; 13 districts, 8 bridges,

4 covered bridges; 1 viaduct

SHPO-Eligible for National Register Listing 176; 35 districts, 28 bridges

Known Archeological Sites 771

Regional Data

Local Historic Districts 1, Wellsboro

Century Farms 39

Surveyed Sites, no eligibility determination 236 Historic Local Bridges >89


Public Input Residents of the region expressed a desire for transportation improvements to be more sensitive to the historic character of their communities. For example, modern highway-typical design elements, e.g., mast arms, are not always appropriate in historic contexts. Such modernization erodes the historic character of the community. However, historic character is not well-documented in the region, nor is it protected by local public policy. In some cases, historic character has already been eroded by other modern development and is no longer a reality, but an outdated perception. Credible documentation of existing character and adoption of local policies to preserve that character would formalize a community’s desire to sustain a particular character through context-sensitive design.

In addition, covered bridges are valued by communities as part of their heritage but they are not always functional for large equipment passage and modern travel. Residents suggested that covered bridges should be preserved (in place or relocated) and modern stream crossing alternatives for vehicular travel should be built.

Potential Impacts Of the 726 representative projects, 332 projects are located within 200 feet of known historic sites and another 113 lie within 1,000 feet of such sites. Far fewer known archeological sites could be impacted; 64 projects could have direct impacts (are located within 200 feet) and 112 could have indirect impacts (are located within 1,000 feet).

Avoidance and Mitigation To minimize impacts on historic and archeological resources, NTRPDC will conduct the following:

1. Field view upcoming project sites with available GIS mapping for existing resources and potential impacts.

2. Where potential impacts are known, seek the municipality’s perspective on the project and potential positive and negative impacts to the historic site and verify any local historic evaluation or designation.

Northern Tier 93


2015-2040

3. Update findings in narrative and/or GIS formats and share with the respective PennDOT District and Central Office; report findings in LPN to coordinating environmental agencies, including the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission (PHMC).

4. If impacts to sites are unavoidable, seek context-sensitive design solutions at facility and feature scales, consider relocation of movable features following required protocols, and notify PHMC of any archeological findings.

To expedite local bridge projects, NTRPDC will explore a means to determine the historic significance of local bridges, especially those under 20 feet, in advance of TIP updates. If successful in making early determinations, NTRPDC will update LPN with findings.

Wetlands & Floodplains Glaciers and waters have sculpted the valleys and bowls of the region’s landscape. In these low lying areas, waters collect and infiltrate the surface, creating wet soils during wet weather conditions. These hydrologic conditions provide unique and often fleeting habitat for wildlife but play a more important role in the recharge of aquifers that supply water to private and community wells.

Wetlands are characterized by hydric soils, hydrophytic (“water-loving”) vegetation such as cattails, and visible surface water for at least some portion of the year. They are generally found along watercourses or in flat or bowled topographies. The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) screens various data sets to produce an inventory of likely wetland locations. Field verification is necessary to confirm wetland locations and boundaries. Exceptional natural communities that feature wetlands include the Bradford County’s Southern Glaciated High Plateau and the peat-forming wetlands and glacial lakes in Bradford and Susquehanna counties.

Floodplains are lands adjacent to watercourses that are covered by water during times of flooding. Land is considered in the 100-year floodplain if it has a least a 1 percent chance of being flooded during any one year—a designation typically used for regulatory purposes. Floodplains should not be developed for human habitation or capital-intensive facilities, though not all communities restrict development. Development in the floodplain not only puts people and property at risk but also limits infiltration and displaces storage capacity, resulting in increased flows downstream. Properties that have been developed prior to local regulation can be acquired by counties for conversion back to open space through the Stafford Act. Over 128,000 acres of land lie within a floodplain across the region. The largest percentage (33 percent) is in Bradford County. Relatively few properties have been been acquired to date through the Stafford Act.


Table 43: Wetlands and Floodplains Wetland and Floodplain Features Total % of Region

Statewide Data

NWI Wetlands 113 sq mi 2.9%

Hydric Soils 98,989 acres 155 sq mi

3.9%

100-yr Floodplain 200 sq mi 5.1%

Stafford Act Properties - -

Regional Data

Municipalities with Regulated Floodplains 145 86.3%

Potential Impacts Of the 726 LRTP projects:

• 273 projects could have direct impacts to wetlands (within 200 feet) and 515 could have indirect impacts (within 1,000 feet).

• 216 projects could have direct impacts to hydric soils (within 200 feet) and 390 could have indirect impacts (within 1,000 feet).

• 602 projects—essentially all bridge projects and low elevation highway preservation projects—could have direct impacts to floodplains (within 200 feet).

• Fewer projects could have direct impacts to municipally regulated floodplains (within 200 feet), since only 145 municipalities regulate their floodplains.

• 14 projects could have direct impacts on Stafford Act properties (within 200 feet); 24 could have indirect impacts (within 1,000 feet).

See Map 7, Wetland Encroachments, for locations of wetland and floodplain sites and project sites.

Northern Tier 95


2015-2040

Table 44: Water Quality Resources Water Quality Features Number Total Length or

Area

Wild Trout Streams 358 1,036 miles

Wild Trout Streams, Class A 64 168 miles

Wilderness Trout Streams 11 40 miles

Existing Use High Quality (HQ)/Exceptional Value (EV) Streams

19/41 1,117 miles

Designated Use HQ/EV Streams 14/1

Watersheds with Act 167 Plans 1: Wysox Creek 9 municipalities

832 acres

Avoidance and Mitigation To minimize impacts to wetlands and floodplains, NTRPDC will conduct the following:


2. Where potential impacts are known, verify any locally regulated floodplain and any Stafford Act properties.

3. Update findings in narrative and/or GIS formats and share with the respective PennDOT District and Central Office; report findings in LPN to coordinating environmental agencies, including PADEP.

4. If impacts to sites are unavoidable, mitigate through wetland banking sites.

To prepare for necessary mitigation, NTRPDC will work with PennDOT Districts and Central Office to identify potential wetland banking sites.

Water Quality Extensive forest cover and limited development protect water quality across the region. They limit the amount of sediment and nutrients reaching waterways and minimize solar radiation that heats the water. Clean, cool waterways provide quality habitat for aquatic wildlife, including native trout, a cost-effective water supply for community water system withdrawals, and clean water for outdoor recreation.

Stormwater management for water quantity and water quality are the purpose of Act 167 plans. Only one Act 167 plan has been completed in the region: a plan for the Wysox Creek watershed which drains all or portions of nine municipalities in central and northeastern Bradford County.


Potential Impacts

Of the 726 LRTP projects: • 170 projects could have direct impacts

to wild trout streams (within 200 feet) and 194 could have indirect impacts (within 1,000 feet).

• 26 projects could have direct impacts to Class A wild trout streams (within 200 feet) and 32 could have indirect impacts (within 1,000 feet).

• 1 project could have direct impacts to wilderness trout streams (within 200 feet) and 3 could have indirect impacts (within 1,000 feet).

• 98 projects could have direct impacts on designated High Quality (HQ) or Exceptional Value (EV) streams (within 200 feet); 106 could have indirect impacts (within 1,000 feet). Similar impacts are possible on existing HQ and EV streams.

• 50 projects could have direct impacts (within 200 feet) and indirect impacts (within 1000 feet) on the Wysox Creek watershed.

See Map 8, Water Quality Encroachments, for locations of water quality resources and project sites.

Avoidance and Mitigation To minimize impacts on water quality, NTRPDC will conduct the following:

1. Field view upcoming project sites with available GIS mapping to identify existing resources and potential impacts.

2. Where potential impacts are known, verify Act 167 watersheds and offer to liaison with the county and municipality(s), as needed, especially regarding seasonal limits to in-stream activity.

3. Update findings in narrative and/or GIS formats and

Northern Tier 97


2015-2040

share with the respective PennDOT District and Central Office; report findings in LPN to coordinating agencies, namely PA DEP and the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC).

4. If impacts to sites are unavoidable, explore enhancements with PA DEP and/or PFBC to improve water quality elsewhere in the watershed.

Endangered, Threatened, and Special Concern Species Direct and indirect impacts to endangered, threatened, and species of special concern were considered in addition to the analysis of sensitive natural areas. NTRPDC used the county natural heritage area inventories and their sites as a working reference. Custom searches using the DCNR Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) Environmental Review Tool were deferred until project-level scoping, however the PA Department of Environmental Protection, the PA Game Commission, PFBC, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service offered a list of the most commonly encountered species from PNDI searches on previous transportation projects.

Table 45: Sensitive Species/Biological Features Biological Features Number and/or Area

Natural Area/Heritage Sites 285

Interior Forest Blocks >1 square mile 441; 1291 sq mi, 32.6% of region

PNDI search hits Deferred to project-level scoping

Species with frequent PNDI search hits 22

The same agencies also suggested that project locations avoid permanent impacts to these species and their habitats and that temporary (construction-phase) impacts be managed through seasonal limits to work, i.e., construction scheduled to avoid mating and breeding seasons of these species. Time-of-year guidance for most of the species can be found in PennDOT’s Threatened and Endangered Species Desk Reference (Publication 546).

Threatened and endangered species require greater sensitivity than species of special concern; habitat impacts to threatened and endangered species may require mitigation. Resource agencies noted that additional species may be identified in project-level PNDI searches and that the status of any species could change at any time. For example, the Northern Long-eared Bat, currently a threatened species, is proposed to be elevated to an endangered species in Spring 2015.


Endangered Species – 6

• American Bittern • Blackpoll Warbler • Indiana Bat • Northeastern Bulrush

• Northern Flying Squirrel

• Yellow-bellied Flycatcher

Threatened Species – 4

• Allegheny Woodrat • Eastern Small-footed Bat

• Northern Harrier • Osprey

Species of Special Concern – 12

• Great Blue Heron • Marsh Wren • Mussels • Northern Goshawk • Northern Long-eared Bat • Pie-billed Grebe

• Rock Vole • Silver-haired Bat • Swainson’s Thrush • Timber Rattlesnake • Water Shrew • Wilson’s Snipe

Forest Blocks

Since 2005, the county natural heritage inventories have assessed the number and size of forest blocks as an indicator of forest and habitat health (vs. fragmentation). Three of the five county inventories includes these analyses as shown in Figure 27.

Figure 32: Forest Blocks by County

Tioga Bradford Susquehanna

Forest Blocks by Size

Northern Tier 99


2015-2040

Avoidance and Mitigation To minimize impacts to endangered, threatened and special concern species, NTRPDC will conduct the following:

1. Coordinate with PennDOT Districts to request PNDI searches for upcoming projects prior to each TIP update.

2. Based on hits, coordinate with Districts to invite the Pennsylvania Game Commission (PGC) and/or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to the project-scoping field view.

3. If impacts to habitat are unavoidable, explore enhancements with PFBC, PGC, and/or USFWS to enhance local habitat elsewhere.

Waste Sites Waste sites are varied sites that may contain potential pollutants. They include contaminated sites such as Superfund sites overseen by the US EPA; sites with storage tanks used to store large quantities of chemicals; sites that produce, handle, or dispose of hazardous waste; and municipal waste facilities. In the Northern Tier region, these sites include manufacturing facilities, hospitals, fueling stations, and landfills, among others.

Table 46: Waste Sites Sites by Type # of Sites

Waste Sites, e.g., Superfund, etc. 1,107

Storage Tank Locations 1,696

Land Recycling Cleanups 543

Captive Hazardous Waste Operations 131

Municipal Waste Operations 134

Commercial Hazardous Waste Operations 3



• 127 projects could have direct impacts to waste sites (within 200 feet) and 248 could have indirect impacts (within 1,000 feet).

• 65 projects could have direct impacts to storage tank locations (within 200 feet) and 129 could have indirect impacts (within 1,000 feet).

• 62 projects could have direct impacts to land recycling cleanups (within 200 feet) and 124 could have indirect impacts (within 1,000 feet).

• 31 projects could have direct impacts on captive hazardous waste operations within 200 feet), and 66 could have indirect impacts (within 1,000 feet). Similar impacts are possible on existing HQ and EV streams.

• 14 projects could have direct impacts on municipal waste operations (within 200 feet) and 44 indirect impacts (within 1,000 feet).

• 4 projects could have direct impacts on commercial hazardous waste operations (within 200 feet) and 5 could have indirect impacts (within 1,000 feet).

See Map 9, Waste Site Encroachments, for locations of waste sites and project sites.

Avoidance and Mitigation To minimize impacts to waste sites, NTRPDC will:

1. Field view upcoming project sites with available GIS mapping to verify the status of the waste site as active or other, and to assess potential impacts.

2. Update findings in narrative and/or GIS formats and share with the PennDOT District and Central Office; report findings in LPN to PA DEP.

3. Where potential impacts are known, offer to liaison with waste site operator, as needed, regarding actual location of waste storage, construction schedule, and limits to access.

Northern Tier 101


2015-2040

Public & Recreation Lands and Waters The Northern Tier’s scenic topography, water features, heritage sites, and abundant wildlife provide outstanding opportunities for outdoor recreation. For these reasons, numerous sites and waterways have been designated as public and developed as recreation lands or destinations.

Table 47: Public and Recreation Features Public & Recreation Features Number Size

In Region

Statewide Trails 3 145 miles

State Parks 5 5,951 acres

State Game Lands 21 174,113 acres

State Forests/Wild Areas 2 204,461 acres

USACE Flood Control Dams & Reservoirs

2 8,542 acres

Water Trails 1, Susquehanna

105 miles

USACE Navigable Waters 1, Susquehanna

105 miles

Local

County/Local Parks 124 ~1200 acres

Other Recreation Resources

Pine Creek Scenic River 23 miles

Viaduct Valley Way Scenic Byway

37 miles



• 21 projects could have direct impacts to statewide trails (within 200 feet) and 35 could have indirect impacts (within 1,000 feet).

• 21 projects could have direct impacts to state forests, parks, or game lands (within 200 feet) and 66 could have indirect impacts (within 1,000 feet).

• 3 projects could have direct impacts (within 200 feet) or indirect impacts (within 1,000 feet) to the Susquehanna Water Trail.

• 2 projects could have direct impacts (within 200 feet) or indirect impacts (within 1,000 feet) to the Susquehanna River as a USACE navigable waterway.

See Map 10, Public Land Encroachments, for locations of public and recreation lands and project sites.

Avoidance and Mitigation To minimize impacts to public and recreation lands, NTRPDC will:


2. Where potential impacts are known, liaison with county/local park management, county tourism offices, and PFBC, PGC, and DCNR regarding project schedule, parks access and events, etc.

3. Update findings in narrative and/or GIS formats and share with the PennDOT District and Central Office; report findings in LPN to DCNR.

4. If impacts to sites are unavoidable, use the State Game Land (SGL) bank (under development in District 4-0) and consider context-sensitive design solutions and enhancements along scenic rivers and byways.

NT Planning Activities


10 In addition to the capital improvement projects identified in this plan, NTRPDC’s transportation planners can support the region’s development and environmental directions through planning activities, highlighted below. Some of these activities are related to the transportation infrastructure itself, while others are cooperative and coordinating activities that will help to identify and develop candidate transportation projects or that will advance community and economic development initiatives.

Transportation Infrastructure 1. Periodically analyze crash cluster locations and evaluate safety improvements with each

PennDOT District Office.

2. Review and update the Safety Study at minimum to maintain a list of current priority candidate projects.

3. Participate in Road Safety Audits (RSAs) with each PennDOT District.

4. Consider developing additional project selection criteria that support agriculture, manufacturing, health care, and travel and tourism.

5. Develop and implement a Local Bridge Management Program as previously described.

6. Explore designation of a secondary highway network—secondary in importance to the NHS but vital for Northern Tier mobility—and use this designation as part of the project selection criteria.

7. Support the final improvements to US 15 necessary to apply for Interstate designation.

8. Identify areas with bottlenecks that create congestion and areas where there is demonstrable need for park-and-ride facilities.

9. Support improvements to the region’s airports.

10. Monitor the region’s rail freight network.

11. Evaluate goods movement patterns and trends, particularly as they relate to the 15 corridors of regional significance and major shippers.

12. Provide guidance on and assist in assessing local transportation infrastructure and operations; share publications and best practices with county and municipal public works departments.

13. Encourage municipal cooperation through the development of joint maintenance agreements, sharing of equipment and services, and bid lettings; provide examples and


best practices; explore councils of government as an additional means of communication with municipalities.

14. Increase awareness of the availability of PennDOT’s services for local government, including:

• LTAP training (Local Transportation Assistance Program) for municipal officials • Agility Program

15. Work with PennDOT Districts 3-0 and 4-0 to implement the recommendations of the respective Regional Operations Plans (for traffic management).

16. Continue to work with River Valley Transit/EMTA, Susquehanna County Transit, and PennDOT to enhance public transportation services, including strategies identified in the Local Coordinated Plan.

17. Identify projects appropriate for bicycle and pedestrian-related improvements, as recommended in the Northern Tier Open Space Plan; the Bradford County Open Space, Greenways, and Recreation Plan; and other planning documents.

18. Work with municipalities to identify bicycle and pedestrian projects, including new connections to schools, parks, and greenways, and places where the public can access healthy foods.

In the Context of NT Communities and Economy 19. Identify and advance eligible transportation improvement recommendations as candidate

projects to the LRTP and TIP.

20. Explore improvements to the region’s Keystone Opportunity Zones.

21. Seek supplemental funding for transportation elements of county/municipal planning activities upon request.

22. Upon request, assemble and analyze transportation data; offer an informed regional perspective on transportation needs and planned projects; provide input on transportation implications of land use planning; suggest funding sources and partnerships related to transportation improvements.

23. Assist in defining community character—whether existing or desired/future, urban or rural, historic or contemporary—through planning studies. Such studies would include, at minimum, inventory and analysis, and may include goals and action planning.

24. Enhance gateways into the region, particularly on National Highway System (NHS) routes such as US 6, US 15, US 220, and I-81 in conjunction with county and local planning.

25. Continue scenic corridors planning.



2015-2040

26. Provide technical support to counties and municipalities nominating roadways as scenic byways; participate in corridor management planning.

27. Develop or identify a model program for designating a functional classification for locally owned streets and roads; share with counties and municipalities and provide education on the practical application with land use planning.

28. Develop contacts and maintain relationships with representatives of the key industry clusters of agriculture, manufacturing, lumber and wood, construction, health care, and travel and tourism. Consult with them annually on the transportation needs of their business and their industry.

29. Develop contacts and maintain relationships with representatives of educational institutions and workforce development agencies. Consult with them annually on the transportation needs of their business and their institutions.

In the Context of the NT Environment 30. Develop contacts and maintain relationships with representatives of the environmental

agencies. Consult with them regularly on the potential impacts and best practices for project planning and resource avoidance and mitigation.

31. Host an orientation for counties, municipalities, and resource and conservation organizations on NTRPDC’s environmental policies, including the use of PennDOT’s LPN system.

Acronyms


AADT – Annual Average Daily Traffic

ACM – Agency Coordination Meeting

ACS – American Community Survey (of the U.S. Census)

ADA – Americans with Disabilities Act

CMAQ – Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality

CPR – Canadian Pacific Railway

DCED – (Pennsylvania) Department of Community and Economic Development

DCNR – (Pennsylvania) Department of Conservation and Natural Resources

DVMT – Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel

EMTA – Endless Mountains Transportation Authority

EV – Exceptional Value

FFY – Federal Fiscal Year, from October 1 through September 30

FY – State Fiscal Year, from July 1 through June 30

FHWA – Federal Highway Administration

FTA – Federal Transit Administration

GIS – Geographic Information System

HQ – High Quality

HSIP – Highway Safety Improvement Program

IRI – International Roughness Index

ITS – Intelligent Transportation System

LUTED – Land Use, Transportation, and Economic Development

LPN – Linking Planning and NEPA

LRTP – Long Range Transportation Plan

MA – Medical Assistance transportation

NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act

NHS – National Highway System, a federal classification of highways consisting of the Interstate system and other key roadways; 5,479 miles in Pennsylvania

NS – Norfolk Southern (Railroad)


NTRPDC – The Northern Tier Regional Planning and Development Commission

NWI – National Wetland Inventory

NYSDOT – The New York State Department of Transportation

PennDOT – Pennsylvania Department of Transportation

PFBC – Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission

PGC - Pennsylvania Game Commission

PHMC – Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission

PNDI – Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Index

PwD – Persons with Disabilities

RSAP – Regional Strategy and Action Plan

ROP – Regional Operations Plan

RPO – Rural Planning Organization

RTAC – Northern Tier’s Rural Transportation Advisory Committee

SD – Structurally Deficient (bridge)

SGL – State Game Land

SHPO – State Historic Preservation Office

SOV – single occupant vehicle

STC – State Transportation Commission

TIP – Transportation Improvement Program

TMSLL – Towanda-Monroeton Shippers Lifeline

USACE – United States Army Corps of Engineers

USEPA – United States Environmental Protection Agency

USFWS – United States Fish and Wildlife Service

WCRR – Wellsboro & Corning Railroad

YOE – Year of Expenditure

Northern Tier Regional Planning & Development Commission


2015-2040

Appendix A – 2014-2040 Highway, Bridge and Transit Projects

Long-Range Transportation Plan, 2015-2040

Intentionally blank



2015-2040

Appendix B – Maps


Intentionally blank



2015-2040

Appendix C – Local Coordinated Plan


Intentionally blank



2015-2040

Appendix D – Studies Completed by Northern Tier since 2009


Intentionally blank



2015-2040

Appendix E – Public Participation Plan


Intentionally blank



2015-2040

Appendix F – Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program Guidance and Project Application


Intentionally blank