route 8 land use & transportation study … 8 land use final report...route 8 land use &...

ROUTE 8 LAND USE &TRANSPORTATION STUDY

FINAL REPORT

Submitted by:Parsons Brinckerhoff

September 30, 2010


2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThe Route 8 Land Use and Transportation Studywas undertaken by the Northwestern Penn-sylvania Regional Planning Commission incooperation with the Borough of Barkeyville,Venango County, and The PennsylvaniaDepartment of Transportation. Recentdevelopment in the Barkeyville Industrial Park hasresulted in increased traffic congestion at theintersection of Route 8 with Stevenson Road, andadditional proposed developments have increasedconcerns over traffic management. The scope ofthe project was broadened to be a smarttransportation study of the entire Route 8 corridorin the Borough of Barkeyville, and to address landuse issues as well as transportation management.

An extensive program of public engagement wasconducted, including two public meetings andthree newsletters sent to the entire Barkeyvillecommunity. Based upon input from the public, thegoals and objectives of the study were defined andthe limits of the study area were established.

Analysis was conducted of existing trafficconditions in the study area, based upon datacollection conducted in March, 2010. Adjustmentwas made to the traffic analysis to reflect peaksummer traffic volumes as well as site-specificconditions. This analysis indicated thatunacceptable levels of service exist during peakperiods at the intersections of Route 8 withStevenson Road and at the I-80 westbound off-ramps.

The study then evaluated the potential trafficimpacts of two future scenarios:

The 2020 Medium-Term Land Use Scenarioincluding full development of the BarkeyvilleIndustrial Park and the proposed East Gatecommercial development, and

The 2030 Long-Term Land Use Scenario wasbased upon full build-out of all commercially-and industrially-zoned land within the Boroughof Barkeyville.

Under both scenarios, traffic analyses projected asignificant increase in traffic congestion atintersections and driveways throughout the Route8 Corridor.

The projections indicate that with anticipateddevelopment by the year 2020, unacceptabletraffic congestion would occur at the intersectionsof Route 8 with Stevenson Road and with the I-80

off-ramps. Signalization of these intersectionscould improve traffic conditions to acceptablelevels.

These projections further indicate that with fullbuildout of developable industrial and commercialareas of the Borough by 2030, unacceptable trafficconditions would occur at the intersections of GibbRoad, Route 208, and at most driveways in thecorridor. To improve traffic conditions toacceptable levels, significant widening of Route 8would be required, along with signalization ofthese additional intersections and driveways.

Based upon the comments received from thepublic, the following alternatives were identified aspreferable to other options considered: Relocation of the exit from the TravelCenters of

America service plaza, initially away fromStevenson Road, and in the longer term to asignalized configuration with Stevenson Road,

Signalization of the Stevenson Road / Route 8intersection with geometric improvements,

Signalization of the I-80 Eastbound Off-Ramp, Signalization of the I-80 Westbound Off-Ramp, Construction of gateway improvements

between Willow Street and Dholu Road,including sidewalks, street trees, and alandscaped buffer, and

Access management controls related to futuredriveway locations and transferring the cost ofmitigating traffic-related impacts to sitedevelopers on a project-by-project basis.

A number of other options were considered, but donot appear to be needed at this time. Thesemeasures include: land use controls to limit theamount of future development within the Borough,widening of Route 8, signalization of additionalintersections or driveways, construction ofsidewalks along both sides of Route 8 withinBarkeyville, and construction of a roundabout atthe intersection of Route 208 and Route 8.The Borough of Barkeyville has given approval toseek funding for the signalization of the StevensonRoad / Route 8 intersection. PennDOT hasreviewed the project and determined that thisintersection does not warrant signalization at thistime, but may in the future. It will not be possibleto fund this project until traffic increases to thepoint where signalization is warranted.The Borough of Barkeyville and Venango Countymay consider implementing new accessmanagement control ordinances.


1

INTRODUCTIONRequest for ProposalVenango County, in cooperation with the Boroughof Barkeyville and business interests located inthe community, realized the need to examine theland use and transportation needs impacting thesafety of accessing Route 8. Responding to thisneed, the Northwestern Pennsylvania RegionalPlanning and Development Commission(NWPRPDC) initiated the Route 8 Land Use &Transportation Study, documented in this report.

Need for StudyThe Borough of Barkeyville, located at theinterchange of Interstate 80 (I-80) andPennsylvania Route 8 (Route 8), provides thegateway to Venango County and the Oil Region. Itis strategically located to serve trucking andpassenger traffic on I-80. This traffic supports asmall but vibrant commercial district, whichincludes service plazas, restaurants and hotels.

In the 1990s, the Oil Region Alliance developedthe Barkeyville Industrial Park (BIP) to leveragethis strategic location to generate new economicdevelopment. The location of industrial tenants inthis park led to a significant increase in trucktraffic on Stevenson Road, a local roadway, and acorresponding increase in congestion andperceived safety problems at the intersection ofStevenson Road and Route 8.

PurposePrior to initiating this study, the Borough ofBarkeyville met with local government officialsand the Pennsylvania Department ofTransportation (PennDOT) District 1-0representatives to discuss ways in which ahighway access plan could assist in managingsafely the throughput of vehicles along thisimportant corridor in Venango County.

As defined by these sponsoring agencies, thisproject was to accomplish two critical tasks:

1. Develop and complete a Highway AccessManagement Plan for this section of Route8 at least one mile in either direction fromthe 1-80 exit, and

2. Advance a design solution to theStevenson Road / Route 8 intersection.

In order to continue to provide appropriate levelsof service and to assure that future developmentsof regional significance are compatible with theHighway Access Management Plan recommen-dations, the project sponsors realized therecommendations must be tied to future land usedecisions along the Route 8 corridor and thatthese decisions are important to the overalltransportation network.

The Borough agreed to implement the necessaryland use controls to ensure the results of theHighway Access Management Plan can restoresafe access and greater efficiency along thiscorridor.

FundingFunding for this study was provided byPennDOT’s Supplemental Planning Programfunds through the NWPRPDC’s 2009-2010Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP).

The UPWP establishes an outline of work tasks tobe undertaken by the NWPRPDC during the2009-2010 Fiscal Year. The NorthwestPennsylvania Regional Planning andDevelopment Commission has the responsibilityto plan and program transportation projectsreceiving federal funds for all of Clarion, Crawford,Forest , Venango and Warren Counties.

Figure 1: Stevenson Road at Route 8 showing TA serviceplaza exit driveway.


2

Smart TransportationThe Commonwealth of Pennsylvania hasrecognized that the historical pattern of landdevelopment and transportation investments is nolonger sustainable for a variety of financial,environmental, and social reasons. InPennsylvania, as in other states, public funding isvery limited for all transportation improvements.Costs are soaring, as global demand for rawmaterials has made new infrastructureexorbitantly expensive. Gas prices are higherthan ever before, and concerns about globalwarming are at the forefront of the politicalagenda. The Commonwealth recognizes that wemust use our limited resources more efficientlythan before.

The ultimate goal of Smart Transportation is tocreate transportation facilities that are safe andaffordable, responsive to the needs of all users,and support community planning goals.

To advance this goal, PennDOT has identified 10principles to guide Smart Transportation as ourcommunities plan for the future:

1. Money Counts: Gas tax revenues are falling,while cost inflation has been raising the costof transportation improvements, making itharder and harder for Pennsylvania and otherstates to fund required transportationimprovements and maintenance. SmartTransportation encourages innovativesolutions that can provide improvedtransportation at lower costs.

2. Leverage and preserve existinginvestments: Pennsylvania’s existingtransportation infrastructure represents aninvestment of billions of dollars. Limitedfunding means we need to preserve andleverage this investment to support our futuretransportation needs.

3. Choose projects with high value/priceratio: Sometimes, smaller, lower costsolutions can provide nearly as much benefitas much larger, more costly solutions.

4. Safety always and maybe safety only:Safety for all users is and always will be themost important consideration while designingand building transportation infrastructure.Smart transportation looks for innovative waysto continue improving the safety of ourroadways.

5. Look beyond level-of-service: Performancemeasures used to evaluate transportationprojects must consider more than simplyadding capacity. Factors such as multimodalaccessibility and economic developmentshould also be considered.

6. Accommodate all modes of travel: Anefficient transportation system should includethe infrastructure to accommodate all modesof travel, including walking, bicycling, transit,private automobiles, and freight.

7. Enhance local network: A disconnectednetwork of local roads can lead to anincreased impact on arterial roadways.Increased connections between localroadways can provide a variety of routeoptions and less congestion.

8. Build towns not sprawl: Transportationplanning and design should take into accountthe impact on economic development and onthe character of our communities. Land useand transportation are closely intertwined.

9. Understand the context; plan and designwithin the context: Transportation projectsshould be planned and designed with carefulconsideration of the local land use, economic,environmental, and social contexts. A solutionthat is ideal in one community or context maynot be appropriate in another.

10. Develop local governments as strong landuse partners: In Pennsylvania, land usedecisions are made by local governments, butthese decisions can have major impacts onthe statewide transportation network. InSmart Transportation, PennDOT and localgovernments will work together to ensure thattransportation solutions are consistent with acommunity’s land use goals, and that landuse decisions take into account transportationneeds and realities.

These principles are not new. They recognize aninterrelationship between transportation and landuse that has always existed, and they take intoaccount limited financial resources. Decisionsthat the Borough of Barkeyville makes today willinfluence the character of the community fordecades to come. Careful application of theseprinciples can help the Borough make cost-effective decisions.


3

History1700sSince the earliest days, the project area has beendominated by transportation. The Venango Trailwas used by the Delaware and Seneca nations asa connection between the Ohio River and LakeErie. During the French and Indian war, it wasused by European armies travelling between fortson the frontier. In 1796, the Franklin Road wasconstructed along this route, providing the firstwagon route north from Pittsburgh. Thecommunity of Wesley in the northern part of IrwinTownship was a significant stop for stagecoachesalong the route.

1800sBarkeyville was founded by Henry Barkey in1850, and quickly became a small village thrivingalong the road. The historic architecture is clearlyvisible in many of the homes and buildings in thevillage.

1900sThe construction of US 19 in the 1920s providedan alternate north-south route, diverting muchtraffic from the modern Route 8 corridor.Combined with the construction of Interstate 79 inthe 1960s and 1970s, this diversion undoubtedlyhelped to maintain the current rural character ofthe study area. During the 1970s, I-80 wasconstructed through the study area. This roadwayrestored Barkeyville to a position astride keynational transportation routes.

2000sToday, Barkeyville benefits significantly from itslocation midway between Chicago and New YorkCity. Its commercial core consists primarily of arange of businesses that serve truckers andtravelers passing through the area.

In the early 2000s, the Barkeyville Industrial Park(BIP) was developed by the Oil Region Alliance toleverage this strategic location for economicdevelopment. The park was designated aKeystone Opportunity Zone, providing 10 years oftax abatements to qualified tenants. Severalbusinesses have located in the park.

Figure 2: Historic Venango Trail. Source:Pennsylvania History and MuseumCommission.


4

Recent Land Use DevelopmentThe location of tenants within the BarkeyvilleIndustrial Park led to an increase in traffic alongStevenson Road, and to an increased perceptionof traffic congestion and safety problems at theStevenson Road / Route 8 intersection. Inresponse to these perceptions, the Borough ofBarkeyville directed the TravelCenters of America(TA) service plaza to close a portion of theirdriveway adjacent to the intersection.

More recently, landowners and developersidentified the potential for a new commercial retailcenter on the east side of Route 8 near WillowStreet. In the absence of a formal traffic study, anumber of concerns were raised by thecommunity about the potential impact of thisdevelopment.

With a growing recognition of potential trafficproblems developing in the Route 8 corridor, theBorough of Barkeyville convened a meeting ofagencies to identify potential solutions. Whilesignalization and geometric improvements at theStevenson Road / Route 8 intersection wereidentified as obvious solutions, the participatingagencies recognized the need to be proactive,and to identify and address other traffic problemsthat might develop in the area.

Study AreaLimitsBased upon concerns raised at the first PublicMeeting for this study, the study area limits weredefined to be the Route 8 corridor within theBorough of Barkeyville, from the Route 208intersection north to the Irwin Township line, atotal distance of approximately 1.6 miles.

This includes the intersections of Route 8 withGibb Road, I-80 westbound ramps, I-80eastbound ramps, Stevenson Road, and Route208. Other intersections and driveways within thestudy area were also analyzed as appropriate.

Key Roadways and land uses within the studyarea are described in the existing conditionssection of this report.

Figure 4: Study Area Limits.

Previous PlansSouthern Venango County RegionalComprehensive PlanIn 2007, the Southern Venango County RegionalComprehensive Plan was conducted by theVenango County Regional Planning Commission,as a cooperative venture including BarkeyvilleBorough and six other rural municipalities.

This plan defined portions of the Borough asdesignated growth areas, particularly the areasalong Route 8 and Route 208 that are served bymunicipal water and sewer systems. Itanticipated commercial growth along Route 8, andindustrial development in the Barkeyville IndustrialPark.

In the plan, the I-80 interchange area isdesignated as a model site, to demonstrateeconomic development. The overall vision for theinterchange is to provide a gateway context that

Figure 3: Traffic to Barkeyville Industrial Park onStevenson Road.


5

welcomes travelers into the region, capitalizes onthe economic opportunities presented by theinterchange, and protects the safety and welfareof borough residents. This vision may be achievedthrough a combination of access management,traffic improvements, screening and buffering,new development, business recruitment, andsignage improvements.

This would serve as a model for development atother interchanges along I-80, given its prominentlocation and available infrastructure.

The plan also includes a Barkeyville ConceptPlan, as shown below in Figure 5. Of relevanceto this study is the extensive level of developmentplanned for the “Interchange DevelopmentCorridor” along Route 8, and the highwaystreetscape improvement area which includes anumber of streetscape enhancements andimproved pedestrian accommodations. The planalso includes a number of municipal targets.Those for the Borough of Barkeyville were:

Focus new highway commercialdevelopment within the growth area alongRoute 8.

Provide for flex space and light industrialdevelopment within the growth area alongRoute 208 West.

Preserve the rural character of theresidential areas of the borough.

Create a gateway/entrance into the regionat the Barkeyville interchange along I-80.

Update the borough’s zoning ordinance toaddress the Pennsylvania Municipal Code(MPC) mandates.

Update the borough’s zoning ordinance toaddress the borough’s changing needs.

Explore the implementation of thecomprehensive plan through the borough’szoning ordinance.

BIP Traffic Impact StudyA traffic impact study for the Barkeyville IndustrialPark was performed for the Oil Region Alliance inSeptember 2007 (Lichty Engineers, 2007). Thisstudy evaluated the projected traffic impacts ofdevelopment within the industrial park, but did notappear to consider the impact of any additionaldevelopment along the Route 8 corridor.

Figure 5: Barkeyville Concept Plan.


6

The study evaluated the intersections of Route 8with the I-80 ramps and with Stevenson Road.The study projected acceptable levels of serviceat all intersections except Stevenson Road, butrecommended that widening of Stevenson Roadby one lane would mitigate this impact. Thisstudy appeared to find signalization of StevensonRoad to be warranted, but that with therecommended widening of Stevenson Road, thesignal would no longer be warranted. The studyalso recommended moving the TA truck stopdriveway on Stevenson Road approximately 250feet to the west to improve operations.

Organization of ReportThe remainder of this report documents themethodology and findings of this study, the publicengagement process, existing and potential landuses, existing and projected traffic conditions,potential land use and transportationimprovements, and a proposed implementationplan.


7

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENTProcessContinuous EngagementA primary goal of this study is successful PublicEngagement and collaboration with the communityof Barkeyville to identify the transportation andland use problems, develop the study goals andobjectives, and guide the project team inidentifying solutions that would best meet thecommunity’s needs. Only with effectiveconcurrence building can the community takeownership of the study, and support thecommitments needed to move forward withimplementing the selected alternatives.

To this end, an ongoing process of interactivecommunication was established between thestudy team and the community, centered upon twopublic meetings providing the project team with theopportunity to both present information and tolisten to the community. Three project newslettersprovided the opportunity to present information tothe community in advance of the public meetings.

The project team made a concerted effort to reachout to residents, developers, land owners, andbusinesses who expressed questions andconcerns during the study.

A Study Committee was established to providefurther involvement of the community in the study.This committee included a broad range of interestsand viewpoints within the community, and metapproximately monthly throughout the study.

Study CommitteeThe committee was established at the beginningof the project in order to guide the study. Thecommittee met six times during the course of thestudy, and provided key input in defining the studyarea, establishing goals and objectives, anddeveloping the range of alternatives evaluated inthe study. The formal makeup of the committeewas:

Susan Smith, Northwestern PennsylvaniaRegional Planning and DevelopmentCommission;

Judith Downs, Venango County RegionalPlanning Commission;

Erin Wiley Moyers, Pennsylvania Depart-ment of Transportation;

William Coursen, Borough of Barkeyville;

Jim Molloy, Glen O. Hawbaker, Inc.;

Harry Fairlamb, Travel Centers of America;

John Phillips, Oil Region Alliance; and

Darryl Phillips, PB Americas.

Study committee meetings were hosted by theGlen O. Hawbaker, Inc., at their Barkeyville facility.

Newsletter #1The first project newsletter was intended tointroduce the community to the project, with theparticular goal of encouraging participation in thefirst public meeting. The newsletter outlined thestudy goals, delineated the proposed study area,and summarized the proposed project schedule.The newsletter also included an announcement ofthe first public meeting, which was scheduled forJanuary 19, 2010.

Study Committee Meetings

Date Topics Discussed

12/14/2009 Project Kickoff

Review of Newsletter #1 Draft

Preparation for Public Meeting #1

Required Information

1/29/2010 Review of Public Meeting #1

Draft Objectives

Draft Goals

Definition of study area

3/26/2010 Existing Conditions Analysis

Basis of land use forecasts

4/30/2010 Land use projections

Traffic projections and analysis

6/1/2010 Preparation for Public Meeting #2

6/26/2010 Review of Public Meeting #2

Preferred Alternatives

Table 1: Study Committee Meetings.


8

The newsletter was drafted by PB, and followingreview by the Study Committee, was mailed onJanuary 11, 2010.

A full-size copy of the newsletter is included inAppendix A.

The mailing list for the newsletter was developedusing tax records and 911 data provided byVenango County. The initial list included theowners of all land parcels within the Borough.Parcels with ownership outside the borough wereevaluated based upon 911 data, and if a structurewas located on that parcel, the local address wasincluded on the mailing list. The mailing list alsoincluded all public officials from BarkeyvilleBorough, Irwin Township, key officials fromVenango County, and the state legislatorsrepresenting the study area. The final mailing listincluded 169 stakeholders.

Public Meeting #1The first public meeting was held on January 19,2010, from 3:00 to 6:00 PM at the BarkeyvilleBorough Building. Public notice of the meetingwas provided by an advertisement in the Franklin

News Herald and the Oil City Derrick on Tuesday,January 5, 2010.

The meeting was conducted in an open houseformat. The project team was available to discussthe project and the transportation and land useneeds of the community. Over 30 people attendedthe meeting.

PB presented the background and purpose of thestudy, and solicited comments from theparticipants on the proposed scope of the projectand on the existing and perceived transportationand land use issues in the community. Key issuesreceived at the meeting included:

Pedestrians walking along the road, Access to the industrial park, Need for traffic signals at I-80 ramps and

at Stevenson Road, Roadway maintenance issues, East Gate Plaza impacts, Sight distance problems at Route 208, Traffic congestion on ramps and

Stevenson Road, Need for more development in Borough Need for developers to pay for needed

improvements, and Speeding traffic on Route 208.

A summary of the comments received is providedin Appendix A.

Newsletter #2The second project newsletter was distributed tothe community midway through the study tomaintain an ongoing awareness and involvement.The newsletter summarized the key issuesidentified at the first public meeting, and presentedthe goals, objectives, and study area definedbased upon the public input. The newsletterincluded the results of data collection and the levelof service analysis of the key study areaintersections. The newsletter concluded with anannouncement of the time and location scheduledfor the second public meeting.

The mailing list for the second newsletter wasbased upon that used for the first newsletter, withupdates for incorrect and invalid addresses, andthe addition of several stakeholders whorequested to be added to the mailing list.

A full-size copy of the second newsletter isincluded in Appendix A.

Figure 6: Newsletter #1.


9

Public Meeting #2The second public meeting was held on June 16,2010 at the Barkeyville Borough Building. Thismeeting consisted of a formal presentation, whichwas repeated at 4:30 and 5:30 PM. Approximately21 people attended the presentations at the publicmeeting.

Public notice of the meeting was provided by anadvertisement in the Franklin News Herald and theOil City Derrick on Tuesday, June 1, 2010.Additionally, posters were placed at locationsthroughout the community, including theBarkeyville Borough Building, the TA and Kwik Fillservice plazas, Burger King and King’s restaurantsannouncing the public meeting.

The formal presentation included a detailed historyof the project to this point, including the publicengagement process, the key issues identified atthe first public meeting, and the study area and thegoals and objectives established for the study.Data collection efforts and the results of theexisting conditions were summarized. Also, thetraffic analyses for two future land use scenarios,as described later in this report, were presented.The final part of the presentation focused on

several potential traffic and land use scenariosdesigned to mitigate the levels of projected futuretraffic. The formal presentation was closed with aquestion and answer session. Comment formswere provided for participants to submitcomments.

A PowerPoint presentation was used for thepresentation which was posted on the NWPRPDCwebsite on June 18, 2010, and electronicallysubmitted to stakeholders upon request.

Following the meeting, the study team receivedone completed comment form and one letterexpressing concerns over the study’srecommendations. Commenters were concernedabout the magnitude of the traffic impactsforecasted in future years, and about the negativeimpacts of land use controls on land owners anddevelopers. These comments are included inAppendix A.

Barkeyville Borough CouncilFollowing the second public meeting, a formalbriefing to the Barkeyville Borough Council on thefindings and recommendations of the study wasmade at the regularly scheduled council meetingheld at 7:00 PM on July 6, 2010.

The briefing included presentation of thePowerPoint slideshow used for the second publicmeetings and information on the projectedconstruction and maintenance costs of thealternatives considered.

Judith Downs (VCRPC) informed the council aboutthe potential to partially fund the selectedimprovements with a grant from the AppalachianRegional Commission (ARC), but that the deadlinefor a funding application required immediateaction.

Following an extensive period of debate, thecouncil approved a concept with signalization andgeometric improvements at the Stevenson Route /Route 8 intersection, and authorized VCRPC topursue the ARC grants.

A copy of the official minutes of the July 6, 2010Barkeyville Borough Council meeting arepresented in Appendix A.

Newsletter #3At the conclusion of the study, a third newsletterwas distributed to the community to inform them ofthe final study findings, the preferred alternatives



10

identified, and the proposed next steps forimplementation.

This newsletter was mailed to the same list as thesecond newsletter, and additional copies weremade available for distribution within thecommunity.

A full size copy of the newsletter is attached inAppendix A.



11

GOALS AND OBJECTIVESIntroductionAs initially scoped by the NWPRPDC, this studywas to accomplish two critical tasks: develop ahighway access plan for the Route 8 corridor, andadvance a design solution to the Stevenson Roadaccess point.

From this initial point, the initial task of the projectteam was to work with the Barkeyville communityto define the goals and objectives for the study.The first public meeting provided the communitywith the opportunity to discuss their transportationand land use needs and visions with the StudyCommittee. Based upon this dialogue, the Goalsand Objectives were defined by the StudyCommittee over several meetings, and werepresented to the community in the secondnewsletter and at the second public meeting.

These Goals and Objectives were used to guidethe study, and to provide a framework forevaluating a range of alternatives, identifying thecommunity’s preferred alternatives, and indeveloping a plan to move forward withimplementation.

The Goals and Objectives defined for this studyare presented below.

Goals1. Improve traffic operation in the study corridor.

2. Provide a sustainable transportation system,accommodating pedestrians and bicycles aswell as motorized traffic.

3. Improve safety for vehicular and non-vehiculartraffic throughout the study area.

4. Limit or control driveway access throughoutthe corridor.

5. Ensure that the costs of future transportationimprovements are assessed fairly.

6. Encourage land use policies that support asustainable and efficient transportationsystem.

Objectives1. Improve operations at Stevenson Road.

(Goals 1, 2, 3, 4).

2. Address causes of identified safety issues atStevenson Road and elsewhere in thecorridor. (Goals 2, 3).

3. Maintain acceptable levels-of-service at studyintersections and key driveways underprojected future traffic conditions. (Goal 1).

4. Adopt appropriate land use controls (Goal 4and 6).

5. Developing a mechanism for identifyingtransportation impacts of developments andfor capturing the cost of implementing theimprovements. (Goal 5).

6. Identify changes to zoning and otherordinances to allow the Borough of Barkeyvilleto manage land uses and direct futuredevelopment. (Goal 6).


12

EXISTING CONDITIONSTransportation NetworkThe study area roadway network is shown inFigure 9 below, and described on the followingpages.

Figure 9: Study area roadway network. Source: PennDOT Type 2 Map of Barkeyville Borough. June 2008.


13

Interstate 80Interstate 80 (I-80) dominates the localtransportation network. This freeway extends fromSan Francisco, California to I-95 in New Jersey. Itprovides a direct connection between theNortheast, the Industrial Midwest, and the WestCoast. Barkeyville is located near the midpointbetween New York and Chicago, making it aconvenient point for fuel and rest stops. Totalaverage daily traffic (ADT) near Route 8 isapproximately 30,000 vehicles. Trucks account forapproximately 15% of the total traffic volume.

I-80 intersects Route 8 at a diamond interchange,with both ramps controlled by stop signs.Although the I-80 mainline was not directlyanalyzed in this study, these two intersectionsconnecting Route 8 with the interchange arecongested during peak periods and are keyelements of this study.

Route 8The primary focus of the study area isPennsylvania Route 8 (Route 8). This highwayextends from Wilkinsburg, on the east edge of theCity of Pittsburgh, to downtown Erie, passingthrough the cities of Butler, Franklin, and Oil Cityas well as many smaller communities. Paralleledby I-79 roughly five to 10 miles to the west, Route8 primarily serves local traffic, connecting Butler,Venango, and Crawford counties to the InterstateSystem. For most of its length, Route 8 is a two-lane, undivided highway passing through rollingterrain, bordered by a significant amount of low-density residential and agricultural uses. Withinthe study area, Route 8 can be divided into threeseparate segments, each with a distinct characterand traffic pattern.

North of Gibb Road, Route 8 is a single lane ineach direction, with a posted speed limit of 45mph. The cartway consists of two 11-foot laneswithin a 60-foot right of way. Adjacent land usesare low-density, and consist of a mix of rural, lightindustrial, and commercial. Traffic flow in this areais primarily traffic between I-80 and the Oil Regioncities to the north.

Between Willow Street and Gilmore Road, Route 8widens to a four-lane cross section, with two 2-footlanes in each direction separated by a 4-footpainted median. Speed limit in this section is 45mph. The right of way varies in width from 160feet to the south of I-80 to 200 feet north of I-80.The land uses in this section are primarilycommercial, including a mix of hotels, restaurants,

gas stations, and service plazas. Traffic in thissegment is dominated by traffic between thesebusinesses and the I-80 interchange.

South of Willow Street, Route 8 consists of asingle lane in each direction, with a posted speedlimit of 35 mph. The cartway consists of two 11-foot lanes within a 60-foot right of way. Adjacentland uses are primarily low density residential onnarrow lots.

Gibb RoadGibb Road is a borough road extending along thenorth side of I-80 from Route 8 to GeorgetownRoad (SR 3003). The cartway is 22 feet wide.Gibb Road provides local access to severalrestaurants and hotels located adjacent to Route8, and is otherwise rural in character. Gibb Roadintersects Route 8 at an unsignalized intersectionaligned with a commercial driveway approximately375 feet north of the I-80 eastbound off-ramp. Theclose spacing of these intersections appears tocause some operational problems.

Log Cemetery RoadLog Cemetery Road is a borough street extendingeast from Route 8. It provides access to a truckwash/painting facility and a primarily rural area ofIrwin Township. Log Cemetery Road intersectsRoute 8 at an unsignalized intersection alignedwith the entrance and auto exit for the TA ServicePlaza.

Stevenson RoadStevenson Road is a borough street extendingwest from Route 8 into Mercer County. Within theBorough, the cartway is 20 feet wide, and isposted with a 20-mph speed limit. StevensonRoad serves as the primary access to theBarkeyville Industrial Park as well as to a numberof residences. Stevenson Road intersects Route8 at an unsignalized intersection aligned with theCITGO service station driveway.

This intersection provided the impetus for thisstudy, and is one of the primary focus points. Theintersection operation is complicated by a numberof factors, as shown in the aerial photograph inFigure 10: Stevenson Road / Route 8 Intersection.While Stevenson Road volumes are light, theyinclude a significant number of trucks destined tothe Barkeyville Industrial Park. The truck exit fromthe TA Service Plaza enters Stevenson Roadapproximately 80 feet from the Route 8intersection. This short distance does not allow


14

trucks to properly align within the eastbound laneon Stevenson Road, often blocking the westboundlane. Delays are sometimes significant, due to thelarge gap required for trucks to exit from the stopcontrol onto Route 8. A further complication isadded by the presence of the Kwik Fill ServicePlaza entrance approximately 50 feet south of theintersection. Trucks entering the service plazadecelerate in advance of the intersection, with thisslower movement of cross traffic resulting inreduced gaps for Stevenson Road traffic.

A final complication is a significant grade onStevenson Road sloping downward away from theRoute 8 intersection. While this does not appearto affect corner sight distance significantly,Stevenson Road drops away and is hard tovisually identify between the wider, moreprominent driveways of the service plazas.

Willow StreetWillow Street is a borough street extending east ofRoute 8 approximately 400 feet south ofStevenson Road. It is an unimproved dirt road,and is insignificant except as potential access tothe proposed East Gate commercial development.

Route 208Route 208 provides an east-west connectionthrough the study area approximately one milesouth of I-80. While it extends from the Ohio stateline to Clarion County, in the Barkeyville area itprimarily provides a more direct access to theGrove City area. Route 208 has a 22-footcartway, with a single lane in each direction. Thespeed limit is unposted. Route 208 intersectsRoute 8 at a two-way-stop.

TA Service PlazaTruck exit

Figure 10: Stevenson Road / Route 8 Intersection.

Stevenson Road

Route 8

Kwik Fill ServicePlaza entrance


15

Traffic Data CollectionATRAutomatic traffic recorder (ATR) counts weretaken on Route 8 between the I-80 eastboundramps and the TA service plaza entrance/LogCemetery Road. Data collection was originallyscheduled for February 2010, but was postponeddue to heavy snow accumulation, and was laterconducted from March 4 through March 11, 2010.Counter equipment was vandalized atapproximately 4 PM on March 6, 2010, but thecount was sufficient to determine typical weekdayvolumes, directional distribution, classification, andpeaking behavior.

Total ADT was approximately 4,693 vehiclesnorthbound and 4,998 southbound. Truck trafficaccounted for 33% of total daily traffic, and 28% ofpeak hour traffic. Figure 11 shows the variation oftraffic throughout the day.

The ATR data is provided in Appendix B.

Turning Movement CountsManual turning movement counts were taken atthe intersections of Route 8 with Gibb Road, I-80eastbound ramps, I-80 westbound ramps,Stevenson Road, and Route 208. Gibb Road andthe driveways between I-80 and Stevenson Roadwere videotaped to allow for spot traffic countsand other data collection.

Manual turning movement counts were conductedbetween 2:00 PM and 4:00 PM on March 4 andMarch 11, 2010. The counts were only conductedin the PM period because ATR data indicated thatthe AM peak period is significantly lower than thePM peak period.

The peak hour was determined to occur between4:15 and 5:15 PM. Manual turning movementdata is provided in Appendix B.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1:00 AM

2:00 AM

3:00 AM

4:00 AM

5:00 AM

6:00 AM

7:00 AM

8:00 AM

9:00 AM

10:00 AM

11:00 AM

12:00 PM

1:00 PM

2:00 PM

3:00 PM

4:00 PM

5:00 PM

6:00 PM

7:00 PM

8:00 PM

9:00 PM

10:00 PM

11:00 PM

12:00 AM

Volu

me

Passenger Cars

Single Unit Trucks

Double Trailers

Tractor Trailers

Figure 11: Daily traffic patterns.


16

Travel Time RunsTravel time runs were conducted through thestudy area on March 4, 2010. The test vehiclewas driven through the study area at the prevailingtraffic flow speeds, and the time at eachintervening intersection was manually recorded.As shown in Figure 12 traffic flow is relativelyuncongested on Route 8 through the corridor.

Travel time data is included in Appendix B.

Sight DistanceSight distance is generally excellent throughoutthe corridor, by observation exceeding 500 feet.Public comments indicated a potential sightdistance problem at the Route 208 intersection,particularly the view of northbound traffic fromvehicles stopped on eastbound Route 208. PBconducted field measurements on March 11,2010. Measured sight distance was 714 feet,which exceeded the 360 feet required for safestopping sight distance at 45 mph.

Figure 12: Route 8 Travel Times.


17

Crash HistoryAn evaluation of the crash history in the study areawas conducted based upon data provided byPennDOT for the period of January 2004 toDecember 2008.

Thirty-six (36) crashes were reported on Route 8during this time period, with one fatality reported.Crashes were spread uniformly throughout theyear and throughout the week. Approximately39% of crashes occurred during the afternoonperiod from 1:00 to 6:00 PM.

Angle collisions accounted for 36% of crashes,hitting fixed objects accounted for 33% and rear-end collisions accounted for 16% of the accidents.

Over 55% of crashes occurred in clementconditions, such as dry pavement, daylight, clearweather, and no adverse environmental factors.

Approximately 41% of crashes had no contributingactions identified, while 15% were associated withdriving too fast for conditions, 10% for proceedingwithout clearance, 7% from improper or carelessturning, and 5% from other improper driving. Only5% of the crashes involved large trucks, while27% of crashes involved small trucks.

Crash data was geographically analyzed as shownin Figure 13. Slightly higher concentrations ofcrashes were clustered around the Gibb Road andRoute 208 intersections.

18


Figure 13: Crash analysis.


19

Level-of-Service AnalysisMethodologyTraffic conditions in the study area were evaluatedusing the methodology established by theHighway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000, publishedby the Transportation Research Board. The HCMestablishes procedures for evaluating theoperation of roadways and intersections undervarying traffic conditions.

Key to the HCM methodology is the establishmentof Level of Service (LOS). A LOS analysissummarizes the calculated or observed operationof a roadway into a single parameter representingthe traffic flow conditions. The LOS rating systemdefines a letter grade, ranging from LOS Arepresenting free-flowing traffic, to LOS F,representing jammed or congested conditions.

The HCM 2000 establishes the followingthresholds for each LOS, based upon the averagedelay per vehicle measured or calculated at anintersection:

The HCM 2000 establishes methods forcalculating traffic delay used to determine theLOS. These methods are based upon calculatingthe traffic capacity of an intersection or roadway,and evaluating the operation of the intersectionunder the projected traffic volumes. Analysistakes into account factors such as traffic signaltimings, roadway lane width, roadway grade,conflicting pedestrian volumes, and the operationof buses and trucks in the traffic stream. Thismethodology is carefully calibrated based upon

national standards, but includes great flexibility tocalibrate the analysis to local conditions.

A VISSIM simulation model was developed of thestudy corridor and used for visualization oftransportation alternatives, including theStevenson Road and Route 208 intersection. Thismodel was not used for LOS calculations.

CalibrationPB initially performed the HCS evaluation usingthe default parameters incorporated into the HCS+software package. This analysis provided levelsof service significantly better than observed in thefield. In particular, the analysis indicated onlyminor delays at the stop signs on the I-80 rampsand on Stevenson Road. Field observationsindicated that delays could be significant, althoughhighly variable. Upon observation, the cause ofthe variability appeared to relate to the operationof tractor-trailer combinations.

Field observations also showed that automobilesgenerally incurred only minor delays at the stopsigns, consistent with the level of servicecalculated using the default parameters.However, tractor-trailer combinations generallyincurred significant delays. Queues of two to threevehicles frequently occurred at these ramps.While relatively short in length, these queues oftencaused significant delay for vehicles.

This observed behavior results directly from theoperational of a one- or two-way stop, and thedifferent performance characteristics of trucks andautomobiles. At a one-way stop such as those atthe Route 8 intersections evaluated in this study,an approaching vehicle stops at the stop sign andwaits for an appropriate gap in traffic and thenenters the intersection. Gaps in traffic vary in size,and some are not long enough to permit a vehicleto enter safely. Left turning vehicles require longergaps in both directions of traffic, while right turningvehicles only require a gap in traffic approachingfrom the right.

Video observations of these intersectionsconfirmed that trucks required significantly largergaps than the default parameters used in HCSanalysis. As there are fewer large gaps available,trucks will generally wait longer than cars at theselocations.

The site-specific gap acceptance parameters wereused for the HCS analysis of unsignalizedintersections in this study. As noted, heavyvehicles account for 28 to 33% of traffic flow in the

LOS

Delay Thresholds

SignalizedIntersection

UnsignalizedIntersection

A 10 sec 10 sec

B 10-20 sec 10-15 sec

C 20-35 sec 15-25 sec

D 35-55 sec 25-35 sec

E 55-80 sec 35-50 sec

F 80 sec 50 sec

Table 2: Level of Service Delay Thresholds.


20

study area, and an even higher percentage atlocations such as the TA service plazaexit/Stevenson Road intersection. Using theseparameters results in a significantly higher level ofdelay and worse LOS than projected in previousstudies, but more realistically reflects actualintersection operations.

No similar calibration was required for the analysisof signalized intersections, as gap acceptance isnot a key element in operation at such locations.

Volume AdjustmentThe project schedule required that traffic countsbe conducted in March 2010. However, trafficvolumes in the study area are seasonal, withvolumes significantly higher in the summer monthsthan in the winter. Therefore, the volumes usedfor analysis in this study were adjusted to reflectthis seasonal peak.

Based upon PennDOT’s Pub 601 (6-09) for aroadway classified as TPG-4 (Rural – OtherPrincipal Arterials), a factor of 1.13 is appropriateto adjust March counts to reflect the seasonalpeak in July.

The Glen O. Hawbaker Inc. plant on StevensonRoad only operates seasonally. During March,when counts were conducted, the plant was not inoperation, with only a limited number ofadministrative employees on site. During thesummer months, the plant operates to provideasphalt to a broad range of construction sites,resulting in an increase in employee trips and to a

significant number of trucks hauling asphalt andraw materials. Based upon historical dataprovided by Hawbaker, an estimate of typical peakdaily traffic to and from the plant via StevensonRoad was developed. Actual daily and hourlyvolumes are subject to great variation dependingon the location of the constantly-changing mix ofconstruction sites being supplied. The estimatealso accounts for the direct access constructedfrom the Hawbaker plant to Route 208.

2010 Existing Levels of ServiceUsing the adjusted 2010 traffic volumes and thecalibrated HCS analysis methodology, the peak-hour LOS values shown in Table 4 werecalculated.

The intersections generally operate at acceptablelevels of service, with the exception of the I-80westbound off-ramp and Stevenson Road, wherehigh volumes of turning trucks impede traffic flow.

TurningMovement

Required Gap

HCSdefault1 Site-calibrated2

Left turn 7.1 sec 15.0 sec1 Calculated using HCS+ for site-specific conditions.2 Measured from video observations of truck traffic atRoute 8 intersections.

Table 3: 2010 HCS gap acceptance calibration.

2010 Peak Hour LOS

Intersection Type Delay

LOS

Gibb Road Unsig 14.0 sec B

I-80 WB Off-ramp Unsig 81.2 sec F

I-80 EB Off- ramp Unsig 18.1 sec C

Stevenson Road Unsig 101.0 sec F

Route 208 Unsig 14.5 sec BNote: Values reported for unsignalized intersections

represent minor street approach.

Table 4: Peak hour LOS.


21

Land UseDevelopment PatternsThe Borough of Barkeyville is a rural community.Based upon 2000 Census data, the population of237 people live in 91 households spread over 3.5square miles.

Barkeyville is perhaps best known for itscommercial core. This area, located on both sidesof Route 8 within about ¼ mile of the I-80interchange, primarily serves motorists andtruckers traveling I-80. As noted, businesses inthis area include two service plazas, fast foodrestaurants, hotels, and several other businessesservicing highway and truck traffic.

The Barkeyville Industrial Park is adjacent to thecommercial district, and includes an asphalt plant,a warehouse, and a propane tank distributionfacility.

South of the commercial district is the village areaof Barkeyville. For about one-half mile, Route 8 islined with closely-spaced small homes on bothsides, interspersed with churches and some smallretail establishments. This community dates backto the 1850s and many of the structures appear todate from that time period as well.

Outside of these more-densely developed areas,the Borough is rural in character, with a mix offarms, low density residential, and light industrialuses.

ZoningThe Borough of Barkeyville adopted a zoning codein May 1999. The code establishes six zoningdistricts which reflect the existing character of theBorough: These are shown on the Zoning Map inFigure 14 and described below.

IDC – Interchange Development Corridor. Thisdistrict was established to meet the objectives ofcapturing the economic development potential of I-80, to maintain and project existing commercialuses, and to encourage new commercial facilitiesto locate in functionally designed centers with safeand adequate roadway access. The IDC is

primarily located on both sides of Route 8 forapproximately ½ mile on either side of I-80.

IP – Industrial Park. This district is established tomeet the objective of preserving strategicproperties suitable for industrial development forthe establishment of diversified industry in theBorough. This zoning is primarily located in theBarkeyville Industrial Park along Stevenson Roadwest of the IDC.

I-2 – Industrial. This district is established tomeet the objective of protecting property values toensure a suitable, attractive, and efficientcommunity environment by providing a regulatedenvironment for uses which could be innatelythreatening to the health, safety, morals andgeneral welfare of the community. This zoning isprimarily in the north east quadrant of theBorough, relatively isolated from incompatible landuses.

R – Residential. This district is established toencourage future residential use in compactneighborhood units, and to limit uses to thosecompatible with the relatively high density andquality of life. This zoning primarily encompassesthe village area of the Borough along Route 8.

CB – Community Business. This district isestablished to provide a traditional mixed-usesetting for a variety of commercial and residentialuses. This zoning primarily encompasses thearea adjacent to the intersection of Route 8 andRoute 208.

C – Conservation. This district was establishedto meet the community goals of preservingwetlands, aquifers, forests, floodplains andfarmland, while accommodating a variety of usesappropriate to the district’s rural, low-densitysetting. This zoning covers the outlying areas ofthe Borough.

Some revisions to the zoning code and map havebeen made in subsequent years to facilitateproposed development projects.


22

Figure 14: Barkeyville Zoning Map.


23

Barkeyville Industrial ParkThe Barkeyville Industrial Park represents themost significant economic development in theBorough over the past decade. With tenantsincluding the Glenn O. Hawbaker, Inc. plant, theTeam Hardinger warehouse, and the Renovexfacility, the industrial park has led to a significantincrease in traffic volumes on Stevenson Road.The industrial park is designated as a KeystoneOpportunity Zone, which provides significantabatements of state and local taxes to selectedtenants. As a result of this abatement, the Parkhas not led to any increase in Borough taxrevenues to this point, although abatements forthe initial tenants will be expiring at the end of2010.

East Gate PropertyThe East Gate property is a commercialdevelopment that has been proposed for thesouthern end of the Interstate DevelopmentCorridor along Willow Street. The exact tenant

mix is unknown at this time, although a preliminarysubdivision plan has been submitted to VenangoCounty for approval. The potential traffic impactsof this property have been the subject of concernin the community.

Utility InfrastructureWaterThe Barkeyville Municipal Authority provides waterservice throughout the Route 8 corridor, as well asto the Barkeyville Industrial Park and to limitedareas along Route 208.

SewerBarkeyville is served by a small private sewagetreatment facility, serving businesses along Route8 immediately adjacent to I-80, as well as theBarkeyville Industrial Park. The sewage treatmentfacility is reported to have available capacity.

Figure 15: Water and Sewer Facilities.


24

LAND USE PROJECTIONSIntroductionAn analysis of existing and anticipated future landuse conditions for the Borough of Barkeyville wasconducted as part of this study to identify likelyfuture land use scenarios in support of the trafficmodeling and development of recommendedtransportation improvements for the Route 8corridor. Future land use scenarios weredeveloped for the medium-term (2020) and long-term (2030) full build-out analysis using currentzoning regulations, as well as a potential 2030build out with land use controls.

Future Land Use ProjectionsMethodologyA full-build capacity analysis of Barkeyville’szoning ordinance was conducted to determine thepotential future land use scenario that could beaccommodated under the Borough’s currentzoning ordinance. The initial developable areawas determined by subtracting out setbacks andrestrictions as specified in the Borough ofBarkeyville Zoning Code.

The need to protect sensitive environmentalconditions was also considered in definingdevelopable area. Hydric soils provide a significantrestriction of the ability to fully develop manyproperties in Barkeyville. Hydric soils are one ofthe three characteristics that define wetlands, andthus provide a realistic approximation of areaswhere development would either be prohibited orhighly restricted. A more detailed delineation ofwetlands could be prepared as was done for theBarkeyville Industrial Park, but such delineationwas beyond the scope of this study. Figure 16shows the hydric soils in the borough based uponVenango County GIS mapping. The developablearea of each available parcel was further adjustedby subtracting out the areas where hydric soils arepresent.

The full-build capacity analysis of the borough’sexisting zoning code identified the potential for upto 443 residential lots, 2.1 million square feet retailuse, 722 acres gas/oil drilling or mineral extractionrelated use, 6.6 million square feet warehousing,and 2.8 million square feet of manufacturing/industrial uses. Figure 17 shows the developableparcels overlaid on the Borough zoning map.

The amount of growth realistically anticipated tooccur in Barkeyville was determined through areview of historic building permit data and throughthe identification of anticipated commercial andindustrial development projects within theBorough. Future residential growth was wasdetermined based on historic population growthtrends provided in the Southern Venango CountyRegional Comprehensive Plan. It is anticipatedthat new residential development over the next 10to 20 years will be limited to approximately 5 to10% of the total residential development capacityallowable under the current Barkeyville ZoningOrdinance.

The development potential shown in Figure 17 isdivided into fifteen zones, numbered 1 through 15.These zones represent areas with common zoningand transportation access. The traffic projectionsdiscussed later in the report are based on thesezones.


25

Figure 16: Hydric soils.

Figure 16: Hydric SoilsPotential Development

Route 8


26

Figure 17: Zoning Potential Development.

Figure 17: ZoningPotential Development


27

2020 Medium-Term ScenarioThe 2020 Medium-Term land use scenario isbased on development that is currently planned orproposed, and is likely to occur in the next fewyears. This includes full build-out of theBarkeyville Industrial Park, and development ofthe East Gate commercial property site.

The medium term scenario also includes modestresidential growth of approximately 20 units,consistent with recent historical patterns in theBorough.

For analysis purposes, the potential developmentin this scenario is assumed to be similar to theexisting patterns, with additional warehousingbeing developed in the Barkeyville Industrial Park,and a gas station/convenience market and smallretail uses at the East Gate development site .The land use assumed for this scenario is shownin Table 5.

2020 Medium-Term Land Use Scenario

ZONE # Assumed Land Uses

1 4 Single-Family Residential Lots

51.3 Million SF Warehousing

1 Single-Family Residential Lot8 N/A

1016,000 SF Retail

4000 SF Convenience Market With Gas Pumps11 1 Single-Family Residential Lot

125 Acres Mining (Sand/Gravel Quarry Mine)

8 Single-Family Residential Lots13 1 Single-Family Residential Lot


4 Single-Family Residential Lots15 1 Single-Family Residential Lot

Table 5: 2020 Medium-Term Land Use Assumptions.


28

2030 Long-Term ScenarioThe 2030 Long-Term scenario is based upon fullbuildout of the commercial and industrial areas ofthe Borough in accordance with the zoning code.Residential development is anticipated to occur ata rate consistent with past trends, with 20 to 40units to be constructed over the next 20 years.

Although this full build-out scenario for BarkeyvilleBorough is very optimistic, it provides the worst-case scenario and reflects development that wouldbe permitted by right under today’s zoning code.At this time, economic conditions do not appear tosupport such an intensive level of development.However, economic trends are likely to reverse,and with suitable zoned land and availableinfrastructure, Barkeyville could be well-positionedfor future growth.

Land uses for the 2030 Long-Term scenario areanticipated to be relatively similar to today’s landuses, with warehousing in the industrial zones anda mix of restaurants, hotels, and gas stations inthe commercial zones. This also included severalcommercial retail centers of 50,000 square feet,the maximum size permitted by right under thezoning code. This study does not evaluate thepotential impact of much larger retail centers thatcould be permitted as conditional uses under thezoning code.

The land use assumptions for the 2030 Long-Termscenario are shown in Table 6 on the followingpage.


29

2030 Long-Term Land Use Scenario



2 Two parcels 50,000 SF Retail

4,000 SF Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive-ThroughWindow

Two Motels 70 Rooms Each

7000 SF High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant

4000 SF Convenience Market With Gas Pumps

3 4,000 SF Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive-ThroughWindow

50,000 SF Retail


4 765,000 SF Warehousing

5 1.3 Million SF Warehousing

2 Single-Family Residential Lots

6 880,000 SF Warehousing

7 7000 SF High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant

8 N/A

9 31,500 SF Retail

10 Two parcels at 50,000 SF Retail

16,000 SF Retail

Two Motels 70 Rooms Each



12 5 Acres Mining (Sand/Gravel Quarry Mine)



14 5 Acres Mining (Sand/Gravel Quarry Mine)




Table 6: 2030 Long-Term Land Use Scenario.


30

2030 Land Use Control ScenarioAs noted, the full build-out of the Borough inBorough is somewhat unrealistic. As will bediscussed in the next section, the projected trafficimpacts of this scenario would be significant. Analternative scenario, which has been developed,reflecting modest changes in zoning would have aless significant impact on traffic.

Of the anticipated future land uses, two inparticular contribute to a disproportionate amountof the future projected traffic: warehousing andlarge commercial retail centers. By changingzoning to restrict these uses somewhat, the futuretraffic projections could be reduced by nearly one-third. The proposed changes include rezoningindustrial areas in the northeastern and

northwestern segments of the Borough asconservation zones, and reducing the maximum“by-right” size of a commercial retail center to16,000 square feet from 50,000 square feet. Bothchanges would be consistent with current landuses and scale of development in the Borough.

This scenario is hypothetical. Many alternate landuse control scenarios could be developed, someof which could reduce future traffic impacts further,but could have a greater adverse impact onproperty owners and future economicdevelopment.

The land use assumptions for the 2030 Land UseControl Scenario are shown in Table 7 on thefollowing page.


31

Table 7: 2030 Land Use Control Scenario.

2030 Land Use Control Scenario



2

Two parcels 15,000 SF Retail4,000 SF Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive-Through

WindowTwo Motels 70 Rooms Each

7000 SF High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant4000 SF Convenience Market With Gas Pumps

3

4,000 SF Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive-ThroughWindow

15,000 SF Retail4000 SF Convenience Market With Gas Pumps

4 2 Single Family Residential Lots


2 Single-Family Residential Lots6 Conservation7 7000 SF High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant8 N/A9 31,500 SF Retail

10

(2) 15,000 SF Retail16,000 SF Retail

Two Motels 70 Rooms Each4000 SF Convenience Market With Gas Pumps



16 Single-Family Residential Lots13 2 Single-Family Residential Lots


Conservation8 Single-Family Residential Lots



32

TRAFFIC PROJECTIONSMethodologyFuture traffic volume estimates are based on 2010turning movement volumes, with adjustment toreflect growth in background traffic and growth dueto projected development in the study area.

Background growth reflects an increase in trafficpassing through the study area, due todevelopment elsewhere. Based upon thePennDOT Statewide Traffic Trends Table for2007-2008, traffic on I-80 is anticipated to grow at2.4% per year, while traffic on Route 8 and Route208 is anticipated to grow by approximately 1%per year.

Estimates for traffic due to development in thestudy area are based upon the land use scenariosoutlined in the previous section. Trip generation isbased upon based rates and procedurescontained in the Trip Generation Manual (Instituteof Transportation Engineers, 8th edition, 2008).

Because of the unique development patterns inthe study area, all-site generated trips areassumed to be primary trips, with the majorityarriving and departing via I-80. Because of thelow existing traffic volumes on Route 8, and thelack of significant residential development, veryfew trips would be pass-by trips on Route 8 ororiginate and terminate within the study area.

With a significant amount of industrial/ warehousedevelopment, truck volumes in the study area areprojected to remain high.

2020 Medium-Term ScenarioResults of the HCS analysis performed usingprojected 2020 traffic volumes on the existingroadway network are summarized in Table 8.

As shown in the table, intersection operation isprojected to degrade significantly at the I-80 rampsand at Stevenson Road. The projected levels ofservice are to some extent unrealistic.

These high levels of projected congested delaycan be traced to the operation of theseintersections under one- or two-way stop control.As discussed previously, vehicular operation atsuch intersections requires vehicles to wait andselect a gap in cross traffic large enough to permitentering the intersection safely. Two of theseintersections are already at capacity. Increases incross traffic on Route 8 will reduce the numberand size of available gaps, while an increase intraffic on Stevenson Road and the I-80 ramps willcreate an increased demand for those gaps.

The projected levels of congestion would be tosome extent self-limiting. The level of delay wouldencourage travelers to select alternate routes, orcould discourage anticipated development fromoccurring. This could have a significant adverseeconomic impact on existing and potentialbusinesses. In either case, traffic congestionwould reach a point significantly higher than atpresent.

Table 8: Existing and Projected Levels of Service.

Existing and Projected Levels-of-Service

Intersection Type

2010 Existing 2020 Medium-Term 2030 Long-Term

Delay

LOS Delay

LOS Delay

LOS

Gibb Road Unsig 14.0 sec B 17.1 sec C 14.2 hr F

I-80 WB Off-ramp Unsig 81.2 sec F 1.4 hr F * F

I-80 EB Off- ramp Unsig 18.1 sec C 6.8 min F * F

Stevenson Road Unsig 101.1 sec F 27.8 min F 15.3 hr F

Route 208 Unsig 14.5 sec B 27.5 sec D 1.8 hr F

Note: Values reported for unsignalized intersections represent minor street approach.*Value exceeds threshold of analysis methodology.


33

2030 Long-Term ScenarioResults of the HCS analysis performed usingprojected 2030 traffic volumes on the existingroadway network are also summarized in Table 8.

As shown in the table, intersection operation isprojected to degrade significantly at the I-80 rampsand at Stevenson Road. The projected levels ofservice are essentially off the charts, and areunlikely to occur in reality.

These high levels of projected congested delaycan be traced to the operation of theseintersections under one- or two-way stop control.As discussed previously, vehicular operation atsuch intersections requires vehicles to wait andselect a gap in cross traffic large enough to permitentering the intersection safely. Two of theseintersections are already at capacity. Increases incross traffic on Route 8 will reduce the numberand size of available gaps, while an increase in

traffic on the minor streets ramps will create anincreased demand for those gaps.

The projected level of development could notoccur without adding significant new roadwaycapacity to the study area, as outlined in thefollowing section. Without such additionalcapacity, the projected levels of congestion wouldbe self-limiting. The level of delay wouldencourage travelers to select alternate routes, orcould discourage anticipated development fromoccurring. This could have a significant adverseeconomic impact on existing and potentialbusinesses. In either case, traffic congestionwould reach a point significantly higher than atpresent.


34

POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVESA range of alternatives were evaluated todetermine their ability to meet the objectives of thisstudy. Among these measures were all-way stopcontrol at key intersections, signalization, roadwayand roundabouts. Some widening and geometricimprovements were evaluated in conjunction withthese measures. Land use controls wereevaluated as an alternative to capacityimprovements. A range of pedestrianimprovements were also considered.

All-Way Stop Control The lowest-cost method to improve level-of-service at two-way stop controlled intersections isconversion to all-way stop control (AWSC). Byalternating the right-of-way between vehicles onmajor- and minor-street approaches, an all-waystop can provide significantly more opportunity fortraffic on the minor street to enter the intersection.This can substantially reduce the delay on theminor street, although at the cost of introducingdelay on the formerly free-flowing major street.

All-way stop control is somewhat unconventionalon arterial highways, but can work well if trafficvolumes are moderate and evenly balanced. HCS

analysis indicates that all-way stop control wouldprovide some mitigation of traffic congestion at keyintersections, but would not provide acceptablelevels of under projected 2020 conditions.Projected LOS is summarized in Table 9.

Site-specific conditions would make all-way stopcontrol less than ideal. Stop signs on a majorarterial are often unexpected, and shoulder-mounted signs may not be visible from all lanes.Additional measures, such as flashing beacons,might be required to assure safety. Tractor-trailer combinations have poor acceleration anddeceleration, and requiring each vehicle to stop ata succession of stop signs would be inefficient andcould lead to adverse air quality and noiseimpacts.

Given these limitations, all-way stop control doesnot appear to provide an acceptable mitigation ofthe projected traffic conditions in the Route 8corridor. All-way stop control could be anacceptable interim measure during the design andinstallation of long-term improvements at theseintersections, should traffic congestion or safetyissues require more immediate resolution.

Table 9: LOS with All-Way Stop Control.

LOS with All-Way Stop Control

Intersection


TWSC TWSC AWSC TWSC AWSC

Delay

LOS Delay

LOS Delay

LOS Delay

LOS Delay

LOS

Gibb Road 14.0 sec B 17.1 sec C N/A - 14.2 hr F 22.4 min F

I-80 WB Off-ramp 81.2 sec F 1.4 hr F 80.9 sec F * F 41.6 min F

I-80 EB Off- ramp 18.1 sec C 6.8 min F 138.0 sec F * F 40.4 min F

Stevenson Road 101.1 sec F 27.8 min F 24.2 sec C 15.3 hr F 18.5 min F

Route 208 14.5 sec B 27.5 sec D 12.7 sec B 1.8 hr F 10.6 min FTWSC – Two-way stop controlAWSC – All-way stop controlWB – Westbound; EB - EastboundN/A – Not analyzed* Value exceeds threshold of analysis methodology.


35

SignalizationSignalization of key intersections could alsoprovide some improvements at a reasonable cost,as shown in Table 10.

2020 Projected Conditions

Under projected 2020 conditions, the intersectionsof Route 8 with Stevenson Road and the I-80 off-ramps would operate at acceptable levels ofservice. This analysis indicates that no additionalwidening or turn lanes would be required on Route8 or the I-80 off-ramps to support signalization.The I-80 off-ramp intersections would operateacceptably with two-phase signal operation andpermissive left turn control.

Some geometric improvements would be requiredat the Stevenson Road intersection to supportsignalization. These are shown graphically inFigure 18. Primarily, this would consist ofrelocating the TA service plaza exit closer toRoute 8, allowing it to operate as a fifth leg of theintersection. This approach would be controlledby a separate, exclusive signal phase. Thegeometric improvements would also includewidening the Stevenson Road approach to providea full 12-foot lane in each direction, installation ofcrosswalks on all approaches, and defining thecurb returns and pavement edge lines to betterdelineate the intersection.

LOS with Signal Control

Intersection


TWSC TWSC Signal TWSC Signal

Delay

LOS Delay

LOS Delay

LOS Delay

LOS Delay

LOS

Gibb Road 14.0 sec B 17.1 sec C N/A - 14.2 hr F 32.7 sec C

I-80 WB Off-ramp 81.2 sec F 1.4 hr F 18.2 sec B * F 57.1 sec E

I-80 EB Off- ramp 18.1 sec C 6.8 min F 19.1 sec B * F 46.0 sec D

Stevenson Road 101.1 sec F 27.8 min F 22.4 sec C 15.3 hr F 35.1 sec D

Route 208 14.5 sec B 27.5 sec D N/A - 1.8 hr F 36.2 sec DN/A – Not analyzedTWSC – Two-way stop control* Value exceeds threshold of analysis methodology.

Table 10: LOS with Signal Control.

Figure 18: Stevenson Road GeometricImprovements.


36

2030 Projected ConditionsUnder projected 2030 conditions, the intersectionsof Route 8 with Stevenson Road, the I-80 off-ramps and Route 208 would operate at a poorlevel of service, even with significant widening ofRoute 8 and the intersecting ramps and streets.

As shown in Figure 19, the projectedimprovements would include widening the I-80overpass to 7 lanes, to permit dual left turn lanesonto and off of each ramp. Widening wouldextend from Gibb Road to Willow Street, in orderto provide additional turning lanes at StevensonRoad and Gibb Road. Additional widening may berequired further north and south to accommodateadjacent driveways as well.

Even with this extensive widening, the HCSanalysis indicates that the I-80 westbound off-ramp intersection would operate at LOS E. The I-80 eastbound off-ramp and Stevenson Roadintersections would operate at LOS D.

Traffic Signal WarrantsThe results of a traffic signal warrants analysis atthe key study area intersections are summarizedin Table 11: Warrant Analysis Summary. TheManual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices(MUTCD) mandates an engineering study todetermine whether installation of a traffic signal isjustified at a particular intersection. The MUTCDthen establishes eight warrants which, if met, canjustify the installation of a traffic signal. Thesewarrants are based upon the evaluation of a rangeof traffic conditions, pedestrian characteristics, andphysical conditions of the intersection.

Under 2010 existing traffic conditions, theintersection of Route 8 with the I-80 eastbound off-ramp meets the volume criteria of Warrant 3: PeakHour. Two additional intersections, StevensonRoad and I-80 Westbound Off-ramp, meet thevolume conditions of Warrant 2: Four HourVehicular Volume, if adjusted to reflect the highproportion of large trucks in the traffic stream.Such an adjustment is not typically made, but fieldobservations and actual traffic counts indicate thatthe truck percentages observed are significantlyoutside the standard range, and that thisadjustment follows from the guidance provided inthe MUTCD.

Under 2020 projected conditions, the intersectionsof Route 8 with both I-80 off-ramps, StevensonRoad and Route 208 all meet the volumeconditions of Warrant 3: Peak Hour. These are

conditions that would be met with full build-out ofthe Barkeyville Industrial Park and the East Gatedevelopment, and would require futurereevaluation following actual development of thesesites.

Under projected 2030 traffic conditions, theintersection of Gibb Road also meets the volumeconditions of Warrant 3. It can be anticipated thatunder the traffic conditions of this full build-out ofdevelopable land within the borough, a number ofother driveways would also warrant signalization.

Discussion with the Traffic Engineering Unit ofPennDOT District 1-0 indicated that they will not

Figure 19: Route 8 Widening.


37

accept the adjusted warrant analysis to justifytraffic signal installation under existing conditions,but they concur that signalization is likely to bewarranted in the future with increasingdevelopment and growth in traffic..

Warrant Analysis Summary

Intersection

Warrant Met

2010 Existing Conditions2020 Projected

Conditions2030 Projected

Conditions

Gibb Road Not met Not Met Peak Hour

I-80 WB Off-Ramps Not met* Peak Hour Peak Hour

I-80 EB Off-Ramp Peak hour Peak Hour Peak Hour

Stevenson Road Not met* Peak Hour Peak Hour

Route 208 Not met. Peak Hour Peak Hour

* Intersections at I-80 WB Off-ramp and at Stevenson Road met the Four-Hour Warrant if analysis iscalibrated to reflect the high percentage of large trucks in the traffic stream. However, PennDOTDistrict 1-0 Traffic Unit did not accept this calibration.

Table 11: Warrant Analysis Summary.


38

RoundaboutA third option is the installation of a roundabout atthe intersection of Route 8 and Route 208, asshown in Figure 20. A modern roundabout isdesigned to operate in a free-flowing manner, withtraffic entering the roundabout yielding the right-of-way to traffic circulating around the roundabout.Such roundabouts have recently returned to favoras an option for traffic control due to their manyadvantages over all-way stop or signal control.

Among these advantages are:

Significant safety improvement, Reduced delay during off-peak

periods, Increased capacity due to

continuous flow, Lower maintenance costs, Potential focal point or gateway, and Traffic calming for traffic entering the

community.

The Route 208/Route 8 intersection would be asuitable candidate for installation of a roundabout.Traffic volumes are reasonably well balanced, withsignificant percentages of traffic turning at theintersection.

The HCM 2000 does not explicitly define LOS forroundabouts, but indicates that this location wouldoperate at a volume-to-capacity ratio of between0.43 and 0.52 under projected 2030 conditions.This is comparable to the projected LOS for asignal at this location. Finally, the constructioncost of a roundabout at this location is estimatedto be comparable to that of a traffic signal andassociated widening of approach roadways.

Figure 20: Route 208 Roundabout Potential Layout.


39

Land Use ControlThe alternatives outlined previously all involvemanaging future traffic congestion by increasingroadway capacity through changes in trafficcontrol combined with geometric improvements.As an alternative, future traffic congestion could bemanaged by land use controls, keeping futuretraffic growth within the capacity of the roadwaynetwork.

The 2030 Land Use Control Scenario outlinedpreviously in this report was evaluated as analternative. This scenario was based upon fullbuild-out of the zoned land within the Borough,with the following restrictions and limitations:

Downzone industrial land in thenortheastern and southeasternsections of the Borough toConservation.

Limit commercial/retail developmentby right to 16,000 square feet perparcel.

Restrict conditional uses withinConservation zones.

The trip generation from the resulting level ofdevelopment was forecasted and analyzed it usingthe existing roadway network, with the trafficsignal and configuration developed for the 2020Medium-Term scenario. Preliminary analysis

indicated that the single-lane off-ramps would beunable to accommodate the resulting level oftraffic, but a realistic widening of these ramps toaccommodate left turn lanes could beaccomplished within the existing right of way at amoderate construction cost. The results of thisanalysis are presented in Table 12. The results ofthe analysis indicated that the imposition ofreasonable land use controls could limit trafficgrowth to a level that could be accommodated withonly moderate additional capital improvements tothe transportation system. A somewhat morerestrictive set of controls could further reduceprojected traffic growth to a level that would notrequire additional capacity improvements. Such aset of controls has not been fully detailed as partof this study, but might include:

Downzoning industrial land,

Limiting commercial/retail develop-ment by right to 16,000 square feetper parcel,

Restricting conditional uses withinConservation zones,

Restricting the maximum size ofwarehouses, and

Downzoning some sections of theInterchange Development Corridor toConservation.

LOS with Land Use Control

Intersection

2010 Existing2020 Medium-

Term 2030 Long-TermTWSC Signalized

ExistingWithoutControl

WithoutControl

With Land UseControl

Delay

LOS Delay

LOS Delay

LOS Delay

LOS

Gibb Road 14.0 sec B N/A - 32.7 sec(1) D 56.6 sec(2) E

I-80 WB Off-ramp 81.2 sec F 18.2 sec B 57.1 sec(1) E 278 sec(2) F

I-80 EB Off- ramp 18.1 sec C 19.1 sec B 46.0 sec(1) D 219 sec(2) F

Stevenson Road 101.1 sec F 22.4 sec C 35.1 sec(1) D 37.1 sec(2) D

Route 208 14.5 sec B N/A - 36.2 sec D 24.3 sec CN/A – Not analyzedTWSC – Two-way stop control(1) Assumes widening of Route 8 to 7 lanes across I-80(2) Assumes addition of turn lanes on I-80 off-ramps; no widening of Route 8.

Table 12: LOS with Land Use Control.


40

Pedestrian ImprovementsCurrently, pedestrian accommodations within theBorough of Barkeyville are minimal. Pedestrianscan walk along the shoulders of the roadwaybetween Gilmore Road and Willow Street. Southof Willow Street, the shoulders become narrow,and pedestrians walk alongside the road. Noprovisions are made for pedestrian crossings ofRoute 8 anywhere within the Borough. This wasrecognized by the Southern Venango CountyComprehensive Plan, which included sidewalksand crosswalks as part of the Barkeyville ConceptPlan.

Alternatives that could improve pedestrianaccommodations within the study area areoutlined below. The benefit of these alternativeswould be in a significantly enhanced pedestrianenvironment. Such benefits are difficult toquantify, including benefits to roadway capacityand cannot be analyzed using the traditional trafficmodels.

CrosswalksCrosswalks are anticipated to be installed as partof any all-way stop or traffic signal proposed in thisstudy. Traffic signals would also includepedestrian walk/don’t walk indications inaccordance with PennDOT standards.

Sidewalks in Gateway AreaThe Barkeyville Concept Plan includes proposedstreetscape improvements throughout theInterchange Development Corridor. Sidewalks areone element, which could be installedindependently as a pedestrian improvement, withother streetscape elements installed separately.This study recommends the installation ofsidewalks between Dholu Road and Willow Street,connected by crosswalks at the signalizedintersections. The 150- to 180-foot right of waythroughout this section provides ample space toaccommodate a sidewalk. Sidewalks cannot beinstalled on the I-80 overpass without replacementof the bridge, but the shoulder can accommodatepedestrian movements in this segment. Otherelements included in the concept plan for theGateway area are street lighting, street trees,screening of the parking lots and landscaping andsignage at the Interchange ramps.

Sidewalks in Village AreaSidewalks could be extended through the villagearea between Willow Street and Route 208.Sidewalks in this area would enhance the villageatmosphere, and make it easier for residents towalk to churches and the commercial areas. The60-foot right of way can accommodate sidewalks.

Walkways in Village AreaA lower-cost alternative to sidewalks in the villagearea would be an enhanced network of pedestrianwalkways, as shown in Figure 21. This networkappears to be the remnants of the original streetgrid established for the village of Barkeyville.These walkways are separate from adjacent landparcels, although their legal status as rights of wayis not clear. This network could be cleared ofbrush and resurfaced with aggregate to provide animproved pedestrian network at a fraction of theconstruction cost of sidewalks. However, thisnetwork does not extend throughout the villagearea and has some gaps resulting from privateland ownership.

Figure 21: Potential Pedestrian Walkways.


41

Relocation of TA DrivewayThe 2007 Barkeyville Industrial Park Traffic ImpactStudy included recommendations for therelocation of the TA service plaza exit a minimumof 250 feet further west along Stevenson Road inorder to simplify the operations of the StevensonRoad Route 8 intersection. However, siteconstraints detract from the feasibility of thisoption.

Stevenson Road descends westward from Route8 at a 6% grade, while the TA service plaza isconstructed on fill at grade with Route 8. As aresult, Stevenson Road is approximately 10 to 12feet lower than the service plaza in this location.Relocation of the driveway would either requireraising the grade of Stevenson Road or loweringthe service plaza.

Raising the grade of Stevenson Road would bechallenging due to the presence of a pond andwetland located 700 feet west of Route 8. Theseconstraints can be seen in the three-dimensionalview shown in Figure 22.

Lowering the service plaza exit to match theStevenson Road grade would also be challenging.The exit driveway needs to accommodate a trafficmix that effectively consists of 100% tractor-trailercombinations. These vehicles have shallowacceleration and deceleration profiles, and arestrongly influenced by roadway grades. In order toavoid an unacceptable sag vertical curve at the

driveway portal and to maintain an acceptablegrade, the exit drive would need to extendapproximately 300 feet into the service plaza site.This would seriously disrupt plaza operations, andcould result in a loss of half of the truck parkingarea on that site.

An alternate alignment could bring the drivewayfrom the TA Service Plaza over Stevenson Roadvia a structure to the Kwik Fill Service Plaza,allowing traffic from both plazas to exit onto Route8 from a combined driveway located oppositeWillow Street. Construction costs would besignificant for this option, and it would requireacquiring an easement through the Kwik Fillproperty. Traffic exiting the combined drivewaywould face capacity issues similar to those atStevenson Road. This alternative is notconsidered to be cost effective.

We also investigated relocating the TA exit to alocation on Route 8 midway between StevensonRoad and the TA service plaza entrance. Thislocation would maintain an approximately 200-footspacing between the driveways and theintersection. As shown in Figure 23 and Figure 24Turning movements from this potential drivewaywould have a limited impact on internal TA siteoperations and would work acceptable on Route 8.This configuration would simplify operations at theStevenson Road intersection and would greatlyimprove LOS at that location. However, it wouldnot significantly improve projected LOS for trafficexiting the TA service plaza. It would also workcontrary to the project goal of limiting drivewayaccess throughout the corridor. Relocation of thisdriveway would thus be a short-term solution.

Figure 23: Right Turns from Relocated TA Exit

Figure 22: Aerial view of Stevenson Road adjacentto TA Service Plaza.

Pond

Stevenson Road

TA Service Plaza


42

A longer-term solution that is recommended is therelocation of the driveway closer to Route 8, whichwas discussed previously as part of thesignalization of the Stevenson Road intersection.However, this solution could only be implementedafter traffic volumes increase to the point wheresignalization would be warranted.

Center Turn LaneA center median lane could improve the operationof left turns from intersecting streets and ramps.Conceptually, this lane could allow left turns to bemade in two stages, from the intersecting streetinto the median, and then merging from themedian lane into the traffic flow. Theoretically, thiswould allow each stage of the turn to occur with agap only in the one conflicting traffic flow. Theexisting cartway could be restriped to provide sucha media, either through narrowing shoulders orremoving one or more existing through lanes.However, review of the turning envelope of largetrucks indicates that this median lane wouldimpede left turns from Route 8 onto the I-80 rampsand intersecting streets. Large vehicles paused inthe median between stages of the turn would alsocreate potential sight distance and safety impacts.This alternative is not recommended for furtherconsideration.

Figure 24: Left Turns from Relocated TA Exit.


43

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVECommunity InputThe alternatives outlined in this study werepresented to the community at the second publicmeeting and at the Barkeyville Borough Councilmeeting. Some alternatives raised strong concernamong members of the community. Among theelements of concern were:

Extensive DevelopmentThe 2030 Long-Term full build-out scenario isunacceptable to many members of the communitygiven that the projected traffic congestion andrequired mitigation measures would drasticallyalter the nature of the community.

Land Use ControlsLand use controls also are unacceptable to manymembers of the community. Individual propertyowners and businesses were opposed torestrictions on their ability to develop theirproperty. Some community leaders wereconcerned that excessive land use controls wouldstifle economic development.

Implementation CostsImplementation costs are a significant concern tothe Borough and to the citizens. The financialresources of the Borough are extremely limited.The projects capital costs of the alternatives arefar beyond the Borough’s capacity, and even theannual maintenance costs of traffic signaloperation could be problematic.

Land AcquisitionWhile most alternatives could be constructedwithin the existing right-of-way, the Route 208improvements would encroach onto adjacentproperties.

Based upon the goals and objectives establishedfor this study and the input from the community,Preferred Alternatives for the Route 8 Corridor areoutlined below.

Preferred AlternativesSignalization of Stevenson RoadThe intersection of Route 8 and Stevenson Roadwill be signalized, combined with geometricimprovements to Stevenson Road and the TA

Service Plaza driveway at the intersection. Nowidening of Route 8 is anticipated. The signal willinclude crosswalks and pedestrian indications.Signal warrants are not met for this location under2010 conditions, and until signalization iswarranted, relocation of the TA driveway to Route8 may provide mitigation in the interim.

Signalization of I-80 Westbound Off-RampThe intersection of the I-80 westbound off-rampwith Stevenson Road will be signalized. Nowidening of the ramp or Route 8 is anticipated.The signal will include crosswalks and pedestrianindications.

Signalization of I-80 Eastbound Off-RampThe intersection of the I-80 eastbound off-rampwith Stevenson Road will be signalized. Nowidening of the ramp or Route 8 is anticipated.The signal will include crosswalks and pedestrianindications.

Sidewalks in Gateway AreaSidewalks will be constructed along both sides ofRoute 8 between Dholu Road and Willow Street.The sidewalks will be constructed within theexisting right of way. Sidewalks will not beconstructed on the bridge over I-80.

Access Management ControlsThe Borough of Barkeyville will implement accessmanagement controls including:

Restrictions on the locations ofdriveways and future traffic signals,

Implementation of requirements fortraffic impact studies for all newdevelopments, and

Transferring the responsibility ofmitigating the traffic impact of sitedevelopment projects to developers.

These controls will be implemented through theVenango County Subdivision and LandDevelopment Ordinance (SALDO). VenangoCounty is currently reviewing this ordinance, andanticipates revisions next year incorporating theaccess management and traffic impact studyrequirement recommendations of this study.


44

Implementation CostsCapital CostsCapital cost estimates for the PreferredAlternatives are presented in Table 13: PreferredAlternative Capital Costs. These estimates arebased upon conceptual designs and unit costsobtained from recently-bid PennDOT projects.

The cost estimates include design, construction,and project management costs. Detailedcalculations are presented in Appendix C.

These cost estimates are based upon 2010 data.Construction costs have been extremely volatile inthe past decade, but generally costs can beexpected to increase by 5% to 7% per year.

Preferred Alternative Capital Costs

Alternative

Estimated Capital Costs

Design Construction Management Total

Signalization of I-80 WB Off-Ramp $24,000 $171,241 $19,524 $214,765

Signalization of I-80 EB Off-Ramp $24,000 $169,964 $19,396 $213,360

Signalization of Stevenson Road $24,000 $194,910 $21,891 $240,800

Geometric Improvements at Stevenson Road $50,000 $186,250 $23,625 $259,875

Sidewalks in Gateway Area $100,000 $853,070 $95,307 $1,048,377

Access Management -- -- -- --

Total $222,000 $1,575,435 $159,743 $1,977,177Table 13: Preferred Alternative Capital Costs.

Table 14: Preferred Alternative Operating Costs.

Operating CostsThe Borough of Barkeyville will be responsible foroperation and maintenance of the traffic signalsincluded in the Preferred Alternative. Estimatedannual operating costs are presented in Table 14.These cost estimates include contracted routinemaintenance, electrical service, and routinereplacement of LED signal heads.

These estimates do not include replacement ofdamaged equipment, as such needs are sporadicand impossible to predict. Such costs could reachas high as $20,000 per incident, but may berecoverable from the party responsible for thedamage.

Preferred AlternativeAnnual Operations and Maintenance Costs

Signalized IntersectionAnnual

CostSignal at I-80 WB Off-Ramp $3,000

Signal at I-80 EB Off-Ramp $3,000

Signal at Stevenson Road $3,000

Total $9,000Includes routine maintenance, electrical power andreplacement of LED signal heads. Does not includereplacement of damaged equipment.


45

Future ConsiderationA number of alternatives evaluated during thisstudy have the potential to meet projected orpotential needs. However, in the near-term, thereis either no current need or no consensus forimplementation. These are outlined here, andmay be candidates for future implementation asland use and transportation needs change in thefuture.

Land Use ControlsThe impact of the 2030 Long-term Full Build-outland use scenario was clearly unacceptable to thecommunity. However, the specific restrictionsoutlined in the Land Use Control scenario wereunacceptable to a number of property owners. Atthe present time, economic conditions do not favoreven the smallest development projects, makingthe full build-out appear unlikely within theforeseeable future. However, the zoning,accessibility, and utilities are present in theBorough to support this level of developmentshould economic conditions change in the future.Some balance of land use management andtransportation capacity will need to be negotiatedbetween the competing visions of the community.

Widening of Route 8The future growth scenarios outlined in this studyindicate that at some future time, the basiccapacity of the roadway network could beexceeded, requiring additional capacity which willmost likely entail widening of Route 8. Again,some appropriate balance of land use

management and transportation capacity will needto be negotiated.

Additional SignalsThis study has identified signalization of threeintersections as part of the Preferred Alternative.The analysis indicates that depending on the levelof future development, additional traffic signalsmay be required at other locations in the future.These signals are neither warranted nor requiredat this time, but an appropriate traffic signalspacing plan will allow for their eventualinstallation if needed.

Pedestrian WalkwaysEarly in the study, the community identified theneed for improved pedestrian accommodations inthe village area. This is consistent with needsidentified in previous planning studies. Neither ofthe options presented, sidewalks along Route 8 orenhanced walkways behind the residences,appeared to have strong support forimplementation at this time.

Route 208 RoundaboutA roundabout at the Route 8 Route 208intersection shows promise as an alternative to atraffic signal. However, the need for any such levelof control at this location would not occur untilmany years in the future, and the need woulddepend upon actual land use and traffic changes.The roundabout appears to offer many potentialbenefits to the community, and should beconsidered as a future mitigation if conditionsshould warrant.


46

TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND DRIVEWAY SPACING PLANSTraffic Signal Spacing PlanIdeal SpacingAppropriate spacing of signalized intersections isrequired in order to provide acceptableprogression of through traffic. Intersections thatare too closely spaced cannot provide progressionin both directions with realistic cycle lengths.Based upon the Transportation Research Circular#456, published by the Transportation ResearchBoard, optimal spacing of signals with a 60-second cycle is 1,540 feet for a roadway with a 35-mph speed limit, or 1,980 feet for a roadway with a45-mph speed limit.

Preferred AlternativeThe community’s preferred alternative includestraffic signals at the intersections of Route 8 withthe I-80 westbound ramps, I-80 eastbound ramps,and Stevenson Road. The spacing between theseintersections is significantly less than the optimalspacing, with 760 feet between the I-80 off-rampsand 890 feet between the I-80 eastbound off-rampand Stevenson Road.

A Synchro analysis indicates that acceptablecorridor levels of service can be maintained withthis signalization under projected 2020 trafficconditions. As shown in the Synchro green bandanalysis in Appendix D, northbound, link greenbands of 23 seconds will be provided betweenStevenson Road and I-80 eastbound on-ramp,and 35 seconds between the I-80 on-ramps.Southbound link green bands of 11 seconds willbe provided between the I-80 on-ramps and 16seconds between I-80 westbound and StevensonRoad.

To a significant degree, the traffic patterns atthese intersections minimize the need for optimalprogression. Relatively little traffic travels throughon Route 8 through the entire corridor, with mosttraffic traveling between the I-80 ramps anddestinations within the corridor. This traffic wouldturn onto Route 8 during the side street phase atone intersection and travel through the nextintersection. Essentially, this would allow forprogression of some traffic during all signalphases.

Potential Future SignalsThere is the potential for future signalization at anumber of other intersections, although this isneither warranted nor recommended at this time.Gilmore Road and Route 208 are east-westcorridors at the ends of the study area, and couldpotentially require signalization at some time in thefuture.

The intersections of Route 8 with Gibb Road, LogCemetery Road, and Willow Street couldpotentially warrant signalization at some futuretime. These Borough streets have the potential toprovide consolidated access to adjacentdevelopments, a situation that currently occurs atGibb Road, and that could occur at Willow Streetor Log Cemetery road with future development.The analysis indicates that these intersections willnot require signalization under 2020 conditions,but should be readdressed as part of any futuretraffic impact studies affecting these locations.

Finally, there are long stretches of Route 8 thatare currently sparsely developed, betweenGilmore Road and Gibb Road, between WillowStreet and Route 208, and south of Route 208.Access to any future developments in these areasshould be consolidated at streets or commondriveways spaced appropriately to provide efficientoperation should signalization be required.

Recommended Signal Spacing PlanBased upon these conditions, the signal spacingshown in Table 14 on the following page isrecommended.


47

Intersection Spacing

Gilmore Road (Irwin Township)1,980 feet

Potential Future Intersections1,980 feet

Gibb Road365 feet

I-80 WB Off-Ramp760 feet

I-80 EB Off-Ramp375 feet

Log Cemetery Road515 feet

Stevenson Road440 feet

Willow Street1,540 feet

Potential Future Intersections1,540 feet

Route 2081,980 feet

Potential Future Intersections

Note: Row alignment between columns reflectsspacing between intersections.

Table 14: Recommended Traffic Signal Spacing

It should be noted that not all of these signals arewarranted or recommended at this time; this tableidentifies potential locations and spacing. Signalsat any of these locations would only be installedupon traffic study demonstrating that signalizationis appropriate and would improve traffic operationswithin the corridor. Traffic signal installationshould not be considered at any locationinconsistent with this table.


48

Driveway Spacing PlanRecommended SpacingBased upon recommended highway accessmanagement ordinances presented in theAppendix, driveways along a principal arterial suchas Route 8 should not be located closer than 600feet to an intersection or to other driveways.

Within the developed area of Barkeyville, it maynot be feasible to maintain this spacing. Site-specific variances may be acceptable following atraffic study, in accordance with the guidelinesbelow.

Signalized IntersectionsBased upon criteria established in the AASHTOPolicy on Geometric Design of Highways andStreets (“Green Book”) and in 67 PA CodeChapter 414, driveways should not be locatedwithin the functional area of an intersection.

Based upon these criteria, a set of guidelines hasbeen developed to govern the location ofdriveways within the Route 8 corridor. Therequired spacing depends on the posted speedlimit for that roadway segment. Detailedcalculations are presented in Appendix E.

For a roadway with a speed limit of 45-mph (e.g.,Route 8 north of Willow Street or south of Route208), driveways should not be installed within 405feet upstream or 300 feet downstream of asignalized or potentially signalized intersection.Furthermore, any driveway between 300 and 405feet downstream from a signalized intersectionshould be restricted to right turn in, right turn outonly. Driveways located between 405 and 718feet upstream from a signalized intersectionshould be restricted to right turn in, right turn outonly, although left turns in may be permitted if sodetermined by a traffic engineering study. Leftturns should be prohibited from driveways withinthis zone. These restrictions are showngraphically in Figure 25.

For a roadway with a speed limit of 35-mph(between Willow Street and Route 208), drivewaysshould not be installed within 270 feet upstream or150 feet downstream of a signalized or potentiallysignalized intersection. Furthermore, anydriveway between 150 and 270 feet downstreamfrom a signalized intersection should be restrictedto right turn in, right turn out only. Drivewayslocated between 270 and 408 feet upstream froma signalized intersection should be restricted to

right turn in, right turn out only, although left turnsin may be permitted if so determined by a trafficengineering study. Left turns should be prohibitedfrom driveways within this zone. Theserestrictions are shown graphically in Figure 26.

Spacing between DrivewaysTo reduce conflicts between turning vehicles,driveways should be located at least 150 feetapart in a 35-mph zone, and at least 300 feet apartin a 45-mph zone. This minimum spacing doesnot apply for minimum use driveways, servingsingle-family residential properties.

ImplementationCurrently, there are numerous driveways alongRoute 8 that do not conform to this requirement.Where possible, as part of signalization or accessmanagement, nonconforming driveways should beremoved and access rerouted through signalizedintersections.

New driveways may be approved conditionally atnonconforming locations if signals have not yetbeen installed, with turn restrictions to be imposedupon signalization.

Figure 25: Driveway Restrictions 45 MPH.

Figure 26: Driveway restrictions at 35 MPH.


49

Key nonconforming locations are discussed below.

Gibb Road

Gibb Road is located approximately 375 feetdownstream from the I-80 westbound off-ramp,which is proposed for signalization. By thesecriteria, a driveway at the Gibb Road locationshould be limited to right turns in, right turns outonly, while no driveway should be permittedacross from Gibb Road. However, Gibb Roadprovides a consolidated access point for threehigh-volume businesses. This access is criticaland should be maintained despite these proposedrestrictions.

TA Service Plaza Entrance/Auto Exit

This driveway is located approximately 350 feetdownstream from the I-80 eastbound off-ramp and

520 feet upstream from the Stevenson Roadintersection. Within this zone, a driveway shouldbe right-turn in, right turn out only, although leftturns in may be permitted. As part of thesignalization of Stevenson Road, automobile exitsshould be relocated to that signal.

Kwik Fill Service Plaza

The existing entrance is located approximately100 feet downstream from the Stevenson Roadintersection. Entering traffic should be relocatedto the existing exit opposite Willow Street.

CITGO and adjacent properties

The existing multiple driveways should beconsolidated at Stevenson Road or at LogCemetery Road.


50

IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING PLANThe implementation and funding of the proposedtransportation improvements and land userecommendations outlined as part of the preferredalternative will require a coordinated effortbetween the borough, county and the NWPRPDCwhich serves as the region’s Rural PlanningOrganization (RPO).

The signalization of the I-80 ramps, signalizationand geometry improvements at the intersection ofStevenson Road and Route 8 should berecommended by Venango County to the region’s2011-2014 Transportation Improvement Program(TIP). In addition, other funding sources areavailable to finance these improvements andshould be considered. These sources include thePennsylvania Infrastructure Bank (PIB) loan, theAppalachian Regional Commission (ARC) grant,and the relatively new Pennsylvania CommunityTransportation Initiative (PCTI). The ARC andPCTI grants are made available on a modestlycompetitive basis.

The PIB loan is administered by the PennsylvaniaDepartment of Transportation. The interest rate isa fixed rate at one half prime and is set uponreceipt of the loan application. The maximum loanterm is 10 years. This loan is available for thedesign, engineering, right-of-way and repair,reconstruction and construction of publichighways, as well as other transportation needssuch as bridges, public and private airports andrailroads and public transportation systems.Application for the PIB loan can be made at anytime by contacting the PIB Manager at (717) 787-5798.

The ARC grant provides funds for basicinfrastructure services that enhance economicdevelopment opportunities or address serioushealth issues for residents. The NWPRPDCregion is eligible to apply for this grant and at thetime of this report has made application to ARC.

The PCTI program is sponsored by thePennsylvania Department of Transportation andprovides both planning and construction funds tocommunities on a statewide competitive basis.Although the second round for PCTI applicationsrecently closed, consideration of the programshould be given should a future call forapplications occur. Eligible projects must improvethe integration of transportation and land use by

implementing one or more of the SmartTransportation themes (outlined earlier in thisdocument). It is highly recommended thatgateway improvements identified in the BarkeyvilleConcept Plan within the 2007 Southern VenangoCounty Regional Comprehensive Plan is includedin the PCTI application in association withrecommended transportation improvementsidentified in the preferred alternative if applicationis made to a future third round of the program.

In addition to the above mentioned fundingopportunities, Barkeyville and Venango Countyshould also leverage negotiation opportunities withdevelopers to help implement various elements ofthe transportation improvements (i.e., sidewalks,access roads, and signals) identified as part of thepreferred alternative. Transportation ImpactFees, as authorized by the PennsylvaniaMunicipalities Planning Code (MPC), can also bean effective funding mechanism for municipalitiesthat are projected to experience moderate orintense land development pressures. Impact feescan be used to leverage state and federal fundsfor improvements to state-owned roadways byfunding 50 percent of the total project cost. Theimplementation and administration of an impactfee ordinance requires specific studies that lead tothe development of a capital improvement planand impact fee. This option may not beappropriate for Barkeyville due to the relatively lowlevel of projected development and costsassociated with the required process to establishimpact fees. Barkeyville should carefully evaluatethe costs and feasibility of developing an impactfee ordinance should this funding option be takeninto consideration.

Land use improvements can be implementedthrough various tools authorized by the MPC.These tools are described in detail with actualPennsylvania community examples in a recentPennsylvania Department of TransportationPublication (Pub 662), “Improving the Land Use-Transportation Connection through LocalImplementation Tools.” This publication isavailable on the Department’s website:ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/PubsForms/Publications/PUB%20662.pdf.


51

CONCLUSIONProject SummaryThe Route 8 Land Use and Transportation Studywas conducted in close cooperation with thesponsoring agencies and key stakeholders. Thestudy included an analysis of transportation andland use conditions. Future land use scenarioswere developed, and traffic conditions wereprojected for these scenarios. A range ofalternatives were developed to mitigate projectedfuture transportation conditions, including roadwaycapacity improvements and land use controls.

Based upon public input, the PreferredAlternatives were selected. These alternativesmeet the goals and objectives established for thisstudy.

Meets Project GoalsThe Preferred Alternative, if implemented, willmeet the goals established for this study.

Signalization at the three intersections proposedwill improve operation in the study corridor, byreducing peak hour congestion.

Pedestrian improvements, including crosswalks,sidewalks and signal indications, will provideaccommodation for pedestrians and bicycles.

The signalized intersections will improve safety forvehicular and non-vehicular traffic. The sidewalkswill improve safety for non-vehicular traffic byproviding a route other than the roadway shoulderor the roadway itself.

The proposed driveway spacing plan will providethe tools to limit and control driveway accessthroughout the corridor.

The proposed access management regulationswill provide a mechanism for the Borough toassess developers for a fair share of the cost offuture transportation improvements.

By assessing developers a fair share of the cost oftransportation improvements, the accessmanagement regulations will encourage land usepolicies that are more sustainable and efficient.

Meets Project ObjectivesThe Preferred Alternative, if implemented will meetthe goals established for the study.

Signalization and realignment of the TA ServicePlaza exit will improve operations at StevensonRoad.

Signalization will address the safety problemsassociated with conflicts between large and smallvehicles at unsignalized intersections.

Signalization will maintain acceptable levels ofservice at the Stevenson Road and I-80intersections.

The proposed access management regulationswill allow the Borough to fairly evaluate and controlthe impacts of proposed developments.

The proposed access management regulationswill provide a mechanism for identifying thetransportation impacts of developments and forcapturing the cost of implementing thosedevelopments.

This study has identified a number of changes tothe zoning code that would allow the Borough tobetter manage future growth. The proposeddriveway spacing plan and access managementregulations will provide the Borough with the toolsto manage land uses and direct futuredevelopment.

Next StepsImplementation of the Preferred Alternatives willrequire further action by the Borough ofBarkeyville. The Borough has already begun thisprocess by authorizing Venango County to applyfor funding for the proposed signalization ofStevenson Road. Similar actions will be requiredto authorize, fund and eventually construct theother alternatives.

As the Borough moves forward with revisions to itszoning code, it will need to address therequirements for access control. For each newdevelopment within the study area, a traffic impactstudy should be conducted. Among site-specificevaluations, each study should conduct trafficcounts and analysis to determine whether signalwarrants are met at the intersections of StevensonRoad or the I-80 ramps.

APPENDIX A: PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

APPENDIX B:TRAFFIC DATA

APPENDIX C:COST ESTIMATES

APPENDIX D:SIGNAL SPACING PLAN

APPENDIX E:DRIVEWAY SPACING PLAN

APPENDIX F:DRAFT ACCESS MANAGEMENT

ORDINACES

APPENDIX A: PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

Newsletter #1

Public Meeting #1AdvertisementSign-In SheetPublic Comments

Newsletter #2

Public Meeting #2AdvertisementSign-In SheetPublic Comments

Newsletter #3

APPENDIX B: TRAFFIC DATA

ATR Counts

Manual Turning Movement Counts

Travel Time Runs

Crash Analysis

Warrant AnalysisI-80 WBI -80 EBStevenson Road

HCS Analysis2010 Existing Conditions2020 Mid-Term Projected Conditions2030 Full Buildout Projected Conditions2020 All-Way Stop Control2020 Signalization

Projected Traffic Volumes

Trip Generation

route 8 land use & transportation study … 8 land use final report...route 8 land use &...

Documents