york county long range transportation plan -...

York CountyLong Range

Transportation Plan2009 - 2035

Prepared by York County Planning Commmission

YAMPO Adopted June 25, 2009York County Commissioners Adopted - July 8, 2009

PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK

2009-2035

YORK COUNTY

LONG RANGE

TRANSPORTATION

PLAN

This report was funded in part through grant[s] from the

Federal Highway Administration [and Federal Transit Administration],

U.S. Department of Transportation. The views and opinions of the authors[or agency] expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the

U. S. Department of Transportation.”

York County Planning Commission

28 East Market StreetYork, Pennsylvania

June 25, 2009

Page Intentionally Blank

TABLE OF CONTENTSPage

Chapter I - Introduction

What is the York Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (YAMPO) and

How Does It Help You?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Overview of the Long Rang Transportation Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Federal and State Requirements for the Long Range Transportation Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

One Document, Two Purposes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Overview of Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Public Involvement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Chapter II - Factors, Goals, Principles and Plans

2003-2023 Long Range Transportation Plan Recommended Actions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Chapter III - Inventory

York County Population Projections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

York County Demographics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Map 1 - 2000 Inter-County Journey to Work Flow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18York County Roadway Functional Classification System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

York County Bridges.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

York County Transit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24York County Park and Ride Facilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

York County Railroads. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

York County Bicycle Routes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27York County Air Transportation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Ongoing Regional Efforts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Map 2 - Functional Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Map 3 - Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Map 4 - Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Map 5 - Park & Ride. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37Map 6 - Railroad Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Map 7 - Bike Routes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Map 8 - Airports. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Chapter IV - Identified Needs

Air Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Aviation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Bridges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47Capacity (Congestion Management). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Enhancements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Maintenance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50Rail. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Security. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

TABLE OF CONTENTSPage

Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Chapter V - Future Funding Decision

Public Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59Identified Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61Funding Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61Historic Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62Allocation of Future YAMPO Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Chapter VI - Project Selection Process

The Selection Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69Map 10 - 2009-2035 Long Range Transportation Plan Road Maintenance Groups . . . . . . . 78Public Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Chapter VII - Reduce the Funding Gap

Paths to Reduce the Bridge Funding Gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87Paths to Reduce the Capacity Funding Gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87Paths to Reduce the Enhancements Funding Gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88Paths to Reduce the Maintenance Funding Gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89Paths to Reduce the Security Funding Gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Chapter VIII - Work Elements

2009-2035 Future Work Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Chapter IX - Additional Transportation Modes and Issues

Tourism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103Coordinated Public Transit/Human Service Transportation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104Pipeline Transportation/Transmission Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Chapter X - Capital Improvements

(In order to reduce costs, the Appendices will be provided upon request.)

Appendix A - Public Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

Appendix B - Funding Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245

Appendix C - Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249

CHAPTER I

Introduction

Introduction 3

Chapter IIntroduction

What is the York Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (YAMPO) and HowDoes It Help You?

Established in 1964, the York Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (YAMPO) was chartered,

by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT). The Charter was to recognize theYAMPO as the federally-designated and certified Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). The

YAMPO is responsible for conducting a continuing, comprehensive and cooperative (3C) process

for transportation planning, programming, and decision-making within York County.

The YAMPO is governed by an eight member board composed of state, county, city, transit, and

state and federal legislative representatives, as well as various participating, non-voting membersand Federal agency observers. The York County Planning Commission (YCPC) and PennDOT

District 8-0 are the primary staffs that conduct work on behalf of the YAMPO.

One of the main responsibilities of MPOs nationwide is the planning and programming of

transportation needs for the long term. This is accomplished through the development of a Long

Range Transportation Plan, which is the purpose of this document.

Overview of the Long Rang Transportation Plan

The 2009-2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (Plan) was adopted by the YAMPO on June, 25,2009 and adopted by the York County Board of Commissioners on July 8, 2009, following a 32-

month planning process. The purpose of this Plan is to develop a coordinated effort to implement

transportation improvements that attempt to achieve York County’s future goals that are supportedby public consensus of York County’s physical, social, economic, and institutional environments.

It is also a requirement of the U.S. Department of Transportation which is charged with certifying

MPO plans and programs.

This Plan is the umbrella document that serves as the basis for the Transportation Improvement

Program (TIP), a capital program of highway, bridge, and public transit projects. In addition toproviding a basis for construction projects, this Plan is used to identify special projects to utilize

planning funds.

This Plan is also used on an annual basis to develop the annual work plan for the YAMPO staff

through the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP). The UPWP identifies work tasks that will

accomplish objectives and implement policies of this Plan. In addition, this Plan identifies otherstakeholders that can help achieve the objectives and follow through with policies of the Plan.

http://www.dot.state.pa.us/

http://www.ycpc.org/Transp%2009-TIP.htm


York County Long Range Transportation Plan

Introduction4

This Plan is also used to evaluate the consistency of the transportation element of municipal and

multi-municipal comprehensive plans. Municipalities can also use the Plan to identify where future

infrastructure improvements can or can not support future development. Finally, YAMPO’s 2009 -2035 Long Range Transportation Plan serves as an educational guide and informational resource

for the citizens, businesses, and institutions in York County and the region.

This Plan strives to be consistent, coordinated, and complimentary to plans prepared by York

County, municipal governments, and the policies of the statewide transportation plan and other

relevant statewide policies.

Federal and State Requirements for the Long Range Transportation Plan

The “Safe Accountable Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity Act - Legacy for Users”(SAFETEA-LU) was signed into law in August 2005 by President Bush. This Federal transportation

legislation provided funding for highways, highway safety, and public transportation totaling a

minimum of $244.1 billion, which represents the largest surface transportation investment in ournation’s history. SAFETEA-LU requires a state or MPO to plan for future improvements prior to

using any federal funding included in the legislation.

SAFETEA-LU continues many of the transportation planning processes contained in the two

previous transportation bills, the “Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991" and

the “Transportation Equity Act for the 21 Century,” but it has instituted some additionalst

requirements. The first two bills integrated the planning and programming process and required

plans to evaluate all modes of transportation in addition to several planning factors. Some of the new

requirements add flexibility and efficiency to existing requirements, while others include new areasof emphasis. Safety and security are identified as separate items to be considered in the metropolitan

planning process. Public involvement and consultation requirements have been expanded along with

adding environmental mitigation.

In addition, all MPOs are required to have a long range transportation plan that covers a minimum

of 20 years at all times and is financially constrained between recommended projects and projectedrevenues. Finally, York County does not meet Federal air quality standards for ozone and fine

particle pollution. The “Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990“ require YAMPO to demonstrate that

projects and programs in the Long Range Plan do not cumulatively harm air quality.

This Plan also serves as the transportation plan component of the York County Comprehensive Plan

and must meet requirements of Article III of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC).The MPC requires that comprehensive plans account for the following transportation requirements:

the movement of people and goods, short- and long-range plan implementation strategies, and the

general location and extent of transportation facilities. Public meetings/hearings are also requiredprior to the adoption of the plan component.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/


http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/

http://www.ycpc.org/Comprehensive_plan.htm


http://www.dep.state.pa.us/HOSTING/GROWINGSMARTER/MPCode%5B1%5D.pdf


Introduction 5

Growth TrendsGrowth Management

Environmental ResourcesInventory

Natural Areas InventoryOpen Space and Greenways Plan

Water Resources PlanAgricultural Land Protection Plan

Housing PlanCommunity Facilities

Economic Development PlanHazard Mitigation Plan

Used in Development

2009-2035 Long RangeTransportation Plan

2009-2035 Long RangeTransportation Plan

One Document, Two Purposes

This Plan serves two separate purposes; it serves as the Federal requirement for the YAMPO, andit serves as the transportation component of the York County Comprehensive Plan. The Board ofthe YCPC is responsible for the development of the County Comprehensive Plan and has deferredthe development of the transportation component of the Comprehensive Plan to the YAMPO, sincethat is its focus area. In return, the YAMPO utilizes several com ponents of the CountyComprehensive Plan to supplem ent and provi de guidance to the transportation decision-m akingprocess for the development of this Plan as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1

One Plan, Two Purposes

York County Board ofCommissioners

York County Planning Commission

PA Municipalities Planning CodeRequirements

U.S. DOT

PennDOT

York Area Metropolitan PlanningOrganization (YAMPO)

Federal TransportationLegislation Requirements

Red - Approval Body, Blue - Recommendation Body, Green - Oversight Body

Yo

rk C

ou

nty

Co

mp

reh

ensi

ve


Introduction6

Overview of Process

This Plan process comprises five main steps of development, as follows:

- Inventory and Need Identification - The need for the infrastructure was developed by tensubcommittees and was identified without regard to the entity responsible for funding the need

or available funding.

- Prioritization and Policy Statements - Based on need and available funding, categories of thetransportation system were assigned ranges of investment. In addition, policies were developed

to reduce the need when YAMPO and York County funding sources were not available or

appropriate. - Project Selection - Criteria was developed to concentrate limited funding on the best projects.

Criteria was based on meeting the principles of the York County Comprehensive Plan,

Pennsylvania Mobility Plan, Keystone Principles, Smart Transportation and SAFETEA-LU.- Air Quality Conformity - Analysis of the impact the future transportation projects will have

on Ozone and Particulate Matter 2.5 was evaluated to ensure conditions would not deteriorate.

- Implementation - Identification of work tasks to be completed by YAMPO and otherstakeholders.

Public Involvement

There are no black and white decisions in planning for a community. Every professional opinion will

have another professional opinion contrary to the first. The most important part of an effective

planning process is the ability to reach the public and understand the vision that the residents havefor the area and the price they are willing to pay for that vision. The Long Range Transportation Plan

process attempted to involve the public in decision making throughout the development of the Plan.

The following are the public involvement opportunities within the development of the Long RangeTransportation Plan. A more detailed explanation and the results of each public involvement action

is included in the appropriate chapter. Each opportunity was developed based on the YAMPO Public

Involvement Plan (PIP).

- Receive Feedback: Collected public opinion that identified which areas of the transportation

system are the most important and should receive funding. This was gathered prior to anydecisions and the results were included in the decision making process.

- Receive Feedback: After each subcommittee identified project selection criteria and other

policies to reduce the need for capital funding, public opinion was collected as to whether theyagree or disagree with the criteria developed.

- Inform: After completion of the draft plan, the full document was available for review and

comment by the public. Comments were taken into consideration by the YAMPO, prior toadoption.

http://www.pamobilityplan.com/

http://www.newpa.com/find-and-apply-for-funding/keystone-principles/index.aspx

http://www.smart-transportation.com/


http://www.ycpc.org/transportation_docs/2007%20Public%20Involvement%20Plan.pdf

http://www.ycpc.org/transportation_docs/2007%20Public%20Involvement%20Plan.pdf

CHAPTER II

Factors, Goals, Principles and Plans

Factors, Goals, Principles and Plans 9

Chapter IIFactors, Goals, Principles and Plans

Instead of adopting goals and objectives just for this Plan, goals and objectives were reviewed from

other documents produced for York County, Pennsylvania and the United States. The factors, goals,principles and plans listed below help shape the direction of this Plan.

SAFETEA-LU requires that the YAMPO 2009 - 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan take thefollowing planning factors into consideration when developing long range plans:

1. Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling globalcompetitiveness, productivity, and efficiency.

2. Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users.

3. Increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users. 4. Increase the accessibility and mobility options available to people and for freight.

5. Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation and improved quality of

life.6. Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between

modes, for people and freight.

7. Promote efficient system management and operation. 8. Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system.

In addition to the Federal factors, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has developed three othervisioning documents/principles to guide Pennsylvania. The first is the Keystone Principles for

Growth, Investment and Resource Conservation, which lay-out general goals and objectives for

economic development and resource conservation agreed upon by the agencies and programs thatparticipated in their development. The Keystone Principles were adopted by the Economic

Development Cabinet in 2005 and are as follows:

1. Redevelop First.

2. Provide Efficient Infrastructure.

3. Concentrate Development.4. Increase Job Opportunities.

5. Foster Sustainable Businesses.

6. Restore and Enhance the Environment.7. Enhance Recreational and Heritage Resources.

8. Expand Housing Opportunities.

9. Plan Regionally; Implement Locally.10. Be Fair.

The second Commonwealth document deals directly with transportation and is called thePennsylvania Mobility Plan. The Mobility Plan was adopted in 2007 by the Pennsylvania

Department of Transportation (PennDOT). The goals and objectives for implementing the Mobility

Plan are as follows:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/index.htm


http://www.phmc.state.pa.us/bhp/pkp.pdf

http://www.phmc.state.pa.us/bhp/pkp.pdf



Factors, Goals, Principles and Plans10

1. Move People and goods safely and securely.

2. Improve quality of life by linking transportation, land use, economic development, and

environmental stewardship.3. Develop and sustain quality transportation infrastructure.

4. Provide mobility for people, goods, and commerce.

5. Maximize the benefit of transportation investments.

A third set of statewide guiding principles were developed in a joint effort between PennDOT and

the New Jersey Department of Transportation. Smart Transportation is the common name for theseprinciples. Smart Transportation means incorporating financial constraints, community needs, and

aspirations, land use, and environmental constraints during project development while finding the

appropriate balance between regional/statewide traffic movements and local/community desires.PennDOT has developed the following ten interrelated Smart Transportation principles to keep the

Commonwealth’s transportation network on a sustainable path:

1. Money counts.

2. Choose projects with high value-to-price ratio.

3. Enhance the local network.4. Look beyond level-of-service.

5. Safety first, and maybe safety only.

6. Accommodate all modes.7. Leverage and preserve existing investments.

8. Build towns and not sprawl.

9. Understand the context; plan and design within the context.10. Develop local governments as strong land use partners.

Another document, the York County Comprehensive Plan, was also used to provide guidance andinput into the future of the transportation system within York County. The different elements of the

York County Comprehensive Plan are as follows:

1. Growth Trends

2. Growth Management Plan

3. Environmental Resource Inventory4. Natural Areas Inventory

5. Open Space and Greenways Plan

6. Water Resources Plan7. Agricultural Land Protection Plan

8. Housing Plan

9. Community Facilities10. Hazard Mitigation Plan

11. Economic Development Plan

http://www.smart-transportation.com/


http://www.ycpc.org/index_docs/Growth%20Trends-Final%202008.pdf

http://www.ycpc.org/index_docs/Growth%20Mgmt%20-%20Complete.pdf

http://www.ycpc.org/index_docs/Env%20Inventory%20-%20Complete.pdf

http://www.ycpc.org/index_docs/NAI%20Complete.pdf

http://www.ycpc.org/index_docs/Open%20Space%20Plan-complete%20with%20all%20maps.pdf

http://www.ycpc.org/index_docs/Water%20Res%20Plan.pdf

http://www.ycpc.org/index_docs/Ag%20Protection%20Plan%20w%20-%20Maps.pdf

http://www.ycpc.org/index_docs/Housing%20Text%20complete%20w%20maps.pdf

http://www.ycpc.org/index_docs/CommunityFacilities%20-%20complete%20w%20maps.pdf

http://www.ycpc.org/index_docs/Haz%20Mit%20Plan%20-%20Final.pdf



Factors, Goals, Principles and Plans 11

All five documents were instrumental in the development of this Plan. These documents were used

to identify the transportation needs of York County; identify funding ranges by transportation

category; prepare transportation policies; and develop project selection criteria. The goals,objectives, principles, and plans that were instrumental in developing specific actions, criterion or

policy are identified with the appropriate recommendation in Chapter VI, Project Selection.

2003-2023 Long Range Transportation Plan Recommended Actions

A plan is only as successful as the implementation of the recommended actions. The 2003 - 2023

Long Range Transportation Plan Report Card lists each recommended action from the 2003 - 2023Long Range Transportation Plan and identifies whether the action was addressed or not addressed.

The following is a summary of the report card.

There were a total of 49 actions identified in the 2003-2023 Long Range Transportation Plan. Figure

2, titled Status of Recommendations, identifies the status of the recommended actions. Chapter VIII,

Work Elements, identifies actions recommended to be completed from the 2009 - 2035 Long RangeTransportation Plan.

CHAPTER III

Inventory

Inventory 15

Chapter IIIInventory

Every journey begins with the first step. As the process for the development of this Plan was

outlined in Chapter I, the journey begins here with the inventory of the people, places, and thingsas they relate to transportation in York County. In the following sections, you will find information

about people, facilities, assets, their movements, and their locations. This information is utilized in

determining the future transportation needs of our area in Chapter IV.

York County Population Projections

Population Projections

There are many methods to projecting future population levels. The method currently in use by the

YCPC is a “bottom-up” approach, using historic population figures, recent census estimates,housing, and building permit data, along side proposed new dwelling unit information from YCPC

Municipal/Current plan reviews and Municipal/Current staff comprehensive plan data. The

municipal projections are then totaled for the York County projections. These population projectionsare updated as new estimate figures, plan review information, and building permit data becomes

available. The following projections are from the YCPC, May 2008 population projections.

2010 2020 2030 2040

York County Totals 441,963 484,909 528,024 573,797

York County Demographics

Population

Most of the following demographic information comes from the York County Growth Trends report

(YCPC, 2008), which is a component of the York County Comprehensive Plan. This report providesadditional information, details, and analysis of the information provided below.

The population of York County at the 2000 Census was 381,751 and shows an increase of 42,177people from the 1990 Census.

The county’s population is almost evenly split along gender lines with 49.2% male and 50.8%female.

In the 2000 Census, 98.9% of the York County respondents self-identified as being of one race andonly 1.1% as being of two or more races. Figure 3, York County Racial Distribution, 2000, shows

the racial distribution of the County's population, as recorded in 2000. As noted, only data for the

respondents that identified as "one race" are shown.

http://www.ycpc.org/index_docs/Growth%20Trends-Final%202008.pdf



Inventory16

Source: US Census Bureau - American Community Survey,

2005 - York County Growth Trends

Income

The median household income for YorkCounty, per the 2005 American

Community Survey, was $48,911. This is

an 8% increase over York County'smedian household income in 2000

($45,268). These values put York County

just above the median household incomelevels for the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania as a whole. Figure 4 shows

York County’s median household incomefor 2005 compared to neighboring

counties, the Com m onwealth of

Pennsylvania (solid yellow line) and theState of Maryland (solid orange line).


Inventory 17

Travel Time to Work

In 2005, the average travel time to work for those living in York County was 23.9 minutes. Figure5, Travel Time to Work, data shows comparative travel time to work data for 1990, 2000, and 2005.

For all three periods, the highest number of workers over the age of 16 travel between 15-30

minutes; but note the significant decrease within that commute time category between 1990 and2000 (approximately 40% decrease). It is also interesting to note the increase between 1990 and

2000 in traveling over 1.5 hours (an almost 400% increase).

Please note that the number of commuters has fluctuated. In 1990, there were 233,068 commuters;

then in 2000, the total number of commuters decreased to 193,126. In 2005, there were 202,679

commuters. In 2000, almost 90% of workers drove to work alone.

Source: US Census Bureau, 1990 and 2000 and American Community Survey, 2005 - York County Growth Trends


Inventory18

Journey to Work Flow

The Census also collects data related to the journey to work. Map 1, 2000 Inter-County Journey to

Work Flow, shows that there are 193,126 persons age 16 and over in the commuter work flow in

York County. A total of 142,104 persons reside and work in York County and 51,022 countyresidents work outside York County. The map shows interesting data regarding the journey to work

flow to adjacent counties in Pennsylvania and in Maryland. Looking at the data more broadly is even

more telling. Of the 51,022 York County residents who work outside the County, 66% work in othercounties in Pennsylvania while 32% commute to a county in Maryland. Just about 2% work in a

state other than Maryland or Pennsylvania and a small number of York County residents (72

persons) reported working in another country.

Map 1 - 2000 Inter-County Journey to Work Flow


Inventory 19

Means of Transportation to Work

The US Census Bureau collects information on the mode of transportation taken to work. Figure 6,Means of Transportation to Work, shows that of the 193,126 workers (ages 16 years and older) that

provided an answer to this question, 181,121 reported car, truck or van as their transportation to

work. This represents 93.8% of the total respondents. Of those who drove a car, truck or van, 89.9%drove alone.

Source: York County Growth Trends


Inventory20

Vehicles

An interesting aspect to consider is the number of registered vehicles in York County. Table 1 showsthe 2005 data by registered vehicle class. This data is from PennDOT and has been compiled by the

Center for Rural Pennsylvania. The total number of passenger vehicles represents over two-thirds

of the total registered vehicles for 2005.

Table 1: York County, Registered Vehicles by Class, 2005

Passenger

SpecialMobile

Equipmentand Farm

Equipment

HouseCars

Motorcycles

MotorizedPedacyclesand motor-

drivencycles

SchoolBuses,Buses,Taxisand

Limos

Trailersand

Trucks

Other(ambulances,hearses, etc.)

TotalRegisteredPassengerVehicles

270,994 652 1,848 15,733 293 1,255 122,548 147 413,470

Source: York County Growth Trends

Increasing popula tion

means more passenger

vehicles on the road, asillustrated in Figure 7.

Although the total number

of passenger vehiclesgrows with population, the

ratio over the six-year

period (1.65 vehicles perperson in 2000 to 1.50

vehicles per person in

2005) has declined.

But passenger vehicles are

not the only vehicles onthe road. Table 1 shows

the same information as

Figure 7 for other vehicles.

York County Roadway Functional Classification System

Functional Classification Map - Map 2 illustrates the different functional classes of roads in York

County. The information describes how the roads are classified for various administrative, design,

and reporting purposes and also details the location and physical characteristics of each activeroadway segment.


http://www.ruralpa.org/


Inventory 21

According to the Federal Highway Administration of the United States Department of

Transportation, “functional classification is the process by which streets and roads are grouped into

classes, or systems, according to the character of service they are intended to provide. Basic to thisprocess is the recognition that individual roads and streets do not serve travel independently in any

major way. Rather, most travel involves movement through a network of roads. It becomes

necessary then to determine how this travel can be channelized within the highway or street networkin a logical and efficient manner. Functional classification defines the nature of this channelization

process by defining the part that any particular street or road should play in serving through a

highway network.”

Functional Classification Systems in Urban and Rural Areas

The four functional classification categories are 1) principal arterial streets, 2) minor arterial streets,

3) collector streets, and 4) local streets. Additionally, because of the differences in the nature and

intensity of land use, development patterns and population density between urban and rural areas,the four categories are usually further divided into urban and rural areas. Table 2, below, shows the

functional classification categories with the linear miles of roadway in York County for each

category, according to Pennsylvania Highway Statistics published by PennDOT.

Table 2 - Linear Road Miles, by Functional Classification

Functional

Classification

Interstate

Highways

Other

Freeways &

Expressway

s

Other

Principal

Arterial

Highways

Minor

Arterials

Urban

Collectors/

Rural Major

Collectors

Rural

Minor

Collectors

Local

RoadsTotal

Linear Miles 46.0 9.9 78.9 2 13.4 396.8 2 09.3 2,798.1 3,752.4

The Urban Functional Classification System

Urban Principal Arterial System - This system of streets and highways serves the major centersof activity of a metropolitan area. These roads are the highest traffic volume corridors, are used for

the longest trip desires, and carry a high proportion of the total urban area travel on a minimum of

lane miles. The system is integrated, both internally and between major rural connections. Theprincipal arterial system carries the major portion of trips entering and leaving the urban area, as

well as most of the through movements desiring to bypass the central city. In addition, significant

intra-area travel, such as between central business districts and outlying residential areas, betweenmajor inner-city communities, or between major suburban centers, is served by this system.

Because of the nature of the travel served by the urban principal arterial system, almost all fully andpartially controlled access facilities will be part of this functional system. However, this system is

not restricted to controlled access routes. To preserve the identification of controlled access

facilities, the urban principal arterial system is stratified as follows: 1) Interstate, 2) other freewaysand expressways, and 3) other principal arterial system (with no control of access).

Urban Minor Arterial Street System - The urban minor arterial street system interconnects withand augments the urban principal arterial system and provides service to trips of moderate length

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/



Inventory22

at a somewhat lower level of travel mobility than the principal arterial. This system also distributes

travel to geographic areas smaller than those identified with the higher system.

The urban minor arterial street system includes all urban arterial streets not classified as a principal

and contains facilities that place more emphasis on land access than the higher system, and offers

a lower level of traffic mobility. This system includes urban connections to rural collector roadswhere such connections have not been classified as an urban principal arterial.

Urban Collector Street System - The urban collector street system provides both land accessservice and traffic circulation within residential neighborhoods, and commercial and industrial areas.

It differs from the arterial system in that facilities on the collector system penetrate residential

neighborhoods, distributing trips from the arterial through the area to the ultimate destination.Conversely, the collector street also collects traffic from the local streets in residential

neighborhoods and channels it into the arterial system. In the central business district, and in other

areas of like development, and traffic density, the urban collector system includes the street grid thatforms a logical entity for traffic circulation.

Urban Local Street System - The urban local street system comprises all facilities not on one ofthe higher systems. It serves primarily to provide direct access to abutting land and access to the

higher order systems. It offers the lowest level of mobility and usually discourages service to

through traffic movement.

The Rural Functional Classification System

Rural Principal Arterial System - Within the rural principle arterial system, there are two

subsystems. The first subsystem is the Interstate System, which consists of all presently designated

routes of the current Interstate System. The second subsystem consists of all non-Interstate principalarterial highways and is referred to as other principal arterial system.

Rural Minor Arterial System - The rural minor arterial highway system, in conjunction with therural principal arterial system, forms a rural network. There are three main characteristics of a rural

minor arterial highway system.

First, the system links cities and towns (as well as other generators, such as a major resort or an area

capable of attracting travel over similarly long distances) and forms an integrated network providing

interstate and inter-county service. Second, the system is spaced at intervals that are consistent withpopulation density, so that all developed areas are within reasonable distance of an arterial highway.

Third, the system provides service to corridors with trip lengths and travel density greater than those

predominately served by a rural collector or local system. Rural minor arterial highways, therefore,constitute routes whose design provides for relatively high overall travel speeds, with minimum

interference to through movement.

Rural Collector Road System - The rural collector routes generally serve travel of primarily intra-

county rather than statewide importance and constitute those routes on whose predominate travel

distances are shorter than on arterial routes. Consequently, more moderate speeds may be typical,


Inventory 23

on the average. Rural collector routes can be further broken down into the two following

subclassifications:

- Major Collector Roads - These routes provide service to larger towns not directly served

by higher systems, as well as, other traffic generators of equivalent inter-county importance,

such as county parks and important agricultural areas. These routes will link these places withnearby larger towns or cities, or with routes of higher classification. Also, major collector

roads serve important intra-county travel corridors.

- Minor Collector Roads - These routes are spaced at intervals consistent with population

density, so to collect traffic from local roads and bring all developed areas within a reasonable

distance of a collector road. Minor collector roads provide service to the remaining smallercommunities and also link the locally important traffic generators with more remote areas.

Rural Local Road System - The rural local road system primarily provides access to adjacent landand provides service to travel over relatively short distances as compared with collector roads or

other highway systems. Local roads will constitute the rural mileage not classified as part of the

principal arterial highway, minor arterial, or collector road systems.

York County Bridges

Bridge Map - Map 3 identifies the location, ownership, and current status of the bridges in York

County.

Bridges

The bridges of York County range from brand new bridges to bridges that were built a century or

more ago. Within the County, bridges can be categorized by ownership as state, county, or

municipal. In total, there are over 900 bridges throughout York County.

One of the issues that is currently being addressed in York County, as well as around the State and

Country, is the issue of structurally deficient bridges. An important goal for PennDOT, as well asthe York Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, is to reduce the number of structurally deficient

bridges in York County.

There are several categories for rating the structural integrity of a bridge. Those categories include;

the deck, the superstructure, the substructure, structural evaluation, and waterway adequacy. A poor

rating in any of these categories could result in a bridge being considered structurally deficient.While a bridge may be classified as structurally deficient, it does not necessarily mean that a bridge

is unsafe. Bridges that are deemed unsafe in any way are posted with weight/height restrictions or

are closed.

State Bridges - In York County, there are over 650 State bridges. These bridges are located on

municipal roads, State Routes, U.S. Routes, and Interstate Highways and play an important role inthe transportation system of York County. Of the 650 plus State bridges over 8 foot, 149 are rated


Inventory24

as structurally deficient. Thirty-four of the 149 structurally deficient bridges are being addressed on

the YAMPO 2009 - 2012 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Structurally deficient bridges

will continually be addressed over the life of this Plan.

County Bridges - The County of York owns approximately 100 bridges and is responsible for the

inspection, maintenance and repair of these bridges. The County uses liquid fuels funding, whichis allocated by the state, to maintain the bridge system. There are also a few historical bridges, which

are not currently in use, that are owned by the County. Those historical bridges can be purchased

from the County and put to use in low-volume traffic areas or as pedestrian bridges.

Municipal Bridges - Municipal bridges that are greater than 20 feet in length are eligible to be

included in the Bridge Maintenance System (BMS). Currently, there are over 110 bridges that areowned by local municipalities and are included in the BMS. Bridges included in the BMS are

eligible for state and federal funding. These municipal bridges play a key role in the local road

network by connecting communities and providing an adequate infrastructure to the residents andbusinesses of York County.

Bridges will continue to be added to the York County transportation system. As such, it is importantthat these bridges, as well as the current bridges, continually be maintained and upgraded to meet

the demands of the users of the system.

York County Transit

Transit/Bus Routes Map - Map 4 was created with information provided by York County

Transportation Authority (YCTA) and Capital Area Transit (CAT). The map shows the fixed routesoffered in York County by both rabbittransit and CAT.

York County Transportation Authority (YCTA) - YCTA is the primary provider of publictransportation services for York County. YCTA, operating under the name rabbittransit, provides

a wide range of transportation services to the South Central Pennsylvania region.

Over 6,000 people daily (2.1 million trips annually) depend on rabbittransit to provide transportation

to and from work, medical facilities, school, and other activities. In addition to the public bus service

that operates twelve routes in York and three routes in Hanover, rabbittransit offers Shared Rideprograms for senior citizens, park and ride lots, employer subsidized shuttles, rabbitexpress service,

and Paratransit services.

rabbittranist continues to grow; from the size of it’s fleet, to the services offered, to the number of

people using the services. In fact, many services have recently been expanded to accommodate the

growing demand for public transit. A few examples would include the York College Green Machineand the rabbitexpress. In fact, the rabbitexpress has gone from a pilot program to a successful route,

and with the addition of a fourth bus, there will be daily round trips provided to the Harrisburg area.

Just recently, there is also an express route offered into Maryland. This new route is a pilot programand will make weekday trips from the City of York, with stops to park and ride lots along I-83, into



Inventory 25

Maryland, with stops at industrial parks and Maryland Transit Authority light rail stations at Hunt

Valley and Timonium.

Capital Area Transit (CAT) - CAT is the public transit authority for the greater Harrisburg Area

and provides weekday service for commuters in the northern tier of York County. Currently, there

are two routes that CAT runs into York County. New Cumberland Army Depot is the location ofa stop on a route that runs through New Cumberland Borough and then into the city of Harrisburg.

The other route stops in Dillsburg to pick-up commuters to the Harrisburg area. As the cost of

commuting continues to rise, these routes will play an important role for those individuals travelingto Harrisburg.

The CAT routes also serve as a link to other modes of transportation, with routes that can connectcommuters to Harrisburg International Airport, Amtrak, and Capitol Trailways/Greyhound. The

rabbitexpress to Harrisburg also provides a transfer to the entire CAT system at the CAT Transfer

Center in the City of Harrisburg.

York County Park and Ride Facilities

Park and Ride Map - Map 5 shows the location of park and ride lots throughout York County. New

locations will be added over time as the need increases for transit and ride sharing.

Park and Ride Facilities

Park and ride lots are locations where people can leave their vehicles in order to use public

transportation or participate in carpools or vanpools. Lots are typically located in convenient

locations throughout the County.

In York County, there are three official park and ride locations. Those lots are located off of I-83

in Shrewsbury Township, Newberry Township, and Manchester Township. In Shrewsbury, the parkand ride lot is located on State Route 851 just east of the I-83 Exit 4 interchange. This lot typically

has approximately 39 vehicles parked there each day. The lot in Newberry Township is located off

of I-83 at Exit 33 Yocumtown. Recent numbers show that approximately 58 vehicles per day areusing this lot. The lot in Manchester Township is located off of I-83 at Exit 24 Emigsville. There

are approximately 35 cars per day parked in this lot. These counts show that all three lots are close

to capacity on a daily basis.

There are several non-official park and ride lots located throughout York County, with the majority

of the facilities located along I-83 and U.S. Route 30. Some of the locations are gravel areas adjacentto the road and others are shopping center parking lots. None of the locations are signed as a park

and ride lot. While not officially designated, these locations still provide parking options for

commuters and play a significant role in reducing the number of vehicles on the roadway. Thenumber of vehicles at these lots are identified to help determine the need for park and ride locations

throughout the County.


Inventory26

York County Railroads

Railroad Map - Map 6 illustrates the location of the rail lines, the ownership of the line and the statusof the rail line. The map also includes the location of rail and trucking facilities to give an overall

picture of how goods are moved in and through York County.

Rail Freight

In York County, there are several rail freight providers that are responsible for the movement of

goods and services in and out of the county. These rail freight providers play an important role inYork County’s transportation system by reducing the number of trucks on the roadways and by

connecting local companies with suppliers and retailers across Pennsylvania and the United States.

York Railway Company (YRC) is a leading owner and operator of short line and regional freight

railroads serving more that 800 customers on nearly 10,000 miles of track in five different countries.

The York Railway Company (YRC), a subsidiary of Genesee & Wyoming Inc., operates 42 milesof track through the center of York County. YRC operates mainline track that links the City of York

with the Hanover Area.

YCR serves companies that produce paper goods, agricultural goods, building products as well as

companies that specialize in distribution. Most of the products being shipped by YRC are being

delivered to the area in the form of coal, limestone, food grade oils, petroleum products, foodproducts, paper, and agricultural products.

YCR also operates or provides service to two inter-modal facilities within York County. The LincolnYard located in West Manchester Township is a terminal where goods and products are transferred

from rail to truck, as well as the ES3 warehouse located along Loucks Mill Road in Spring Garden

Township.

Norfolk Southern Corporation is a Virginia-based holding company that owns the Norfolk Southern

Railway Company. This railroad system’s lines include more than 31,300 miles of track in 25 states.In York County, Norfolk Southern has approximately 30 miles of track and links with other rail lines

and inter-modal facilities.

At the southern end of the Norfolk Southern line in York County is the Windsor Yard. This facility

serves as a classification yard, as well as a inter-modal transfer station, for products ranging from

construction materials to automotive products. The Windsor Yard also connects to Poorhouse Yard,which serves as an area where Norfolk Southern Railway and YorkRail transfer freight cars. The

Norfolk Southern line runs north towards Harrisburg and eventually connects to the Enola Yard and

destinations across the Southern and Midwestern United States, as well as parts of Canada.

CSX Corporation, based in Richmond, Virginia, is an international transportation company offering

a variety of rail, container-shipping, inter-modal, and trucking. CSX provides services over 32,000miles of track in 23 states in the Eastern and Southern U.S. and in Canada. In York County, CSX

operates on approximately 15 miles of track and links with the York Railway operated lines. The

CSX line operates in the southwestern corner of York County.


Inventory 27

CSX provides rail service to Hanover Terminal Incorporated, located just outside of Hanover

Borough in Penn Township. Hanover Terminal Incorporated is a distribution and storage center for

grocery products serving national markets. This terminal is capable of simultaneously serving bothrail freight and trucks.

York County Bicycle Routes

Bicycle Routes Map - Map 7 shows the location of State bicycle routes and potential Countybikeway corridors.

Bikeways, Greenways and Trails

York County has plenty to offer when it comes to pedestrian and bikeway corridors. There are

numerous trails, greenways, and bicycle routes spread throughout the county. These corridorsprovide bicycle/pedestrian connections north to south and east to west. The role of these corridors

is important not only in serving as a mode of transportation, but also in preserving open space,

environmentally sensitive, and historical areas throughout York County.

State Bicycle Routes - There are two routes located in York County that are Bicycle PA routes. The

“S” route is an east-west route that runs across the state from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia. The “S”Route runs from the Adams County line along PA Route 234 into West Manchester Township.

There, the route picks up PA Route 462 through the City of York to the Susquehanna River and into

Lancaster County.

The “J” Route is a north-south route that runs from the Maryland border with York County all the

way to the New York border with Bradford County. In York County, the southern end of the routefollows the Heritage Rail Trail County Park from the Maryland State line into the City of York.

There, the route picks up PA Route 462 to North George Street and into Manchester and Mount

Wolf Boroughs. The “J” route continues north towards the Susquehanna River onto Brunner Islandand then into York Haven Borough. The route zig-zags its way through the northeastern portion of

the County until it reaches Goldsboro Borough. There the route picks up PA Route 382 and

continues along that road until it exits York County into New Cumberland, Cumberland Countynear the Capital City Airport.

County Bicycle Routes - The County bicycle routes are identified in a 2001 study completed forYork County, which resulted in the Comprehensive Bikeway Plan and Implementation Strategy. The

goal was to encourage development of a county-wide system of bikeways connecting the places

people live with centers of employment, education, and commerce. As result, corridors wereidentified as recreational, commuter or both. Most of the identified corridors follow the many State

highways found throughout York County, while the rest of the bikeway corridors follow lesser

classified roadways and established trail corridors.

Recreational Trails and Greenways - In York County, there are several recreational trails and

greenways. York County received funding to develop a trail plan by the York County Rail Trail

http://www.yorkcountytrails.org


Inventory28

Authority. The York County Comprehensive Plan Open Space and Greenways Plan component

provides detailed information about these areas throughout the County.

Heritage Rail Trail County Park - This trail starts in the City of York and follows the old North

Central Railroad line south to the Maryland line, where it becomes the NCR Trail. The trail is

operated, maintained, and policed by the York County Parks Department and Recreation Rangers.Trail users will find connections to; Seven Valleys, Glen Rock, Railroad and New Freedom

Boroughs; and Hanover Junction and New Freedom Train Station historic sites.

The Heritage Rail Trail also provides a link to public transit, as it connects with rabbittransit’s

Downtown Transfer Center. At the downtown transfer center, there are lockers available to bicyclists

for safe storage of their bicycles as they use the transit system to access destinations in the GreaterYork area.

Currently, the YCRTA is working on providing a northern extension of the trail. This extension willprovide a link from the City of York to John Rudy County Park in East Manchester Township. It is

estimated that the second of four phases will be completed sometime in 2010. The trail will provide

a viable alternative to motorized transportation for key destinations such as Rudy County Park,Harley-Davidson Motor Co., York College, Central York HS, and Sovereign Bank Stadium.

Also, YCRTA continues it’s effort in providing a link between York City and Hanover Boroughalong the old York-Hanover Trolley line. In 2008, the first phase of this project was completed as

two sections of the trail were opened to the public. Phase one of the project included a one-mile

stretch of trail from the Jackson Township Sewer Authority to a parking area near Hosiery Alley inSpring Grove Borough and a one and half mile stretch from Moul Avenue in Hanover Borough to

Cherry Tree Court near the Penn/Heidelberg Township border. The next step in this project is for

a study to be completed to further investigate the development of additional sections along thishistoric line. The trail will provide a viable alternative to motorized transportation for key

destinations such as BAE Systems, Glatfelter Co., Moul Borough Park, and Hanover School district

campus.

http://www.ycpc.org/index_docs/Open%20Space%20Plan-complete%20with%20all%20maps.pdf


Inventory 29

York County Air Transportation

Airport Map - Map 8 shows the location of the public use airports located in York County. Map 8also contains the location of airports in neighboring counties that help service the aviation needs of

York County.

Air Transportation

The aviation needs of York County are diverse and as such, there are many options to fulfill thoseneeds. York County is the home to several recreational and private air facilities, as well as facilities

that service more commercial interests. Existing airports serving York County include such facilities

as Capital City Airport (CXY), Harrisburg International Airport (MDT), York Airport (THV) nearThomasville in Jackson Township, as well as Philadelphia International (PIA), and Baltimore-

Washington International (BWI).

Capital City Airport - Located in the northeast corner of York County, this 273-acre facility serves

the business communities of Dauphin, Cumberland, and York counties. CXY is owned and operated

by the Susquehanna Area Regional Airport Authority (SARAA) and is the designated alternate forHarrisburg International Airport (MDT). CXY averages more than 57,000 corporate, charter, and

private aircraft operations every year. In addition, a study conducted by the Pennsylvania

Department of Transportation in 2000, concluded that CXY related activities generate nearly $24million dollars a year in total economic output into the regional economy. Capital City Airport is

considered a full-service, fixed-base operation, and offers training in the form of a flight school,

piston and turbine aircraft maintenance and avionics.

Harrisburg International Airport - Located in Dauphin County, this aviation facility serves the

commercial interest of the residents and businesses of Dauphin, Cumberland and York Counties.Harrisburg International Airport is considered a multi-modal transportation center. The facility links

with cargo shipping (FedEx, UPS, and DHL), bus and taxi service, as well as provides

approximately 2,500 public parking spaces for air travelers.

York Airport - This privately owned airport is located approximately seven miles southwest of the

City of York, in Thomasville, Jackson Township, PA along U.S. Route 30. This 66-acre facility isclassified as a business service airport by the PennDOT Bureau of Aviation and is home to nearly

100 aircraft. For a 12-month period ending in August 2008, the York Airport experienced 139 daily

aircraft operations. The facility is also home to a restaurant and a fixed-base operation. The fixed-base operation provides fueling, maintenance service, and hangar rentals to customers of the airport.

Other Aviation Facilities in York County - Baublitz Airport in Brogue and Bermudian ValleyAirpark in Kralltown are single turf runways approximately one-half mile in length and exclusively

serve recreational aircraft. Kampel Airport in Wellsville is a 2,400-foot turf runway used for

recreational aircraft. Shoestring Aviation Airport located in Stewartstown is an airport designatedfor ultralight aircraft only.


Inventory30

Ongoing Regional Efforts

South Central Pennsylvania Regional Goods Movement Study

Several area Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) worked together to form a task force to

better understand freight movement in the South Central Pennsylvania Region. The task force thencommissioned a comprehensive study to assess current and future goods movement issues and to

develop recommendations and policies to improve or enhance such services. YCPC, on behalf of

the YAMPO, participated in and contributed to this study.

The South Central Pennsylvania Regional Goods Movement Study (RGMS) was completed in 2006

and outlines the importance of goods movement within the region. The Study collected data thathighlights the unique role this region plays in statewide, nationwide, and worldwide commerce. The

freight industry in the region continues to grow and produce local job opportunities. With continued

growth comes many challenges, especially for the transportation system. The Study identifiedprojects and opportunities that will help address some of these challenges.

Another result of the RGMS is the development of a forum. The Regional Goods Movement Forumconsists of public and private sector stakeholders that range from MPO representatives, County

planners, rail sector representatives, trucking industry representatives, shippers, and representatives

from PennDOT. This Forum meets on a regular basis to discuss the challenges that face the freightindustry and to make recommendations on the opportunities and challenges regarding goods

movement.

Commuter Services

Commuter Services of South Central Pennsylvania, also known as the Susquehanna RegionalTransportation Partnership (SRTP), is a professionally-staffed organization funded by Federal

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds. The SRTP Board is composed of MPO,

transit authority and chamber of commerce membership representing seven counties in south centralPennsylvania. Late in 2008, the SRTP Board approved the addition of Berks County to its

membership. In the process of updating its by-laws, SRTP will also be changing its name and its

operating name of Commuter Services of South Central PA to Commuter Services of PA.

The staff members work to reduce traffic congestion by helping commuters with a free service to

help them find transportation alternatives (e.g., carpooling), other than driving alone, and byreaching out to employers so they can help their workforce find those options. Using alternatives

also helps improve air quality, and fewer cars in rush hour can also mean safer highways.

In September of 2008, Commuter Services reached a milestone of 10,000 commuters registered on

their on-line ride-matching database and expect to top 12,000 commuters registered in the database

sometime in 2009. Individuals that are registered in the database will find at least one match 60percent of the time, with some finding as many as ten potential matches. The continued success of

SRTP’s outreach programs has helped in reducing the number of vehicle miles traveled by residents.

http://www.pacommuterservices.com/

http://www.pacommuterservices.com/

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/cmaqpgs/

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/cmaqpgs/


Inventory 31

The success of Commuter Services is not only evident by the number of commuters registered in

their database, but by the number of locations throughout the South Central Pennsylvania area that

are looking to join. Several counties have expressed interest in bringing the services offered byCommuter Services to their respective areas.

Cumber

land

County

Carroll County, MD Baltimore County, MD

Adams County

Dauphin County

Lancaster

County

Harford County, MDDELTABORO

FAWNGROVEBORO

NEWFREEDOM

BORO

STEWARTSTOWNBORO

RAILROADBORO

WESTMANHEIM

TWP

SHREWSBURYBORO

PEACHBOTTOM

TWP

GLEN ROCKBORO

HOPEWELLTWP FAWN TWP

MANHEIMTWP

JEFFERSONBORO

SHREWSBURYTWP

HANOVERBORO

CROSSROADSBORO

CODORUSTWP

EASTHOPEWELL

TWP

PENN TWP

WINTERSTOWNBORO

HEIDELBERGTWP

SEVENVALLEYS

BORO

FELTONBORO

LOGANVILLEBORO

NORTHHOPEWELL

TWP

JACOBUSBOROSPRING

GROVEBORO

SPRINGFIELDTWP

LOWERCHANCEFORD

TWP

DALLASTOWNBORO

NEWSALEMBORO

RED LIONBORO

YOE BORO

NORTHCODORUS

TWP

WINDSORBORO

JACKSONTWP

CHANCEFORDTWP

WESTYORKBORO

YORK TWP

PARADISETWP

WINDSORTWPSPRING

GARDENTWP

EASTPROSPECT

BORO

NORTHYORKBORO

SPRINGGARDEN

TWP YORKANABORO

YORKCITY

WESTMANCHESTER

TWP

DOVERBORO

HALLAMBORO

LOWERWINDSOR

TWP

SPRINGETTSBURYTWP

WRIGHTSVILLEBORO

MANCHESTERTWP

WELLSVILLEBORO

HELLAMTWP

MOUNTWOLFBOROMANCHESTER

BORO

WASHINGTONTWP

FRANKLINTOWNBORO

DOVERTWP

CONEWAGOTWP

FRANKLINTWP

EASTMANCHESTER

TWP

YORKHAVENBORO

WARRINGTONTWP

DILLSBURGBORO

LEWISBERRYBORO

CARROLLTWP

GOLDSBOROBORO

MONAGHAN TWP

NEWBERRYTWP

FAIRVIEWTWP

§̈¦83

§̈¦83

§̈¦83

§̈¦83

§̈¦83

§̈¦83

§̈¦76

§̈¦83

£¤30

£¤30

£¤15

£¤30

£¤30

£¤30

616

262

24

624

234

124

24

177

181

516

194

216

114

94

624

462

94

24

74

182

74

177

234

851

238

216

382

462

74

372

194

216

851851

42574

74

516

392

214

262

382

24

74

74

116

616

194

74

616

124

116

262

216

216

214

116

234

851

181

425

295

425

24

74

MAP INDEX #1

MAP INDEX #2

Map Index #1 - York City Inset

The York County Planning Commission provides this Geographic Information System map and/or data (collectively the "Data") as a public

information service. The Data is not a legally recorded plan, survey, official tax map,or engineering schematic and should be used for only general information.

Reasonable effort has been made to ensure that the Data is correct; however the Commission does not guarantee its accuracy,

completeness, or timeliness. The Commission shall not be liable for anydamages that may arise from the use of the Data."

0 1 2 3 4 5Miles

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000Feet

µ

JS

Date - Feb, 2009

O:\IS\Transportation\York_Transit\York_Functional_Class_11_17.mxd

York County Functional Classification Map

Map Index #2 - Hanover Inset

Legend:

Functional Road Classifications

County BoundaryMunicipal Boundary

Interstate Highways

Other Principal Arterial HighwaysMinor Arterials

Local Roads

Other Freeways and Expressways

Adjusted Urbanized Boundary

Urban Collector Or Rural Major CollectorsRural Minor Collectors

MANCHESTER TWPSPRINGETTSBURY TWP

WEST MANCHESTER TWP

YORK CITY

SPRING GARDEN TWPNORTHYORKBORO

SPRING GARDEN TWP

YORK TWP

WEST YORK BORO

£¤30

£¤30

124

234

462

462

74

74

182

§̈¦83

§̈¦83

194

116

94

216

HEIDELBERG TWP

PENN TWP

HANOVER BORO

Map 2

Cumber

land

County


Adams County

Dauphin County

Lancaster

County

Harford County, MD

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")")

")

")

")")

")

")")

")

")

")")

")")")")

")

")

")

")

")

")")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")")

")

")

")")

")

")

")

")

") ")

")

") ")")

")

")

")")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")")")")")

")

")

")")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")")

")")

")

")

")

")

")") ")")")")")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(!(

!( !(

!(!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*#*

#*#*

#*#*#*

#*

#*#*

#*#* #*#*#*#* #*#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*#*#*

#*#*#*

#*#*#*

#*#*#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#* #*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#* #*#*

#*

#*#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*#* #*

#*

#*#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*

#*

#* #*#* #*

#*

#*#*

#*#*#* #*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*#*

#*#*

#*

#*#*#*

#*#*#*

#*#*

#*#*#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#* #*

#*#*

#*#*

#*#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*#* #*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#* #*

#*

#*

#*#* #*

#*#*#*

#*#*

#*

#*#*#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*#* #*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#* #*#*

#*

#*#*#*#*

#*#*

#*

#*#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*#*#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*#*#*

#*

#*

#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*

#*

#* #*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*#* #*

#*#*#*#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*#*

#*#*#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*#*

#*#*

#*

#*#*

#*#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*#*

#*#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#* #*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#* #*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*#*#*

#*#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

DELTABORO

FAWNGROVEBORO

NEWFREEDOM

BORO

STEWARTSTOWNBORO

RAILROADBORO

WESTMANHEIM

TWP

SHREWSBURYBORO

PEACHBOTTOM

TWP

GLEN ROCKBORO

HOPEWELLTWP FAWN TWPMANHEIM

TWP

JEFFERSONBORO

SHREWSBURYTWP

HANOVERBORO

CROSSROADSBORO

CODORUSTWP

EASTHOPEWELL

TWPPENN TWP

WINTERSTOWNBORO

HEIDELBERGTWP

SEVENVALLEYS

BORO

FELTONBORO

LOGANVILLEBORO

NORTHHOPEWELL

TWP

JACOBUSBOROSPRING

GROVEBORO

SPRINGFIELDTWP

LOWERCHANCEFORD

TWP

DALLASTOWNBORO

NEWSALEMBORO RED LION

BORO

YOE BORO

NORTHCODORUS

TWP

WINDSORBOROJACKSON

TWP

CHANCEFORDTWP

WESTYORKBORO

YORK TWP

PARADISETWP

WINDSORTWPSPRING

GARDENTWP

EASTPROSPECT

BORO

NORTHYORKBORO

SPRINGGARDEN

TWP YORKANABORO

YORKCITY

WESTMANCHESTER

TWP

DOVERBORO

HALLAMBORO

LOWERWINDSOR

TWP

SPRINGETTSBURYTWP

WRIGHTSVILLEBORO

MANCHESTERTWP

WELLSVILLEBORO

HELLAMTWP


BORO

WASHINGTONTWP

FRANKLINTOWNBORO

DOVERTWP

CONEWAGOTWP

FRANKLINTWP

EASTMANCHESTER

TWP

YORKHAVENBORO

WARRINGTONTWP

DILLSBURGBORO

LEWISBERRYBORO

CARROLLTWP

GOLDSBOROBORO

MONAGHAN TWP

NEWBERRYTWP

FAIRVIEWTWP

§̈¦83

§̈¦83

§̈¦83

§̈¦76

§̈¦83

£¤30

£¤30

£¤30

£¤15

£¤30

214

181

425

74

616

262

24

624

234

124

24

177

181

116

516194

114

392

24

94

624

462

94

74

182

74

214

177

382

234

851

216

238

462

74

372

194

216

851 851

124

425

74

74

516

382

382

24

74

216

74

116

616

194

74

616

262

216

216

116

234

851

295

425

24

")

")

")

")

")

")")") ") ")")

")

")

")

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(!(

!(

#*#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*#*#* #*

#*

#* #*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#* #*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

124

74

182

74

462

462

£¤30

§̈¦83

§̈¦83

YORK TWP

SPRING GARDEN TWP

NORTHYORKBORO

YORK CITY

SPRINGETTSBURY TWPMANCHESTER TWP

WEST MANCHESTER TWP

WESTYORKBORO

")

")

") ")

")

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

194

116

194

94

216

94

HANOVER BOROPENN TWP

HEIDELBERG TWP

MAP INDEX #1

MAP INDEX #2







0 1 2 3 4 5Miles

0 9,900 19,800 29,700 39,600Feet

µ

JS

0 1 20.5Miles

0 1 20.5Miles

Date - Sept. 30th, 2008

York County Bridge Map

O:\IS\Transportation\York_Transit\York_Bridge_11_17.mxd

Legend:

State RoadUS Route

County BoundaryMunicipal BoundaryRoads

InterstateState Bridge

ClosedOpenPosted

Municipal Bridge

")

ClosedOpenPosted

County Bridge

!(

ClosedOpenPosted

#*

#*

#*

!(

!(

")

")

Map 3

Cumber

land

County


Adams County

Dauphin County

Lancaster

County


FAWNGROVEBORO

NEWFREEDOM

BORO

STEWARTSTOWNBORO

RAILROADBORO

WESTMANHEIM

TWP

SHREWSBURYBORO

PEACHBOTTOM

TWP

GLEN ROCKBORO


MANHEIMTWP

JEFFERSONBORO

SHREWSBURYTWP

HANOVERBORO

CROSSROADSBORO

CODORUSTWP

EASTHOPEWELL

TWP

PENN TWP

WINTERSTOWNBORO

HEIDELBERGTWP

SEVENVALLEYS

BORO

FELTONBORO

LOGANVILLEBORO

NORTHHOPEWELL

TWP

JACOBUSBOROSPRING

GROVEBORO

SPRINGFIELDTWP

LOWERCHANCEFORD

TWP

DALLASTOWNBORO


BORO

YOE BORO

NORTHCODORUS

TWP

WINDSORBORO

JACKSONTWP

CHANCEFORDTWP

WESTYORKBORO

YORK TWP

PARADISETWP

WINDSORTWPSPRING

GARDENTWP

EASTPROSPECT

BORO

NORTHYORKBORO

SPRINGGARDEN

TWP YORKANABORO

YORKCITY

WESTMANCHESTER

TWP

DOVERBORO

HALLAMBORO

LOWERWINDSOR

TWP

SPRINGETTSBURYTWP

WRIGHTSVILLEBORO

MANCHESTERTWP

WELLSVILLEBORO

HELLAMTWP


BORO

WASHINGTONTWP

FRANKLINTOWNBORO

DOVERTWP

CONEWAGOTWP

FRANKLINTWP

EASTMANCHESTER

TWP

YORKHAVENBORO

WARRINGTONTWP

DILLSBURGBORO

LEWISBERRYBORO

CARROLLTWP

GOLDSBOROBORO

MONAGHAN TWP

NEWBERRYTWP

FAIRVIEWTWP

£¤30

£¤30

£¤30

£¤15

£¤30

§̈¦83

§̈¦83

§̈¦83

§̈¦76

§̈¦83

214

181

425

74

616

262

24

624

234

124

24

177

181

516

194

114

392

24

94

624

462

94

74

182

74

214

177

382

234

851

216

238462

74

372

194

216

851851

124

42574

74

516

382

382

24

74

216

74

116

616

194

74

616

262

216

216

116

234

851

295

425

24

116

Transfer Center

£¤30£¤30

£¤30

§̈¦83

§̈¦83

§̈¦83

WESTYORKBORO

YORK TWP

SPRING GARDEN TWP

NORTHYORKBORO

YORK CITY

WEST MANCHESTER TWP

SPRINGETTSBURY TWPMANCHESTER TWP

74

234

462

462

124

74

182

74462

238

194

116

194

94

216

94

HANOVER BOROPENN TWP

HEIDELBERG TWP

MAP INDEX #1

MAP INDEX #2



York County Transit System





0 1 2 3 4 5Miles

0 9,800 19,600 29,400 39,200Feet

µ

JSO:\IS\Transportation\York_Transit\York_Transit_11_17.mxd

Date - Feb, 2009

-CAT Transfer Center (2nd & Market St.)-Train Station (5th & Market St.)-Capitol Building (Forester & Commonwealth)-HACC Campus

Express Service Continues to the following Destinations:

rabbittransit continues to Columbia Borough where service

junctions with Red Rose TransitLegend:

Interstate

State Road

US Route

County Boundary

Municipal BoundaryRoads

Transit Route

York/Harrisburg Express RouteCAT Route

_̂

Map 4

PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK

Cumberla

nd

County


Adams County

Dauphin County

LancasterCounty

Harford County, MD

Æü

Æü

Æü

Æü Æü

Æü

Æü

Æü

Æü

Æü

Æü

ÆüÆü

Æü

DELTABORO

FAWNGROVEBORO

NEWFREEDOM

BORO

STEWARTSTOWNBORO

RAILROADBORO

WESTMANHEIM

TWP

SHREWSBURYBORO

PEACHBOTTOM

TWP

GLEN ROCKBORO


MANHEIMTWP

JEFF ERSONBORO

SHREWSBURYTWP

HANOVERBORO

CRO SSRO ADSBORO

CODORUSTWP

EASTHOPEWELL

TWP

PENN TWP

WINTERSTOWNBORO

HEIDELBERGTWP

SEVENVALLEYS

BORO

FELTO NBORO

LOGANVILLEBORO

NORTHHOPEWELL

TWP

JACOBUSBOROSPRING

GROVEBORO

SPRINGFIELDTWP

LOWERCHANCEFORD

TWP

DALLAST OWNBORO

NEWSALEMBORO

RED LIONBORO

YOE BORO

NORTHCODORUS

TWP

WINDSORBORO

JACKSONTWP

CHANCEFORDTWP

WESTYORKBORO

YORK TWP

PARADISETWP

WINDSORTWPSPRING

GARDENTWP

EASTPROSPECT

BORO

NO RTHYORKBORO

SPRINGGARDEN

TWP YORKANABORO

YORKCITY

WESTMANCHESTER

TWP

DO VERBORO

HALLAMBORO

LOWERWINDSOR

TWP

SPRINGETTSBURYTWP

WRIGHT SVILLEBORO

MANCHESTERTWP

WELLSVILLEBORO

HELLAMTWP


BORO

WASHINGTONTWP

FRANKLINT OWNBORO

DOVERTWP

CONEWAGOTWP

FRANKLINTWP

EASTMANCHESTER

TWP

YORKHAVENBORO

WARRINGTONTWP

DILLSBURGBORO

LEWISBERRYBORO

CARROLLTWP

GOLDSBOROBORO

MONAGHAN TWP

NEWBERRYTWP

FAIRVIEWTWP

£¤30

£¤30

£¤30

£¤15

£¤30

24

214

181

425

74

114

616

262

24

624

234

124

24

177

181

116

516

194

392

24

94

624234

462

94

74

182

74

214

177

382

851

238

216

462

74

372

194

216

851

851

124

42574

74

516

382

382

74

216

74

116

616

194

74

616

262

216

216

116

234

851

295

425

24

§̈¦83

§̈¦83

§̈¦83

§̈¦76

§̈¦83





0 1 2 3 4 5Miles

0 10,000 20,000 30,000Feet

µ

JS

Date - Feb, 2009

O:\IS\Transportation\York_Transit\York_ParkRide.mxd

York County Park and Ride MapMap 5

Legend:

Interstate

State RoadUS Route

County Boundary

Municipal Boundary

Park and Ride (Official)Æü

Park and Ride (Non-Official)Æü

!(

!(

!(

Cumber

land

County


Adams County

Dauphin County

LancasterCounty

Harford County, MD

1

2

3

DELTABORO

FAWNGROVEBORO

NEWFREEDOM

BORO

STEWARTSTOWNBORO

RAILROADBORO

WESTMANHEIM

TWP

SHREWSBURYBORO

PEACHBOTTOM

TWP

GLEN RO CKBORO


MANHEIMTWP

JEFFERSO NBORO

SHREWSBURYTWP

HANOVERBORO CROSS

RO ADSBORO

CODORUSTWP

EASTHOPEWELL

TWP

PENN TWP

WINTERSTO WNBORO

HEIDELBERGTWP

SEVENVALLEYS

BORO

FELTONBORO

LO GANVILLEBORO

NORTHHOPEWELL

TWP

JACOBUSBOROSPRING

GROVEBORO

SPRINGFIELDTWP

LOWERCHANCEFORD

TWP

DALLASTOWNBORO

NEWSALEMBORO

RED LIONBORO

YOE BORO

NORTHCODORUS

TWP

WINDSO RBORO

JACKSONTWP

CHANCEFORDTWP

WESTYORKBORO

YORK TWP

PARADISETWP

WINDSORTWPSPRING

GARDENTWP

EASTPROSPECT

BORO

NO RTHYORKBORO SPRING

GARDENTWP YORKANA

BORO

YORKCITY

WESTMANCHESTER

TWP

DO VERBORO

HALLAMBORO

LOWERWINDSOR

TWP

SPRINGETTSBURYTWP

WRIGHTSVILLEBORO

MANCHESTERTWP

WELLSVILLEBORO

HELLAMTWP

MOUNTWOLFBOROMANCHEST ER

BORO

WASHINGTONTWP

FRANKLINTOWNBORO

DOVERTWP

CONEWAGOTWP

FRANKLINTWP

EASTMANCHESTER

TWP

YORKHAVENBORO

WARRINGTONTWP

DILLSBURGBORO

LEWISBERRYBORO

CARROLLTWP

GOLDSBOROBORO

MONAGHAN TWP

NEWBERRYTWP

FAIRVIEWTWP

24

295

214425

181

425

74

114

616

24

262

24

624

234

124

24

177

181

116

516

194

392

24

94

624234

462

94

74

182

74

214

177

425

382

851

238 462

74

372

194

216

851

851

124

74516

382

382

74

216

74

116

616

194

74

616

262

216

216

116

234

851

§̈¦83

§̈¦83

§̈¦83

§̈¦83

§̈¦76

£¤30

£¤15

£¤30

£¤30

£¤30

NORFOLK

SOUTHERN

YORK

RAILWAY

NORFOLK

SOUTHERN

NORFOLK SOUTHERN

CSX

YORK

RAILWAY

NORFOLK

SOUTHERN

NORFOLK SOUTHERN

0 1 2 3 4 5Miles

0 10,000 20,000 30,000Feet

µ

JS

Date - Feb, 2009

O:\IS\Transportation\York_Transit\York_Railroad.mxd

York County Railroad MapMap 6





Legend:

Interstate

State RoadUS Route

County Boundary

Municipal Boundary

!? Bulk Transfer Center

CSX Railroad

1. Hanover Terminal2. Lincoln Yard3. ES3- Transfer Center

York Railway CompanyNorthfolk Southern Railroad

Cumber

land

County


Adams County

Dauphin County

LancasterCounty


FAWNGROVEBORO

NEWFREEDOM

BORO

STEWARTSTOWNBORO

RAILROADBORO

WESTMANHEIM

TWP

SHREWSBURYBORO

PEACHBOTTOM

TWP

GLEN ROCKBORO


MANHEIMTWP

JEFFERSONBORO

SHREWSBURYTWP

HANOVERBORO

CROSSROADSBORO

CODORUSTWP

EASTHOPEWELL

TWP

PENN TWP

WINTERSTOWNBORO

HEIDELBERGTWP

SEVENVALLEYS

BORO

FELTONBORO

LOGANVILLEBORO

NORTHHOPEWELL

TWP

JACOBUSBOROSPRING

GROVEBORO

SPRINGFIELDTWP

LOWERCHANCEFORD

TWP

DALLASTOWNBORO

NEWSALEMBORO

RED LIONBORO

YOE BORO

NORTHCODORUS

TWP

WINDSORBORO

JACKSONTWP

CHANCEFORDTWP

WESTYORKBORO

YORK TWP

PARADISETWP

WINDSORTWPSPRING

GARDENTWP

EASTPROSPECT

BORO

NORTHYORKBORO

SPRINGGARDEN

TWP YORKANABORO

YORKCITY

WESTMANCHESTER

TWP

DOVERBORO

HALLAMBORO

LOWERWINDSOR

TWP

SPRINGETTSBURYTWP

WRIGHTSVILLEBORO

MANCHESTERTWP

WELLSVILLEBORO

HELLAMTWP


BORO

WASHINGTONTWP

FRANKLINTOWNBORO

DOVERTWP

CONEWAGOTWP

FRANKLINTWP

EASTMANCHESTER

TWP

YORKHAVENBORO

WARRINGTONTWP

DILLSBURGBORO

LEWISBERRYBORO

CARROLLTWP

GOLDSBOROBORO

MONAGHAN TWP

NEWBERRYTWP

FAIRVIEWTWP

£¤30

£¤30

£¤30

£¤15

£¤30

24

214

181

425

74

114

616

262

24

624

234

124

24

177

181

116

516

194

392

24

94

624234

462

94

74

182

74

214

177

382

851

238 462

74

372

194

216

851

851

124

42574

516

382

382

74

216

74

116

616

194

74

616

262

216

216

116

234

851

295

425

24

§̈¦83

§̈¦83

§̈¦76

§̈¦83

§̈¦83





0 1 2 3 4 5Miles

0 10,000 20,000 30,000Feet

µ

JS

Date - Feb, 2009

O:\IS\Transportation\York_Transit\York_Bike_Trail.mxd

York County Bicycle Route MapLegend:

Interstate

State RoadUS Route

County Boundary

Municipal Boundary

Pennsylvania Bicycle Route (J)Potential County Bikeway Corridor

Pennsylvania Bicycle Route (S)

Map 7

Cumber

land

C

ounty


Adams County

Dauphin County

LancasterCounty

Harford County, MD

p

p

p

p

p

p p

p

p

p

DELTABORO

FAWNGROVEBORO

NEWFREEDOM

BORO

STEWARTSTOWNBORO

RAILROADBORO

WESTMANHEIM

TWP

SHREWSBURYBORO

PEACHBOTTOM

TWP

GLEN ROCKBORO


MANHEIMTWP

JEFFERSONBORO

SHREWSBURYTWP

HANOVERBORO

CROSSROADSBORO

CODORUSTWP

EASTHOPEWELL

TWP

PENN TWP

WINTERSTOWNBORO

HEIDELBERGTWP

SEVENVALLEYS

BORO

FELTONBORO

LOGANVILLEBORO

NORTHHOPEWELL

TWP

JACOBUSBOROSPRING

GROVEBORO

SPRINGFIELDTWP

LOWERCHANCEFORD

TWP

DALLASTOWNBORO


BORO

YOE BORO

NORTHCODORUS

TWP

WINDSORBORO

JACKSONTWP

CHANCEFORDTWP

WESTYORKBORO

YORK TWP

PARADISETWP

WINDSORTWPSPRING

GARDENTWP

EASTPROSPECT

BORO

NORTHYORKBORO

SPRINGGARDEN

TWP YORKANABORO

YORKCITY

WESTMANCHESTER

TWP

DOVERBORO

HALLAMBORO

LOWERWINDSOR

TWP

SPRINGETTSBURYTWP

WRIGHTSVILLEBORO

MANCHESTERTWP

WELLSVILLEBORO

HELLAMTWP


BORO

WASHINGTONTWP

FRANKLINTOWNBORO

DOVERTWP

CONEWAGOTWP

FRANKLINTWP

EASTMANCHESTER

TWP

YORKHAVENBORO

WARRINGTONTWP

DILLSBURGBORO

LEWISBERRYBORO

CARROLLTWP

GOLDSBOROBORO

MONAGHAN TWP

NEWBERRYTWP

FAIRVIEWTWP

£¤30

£¤30

£¤15

£¤30

£¤30

§̈¦83

§̈¦83

§̈¦83

§̈¦83

§̈¦76

HarrisburgInternationalAirport

CapitalCity

Airport

DonegalSpringsAirport

McGinnessFieldAirport

HanoverAirport Shoestring

AviationAirport

YorkAirport

BermudianValleyAirpark

KampelAirport

BaublitzAirport

181

425

114

616

24

124

181

516

194

392

24

94

624234

462

94

182

74

214

177

382

851

238 462

74

74

372

24

851

177

851

124

42574

516

216

74

116

194

194

74

616

262

216

116

234

851

295

425

74

0 1 2 3 4 5Miles

0 10,000 20,000 30,000Feet

µ

JSO:\IS\Transportation\York_Transit\York_Airport.mxd

York County Airport Map





Date - Feb, 2009

Legend:

Interstate

State RoadUS Route

County Boundary

Municipal Boundary

p Public Use Airports

Map 8

CHAPTER IV

Identified Needs

Identified Needs 43

Chapter IVIdentified Needs

When planning into the future, the first step is identifying where you are now. That step wascompleted in Chapter III through the inventory section. The second step is to identify what the needs

will be in the future and to estimate their cost. This chapter reviews the process used to identify

future needs and the results of the process.

Identifying the needs was one task that involved the public. Subcommittees were organized to

represent each area of the transportation system. This was the first opportunity for the YAMPO toinvolve individuals and organizations that traditionally have not been involved in the planning

process. Altogether, fifty-two people outside the staff of the YCPC, PennDOT, and rabbittransit

were involved. The members of each subcommittee are listed in this chapter, together with asummary of the subcommittee findings.

Each of the ten subcommittees operated independently; however, each subcommittee adhered to thefollowing guidelines:

- The needs were evaluated between the years of 2009-2035 (27 years).- Needs were not constrained to just the responsibility of the YAMPO and the County of York.

- The needs were not constrained by available or projected financial resources.

- The need was identified as quantitative or qualitative, with an emphasis on quantitative withsupporting data.

- Future need also was reflected in future dollars. A 10% annual inflation factor was used to

identify future need. Although the inflation factor is high for inflation, it will also account forengineering, right-of-way, utility relocation, and contingencies. For an example of the effect of

inflation on cost, please see Figure 8.

$11,918,177

1,000,000


Identified Needs44

In addition to involving the public in developing the needs, each subcommittee developed an

“Assessment of Need,” which was presented to the YAMPO Technical Committee at three

advertized meetings. Comments from the public were presented to the YAMPO TechnicalCommittee during these presentations. Comments from the public meetings can be found in

Appendix A - Public Participation Plan.

Although each subcommittee operated independently, some recommendations were duplicated. The

transportation staff of the YCPC identified four items that were addressed in more than one

subcommittee. Five core subcommittees were identified to be the primary place where overlappedneeds should be included. If a need overlapped with two subcommittees, the core subcommittee

would be the one to reflect the need and the non-core subcommittee’s need would be reduced by that

amount. The five core subcommittees were Bridge, Maintenance, Safety, Capacity, and Transit.


Identified Needs 45

Air Quality

Chairperson - Jennifer Gunnet, Windsor Township/YAMPO, Members: Kevin Stewart, American

Lung Association; Michael Baker, PennDOT Central Office; Randy Beck, YCPC; Beth Nidam,

YCPC

Air Quality is not a part of moving people

or goods; however, it is an importantconsideration when planning for vehicles,

which produce pollutants. York County

exceeds the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) allowed amount of

pollutants for the 8-Hour Ozone and the

Particulate Matter (PM) 2.5 parts permillion. Due to the higher than allowed

levels, York County is designated a Non-

Attainment area by the US EPA. Thisdesignation compels York County to

complete air quality conformity analysis.

Subcommittee Needs (2009-2035)

- Conversion of seven unofficial park andrides into marketable protected locations

- $23,396,684.

- Re-timing of the traffic signal systemalong the most congested corridors in

York County as identified in the

Congestion Management Plan (CMP) ona three-year cycle - $1,776,337.

($4,200,000 included in the Capacity

Subcommittee recommendation). - Coordination of all other traffic signals

on a five-year cycle - $2,184,274.

TOTAL AIR QUALITY NEED = $27,357,295(An additional $4,200,000 included in the Capacity Subcommittee recommendation).

http://www.ycpc.org/transportation_docs/LRTP%20Development_docs/LRTP%20Subcommittee%20Reports/AQNEEDS.pdf

http://www.ycpc.org/transportation_docs/Complete%20CMS%20Plan.pdf


Identified Needs46

Aviation

Chairperson - Donald Bubb P.E., YCPC/YAMPO, Members: Dave Spaulding, Susquehanna

Regional Airport Authority; Tim Tate, York Airport; Robert Donato, Bermudian Valley Airpark;

Kenetha Hansen, York County Economic Development Corporation, and Air TransportationAuthority of York County; Tom Tomczyk, PennDOT Bureau of Aviation; Greg Vaughn, PennDOT

District 8-0; Jeph Rebert, YCPC

The Aviation Subcommittee was tasked with identifying the needs for scheduled, business and

recreational public use airports that serve residents of York County. The locations of these airports

are shown on Map 8. The Subcommittee process identified the following needs and associated cost.


- Land development plan review within a three-mile radius of airports where municipal Airport

Hazard Zoning is not in place - $540,000.

- Completing a transportation access study for Harrisburg International Airport (HIA) - $300,000.- Completing a transportation access study for York Airport (THV) - $150,000.

- Installation of directional wayfinding signs to HIA, Capital City Airport (CXY), and (THV) -

$120,000.- Capital improvements through the PennDOT Airport Capital Improvement Program (ACIP)

within the airport boundaries of CXY and THV - $12,046,000.

TOTAL AVIATION NEED = $13,156,000

http://www.ycpc.org/transportation_docs/LRTP%20Development_docs/LRTP%20Subcommittee%20Reports/Aviation%20Report.pdf


Identified Needs 47

Bridges

Chairperson - Pat Schaub, Hopewell Township/YAMPO, Members: Steve Malesker P.E., C.S.

Davidson Inc.; Donnie McCauslin, Hopewell Township; Harivadan Parikh P.E., PennDOT District

8-0; Dennis Sloand, PennDOT District 8-0; Roy Livergood, YCPC; Heather Bitner, YCPC

The Bridge Subcommittee was responsible for identifying the need for replacement, rehabilitation,

and preservation of existing bridges. This included looking at all state bridges over 8 feet andcounty/municipal bridges over 20 feet and all county bridges.


- Minor repair of 448 bridges that will turn 25 or 75 years old through the life of this Plan -

$372,249,011.- Major repair of 262 bridges that will turn 50 years old through the life of this Plan -

$501,799,510.

- Total Replacement of 197 bridges that will turn 100 years old through the life of this Plan -$1,476,954,078.

- Total Replacement of 29 bridges that have an unknown age - $124,267,606.

TOTAL BRIDGE NEED = $2,476,270,206

http://www.ycpc.org/transportation_docs/LRTP%20Development_docs/LRTP%20Subcommittee%20Reports/Write%20Up%20for%20Bridges%20.pdf


Identified Needs48

Capacity (Congestion Management)

Chairperson - Kelly Palmer, West Manchester Township/YAMPO, Members: Tim Kinsley, Kinsley

Properties; Earl Shuckman, Shrewsbury Township; Sam Snyder, Yoe Borough; Brian Hare P.E.,

PennDOT Central Office; Glenn Longstreth, Pennsylvania Motor Trucking Association; TomAustin, Transportation Resource Group, Inc.; Richard McCoy, US Fish and Wildlife; Dennis Sloand,

PennDOT Planning and Programming; Will Clark, YCPC

The Capacity Subcommittee identified projects that would reduce 2035 projected congestion on the

roadway by providing additional capacity to the network.


- Completing projects programmed on the 2007 Transportation Improvement Program -$157,683,803.

- Completing projects programmed in the 2003-2023 Long Range Transportation Plan -

$82,521,000.- Re-timing of the 179 traffic signal lights located less then 1,000 feet from another traffic signal

light on a three-year cycle - $8,390,252.

- Implement a coordinated traffic signal system for the eight signalized intersections that are notcurrently coordinated and are less than 1,000 feet from another signal - $1,085,414.

- Widening of 80.92 miles of roadway projected to have a high 2,035 volume to capacity ratio -

$1,866,769,351.- Major increases to capacity at ten intersections - $271,353,574.

- Modifications to five interchange locations - $814,060,721.

- Completing projects submitted by municipalities since 1999 - $78,778,499.- Completing projects included in the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission Ten-Year Capital

Investment Plan - $59,400,000.

TOTAL CAPACITY NEED = $3,340,042,614

http://www.ycpc.org/transportation_docs/LRTP%20Development_docs/LRTP%20Subcommittee%20Reports/Capacity%20subcommittee%20Needs%20report%20July%202007.pdf

http://www.ycpc.org/index_docs/TRANSP%20-%20Plan.pdf


Identified Needs 49

Enhancements

Chairperson - Jim Gross, York City/YAMPO, Members: Joe Stafford, Bicycle Access Council;

Robin Ricketts, PANA; Barbara Kovacs, York City Health Bureau; John Sanford, Dallastown Area

School District; Gwen Loose, York County Rail Trail Authority; Jonathon Pinkerton,Lancaster/York Heritage Region; Stewart Graybill, Red Lion Borough; Kevin Alvernez, WellSpan

Health; Dave Holcombe, PennDOT District 8-0; Anne Walko, YCPC; Will Clark, YCPC

The Enhancement Subcommittee was responsible for planning for non-traditional transportation

projects. This category includes bicycles, pedestrians, viewsheds, downtown streetscapes, historic

preservation, archaeological planning, and environmental protection.


- Install missing sidewalks within one and a half miles of all elementary and middle schools and

two miles around all high schools - $3,697,241,932.

- Construct a multi-use trail along all rail corridors - $220,715,327.- Implement streetscapes within commercial or mixed use areas within Boroughs and York City -

$3,196,166,166.

- Complete inventory and identification of need for the other areas of the enhancement category.No cost identified.

TOTAL ENHANCEMENT NEED = $7,114,123,425

http://www.ycpc.org/transportation_docs/LRTP%20Development_docs/LRTP%20Subcommittee%20Reports/Write%20Up%20for%20Enhancements.pdf


Identified Needs50

Maintenance

Chairperson - Mike Fleming, Fairview Township/YAMPO. Members: Representative Ron Miller,

PA House of Representatives; Missy Werner, Ron Miller’s Office; Dan Shaw, Red Lion Borough;

Rick LeVan, PennDOT District 8-0; Dennis Sloand, PennDOT District 8-0; Richard Roman P.E.,PennDOT District 8-0; Don Bubb P.E., YCPC; Beth Nidam, YCPC

The Maintenance Subcommittee was responsible for determining the future need of maintaining allroutine work needed to keep the highway system (i.e., state and local) in satisfactory condition. This

included pavement maintenance, roadway drainage system maintenance, pavement markings,

signage, roadside vegetation/mowing, and traffic signal maintenance. Two routine tasks not includedare snow removal and routine maintenance on bridges.


- Pavement management of 1,342 miles of state-owned or federally-eligible roads, which would

include resurfacing, pavement markings, drainage system repairs or other upgrades -$6,875,925,509.

- Based on 2006 data, pavement management of 2,469 miles of local roads included resurfacing,

pavement markings, drainage system repairs or other upgrades - $4,551,602,716.- Repair or replacement of signs outside of a pavement management project - $204,567,279.

- Maintenance of the 294 traffic signals in operation, as of 2007 - $215,400,467.

TOTAL MAINTENANCE NEED = $11,783,598,384

http://www.ycpc.org/transportation_docs/LRTP%20Development_docs/LRTP%20Subcommittee%20Reports/Maintenance%20Subcommittee%20Needs%20Report%20%20July%202007.pdf


Identified Needs 51

Rail

Chairperson - Felicia Dell, YCPC/YAMPO , Members: Tom Baron, CSX; Ron Bender,

Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission; Dan Brady, Hanover Area Chamber of Commerce;

Michael Bull, Federal Railroad Administration; Rick Crawford, Norfolk Southern Railway Corp.;Kristen Gessner McCaughlin, PennDOT Central Office; Dave Hart, Pennsylvania Public Utility

Commission; Kevin Hodge, Rock Commercial Real Estate; Don Kress, Codorus Creek Railway;

Don Masemer, Hanover Terminal Inc.; Dennis Mead, ES3, LLC; Representative Ron Miller, PAHouse of Representatives; Blanda Nace, York County Economic Development Corp.; Michael

Smeltzer, Manufacture’s Association of South Central PA; Kim Smith, Genesee and Wyoming, Inc.;

Greg Vaughn P.E., PennDOT District 8-0; Jeph Rebert, YCPC; Joseph Marczyk, YCPC

The Rail Subcommittee looked at the movement of freight along rail corridors. They identified the

long term maintenance cost for the current system identified on Map 6 in Chapter III, as well asfuture expansion opportunities.


- Required Maintenance Costs for Class II railroads - $192,717,488.

- Activation of existing unused rail sidings. No cost identified.- Construction of new rail sidings. No cost identified.

TOTAL RAIL NEED = $192,717,488

http://www.ycpc.org/transportation_docs/LRTP%20Development_docs/LRTP%20Subcommittee%20Reports/Rail%20Freight%20Subcommittee%20Needs%20Report%20%20July%202007.pdf


Identified Needs52

Security

Chairperson - Robert Reilly, Congressman Todd Platts’ Office/YAMPO, Members: George Giangi,

South Central PA Counter Terrorism Task Force; Kay Carman, York County Office of Emergency

Management; Gloria Shipley, rabbittransit; Michael Shanabrook, York City Office of EmergencyManagement; Michael Fetrow, York County Office of Emergency Management; Scott Nazar, P.E.

PennDOT District 8-0 Office; Robert Medina, York County Human Services Department; Michael

Hampton, West Manheim Township, Office of Emergency Management; Barry Staub, PA StatePolice - Loganville Barracks; Roy Livergood, YCPC; Jeph Rebert, YCPC

The Security Subcommittee was to address and evaluate security and incident management needsfor the County’s entire transportation system, rather than individual transportation modes. Issues to

be addressed include risk assessment, evacuation transportation, critical facilities, Intelligent

Transportation Systems (ITS), and Emergency Planning Zones (EPZs) for Nuclear Plant Facilitieswere evaluated.


- Increase the height clearance for bridges over I-83. ($69,842,000 Included in the Bridge

Subcommittee recommendation).- Increase the height clearance for bridges over US 30. ($83,200,000 Included in the Bridge

Subcommittee recommendation).

- Install the ITS infrastructure identified in the PennDOT ITS architecture plan. $7,750,000- Model of transportation constraints within EPZs - $100,000.

- Conduct a Risk Vulnerability Assessment Team (RVAT) evaluation of York County’s Security

Needs/Emergency Management Preparedness. The assessment is performed at no cost on behalfof the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Pennsylvania State Police.

TOTAL SECURITY NEED = $7,850,000

(An additional $153,042,000 included in the Bridge Subcommittee recommendation).

http://www.ycpc.org/transportation_docs/LRTP%20Development_docs/LRTP%20Subcommittee%20Reports/Security%20Subcommittee%20Needs%20Report%20%20July%202007.pdf


Identified Needs 53

Safety

Chairperson - Ron Orndorf P.E., Hanover Borough/YAMPO, Members: Gregory M. Bean,

Southwestern Regional Police; Wayne Harper, York County Center for Traffic Safety; Ed

Janeshefskie, PennDOT District 8-0; Dave Mallin, PennDOT District 8-0; Joe Stafford, BicycleAccess Council; Heather Bitner, YCPC

The Safety Subcommittee identified the need to reduce crashes by using Education, Engineering,and Enforcement, the three E’s. The costs associated with general safety studies does not include

implementation of the studies.


- Completion of general safety studies - $56,339,143.- Complete access management study on select corridors - $16,414,891.

- Complete traffic and engineering study at intersections to determine if proper sight distance is

present - $3,356,644.- Complete sign inventory to ensure “stop ahead” signs are present at appropriate locations -

$748,936.

- Complete a traffic and engineering study at various locations to identify specific improvementsat various locations - $35,818,672.

- Install fencing along all limited access

roads to reduce vehicle and deer crashes- $55,017,480.

- Maintain safe operating condition of the

roads through proper maintenance.($617,058,026 Included in the

M a i n t e n a n c e S u b c o m m i t t e e

recommendation).- Install edge-line and centerline rumble

strips on arterial highways - $7,485,386.

- Police investment - $64,595,661.• Add an additional officer for each

police force - $64,437,097.

• Provide additional training on crashreports for police - $158,564.

- Provide driver education in the form of

a class for all registered drivers in YorkCounty (2003 Registered Drivers =

302,128) - $4,531,920.

TOTAL SAFETY NEED = $188,121,590

(An additional $617,058,026 included in the Maintenance Subcommittee recommendation.)

http://www.ycpc.org/transportation_docs/LRTP%20Development_docs/LRTP%20Subcommittee%20Reports/Safety%20Subcommittee%20Needs%20Report.pdf


Identified Needs54

Transit

Chairperson - Richard Farr, CM rabbittransit/YAMPO, Members: Bob Jensenius, York County

Chamber of Commerce; John Ward, Capital Area Transit and Modern Transit Partnership; Brandy

Heilman, South Central PA Commuter Services; Lou Diehl, Center for Independent LivingOpportunities; Jenna Reedy, rabbittransit; Melissa Hess, The Performance Group; Joshua Bennet,

Capital Trailways; Mike Wagner, York County Area Agency on Aging; Dr. Judith Basset, York

County Human Services Department; Greg Vaughan, PennDOT District 8-0; Jeph Rebert, YCPC

The Transit Subcommittee was to address the need of the public transit system; as well as other

transportation alternatives (e.g. including car pooling and vanpooling).


- Maintenance of existing system in terms of capital and operation funding - $685,600,000.

- Demand management - $3,200,000.

• A coordinator with Commuter Services of South Central Pennsylvania that is focused onYork County - $1,600,000.

• Establishment of ten subsidized vanpools - $1,600,000.

- Commuter Transit Services - $8,840,000.• Expansion of the Harrisburg express bus service and routine bus replacements - $2,970,000.

• Begin new express service into Maryland and routine bus replacements - $4,045,000.

• Lancaster and Adams express bus service and routine bus replacements - $1,725,000.• Intra-County express bus service - $100,000.

- Signal light prioritization along Congestion Management System corridors. ($200,000 included

in the Capacity Subcommittee recommendation).- Expansion of the existing transit transfer center - $1,500,000.

- Purchasing hybrid buses as replacements for the core routes (eight buses) - $4,080,000.

- Paratransit service expansion to address gaps in the YAMPO Transit/Human ServiceCoordinated Plan - $45,000.

http://www.ycpc.org/transportation_docs/LRTP%20Development_docs/LRTP%20Subcommittee%20Reports/Transit%20Subcommittee%20Needs%20Report.pdf


Identified Needs 55

TOTAL TRANSIT NEED = $703,265,000

(An additional $200,000 included in the Capacity Subcommittee recommendation).

The total need for all ten Subcommittees without overlap equals $25,846,502,002.

CHAPTER V

Future Funding Decision

Future Funding Decision 59

Chapter VFuture Funding Decision

One of the major steps in developing a long range transportation plan is prioritizing and planningwhere the majority of the future investment should be allocated. On December 6 , 2007 theth

YAMPO Technical Committee held a work session to discuss different future funding splits to

determine the best mix of transportation funding over the next 27 years. The Task Forcerecommendation was based on public participation, the identified need, funding projections, and

historic funding based on project type.

Public Participation

In order to gauge the transportation priorities of York County, residents were asked to complete a

“Transportation Madness” Survey (Figure 18). The survey was designed to indicate a priority levelamong the transportation categories that corresponded with the following Subcommittees: Bridges,

Capacity, Enhancements, Maintenance, Rail Freight, Safety, Security, and Transit. Refer to

Appendix A - Public Participation for a full page version of Transportation Madness.

Figure 18


Future Funding Decision60

A priority list was compiled by using the 308 survey responses. The list was then weighted by

assigning a point for each time a category was chosen. Figure 19 shows the categories in order ofmost points received with the total number of points listed in parentheses beside the category title.

This figure also details the frequency that a category “won” first/second, third/fourth, fifth/six, or

seventh/eighth place.

Clearly, public opinion identified Maintenance, Capacity, and Safety as the top three transportation

priorities. However, to ensure that these decisions were based on a foundation of facts, a focus groupsession was conducted to provide information to a sample set of residents. The focus group was

provided with the information that was produced by each of the ten subcommittees.

The Focus Group identified one clear difference. Bridges were more important than the

Transportation Madness results identified. However, the Transportation Madness Survey was

conducted prior to the Minneapolis bridge collapse in August 2007 and the Focus Group wasconducted afterward. Since that time, there has been a large amount of public education through the

media concerning the status of bridges throughout Pennsylvania and the nation. The Focus Group



participants collectively, when faced with severe financial limitations, chose to fund bridges, safety

engineering solutions, I-83 interchange upgrades, completion of projects currently on the TIP andLRTP, signal coordination, and transit’s maintenance of existing services. Overall the Focus Group

was not interested in funding enhancement projects, security projects, air quality stand-alone

projects or transit projects other than maintenance and use of alternative fuels.

Identified Needs

The identified need for each of the ten subcommittees is included in Chapter IV beginning on page43.

Funding Projections

The YAMPO looked at existing funding and developed a projection for 2009-2035. Each category

of existing funding was looked at and projected based on what is known or anticipated about that

specific funding category. This step in the process is a requirement of the YAMPO, although not onedecision about increasing or securing funding is made at the YAMPO level. There are many factors

that will change the composition of future revenue sources for transportation including the

following;

- Pennsylvania passed legislation concerning the tolling of I-80 and the following projections are

based on the tolling of I-80, which is still working towards Federal approval, which has not beenapproved.

- The projections also include funding levels based on the historic taxes generated from the

gasoline tax, which decreased in 2008. The dip in gas tax effects both state and federal revenuesources.

- SAFTEA-LU, Federal Transportation Legislation is set to expire on September 30, 2009, and

a new Federal Transportation Legislation will be created. This legislation is expected to havenew ideas on raising money since a goal is to move away from petroleum-based fuels.

With the previous three items taken into consideration, along with other considerations unknown,Figure 20 identifies the projected future revenue for York County, Pennsylvania, over the next 27

years. Preparation of this financial plan included a review of historical data, recent trends, and other

relevant materials. A total of $3.8 billion was identified for transportation investments within YorkCounty over the next 27 years.

Figure 20 shows the entire $3.8 billion split into formula driven and discretionary/competitivefunding categories. Funding that comes to York County through a formula is more secure than

funding that is distributed to York County through a discretionary/competitive processes. Over 79%

of the funding projected to come into York County over the next 27 years will be through a formulaallocation. The other 21% will be received for specific projects that are competing against other




projects at the state or federal

level. Figure 20 also identifieswhat body or organization is

responsible for allocating

f u n d i n g ; Y A M P O i sresponsible for 47% and the

County of York is responsible

for less than l%.

A detailed analysis of the

projections can be found inAppendix B.

Historic Funding

The YAMPO also evaluated

where the funding was spent

over the last three federalfiscal years. Figure 21

identifies YAMPO-controlled

funding expenditures based ont h e t e n s u b c o m m i t t e e

categories. Where there is

o v e r l a p b e t w e e n t h ecategories , projects a re

assigned based on the primary

improvement type.



Allocation of Future YAMPO Funding

Using all the previously identified data, the Long Range Transportation Plan Task Force reviewed

five different future funding wheels to determine the best mixture of transportation funding over thenext 27 years. This mixture constituted their recommendation for the best transportation system

within limited financial resources. The five different funding wheels were based on public input,

accomplishing PennDOT goals, the proportional need identified by the subcommittees andmaintaining the same percentages that have actually been spent over the last three years.

Figure 22 identifies the ranges that the Task Force recommended YAMPO and other fundingpartners fund in each category over the next 27 years. The identified amounts would not be a year-

by-year guidance, but a total distribution over the next 27 years. These ranges allocate more than

75% of all funding to maintaining the existing transportation network.



The following is a description of what could be accomplished with the minimum amount of the $1.8

Billion (Identified in Figure 20) of YAMPO controlled funding in each range.

TRANSIT ($258,201,433)

rabbittransit receives a portion of their operating budget from TIP-related funds. The TIP share of

the 2009-2035 projected operation cost of the existing system is $261,000,000. The remaining funds

would come from other state and local sources. The amount at the low end of the range would resultin a shortfall in funding of the existing system. The upper limit of the range would allow funding

for expansion of the existing system including the intra-county express service routes.

SAFETY ($92,214,797)

At the lower end of the range, it is anticipated that approximately 80% of engineering-causedcrashes could be addressed . This would not include crashes where the primary cause is something

other than the design or maintenance of the roadway. In addition, many other crash locations will

be addressed by capacity or maintenance type projects.

CAPACITY ($295,087,352)

All capacity projects ($157,683,803) started on the current 2007 TIP could be completed with the

proposed allocation. In addition, 5.9 miles (7% of need) of roadway could be widened, or 11 major

intersection improvements (73% of need) could be completed.

Capacity was considered as a category of what funding was remaining. The Task Force prioritized

funding of the existing system prior to expanding the transportation system. Also, the capacity needshould be reduced through avenues other than construction.

MAINTENANCE ($645,503,581)

When this level of funding is combined with PennDOT’s York County Maintenance Budget,

projected through the life of this Plan, approximately 2,248 miles of roadway could be paved, usingan average cost per mile and 2007 prices. The Maintenance Subcommittee’s pavement management

program calls for paving 2,555 miles of cycled roadway during these 27 years at 2007 prices. With

this level of funding, 88% of the pavement management cycle could be accomplished.

BRIDGES ($3313,530,311)

If the bridge projects were split evenly between the minor rehabilitations, major rehabilitations, and

replacements, approximately 12% of the need identified in this Plan would be met. The Bridge

Subcommittee recommends 216 bridges for replacement over the next 27 years; at this fundinglevel, 29 of them will be replaced.



ENHANCEMENTS ($34,551,000)

The Federal-designated amount for enhancements is identified by formula. The emphasis for the

Task Force was not how many, but what type of projects. The type of projects that will be funded

in the future will need to meet strict criteria. If the maximum of 5% was used, and all the moneywent to trails over the next 27 years, a total of 62 miles could be completed. If all the money went

to streetscapes or sidewalks, a total of 8 miles of streetscapes or 66 miles of sidewalks could be

completed.

AVIATION ($0)

Aviation does not currently receive funding through the YAMPO process and no funding is

identified for the future.

RAIL ($16,465,000)

The federal-designated amount for railroad crossing improvements is identified by formula. Theupper limit does provide for funding of future projects. Funding will be allocated to these projects

on a project-by-project basis. When the MPO identifies a beneficial project, funding will be

allocated.

SECURITY ($0)

Security was not allocated specific funding due to limited resources for other projects. The Task

Force recommended that selection criteria should be incorporated into the other categories that

provide additional support for projects that have security benefits.

AIR QUALITY ($0)

Many projects that are completed under categories other than Air Quality have pollution reducing

or air quality benefits. Fiscal constraints being what they are, the Task Force discussions pointed out

that air quality benefits are a secondary benefit and an important project criterion.

Since these were the minimum amounts of funding in each range, the total is 90%, an additional10% ($184,429,595) is flexible within the proposed ranges.

CHAPTER VI

Project Selection Process

Project Selection Process 69

Chapter VIProject Selection Process

One of the goals of this Plan is to develop a process that helps guide the decision makers to selectprojects that meet the identified goals. Chapter II identifies the goals included in SAFETEA-LU,

Keystone Principles, PennDOT Mobility Plan, Smart Transportation Principles, and the other

elements of the York County Comprehensive Plan. The process included in this chapter referencesChapter II to identify whether the selection criterion meets the goals of that specific document.

The Selection Process

This process is designed to assist in selecting transportation projects and not be the “black box” that

will select the final project. A quote from PennDOT’s Mobility Plan reads, “ ...project development

decisions must always be made by people, not spreadsheets, weighing a range of criteria that is oftensubjective, not easily quantified, and adjusted for unique situations. Project prioritization is not a

mechanical process. It cannot and should not be overly prescriptive or inflexible. “

The project selection criteria set forth in this Chapter are listed under each appropriate subcommittee

and the same criterion can be included in one or more subcommittee processes.

Some subcommittees have several levels of criteria. The first level is an absolute and this is the first

step that a project is evaluated against. The project only moves forward if the answer to each

question is “yes.” The second step is a weighted criteria that considers criteria at different values.Some weighted data is not currently collected and should be considered in the future when the

information is collected. The third level is after the project is selected there may be items that the

sponsor or municipality needs to complete to receive funding.

The YAMPO, however, does not plan or program projects with the primary and/or only purpose of

improving air quality. Thus, project selection criteria were not developed for transportation projectswith the sole intent of improving air quality. Air quality benefits, however, must be a weighted

factor in the project selection criteria for all other transportation categories, except Safety. No

transportation candidate project should be selected that adds to York County’s air pollution levels.

Unique to the area of Air Quality is the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funding

source that is set aside for Air Quality beneficial projects. These federally-allocated funds haveselection criteria already developed in the SAFETEA-LU, Interim Program Guidance. Annually,

YAMPO should evaluate the level of funding available. If any CMAQ funding is available, the

transportation projects that have passed through the project selection process for CMAQ fundingshould be ranked according to the cost-effectiveness, or CMAQ-dollar to Air Quality benefit, of

each project. The highest ranking project should then be promoted.

Criterion were not developed for Aviation or Security since those categories were not identified with

a funding allocation in Chapter V.


http://www.newpa.com/find-and-apply-for-funding/keystone-principles/index.aspx


http://www.smart-transportation.com/implementing.html


http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/igslpfa.htm


Project Selection Process70

SAFE

TEA

-LU

KEY

STO

NE

PRIN

CIP

LES

PEN

ND

OT

MO

BIL

ITY

PLA

N

SMA

RT

TRA

NSP

OR

TATI

ON

CO

UN

TY C

OM

P PL

AN CAPACITY

CRITERIA

CAPACITY - LEVEL 1 : ABSOLUTE

/ / / 1. Is the project located wi thin a m unicipality adopted growth area andconsistent within the current York County Growth Management Plan?

/ / / 2. Is the project on a Level II or III CMS corridor or intersection?

/ / / / 3.Does the project have at least two full hours of travel time measurementsoperating below level of service of “c? ” They do not need to beconsecutive hours.

/ / / / 4.

Does the new alignment or roadway project avoid impacts to high hazardlocations or environmentally sensitive areas as identified by the YorkCounty Hazard Mitigation Plan and the York Cou nty Natural AreasInventory, respectively?

/ / / 5. Does the project i mprove the response tim e or access for em ergencyvehicles?

CAPACITY - LEVEL 2: WEIGHTED CRITERIA

/ / / / 1.Economic Development (Subjective - Y es or N o) (High) - D oes theproject meet the goal s and objectives of the York County Econom icDevelopment Plan?

/ / / 2.Level of Service (High) - Is the total time of delay for hours of operationworse then LOS “C” (Multiply the volume for each movement the timedelay for each movement)?

/ / / 3. Air Quality Benefit (Low) - What is the measurement from an air qualitytoxin quantifying software?


http://www.ycpc.org/transportation_docs/Complete%20CMS%20Plan.pdf





http://www.ycpc.org/Development%20of%20Economic%20Development%20Plan.htm

http://www.ycpc.org/Development%20of%20Economic%20Development%20Plan.htm


SAFE

TEA

-LU

KEY

STO

NE

PRIN

CIP

LES

PEN

ND

OT

MO

BIL

ITY

PLA

N

SMA

RT

TRA

NSP

OR

TATI

ON

CO

UN

TY C

OM

P PL

AN CAPACITY

CRITERIA


/ / 4.Cost Benefit Ratio (High) - What is the cost associated to YAMPO (allphases) divided by the difference in total time of delay between the buildand no build scenarios of the project?

/ 5. Coordination with other proj ects (High) - Can this project m eet anobjective of another subcommittee?

/ / / / 6. Freight Movem ent (Subjective - Ye s or No) (Medium ) - Does thisproject reduce bottlenecks in freight movement?

/ / / / 7. Does the project increase efficiency of the existing network withoutadditional right-of-way? (Yes or No) (High)

CAPACITY - LEVEL 2: FUTURE WEIGHTED CRITERIA

/ 1. What is the forecasted volume-to-capacity ratio of the 10- and 20-yearbuild scenarios as identified by the transportation model? (Medium)

CAPACITY - LEVEL 3: FINAL ABSOLUTE NEEDS TO MEET

/ / / / / 1.Has the m unicipality adopted proper land use tools (i.e. official m ap,access m anagement ordinance, etc...) appropriate for protecting orreducing the cost of the transportation investment.

/ / / / 2. Have solutions, other than increasing roadway capacity, been exploredto fix the problem?



SAFE

TEA

-LU

KEY

STO

NE

PRIN

CIP

LES

PEN

ND

OT

MO

BIL

ITY

PLA

N

SMA

RT

TRA

NSP

OR

TATI

ON

CO

UN

TY C

OM

P PL

AN ENHANCEMENTS

CRITERIA

ENHANCEMENTS- LEVEL 1:ABSOLUTE

/ / 1.For Safe Route To School Project s - Doe s the application includeeducation through the school district at the school t he project isbenefitting?

/ / 2. For Safe Route To School Projects - Is the School District walki ngpolicy consistent with the location of the physical improvements?

/ / / / 3.

For All Projects - Does the project avoid im pacts to high hazardlocations or environmentally sensitive areas as identified by the YorkCounty Hazard Mitigation Plan and the York County Natural AreasInventory?

/ / / 4. For All Projects - Are all pre-const ruction costs using Non-YAMPOfunding sources?

/ / 5. For All Projects - Is the cost of yearly routine maintenance known andaccepted by the responsible party?

/ / 6. Has the appropriate public involvem ent outreach occ urred and is itcurrent?

ENHANCEMENTS - LEVEL 2: WEIGHTED CRITERIA

/ / 1. Cost/Benefit Ratio - W hat is the ratio of total YAMPO expenditurecompared to the annual users? (Medium)

/ / 2. Will coordination of this project with other projects reduce cost? (Yesor No) (Medium)

/ / / / 3. Does the project protect envi ronmentally sensitive areas through thepurchase of property or project development? (High)

/ 4. Is the project concept fully developed? (High)

/ 5. Has the right-of-way been acquired based on federal regulations?(High)

/ / / / / 6. For Mobility/Safety Projects - Does the project connect two types ofland use to create a connection? (Yes or No)

/ / / 7. For Mobility/Safety Projects - Does the project provide a connection toanother mode besides the primary mode? (Yes or No) (Medium)






SAFE

TEA

-LU

KEY

STO

NE

PRIN

CIP

LES

PEN

ND

OT

MO

BIL

ITY

PLA

N

SMA

RT

TRA

NSP

OR

TATI

ON

CO

UN

TY C

OM

P PL

AN ENHANCEMENTS

CRITERIA


/ / 8.For Mobility/Saf ety Projects - Is the project part of an overalltransportation corridor improvement and identified as an element of thesolution in a separate transportation study? (Yes or No) (Medium)

/ 9. For Beautification/Recreation/Envi ronmental Projects - Does theproject protect and/or enhance documented historic properties? (Low)

/ / 10. For Beautificat ion/Recreation/Environmental Projects - Does theproject connect to an existing recreational trail? (Low)

ENHANCEMENTS - LEVEL 3: FINAL ABSOLUTE NEEDS TO MEET

/ / 1. Is there a separate contract if the m unicipal engineer of record isawarded pre-construction contract?

/ 2. Has additional scoping of the pr oject been com pleted prior to finalapproval?



SAFE

TEA

-LU

KEY

STO

NE

PRIN

CIP

LES

PEN

ND

OT

MO

BIL

ITY

PLA

N

SMA

RT

TRA

NSP

OR

TATI

ON

CO

UN

TY C

OM

P PL

AN SAFETY

CRITERIA

SAFETY - LEVEL 1 ABSOLUTE

/ / / / 1.

Is t he corridor or intersection a top 25 candidate project from thePennDOT District 8-0 Highway Safety Plan or through the YCPC staffrecommendation of transportation studies such as Traffic Impact/CorridorStudies or municipal submissions?

A total of five preferred locations will be chosen for field scoping before proceeding to Level 1, Criteria 2.

/ / / / 2. Can the crash cluster identified in the field scoping be corrected by theproposed improvement solution?

SAFETY - LEVEL 2 WEIGHTED CRITERIA

/ / / / 1. Current Project (High) - Is the project located within the lim its of aplanned municipally- or TIP-funded project?

/ / / 2.

Cost Benefit Ratio (High) - What is the cost associated to YAMPO (allphases) divided by the number of crashes in the movement (not overallintersection) being addressed by improvement (relative to highest projectratio)?

/ / / 3.Type of Crash - W hat type of crashes are attem pting to be correctedthrough these actions? Angle (Medium ) Hit Fixed Object ( Medium)Head-on (Low) Rear, (Low)

/ / / 4. Deliverability (Medium) - Does the complexity of the project allow forproper implementation?

/ / / 5. Other Plans (Low) - Is the project identified in municipal/county plans?

SAFETY - LEVEL 2 FUTURE WEIGHTED CRITERIA

/ / 1. Non-Reportable Crash Rate - W hat is the r atio of reportable to non-reportable crashes?

SAFETY - LEVEL 3 FINAL ABSOLUTE NEEDS TO MEET

/ 1. If funding, other than state or f ederal is committed to the project, is anMOU with the YAMPO signed?



SAFE

TEA

-LU

KEY

STO

NE

PRIN

CIP

LES

PEN

ND

OT

MO

BIL

ITY

PLA

N

SMA

RT

TRA

NSP

OR

TATI

ON

CO

UN

TY C

OM

P PL

AN RAIL

CRITERIA

RAIL - LEVEL 1 : ABSOLUTE

/ 1. Funding - Are matching funds available or are funds currently in place toproceed with the project?

/ / / / 2. Does the project provide a dequate infrastructure to safely transportindustry standard minimum weight of rail cars?

/ / / / 3.Environmental - Does the project avoid or mitigate high hazard locationsand avoid adversely im pacting environm entally se nsitive areas,productive agricultural lands or significant historic sites?

RAIL - LEVEL 2 WEIGHTED CRITERIA

/ / / / 1.

Growth Management - Does the project contribute to the improvement ofthe inf rastructure within designated growth area or rehabilitate/reuseexisting buildings or improve/enhance community revitalization efforts?(High)

/ / / 2. Congestion Miti gation - Does the project alleviate truck traffic onroadways? (High)

/ / / / 3.Economic Developm ent - Does the project cont ribute to creatingpermanent jobs, producing a positive impact on local labor markets andprovide suitable wages and job training? (Medium)

/ / / 4.

Green Technology - Is the business or project energy efficient; use energyconservation standards; produce, sell or use renewable energy; promoteinnovation in energy production and use; or e xpand renewable energysources or clean power? (Low)

/ / / / 5. Safety - Will the project contribute to reducing the risk of derailments?(Medium)


SAFE

TEA

-LU

KEY

STO

NE

PRIN

CIP

LES

PEN

ND

OT

MO

BIL

ITY

PLA

N

SMA

RT

TRA

NSP

OR

TATI

ON

CO

UN

TY C

OM

P PL

AN RAIL

CRITERIA


/ / / 6.Public Support - Has the project been discussed with local government(s)and community(ies), and is the project supported by local government(s)and the community(ies)? (Low)

/ / / 7. Is the project supported by local comprehensive vision and plans? (Low)

RAIL - LEVEL 3 FINAL ABSOLUTE

/ 1. Is there the ability to leverage additional funds to complete the project?



SAFE

TEA

-LU

KEY

STO

NE

PRIN

CIP

LES

PEN

ND

OT

MO

BIL

ITY

PLA

N

SMA

RT

TRA

NSP

OR

TATI

ON

CO

UN

TY C

OM

P PL

AN MAINTENANCE

CRITERIA

MAINTENANCE- LEVEL 2 : WEIGHTED

/ / / / / 1. Pavement Management Cycle (High) - Is the project inside or outsidethe projected pavement management cycle?

/ / / / 2. Road Function - Is the project in Roa d Group A (High), Group B(Medium) or Group C (Low)?*

/ / / 3. AADT (High) - W hat is the Annu al Average Daily Traffic (AADT)volume for the project road segments?

/ / / 4. Current IRI (Medium ) - Wha t is the current International RoughnessIndex (IRI) measurement of the project road segments?

/ / / / 5.Change in IRI (High) - What is the change in IRI measurement (currentIRI numeric measurement minus previous IRI numeric measurement) forthe project road segments?

/ / / / 6. Field View ( High) - W hat does the field view of the project showregarding the condition and the general area of the project segments?

/ / / / / 7. Road Condition Crash (High) - What is the number of crashes that areattributed to pavement condition?

/ / / / 8.Public Perce ption (Low) - W hat is the num ber of com plaints aboutroadway conditions as reported by municipal- and state-elected officialsor municipal managers?

/ / / / 9. Environmental I mpact Issues (Medium ) - W hat is the num ber ofcomplaints about roadway water runoff creating environmental impacts?

/ / / / 10.Anticipated TIP/Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) or HOPProjects (Yes or No) (Medium) - Is the project tim e sensitive tocoordinate with another project?

/ / / / 11. Utility Scheduling (Yes or No) (M edium) - Is the project beingcoordinating with a utility project?

MAINTENANCE - LEVEL 3: FINAL ABSOLUTE NEEDS TO MEET

/ / / 1. Fairness Factor - Is there an equal distribution of projects throughout theCounty?

* The state roadways of York County are broken into three groups. Please see the following and Map 10.



The State-owned roadway network is classifi ed into different levels of function. The followingclassifications will be used for the Maintenance selection criteria number 2.

Group A: The National Highway System roadways (NHS) and the red and blue detour routes forI-83. These roads are considered Priority #1. (High)02

Group B: Roadways, not in Group A, with a 2-digit State Route (SR) number that are not on theNHS, 3-digit SR number with AADT greater than or equal to 10,000, and 4-digit SR number withAADT greater or equal to 10,000. These roads are considered Priority #2. (Medium)

Group C: Roadways, not in Group A or Group B, with both 3-digit or 4-digit SR num bers withAADT less than 10,000. These roads are considered Priority #3. (Low)

Map 10 2009-2035 Long Range Transportation Plan

Road Maintenance Groups



SAFE

TEA

-LU

KEY

STO

NE

PRIN

CIP

LES

PEN

ND

OT

MO

BIL

ITY

PLA

N

SMA

RT

TRA

NSP

OR

TATI

ON

CO

UN

TY C

OM

P PL

AN BRIDGES

CRITERIA

BRIDGES - LEVEL 1: ABSOLUTE NEEDS TO MEET

/ / / / / 1. Is the bridge structurally deficient or a preservation project?

/ / / / 2. For County and Local Bridges - Is the anticipated cost of replacem entover one million federal dollars in the year of construction?

BRIDGES - LEVEL 2:WEIGHTED CRITERIA

/ / / / / 1. Functional Classification (High) - Is the bridge posted in such a mannerthat will effect the function of the roadway?

/ / / / / 2. Change in Sufficiency Rating (High) - What is the percent change in thesufficiency rating over the last five years?

/ / / / / 3. For Local Bridges - Maintenance (Medium ) - Has the bri dge beenmaintained regularly?

/ / / / 4. Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) (Medium) - What is the AADTon the bridge?

/ / / / 5. Flooding (Low) - Are there any f looding issues associated with thebridge?

/ / / / 6. Emergency Services (Tiebreaker) - W hich bridge im pacts/serves thegreater number of homes in regards to emergency services?

BRIDGES - LEVEL 2: FUTURE CRITERIA

/ / / / / 1. Emergency Response (Low) - Are there any emergency responseissues with the bridge?

BRIDGES - LEVEL 3: FINAL ABSOLUTE NEEDS TO MEET

/ / / / 1.Has a resolution been completed by the governing body com mittingproper percentage for each phase of the project cost or 100% ofpreconstruction; this includes design, right-of-way and utility relocation?


SAFE

TEA

-LU

KEY

STO

NE

PRIN

CIP

LES

PEN

ND

OT

MO

BIL

ITY

PLA

N

SMA

RT

TRA

NSP

OR

TATI

ON

CO

UN

TY C

OM

P PL

AN BRIDGES

CRITERIA


/ / 2. For Local Bridges - Has a project tim eline been com pleted andsubmitted as part of the resolution?

/ 3. For Local Bridges - Has a separate contract for the project been enteredinto by the municipality and for the project engineer?



The selection process for transit projects is unique, in that, it is divided into three distinct categories:Transit System Maintenance, Mobility Need, and Mobility Alternative. This Plan will treat theselection process for the last two transit project categories differently.

- The maintenance of the existing transit system comprises the vast majority of the transit need.The need includes, but is not limited to, the acquisition of buses, the acquisition of real estate,construction of buildings, and the development of the Transit Development Plan approximatelyevery five years. This project funding category is vital to keep the public system(s) operating.The public transit entity procures these funds through direct appli cation t o the federalgovernment and/or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Hence, the proposed project selectionprocess will not apply to the maintenance of the existing transit system(s).

- Mobility Need projects involve transit and related improvements required to provide service toevery individual, especially low-income and disabled individuals, and minority populations.

- Mobility Alternative projects involve transit and transit-related im provements outside thetraditional sense. Projects can involve com muter express bus se rvice, ridesharing, IntelligentTransportation (IT) and land use considerations.

SAFE

TEA

-LU

KEY

STO

NE

PRIN

CIP

LES

PEN

ND

OT

MO

BIL

ITY

PLA

N

SMA

RT

TRA

NSP

OR

TATI

ON

CO

UN

TY C

OM

P PL

AN TRANSIT

CRITERIA

TRANSIT - MOBILITY NEED: WEIGHTED

/ / / 1.Growth Management (Yes or No) (High) - Will the project improve thetransportation infrastructure within designated growth areas identified inthe York County Growth Management Plan?

/ / / / / 2.Expand Existing Se rvice (Yes or No) (High) - Does the projecteffectively enhance/expand/com plement the current service beingprovided?

/ / / / 3.Mobility Challenges (Yes or No) (Medium) - Does the project mitigatemobility challenges f or the disabled, low-incom e, and/or m inoritypopulations?

/ / / / 4. Connectivity ( Yes o r N o) ( Medium) - W ill th e p roject e nhance o rpromote the connectivity of transit services and/or transportation modes?

/ / 5. Education (Yes or No) (Low) - Does the project promote or enhance theinformation-sharing between transit operations and/or other entities?

/ / / / 6. Increase Job Markets (Yes or No) (Tie Breaker) - Will the project providetransportation services for individuals to commute to and from work?




TRANSIT - MOBILITY ALTERNATIVE: WEIGHTED

/ / / / 1. Reduce Single Occupancy Vehicles ( SOVs) (High) - Has the projectproven to reduce the number of SOVs on the County’s roadways?

/ / / 2. Intelligent Transportation (IT) (High) - Does the project employ IT andIT System Architecture to improve or enhance transit or related services?

/ / / 3.Growth Management (Yes or No) (High) - Will the project improve thetransportation infrastructure within the designated growth areas identifiedin the York County Growth Management Plan?

/ / / / / 4. Expand Existing Service (Yes or No) (High) - Will the project effectivelyenhance/expand/complement the current service being?

/ / / / / 5. Connectivity (Yes or No) (Medium ) - Does the project enhance orpromote the connectivity of transit services and/or transportation modes?

/ 6.Education (Yes or No) (Low) - Will the project promote or enhance thecoordination/cooperation information sharing between transit operationsand/or other entities?

/ / / / 7. Air Quality (Tie Breaker) - Has the project been proven to reduce theVehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)?

/ / / / 8. Increase Job Markets (Yes or No) (Tie Breaker) - Will the project providetransportation services for individuals to commute to and from work?




Public Participation

In order to ensure the YAMPO was weighing the selection criteria in a manner that represented thepublic view, an electronic survey was conducted. The survey was sent to over 1,400 people throughe-mail and was available on the YCPC website. The survey was open from January 5, 2009 t oFebruary 2, 2009. During that time, over 650 people completed all or part of the survey.

The results of the survey can be found in Appendix A. The results of the survey identified that themajority of the selection criteria developed by the YAMPO was verified by the public. However,there were two criteria weights modified due to the results of the public comment period.

Table 3 - Two Criteria Weights Modified

CriterionYAMPOOriginalWeight

PublicInput

FinalWeight

Maintenance - Current IRI High Medium Medium

Maintenance - Road Condition Crash Medium High High

Transit- Connectivity of Transit Service Low Medium-High Medium

In addition, there were som e criteria that the public weighted differently than the YAMPO.However, the YAMPO will still use the original weight due to additional facts that the YAMPO hasavailable for decision-making. The safety criterion for the type of crash to be fixed will rank theangle and hit fixed object as m edium and head-on and r ear-ends as low, even though the publicopinion identified head-on as the number one and hit fixed object as the fourth type to fix. The crashdata for York County identify that hit fixe d object crashes are m ore likely to result in a seriousinjury or fatality than a head-on crash.

CHAPTER VII

Reduce the Funding Gap

Reduce the Funding Gap 87

Chapter VIIReduce the Funding Gap

The $27 billion need identified in Chapter IV outpaces the $4 billion funding identified in ChapterV. This results in a funding gap at the state and federal level; therefore decisions need to be made

to close the funding gap. As part of the selection criteria public involvement process, identified in

Chapter VI, the public was asked questions concerning how to close the funding gap by evaluating15 different revenue increases. Only an increase in the annual vehicle registration fee and a traffic

impact fee for new construction were supported by more than 50% of the 575 responses to the

question. Due to public support, it appears that raising revenue will only close a portion of thefunding gap. Full survey results can be found in Appendix A.

Each subcommittee that had a gap between projected funding and projected need also identifiedways to close the funding gap other than raising more revenue. The methods revolved around better

planning and coordination, reduction of the need by reducing demand, policy development, and

working with other funding sources to supplement federal and state transportation funding. Thefollowing ideas are divided into the appropriate funding subcommittees.

Paths to Reduce the Bridge Funding Gap

1. County and Municipal - Implement a ten-year plan that addresses preventative maintenance and

preservation treatments to avoid more costly reconstruction projects. Evaluate the possibility of

eliminating some bridges.

2. County and Municipal - Promote funding for local bridges through general funds, Pennsylvania

Infrastructure Bank (PIB) loans, Hazard Mitigation Grant Funds, Pennsylvania Historic MuseumCommission, and agility programs (state and local level).

3. Municipal - Promote educational instruction through the Local Technical Assistance Program(LTAP) to municipalities on preventive maintenance of bridges, as well as how to repair/replace

bridges using municipal employees.

4. State - Evaluate the possibility of eliminating some bridges.

Paths to Reduce the Capacity Funding Gap

1. Recommend that all municipalities adopt provisions to require Traffic Impact Study (TIS)

ordinances. Of the 72 municipalities, 31 currently require a TIS in their ordinance for certain

types of development. The traffic impact study defines the impact and possible funding forspecific capacity projects needed to mitigate new traffic associated with development.


Reduce the Funding Gap88

- Develop transportation growth factors specifically for York County instead of identifyingtraffic growth rates from a statewide database. Local data will identify a more realistic impact

growth is having on the transportation system.

2. Monitor the project delivery process and streamline project delivery through the National

Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) by reducing duplication of environmental work in

planning and project development.

3. Identify other opportunities to reduce single occupancy vehicles.

- Susquehanna Regional Transportation Partnership (Commuter Services of South Central

Pennsylvania), transit, ridesharing.

4. Implement ITS beneficial projects within the major transportation network to provide real time

opportunities for travel choices.

- Monitor signal timing to utilize computerized traffic signal systems to move traffic more

efficiently.

5. Include transit as part of option for improvements on corridors.

6. Encourage municipalities to develop more than local streets in their development patternsthrough the Official Map adoption process and street connectivity ordinances.

7. Encourage municipalities to adopt Traffic Impact Fee ordinances to enable them to collectimpact fees from developers.

Paths to Reduce the Enhancements Funding Gap

1. Municipal Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance recommendations.

a.Requiring schools to have pedestrian and bicycle access.

b.Pedestrian and bicycle access should be evaluated within commercial and industrial locations.

2. Coordinate funding efforts with other funding programs (i.e. Community Development Block

Grants, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources).

- Identify opportunities for public private partnerships.

3. Encourage municipalities to adopt Recreation Plans and corresponding recreation impact fee todevelop non-vehicular mobility options within the municipality.


Reduce the Funding Gap 89

4. All project development should continue to use the PennDOT bicycle and pedestrian checklistfor all project development.

5. Include pedestrian and bicycle mobility projects in Official Maps Ordinances.

6. Develop pedestrian and bicycle trails within operational or abandoned corridors.

Paths to Reduce the Maintenance Funding Gap

1. Implement a pavement preservation program through asset management practices.

2. Streamline and monitor the project delivery process.

3. Coordinate with utility companies to find a more efficient method of accomplishing utilityrelocations to facilitate timely project delivery.

4. Develop stringent policies and regulations regarding the construction and maintenance ofpavement cuts, such as utility cuts through the PennDOT HOP process.

5. Coordinate with utility companies/authorities, specifically during large utility infrastructurereplacements, and also municipal public works planning and projects.

6. Better coordination with other projects such as TIP projects, CDGB projects, HOP work andother development projects.

7. Evaluate lowest volume state roads for turn-back to municipalities to reduce the need for morecostly PennDOT maintenance.

Paths to Reduce the Security Funding Gap

1 Incorporate the proper security designs into projects near or within the “Medium to High” hazard

areas as identified in the Hazard Risk Matrix of the York County Hazard Mitigation Plan or the

Risk and Vulnerability Assessment Team (RVAT) Study.

2. The YAMPO should explore non-MPO and county funding sources in order to finance

transportation improvements programmed for the Long Range Transportation Plan, including,but not limited to Buffer Zone Protection (BZP) Funds.



CHAPTER VIII

Work Elements

Work Elements 93

Chapter VIIIWork Elements

2009-2035 Future Work Elements

The last step in the Long Range Transportation Plan development process is the identification of

work tasks to be completed by YAMPO and other stakeholders. While many transportation planningobjectives are accomplished solely through the work of the YAMPO staff, planning for the future

of York County’s transportation needs often requires the combined efforts of not only YAMPO staff

but also legislators, municipalities, county, and state agencies, utility companies, and private citizengroups. Just as the transportation network itself both serves and impacts the strata of our society

from economic development to emergency management to the environment, transportation planning

must find the balance between the concerns, interests, needs, and available funding by involving allof the parties throughout the entire process.

Tables 4 and 5 list the work tasks that have been identified through the development of the previouschapters of this Plan. These tasks will collect the data, evaluate, and analyze the information in order

to accomplish the objectives and implement the policies that have been developed. Table 4 depicts

those tasks where the YAMPO staff will accomplish the work and/or take the lead for theaccomplishment of those tasks. These elements are listed in priority group order; however, there is

no ranking of tasks within each priority group. Table 5 depicts those tasks that belong to YAMPO

partners (other YCPC departments, rabbittransit, PennDOT, County of York departments, policedepartments, municipalities, and their municipal engineers, utility companies, school districts,

railroads, etc.). These elements are not listed in any particular order and would be supported by

YAMPO if another agency would apply for funding to complete these tasks.

The future work tasks for the YAMPO staff will be scheduled annually in the work plan through the

Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP). The UPWP identifies the individual work tasks that guideand direct planning efforts during a given period of time. In addition to the long-range tasks, Federal

Highway Administration (FHWA) and PennDOT identify federal and state planning priorities for

local planners that address current issues.

The future UPWP tasks listed below do not include those tasks considered to be continuous

operating procedures for the daily business of YAMPO by its staff. These tasks include TIP updates,UPWP annual development, MPO meetings, individual project development, public meetings, and

air quality conformity requirements.





Work Elements94

Table 4 - YAMPO Future Work Tasks

YAMPO Staff Tasks

YCPC

Trans

Staff

Other

YCPC

Dept.

Outside

AgencyHigh Priority Work Tasks(* denotes Project Selection Criteria task)

/* /

Update the CMS Plan with the following elements:

• Utilize forecasted Volume-to-Capacity levels from the transportationmodel as a performance measure.

• Capture 24-hour traffic counts to determine the number of hours at an

unacceptable level of service.• Identify individual and CMS corridor intersections.

• Determine a measure for predictability of delay.

• Collect time delay information for Level III corridors outside thenormal peak hour times.

• Update travel demand model detail along the Level III corridors

sections.

/*Design and implement program for collecting traffic count data for Countybridges.

/* Obtain current local and county bridge inspection results annually.

/* Obtain current bridge data (BMS) annually.

/* Obtain current crash data annually.

/* Obtain current RMS data annually.

/* /

Consult with York County 911 for list of bridges/roads whose

posting/closure causes significant delay or routing problems for

emergency response teams and the general public.

/* /Create combined list of all utility companies, including municipalauthorities, etc., and their project contacts in York County.

/* / / Solicit all utility contacts for list of their planned projects.

/*

Create an annual crash data analysis report tracking identified statistics for

various period-year comparisons. Report should include evaluation of

“environmental” causes, specifically related to actual road condition.

/*

Create Geographic Information Systems (GIS) layers with built-incalculations for easy annual update for:

• Bridge data: i.e., changes in sufficiency rating, etc.

• RMS data: i.e., changes in IRI, etc.


YAMPO Staff Tasks

YCPC

Trans

Staff

Other

YCPC

Dept.

Outside


Work Elements 95

/*Develop an inventory and GIS map of flow-constricting bridges that are

identified in Stormwater Management (Act 167) plans.

/* / Develop a GIS map of major road designated detour routes.

/* /

Develop an inventory and GIS map that designates significant areas of the

county, such as natural areas, environmentally sensitive areas, historicallysignificant areas, utility locations, and no-build areas such as quarries, and

cemeteries, etc. The purpose of this inventory and map is to identify “red

zone” areas or cautionary areas of the county where transportation projectsshould be avoided, if possible, and other alternatives considered. Should

no alternative be viable, the project in the “red zone” will need additional

impact assessments.

/* /

Develop an inventory and GIS map of historically significant sitesthroughout the County, including bridges, using National Historic

designations (district and sites) and municipal and regional

Comprehensive Plans.

/* /

Hold an annual meeting with regional police chiefs to exchange crashlocation information/concerns and discuss the possibility of routine

collection of non-reportable crash data by Global Positioning Systems

(GPS).

/Develop a York County Official Map Ordinance identifying projects onthe current YAMPO TIP.

/Develop a target list of priority corridors for access management ordinance

implementation.

/Develop an inventory and GIS map of bridges that could be voluntarily

closed instead of repaired and/or replaced.

/ / Develop a ten-year Capital Improvement Plan for County-owned bridges.

/Undertake a major evaluation of the York County FunctionalClassification System Map.

/Continue to promote safety-oriented projects for future updates of the

Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).

/Continue to support PennDOT in collection of HPMS sample sections and

traffic count collection annually.


YAMPO Staff Tasks

YCPC

Trans

Staff

Other

YCPC

Dept.

Outside


Work Elements96

/

Develop a special annual MPO meeting with non-passenger-vehicle

partners in York County to exchange current information, projects, and

concerns in order to promote more coordinated efforts toward similargoals.

/ Formalize the annual report cards for MPO actions and projects.

/ /

Municipal outreach on topics such as long-range pavement preservation

plans for local roads, corridor access management ordinances, planning for

railroad operations, traffic impact fee ordinances, bridge maintenance, andimprovements programs, bicycle/pedestrian access plans for municipal

comprehensive plans through various outreach modes:

• topical Planning Perspectives newsletters• LTAP and other available technology transfer and educational classes

• follow-up presentations at municipal meetings

• outreach to targeted municipalities

Medium Priority Work Tasks

/ /

Coordinate a “standard” or model transportation planning andprogramming effort for municipal comprehensive planning projects with

YCPC Long Range Planning’s Municipal Consulting Program.

/ /Develop an inventory and routine inspection program for all local bridges

8-20 feet in length.

/

Accurately map and model detour routes within the ten-mile EmergencyPlanning Zone (EPZ) to identify potential bottleneck areas.

/ /Coordinate with police departments concerning problem intersections

and/or corridors for causal evaluation.

/ / /Develop a How to be the Local Lead guidebook for municipalities

involved in federally- or state-funded projects.

/Test large scale transportation alternatives employing the transportationmodel and rank these alternatives.

/Implement a schedule for continued collection of data from park and ride

areas around the County.


Work Elements 97

YAMPO Staff Tasks

YCPC

Trans

Staff

Other

YCPC

Dept.

Outside

Agency Medium Priority Work Tasks

/ / /

Define what a reasonable proposal for restoring rail service along the York

County Heritage Rail Trail would include (i.e., investment cost, customer

base, interaction with the existing Heritage Rail Trail County Park).

/

Evaluate current roadway “ownership” throughout York County:• lowest volume (AADT) roads for possible turn back to municipality

• roads currently owned by municipalities that are regional in nature as

possible vacations to the state

Low Priority Work Tasks

/ /Complete a study to identify the need for the unquantifiable enhancementprojects.

/ Analyze pedestrian/bicycle crash locations.

/ /Expand the County Existing & Potential Bikeway Corridors Plan to

include all non-motorized mobility options.

/ / Conduct a growth factor study to be used in traffic impact studies. (TIS)

Table 5 - YAMPO Partner Future Work Task

Other

YCPC

Dept.

Outside

Agency YAMPO Partner Tasks

/Conduct periodic analysis/evaluation of County employee parkingpolicies.

/Complete a comprehensive study of traffic signals to check if they are up

to current standards: LED lights, black plates, larger signal heads, etc.

/Develop population projections for a 30-year horizon to the municipal

level or model Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) level, if possible.

/Study stop sign intersections with crashes for sight distance issues for“Stop Ahead” signs.

/ Inventory sign reflectivity.

/

Identify and prioritize missing links of sidewalks/trails by working with

school districts to develop a pedestrian master plan as part of the

municipal comprehensive plan.


OtherYCPCDept.

OutsideAgency YAMPO Partner Tasks

Work Elements98

/Identify and prioritize missing links of sidewalks/trails within 1/4 mile ofthe f ixed route transit service with attention paid to Americans withDisabilities Act (ADA) requirements.

/Identify rail rights-of-way, along with former and potential siding sites forpreservation for future rail use.

/Develop best practices booklet for the implementation of TransportationEnhancements (TE)/Safe Routes to School (SR2S) projects within YorkCounty.

/Procure and develop educational resources, such a s newsletters andwebsites, for com munity organizations, school districts, andmunicipalities to use in teaching and to promote pedestrian activity.

/

Develop a GIS m ap showing pipeline- utility lines with red/green zonefuture expansion opportunities: green zone areas denoting e xpansionpossibilities and red zone areas denoting areas that are not acceptable forutility expansion.

/Coordinate training opportunities for police departm ents with regard touniform completion of crash reports.

/ /Coordinate with existing com mittees/groups to participate in i ncidentmanagement planning throughout the County, specifically with the Countyof York and the York County Office of Emergency Management.

/ /Coordinate with existing committees/groups to participate in Hom elandSecurity initiatives, including im plementing the Risk and VulnerabilityAssessment Team (RVAT).

/List and evaluate m easures for increased transit route efficiency: queuejumpers, bus ways, and High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, bus pull-offs, tight corridors, etc.

/Evaluate potential ridership/demand for Express Bus Service East andWest.

/Evaluate potential ridership/demand for transit service for Country ClubRd/Rathton Rd corridor serving York College, York Hospital, Penn State,and 550 Lofts housing development.

http://www.eeoc.gov/types/ada.html

http://www.eeoc.gov/types/ada.html

CHAPTER IX

Additional TransportationModes and Issues

Additional Transportation Modes and Issues 101

Chapter IXAdditional Transportation Modes and Issues

Tourism

Transportation plays an important role in the tourism industry. Since most people perceive placesof interest being somewhere other than where they live, some form of transportation must get them

to their destination. York County provides many tourist destinations. Proper directional signing is

a key component to addressing tourism needs. A local wayfinding program is currently beingworked on jointly by PennDOT, Lancaster and York Counties. This program will provide uniform

informational signing across the region.

Environment

The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU)

established new requirements for the preparation of long range transportation plans. One of thesenew requirements is that plans include a discussion of potential environmental mitigation activities

associated with proposed development and potential implementation strategies for such activities.

In general terms, environmental mitigation activities are strategies, policies, programs, actions, and

activities that, over time, will serve to protect, avoid, minimize, or compensate (by replacing or

providing substitute resources) the impacts to, or disruption of, elements of the human and naturalenvironment associated with the implementation of a long range transportation plan. The human and

natural environment includes, for example, neighborhoods and communities, homes and businesses,

cultural resources, parks and recreation areas, wetlands and water sources, forested and other naturalareas, agricultural areas, endangered and threatened species, and ambient air.

Protection and Avoidance

The York County Growth Management Plan Component of the York County Comprehensive Plan

presents an overall county-wide framework for growth, and provides a mechanism for working withmunicipalities to determine the specific location, pattern and timing of future development through

the delineation of growth areas, and the identification of important agricultural and resource areas.

The following three goals are identified in the York County Growth Management Plan:

1. To protect and preserve important natural resources.

2. To direct growth and development to appropriate locations. 3. To facilitate coordinated planning at all levels of government.

Chapter VI of this Plan identifies selection criteria that aid in selecting transportation projects; helpprotect the environment; meet these three goals. One of the selection criterion used for both capacity

and rail projects is whether the project is located within the growth area identified in the York

County Growth Management Plan.









Additional Transportation Modes and Issues102

Another transportation project selection criterion deals with air quality benefits. Using the selectioncriterion that identify air quality beneficial transportation projects is another example of

transportation decisions that solve transportation issues and protect the environment.

The York County Comprehensive Plan has two other plan components that will influence

transportation decisions. The York County Natural Areas Inventory (NAI) and the York County

Hazard Mitigation Plan identify environmentally sensitive areas and high hazard locations whichwill be used in selecting transportation projects. In the case of new project alignments, not including

widenings or realignments the project will need to avoid the environmentally sensitive areas or high

hazard locations identified in the York County Comprehensive Plan. NAI is a document compiledand written by the Pennsylvania Science Office of The Nature Conservancy and updated by YCPC

Staff. It contains information on the locations of rare, threatened, and endangered species, and of

the highest quality natural areas in the County.

Flooding caused by transportation infrastructure, especially bridges, is another selection criterion

that will be evaluated when projects are selected. If two structurally deficient bridges are candidatesto be replaced and one effects flooding and the other does not, the selection criterion will

recommend that the bridge causing flooding problems be fixed first. Existing and future stormwater

management plans (Act 167) will be used to identify bridges that contribute to flooding issues.

Minimize

When transportation infrastructure needs to be replaced or updated in a environmentally sensitive

area, PennDOT will work with appropriate partner agencies to coordinate improvements to avoid

impacts. An example of this is the coordination that has taken place in the early stages of the I-83,Exit 18 project between the Army Corps of Engineers and PennDOT concerning the potential

impacts to Mill Creek.

Mitigation

Through design, it may be determined that an environmental resource will be impacted. At thatpoint, the proper steps should be taken to mitigate the impact. To take the first step in facilitating

the environmental mitigation process and ensure environmental review at the highest possible levels,

YAMPO staff presented proposed selection criteria and the environmental data to be used inselecting transportation projects to PennDOT’s Agency Coordinating Committee (ACM) at their

January 24, 2007, and December 3, 2008, meetings. This is the first step in discussing possible

mitigation solutions. YAMPO staff also presented the proposed scope of work to the ACM at theirJanuary 24, 2007 ACM meeting. At that meeting, a representative of the US Fish and Wildlife

Service requested to become a member of the Capacity subcommittee.

The ACM was established by PennDOT to ensure that projects throughout Pennsylvania that require

extended environmental review times are identified as early as possible in the transportation

planning process. The ACM is composed of agencies that are responsible for land use management,natural resources, environmental protection, conservation, and historic preservation throughout

Pennsylvania.





http://www.nature.org/?src=t1

http://www.ycpc.org/act167.htm


http://www.orn.usace.army.mil/




The ACM meets, as needed, on a monthly basis to coordinate between PennDOT and other

transportation planning agencies in the Commonwealth and federal and state resources agencies.

ACM participants include:

• US Army Corps of Engineers

• US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)• US Fish and Wildlife Service

• US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service

• National Marine Fisheries Service• Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP)

• Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (PADCNR)

• Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission • Pennsylvania Game Commission

• Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture

• Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission• Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development (PADCED)

In addition to coordination, there are hard steps that can be taken to mitigate future impacts toenvironmental resources. Wetland banking (Establishment of wetlands to be used as credits when

disturbing other wetlands) is something that the YAMPO contributed to in years past and will

continue to purchase appropriate wetland banks prior to impacting wetlands in the future. Using thatspecific past experience, consideration should be given to other land banks for impacts to state game

lands, county, and municipal parks, enlarging or linking existing endangered species habitat, and

working with preservation societies or others to find a new location for historic bridges and otherstructures that will be impacted by transportation projects.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change

Since the earliest days of ozone and particulate matter designation areas, YAMPO has fully

complied with the requirements of transportation conformity of the Clean Air Act, working toward

meeting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), and tracking precursor pollutants,also known as Mobile Source Air Toxins (MSATS). As mentioned in Chapters IV, V, and VII, air

quality is an overall concern for all of our transportation projects. The most current air quality

information for York County can be found in the State of the Air report published by the AmericanLung Association. The PADEP’s website (www.dep.state.pa.us) also serves as a data source.

Recently, the issue of greenhouse gas emission levels and its impacts, specifically related to climatechange, has generated a great deal of planning attention. Across the nation, both the federal

government and various states have been measuring these emissions, gaging impacts such as rising

temperatures and sea levels, running predictor scenarios, and formulating both preventative andadaptation policies.

http://www.orn.usace.army.mil/

http://www.epa.gov/

http://www.fws.gov/

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?contentidonly=true&contentid=NRCS_Agency_Splash.xml&x=14&y=9

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/

http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/dep/site/default.asp

http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/

http://www.fish.state.pa.us/mpag1.htm

http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/

http://www.agriculture.state.pa.us/

http://www.dced.state.pa.us/

http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/

http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/toxics.htm

http://lungaction.org/reports/stateoftheair2007.html

http://www.lungusa.org/

http://www.lungusa.org/

http://www.dep.state.pa.us)



Certainly, we would be remiss not to include any information about greenhouse gases and climatechange, and their effect of these things on York County. However, currently there is very little

pertinent information available to us. At this time, York County does not have a detailed, targeted

plan for lowering greenhouse gas emissions; however, several initiatives, including no-idlingpolicies and supporting commuter services as mentioned in Chapter III, are ongoing.

Most of our neighboring states, those with many miles of coastline concerns, have climate changeinitiatives already in place. The Federal government is continuing its work on the “Cap and Trade”

legislation to control and limit greenhouse gas emission levels.

In 2008, PADEP formed the Climate Change Advisory Council that includes a Land Use and

Transportation Subcommittee. This group is currently writing a series of work plans to lower

Pennsylvania’s greenhouse gas emissions that, after approval, will be submitted to the PennsylvaniaLegislature for action. Both the PADEP (www.dep.state.pa.us) and Environment Protection Agency

(http://www.epa.gov/) websites provide a great deal of information on greenhouse gas emissions,

climate change, and impacts.

Coordinated Public Transit/Human Service Transportation Plan

The SAFETEA-LU, signed into law on August 10, 2005, requires that a coordinated plan for transitbe developed for each region. A coordinated public transit/human service transportation plan

identifies the transportation needs of individuals with disabilities, older adults and people with low

income; and provides strategies for meeting those local needs; and prioritize transportation servicesfor funding and implementation.

A diverse group of stakeholders were invited to assist with the following:

• Conduct an assessment of available services (public, private, and nonprofit).

• Identify transportation needs for individuals with disabilities, older adults, and people withlow income.

• Develop strategies and/or activities to address the identified gaps and achieve efficiencies,

where possible, in service delivery. • Identify priorities for implementing the strategies/activities based on resources, time, and

feasibility for implementation.

The group of stakeholders will serve as a steering committee, on behalf of the YAMPO to

specifically deal with issues related to transit and human services transportation coordination. The

committee will meet on an as-needed basis to identify needs; develop strategy; and assist withprogram implementation.

Strategies and activities derived from the YAMPO Coordinated Public Transit/Human ServiceTransportation Plan may afford the opportunity to be funded through the Section 5310, Job Access

and Reverse Commute (JARC) and New Freedom programs.

http://www.dep.state.pa.us

http://www.dep.state.pa.us)

http://www.epa.gov/

http://(http://www.epa.gov/)




Pipeline Transportation/Transmission Operations

Known as the “hidden giant” of America’s transportation system, pipelines are the irreplaceablecores of United States petroleum transportation and the key to meeting domestic petroleum demand.

Approximately 2.4 million miles of pipeline traverse the United States, supplying 65% of the

nation’s energy. Oil and its petroleum derivatives (i.e., classified as hazardous liquid transportation)pipelines transport two-thirds of the petroleum shipped in the United States. Natural gas (does not

include liquified natural gas [LNG]) pipelines transmit nearly all natural gas products from the

source to the consumer. Given the skyrocketing cost and geographic limitations of transporting suchproducts via highways, railways, and waterways, pipeline transportation may be the most

economical way to move these products from its sources to markets across the country.

Both liquid petroleum (a.k.a., hazardous liquid) and natural gas pipelines travel through York

County. The liquid petroleum pipelines are in the northern and central areas of the county. They

carry refined petroleum products from either the Midwest or the Southwest to the Mid-Atlantic andNew England regions of the country. The natural gas lines here traverse the northwestern, central,

southwestern and southeastern areas of the county. The origin and destination of transmitting this

product are somewhat similar to the petroleum lines.

Three petroleum companies own and operate liquid petroleum pipelines in York County, as follows:

• Buckeye Partners, LP (Laurel Pipeline Company) - Based out of Ohio, Buckeye Partners

operates an interstate pipeline that traverses northern Fairview Township, just south of the PA

Turnpike (I-76). The name of the pipeline changes from Buckeye to the Laurel PipelineCompany when it enters York County. This company is a subsidiary of Buckeye Partners.

Petroleum products, such as diesel fuel, gasoline, and fuel oil are typically transported through

this conduit. No product dispensing terminals or junctions are located along the length of the linein York County. Such stations, however, are found at various locations within both Cumberland

and Dauphin Counties.

• Sunoco Pipeline, LP - This product line is a segment of the Company’s “Eastern Pipeline

System.” Two pipelines are found in the County. One line traverse northern Fairview Township,

south of the PA Turnpike (I-76), and the other parallels U. S. Route 30 from AbbottstownBorough, Adams County, to the Susquehanna River. These lines transport refined petroleum

products, such as gasoline, fuel oil, and kerosene, from its refinery in Toledo, Ohio, to markets

in the Northeast. According to the information received about this operation, no junctions orproduct dispensing terminals are located along the length of this line in York County.

• Texas Eastern Products Pipeline Company (TEPPCO) - TEPPCO owns and operates thispipeline. The pipeline traverses northern Fairview Township roughly paralleling the PA

Turnpike (I-76). It transports refined petroleum products, such as butane and propane, from its

refinery in Baytown, Texas. Again, from the information received about this line, no junctionsand dispensing terminals appear to be located along this segment in York County.



Four companies own and operate natural gas pipelines in York County, as follows:

• Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (TETCO)/Spectra Energy - Newly acquired by the Spectra

Corporation, this gas transmission trunk line traverses the north-central area of York Countyfrom Washington Township to the Susquehanna River. No feeder branches are located along the

length of the line in York County. However, this conduit does connect with a TETCO/UGI

pipeline junction/compressor station directly across the Susquehanna River in Marietta,Lancaster County. TETCO is also proposing and currently developing a new line from the

station in Marietta to Peach Bottom Township, York County. TETCO not only transports its own

product, but it also transports products for other natural gas suppliers, such as the Columbia GasCompany, through a cooperative service agreement.

• Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation - Owned by the Columbia Gas Company of Ohio,these interstate natural gas trunk lines traverse the Dillsburg, Greater York, Hanover, and

Shrewsbury areas of the County. These lines provide interstate transport of natural gas to

markets in the northeast. Moreover, natural gas from these lines is also redirected from theselines to the local consumer through an intricate network of distribution and service lines.

• The Williams Company, Incorporated (TRANSCO) - Owned by TRANSCO, a subsidiaryof the Williams Companies, Incorporated, this pipeline traverses Peach Bottom and Lower

Chanceford Township before traveling northeast across the Susquehanna River to Lancaster

County. This line functions as a trunk line conduit for the transmission of the product from theTexas Gulf Coast to destinations in the Northeast. It is not distributed via feeder system to

consumers locally. One compressor station, Station 195, is found within Peach Bottom

Township.

• Columbia Gas of Pennsylvania - Again, owned by the Columbia Gas Company of Ohio, this

company operates distribution and service pipelines through York County. The service linestransmit natural gas directly to the local consumer.

No direct federal subsidies are available for the construction and maintenance of pipeline facilities.However, the federal government has granted pipeline companies the power of eminent domain to

acquire right-of-way for alignment or realignment of these conveyances. Despite funding

availability, federal and state oversight of the construction and operation of thesetransportation/transmission conduits is mandated. The following agencies oversee the construction,

operation and safety of both hazardous liquid, and natural gas pipelines:

• U. S. Department of Transportation, Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS)/Pipeline and Hazardous

Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) - The OPS is the federal safety authority ensuring

the safe, reliable, and environmentally-sound operation of the Nation’s pipeline transportationsystem. PHMSA, acting through OPS, administers the department’s national regulatory program

to assure the safe transportation of natural gas, petroleum, and other hazardous materials by

pipeline. OPS develops regulations and other approaches to risk management to assure safetyin design, construction, testing, operation, maintenance, and emergency response of pipeline

http://www.dot.gov/new/index.htm

http://phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline

http://phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline



facilities. The entire program is funded through a user fee assessed on a per-mile basis on eachpipeline operator OPS regulates. Specifically, these agencies oversee the following:

- Construction and operation of all interstate hazardous liquid pipeline facilities (e.g., oil andgasoline).

- Abandonment of existing hazardous liquid facilities.

- Administration of safety standards for all hazardous liquid and natural gas pipelines.

• Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) - Charged by Congress, FERC functions as an

independent agency that regulates the interstate transmission of natural gas, oil, and electricity.FERC also regulates natural gas and hydroelectric power projects. Specifically, the Commission

oversees the following:

- Planning and construction of new interstate natural gas facilities (e.g., pipelines and

compressor stations).

- Abandonment of existing natural gas facilities.- Regulation of rates and practices of natural gas and hazardous liquid petroleum companies

engaged in interstate transportation of such substances.

• Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission - The PAPUC handles the Commonwealth’s oversight

of natural gas pipeline operations, as they are classified as utilities. Specifically, the

Commission’s Gas Division oversees the construction and operation of local natural gasdistribution and service pipelines, such as the ones operated by Columbia Gas of PA.

• Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) - PennDOT plays a very small role inthe oversight of pipeline transportation/transmission. However, it does become involved in the

construction or relocation of these conduits, especially when they are to cross/travel underneath

state roads. This function is overseen by the Utility Services Division (Utility Relocation Unit)of PennDOT (Central Office) and the Utility Administrator for each PennDOT Engineering

District.

• Other federal agencies overseeing these operations:

- Occupational and Safety Hazard Administration (OSHA)- Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

- Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC)

- Transportation Security Agency of the U. S Department of Homeland Security

http://www.ferc.gov/

http://www.puc.state.pa.us/Home.aspx


http://www.osha.gov/

http://(http://www.epa.gov/)

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h743.html

http://www.dhs.gov/index.shtm

CHAPTER X

Capital Improvements

Capital Improvements 111

Chapter XCapital Improvements

To be consistent with SAFTEA-LU this Plan needs to address a minimum of a 20-year planninghorizon. Throughout the subcommittee work detailed in Chapter IV and the rest of the document,

the planning horizon was 2009-2035: a total of 27 years. This will ensure consistency until the next

update of the long range transportation plan in 2013, which will still have a 22-year horizon.

Due to the dynamic nature of funding and project delivery, the YAMPO has adopted a new approach

and a separate document, entitled YAMPO Capital Improvements Plan (CIP), that identifies thecapital investments planned for the county and will serve as the CIP for the 2009-2035 Long Range

Transportation Plan. This will meet the 20-year time horizon required by federal law, but allows for

more timely updates of the document outside the normal updates of this Plan. The first four yearsof the CIP are identified in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), which is routinely

modified based on cost savings or increases in construction bids, project delays, and

increases/decreases in projected funding or policy decisions. Any major changes identified as addinga new project or a cost increase more than $2 million, require YAMPO approval.

The next 27 years are identified in the CIP in the time frames, as shown in the following table.Within each time frame, a cost requirement will be placed on which projects to be shown in order

to maintain fiscal constraint when completing large construction projects.

Table 6 - Time Frames of CIP

Type of

Document

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

12-YEAR PROGRAMTIP

Size of

Project

(Cost)

ALL PROJECTSPROJECTS OVER $5

MILLION TOTAL

PROJECTS OVER $10

MILLION TOTAL

Federal

Fiscal Year2009 2010 2011 2012 2013- 2014 2015- 2016 2017- 2020 2021-2027 2028-2035

The majority of the projected funding for the next 27 years identified in the CIP remains in a general

line item, rather than being allocated to a specific project. Based on the decisions made in ChapterV, the CIP places funding into project areas (i.e. safety, maintenance, transit, etc.). The selection

criteria identified in Chapter VI will be used to select projects from those specific areas in the first

six years of the CIP.



Capital Improvements112

Some basic elements of the CIP are provided below:

- The CIP will be modified and amended at the same time a TIP amendment is approved at a

YAMPO meeting. - Cost estimates are factored by the year of expenditure or inflation is calculated to the year the

funds are anticipated to be expended.

- A list of unprogrammed candidate projects are listed.- The projected funding is obtained from Chapter V.

- Regionally significant projects are identified and will be modeled for air quality conformity if

the project scope is modified.

Another element of long range transportation planning required by federal law is air quality

conformity analysis. Due to the approach the YAMPO is taking with the CIP, the Air QualityConformity Analysis Report for the YAMPO will be a stand-alone document as well. Please refer

to the most recent version of the YAMPO Air Quality Conformity Report for conformity

determination for this Plan.

york county long range transportation plan -...

Documents