Frequently Asked Questions
Corridor Wide
What are project needs?
Why was the project reevaluated?
Who has decision-making authority in determining the Preferred
Alternative?
Why not build a Route 228 bypass?
How will traffic be accommodated with the planned development
along the corridor?
What is the length of the Environmental Assessment
Comment Period?
What is the next step after the Public Hearing?
Why should I come to the Public Hearing?
What if I cannot attend the Public Hearing?
Who is funding the project and is there available funding?
What is the schedule for construction?
Which intersections will have signals?
Will there be a sidewalk on the new Route 228?
How wide will the right-of-way be for the Preferred Alternative?
What will be the posted speed limit in the corridor?
How has the public been involved in the process?
School Area Questions
How many options were considered in the school
area?
Why is Route 228 still dividing the Mars Area School District Campus?
What public involvement efforts have been undertaken in the
school area?
Will there be a pedestrian overpass at the school area?
How will pedestrians be accommodated and
kept safe near the Mars Area School District Campus?
Will there be left turning lanes in the school area?
Was the Mars Area School District invited to participate
in the project?
How was Mars Home for the Youth designated as a historic
resource?
Eastern Section of the Project
Will Route 8 be widened?
What happens to the east of Route 8? Are there any plans
to look at that corridor?
Why aren't you bypassing Route 8 and directly connecting the
two legs of Route 228?
Corridor Wide
A: The project team completed a Needs Study and identified
current and anticipated problems that should be solved or deficiencies that
should be corrected in order to provide a safe, efficient transportation system.
The needs identified for the Route 228 Study Area include:
• Roadway Capacity,
• Access, and
• Safety.back to top
Q: Why was the project reevaluated? What did the project team find?
A: In March 2004, PennDOT Transportation Secretary, Allen
D. Biehler, P.E., requested that over 25 high profile projects throughout the
Commonwealth be reevaluated. As a result, PennDOT District 10-0 was asked to
reevaluate the scope of the project to identify a more cost effective, feasible
approach while still meeting the project needs for safety, access, and travel
capacity. As part of the reevaluation process, the project team developed the
following performance measures that were used to evaluate various options:
• Meet project needs,
• Reduce project costs,
• Integrate land use planning,
• Enhance quality of life, and
• Integrate other modes of transportation.back to top
Q: Who has decision-making authority in determining the Preferred Alternative?
A: FHWA will have the ultimate authority in decision-making. However, any agency that proposes a project involving federal funds must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Under the NEPA, an agency must study the adverse and beneficial environmental impacts of all reasonable alternatives that meet a project's purpose and need. This process involves engineering studies, environmental analyses, and public involvement. PennDOT considered the advice provided by the CAC as well as the general public in their decision to recommend the Preferred Alternative. The regional planning and resource agencies also had an important role in the development of alternatives. The alternative that best meets project needs and address public input while balancing and minimizing environmental impacts overall will be selected.back to top
Q: Why not build a Route 228 bypass?
A: Bypass alternatives were considered. Traffic studies determined that the bypass alternatives did not draw enough traffic from Route 228 to satisfy the project need.back to top
Q: How will traffic be accommodated with the planned development along the corridor?
A: Developments will have to be studied on a case by case basis. As more details regarding the new developments become known, access to Route 228 will addressed.back to top
Q: What is the length of the Environmental Assessment Comment Period?
A: The Environmental Assessment public review and comment period is a total of 45 days. After 30 days a Public Hearing will be held. The comment period will close 15 days after the Public Hearing.
Q: What is the next step after the Public Hearing?
A: Following the Public Hearing and the close of the comment period on June 20, 2007, the project team will compile the comments received and address them. If no additional significant impacts are identified, PennDOT will recommend a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) to the FHWA. The FHWA will then review the EA and the comments gathered during the comment period. If FHWA agrees with PennDOT’s recommendation, they will prepare the FONSI. This FONSI will reference the EA and any other appropriate environmental documents. Following the FONSI, Final Design will begin. Final Design is the development of detailed working drawings, specifications, and estimates for transportation projects. The Final Design Process will include right-of-way acquisition, utility relocation, and contract advertisement and award.back to top
Q: Why should I come to the Public Hearing? Is it too late for my comments to make a difference?
A: The Public Hearing is your final opportunity to be heard before the decision is made by FHWA prior to issuance of the FONSI. FHWA has not yet rendered its final decision on the Preferred Alternative. Both supportive and opposing comments are important and will be used by the FHWA to make their final decision. All comments received at the Public Hearing will be recorded and addressed by the project team. If significant comments that have not already been considered are identified at the Public Hearing they will be addressed and further studied by the project team.back to top
Q: What if I cannot attend the Public Hearing?
A: If you can not attend the Public Hearing, you are encouraged to review the Environmental Assessment at several convenient locations in the Project Study Area or on the Project Web site (www.Route228.com) and submit your comments in writing to the project team. Your comments will be included as written testimony and submitted to the FHWA for their review. Written testimony will be accepted through June 22, 2007.back to top
Q: Who is funding the project and is there available funding?
A: The project is being funded with 20% state funds and 80% federal funds. At this time the project has been separated into sections so that the project could progress as funding becomes available. Currently private developers are working with PennDOT to design the western most section of the highway from the intersection with S.R. 19, east to the intersection with Myoma Road. This partnership mutually benefits both parties. Funding is available for Final Design for the section from Myoma Road to Mars-Valencia Road, and includes the railroad structure on the east side of the Mars-Valencia Road intersection. It is anticipated that the additional sections of Route 228 will be designed and constructed as further funding becomes available.back to top
Q: What is the schedule for construction?
A: It is anticipated that the Route 228 will be constructed as funding becomes available from West to East along the corridor.back to top
Q: Which intersections will have signals?
A: Currently the following intersections from west to east currently have signals in place: Route 19, I-79 SB Ramp, I-79 NB Ramp, Cranberry Woods Dr., Cranberry Commons Dr., Kristoffer Dr., S.R. 3021 (Franklin Rd.), HighPointe Dr., Castle Creek Dr., Seven Fields Blvd., Adams Ridge Rd., S.R. 3017 (Criders Rd.), S.R. 3019 (Pittsburgh Street-Warrendale Rd.), S.R. 3015 (Mars-Valencia Rd.), S.R. 3007 (three Degree Rd.), and S.R. 0008. The following intersections from west to east are future or proposed signal locations: McElroy Rd., Myoma Rd., Beaver Street Extension, Brickyard Rd., Davis Rd., and Park-Harbison Rd. See the map in the newsletter.back to top
Q: Will there be a sidewalk on the new Route 228?
A: All sidewalks will be considered in Final Design. Sidewalks will be replaced in the locations were sidewalks currently exist. The environmental footprint for a pedestrian / bicycle trail in other areas along Route 228 was included in the environmental document. However, funding for this trail is not in place and the trail will be evaluated in Final Design to determine its feasibility.back to top
Q: How wide will the right-of-way be for the Preferred Alternative?
A: With the proposed Urban Boulevard design there will be four 12 ft. lanes, two 10 ft. shoulders, and a 10 ft to 30 ft. median that varies depending on location. Turn lanes will require additional right-of-way and right-of-way will vary depending on roadway grading. Due to public concerns the project team is investigating ways to reduce the amount required to minimize impacts to property owners.back to top
Q: What will be the posted speed limit in the corridor?
A: The roadway is being designed for 50mph and will be posted at 45mph.back to top
Q: How has the public been involved in the process?
A: The public was involved from the very beginning of the
Route 228 Improvement Project, by the following outreach:
• Four public meetings,
• Five public officials’ meetings,
• Ten Community Advisory Committee (CAC) meetings,
• Twelve Land Use Task Force meetings,
• Over 60 Special Group Meetings,
• Seven newsletters, and
• A project website - www.route228.com.back to top
Western Sections of the Project
Q: What are you doing at Route 19?
A: The Route 228 Project begins at Route 19 but only includes minor improvements to the intersection, such as the addition of turning lanes on Route 228 and a portion of roadway widening on Route 19. Because this corridor presents its own set of challenges, PennDOT will be conducting a Planning Study to determine how to address Route 19 corridor needs. PennDOT is working with Cranberry Township and other stakeholders to establish the scope of work and solicit consultants for the study. The study should be underway by Fall 2007.back to top
School Area Questions
Q: How many options were considered in the school area?
A: During the Preliminary Alternatives phase of the project nine different alternative alignments were looked at in the school area. These ranged from as far north as Hammond Rd. to as far south as Valencia Borough. Many of these alignments were not studied in detail because they did not draw enough traffic from existing Route 228 to meet the project needs. Other options were dismissed due to impacts to natural, socioeconomic and cultural resources. The two alternatives that remained, Southern and Online, best balance environmental impacts while meeting the project needs. Alternative 1 was determined to be the Recommended Preferred Alternative. Alternative 1 meets the project needs and addresses public input while balancing and minimizing environmental impacts overall.back to top
Q: Why is Route 228 still dividing the Mars Area School District Campus?
A: Nine different alternative alignments were studied near the school area over the past six years. The project team considered public concerns, transportation legislation, and environmental impacts. Alternative 1 meets the project needs and minimizes environmental impacts overall. Public sentiment was divided on the alternatives in this area.back to top
Q: What public involvement efforts have been undertaken in the school area?
A: From August 9, 2001 through April 2007, there have been
eleven Community Advisory Committee (CAC) meetings, four public meetings, four
public officials’ meetings, and over 45 special interest group meetings
specifically in the school area that include:
• Five meetings with Mars Area School District representatives,
• two meetings with Adams Township officials,
• several meetings and discussions with Adams Townships staff,
• one meeting with John Quincy Adams estates residents,
• two meetings with the owners of the Mobile Home Park, and
• three meetings with Mars Home for the Youth.back to top
Q: Will there be a pedestrian overpass at the school area?
A: A pedestrian overpass is not anticipated in the school area. Pedestrian accommodations will be further studied and refined in Final Design.back to top
Q: How will pedestrians be accommodated and kept safe near the Mars Area School District Campus?
A: A sidewalk is planned for the south side of Route 228 from Brickyard Rd. to Three Degree Rd. Vegetative landscaping or other means will be used to help channel pedestrians to crosswalks and hinder midblock crossings. This landscaping will direct pedestrians to the signalized intersections at Brickyard Rd. and Three Degree Rd., where all traffic will have to come to a stop when the pedestrian push buttons are activated at the signal. The Mars Area School District does not advocate or permit student roadway crossings, however if students chose to cross the safety provisions will be in place.back to top
Q: Will there be left turning lanes in the school area?
A: Yes. Left turn lanes are proposed at the intersections of Brickyard Rd. and Three Degree Rd. Additionally, a left turn lane will be allowed at the Mars Home for Youth and the Mars Area High School.back to top
Q: Was the Mars Area School District invited to participate in the project?
A: During the early phases of the project, Mars Area School District Superintendent, Dr. William Pettigrew was established in 2001 as the Project team’s contact for the Mars Area School District. He represented the board on the CAC. The school board participated in a special CAC meeting focused on the school area when all of the environmental information was collected for that area. There have been various meetings throughout the project development process to coordinate technical information and understand the concerns of the School District. PennDOT will continue to coordinate with the school district as the project progresses.back to top
Q: How was Mars Home for the Youth designated as a historic (ie: Section 106) resource eligible for protection under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966?
A: Qualified cultural resource professionals conducted a survey of the area and identified properties potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The FHWA, PennDOT Central Office, and PennDOT District 10-0 forwarded these recommendations to the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission who concurred with the survey findings as to which properties were eligible for listing in the National Register.back to top
Eastern Section of the Project
A: Route 8 will not be widened. However, intersection improvements
will occur in the future as funding is available, these improvements would include:
• At the northern intersection a right turn lane will be added traveling
northbound.
• At the southern intersection a southbound right turn lane will be added
and northbound dual left lanes and a right turn lane will be added.
Q: What happens to the east of Route 8? Are there any plans to look at that corridor?
A: Nothing is planned at this time.back to top
Q: Why aren't you bypassing Route 8 and directly connecting the two legs of Route 228?
A: The project team did look at this as part of the process
but determined that Route 8 had enough capacity to handle the design year traffic.
It was also determined that such a connection would not be highly utilized by
traffic. In addition, alternatives to the east of Route 8 were met with great
public opposition.back to top
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration