Traffic Problems Along The Fairway

C:Rydal Traffic

Rydal Park's new medical center construction is very close to the Fairway. Once complete, will there be more deliveries, staff and families on the local roads?

Innovation & Growth Initiative: Montgomery County Benchmark

Learn about Abington's Next Century. To access a white paper that compares Abington to the rest of Montgomery County, click here >

Banner Rydal Traffic

Abington Board of Commissioners voted in favor of the FTD.

In a vote to approve Fairway Traffic District (FTD) ordinance, Abington Commissioners only addressed how development by Brandolini would mitigate traffic concerns. The existing problem, which is documented by the Township has not been addressed.

Background
Brandolini conducted a traffic study which said that its development will have little to no impact. Abington Township officials did review the Brandolini study, but failed to contrast it with its own 2007 study, which found that several intersections were deemed failures and there were unacceptably high-levels of accidents already. Did officials ignore the facts or place priorities elsewhere?

Planning Board members and Commissioner Kline have reminded residents that traffic studies would only be conducted at such time that a plan were to be presented. Although this is technically true, there was not a plan presented by any particular land owner in 2007. Therefore, it appears that the Township conducts studies when it choses to or when a plan is presented, but not when residents would like it done if they feel that their safety is in jeopardy.

Ryan on Pennsylvania Zoning
Commissioner Kline found this citation: “The general rule is that the governing body must approve a subdivision plan if it complies with the applicable statutes and ordinances. While there is some authority for the proposition that a subdivision application may be denied if there is a showing that the plan would injurious to the public interest, Braun v. Swarthmore Borough, 288 A.2d 830 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1972), the kind of public injury which will justify denial of an otherwise conforming plan must be specific, and substantial. From the outset, the courts ruled that a subdivision application may not be denied on the grounds that the use is inappropriate, or that the plan shows ‘poor planning’ and ‘over development’ or does not make adequate provisions for traffic flow, or for other similar or ‘policy’ reasons unless those policies are referenced in the specific requirements of the ordinance itself. Scluffer v. Plymouth Township, 379 A.2d 1060 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1977) [string citations omitted] [emphasis added].”

On November 17, land planner John Kennedy (consultant for Abington) acknowledged that the Township is under time pressure, which is driven by Brandolini litigation. The rights of Brandolini are driving the decision-making, and the public welfare is not. Many residents are attempting curtail the rights of Brandolini, rather than assert their own collective rights based on their own safety, health and welfare.

button Neighbors could advocate for Abington to first identity the actual problems areas. Then, by focusing on how to aleviate those problems in advance of new development, residents could have greater impact on the process. Township officials are not interested in abridging the rights of Brandolini, but may be interested in working together on a constructive solution to traffic conjestion. Abington's own facts can be used as the basis for this dialogue.

2007 Traffic Study on behalf of Abington Township
McMahan and Associates (a third-party traffic consultant) applied standards of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) in studying 13 interestions in Abington. Nine failed the standards of the HCM:
• Susquehanna Road / Washington Lane
• Susquehanna Road / Old York Road
• Susquehanna Road / Highland Avenue
• Susquehanna Road / Maple Avenue
• Moreland Road / Old York Road
• Moreland Road / Fitzwatertown Road
• Fox Chase Road / Cedar Road
• Edgehill Road / Jenkintown Road
• Edgehill Road / Limekiln Pike

There were only 13 intersections in this study selected by the Township, but McMahan also evaluated accident records between (1988-1990). In particular the intersection of Susquehanna / Old York Road had over 40 accidents in that timeframe. That was twenty years ago. They found that 38 intersections had 10 or more accidents over those three years.

Impact of Development on Public Safety
We should expect more automobile accidents in our neighborhoods as density increases. In a presentation at the 85th Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting in January 2006, statistics confirmed that crash rates tend to increase with urban densities because interactions between vehicles become more frequent, but crash severity and therefore casualties (injuries and deaths) tend to be higher in rural areas because crashes tend to occur at higher speeds.

Increased Auto Insurance Rates come with Increased Density
According to an auto insurance web site, statistically, it costs car insurance companies less to insure vehicles in rural areas than it does in the city, because cars in the country are less likely to be involved in a claim than cars in urban areas because the crime rate in the country is generally lower. Cities offer much greater opportunity and temptation for crimes like theft to occur because there are more people there with more belongings making more events like auto theft possible. There are crime statistics on the Abington Police Department web site.

Economic Impact of Conjestion
The IBM Commuter Pain Survey presented several economic statistics. In 2007, congestion caused urban Americans to travel 4.2 billion hours more and to purchase an extra 2.8 billion gallons of fuel for a congestion cost of $87.2 billion – an increase of more than 50% over the previous decade. When gas prices are higher, the impact increases (although driving habits also change).

The research also found that 29% of commuters reported that roadway traffic has been so bad within the last three years that they turned around and went home. This figure is highest in Miami at 39% and Los Angeles at 36%. IBM also found that commuting may be one of the most stressful experiences of urban life. 44% of all drivers surveyed report traffic congestion increases their stress levels. Increased blood pressure is associated with longer or more difficult commutes. Lowered job satisfaction, higher illness rates, absenteeism and lower performance on various cognitive tasks have also been found to be related to longer or more difficult commutes. It also cited University of California Irvine study which found that places with sluggish commutes – usually an indication of economic prosperity – tend to have slower subsequent job growth.

Consequently, there are three questions residents should ask about the impact on them and what can be done:
1. Will officials acknowledge that certain intersections are failures?
2. What can be done to reduce the likelihood of auto collisions?
3. How will higher-density impact my auto insurance rates?
4. How can conjestion and wait-times be reduced?

4 comments by Members are their personal opinions (see RMCA policies)

Submitted by Commissioner St... on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 12:30pm.

Thanks again Dr. Sklaroff for posting an e-mail I sent in response to your idea to fix the traffic pattern issue with the Rydal Train Station Bridge.

Along with the e-mail response by Mr. Toaso (PennDOT) it is clear that there are significant physical complication and funding difficulties that make a solution to this intersection low on the priorities of the agencies that would need to be involved (PennDOT & SEPTA).

I also caution those reading Dr. Sklaroff's solution to understand that his solution, while it would cost much more than $1 (as he has written), solves the least problematic vehicular circulation pattern at this intersection and would therefore only provide minimal traffic relief.

This is a frustrating intersection and one that is deserving of some review, which has been done in the past, but any solution would require collaboration of local and state entities. Regardless of what Dr. Sklaroff has said, my conversations, with the state entities involved, is that this intersection is not a priority and would be difficult to justify over other infrastructal issues they are dealing with.

Have a good weekend

Submitted by rsklaroff on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 4:50pm.

It is necessary to clarify what I wrote. When I conversed with Penn-DOT, the cost to the GOVERNMENT would be upwards of $1-million BUT it would cost ~$100K if accomplished privately; this figure was not "10%" of a LARGER figure, for a LOWER figure was "10%" of it.

I was also told that the priorities of Penn-DOT are often generated locally, so [in the absence thereof] there is no self-generated issue...undoubtedly because [inter alia] other municipalities have submitted requests.

This "solution" would alleviate stress on the Susquehanna-Valley/Rydal traffic-light which, again, @ 2 p.m. today, was bottle-necked along the route to the RR-bridge T-intersection. [I took evasive action, along Rydal Road, illustrating LEL's point about the impact of increased congestion upon secondary streets.]

—

Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D.
r.sklaroff@verizon.net

Submitted by rsklaroff on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 2:39pm.

Although the full-story cannot reasonably be encompassed within a blog-posting, two e-mails are provided to highlight what transpired this past year regarding my efforts to effect a settlement of this bottleneck concern.

I postulated that a crescent of land could be purchased via Long & Foster [the sign is visible as one travels under the RR-bridge]. Then tree/ground removal could precede embedding a retaining wall, perhaps encompassing 15' of territory. Finally this could be paved-over, thereby allowing people traveling from Washington Lane to Susquehanna Road to drive around the intersection, rather than being blocked by those turning to go under the RR-bridge.

I met in late-January with Josh Shapiro and shared awareness thereof with Messrs. Peacock/Kline.

The letter received from Steve Kline was pejorative and problematic, but it may reflect the existence of a need for an attitudinal-readjustment which could be detected during future interactions:

From: kline4ward1@comcast.net [mailto:kline4ward1@comcast.net]
Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2010 1:54 PM
To: Ernie Peacock; joshshapiro@pahouse.net
Cc: rsklaroff@comcast.net
Subject: Rydal Train Station Bridge

Rep. Shapiro & Commissioner Peacock,

Do not continue to indulge this idea by Mr. Sklaroff. Yes this intersection has problems, problems that have existed for years and his idea in theory causes more than it solves.

Left turns across merging traffic on blind inclines, purchasing or taking property from no fewer that two property owners (you will need to take a portion of the property on Barrowdale & Washington), coordination with PennDOT who in the past has had no interest in working on this intersection and millions of dollars to implementing a plan that avoids solving the main issue - traveling west bound on Susquehanna Rd under bridge to The Fairway & Valley Road & OYR as well as traffic traveling East under the bridge to either Washington Ln or continuing on Susquehanna.

There have been many people who have ponder[ed] solutions to this intersections but none that have avoided the main issue and certainly none that considered the possibility of taking private property as Mr. Sklaroff has discussed with me in a past encounter.

We should leave Mr. Sklaroff to the thing he knows best, filing lawsuits against synagogues, municipalities/governmental entities, political parties and who knows who else.

Hope you had a good weekend and take care.

Steven Kline
Abington Township
Commissioner Ward 1

He alludes inter-alia to my "sunshine law" litigation which is intended to ensure the Commissioners expose their thinking to public scrutiny, a copy of which is available upon request. Otherwise, as is documented infra, his assertions are both false and misleading, for there is no effort here to exert Eminent Domain efforts as he has supported regarding the Roslyn Library Branch [which, I understand, is now mooted because state-$$$ is no longer available].

Thus, I provide "informed consent" regarding prior interpersonal conflict that HE perceives to have transpired, this to ensure that all of the rest of this information can be appreciated WITHOUT entertaining such notions/concerns.

Anyway, as a result of this effort, I acquired a letter from Penn-DOT which reflected [perhaps because it resulted solely from a chat with Josh Shapiro prior to its preparation] lack of awareness of what had been envisioned.

--this is the e-mail received initially--

From: Toaso, Lester To: rsklaroff@comcast.net Cc: Lambrugo, LaurenSent: Thu Feb 11 15:40:05 2010Subject: Washington Lane and Susquehanna AvenueDr. Sklaroff,

Your suggestion to improve the intersection at the above location was sent to my attention for a response by Representative Shapiro’s Office.

Please be advised that PENNDOT can only acquire right of way for approved transportation projects. At this time we are not aware of any proposed work or approved project at this site, either public or private, that would upgrade the signals or turning movements at this intersection. Because there is no approved project your proposal should be brought before Abington Township and the Montgomery County Planning Commission for their consideration to be included on this region’s Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).

We did make a cursory review of the site and your suggestions. The cost to make the improvements would be considerable. A complete replacement of the SEPTA bridge would be required. This bridge replacement would involve a lengthy and complicated process to deliver the project. More right of way would have to be required than the amount you suggested in your discussion and we believe we would have to contend with environmental and utility issues for a project at this location.

Due to the constrained federal and state funds available for highway and bridge projects, each proposed project must be cost effective and meet the transportation needs of the region. PENNDOT must focus on projects we can afford to construct and these projects must be prioritized based on regional needs.

We thank you for your interest in the transportation needs of your community. We encourage you to discuss your suggestions with Abington Township for consideration as a transportation project for the region.

Sincerely,

Les Toaso

Oral communication revealed--believe it or not--that the project would cost upwards of $1 if done by Penn-DOT...but 10% thereof if done privately [because of the lack of automatic approvals that would be required, based on automatic %-age enhancements].

Therefore, in the spirit of cooperation--because I'm told the 2007 Traffic Study corroborates the "failure" of both this intersection and that @ the traffic-light a few yards distant--it is suggested that it is this type of CONCRETE resolution of what is transpiring that OTHERS should consider adopting.

A problem-solving mindset will be needed, particularly if an effort is to be made to avoid litigation.

—

Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D.
r.sklaroff@verizon.net

Submitted by rsklaroff on Wed, 12/08/2010 - 6:58pm.

I prepared the following memo after having read Brandolini's report of a year ago:

Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D.
Medical Oncology/Hematology
1219 Fairacres Road
Rydal, Pennsylvania 19046-2911 Telephone: (215) 333-4900
Facsimile: (215) 333-2023
rsklaroff@comcast.net
http://www.doctor-bob.biz/rsklaroff

October 14, 2009

To: Abington Board of Commissioners
Re: Baederwood Shopping Center Proposal

I will be out-of-town at the time of the hearing, so I request that this input be placed into the record; I will try to arrange for it to be read publicly, as well.

1. This resident/taxpayer was one of the multitude of vocal opponents to this project, focusing on the traffic congestion it would undoubtedly cause.

2. The “Traffic Planning and Design, Inc.” Report [7/13/2009] purports to reassure the reader that traffic volumes would not be greatly affected by the plan to construct inter alia hundreds of residences and expanded businesses in a region that already routinely sports bottle-necked traffic on Susquehanna Avenue between the Fairway and the RR-bridge during weekdays.

3. This Report studied four sites: Route 611 and the Fairway/Harte Road; The Fairway and the four (4) intersecting driveways; The Fairway and Rydal Road; and Susquehanna Road and Rydal Road/Valley Road.

4. This Report advises a redesigned intersection at The Fairway and Rydal Road, but it fails to take into account the potential impact of construction of a new road from 611 at the Noble SEPTA RR-station that would intersect with Rydal Road (at a site unspecified in a new “Old York Road Corridor” Report).

5. Because the developers budgeted for the aforementioned highway improvements, they recognized the applicability of the Latin adage ascribed to Galen of Pergamum: “Primum Non Nocere” [The first priority is do no harm].

6. The counter-intuitive conclusions in the TPD-Report are invalidated also (specifically) by the absence of any study of both the bottle-neck that routinely develops at the RR-bridge and the potential impact of planned reconstruction of a road leading to one of the studied-intersections.

7. Thus, this project should not be approved until the traffic-impact thereof can be studied cogently, after which time rectification thereof would need to be planned before any construction could be approved at Baederwood.

—

Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D.
r.sklaroff@verizon.net

User login

Community Calendar

May

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30	31

Rydal-Meadowbrook Civic Association

C:Rydal Traffic

Association

Innovation & Growth Initiative: Montgomery County Benchmark

Banner Rydal Traffic