HomeMy WebLinkAboutSouthwest Corridor Project t GREATER CHAMBERSBURG 21ST CENTURY PARTNERSHIP rSOUTHWEST CORRIDOR PROJECT SCOPE OF ANALYSIS AND THE THIRD PARTY ' FEDERAL AID AGREEMENT PROCESS Prepared for: Greater Chambersburg 21" Century Partnership Transportation Committee P.O. BOX 1061 Chambersburg, Pennsylvania 17201 tPrepared by: MARTIN AND MARTIN, INCORPORATED ' Planning and Engineering Consultants 37 South Main Street— Suite A Chambersburg, Pennsylvania 17201 January, 2002 t ' (T33-1260) INTRODUCTION The 21 st Century Partnership, and its Transportation Committee, has for some time been ' weighing the potential regional benefits of a southwest connector that would tie g g P g ' north/south traffic on Route 11, roughly in the area of the Chambers 5 Business Park and southward, with east/west traffic along Route 30 in Hamilton and St. Thomas Townships. ' Senator TerryPunt and his office have recognized the need to study this link in the g i ' Chambersburg regional transportation network and have subsequently obtained funds for ' such a study. ' In April of 2001, a letter was issued by PennDOT documenting the approval of federal ' funds for the Southwest Corridor Project Study Phase at a maximum of$1,000,000. This is based upon a funding scenario where 80% is federally funded and the remaining 20% ($250,000) is matched by local funds. This same funding scenario would be used in the tevent the project ever moves forward to design and construction. ' For obvious reasons, the magnitude of the full corridor project study was a shock to the participating municipalities. Concern was registered as to the fiscal wisdom of investing $250,000 of local funds into a study that could conceivably result in a recommendation that such a southwest connector is either not necessary or is of a low transportation ' priority. Questions were raised as to the possibility of the preparation of a study of lesser magnitude to determine if the concept is viable. The parties involved acknowledged that such a study would produce significantly reduced detailed results and would not, for ' example, select an alignment or specific approach. It would, however, validate the wisdom in proceeding to later phases of development of a concept. The Partnership is now being asked to either begin the project with a smaller feasibility study or to begin actual project development with the larger $1,250,000 "Project Needs Study." Martin and Martin, Incorporated has been asked to assemble the available options, interview the 21st Century Partnership delegates from the affected municipalities, and summarize the process by which such a study could be pursued. It should be noted that, while the study includes interviews with Partnership delegates from the various municipalities, their thoughts and recommendations do not necessarily represent the opinions of their respective Board or Council, nor do they constitute a final decision by their municipality. It is significant that all parties interviewed during our research into this process recommend the smaller feasibility study as an initial course of action. Such a smaller study provides a great deal of flexibility for the Partnership in ' defining the scope of work as well as determining the true need and desire for such a project. The cost would also be considerably less in terms of an initial investment by the local municipalities. In the event it is decided that a smaller study is the prudent option, the first step in the process is for the Partnership and PennDOT to enter into a third-party federal ' reimbursement agreement. There is some question as to whether the Partnership would ' be deemed an acceptable entity to serve as recipient of the funds or whether one of the member municipalities or another acceptable candidate would have to assume this role. The primary factor here is fiscal capability of the entity in terms of available funds and budget to handle payments and reimbursements for the project. PennDOT serves as a ' third party in coordinating the project between the Recipient and the Federal Highway Administration. PennDOT will also assist in advertising and award of the contract. The anticipated time, from advertisement to a notice to proceed for the selected consultant, is nine months. THE THIRD-PARTY FEDERAL AID AGREEMENT Once an agreement has been executed between the Recipient and PennDOT, the process of selecting a consultant begins. Assuming that the smaller feasibility study is to be pursued, our research with various transportation consultants indicates that the total estimated cost would be $100,000 to $150,000. Such a project can be considered a "Small Project' by PennDOT. Several items of documentation must be provided to PennDOT prior to the official consultant selection. The Recipient must provide a letter indicating that it has no full- time engineering staff or a staff without the capability to perform the service required. It must also provide contract negotiation guidelines, if any. If there are none, a letter must ' be provided indicating this. The Recipient should also indicate whether it is willing to p g p 1 pay any excess amount above the approved maximum should the project overrun expected budgetary estimates. With respect to the consultants, the Recipient must provide a list of all consultants considered and their qualifications including a Standard Form 254 for each firm. An evaluation of at least three prospective consultants' qualifications must be provided. PennDOT maintains a listing of pre-qualified consultants for such projects. Should an 1 outside firm desire consideration, it would have to file with PennDOT for pre- qualification status. The Recipient should include reasons for recommending a particular consultant. Finally, the Recipient must include evidence of the opportunity provided to ' small, minority and women business enterprises and the extent of consultant solicitation. Ultimately, PennDOT will review the information provided and either approve or ' disapprove the Recipient's recommended consultant. Once a consultant has been approved, the Recipient should request a proposal including a clear and accurate scope of ' work. Once the proposal has been provided by the consultant, the Recipient and ' PennDOT will conduct a Scope Clarification Meeting with the consultant. Should any changes be necessary, the consultant will be provided with a deadline for resubmittal. ' The Recipient can then recommend that the proposal be rejected or approved by PennDOT. The Recipient also has the option of requesting that PennDOT hold negotiations to prepare the contract. In addition to executing the contract between the ' consultant and the Recipient, PennDOT will initiate a request for Federal Highway Administration authorization of funds. PermDOT and the Recipient will then enter into a general reimbursement agreement. Once the contract is executed, the agreement is executed and the authorization of funds is received, a written notice to proceed can be ' issued to the consultant by the Recipient. After a notice to proceed is issued, both PennDOT and the Recipient must designate a ' liaison to meet regularly with the consultant, to monitor progress and to provide any ' needed guidance. The Recipient must conduct monthly meetings with the consultant where the consultant will provide a status report detailing the percent of work complete and any problems encountered. The consultant will be responsible for submitting minutes of each meeting and documenting any follow-up or corrective action. Invoices will be prepared to allow easy monitoring of project progress and will be ' reviewed by the Recipient for acceptance and forwarded to PennDOT for payment. At the time of the study's completion, closeout of the contract may not occur until the final ' invoice has been issued and the Recipient and PennDOT are satisfied that all terms and ' conditions of the contract have been finalized. ANTICIPATED SCOPE OF STUDY The Southwest Corridor is, at the present time, an undefined bypass route connecting the south and west ends of the Greater Chambersburg area (See attached Figure #1). The purpose being to avoid further congestion of Routes 11 and 30 within the limits of the Borough of Chambersburg and extending radially into the adjoining municipalities, particularly Hamilton and Guilford Townships. While these municipal entities may be the most obvious beneficiaries of such a transportation alternative, it is widely held that the entire Partnership membership would benefit greatly in terms of access, convenience, ' safety, aesthetics, and economics from such an endeavor. As part of this procedural analysis, interviews were conducted with four of the member municipalities' Partnership representatives. These gentlemen were queried regarding ' their respective views of what the project might entail and how the individual municipalities would participate in the study. The municipal representatives interviewed ' included David Ramer, St. Thomas Township, Mike Kessinger, Hamilton Township, Greg Cook, Guilford Township, and David Finch, Chambersburg Borough. Again, it should be emphasized that the opinions of these individuals do not constitute an action or ' approval by their respective municipal governing bodies. One of the first questions to emerge in the interview process was whether the area really ' needs a brand new highway to serve as the bypass, or perhaps there is currently a system ' of roads in place that, with some improvement, could serve as the relief route. Each of the gentlemen interviewed echoed the sentiment that the existing inventory of roads appears to already supply the beginnings of a route around this quadrant of Chambersburg (See attached Figure 42). With certain improvements and better connections, such a route could serve the purpose of the Partnership as well as a new ' highway, and would also avoid significant construction costs, design issues and legal wranglings associated with a larger new highway project. ' In terms of any specific route, there are a variety of options and opinions based upon the four municipal interviews conducted (See attached Figure #2). These options include one route versus two routes. They also include options that may ultimately lead to a new 1-81 ' interchange. There are also varied lines of thinking utilizing a short route from Loop Road to Tallow Hill Road to Warm Spring Road. Some alternate versions of this route lengthen it to include Leafmore, Race Track and Jack Roads. St. Thomas Township, in ' particular, has expressed a strong desire to extend any relief route to a point west of the Village of St. Thomas, either at the square or perhaps as far as Route 416. There may be room to discuss a second route to channel traffic from the Greencastle or Marion area via ' Social Island Road or points further South. Mr. Ramer's opinion is that any shorter route which terminates at Warm Spring Road or Frank Road is only serving to push the existing traffic problems further west and will result in the same problems adversely ' impacting St. Thomas Township. ' Representatives of Martin and Martin performed several driving surveys of the existing ' inventory of connections between Route 11 South and Route 30 West. Shortcuts do ' exist, however the improvement of these road systems would not be without its share of ' obstacles including potential conflicts with existing residential neighborhoods, wetlands and floodplains, steep slopes, sharp horizontal curves, and bridges. Overall, this option may still prove to be a more prudent connection solution in terms of both engineering design and fiscal impact. ' All of those persons interviewed agree that the end result of this project should not be an immediate short-term fix, but rather a comprehensive long-term solution that will serve the Greater Chambersburg area for a 20-30 year period, will legitimately solve the burgeoning traffic problems, and will not simply transfer the congestion further west into ' another municipality. PARTICIPATION AND FINANCIAL COMMITMENT The issue of participation was the final item of discussion with those representatives interviewed. While the Partnership as a whole is the true applicant and the receiving entity for the funds,the individual municipal members would be expected to contribute to ' the 20% matching funds through some agreed upon format. As a starting point, it should ' be considered that the four affected municipalities, at a minimum, participate financially. When questioned about formulas for determining a fair dollar proportion for each participant, those representatives interviewed agreed that the concept of basing the percentages on recent population estimates would be one formula that could be considered (See Table 41 following). There are any number of other methods that could ' be used (municipal area, traffic volumes, road mileage affected, . . .etc.) and should be discussed by the Transportation Committee to determine an agreeable method. There is ' also the thought that the entire Partnership benefits from the products of this undertaking ' and other members should volunteer or be asked to contribute as well. Appropriate agreements would have to be negotiated between the actual receiving entity and those ' other entities participating financially. TABLE 1 Municipal Participation Based Upon 2000 Census Data ' $ Share of Assumed $100,000 Fee Year 2000 % of Total 100% Payment 20% Fee Census Population Regional Population After Reimbursement ' Chambersburg Borough 17,862 39.10% $ 39,100.00 $ 7,820.00 ' Guilford Township 13,100 28.67% $ 28,670.00 $ 5,734.00 Hamilton Township 8,949 19.59% $ 19,590.00 $ 3,918.00 ' St.Thomas Township 5,775 12.64% $ 12,640.00 $ 2,528.00 TOTAL 45,686 100% j $ 100,000.00 j $ 20,000.00 c�P- =9no TPS✓ 0; �� P"1 GU 11PORD-M.NSH1p Iry 140, 7'7233 8?3 P 02 o 7(a-98) cnMINA,Mn,n„n EALTIH OF pFtit\E_qYLVA N!A ,EPI i IMEENT OF I-RAN—S PORTA NIDD ' www.dot.state.pa.us Fngineeting District 8-0 2140 Herr Street Harrisburg 17103-1699 }, 0 0%01 A pt l� � , 2-�1/Ef! t Franklin County Chambersburg-Svtthwest''k';IorTidor MPMS No. 02845 Kelle Massimilla-, Exv"tivc-iirector Grzafar ChanAer r-g Zia`Contury Partnership, Inc. ' Transgo ion Committee-P G'-flo61 Chambersburg, PA 17201 ' "dies and Gentlemen: This is;ri reg9rd5 ot:r-mE'vf. ^ 1'eId ^.-Apri117, 2001, and highlights the ' current status of the Southwest Coriador Project.__Siiicc tiit_�roposed worm would vc-ori--tuE-laoal-iii a" si�:3i iiiluiivt c-iiaci of-thl e c r—a e it state road System, the funding for aiiP—uases of the project would veAuideu$ °/_neral funds and 2i11c1i:ca,-fast-uia._�.iu.uuly-.�a�iaxirrxiixic-vim-I,C`dia,4vv 1r, fc"acral aun.sa have been apprc,-� d-u,r �,,sdyse. dais w be_mai:hed�y ��^in 'local fun&.Irthe- flz to move-forward on'IcTwelve-`Fear Program,all, ' phsses such as final design, utility,ir ght-off way,-arid oonstruc4ien-w a be funded in 80% felerai,20% local split. ' The.local-zpwsor_inow has tk-ell-m-1:e-o f either u+.pmninla a sma11er feasibility study or beginning jprOject developrrrerit 1tmai_a project needs St. ,,A A feasibilivy study has a mat-de£`il-aof flexibility 1r,defining the scope€7f work. ' i'otW4veP, if after th Corripietion of the fvaSilIlisatdj,tiSe_Tiocal Sponsor wiSh cj to progr-ess.with i ata-project, a.fl'�ceeds study eiit-Soli vvl°-equrZE^fiaS part of the env-1ron,mmnen,ta1, pr 0CesS. T he_local spoor-must have-the-1cgaLwatlio�,to enter into a signed thamirdparty federal reirnbursennent agreement wide the Pen s ra --L T ans nnrt-n Or-E raanspo`zii n IT NNDQ a�in-order te._=eive federal fands. The Department ' woialL1 arta _z_thir i+arr-y/ism administering tuhi:;agzament and the project el o et�w�eeri the-local spearsor and the Federal=iighway de� �p^.:e^`p � l� Administration (FHWA j. As part of this administration,the Department would t -more t SEP-27-2001 TM 011 :561 PM GU I LPORDTOWNSH I P FAX NO. 71726321313 P. 03 Ke11e Massimilla ' Page 2 April 30,2001 ' ass stth:-lc-eaLsplonsor in.sec. -a consulting firm for-professional services thromph a proc—Mu e ofadvei:iaing and awarding a conn-acs. The period of time from a--v;:rtISe, e—rit.1&0 a'Notsie-to pr "pP for pro 1 services wi11, take ' approximatel3Y nine moriths. The contract may have to v¢re-au'veiLised ifd-iis time uiare exccetwo years. ' Please note thatiftue aocal sponsorChooses to_h�.�with a feasihilit`y study +'=then chooses-tan follow with p�t�jeut development and a needs study, a a fia dF i new advert:s�.Iaieaur yruzF�ssisdiaaa1 se.—vices �alcz have r. aG 1 Dc made. ' if a new.interchange,-i-dith Interstate o i OM to w Considered, a separate federal process'Known as "PO"iit 1rAC'Cess Study"would have to be allowed. ' The uye�uae:it is ready to as fill"tl cr its cla;,,fyir�g iSStiGs, Once ilic Municipalities involv-_4-&ciideupen a GGur-se-'a-act -and designate a legal entity to enter in-,o agreement, the Department i;ready to assist with the advancement of a study. If you have any quc-s-bons,psiease contact Lydia PeddiCCJr�, .i at (7173 705-6188. ' V ery wily yours, 1 - � B3aLry-. -nan, NE.Distr ct iIigincer ' l...Z.'P/md 'DOT 21 OS-2(4-01) COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA tDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION www.dot.state.pa.us Engineering District 8-0 ®• ' 2140 Herr Street Harrisburg 17103-1699 October 11, 2001 ' Franklin County Chambersburg Southwest Corridor ' MPMS No. 62845 Greater Chambersburg 215` Century Partnership, Inc. Transportation Committee Martin and Martin, Inc. ' Mr. Tim Cormany 37 South Main Street Chambersburg, PA 17201 ' Dear Mr. Cormany: This letter is in regards to telephone conversations with Lydia Peddleord on September 27, 2001, October 5, 2001, and October 9, 2001. It is understood that Martin and Martin, Inc. is employed by the Greater Chambersburg 21st Century Partnership, Inc., Transportation Committee, to coordinate with the District in the process of developing a feasibility study for a transportation corridor to the southwest of Chambersburg as a local project with federal funds. Enclosed is a copy of Chapter 5 of PennDOT Publication 93 "Procedures for the Administration of Consultant Agreements, "December 1996. Chapter 5 is entitled "Third 1 Party Federal-Aid Agreements, " and gives a procedural outline for a municipality to determine the need for consultant engineering services, to advertise the work, award and administer a contract with a consultant, and to enter into a reimbursement agreement with ' the Department to receive federal funds. Also included are the following pages from the appendices: 0 District Estimate Summary Sheets, Forms CA 202, CA 203......Pg. A-27 • Standard Form (SF) 255, Architects Engineer Related Services for Specific Projects Questionnaire......Pg. B-1 • Standard From (SF) 254, Architects Engineer Related Service Questionnaire........Pg. B-15 • District Shortlist—Analysis Sheet.................Pg. B-23 District Final Ranking—Analysis Sheet..........Pg. B-31 ' • Summary Man-hour Evaluation Form.............Pg. C-1 • Information Required for Pre-Award Evaluation......Pg. C-3 ' • Negotiation Position Memorandum to File Cost/Plus with DBE Goal....Pg. C-41 ' -more- ' Martin and Martin,Inc. Page 2 October 11,2001 • Estimated Progress Report— Cost Plus Fixed Fee Agreement...Pg. C-69 ' • Invoice Processing Checklist...Pg. C-81 • Form D-429, Past Performance Report Consulting Engineers....Pg. D-1 • Instructions for Completing Form D-429..........Pg. D-5 ' • Sample Request for Proposal (under $100,000).......Pg. E-1 • Sample Request for Proposal (over $100,000)..........Pg. E-5 • A Guide to Policy and Procedures for Consultant Selection....Pg. E-7 Guidance for understanding the project development process may be found in Pub. 10, October 1999 Edition, Design Manual, Part 1, "Transportation Project Development Process, " and in Pub. 10A, March 2000 Edition, Design Manual, Part IA, "Transportation Engineering Procedures. " In Design Manual 1 A under "Preliminary Engineering Procedures, " "Purpose and Need, "page IA.6.06, reference is made to Publication 319, "Planning and Needs Study Handbook. " This may also be helpful in preparing for a feasibility study although these scopes may be flexible to meet the local concerns. The scope of a feasibility study is entirely up to the municipality. It may serve whatever purpose the municipality deems appropriate. If the municipality desires to advance the project to design, a project needs study must be performed and this study has minimum requirements. Also, in Design Manual IA, appendix G is titled "Points ofAccess. " This may be helpful if a Point of Access study is being considered for a new interchange with Interstate 81. Please note that the Department would request further discussion with local and county officials if a Point of Access study were desired within this project. ' Publications may be ordered from the PA Dept. of Transportation Sales Store. Please see attachment for instructions or call (717) 787-6746. If you have any questions, please contact Lydia E. Peddicord, P.E. at (717) 705-6188. Very truly yours, Barry G. Hoffman, P.E. District Engineer LEP/md Attachments iADDENDUM#1 —January 29,2002 i In mid-January of 2002, Congressman Bill Shuster proposed legislation that would ' include funding for a future Interstate 81 interchange south of Chambersburg. While the ' discussions are preliminary and no exact location has been suggested, the potential for such a major transportation project is a possibility that should be accounted for as the iPartnership forges ahead with its study. The emerging industrial corridor south of the Chambers 5 Business Park extending parallel with Route I 1 and Interstate 81 appears to be gaining momentum and could be a significant traffic generator and employer in the next decade. The Partnership should be aware that, if a new interchange is to be considered as part of its analysis of the Southwest Corridor, a separate federal process known as a "Point of ' Access Study" would need to be employed. Whatever decision is made in this regard, the Partnership should continue to closely monitor events surrounding a potential interchange and understand that its possible development is a major consideration in any future traffic ' planning. ADDENDUM #2 — February 6 2002 An advertised public meeting was held on the morning of February 6, 2002 at the I Guilford Township Municipal Building. Attending were Supervisors from Guilford, ' Hamilton and St. Thomas Townships, the Chambersburg Borough Manager, ' representatives from Martin and Martin and from Gannett Fleming. The purpose of the meeting was to gather together those municipalities viewed as having direct involvement with the Southwest Corridor to discuss the forthcoming study and the mutual concerns held by these entities. Martin and Martin was invited as the Partnership's consultant currently researching the project. Gannett Fleming was invited as a Pem1DOT approved traffic planning and engineering firm with experience on similar projects. The meeting ' was coordinated by Guilford Township. ' Gannett Fleming provided a detailed slide presentation explaining the intricacies of the traffic study process including some ideas regarding potential additional funding sources to relieve some of the economic burden on the participating municipalities as part of the local matching funds reimbursement scenario. Guilford Township expressed its concerns regarding this system which it has experienced first hand wherein reimbursements from the State amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars have been delayed for years. All parties attending were in agreement on many issues including the long, overdue need for the study as well as the concept of an upgrade to existing roads as opposed to a new ' super highway or bypass. In fact several different routes were viewed as the smart alternative, dispersing the perceived traffic congestion, rather than focusing on one single corridor. It was also expressed that the primary concern with this analysis is residential vehicles and not commercial truck traffic. Several parties were asked by Guilford ' Township to provide their independent thoughts on potential solutions to the traffic ' problems including a local surveyor, the Township Zoning Officer, and the County Planning Director. Each of these gentlemen echoed many of the same ideas and concepts expressed by the municipal representatives as described earlier in this report. Of particular interest was a memo from the County Planning Director, Phil Tarquino, detailing long range needs for further widening of Route 30 West and Route 1 I South. The attendees ended the meeting in agreement that a strategy should be devised at the next Partnership Transportation Committee meeting to determine leadership for the project and to forge ahead with an appropriate study as well as an examination of potential additional funding sources. The four impacted municipalities appear determined to resolve this issue. They feel strongly that the time for action has arrived and are prepared to act in concert with the Partnership and/or the County or independent of these bodies if necessary. ' A.r Franklin.County Planning Commission Phone: 717-26I-3855 Administrative Annex Fax: 717-264-8667 218 North Second Street TDD: 717-264-8474 Chambersburg,PA 17201-1642 Email: plan&o.fi-anklin.paus ' January 22, 2002 TO: Greg Cook ' FROM: Phil Tarquino RE: Highway Improvements There has been much discussion over the last few years on how to improve traffic flow from the west of Chambersburg. Currently, funds are allocated to conduct a study for a "new" connector road from US 30, west of Chambersburg to US 11, south of Chambersburg. Outside of this study some other concepts that may want to be ' considered include the following. ✓ Make US 30 two lanes east and west from the west point in Chambersburg to at ' least PA 995. ✓ Make Loudon Street a one way street east from the west point to Queen Street. ✓ improve the intersection of PA 995 and US 30 by realignment and tum lanes. ' ✓ Reconstruction and/or realignment of Boyer Mill Road, Tallow Hill Road, and Social Island Road ✓ Construct new bridges over the Conococheague Creek on Boyer Mill Road and ' Social island Road. ✓ Make US 11 two lanes in each direction from Chambersburg to Marion. In the ' interim, right hand turning lanes could be developed at intersections. ✓ Make turn lane at intersections on PA 995 and on US 11, for example at US 11 and Orchard Road, US 11 and PA 914, PA 995 and US 30. ' ✓ Improve intersections of PA 995, for example at Turkeyfoot, make turn lanes at intersections. ✓ Develop new exit between Chambersburg and Marion. These are some quick thoughts and thorough evaluation would be needed before implementation. Perhaps a "study" should be done evaluating the current ' conditions, traffic flows, origin and destination, alternatives, cost estimates, funding streams, responsible parties, phasing and an implementation schedule, Certain ' projects could move forward relatively quick with local forces and funding. Other projects are long term in nature and would need state and federal funding. Such a study would formalize a strategy to improve the transportation network in this area. 1 . Study Funding Options ❖ 80% Federal Funds ' ❖ 20% "Local" Funds • DCED and Other State Sources (50:50 match) Linked to land use study. ' • Municipal Funding ❖ Example $300,000 Project $240,000 Federal • $30,000 State ' • $30,000 Local Gannett Fleming Next Steps ' ❖ Organize Stakeholders ' ❖ Determine Lead Agency (local, state, etc.) Conduct Purpose/Needs Feasibility Study Define Project Logical Terminii and Independent Utility Preliminary Engineering and NEPA Compliance Final Design • Construction L* Gannett Fleming t I ,> \ N. j cf) 'T 0 ID co Ai I 4i I W N s` r .w m .°s 4 r r e I r . F` } m ° a _ G 3 _ �., _ .. i , „- a •1,. p ..' � ,. 1 ' f r � J � s c , t v ' S o�e " f } � {� .JJ r .. I .I. a;A° -T�� � , r S' ... ; ae, d "�li � F N 1 , O rz 1 � y ! 777 i 4y r \\ r _12 t J ,. W f o i� \� � ,r• P°' �, `� ��. � sw "",.. �© � S �pus+' ,,,.. ��`U' GREATER CHAMBERSBURG 21st CENTURY PARTNERSHIP sc2le: 1:=4000' martin and martin incorporated SOUTHWEST CORRIDOR PROJECT Job# 1260 Date: 011101'02 phone: (717) 37 south main street suite A chambersbur perms Ivania . 17201 Ch DB 264-6769 9, Y FIGURE Chk'd: TC f C yam, h ` Q 1 zz iZ , I `V F h _ y ,h p ,J a 777 n s , h , h h ^ . e v. w C", 4 4. 3 >C /F W lTli'IXI' i � M Q llJ k i r"- r I1 3 17 t , ri O iz , h x t z , _ 6 , --H. A M I L T t, , ERR Q W e , R. r 3. -a c i -i �B 6 \ /� \ • �s �`� hJ� " o F GREATER CHAMBERSBURO 21st CENTURY PARTNERSHIP scale: 1:=4000' martin and martin incorporated SOUTHWEST CORRIDOR PROJECT Job# 1260 phone: (717) 37 south main street suite A Date: 01110102 264-6759 charnbersburg, pennsyivania. 17201 By: DB FIGURE #2 Chk'd: TC