A portion of the 422plus Newsletter distributed Thursday by e-mail.
PHILADELPHIA PA – Advocates for the U.S. Route 422 Master Plan, apparently having felt like they’ve endured undue lumps from the press and the public, are taking the offensive to better define what the plan is … and isn’t.
It IS, they say, a series of strategies to reduce traffic congestion, expand transportation choices, and make better use of available land in the highway corridor that stretches 25 miles from King of Prussia west to Reading PA. It passes though Limerick, Lower Pottsgrove, and Pottstown en route.
It ISN’T only a way to return commuter trains to the area, they add. It ISN’T guaranteed that drivers will pay tolls to travel 422, although that possibility continues to be studied. And, as a result, any municipality that endorses the plan ISN’T also automatically endorsing a toll.
Those explanations and others were unveiled Thursday (Sept. 9, 2010) on a page labeled “422plus FAQs” – a reference to answers for seven frequently-asked questions about the highway and the master plan – that are now posted on what is called the 422plus Project website.
- Read the full page of 422 frequently asked questions and their answers here.
- Want to receive 422plus Project newsletters yourself? They’re free. Apply here.
The FAQs intend “to explain the issues at hand, clear up misconceptions, and clarify details” about the plan, according to a steering committee that introduced the page in a newsletter distributed by e-mail. The committee consists of Berks, Chester and Montgomery counties; Norfolk Southern Corp., SEPTA, and the Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority; the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, and the Philadelphia-based Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission.
One FAQ defines the project and the accompanying master plan as a way to create “a transportation system that works and a funding strategy” to provide “a better ride on US 422,” “better maintenance and safer operation,” and “transportation alternatives” like mass transit.
Two different FAQs address often-heard public complaints that earlier taxes have already paid for 422, and that no additional tolling should be necessary; and that toll money, if collected, will be spent on other projects in the state rather than remain for 422.
Because committee representatives – as they try to build grass-roots support for the master plan – have faced hostility in municipal board rooms over the specter of tolling, a final FAQ tackles that issue too. “If your hometown leaders endorse (the project), it means only that your local officials are willing to work with their community, the state, the participating counties, and other alliances to explore the 10 planning strategies outlined,” it explains.
Municipalities that agree with the strategies “are not endorsing tolling,” it says flatly.
Several municipal leaders have individually proclaimed they oppose tolling of the highway in any form. The master plan has been endorsed by the Limerick Township Board of Supervisors; rejected by Pottstown Borough Council; and remains tabled for consideration by the Lower Pottsgrove Township Board of Commissioners.
Related (to U.S. Route 422 Corridor planning):
- 422 Plus Project Plays Offense With FAQs Debut
- Peering Into The Future? Gov’s Bridge Proposal And 422
- Another Township Endorses 422 Master Plan
- Neighboring Limerick Supervisors Endorse 422 Master Plan
- Understand 422 Plan Endorsement, Lower Pottsgrove Advised
- Lower Pottsgrove Holds On 422 Plan Endorsement
- Engineers Claim PA Roads Worse Now Than In 2006
- Tuesday Session Tackles Funding For 422 And Elsewhere
- Tolls, Lower Pottsgrove Station Part Of 422 Plan
- Pending Decision May Affect Route 422 Projects
- Last Day For Your Say On Route 422 Plan
- Notebook Worthy (Aug. 24, 2009)
- Consultants Express Interest In Studying 422
- Don’t Like 422 Tolling? Website Wants Your Alternative
- Truckers Alerted On Highway Partnerships Bill
- In 422 Debate, Time A Hindrance And Help
- Notebook Worthy (June 29, 2009)
- Growth, Planners Say, Is 422’s Growing Problem
- Tech Used To Draw For 422 Meetings
- Route 422 Toll Meetings Next Week
- 422 Repairs, Delays Start Tuesday
- 422 Proposal, Like Traffic, Creeps Ahead
- Got A Route 422 Idea? Time To Air It
- Train Service On The Front Burner Once More
Photo from the 422plus Project website
Sign up to get The Sanatoga Post delivered free daily by e-mail. Share this article.
See our galleries for photos that appear in The Post. Got news for us? E-mail The Post.
Find The Posts on Twitter, Facebook, Linked-In, Technorati, Flickr, YouTube, and RSS
I’m amazed at the audacity and the gall of these people. How stupid do they think we are!? Anyone with a brain in his head knows the results of the so-called “The US 422 Traffic/Toll Revenue Study” even before it’s completed: It will conclude tolling is needed. To say that supporting its Resolution has nothing to do with tolling is B.S. It’s ALL about tolling. Why else are planners like Leo Bagley running around like Chicken Little, proclaiming the sky is falling and “there’s no other way, there’s no other way!” Baloney. There are other ways to improve infrastructure and tolling is not the answer! Ever hear of fiscal responsibility? We need to cut the size of our state government. California has about 36 million residents and only 120 state legislators. Pennsylvania has roughly 12-13 million residents and 253 state legislators! We need to eliminate pensions for these politicians and provide them with self-funded 401(k)’s like regular working men and women get. We need to stop abusive financial practices like per diems. (Good stewards of the public trust like State Sen. Andy Dinniman won’t even accept per diems!) No, we don’t need tolling! We need a constitutional convention in Pennsylvania to take back our state and get back to honest government of the people, by the people and for the people!
Well, that all sounds good but it will take 50 years to accomplish.
Tolls are the only answer. They could interchanges and new access ramps within 5 years.
I am for as are most people who understand the necessity.
I remain opposed to any tolling period.
These carefully couched words are simply an effort to placate.
Interesting to note they no longer allow or show comments. They relaized that overwhelming public opinon opposes tolling especially using funds for light rail.
I want to remind the public that other roadways thorughout the state are regularly renovated and maintained, ie 222 and 30 in Lancaster, etc. We need to look hard at the figures. nearly 3/4 f a Billion dollars for 422. How absolutley absurd. These figures are bogus or we are all getting ripped off by the folks doing this roadwork…
Tool the Schulykill… Down to Vine Street and watch people moan and groan.
Again we pay for these roads already. If indeed our trafficing this road is so very heavy then these roads ought to be funded more heavily proportionate to the trafic use and drivers supported.
No Tolls!!!! Light rail only if they provide a means to and from the stations at the down end..
I don’t think the press has done a good job of explaining what the DVRPC is and how it’s funded, and I think the people need to know. It will help them to better understand the DVRPC’s motivations.
The DVRPC stands for the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission.
According to information prepared by the DVRPC itself, the “DVRPC is the federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Greater Philadelphia Region — leading the way to a better future.”
“DVRPC is funded by a variety of funding sources including federal grants from the U.S. Department of Transporation’s Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administation (FTA), the Pennsylvania and New Jersey Departments of Transportation, as well as by the DVRPC’s state and local member governments.”
And your point, Mike?
My point, Joe, is very clearly stated in the first paragraph of what I wrote: I don’t think the press (and I exclude the Sanatoga Post from this criticism — you do an excellent job of providing links which help explain your stories) has done a good job of explaining what the DVRPC is and how it’s funded.
Most people have no idea about it, how it’s funded or its purpose. If they did, then I surmise they might even be more outraged about the possiblity of paying tolls on Rte. 422.
Why?
Essentially, the DVRPC is a government agency funded by tax dollars from two states (New Jersey and Pennsylvania) and from federal tax dollars, and its telling us we’re out of tax dollars to make needed infrastructure improvements to Rte. 422; therefore, it’s advising we raise new tax dollars from tolling (though that proclamation is not yet final) because there’s no other way to make improvements.
This would make a fabulous Monty Python or SNL skit . . . But it’s not a skit and it’s not Letterman, unfortunately, it’s real life. And it affects real people, real working men and women, and it’s not one bit funny. It’s sad, and it’s unacceptable.
PA-TEC remains opposed to the 422 Master Plan because of the unsustainability and questions surrounding the cost to build, maintain and operate a train between Philadelphia and Reading.
There are better low cost alternatives to addressing traffic on 422 and providing rail based transit to Center City.
Capturing commuters along the Reading line is akin to chasing the “high hanging fruit” of the center city commuting market. Beyond Phoenixville, it barely exists, yet numbers are being twisted by DVRPC and the Montgomery County Planning Commission.
PA-TEC endorses the Greenline, a new light rail corridor between Phoenixville and Paoli, on an existing, dormant rail line that is not shared by freight trains. Construction and operational costs would be half that of the proposed train to Reading. Unlike the proposed R6 extension, the Greenline will not be subject to costly per-car mile access fees to Norfolk Southern that SEPTA would be required to pay on the R6 line.
We encourage DVRPC and the Montgomery County Planning Commission to drop this controversial and unpopular, costly project and focus on the Greenline corridor.
In the meantime, we encourage DVRPC and MCPC to release data that confirms the questionable ridership projections on the R6 extension. “SVM Lite”, like its predecessor, appears to be dead on arrival.