County planning commission presents alternatives for Memory Lane/Industrial Highway intersection, recommends no‑build
January 25, 2024 | Springettsbury, York County, Pennsylvania
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The York County Planning Commission (YCPC) and consulting firm JMT presented results of an intersection study for Memory Lane and Industrial Highway and solicited municipal feedback on alternatives that ranged from a northbound right‑turn lane to a two‑lane roundabout.
Chris Kaba, senior transportation planner with YCPC, said the intersection currently operates at about a C level of service in peak hours and is projected to remain at that level through 2045 under a no‑build scenario. JMT’s analysis showed a two‑lane roundabout would reduce AM delay from roughly 19.7 seconds to about 6.6 seconds and would lower the projected crash count from 4.6 to about 3.63, but it would require the largest right‑of‑way acquisition (about 22,500 square feet), impact eight utility poles and one fire hydrant, and carry the highest construction estimate at about $3.5 million.
Alternative 2 — a northbound right‑turn lane — offered only marginal delay improvements and the least environmental and right‑of‑way impacts (estimated right‑of‑way about 2,100 sq ft) and carried an estimated construction cost of about $1.4 million. A third alternative adding northbound and southbound through lanes produced modest operational gains and a larger footprint and estimated cost (~$2.3 million).
When asked whether a single‑lane roundabout could perform similarly at lower cost, JMT staff said they tested a single‑lane layout and found performance worse than the existing condition for the study area, which led them to model a two‑lane roundabout instead.
Kaba said JMT recommended the no‑build option on balance because the roundabout’s operational benefits did not justify the higher costs and environmental impacts, and YCPC had not taken an official position — it sought local input before discussing the project with the metropolitan planning organization (MPO).
What happens next
YCPC will compile municipal feedback and may present the study and local comments to the MPO for funding and programming consideration; YCPC also plans corridor‑level work that could inform longer‑term operational solutions.
Provenance:
- topicintro: SEG 850 ("My name is Chris Kaba, senior transportation planner with the York County Planning Commission")
- topfinish: SEG 1376 (local follow‑up and corridor discussion)
Chris Kaba, senior transportation planner with YCPC, said the intersection currently operates at about a C level of service in peak hours and is projected to remain at that level through 2045 under a no‑build scenario. JMT’s analysis showed a two‑lane roundabout would reduce AM delay from roughly 19.7 seconds to about 6.6 seconds and would lower the projected crash count from 4.6 to about 3.63, but it would require the largest right‑of‑way acquisition (about 22,500 square feet), impact eight utility poles and one fire hydrant, and carry the highest construction estimate at about $3.5 million.
Alternative 2 — a northbound right‑turn lane — offered only marginal delay improvements and the least environmental and right‑of‑way impacts (estimated right‑of‑way about 2,100 sq ft) and carried an estimated construction cost of about $1.4 million. A third alternative adding northbound and southbound through lanes produced modest operational gains and a larger footprint and estimated cost (~$2.3 million).
When asked whether a single‑lane roundabout could perform similarly at lower cost, JMT staff said they tested a single‑lane layout and found performance worse than the existing condition for the study area, which led them to model a two‑lane roundabout instead.
Kaba said JMT recommended the no‑build option on balance because the roundabout’s operational benefits did not justify the higher costs and environmental impacts, and YCPC had not taken an official position — it sought local input before discussing the project with the metropolitan planning organization (MPO).
What happens next
YCPC will compile municipal feedback and may present the study and local comments to the MPO for funding and programming consideration; YCPC also plans corridor‑level work that could inform longer‑term operational solutions.
Provenance:
- topicintro: SEG 850 ("My name is Chris Kaba, senior transportation planner with the York County Planning Commission")
- topfinish: SEG 1376 (local follow‑up and corridor discussion)
Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!
Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.
✓
Get instant access to full meeting videos
✓
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
✓
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
✓
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
30-day money-back guarantee
