Public Meetings — Archive
(Last updated May 2005)
Public Meeting #2
On Monday, August 18, and Tuesday, August 19, 2003, the Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation (PENNDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in
partnership with the County of Lancaster, held a public meeting display for
the PA Route 23 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) study. The August 18 meeting
was held at the Worship Center in Upper Leacock Township. The August 19 meeting
was held at Garden Spot High School in New Holland Borough.
The purpose of the meetings was to provide the public with an opportunity
to view the refined PA 23 alternatives, to discuss project details, and to
give their input on the design elements of alternatives that have been carried
forward for further study, as well as several proposed access points throughout
the corridor.
The meeting was arranged in an open house format so people could view the
displays at anytime during the meeting. According to the sign-in sheets, 351
residents attended the August 18 meeting and 663 residents attended the August
19 meeting, for a total attendance of 1,014.
During registration, participants received a survey to measure public opinion
on key issues regarding the PA 23 EIS study. Survey questions asked citizens
the effectiveness of the alternatives and potential access points, accuracy
of future developments and growth scenario mapping, the effectiveness of the
meeting and how the individual was made aware of the meeting. Additional information
requested included what interest the citizens represented and where they live.
Overall, attendance breakout by municipality was similar to the August 2002
public meeting, though there was an increase in attendance from residents in
Earl and East Earl Townships and a reduction in attendance from residents in
New Holland. Generally speaking, there was a continuance of support for all
the alternatives carried forward and general acceptance of the currently proposed
land use vision. The majority of respondents (60%) indicated that they were
residents of the study area. Fifteen percent indicated that they had a business
interest in the corridor, and seven percent indicated that they were farmers.
The results from survey question 11, which asked the public to identify their
concerns, suggest the respondents (approximately 50%) were primarily concerned
with impact to neighborhoods/communities, loss of farmland, and residential
impacts.
The results from survey question 4, which concerned the Widening Alternative,
were not conclusive, indicating instead that there is a lack of consensus about
what can be done with the existing corridor without having excessive impacts
through the towns. The results from survey question 5, which concerned the
access points at Willow Road, Horseshoe Road, Newport Road/Maple Avenue, Diller
Avenue and Ranck Road, suggest the public supports these access points. All
of the access points presented seemed to be supported equally. The results
from survey questions 6 and 7, which concerns the type of highway, arterial
or freeway, were inconclusive.
The results from survey question 8 suggests that the public feels the project
team is moving in the right direction with the alternatives to be more responsive
to the concerns and needs of the community. The project team will continue
to use the data gathered at Public Meeting #2 to further refine the alternatives
and minimize impacts in preparation for eventual inclusion in the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement.