All comments are from the perspective of a Langhorne Historic District property owner and resident. Expanding the highway at the expense and loss of quality of life for the residents around the project needs to clearly demonstrate some value based on the reality in 2025 not 2011. $150,000,000.00 is a LOT of taxpayer money to spend for a project that was started due to a safety issue in 2011. If people drove over the low median, build a tall median to prevent that. It will require significantly less tax money and time to solve the issue. Regarding the safety issue that was identified by presenters as the primary impetus for this 14 year old project. The presenters intentionally mislead the participants by saying specifically that there were many fatalities which drove this decision. When pressed the presenter admitted that there weren’t really fatalities but there were accidents, but admitted that the accidents weren’t in the affected area necessarily, but there have been accidents on Route 1. Why would we spend a huge amount of tax payer money, and potentially make small neighborhoods less safe when there is no clear evidence that the access roads are a problem. This project is a huge financial, safety, quality of life, and property value loss to the local residents impacted.

A

All comments are from the perspective of a Langhorne Historic District property owner and resident. Expanding the highway at the expense and loss of quality of life for the residents around the project needs to clearly demonstrate some value based on the reality in 2025 not 2011. $150,000,000.00 is a LOT of taxpayer money to spend for a project that was started due to a safety issue in 2011. If people drove over the low median, build a tall median to prevent that. It will require significantly less tax money and time to solve the issue. Regarding the safety issue that was identified by presenters as the primary impetus for this 14 year old project. The presenters intentionally mislead the participants by saying specifically that there were many fatalities which drove this decision. When pressed the presenter admitted that there weren’t really fatalities but there were accidents, but admitted that the accidents weren’t in the affected area necessarily, but there have been accidents on Route 1. Why would we spend a huge amount of tax payer money, and potentially make small neighborhoods less safe when there is no clear evidence that the access roads are a problem. This project is a huge financial, safety, quality of life, and property value loss to the local residents impacted.

A previous alternative limited to providing a full width paved outside shoulder and concrete barriers along with closing the intermediate crossovers was strongly opposed by residents living along the service roads. 

As clearly stated in the presentation (please see the recording posted to the project website for reference), the design team noted multiple fatalities along US 1 within the project corridor.  In accordance with FHWA’s Vision Zero, any fatality is too many fatalities.

In addition, records show 588 crashes along US 1 within the project corridor over the past 6 years.  Based on the safety analysis, the preferred alternative is anticipated to reduce crashes within the project corridor when compared to the future no build condition and when compared to other alternatives.