Route 70 and Covered Bridge Road Route 70 and Kingston ......B. Concept Development Report and Other...

Route 70 and Covered Bridge Road Route 70 and Kingston Drive Feasibility Assessment Study

Draft Feasibility Assessment Report November 2008

Route 70/Covered Bridge Road Intersection and Route 70/Kingston Drive Intersection Feasibility Assessment Study

DRAFT - Feasibility Assessment Report

November 2008 i

I. Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................1

II. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................3 A. General Information.............................................................................................................3 B. Concept Development Report and Other Previous Reports............................................5 C. Project Description..............................................................................................................5

1. Restatement of Project Need.......................................................................................5 2. Project Methodology....................................................................................................5 3. Project Design Standards............................................................................................6

III. Alternatives Analysis ....................................................................................................................6 A. No Build Alternative.............................................................................................................6 B. Alternative 1A.......................................................................................................................6 C. Alternative 1B.......................................................................................................................6 D. Alternative 2 .........................................................................................................................7

IV. The Initially Preferred Alternatives ..............................................................................................7 A. Description of IPA................................................................................................................7 B. Geometrics ...........................................................................................................................8

1. Posted and Design Speed...........................................................................................8 2. Horizontal Alignment ...................................................................................................8 3. Vertical Alignment........................................................................................................8 4. Typical Roadway Section ............................................................................................8 5. Traffic Operations ........................................................................................................8

C. Right of Way.......................................................................................................................10 D. Structural Design...............................................................................................................10

1. Existing Structure ......................................................................................................10 2. Proposed Structure....................................................................................................10

E. Access ................................................................................................................................10 F. Traffic Engineering, Electrical and Highway Lighting....................................................11

1. Traffic Signals............................................................................................................11 2. ITS Facilities ..............................................................................................................11

G. Constructability..................................................................................................................11 H. Utilities................................................................................................................................11 I. Drainage .............................................................................................................................11 J. Value Engineering..............................................................................................................12 K. Survey/Base Plans.............................................................................................................12 L. Pedestrian and Bicycle Compatibility..............................................................................12 M. Context Sensitive Design..................................................................................................13 N. Environmental ....................................................................................................................13 O. Coordination with Stakeholders.......................................................................................13 P. Project Commitments........................................................................................................13 Q. Recommendations.............................................................................................................13

V. Scope of Work Form ...................................................................................................................13



November 2008 ii

List of Tables Table 1 – Route 70/Covered Bridge Road Intersection LOS Results ...................................................9 Table 2 – Route 70/Kingston Drive Intersection LOS Results ..............................................................9 Table 3 – ROW Matrix .............................................................................................................................10

List of Figures Figure 1 – Project Location Map..............................................................................................................4

List of Appendices APPENDIX A: STRAIGHT LINE DIAGRAM APPENDIX B: MEETING MINUTES AND CORRESPONDENCE APPENDIX C: PROJECT BASE MAPPING APPENDIX D: PHOTOGRAPH LOG APPENDIX E: PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE APPENDIX F: INITIALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (IPA) APPENDIX G: ROW MATRIX



November 2008 1

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Project Background

This report was prepared to document the Route 70/Covered Bridge Road Intersection and Route 70/Kingston Drive Intersection Feasibility Assessment (FA) Study conducted by the New Jersey Department of Transportation – Division of Project Development (NJDOT-DPD). The project intersections are located at Route 70 Milepost 4.81 and Milepost 4.30 in Cherry Hill Township, Camden County, as shown on the Straight Line Diagram in Appendix A.

This project was advanced to FA based on the recommendations of the Route 70 Concept Development Report, dated October 2004. The Route 70/Covered Bridge Road intersection is a signalized intersection located 0.25 miles west of I-295 Interchange 34. A forward jughandle using the local roadway network provides the movements from Route 70 eastbound to Frontage Road northbound. A reverse jughandle provides the movements from Route 70 westbound to Covered Bridge Road southbound. Two access driveways are located directly on the reverse jughandle to provide access to/from the Clarion Hotel. Additionally, an access driveway shared by the Clarion Hotel, the condominiums and apartments is located approximately 100 feet north of the jughandle terminus on Frontage Road.

During the AM Peak Hours, queuing regularly occurs on the reverse jughandle approaching Frontage Road. Field observations indicate that southbound motorists (especially those exiting the reverse jughandle) sometimes use the shared through-right turn lane to make left turns because they are not able to access the exclusive left turn lane. The makeshift dual left turn lanes oppose the Covered Bridge Road northbound approach and contribute to driver confusion and increase the potential for crashes. Both rear-end and angle crashes are overrepresented at the intersection. The close proximity of the shared access driveway to the jughandle terminus makes it difficult for motorists from both the jughandle and the driveway to merge into the correct lanes. There is also inadequate storage on Frontage Road southbound to accommodate vehicles from both Frontage Road and the reverse jughandle. Queuing from the adjacent traffic signal at the Route 70/Kingston Drive intersection (1/2 mile west of Covered Bridge Road) also contributes to congested conditions and queuing at the Covered Bridge Road intersection.

Analysis of future traffic conditions indicates that extensive queuing and delay will occur at the Route 70/Covered Bridge Road intersection by Design Year 2030. Additionally, poor traffic operations and extensive queuing at the adjacent Route 70/Kingston Drive intersection will negatively impact the operation of the Route 70/Covered Bridge Road intersection.

The Route 70/Kingston Drive Intersection is a signalized intersection located 0.75 miles west of I-295 Interchange 34. Unlike many of the other intersections along Route 70, direct left turns onto the sidestreets and U-turns are accommodated via exclusive left turn lanes on Route 70. Existing intersection conditions include excessive queuing and delay for motorists on Route 70 eastbound and westbound during the AM and PM Peak Hours. Queues on Route 70 westbound often extend back to the Route 70/Covered Bridge Road intersection. The intersection currently operates at an LOS F during peak periods. Several factors contribute to the poor conditions, including high traffic volumes on Route 70, significant left turn volumes from the minor streets, a four-phase traffic signal and the geometry of the Kingston Drive intersection approach.

The two intersections are located only ½ mile apart and interact very closely with one another. It is recommended that improvements to Route 70/Covered Bridge Road be implemented only if improvements are implemented at the Route 70/Kingston Drive intersection. Improving traffic



November 2008 2

operations and/or capacity at only one location will not provide significant benefit to motorists because queuing and delays will continue to increase at the adjacent intersection. By Design Year 2030, both intersections will be operating at or over capacity and will not be able to accommodate additional vehicles if no improvements are constructed. Therefore, if Route 70/Covered Bridge Road is improved and Route 70/Kingston Drive is not improved, delays may be increased at Route 70/Kingston Drive because the additional vehicles from the Route 70/Covered Bridge Road intersection cannot be accommodated.

An extensive Public Outreach effort was conducted during Concept Development. During Feasibility Assessment, Public Outreach focused primarily on the Local Officials. A meeting was held with the Local Officials from Cherry Hill on December 19, 2005 and another meeting is anticipated in the future. Meeting Minutes are included in Appendix B.

Initially Preferred Alternative

The Initially Preferred Alternative (IPA) includes widening Route 70 to three lanes in each direction, matching the three lane sections to the east and west limits of the project area. Widening will occur primarily to the inside, reducing the median width, and limiting right of way (ROW) impact.

In addition to the third through lane eastbound and westbound, improvements to the Route 70/Kingston Drive intersection include an additional left turn lane northbound and southbound, resulting in dual left turn lanes on both approaches.

Improvements to the Covered Bridge Road include a third through lane eastbound and westbound on Route 70. On the northbound approach, a lane will be added, resulting in an exclusive left turn lane, through lane, and exclusive right turn lane. On the southbound approach, an additional lane will be added resulting in dual left turn lanes and a shared through-right turn lane. The driveway entrance for the Clarion Hotel that currently exists on the jughandle will be closed. The current intersection of the intersection approach, the jughandle termini, and Frontage Road will be realigned to create a T-intersection at right angles. The Frontage Road and jughandle approaches will be stop-controlled.

Project Obstacles/Areas of Concern

Potential project obstacles could be the support of the local officials and property owners who will be affected by the proposed IPA. Follow-up meetings have not been held to date with the stakeholders to present the final IPA. A potential issue for the stakeholders could be the mainline widening to three lanes, closure of the median openings and replacement of the grass median with a concrete median. Modifications to access driveways at the Covered Bridge Road intersection could be a concern for property owners in that area.

Project Cost

The Preliminary Construction Cost for the IPA is $14,200,000 (including Preliminary and Final Design costs).



November 2008 3

II. INTRODUCTION

A. General Information

The Route 70/Covered Bridge Road intersection and the Route 70/Kingston Drive intersection are located in Cherry Hill Township, Camden County. Route 70 is an east-west urban principal arterial route beginning in Pennsauken Township, Camden County and terminating in Wall Township, Monmouth County. Primarily commercial land uses border Route 70 in the project area. The land use beyond the Route 70 corridor is primarily residential. Covered Bridge Road (M.P. 4.81) is bordered by commercial businesses and residences. The northern leg of the Covered Bridge Road intersection is called Frontage Road, and is bordered by a hotel, a bank, a condominium building, and an apartment complex. Kingston Drive (M.P. 4.30) is located 0.5 miles west of Covered Bridge Road. The northern quadrants are occupied by commercial properties. The southern leg of the intersection is called West Gate Drive and a church is located on the southwest quadrant and commercial properties are located on the southeast quadrant. Residential neighborhoods are located beyond the parcels directly fronting Route 70.

Within the project area, Route 70 consists of two lanes in each direction separated by a grass median. The posted speed limit along Route 70 is 45 mph. Lane widths vary between 10 and 11 feet along Route 70 to the west of Covered Bridge Road. Lane widths vary between 11 and 12 feet along Route 70 to the east of Covered Bridge Road. Route 70 eastbound and westbound travel lanes are separated by variable width grass median without barrier.

Outside shoulder width is 10 feet along Route 70 to the west of Covered Bridge Road. Outside shoulder width is 0 feet along Route 70 to the east of Covered Bridge Road. Inside shoulders along Route 70 are less than 3 feet wide.

The project need is to improve traffic operations and safety at the Route 70/Covered Bridge Road intersection. Under existing conditions, the intersection operates at LOS D based on traffic capacity analyses. However, numerous field observations during both peak and non-peak hours indicate that the intersection operates at a worse LOS due to the geometry of Covered Bridge Road/Frontage Road, the substandard reverse jughandle and queuing from the Kingston Drive intersection. The Route 70/Covered Bridge Road intersection is expected to operate at LOS F during the Design Year 2030 PM Peak Hour with extensive delays and queuing.

The general Project Location Map (Figure 1) is shown on page 4. Aerial photograph/base mapping of the project area are included in Appendix C and a Photograph Log is included in Appendix D.

The project is considered as Classification #2 (Reconstruction, Widening & Dualization).



November 2008 4

Project Location

LEGEND

Figure 1 – Project Location Map



November 2008 5

B. Concept Development Report and Other Previous Reports

The Concept Development Report, titled Route 70 Concept Development Report, was submitted October 2004. The CD Report contained data for the entire Route 70 corridor between Milepost 0.00 and 8.33. The Route 70/Covered Bridge Road intersection and the Route 70/Kingston Drive intersection were identified as a breakout improvement project as part of the study recommendations. This report can be found on file at NJDOT-DPD.

Traffic analysis performed in Concept Development indicated that the intersection currently operates at LOS C or LOS D during peak hours. Additionally, the geometry of the Frontage Road southbound intersection approach makes it difficult for motorists to navigate the intersection. Also, during the AM Peak Hour, queues on Route 70 westbound extend from the Kingston Drive intersection back to Covered Bridge Road.

C. Project Description

1. Restatement of Project Need

The project need is to improve traffic operations and safety at the Route 70/Covered Bridge Road intersection. Under existing conditions, the intersection operates at LOS D based on traffic capacity analyses. However, numerous field observations during both peak and non-peak hours indicate that the intersection operates at a worse LOS due to the geometry of Covered Bridge Road/Frontage Road, the substandard reverse jughandle and queuing from the Kingston Drive intersection.

During the AM Peak Hours, queuing regularly occurs on the reverse jughandle approaching Frontage Road. Field observations indicate that southbound motorists (especially those exiting the reverse jughandle) sometimes use the shared through-right turn lane to make left turns because they are not able to access the exclusive left turn lane. The makeshift dual left turn lanes oppose the Covered Bridge Road northbound approach and contribute to driver confusion and increase the potential for crashes. Both rear-end and angle crashes are overrepresented at the intersection. The close proximity of the shared access driveway to the jughandle terminus makes it difficult for motorists from both the jughandle and the driveway to merge into the correct lanes. There is also inadequate storage on Frontage Road southbound to accommodate vehicles from both Frontage Road and the reverse jughandle. Queuing from the adjacent traffic signal at the Route 70/Kingston Drive intersection (1/2 mile west of Covered Bridge Road) also contributes to congested conditions and queuing at the Covered Bridge Road intersection.

Analysis of future traffic conditions indicates that extensive queuing and delay will occur at the Route 70/Covered Bridge Road intersection by Design Year 2030. Additionally, poor traffic operations and extensive queuing at the adjacent Route 70/Kingston Drive intersection will negatively impact the operation of the Route 70/Covered Bridge Road intersection.

2. Project Methodology

One concept for the Route 70/Covered Bridge Road intersection was developed during the Route 70 Concept Development Study to address traffic/operational problems at the



November 2008 6

intersection. Additional concepts were further developed into alternatives during Feasibility Assessment.

Core group meetings and public outreach activities were conducted to obtain input from agencies, local representatives and the general public. Meeting Minutes are included in Appendix B.

Advancement of the concepts involved additional data collection, analyses, and preliminary design development. Several alternatives were developed and presented to various NJDOT units and Local Officials for comments. An IPA was selected that satisfied the project need through the Design Year of 2030.

3. Project Design Standards

Alternatives developed for the Route 70/Covered Bridge Road Intersection project utilized design standards set forth in the NJDOT Design Manual – Roadway (RDM) guidelines. Traffic analysis follows methodology outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual 2000, published by the Transportation Research Board.

III. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

Alternatives developed for the project were based on concepts developed during the Concept Development Study and focused on four overall areas including widening Route 70 between the two project intersections, improvements to the Covered Bridge Road intersection, improvements to the Kingston Drive intersection, and evaluation of a new intersection between the two project intersections. There were three overall alternatives developed as described below

A. No Build Alternative

Under the No Build Alternative, no improvements would be made to the project intersections. In the Design Year no improvements would result in major capacity deficiencies at both intersections resulting in extensive queuing at intersection sidestreet approaches, between both intersections and extending through adjacent intersections. Due to the complex nature and proximity of the intersections adjacent to the sidestreet approaches, significant queuing can cause significant congestion that could lead to safety concerns.

B. Alternative 1A

Alternative 1A is the proposed IPA, which is discussed in detail in the next section. The IPA basically includes addition of a third lane eastbound and westbound on Route 70, closure of the median openings, and improvements to the signalized intersections within the project limits. The Route 70/Kingston Drive intersection improvements include the addition of left turn lanes on the sidestreet approaches. At the Route 70/Covered Bridge Road intersection, left turn lanes are added to the sidestreet approaches, geometric modifications are proposed to the intersection with Frontage Road, and access modifications.

C. Alternative 1B

Alternative 1B includes the improvements discussed under Alternative 1A with the addition of a traffic signal between the two existing signalized intersections.



November 2008 7

This alternative was not advanced due to the resulting close proximity of signalized intersections and the resulting effect on vehicle progression.

D. Alternative 2

Alternative 2 includes the improvements proposed under the IPA as well as jughandles at the Kingston Road intersection.

This alternative was not advanced due to the complex geometric constraints and ROW impacts. Due to the location of other roadways that intersect Kingston Drive very close to the intersection with Route 70, the termini of the jughandle could not operate efficiently or safely.

IV. THE INITIALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES

A. Description of IPA

The Initially Preferred Alternative (IPA) includes widening Route 70 to three lanes in each direction, matching the three lane sections to the east and west limits of the project area. Widening will occur primarily to the inside, reducing the median width, and limiting ROW impact.

In addition to the third through lane eastbound and westbound, improvements to the Route 70/Kingston Drive intersection include an additional left turn lane northbound and southbound, resulting in dual left turn lanes on both approaches.

Improvements to the Covered Bridge Road include a third through lane eastbound and westbound on Route 70. On the northbound approach, a lane will be added, resulting in an exclusive left turn lane, through lane, and exclusive right turn lane. On the southbound approach, an additional lane will be added resulting in dual left turn lanes and a shared through-right turn lane. The driveway entrance for the Clarion Hotel that currently exists on the jughandle will be closed. The current intersection of the intersection approach, the jughandle termini, and Frontage Road will be realigned to create a T-intersection at right angles. The Frontage Road and jughandle approaches will be stop-controlled.

The preliminary construction cost estimate for the IPA is as follows:

Item Cost Construction $9,600,000 Utility Relocations $1,200,000 ROW Property Acquisitions/Easements $500,000 Construction Engineering, Contingencies, Preliminary and Final Design/Support

$2,900,000

Total Project Cost $14,200,000

A copy of the Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate is included in Appendix E. The ROW property acquisition cost was estimated to be only $500,000 due to minor impacts of ROW due



November 2008 8

to sidewalk installation. A formal ROW review by NJDOT was not performed to verify this estimate.

B. Geometrics

The proposed roadway design, unless otherwise noted, follows guidelines set forth in the NJDOT Roadway Design Manual – English. The following sections describe the characteristics of the proposed roadway. A concept plan of the IPA can be found in Appendix F.

1. Posted and Design Speed

The posted speed limit on Route 70 is 45 MPH.

2. Horizontal Alignment

NJDOT-RDM Sections 4-02.5, 4-03.2, and 4-03.3 give the minimum values for horizontal curves. There are no horizontal curves in the project area.

3. Vertical Alignment

NJDOT-RDM Section 4-04.5 establishes limits on vertical curves. There are no vertical curves within the project area.

4. Typical Roadway Section

The existing typical roadway section consists of two 11 foot lanes with both inside and outside shoulders varying in width, and a grass median with median openings. The IPA proposes three 12 foot lanes in each direction with 8 foot outside shoulders and 3 foot inside shoulders along Jersey barrier.

5. Traffic Operations

The proposed IPA will result in additional capacity along Route 70. However, the overall impact to capacity will be controlled by the improvements made to the Route 70/Covered Bridge Road and Route 70/Kingston Drive intersection. The two intersections will control the overall flow of traffic within the section between the intersections. Additional capacity will be added at both of the project intersections due to the addition of extra lanes. Synchro was utilized to evaluate the intersection operations as reported in the Table 1 and 2.



November 2008 9

TABLE 1 – ROUTE 70/COVERED BRIDGE ROAD INTERSECTION LOS RESULTS

Existing Year 2005 (Existing Configuration)

Design Year 2030 (Initially Preferred Alternative)

Intersection Approach AM

LOS

AM Delay (sec)

PM LOS

PM Delay (sec)

AM LOS

AM Delay (sec)

PM LOS

PM Delay (sec)

Overall Intersection C* 22.6* D 36.6 C 27.7 D 37.8

Route 70 EB B 18.0 D 37.3 C 20.5 D 40.8

Route 70 WB C* 20.4* B 18.8 C 28.1 C 22.8 Covered Bridge

Road NB D 47.9 D 48.0 D 53.0 F 93.3

Route 70/ Covered

Bridge Road Intersection

Frontage Road SB D 49.6 F 105.6 D 51.9 E 56.3

*Does not take into account Route 70 westbound queuing from the adjacent Route 70/Kingston Drive intersection which extends back through the Route 70/Covered Bridge Road intersection

TABLE 2 – ROUTE 70/KINGSTON DRIVE INTERSECTION LOS RESULTS

Existing Year 2005 (Existing Configurations)

Design Year 2030 (IPA)

Intersection Approach AM

LOS

AM Delay (sec)

PM LOS

PM Delay (sec)

AM LOS

AM Delay (sec)

PM LOS

PM Delay (sec)

Overall Intersection F 89.4 F 89.0 D 50.3 E 68.7

Route 70 EB E 72.7 F 84.3 D 43.2 F 82.5

Route 70 WB F 113.2 F 101.6 D 51.7 D 49.0

West Gate Road NB D 48.5 D 50.2 F 90.1 F 117.6

Route 70/ Kingston Drive

Intersection

Kingston Drive SB E 61.1 E 68.0 E 63.2 E 58.8

Multiple iterations of the analysis were conducted to determine appropriate phasing for the IPA condition at both intersections. Both Split Phasing and Lead Left Phasing were considered for the sidestreet approaches, however, it was determined that for both intersections, Split Phasing for the sidestreets was most effective, given the short storage distance provided on the sidestreet approaches. By using Lead Left Phasing, the lane blockages due to the short storage provided would limit the capacity of the approach and consequently the number of vehicles that could clear the intersection during the green time.



November 2008 10

C. Right of Way

ROW impacts are anticipated in several locations under the IPA. ROW impacts are due to the additional lanes proposed on Route 70, and the widening of Frontage Road on the approach to Route 70. The majority of these impacts are small strip impacts associated with the installation of sidewalk along Route 70. Table 3 summarizes the ROW impacts under the IPA. A ROW matrix listing properties within 200 feet of right of way impacts are also located in Appendix G.

TABLE 3 – ROW MATRIX

Block Lot Owner Name Comment 463.11 1 Goodman J-Fleet Bank Minor Strip Impact due to sidewalk installation 463.10 3 Cherry Hill Township Frontage Rd approach widening

463.09 7 Simply Storage Cherry Hill LLC Impact to corner of property due to Mark 70 Apts. driveway realignment

463.09 12 I-295 & Route 70 Assoc. LP Impact to corner of property due to Mark 70 Apts. driveway realignment

341.18 5 Lan Route 70 Associates LP c/o Needleman Minor Strip Impact due to sidewalk installation

341.18 4 Fifas Enterprises c/o Goodyear Minor Strip Impact due to sidewalk installation 341.18 3 Fifas Enterprises c/o Wawa Minor Strip Impact due to sidewalk installation

341.18 2 Conwell LP c/o The Goodman Group Minor Strip Impact due to sidewalk installation

341.18 1 Conwell LP c/o The Goodman Group Minor Strip Impact due to sidewalk installation

341.02 1 Romanoff, N & J Minor Strip Impact due to sidewalk installation 341.02 2 Romanoff, N & J Minor Strip Impact due to sidewalk installation

342.34 2 Becca Inc. W Crossby (Penn Medicine) Minor Strip Impact due to sidewalk installation

342.34 3 Properties 70 Group LLC Minor Strip Impact due to sidewalk installation 342.34 4 Tarsh USA Inc. & Millerfive LLC Minor Strip Impact due to sidewalk installation 342.34 5 Trinity Pres. Church Minor Strip Impact due to sidewalk installation

342.15 41 Hortense Assoc. LP (Barclay Farms Shopping Center) Minor Strip Impact due to sidewalk installation

D. Structural Design

1. Existing Structure

There are no existing structures within the project limits.

2. Proposed Structure

There are no proposed structures under the IPA.

E. Access

There are numerous commercial property driveways located along Route 70 that are not anticipated to be affected by the proposed improvements. The improvements to the Route 70/Covered Bridge Road intersection will impact access to two properties located on the northwestern and northeastern quadrants of the intersection. Currently, the Clarion Hotel,



November 2008 11

located on the northwest quadrant, has an ingress and an egress driveway along the Covered Bridge Road jughandle. As part of the improvements to the intersection, the driveways along the jughandle will be closed to conform with current access code regulations. The Clarion Hotel currently has as access driveway west of the project intersection as well as access via Frontage Road through a shared driveway. The intersection of the shared driveway and Frontage Road will be moved to the east to improve the overall jughandle and Frontage Road intersection operation, but will still allow access to the hotel as well as the apartment building located north of the hotel.

The Bank is currently located on the northeast corner of the Route 70/Covered Bridge Road intersection. An ingress/egress driveway to the property is located along the Covered Bridge Road approach to the Route 70 intersection. Channelization will be added at the driveway to allow for ingress only. Two other ingress/egress driveways will remain to access the property via Route 70 and via Frontage Road. To date, outreach has not been conducted with the owners of either property.

F. Traffic Engineering, Electrical and Highway Lighting

1. Traffic Signals

Traffic signals are currently located at the Route 70/Covered Bridge Road intersection and the Route 70/Kingston Drive intersection. No additional traffic signals are proposed as part of the project. It is likely that due to the additional lanes being added at the project intersections, traffic signal equipment will need to be modified. Further investigation will need to be performed during Preliminary Design to determine the full impact to traffic signal equipment.

2. ITS Facilities

ITS facilities are not proposed within the scope of this project.

G. Constructability

A formal constructability review was not completed for this project because no major constructability issues are anticipated. Construction activities will primarily occur outside of the travel lanes. The widening of Route 70 to both the median and the outside should be accomplished by shifting the travel lanes during construction.

Since the traffic signal equipment on Route 70 is to remain, the use of temporary traffic signals is not anticipated.

H. Utilities Electric, cable, and telephone utilities are located overhead and sewer, water, gas and fiber optic utilities are located beneath the shoulder and grass median along Route 70. Utility contact information shall be provided in the Final Feasibility Assessment Report.

I. Drainage

Storm water runoff is collected along Route 70 via inlets located along the outside shoulders and center grass median. Curbs exist along the outside shoulders of Route 70 to facilitate



November 2008 12

runoff to the inlets. Curbs are only present in limited locations along the center median. Stormwater Management Rules (NJAC 7:8) emphasize, as a primary consideration, the use of non-structural stormwater management techniques including minimizing disturbance, minimizing impervious surfaces, minimizing the use of stormwater pipes and preserving natural drainage features. The rules also set forth requirements for groundwater recharge, stormwater runoff quantity control, stormwater runoff control and a buffer adjacent to Category One waters and their immediate tributaries.

The proposed project will increase the impervious area by more than 0.25 acre. Therefore, the water quality treatment criteria will need to be addressed. For transportation projects the water quality treatment criteria consist of 80% Total Suspended Solids (TSS) removal for new impervious surfaces and 50% TSS removal for existing impervious surfaces.

Additional inlets may be required to reduce the spread of stormwater over the travelway. Hydraulic calculations would be required in Preliminary Design to determine the number and location of the additional inlets and pipe sizes to carry additional run off from new impervious areas added.

Further study for compliance with the DEP Stormwater regulations is needed in Preliminary Design.

J. Value Engineering

NJDOT-Value Engineering did not provide specific input on the Feasibility Assessment Study and IPA.

K. Survey/Base Plans

Project base mapping was created by digitizing aerial photographs and is located in Appendix C. A Final Survey Control Report was prepared and submitted to NJDOT.

L. Pedestrian and Bicycle Compatibility

Field observations noted that there are delineated crosswalks, pedestrian signals with push buttons, and handicap ramps at the north and south approaches along the eastern side of the Route 70 at Kingston Drive intersection. Pedestrian accommodations are proposed across all four approaches under the IPA and are ADA compliant.

Pedestrian accommodations are not present at the Route 70 at Covered Bridge Road intersection, except for handicap ramps across the south approach. Delineated crosswalks are not provided at any of the approaches. Pedestrian accommodations are proposed across all four approaches under the IPA and are ADA compliant.

Sidewalks are currently located along Route 70 westbound between the Planet Fitness driveway and western limit of the project. Sidewalks are currently located only in limited areas along Route 70 eastbound.

Under the IPA existing sidewalks will be replaced due to the widening of Route 70 with sidewalk constructed in appropriate areas as indicated in the IPA plan. The proposed sidewalk is six (6) feet wide with no grass buffer due to right of way constraints. Eight (8) foot shoulders are proposed along the entire length of the project providing bicycle compatibility.



November 2008 13

M. Context Sensitive Design

Context Sensitive Design has not been addressed in Feasibility Assessment.

N. Environmental

An environmental screening was not conducted as part of the Feasibility Assessment Study. The Concept Development Study reported on findings of an environmental screening that was previously conducted by the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC).

A Categorical Exclusion (CE) Document is currently being prepared to accompany the project to preliminary design.

O. Coordination with Stakeholders

An extensive Public Outreach effort was conducted during Concept Development. During Feasibility Assessment, Public Outreach focused primarily on the Local Officials. A meeting was held with the Local Officials from Cherry Hill on December 19, 2005 and another meeting is anticipated in the future. Meeting Minutes are included in Appendix B.

P. Project Commitments

No project commitments have been made at this.

Q. Recommendations

It is recommended that The Route 70/Covered Bridge Road and Route 70/Kingston Drive Intersections Feasibility Assessment Study be advanced to Preliminary Design.

V. SCOPE OF WORK FORM

The Draft Scope of Work (SOW) form for the Route 70/Covered Bridge Road and Route 70/Kingston Drive Intersections Feasibility Assessment Study is currently under development.

APPENDIX A STRAIGHT LINE DIAGRAM

CO

VE

RE

D B

RID

GE

RD

(4.81)FR

ON

TAG

E R

D*(55.10)

PIN

E V

ALLEY R

D(4.76)

W G

ATE D

R(4.63)

RA

NA

LDO

TER

R*(55.38)B

ARK

LAK

E TER

R*(55.44)

W G

ATE R

D(4.30)

KIN

GSTO

N D

R*(55.61)

SAW

MILL R

D(4.09)

BR

OO

KM

EA

D D

R(3.90)

KEN

WO

OD

DR

(3.79)

BR

ACE R

D(3.66)

KIN

GS

HW

Y*(56.26)

BO

UN

DE

RY

LN(3.47)

*(56.48)MAIN

E AVE

PAR

K DR

(3.38)*(56.54)V

ER

MO

NT R

D

NE

W H

AMPS

HIR

E A

VE*(56.61)

HA

RD

ING

AVE

(3.29)

RH

OD

E IS

LAN

D A

VE*(56.67)

HA

RR

ISO

N A

VE(3.23)

MA

SSA

CH

US

ETTS

A

VE*(56.74)

MAD

ISO

N A

VE(3.18)

CO

NN

EC

TICU

T AV

E*(56.80)

CO

OPE

R A

VE(3.12)

VIR

GIN

IA A

VEN

UE

*(56.86)W

ESLEY

AVE

(3.07)

ED

ISO

N AV

E(3.00)

*(56.93)GEO

RG

IA A

VE

GR

AN

T AVE

(2.95)C

OO

PER

LAND

ING

RD

*(57.01)S

HER

IDA

N AV

E(2.89)

CO

NW

ELL A

VE

(2.83)W

HITM

AN

AVE

(2.77)W

EBS

TER

AVE

(2.72)TO

LOC

US

T WO

OD

PK*(57.23)

CU

RTIS

AV

E(2.66)

*(57.30)WA

RR

EN

AVE

CH

AM

BE

RS S

T*(57.37)

FULTO

N ST

*(57.44)

*(57.58)MER

CER

ST

HA

DD

ON

FIELD

RD

*(57.63)G

RO

VE S

T(2.31)

S W

ASH

ING

TON

AVE

(2.18)BE

IDE

MA

N A

VE(2.12)

DE

LAW

AR

E AV

E(2.07)

PEN

N A

VE(2.00)

41

154

628

644

627

Par

kD

riveJefferson Avenue

Fulto

nSt

reet

Tampa Avenue

War

ren

Stre

et

Park

Roa

d

Pelham

Road

Saw

mill R

oad

Mercer S

treet

Mid

way

Drive

Maine

Avenue

Ran

oldo

Ter

Kenw

oodD

rive

Miami Avenue

Kingston

Driv e

Grant A

venue

York Road

New York Avenue

Pennsylvania Avenue

WestG

at eD

rive

Pin e

Val l ey

Ro ad

Glanville DriveWestove

r Drive

Covered

Bri dg e

Road

Con

wel

l Ave

nue

Rid

geR

oad

Sha

rrow

Val

eR

oad

Ormond Av East

Pad

dock

Way

Valle

yR

unD

rive

Sher idan

Avenue

Wynmoor Road

FoxC

haseLanePardee Lane

Web

ster

Aven

ue

Oregon Avenue

Kay

Ave

nue

Nevada Avenue

Utah Avenue

Russell Ter

Township Lane

Secondary Direction

Primary D

irection

22

21

689

2

AVC

Interstate Route

US Route

NJ Route

County Road

Interchange NumberGrade

Separated Interchange

Traffic Signal

Traffic Monitoring

Sites

Road Underpass

Road Overpass

VOL

WIM

Units in m

iles* Secondary direction m

ilepost

Primary Direction

Secondary Direction

287

NJ 70 (West to East)

SRI = 00000070__ Date last inventoried: February 2006

Page C

reated: May 2008

Mile Posts: 2.000 - 5.000

2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

57.94 54.9057.0 56.0 55.0

3748

(3.99)C

RO

PW

ELLS B

K.

644

644 627 41

154

41

Cherry Hill Twp, Camden Co

Cherry Hill Twp, Camden Co

Street Name John Davison Rockefeller Memorial Hwy

Jurisdiction N.J.D.O.T.

Functional Class Urban Principal Arterial

Federal Aid - NHS Sy NHS

Control Section 0413 0414

Speed Limit 45

Number of Lanes 3 2 3 2

Med. Type Curbed Unprotected

Med. Width 24 VAR

Pavement 36 20 36 20 24

Shoulder 0 10 12 10

Traffic Volume 56,237 (2006)

Traffic Sta. ID 7-4-328

Structure No. 0414150

Enlarged Views

Pavement 36 20 36 20 24

Shoulder 0 10 12 10

Number of Lanes 3 2 3 2

Speed Limit 45

Street Name John Davison Rockefeller Memorial Hwy

APPENDIX B MEETING MINUTES AND CORRESPONDENCE

Baker MEMORANDUM OF MEETING

H:\25488 - BPSD\TO#40-Rt70_CBRd\Meetings\10-20-05_NJDOTScopeTeam.doc Page 1

Date: October 20, 2005 Project: Route 70/Covered Bridge Road and Route 70/Kingston Drive FA Studies

S.O. 25488 T.O. 40 and 41 Time: 9:30 AM Place: NJDOT Conference Room 4A Memo By: Craig Hyman/Amy Sokalski Subject/Purpose: NJDOT Scope Team Meeting Attending: Name Affiliation Jim Sweet NJDOT-Division of Project Planning & Development (DPPD) Jody Barankin NJDOT-DPPD Evens Marcellus NJDOT-DPPD Joseph Powell NJDOT-OBPP Valerie A. Brown NJDOT-Value Engineering (VE) Bob Davies NJDOT-Project Management (PM) Joseph Fatatis NJDOT-Traffic Signal & Safety Engineering (TSS&E) Jim Finnerty NJDOT-Right of Way-South (ROW) Scott Oplinger NJDOT-Maintenance-South Patricia Feliciano NJDOT-Office of Community Relations (OCR) David Ahdout NJDOT-Division of Environmental Resources (DER) Ryan Reali NJDOT-DER David Earl NJDOT-Landscape and Urban Design Bakula Patel NJDOT-Design Services Scoping and Review Amutha Vijayakumar NJDOT-Design Services Scoping and Review Chiman Antala NJDOT-Design Services Scoping and Review Kevin Conover NJDOT-Bureau of Safety Programs Tom Zim NJDOT-Bureau of Safety Programs Sean Warren NJDOT-Bureau of Environmental Project Support Dan Mott Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Matt Zeller FHWA Amy Sokalski Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Craig J. Hyman Michael Baker Jr., Inc. The following summarizes the NJDOT Scope Team Meeting held at NJDOT on October 20, 2005 for the Route 70/Covered Bridge Road and Route 70/Kingston Drive Feasibility Assessment Studies. Jim Sweet opened the meeting by thanking all for their attendance. Mr. Sweet proceeded with introductions and discussed the purpose of the meeting, which was to provide the scope team with an overview of the projects and to obtain their feedback. Mr. Sweet turned the presentation over to Amy Sokalski. Ms. Sokalski discussed the Route 70 Concept Development (CD) Study that was completed in October 2004. She gave a brief history of the CD Study and the public outreach activities that were conducted. Ms. Sokalski noted that the



Route 70/Covered Bridge Road and the Route 70/Kingston Drive intersections had the worst operations along the corridor. Ms. Sokalski began her presentation with the introduction of the Covered Bridge Road intersection and briefly summarized the existing intersection geometry and associated traffic operations. Discussion ♦ Mr. Conover informed Ms. Sokalski that the crash analysis was completed and ready to be

delivered to Baker. Mr. Conover stated that there were 15 angle crashes within the last three years at the Route 70/Covered Bridge Road intersection. He noted that 15 angle crashes are excessive and are cause for concern. Ms. Sokalski agreed and replied that safety is one of the reasons this particular intersection is being advanced into the Feasibility Assessment phase.

♦ Mr. Finnerty questioned if anyone from Project Management or Right of Way attended any of the public meetings that were held for the Route 70 Concept Development Study. He was concerned if NJDOT and Baker knew about local opposition to removing the center grass median along Route 70. Ms. Feliciano replied that the NJDOT was aware of the local opposition. Mr. Barankin also was aware of the opposition and stated that safety within the corridor should not be sacrificed for outdated ideals.

♦ Mr. Davies asked if additional recommendations from the Route CD Study were being advanced. Mr. Barankin responded that the study has been completed and that the corridor will be broken out by intersections instead of trying to improve the entire roadway at one time. Mr. Barankin also noted that the Public Involvement throughout the CD Study was difficult and the option to break up the corridor into intersections was the most agreeable. The goal is to improve the entire corridor within 15-20 years.

♦ Mr. Davies asked if anyone was willing to close the median cut-throughs along Route 70. Ms. Feliciano replied that the median cut-through at Route 70/Maine Avenue was closed this morning. Mr. Oplinger noted that Cherry Hill Township would like to close all of the median cut-throughs. NJDOT would first have to verify if the adjacent intersections would be able to handle the additional volumes. Ms. Sokalski added that traffic counts were recently conducted at the median openings between Covered Bridge Road and Kings Highway, and the volumes using the openings during the AM and PM Peak Hours were minimal.

♦ Mr. Conover noted that crash records indicate that there several left turn crashes occurred on the Route 70 westbound shoulder in the vicinity of the WAWA at Kingston Drive. Mr. Conover questioned if motorists are using the shoulder as a live lane or auxiliary lane during peak hours, which could result in left turn crashes at this location. Ms. Sokalski confirmed that motorists often use the shoulder as an auxiliary lane to access the WAWA and other businesses. Mr. Conover recommended that gore striping could be added in the shoulder to discourage motorists from using the shoulder as an auxiliary lane.

♦ Mr. Sweet questioned if there was the possibility to limit/remove the access points on the loop ramp at the Covered Bridge Road intersection. Ms. Sokalski stated that access concerns would be investigated during Feasibility Assessment.

Ms. Sokalski continued the presentation by describing the Route 70/Kingston Drive intersection. She informed the group that the current signal timing and lane configurations at the intersection cause a majority of the delay at this intersection. She proceeded to discuss the geometric layout of the intersection and the conflicting movements associated with it.



♦ Mr. Ahdout questioned if there are any existing drainage inlets on Route 70 or if drainage occurs within the grass median. He recommended looking into how storm water management occurs before deciding to eliminate the center grass median.

♦ Mr. Antala asked what the existing lane widths are on Route 70. Ms. Sokalski replied that the Straight Line Diagram (SLD) says they are 10-foot lanes. However, lane widths will be verified using base mapping that will be developed during Feasibility Assessment.

♦ Mr. Davies asked if there are any conceptual alternatives for the project intersections. Ms. Sokalski stated that very limited conceptual improvements were developed during the Route 70 Concept Development Study.

Mr. Sweet closed the meeting by thanking everyone for their attendance. Subsequent to the meeting, Mr. Powell provided the following written comments related to bicycle and pedestrian accommodations at the intersections: Covered Bridge Road Field Observations ♦ No marked crosswalks ♦ Push button for signal present on both radii and center grass median

o 7’ off of face of curb s/w radius o 12’ off of face of curb n/w radius.

♦ Curb cuts needed for Route 70 crossing ♦ There is an existing crossing for Covered Bridge Road. (Unmarked)

o No push buttons (side street) o Curb cuts with ramps o 4’ wide sidewalk on both sides of Covered Bridge Road.

♦ Primary pedestrian traffic may be from condos on North side to pharmacy on South side ♦ Rt. 70 eastbound: 8’ wide shoulder-ok for bicycles ♦ Rt. 70 westbound: No provisions Covered Bridge Road Recommendations ♦ Eliminate hotel access from jughandle. ♦ Place bicycle safe grates. ♦ Place curb cuts, sidewalk and handicap ramps as necessary. ♦ Mark crosswalks at pushbuttons and at entrance to Barclay Farm. ♦ Upgrade pushbuttons to include count down ped-heads. Locate push buttons in accordance with

ADA recommendations. Kingston Drive Field Observations ♦ Marked crosswalk with push buttons and countdown ped heads ♦ Push button for light present on both radii and center grass median

o Close proximity to face of curb ♦ There are no crossing provisions for Kingston Drive. (Unmarked)

o Sidewalk on both sides of Kingston Drive (South side only) ♦ Rt. 70 Eastbound: 10’ wide shoulder-ok for bicycles ♦ Rt. 70 Westbound: Shoulder west of intersection-ok for bicycles



Kingston Drive Recommendations ♦ Place bicycle safe grates ♦ Place curb cuts, handicap ramps and sidewalk as necessary ♦ Place a crosswalk for West Gate Drive ♦ Revise location of traffic signal cabinets that clutter S/E corner ♦ Straighten Route 70 crosswalk to include center median (and not go around it) Action Items ♦ Schedule Local Officials Meeting #1 Cc: Attendees, Robert Marshall, J. Yeager


Page 1 of 2

Date: December 19, 2005 Project: Route 70/Covered Bridge Road Route 70/Kingston Drive S.O. 25488 T.O. 40 & 41 Time: 3:00 PM Place: Cherry Hill Twp. Municipal Building Memo By: Regan Miller Subject/Purpose: Local Officials Meeting #1 Attending: Name Affiliation Jim Sweet NJDOT – DPPD Jody Barankin NJDOT - DPPD Patricia Feliciano NJDOT – OCR Bob Davies NJDOT – Project Management David Benedetti Cherry Hill Township Anthony Bucchi Cherry Hill Township Mayor Bernie Platt Cherry Hill Township Nicole Hostettler Cherry Hill Township Amy Sokalski Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Jim Miller Michael Baker Jr. Inc. Regan Miller Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Jim Sweet opened the meeting by thanking everyone for their attendance and asking for introductions. Mr. Sweet stated that the intersections of Route 70 and Covered Bridge Road and Route 70 and Kingston Drive are two signalized intersections that were identified during the previous Route 70 Concept Development Study as having operational problems. The purpose of this meeting was to demonstrate why these two particular intersections were advanced to the Feasibility Assessment process and to obtain input from local officials regarding existing conditions and deficiencies. Amy Sokalski presented a brief summary of the NJDOT Project Development Process and the findings of the previous Concept Development Study. The Route 70/Covered Bridge Road intersection was identified by Cherry Hill Township as the highest priority intersection and the Route 70/Kingston Drive intersection was identified as having the worst Level of Service of all of the intersections in the Concept Development Study. Ms. Sokalski stated that the project base mapping was currently being digitized and that the existing and projected traffic volumes have been developed and analyzed for the AM and PM Peak Hours. Ms. Sokalski then presented the deficiencies for each intersection and asked for feedback from the attendees. The following summarizes the comments made by the attendees:

Mayor Bernie Platt stated that the Covered Bridge Road intersection still remained a top priority of Cherry Hill Township. He also stated that the shared access between the condos/apartments and the Clarion Hotel was originally supposed to be closed, but had remained open to provide convenient access to the Hotel restaurant from the condos/apartments.

Mayor Platt stated that the Township would prefer that construction be performed concurrently on the two intersections, so that the construction would occur over a shorter duration.

The Township requested that context sensitive design be an important part of the alternatives due to high levels of pedestrian activity at the intersections. The Township is currently working on installing pedestrian enhancements along Route 70 in the Erlton section of town.


Page 2 of 2

Mr. Sweet thanked everyone for attending the meeting. It is anticipated that Local Officials Meeting #2 will be held in Spring 2006. CC: Attendees


H:\25488 - BPSD\TO#40-Rt70_CBRd\Meetings\03-05-08_NJDOT Status Meeting.doc Page 1

Date: March 5, 2008 Project: Route 70/Covered Bridge Road and Route 70/Kingston Drive FA Studies

S.O. 25488 T.O. 40 and 41 Time: 10:00 AM Place: NJDOT Conference Room 3C Memo By: Marty Wade Subject/Purpose: NJDOT Status Meeting Attending: Name Affiliation Jim Sweet NJDOT-Division of Project Planning & Development (DPPD) Jody Barankin NJDOT-DPPD Evens Marcellus NJDOT-DPPD Brett Hunger NJDOT-Environmental Jim Yeager Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Marty Wade Michael Baker Jr., Inc. The following summarizes the NJDOT Status Meeting held at NJDOT on March 5, 2008 for the Route 70/Covered Bridge Road and Route 70/Kingston Drive Feasibility Assessment Studies. Jody Barankin opened the meeting by thanking all for their attendance. Mr. Barankin proceeded with discussing the purpose of the meeting, which was to discuss the overall project completion activities for feasibility assessment (FA) of the Route 70 at Covered Bridge Road and Route 70 at Kingston Drive projects. Mr. Barankin explained that Cherry Hill Township was in favor of improving the congestion at Covered Bridge Road and Kingston Avenue by widening Route 70 from four lanes to six lanes. He also stated that the NJDOT is fully in support of widening Route 70 in the project area as well. It was stated that NJDOT desires to complete feasibility assessment for the two subject intersections by the end of June 2008. Remaining steps to complete FA include internal selection of an Initially Preferred Alternative (IPA), presentation and acceptance of the IPA by Cherry Hill Township, and completion of the necessary environmental document. It is anticipated that the subject projects will be eligible for categorical exclusion. It was discussed that prior to a Core Group meeting, a meeting should be scheduled with traffic engineering subject matter experts to identify potential fatal flaws with the currently developed alternatives. The outcome of this meeting could determine which alternative is presented as the IPA to the Core Group. Action Items

♦ Baker to discuss the necessary environmental tasks with NJDOT – Environmental to quantify the remaining effort to be completed during FA.

♦ Jim Sweet to schedule a meeting prior to the Core Group meeting with traffic engineering subject matter experts.

♦ Baker to provide a CD containing FA related documents to DPPD for future solicitations.


H:\25488 - BPSD\TO#40-Rt70_CBRd\Meetings\03-13-08_NJDOT Scope Team Meeting.doc Page 1

Date: March 13, 2008 Project: Route 70/Covered Bridge Road and Route 70/Kingston Drive FA Studies

S.O. 25488 T.O. 40 and 41 Time: 1:00 PM Place: NJDOT Conference Room 3C Memo By: Marty Wade Subject/Purpose: NJDOT Traffic Engineering/Scoping Meeting Attending: Name Affiliation Jim Sweet NJDOT-Division of Project Planning & Development (DPPD) Jody Barankin NJDOT-DPPD Evens Marcellus NJDOT-DPPD Bob Davies NJDOT-Project Management (PM) Joseph Fatatis NJDOT-Traffic Signal & Safety Engineering (TSS&E) William Kafer NJDOT-Bureau of Traffic Engineering & Investigations (BTEI) Ed Lin NJDOT-BTEI Brett Hunger NJDOT-Environmental Lauralee Rappleye NJDOT-Environmental Bill Kingsland NJDOT-Maintenance-South Patricia Feliciano NJDOT-Office of Community Relations (OCR) Amutha Vijayakumar NJDOT-Value Solutions Chiman Antala NJDOT-Value Solutions Bucky Misner NJDOT-Value Solutions Jim Yeager Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Bob Bevilacqua Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Marty Wade Michael Baker Jr., Inc. The following summarizes the NJDOT Traffic Engineering/Scope Team Meeting held at NJDOT on March 13, 2008 for the Route 70/Covered Bridge Road and Route 70/Kingston Drive Feasibility Assessment Studies. Jim Sweet opened the meeting by thanking all for their attendance. Mr. Sweet proceeded with introductions and discussed the purpose of the meeting, which was to provide the attendees with an overview of the projects and to obtain their feedback related to the feasibility of implementing an alternative that proposes a traffic signal between the existing signalized intersection of Covered Bridge Road and Kingston Drive. Jim Yeager provided a brief history of the project and then turned the discussion over to Marty Wade. Mr. Wade presented Alternatives 1 and 2 and then answered questions related to the proposed alternatives. The following discussion items summarize the overall concerns: Discussion ♦ Mr. Fatatis requested that a signal warrant analysis be prepared for the proposed Ranoldo

Terrace traffic signal that is incorporated in Alternative 2. He also requested that a progression analysis be performed to help determine the effects of the proposed traffic signal on the corridor.


H:\25488 - BPSD\TO#40-Rt70_CBRd\Meetings\03-13-08_NJDOT Scope Team Meeting.doc Page 2

♦ Mr. Barankin noted that although there has been local opposition to proposed widening on Route 70, congestion and safety improvements are needed to allow Route 70 to functionally serve as it was intended, a principal arterial roadway serving regional motorists.

♦ Mr. Barankin noted that there is currently money in the Transportation Improvement Program to fund capital improvements on Route 70, and he has been given direction to complete Feasibility Assessment of these two intersections by June 2008.

♦ Mr. Sweet asked if the access points on the loop ramp at the Covered Bridge Road intersection were to be closed. Mr. Wade replied that the access points on the loop ramp were proposed to be closed due to sufficient alternative access.

Mr. Sweet closed the meeting by thanking everyone for their attendance and requesting that any further comments be forwarded within two weeks. After the meeting concluded, discussion was held regarding the environmental tasks needed to advance the project to design. Mr. Barankin noted that this project should qualify for Categorical Exclusion and a scope, schedule and budget should be prepared for the additional work. Action Items

♦ Baker shall perform a signal warrant analysis and progression analysis for the proposed Ranoldo Terrace traffic signal.

♦ DPPD shall schedule a meeting with TSSE to discuss the effects of the proposed Ranoldo Terrace traffic signal.

♦ Baker shall prepared a scope, schedule and budget for the additional work associated with preparing the Categorical Exclusion Document.


H:\25488 - BPSD\TO#40-Rt70_CBRd\Meetings\04-08-08_NJDOT Traffic Meeting.doc Page 1

Date: April 8, 2008 Project: Route 70/Covered Bridge Road and Route 70/Kingston Drive FA Studies

S.O. 25488 T.O. 40 and 41 Time: 1:30 PM Place: NJDOT Conference Room 3C Memo By: Marty Wade Subject/Purpose: NJDOT Traffic Engineering Meeting Attending: Name Affiliation Jim Sweet NJDOT-Division of Project Planning & Development (DPPD) Jody Barankin NJDOT-DPPD Bob Davies NJDOT-Project Management (PM) Joseph Fatatis NJDOT-Traffic Signal & Safety Engineering (TSS&E) Jim Yeager Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Lori Duguid Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Marty Wade Michael Baker Jr., Inc. The following summarizes the NJDOT Traffic Engineering Meeting held at NJDOT on April 8, 2008 for the Route 70/Covered Bridge Road and Route 70/Kingston Drive Feasibility Assessment Studies. Jim Yeager opened the meeting by discussing the purpose of the meeting, which was to obtain direction related to advancing an alternative that proposes a traffic signal between the existing signalized intersection of Covered Bridge Road and Kingston Drive. Jim Yeager provided a brief history of the project and then turned the discussion over to Marty Wade. Mr. Wade gave a summary of the existing conditions present within the study area and then presented Alternative 2. Lori Duguid was then introduced and presented the signal warrant analysis supporting the installation of the new traffic signal at Ranoldo Terrace. The following items summarize the overall discussion: Discussion ♦ Mr. Fatatis stated that although the installation of the traffic signal is warranted based upon

Warrant 2 (4-hour Warrant Analysis), TSS&E does not typically support the installation of a new signal given the calculated left turn volumes (under 100 vehicles) present at the Ranoldo Terrace traffic signal since installation of a traffic signal would cause interruption to traffic flow on Route 70.

♦ General discussion followed regarding eliminating the left turn lanes on Route 70 at Kingston Drive. The installation of roundabouts on West Gate Drive and Kingston Drive to accommodate Route 70 left turning vehicles was suggested. Several jughandle locations were also discussed along Route 70 westbound.

♦ Ms. Duguid presented the progression of the corridor using a time-space diagram and demonstrated that based on analysis, progression was not effect by installing the new traffic signal. Ms. Duguid then presented the SimTraffic simulation showing that the signal at Ranoldo had little effect on delay for the corridor during peak hours.

♦ Mr. Fatatis noted that the southbound approach to Route 70 at Covered Bridge Road should be realigned to better facilitate traffic approaching the signal.


H:\25488 - BPSD\TO#40-Rt70_CBRd\Meetings\04-08-08_NJDOT Traffic Meeting.doc Page 2

Action Items

♦ Baker shall evaluate the effects of removing the left turns on Route 70 at the Kingston Drive traffic signal.

♦ Baker will incorporate revised geometry at the southbound approach to Route 70 at Covered Bridge Road.


H:\25488 - BPSD\TO#40-Rt70_CBRd\Meetings\08-12-08_NJDOT Status Meeting.doc Page 1

Date: August 12, 2008 Project: Route 70/Covered Bridge Road and Route 70/Kingston Drive FA Studies

S.O. 25488 T.O. 40 and 41 Time: 1:00 PM Place: NJDOT Conference Room 3C Memo By: Marty Wade Subject/Purpose: NJDOT Status Meeting Attending: Name Affiliation Jim Sweet NJDOT-Division of Project Development (DPD) Jody Barankin NJDOT-DPD Bob Davies NJDOT-Project Management (PM) Joseph Fatatis NJDOT-Traffic Signal & Safety Engineering (TSS&E) Brett Hunger NJDOT-Environmental Jim Yeager Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Marty Wade Michael Baker Jr., Inc. The following summarizes the NJDOT Status Meeting held at NJDOT on August 12, 2008 for the Route 70/Covered Bridge Road and Route 70/Kingston Drive Feasibility Assessment Studies. Marty Wade opened the meeting by discussing the design changes that have been incorporated into the preferred alternative. The following recommendations were made for advancing a preferred alternative: ♦ Mr. Fatatis noted that the proposed operation of the westbound forward jughandle at Kingston

Drive may not operate ideally. He also stated that the roundabout on West Gate Drive may prohibit trucks from using that facility.

♦ Mr. Fatatis asked that the operation of a reverse loop jughandle for the westbound approach at Kingston Drive be investigated.

♦ Efforts to avoid utility and right of way impacts should be made including the replacement of the grass median with a Jersey barrier.

♦ The access on Route 70 westbound to The Bank located on the corner of Route 70 and Frontage Road should be closed as reasonable alternative access already exists. The current access on Route 70 is located on a ramp merge.

♦ Coordination meetings with the Clarion Hotel and Trinity Church are recommended. Action Items

♦ Baker shall evaluate the effects of adding a reverse loop jughandle on Route 70 westbound at Kingston Drive.

♦ Baker will revise the cross-section of Route 70 to minimize the impact to utilities and right of way by removing the grass median where appropriate.

♦ Baker will evaluate the necessity of items under the Environmental Documentation task order based on the revised roadway cross-section and advancement of the two projects as one project.

APPENDIX C PROJECT BASE MAPPING

APPENDIX D PHOTOGRAPH LOG

Route 70 Feasibility Assessment Study

Photograph Log Along Route 70 Corridor

Route 70 at Kingston Drive looking east

Route 70 at Kingston Drive looking west



Route 70 at Kingston Drive looking north

Route 70 at Kingston Drive looking south



Route 70 at Covered Bridge Road looking west

Route 70 at Covered Bridge Road looking east



Route 70 at Covered Bridge Road looking south

Route 70 at Covered Bridge Road looking north

APPENDIX E PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE

Class 2 - Reconstruction, Widening Dualization

Classification Number 2 - RECONSTRUCTION, WIDENING & DUALIZATION - English

Route 70 - IPA Section/Contract #PM UPC No.

EARTHWORK (must be calculated)Unit Quantity x Unit Price Amount

Stripping (4 - 6" Depth) Acre 5 10,000 50000Roadway Exc. Unclassified, See (J) C.Y. 23423 30 702690Removal of Conc. Base & Conc. Surface Courses S.Y. 0 15 0Channel Excavation C.Y. 0 12.25 0Ditch Excavation C.Y. 0 10 0Borrow Excavation Zone 3, See (J) C.Y. 0 0

0 0EARTHWORK TOTAL = 752690

Suggested procedure for calculating earthwork:A) Determine Typical section (number of lanes, median widths, side slopes, etc.).B) Get latest topography map available.C) Plot proposed alignment on topo map.D) Develop profile using topo controls such as existing roads, streams, rivers and design manual.E) Calculate Areas for the typical section in 1 foot increments of cut or fill.F) At 10 to 60 foot intervals (depending on frequency of X-section changes) calculate the earthwork.G) Calculate any other significant earthwork (ramps, cross-roads, etc.).H) Make appropriate earthwork corrections for the pavement box and striping. Use 21 inch depth for rigid pavement, 26

inch depth for all flexible pavement and 4 inch depth for stripping.I) Deduct any roadway excavation from borrow required to calculate Borrow Excavation Zone 3.

PAVEMENT

12 FOOT WIDE LANE (from subgrade up)

Pav't. Type Cost/S.F.AB 8.00$ CDE

(Resurfacing Portion only F & G)F 1.50$ GH 1.06$

Computation Table for Pavement. Cost

Type Cost from table above x SF N/A = AmountB 8.00 291887 2335096F 1.50 291840 437760H 1.06 291840 309350.4

000000

3 inch HMA Surf. Crs. & 4 inch HMA Base

Milling 2 inch

2 inch HMA Surf. Crs. & 2 inch HMA BaseBridge Approach & Transition Slabs

2 inch HMA Surface Course3 inch HMA Surface Course

J) See Construction Cost Estimate Work Sheet (Section 3.1). This worksheet must be utilized for the most recent price information.

Description of Pavement10 inch R.C. Pavement2 inch HMA Surf. Crs. & 8 inch HMA Base

2001 1 11/26/2008


PAVEMENT TOTAL = 3082206.4

CONTEXT SENSITIVE DESIGN

Attach additional sheet detailing items and costs of context sensitive design work =

CULVERTS

///////////////////////////////////////////////// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////COVER

<-----------------W----------------> <-----------------------W------------------------>Type 1 W< 20 Feet Type 2 W> 20 Feet

Type Layout (3) Skew (1) Cover (2)Cost Per Sq. Foot

Area w x L exceeds 0-60 0 to 10' 114.751000 Sq. Feet degrees 10' to 20' 147.25

Type 1 Short Culverts Difficult 0-60 0 to 10' 203.50Conditions under 1000 SquareFeet degrees 10' to 20' 235.00Area w x L exceeds 0-60 0 to 10' 121.751000 Sq. Feet degrees 10' to 20' 152.50

Type 2 Short Culverts Difficult 0-60 0 to 10' 203.50Conditions under 1000 SquareFeet degrees 10' to 20' 235.00

For skews over 60 degrees it will be necessary to make a special analysis and establish a square meter price comparable to above.

Description Area Computation x Cost per Sq. Foot = Amount0000

Culvert Total = 0

BRIDGESFor the Bridge Sketch see the Construction Cost Estimation Preparation Manual1 to 3 spans and 2 side spans (Max. Span 100 feet)H = Clear Height 14 To 23 feet (4)L = 100 to 400 feet & all viaducts over 400 feet (5)

Class Layout Skew (1) Foundation (2)Cost per Sq.Foot

Width at Least 0 to 40 No Piles 134.75I 45 feet Degrees Piles at Stub Abut. 159.75

Piles at Piers & Stu 174.7540 to 60 No Piles 145Degrees Piles at Stub Abut. 168.25

Piles at Piers & Stu 181.25

For the Bridge Sketch see the Construction Cost Estimation Preparation Manual

2001 2 11/26/2008


1 to 3 spans and 2 side spans (Max. Span 100 feet) (3)H = Clear Height 14 feet (4)L = under 400 feet

Class Layout Skew (1) Foundation (2)Cost per Sq.Foot

L exceeds W 0 to 40 No Piles 176.5II Area L x W Degrees On Piles 187.25

exceeds 4500 40 to 60 No Piles 219.75Sq. Feet Degrees On Piles 273.25W exceeds L 0 to 40 No Piles 226.75

III Area L x W Degrees On Piles 299.25exceeds 4500 40 to 60 No Piles 241.5Sq. Feet Degrees On Piles 310Width 30 - 0 to 40 No Piles 295.5

IV 45 feet Degrees On Piles 396.75Area W x L under 40 to 60 No Piles 318.254500 Sq. Foot Degrees On Piles 416.25

For the Bridge Sketch see the Construction Cost Estimation Preparation Manual1 to 2 spans (Max. Span 125 feet)H = Clear Height 14 feet (4)L = 100 to 250 feet

Layout Skew (1) Cost/ Sq. FootWidth at Least 0 to 40 157.0040 feet Degrees 182.00

204.5040 to 60 166.50

Minimum Length Degrees 194.75100 feet 217.50

0Length Width Cost per SF Bridge Total

1. For skews over 60 degrees it will be necessary to make a special analysis and establish a square foot price comparable to above.

2. For very bad foundation conditions requiring unusual lengths or spacing of piles, it will be necessary to establish a square foot price.

3. For longer spans, adjust the cost per square foot to reflect increased cost of structural members.

4. For span bridges, it is expected the length of the side span will be increased in proportion to any increase in height. Because of the resultant increase in deck area, the square foot price will remain approximately the same in the range of heights shown. For

extremely high structures (particularly for viaducts), square foot prices will have to be increased.

5. For structures over 400 foot long (viaducts), reduce the cost per square foot if repetitive span length and forming can be used. Reduce by $0.50 for lengths from 400 to 600 feet and by $1.00 for lengths over 600 feet. (Do not forget adjustments (3) and (4)

above on viaducts).

6. For statically indeterminate structures, square foot prices will have to be established.

Structure DescriptionCalculated Sq. Foot of Bridge Deck

x Cost Per Square Foot = Amount

000000

Foundation (2)No PilesPiles at Semi-Stub Abut.Piles at Piers & Semi-Stub Abut.No PilesPiles at Semi-Stub Abut.Piles at Piers & Semi-Stub Abut.

2001 3 11/26/2008


000000

Sub Total 0Clearing Site Bridge *0-3% of Sub Total 0

%

BRIDGE TOTAL 0*Pick appropriate percent based on the size, type and materials of existing structure

DRAINAGE (includes inlets and cross drains)

Rural 0 364356 0project length (miles) x cost per mile = Amount

Urban 1.2 544280 653136project length (miles) x cost per mile = Amount

The above are the total costs of basins, manholes, longitudinal and transverse pipes, underdrains, headwalls, protecting curbs, aprons, etc. for a divided highway with a depressed median. The costs are assumed to apply to 4, 6 or 8 lane

sections since there will be no appreciable difference in the number of basins or the sizes or lengths of pipes.

Frontage Road & Ramp Drainage

55 0x cost per foot = Amount

DRAINAGE TOTAL = 653136

INCIDENTAL ITEMS

Item Cost / L.F. x Quantity = AmountBeam Guide Rail 16.75 0 0Fence 6 Foot High 18.25 0 09" X 16" Conc. Vertical Curb 22 12160 26752015" X 41" Conc. Barrier Curb 50.25 0 024" X 41" Conc. Barrier Curb 270 4751 128277024" X Variable Conc. Barrier Curb 46 0 0Sign Bridge 308,000 0 04' Median Island 5.55 4200 23310Concrete Sidewalk 5.55 48501 269180.55Traffic Signal Modifications 150,000.00 2 300000Cantilever Sign Structure 60,500 0 0INCIDENTAL ITEMS TOTAL = 2142780.55

LANDSCAPE

Quantity x Unit Prices = AmountTopsoil and Seeding (Mainline) Length of Project in miles 1.2 112,815 135378Planting (Mainline) Length of Project in miles 1.2 64,500 77400Topsoil, Seeding, Planting (Finger Ramp

0length of ramp or frontage rd. in feet

2001 4 11/26/2008


Number of Finger Ramps 0 12,500 0Topsoil, Seeding, Planting (Loop Ramp) Number of Loop Ramps 0 20,000 0Topsoil, Seeding (Access Road) Length of Access Road in Feet 0 7.9 0LANDSCAPE TOTAL = 212778

NOISE ABATEMENT

Unit Quantity x Cost = AmountNoise Wall L.F. 0 305 0

000

NOISE ABATEMENT TOTAL = 0

GENERAL ITEMS

Item Project Length (miles) x Cost/Mile = AmountField Office 1.2 44,260 53112Materials Field Laboratory 1.2 28,970 34764Erosion Control during Constructio 1.2 64,375 77250GENERAL ITEMS TOTAL = 165126

SUMMARY

Route 70 - IPA 0 Section/Proj. Id. # 0PM 0 UPC No. 0

Work TypeTotals from other pages

Earthwork 0Pavement 3082206.4Context Sensitive Design 0Culverts 0Bridges 0Drainage 653136Incidental Items 2142780.55Landscape 212778Noise Abatement 0General Items 165126

PROJECT SUBTOTAL 6256026.95

Other Items Proj. Subtotal Range Choice AmountLighting, Traffic Stripes, Signs and Delineators

3% of Proj. Subtotal 187680.8085

Maintenance of Traffic7% of Proj. Subtotal 437922

Training1% of Proj. Subtotal 62560.2695

Mobilization 625602.695

Project Cost < 5.0 (Mil.)9% of Proj. Subtotal 0

Project Cost 5.0 & above10% of Proj. Subtotal 625603

Progress Schedule Project Cost(Mil.) $ 8000

2001 5 11/26/2008


Less than 2.0 0 02.0 to 5.0 6,000 05.0 to 10.0 8,000 800010.0 to 20.0 15,000 020.0 to 30.0 30,000 030.0 to 40.0 40,000 040.0 & above 58,000 0

Clearing Site Project Cost (Mil.) $ 115000Less than 1.0 15,000 01.0 to 2.0 30,000 02.0 to 5.0 45,000 05.0 to 10.0 115,000 11500010.0 to 20.0 220,000 020.0 to 30.0 240,000 030.0 to 40.0 250,000 040.0 & above 490,000 0

Construction Layout Project Cost(Mil.) $ 87000Less than 1.0 7,000 01.0 to 2.0 20,000 02.0 to 5.0 42,000 05.0 to 10.0 87,000 8700010.0 to 20.0 160,000 020.0 to 30.0 220,000 030.0 to 40.0 490,000 040.0 & above 890,000 0

PROJECT TOTAL 7779793

CONTINGENCIES & ESCALATION YY = Number of Years until midpoint of construction duration plus

number of years until construction start. If midpoint is less than 2 years from the date of this estimate, no escalation is required.

Maximum value = 20%

5.00

5.00 1.54

7779792.61 1.030 1.20 9615824Project Total Contingencies (1+C) 1 + [0.01 (Y+1) (Y-

2)]Construction Estimate for PD

Project Cost(Mil.) Contingencies (C) Percent

Average Construction Duration in Years

0-10 3% 1 0.03010-20 2.50% 2 0.000Over 20 2% 3 0.000

CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING (CE)

Project Cost (Mil.)% of Construction Cost

Less than 1.0 31.10% 01.0 to 5.0 20.30% 0.005.0 to 10.0 16.20% 1557763.4310.0 & above 12.20% 0CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AMOUNT $1,557,763.43

CONSTRUCTION CHANGE ORDER CONTINGENCIES

Total Federal Participating Items in Millions of $ Construction Change Order Contingency Amount$0 to 0.1 $6,000 00.1 to 0.5 25,000 00.5 to 5.0 25,000 + 4% of amount in excess of $500,000 05.0 to 10.0 205,000 + 3% of amount in excess of $5,000,000 343500

2001 6 11/26/2008


10.0 to 15.0 355,000 + 2% of amount in excess of $10,000,000 015.0 and above 455,000 + 1.5% of amount in excess of $15,000,000 - max $500,000 0

0For State Funded Projects, Contingencies for Change orders = 0CHANGE ORDER CONTINGENC = 343500

UTILITIES RELOCATIONS BY COMPANIES/OWNERS

9615824 0.12 $ 1,153,898.84 for Urban use 0.12, Rural 0.055 or + Estimate =

Construction Cost for Initial Estimate

Use % or utilities detailed estimate

Utility Relocation Cost for Initial Estimate

If there are no utility relocations on the project indicate “No Utilities” in the box above.

RIGHT OF WAY COSTIf there is no ROW cost on the project indicate “No ROW” the box

SUMMARYConstruction Estimate for Initial $9,615,824Construction Engineering (CE) $1,557,763Contingencies $343,500Utilities Relocations $1,153,899Total Construction Cost $12,670,986

Right of Way Cost $500,000Preliminary and Final Design $1,000,000

Total (Rounded) $14,200,000

2001 7 11/26/2008

APPENDIX F INITIALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (IPA)

APPENDIX G ROW MATRIX

Route 70 ROW Impacts Within 200' of Improvements

Block Lot Owner Name Mailing Address City State Zip Street Address City State341.01 14 Township of Cherry Hill 820 Mercer Street Cherry Hill NJ 08022 Route 70 Cherry Hill NJ341.01 16 Robert Marx Assoc., Suite 212 1717 Swede Road Blue Bell PA 19422 404 Route 70 Cherry Hill NJ341.01 17 Kowit, Gross & Gross, Rash & Assoc. 1717 Swede Road, Suite 212 Blue Bell PA 19422 406 Route 70 Cherry Hill NJ341.01 18 Abbot Inc, Wills Eye Hospital 840 Walnut Street, 15th Floor Philadelphia PA 19107 408 Route 70 Cherry Hill NJ341.02 1341.02 2341.02 3 Stuart I. Harris Living Trust 1028 Abington Cherry Hill NJ 08034 1028 Abington Cherry Hill NJ341.02 4 Singh, Malkit 1026 Abington Cherry Hill NJ 08034 1026 Abington Cherry Hill NJ341.02 5 Richardo & Nelinda Santiago 1024 Abington Cherry Hill NJ 08034 1024 Abington Cherry Hill NJ341.02 6 Christine M. & Anthony J. Papaneri 1022 Abington Cherry Hill NJ 08034 1022 Abington Cherry Hill NJ341.02 8 Singh, Malkit 1026 Abington Cherry Hill NJ 08034 1000 Route 70 Cherry Hill NJ341.02 9 450 Route 70 East LLC 99 Versailles Boulevard Cherry Hill NJ 08034 450 Route 70 Cherry Hill NJ341.05 10 Henry & Denise Quinn 1032 Chelten Parkway Cherry Hill NJ 08034 1032 Chelten Cherry Hill NJ341.05 11 Amado & Felicidad Manalo 1019 Kingston Drive Cherry Hill NJ 08034 1019 Kingston Cherry Hill NJ341.17 2 Stewall Corp, Manor Care Inc 333 N. Summit Street, Box 10086 Toledo OH 43699-0086 1402 Route 70 Cherry Hill NJ341.17 3 Heart Institute of Southern NJ 1400 Route 70 East Cherry Hill NJ 08034 1400 Route 70 Cherry Hill NJ341.18 1 Conwell LP c/o The Goodman Group 131-A Gaither Drive Mount Laurel NJ 08054 1100 Route 70 E Cherry Hill NJ341.18 2 Conwell LP c/o The Goodman Group 131-A Gaither Drive Mount Laurel NJ 08054 1104 Route 70 E Cherry Hill NJ341.18 3 Fifas Enterprises c/o Wawa 260 West Baltimore Pike Wawa PA 19063 1110 Route 70 E341.18 4 Fifas Enterprises c/o Goodyear 1144 East Market Street Akron OH 44316 1108 Route 70 E341.18 5 Lan Route 70 Associates LP c/o Needleman 1060 Kings Highway North Cherry Hill NJ 08034 1698 Route 70 E341.27 1 Daibes Gas LLC 1000 Portside Drive Edgewater NJ 07020 10 Ranoldo Cherry Hill NJ341.27 2 Lazgor LLC 1096 Greentree Road, Suite 200 Cherry Hill NJ 08034 8 Ranoldo Cherry Hill NJ342.03 1 Lazaros & Georgia Rassoulis 249 Route 70 East Cherry Hill NJ 08034 249 Route 70 Cherry Hill NJ342.03 2 Louis & Anne Napolitano 2 Brookmead Drive Cherry Hill NJ 08034 251 Route 70 Cherry Hill NJ342.03 3 Louis & Anne Napolitano 2 Brookmead Drive Cherry Hill NJ 08034 2 Brookmead Cherry Hill NJ342.03 4 Louis J & Sueann Napolitano 4 Brookmead Drive Cherry Hill NJ 08034 4 Brookmead Cherry Hill NJ342.03 5 Dominick & Connie Greco 6 Brookmead Drive Cherry Hill NJ 08034 6 Brookmead Cherry Hill NJ342.03 6 Richard & Irene Salcito 8 Brookmead Drive Cherry Hill NJ 08034 8 Brookmead Cherry Hill NJ342.03 41 Sarah Kozloski 10 Surrey Court Cherry Hill NJ 08034 10 Surrey Cherry Hill NJ342.03 42 John J & Joyce M Morris 12 Surrey Court Cherry Hill NJ 08034 12 Surrey Cherry Hill NJ342.03 48 Armando Barbarino 237 Route 70 Cherry Hill NJ 08034 237 Route 70 Cherry Hill NJ342.03 49 Kelly Breitton 243 Route 70 Cherry Hill NJ 08034 243 Route 70 Cherry Hill NJ

Romanoff, N & J 1034 Route 70 Cherry Hill NJ1034 Route 70 East Cherry Hill NJ 08034

Block Lot Owner Name Mailing Address City State Zip Street Address City State342.07 1 Brookmead LLC 432 Columbus Boulevard Cherry Hill NJ 08034 1 Brookmead Cherry Hill NJ342.07 5 The Chrome Palace 305 Route 70 East Cherry Hill NJ 08034 305 Route 70 Cherry Hill NJ342.07 6 315 Route 70 East LTD P.O. Box 4116 Cherry Hill NJ 08034 315 Route 70 Cherry Hill NJ342.07 7 325 Route 70 East LTD 325 Route 70 East Cherry Hill NJ 08034 325 Route 70 Cherry Hill NJ342.07 8 NJ National Bank, Wachovia 401 S. Tyron St NC 5568 Charlotte NC 28288-5568 335 Route 70 Cherry Hill NJ342.07 35 Carr, AG & Wasiner, P 3 Brookmead Drive Cherry Hill NJ 08034 3 Brookmead Cherry Hill NJ342.15 39 Cynthia Cosden 220 Moore Lane Haddonfield NJ 08033 95 Gate Cherry Hill NJ342.15 40 Carl & Marianne Seitz 705 Haverford Drive Bryn Mawr PA 02979 1301 Route 70 Cherry Hill NJ342.15 41 Hortense Assoc. LP 15 Barclay Pavilion East Cherry Hill NJ 08034 1409 Route 70 Cherry Hill NJ342.15 42 South Jersey Medical Center P.O. Box 1680 Laurel Springs NJ 08021 1401 Route 70 Cherry Hill NJ342.34 1 Becca Inc. D/B/A 403 Assoc. 401 Route 70 East, Suite 206 Cherry Hill NJ 08034 401 Route 70 Cherry Hill NJ342.34 2 Becca Inc. W Crossby 401 Route 70 East, Suite 206 Cherry Hill NJ 08034 409 Route 70 Cherry Hill NJ342.34 3 Properties 70 Group LLC 411 Route 70 East Cherry Hill NJ 08034 411 Route 70 Cherry Hill NJ

Tarsh USA Inc. P.O. Box 2075 Voorhees NJ 08043 413A Route 70Millerfive LLC 413B Route 70 East Cherry Hill NJ 08034 413B Route 70

342.34 5 Trinity Pres. Church Westgate Drive & Route 70 Cherry Hill NJ 08034 499 Route 70 Cherry Hill NJ435.01 1 Cornerstone Bank 300 West Route 38 Moorestown NJ 08057 1405 Route 70 Cherry Hill NJ435.01 3 LN Enterprises LLC 101 East Gate Drive Cherry Hill NJ 08034 101 East Gate Dr. Cherry Hill NJ435.01 11435.01 12435.11 1 Doris & Robert J Maro 95 Pine Valley Road Cherry Hill NJ 08034 27 Covered Bridge Cherry Hill NJ435.11 2 Afsharzand Inc. 18 Forest Hill Drive Cherry Hill NJ 08034 31 Covered Bridge Cherry Hill NJ435.11 3 Judith H Crudele 105 Antietam Road Cherry Hill NJ 08034 105 Antietam Cherry Hill NJ435.11 4 Getty Petroleum Marketing Inc. 1500 Hempstead Turnpike E. Meadow NY 11554 1503 Route 70 Cherry Hill NJ435.11 5 Car Care Inc. 1000 Crawford Place, Suite 400 Mount Laurel NJ 08054 1505 Route 70 Cherry Hill NJ435.11 7 Eugene J. and Mary N. Mohen 109 Antietam Road Cherry Hill NJ 08034 109 Antietam Cherry Hill NJ435.11 8 Steven F. Macallister, Jr. 40 Key Lane Cherry Hill NJ 08034 40 Kay Street Cherry Hill NJ435.18 1 G Ardito & L Ardito 1435 Route 70 East Cherry Hill NJ 08034 1435 Route 70 Cherry Hill NJ435.18 2 C H Chase III & Wilcox A H Ten Com 1425 Route 70 East Cherry Hill NJ 08034 1425 Route 70 Cherry Hill NJ463.09 13 Pine Tree Center LLC 53 East Central Avenue Moorestown NJ 08057 1422 Route 70 Cherry Hill NJ463.09 15 Barclay Real Estate Assoc, Morganstein P.O. Box 152 Gladwyne PA 19035 1432 Route 70 Marlton NJ463.09 17463.09 12463.11 1 Goodman J-Fleet Bank 131-A Gaither Drive Mount Laurel NJ 08054 1460 Route 70 E Cherry Hill NJ

4342.34 Cherry Hill NJ

CHP Assoc LLP 1415 Route 70 Cherry Hill NJ1415 Route 70 East, Suite 500 Cherry Hill NJ 08034

I-295 & Route 70 Assoc. LP 1329 Bristol Pike Suite 182 Bensalem PA 19020 1450 Route 70 Cherry Hill NJ

Route 70 and Covered Bridge Road Route 70 and Kingston ......B. Concept Development Report and Other...

Documents

Transcript of Route 70 and Covered Bridge Road Route 70 and Kingston ......B. Concept Development Report and Other...