be enhanced by litigating these matters in one forum versus two, but in terms of Philadelphia versus Bucks County, the geographic factor is insignificant. In terms of coordination in general, all involved will clearly benefit by having these actions litigated together rather than having them litigated separately in two different forums. But in terms of Philadelphia versus Bucks County, neither forum appeared to be more convenient than the other: Roofing Dynamics counsel is located in Philadelphia County, while Accurso’s counsel is located in Bucks County; more parties appear to be located in Bucks County, but there is nothing particularly onerous about traveling between Philadelphia and Bucks County, see, e.g., Catagnus v. Allstate Ins. Co., 864 A.2d 1259, 1266 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2004) (<HOLDING>) and Johns v. First Union Corp., 777 A.2d 489,
holding that motion to transfer also must show either that county where action is pending is improper or that venue is mandatory in another county recognizing county officers as  those whose general authority and jurisdiction are confined within the limits of the county in which they are appointed who are appointed in and for a particular county and whose duties apply only to that county and through whom the county performs its usual political functions  holding that both saline county and grant county had jurisdiction to try the appellant for murder where the actual killing occurred in one county but the acts requisite to the consummation of the murder and the subsequent disposal of the body occurred in the other county holding the decision to transfer a case from philadelphia to bucks county was error and observing travel between philadelphia and bucks county is not particularly burdensome holding a county and a road district had standing to sue state highway commission and county tax collector based on their interest in and control over the public roads of the county