This Page

has moved to a new address:


Sorry for the inconvenience…

Redirection provided by Blogger to WordPress Migration Service
Linglestown Gazette: Meeting held on planned Rt. 39, village upgrades

Thursday, November 16, 2006

Meeting held on planned Rt. 39, village upgrades

About 200 people attended the information session Wednesday evening on the proposed highway improvement and streetscape project for the village of Linglestown slated to begin in spring 2007. Below are links to media reports:

WHP CBS 21CLICK HERE for report entitled “Round-about,” and CLICK HERE for a video segment.

CLICK HERE for an article that appeared in The Patriot-News.

The project is now in the final design stage. Last night’s meeting was a public information session on what will soon take place.

The planned improvements to the Route 39 corridor in the village appear to be a reasonable solution to the traffic congestion problems at the square and Blue Mountain Parkway intersection. Plus, the traffic calming features – roundabouts, chicanes and staggered parallel parking areas beyond the square area – should dramatically slow down traffic through the village.

Good news for walkers! The project includes the installation of sidewalks in the square area and along Linglestown Road.

Construction is expected to begin in spring 2007 and end during the spring or summer of 2008, according to Jeffrey S. Case of Arora and Associates, P.C. engineering firm. One lane of Route 39 will be open to traffic during construction, and detours will be set up for through traffic.

Lower Paxton Township officials face an obstacle in obtaining a right-of-way from a homeowner for a new dogleg road section slated to go from Linglestown Road near the old firehouse to Blue Mountain Parkway. The media reports listed above do a good job of explaining this situation.

Linglestown Gazette will attempt to obtain a diagram or picture that shows the design of the project.



At 11:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A traffic light and turn lanes where possible are definitely needed, but a traffic circle doesn't make any sense considering the limited space. Unless, that is, if buildings are going to be razed.

Dave Marple

At 6:54 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The issues you raise were covered at the 11/15/06 public meeting.

According to the design engineer, traffic lights would be more costly than roundabouts and would require more land takings because of the need for turning lanes. Plus, lights wouldn't move as much traffic through the square as roundabouts, he said.

The engineer and PennDOT officials claim there is enough room to accommodate a roundabout without tearing down buildings. Some existing parking spaces will be eliminated by the new traffic pattern.


At 6:43 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The engineering firm that designed and presented the case for a roundabout in Linglestown did so after having studied the situation. According to the engineering firm, the engineering studies and designs show that a roundabout is the best solution. At the recent public meeting in Nov 2006, in addition to the verbal presentation, a video was shown that demonstrated how a roundabout works.

After having heard the results of the studies and designs, and seeing the video, many people refuse to believe the results as presented by the engineering firm and supported by the Township and the Village Committee.

So, who is right? Is it the engineer (including the Township and Village Committee) that have performed an educated and technical engieering study or is it the people who have opinions about design based on things other than state-of-the-art engineering.

People say that a traffic signal would be best. The engineer does not agree and has the statistics to back it up.

People say that a circle (like in Gettysburg) will not work. The engineer agrees that a circle will not work, because a circle is not the same as a roundabout and a roundabout has been designed and is the best solution.

People say that a rounabout will not work. The engineer does not agree. The engineer has proven by studies that a roundabout is the best solution.

So, who is right? I vote for the engineer. The engineer has completed a design under the direction of the Township and the Village Committee and in accordance with PennDot and other design criteria.

Let's believe what the experts have done and presented, for they have been educated and contracted to present the best solution.

Let's get beyond thinking that we know better than the engineers about the technical issues.

Let's get the job done so that we can have a safe Linglestown.

I write this in consideration of the technical design issues, not issues related to property taking. That's another discussion.


Post a Comment

<< Home