LVPC Jaindl nomination

Posted on by

The nomination of David Jaindl by the County administration for a seat on the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission is a bad idea. The benefits of developers serving on the LVPC make sense, but with all due respect to Mr Jaindl he is not the right choice. Lots of others would be better suited.

County Commissioner Percy Dougherty who represents Lower Macungie outlines some good arguments why the nomination isn’t a good idea. Some I agree with more than others but we come to the same conclusion.

For me the biggest problem with Mr. Jaindl is too often his projects directly and substantially conflict with the regional comprehensive plan. Here in Lower Mac we understand this better than most. Residents have and will continue to pay the price for maneuvers he made over the years that circumvented both the regional comprehensive plan and local comprehensive plans.

When appointing someone for the LVPC we have the opportunity to find a developer who consistently builds projects within the framework of the plan as opposed to someone who for years has quite literally run rough-shod over it.

Nominees should at minimum consistently demonstrate a belief in regional comprehensive planning. For developers that means their body of work should reflect key development concepts of the plan. Jaindl’s greenfield projects too often represent quintessential sprawl. Lots of responsible land developers out there. Once a year I get to spend time in DC with members of LOCUS. LOCUS is a smart growth oriented national coalition of conscientious land developers. Business people who recognize pent-up demand for a market shift toward high quality, sustainable, walkable smart growth oriented development.

Check out LOCUS here on twitter.

If Commissioners proceed with consideration of this nomination at minimum Mr. Jaindl should have to publicly defend why his projects so frequently clash with the comprehensive plan. Basically, Commissioners can and should request a public interview. I would have a number of questions I would ask.

Screen Shot 2015-03-29 at 9.48.42 PM

David Jaindl’s 700 Spring Creek properties development directly conflicts with both the LVPC comprehensive plan, the southwest regional comprehensive plan (Alburtis, Macungie, Upper / Lower Milford and LMT) and also Lower Mac local plans. The project is the result of a 2010 rezoning of previously protected farmland. This project represents a blatant disregard for growth boundaries. Aside from the loss of farmland that was protected for 23 years, this will also negatively impact township residents both financially and in terms of quality of life.

Read Mr. Jaindl in 2010 got 700 acres of preserved farmland (over 1 square mile) rezoned.

Disclosure: In the past starting 3 years ago I expressed interest in the LVPC including a formal statement of interest most recently in February. I don’t see this as relating to critique of this nomination. Mainly because for this cycle I do agree seeking a developer and someone from Northwestern Lehigh makes sense for 2 open slots. I just don’t think we have the right developer. Personally, I’ve waited 3 years for consideration. I can wait another. Applying just made sense for me since regional planning issues are an interest of mine. I also think Lower Mac should have an elected official on the board since we are the 3rd largest municipality in the region and so many of our projects are of regional significance.

STROAD DYNAMICS IN GRAPH FORM

Posted on by

Here is a diagram from Strongtowns post called STROAD dynamics. It was created by a planning firm called Design Rochester. I just expanded on it a little bit to show the safety correlation and photos.

This sums up the way we need to look at the Rt. 222 Bypass and Boulevard from a context sensitive standpoint.

STROAD DIAGRAM

Pedestrian fatality epidemic

Posted on by

This week we had another local tragedy involving a pedestrian on a STROAD. We have a national epidemic of pedestrian deaths in this nation. And unfortunately Pennsylvania is heading further backwards.

According to the Governors Highway Safety Association Pennsylvania had the second highest increase in pedestrian deaths from 2013-2014:

Screen Shot 2015-03-18 at 1.01.46 PMHere in the Lehigh Valley a woman lost her life walking on the shoulder of Airport Rd. when she was hit by a drunk driver. The drunk driver will be punished as he should be. But the local officials, planners and engineers who designed and allowed a dangerous STROAD that mixes restaurants, movie theaters, pubs and retail (things people want to and should be able to walk to) with zero pedestrian accommodations will not.

This death like most could have been prevented through better policy, design and practice. There was a crosswalk near this accident because it’s mandated by the state. But like most STROADS there are no sidewalks or any facilities at all to get people from places of business safely to the crosswalk. In fact, the whole environment was built to be completely abrasive and dangerous for anyone not inside a metal cage. So, people react naturally and they walk on the dangerous shoulder.

More than half of all pedestrian fatalities occur on arterials, and over 60 percent of these tragedies occur on roads with speed limits of 40 mph or higher. These are the STROADS. Here in Lower Macungie Brookside Rd., Lower Macungie Rd., the “bypass” and Hamilton Boulevard are all STROADS. Locally, along these STROADS we have built a library, pool, parks and schools. We’ve zoned for places of business including daycares, restaurants and retail. Naturally, people want to be able to and should be able to walk to these destinations. If we continue to plan to put commercial uses on these roads, we need to expect people will walk and bike on them and design accordingly.

This includes:
Bike Lanes
Sidewalks
Pedestrian scale road geometry
Appropriate design speed that correlates with appropriate posted speed
Context sensitivity: Neighborhood commercial form, street trees, etc.

STOP #dangerousbydesign

STROAD DIAGRAM

 

LMT Traffic woes: What is induced demand. Why does it matter.

Posted on by

Flow and efficiency over a larger grid/network and smarter growth land development are much better ways to address traffic issues than mindless capacity “improvements” in the name of “safety”. (without quantifying exactly how certain projects make roads safer)

The red line represents vehicle flow along a given road. Traffic steadily rises until someone decides the road needs to be widened. Then the original trend line (dotted red) gets replaced with an even greater travel forecast (dotted orange), as we'd expect by creating more road capacity. But the actual new level of travel developed by this widening (solid red) is even greater than the forecast predicted.

FROM CITYLAB The red line represents vehicle flow along a given road. Traffic steadily rises until someone decides the road needs to be widened. Then the original trend line (dotted red) gets replaced with an even greater travel forecast (dotted orange), as we’d expect by creating more road capacity. But the actual new level of travel developed by this widening (solid red) is even greater than the forecast predicted.

As Citylab so aptly puts it, in other words, widening a road invites more cars onto it. This concept is called induced demand. And it’s an expensive circular trap that municipalities fall into far too often. The joke of course being “adding lanes to cure congestion is like loosening your belt to cure obesity.”

How do we break the pattern? I’ll use another chart I’m a big fan of. .
Screen Shot 2015-03-09 at 10.39.46 AMAs a community the default is usually $$spend money$$ or in our case throw money at a problem. Usually this involves doubling down on sprawl ponzi scheme solutions that got us into messes in the first place. This includes turning lanes and widening projects and generally slamming highway geometry onto our local road network.

This whole notion of induced demand is relevant today locally (as twp. considers throwing money at intersections) but also regionally (Highway Rt. 22 widening).

Now, Highway Rt. 22 has to be addressed. No doubt. The problem is self created by our focus on a logistics warehouse economy over the years. But the solution cannot be widening alone. Widening is a temporary at best solution. A band aid. (in this case a billion dollar band-aid….) The solution has to be comprehensive.

Same thing locally, we can’t just throw money at intersections alone and expect not to be dealing with the very same intersection 10 years down the line.

A next level approach example would be Rt. 222 (bypass) where I’ve been a advocate for grade separation. This is beyond simply widening. In that case an exercise in STROAD repair means taking out the signals to increase flow and raise the speed limit. Big picture on the Rt. 222 corridor we address congestion by making sure the Boulevard is contextually a Boulevard, and that the bypass actually functions as a bypass. STOP building STROADS. What is a STROAD?

Transportationist: Elements of access – Induced Demand

 

Mackenzie letter of support for true free flow bypass.

Posted on by
Neighbors,
Quick note of thanks for taking the time out of your schedules to participate in the Rt. 222 petition/letter writing campaign. In one week we got 110 letters! Clearly, the importance of the bypass struck a chord! Didn’t sign and send letter yet? Click here!
Sometimes it’s hard to see the light at the end of the tunnel when it comes to long range planning but in this case ensuring we’re on the radar for future funding for a true free flow bypass is critical.The Rt. 222 “bypass” is a safety, traffic and economic development issue all wrapped up into one. And most important one that is of regional importance.

Reducing the number of signals on the bypass will reduce congestion and provide a more efficient flowing Rt. 222.

Below check out this letter of support from State Representative Ryan Mackenzie. (and take a moment to thank him) This is a direct result of letters. You had a positive effect! 

Also since the campaign started I have met with County Executive Tom Muller and Lehigh County Commissioner Chair Brad Osborne. Both have a clear understanding of the issue and it’s importance. I look forward to hearing from State Sen. Browne and will update accordingly. I have had conversations with his staff who indicated the Senator has taken interest.Thanks again for your help,
Ron Beitler – Lower Macungie Township Commissioner

Great Ted Cruz quote from CPAC

Posted on by

A quote I have referred to often on this blog over the last 2 years is: “A state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” – Brandeis

This notion is something I strongly believe in. Change should occur from the bottom up. This is the primary reason I oppose Obamacare.

Over at disgruntled republican Rod Williams writes about the conversation about legalizing pot at this years CPAC convention. CPAC, is the Conservative Political Action Committee, the largest gathering of conservatives in the nation.

I was happy to read this quote from Ted Cruz:

“I actually think this is a great embodiment of what Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis called ‘the laboratories of democracy’. If the citizens of Colorado decide they want to go down that road, that’s their prerogative. I personally don’t agree with it, but that’s their right.”

I agree with this federalist approach 100%. Nice to see Sen. Cruz on board. Last year at this time he wasnt. I have the same general federalist 10th amendment opinion of other issues such as minimum wage and healthcare. All examples of issues individual states should be free to decide without federal government mandates.

Economic gardening vs. economic hunting. How can we help?

Posted on by

Economic Gardening is the opposite of Economic Hunting. Economic gardening is an entrepreneurial based approach to economic development that seeks to grow the local economy from within. Its premise is that local entrepreneurs create the companies that bring new wealth and economic growth to a region in the form of jobs, increased revenues, and a vibrant local business sector.

Economic Gardening is an inside-out strategy while Economic Hunting or as recently in Lower Macungie chasing strip malls with tax gimmicks is very much an outside-in strategy.

economic-gardening
Oftentimes politicians prefer the hunting approach. With the hunt/poach approach comes large projects, ribbon cuttings, inflated job forcasts. (oftentimes with quantity, quality suffers) etc. Nice things you can put on campaign lit. But oftentimes these projects over the long term are contingent upon subsidies, abatement programs, special treatment, long term obligations and major government intervention akin to an escalating arms race.

The issue is the downsides to the hunt are substantial vs. the rewards.

Economic gardening is a much more resilient approach where benefits play out over the long term. For better or worse the Lehigh Valley and Lower Macungie have been very good recently at the hunting game. The long term liabilities of this approach unfortunately only will become clearer over time. Check out this article: Economic gardening is growing but what is it?

I believe it’s time to put equal emphasis on a gardening approach. One strategy is taking a good hard look at our sprawl zoning code which as currently written actually presents barriers to local entrepreneurs. That is step #1. That’s an action item that we’ll hopefully tackle of the next 3 years. But other strategies are more long term. Tending an economic garden doesn’t provide an immediate feather in any one politicians cap. It’s hard work.

Another step I want to concentrate on is just asking the right questions. For example:


If you’re a local entrepreneur in Lower Macungie or a small business with less than 100 employees what can we as a community do to help you grow and expand your existing small business keeping it in Lower Mac? ‘

Recently, we’ve invested significant money in low value hunting schemes. My question is moving forward what can we do for everyone else?

Economic Gardening in Emmaus

Economic Gardening in Emmaus

County Commissioners demonstrate good government

Posted on by

I wanted to share a note of compliment I sent to County Commissioners this morning after attending a meeting last night. It is not often I (in fact I never have) given a wholesale compliment like this to a board applauding the way they conduct business. The entire 9 person board and Chair Brad Osborne deserve praise. 

Commissioners,

I wanted to take a moment to give you all a Compliment. I decided to come to last night’s meeting at about 6pm. Hind-site was a good decision. I was interested in the LCA appointments in general but didn’t have strong opinions on the subject. Note: I agree with the decision to retain some members, but replace the chair. I have mixed feelings about LCA’s role in the water lease but have always been and remain concerned about overflows along the L. Lehigh which I live next to. New blood in the case of the LCA board is warranted.

Regarding the LCA topic. First, it was tedious. That being said, it was also great government. It was (painfully) clear Commissioners weren’t prepared to vote until they all understood a complicated maneuver. This demonstrated to me as an observer in the gallery that this issue was not “worked out” beforehand and that last night you conducted the business of County in public. Not behind closed doors as is far too often the case. Discussion was slow, deliberate and purposeful. Didn’t make for great theater, but it makes for great government.

I actually left the meeting with a little bit of a headache, but as we know sometimes good government does that. Our representative republic has a tradition of separation of powers, checks and balances and conducting meetings in the public eye. Local boards mirror that American tradition. Far too often bodies I am very familiar with simply do not operate in this fashion. Issues aren’t explained in detail, officials don’t explain their positions, deals are worked out beforehand instead of hashed out in the public, chairs keep one eye on the clock as if meetings have an expiration time. Public input is only lip service. None of this appeared to be the case last night. 
It was very clear that County Commissioners conducted the business of the County in the sunshine. Good Government does not operate at light speed. And yes, sometimes it can be tedious. I appreciate that. All 9 members of the board impressed me last night.  Thank you.
Ron Beitler
5540 Lower Macungie Rd. 
Macungie, PA

Quarry Park concept presentation thoughts

Posted on by

Below is a memo I wrote to the Public Works Committee after seeing last night’s first presentation of the latest Quarry Park Concept plan. This outlines some topics and items I hope to discuss at future planning meetings. As stated in the memo, while I felt synthetic fields weren’t the best investment in our park system now that the issue has been settled we need to now focus on the best design possible.

WFMZ has a photo and article here.

2/24/15
Manager & Public works committee,


Here are some thoughts after listening to discussion from last night on the latest concept plan. 
First, now that decision has been made to move forward although I disagree that synthetic fields are the best way to spend taxpayer dollars to address field use issues that issue is settled. I am now motivated to have the best project possible. I think the latest plan is an improvement over the initial sketch. That being said here are some concerns and items I feel strongly about.
BIG PICTURE
1. As far as configuration and number of fields and design I want to see the math that justifies certain designs. If the problem is field usage then we should be sure design addresses that problem. To demonstrate this: What is the usage now, what is the current deficiency (sport specific) and how many more playable hours (sport specific) would new/different configurations of park provide? 2. I’m sure this has already been discussed but security must be a part of a concept plan. This should include video monitoring. We have to protect our 600,000 investment. A fully designed security plan should be a part of the concept plan.
3. I don’t support any additional volume of scheduled use at Quarry above and beyond what is currently scheduled until the Saurkraut punch through is finished. This would allow for signalized access to Rt. 100. I’m not interested in delaying the build. We can design and build the project, but scheduling should be kept at current levels until the punch through is complete. Any major tournaments or additional usage based on synthetic fields is inappropriate as long as the primary access is an offset un-signalized intersection on Rt. 100.
PROCESS
4. I feel strongly that “task force” meetings should be public and would request that the planning commission, EAC , LMYA and Parks and Recreation board have a formal chance to review and weigh in on the concept plan before we get to deep into it as a courtesy.5. Any future public vetting of plans Astroturf/consultants should have two copies one for the Board/committee and one for the public which can be displayed on a easel. It was impossible last night for anyone in attendance to see the plan. 

INITIAL CONCEPT PLAN COMMENTS
5. I don’t know if room permits but establishment of a Greenway trailhead should be considered. (Since this is a recommendation of of the Parks Comprehensive plan specifically for Quarry Park)

6. Reduction of the amount of proposed impermeable parking. I know we need some additional and that’s fine. But the amount proposed seems excessive. Have we considered overflow parking in designated grass areas? We should build parking to handle normal park usage accounting for increased volume of synthetic fields. Tournament or other highest intensity usage should utilize overflow parking in non paved areas. (stone or grass) We should also consider the potential to design more parking, but not build it right away. We can “bank” future lots and build as justified.

Since this parcel is next to the river we should include best practice greening and sustainable storm water management of new parking areas.

7. What is justification for additional storage buildings.
8. Are we addressing deficiencies? I remember during parks comp plan mtg’s it was stated we are:
Deficient one baseball diamond currently.
Have a surplus of Soccer and “rectangular” Fields
Since the current plan increases playing hours on rectangle fields but loses one diamond at Quarry where are we gaining at lest 2 diamonds? And can that location be lit with natural grass diamonds.9. The concept plan should account for potential acquisition of the Muse parcel. I think this was stated last night. Just want to ensure. Should maybe include a sketch of possible muse layout.
10. I agree with the Dog Park group, Sara and the Parks board that the first Dog Park should be at Olympic. But we should if space allows sketch in location for potential 2nd park at Quarry. This can be on future muse acquisition of existing park. Ron

Let local officials know the bypass needs to be upgraded

Posted on by
Let officials know you think the Rt. 222 "bypass" needs upgrading to full grade separation! (on off ramps and raised speed limit)

Let officials know you think the Rt. 222 “bypass” needs upgrading to full grade separation! (on off ramps and raised speed limit)

STEP 1: THE ISSUE Municipalities in Lehigh and Northampton counties are competing to be included in the Lehigh Valley Transportation Study (LVTS) long range transportation plan. Recently, communities had the opportunity to present long range planning proposals.

Lower Mac presented 8 proposals for funding but one in particular rises to the top of the list in terms of regional significance. That is full grade separation of the Rt. 222 “bypass”. In everyday terms this means replacing signals with full ramp interchanges allowing for traffic to flow non-stop with increased speed limits from Rt. 100 to I-78.

I’ve written over the last year my belief that today the bypass is a STROAD.
What is a STROAD? 

Today the bypass isn’t safe, it doesn’t move cars quickly or efficiently. This is demonstrated by accidents and the fact that less than a decade into it’s existence the bypass is already receiving twice the volume of traffic originally anticipated. According to a recent joint UMT/LMT study, traffic on the bypass will hit critical levels within the next decade. The end game to address the cumulative impact of corridor wide development is full grade separation. *(similar the Kutztown bypass)

Hamilton Crossings design was completed in a way that the layout can accommodate grade separation.

Hamilton Crossings design was completed in a way that the layout can accommodate grade separation.


STEP 2 YOUR OPINION MATTERS:
If you agree please consider sending a message to local officials. Below is a form letter that can be sent exactly as written or can be edited by clicking “view the petition” and customizing the theme into your own words. 

Here is the form Letter:

Lehigh Valley Decision Makers,

This message requests that public officials who receive this email consider joining Senator Pat Browne, State Representative Ryan Mackenzie, Lower Macungie and Upper Macungie Townships in urging PennDOT, in concert with the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission prioritize full grade separation of Rt. 222 in western Lehigh County. Over the years as land developments have been considered both intersections have been configured in a layout that accommodates future on/off ramps. Doing so would eliminate signal phases and allow for a free flowing and more efficient bypass. This is critical for continued economic development and for public safety. Efficient freight routes so that trucks have clear routes to and from highways are critical.

According to Lower Macungie’s 2015 Lehigh Valley Transportation Study proposal “for safety and congestion, the ultimate configuration of the bypass requires grade separation to handle increases in regional volume from Berks/Lancaster Counties.”

Thank you in advance for your efforts. With freight traffic scheduled to double by 2040, a growing Lehigh Valley economy requires modern transportation routes. The southwest Lehigh region will see it’s warehouse capacity continue to increase therefore we must be able to efficiently get freight in and out of the Rt. 100 and Rt. 222 corridors quickly, efficiently and safely.

*read full letter by clicking “read the petition on the form below”. You can also customize your letter.

STEP 3 SEND THE ABOVE LETTER TO OFFICIALS USING THIS QUICK FORM

SEND ABOVE LETTER TO STATE OFFICIALS BY FILLING OUT FORM BELOW.
*NOTE: If you aren’t a resident of Western Lehigh Valley (Emmaus, Upper Milford, Upper Macungie, Lower Macungie, Macungie, Alburtis, Trexletown etc) Your still welcome to send the form, but please amend the letter to state that while your outside the immediate area of the Lehigh County section of Rt. 222 bypass why you think it’s important to upgrade. Maybe you use the route for work. Or you own a business that depends on delivery of goods. You can amend the letter by clicking “Read the petition” in the form below. Just add what you want before clicking send. 

[emailpetition id=”1″]

An email will be sent on your behalf to the following:
State Sen. Pat Browne 610-821-8468
pmbrowne@pasen.gov

State Rep. Ryan Mackenzie 610-965-9933
rmackenzie@pahousegop.com

State Rep. Gary Day 610-760-7082
Gday@pahousegop.com

Penndot District 5: 610-871-4100
ra-penndot5@pa.gov

Lehigh Valley Planning Commission: 610-264-4544
LVPC@LVPC.org

Lower Macungie Township: 610-966-4343
rflexer@lowermac.com

Upper Macungie Township: 610-395-9355
Dolpere@uppermac.org

County Executive Tom Muller: 610-782-3000
tommuller@lehighcounty.org

Lehigh County Commissioners: 610-782-3000

Gov. Tom Wolf: 717-787-2500
governor@pa.gov

State Rep. John Taylor, chair of the PA House Transportation Committee 717-787-317
jtaylor@pahousegop.com

State Sen. John Rafferty, chair of the PA Senate Transportation Committee 717-787-1398
jrafferty@pasen.gov

Lehigh Valley Economic Development Corporation: 610-266-6775
LVEDC@lehighvalley.org