Thursday, October 25, 2012

BREAKING Third St. Bridge: Upper Providence Twnshp. to join "Contempt of Court" petition filed against Media Borough


From what I’m learning by people close to the matter, Upper Providence Township is looking to join Broomall Lake Swim Club in the Contempt of Court Petition over the Third Street Bridge.  Apparently one point of contention, is that Media Borough never discussed making Third Street a one way option with Upper Providence who is responsible for Third Street from the bridge up to Kirk Lane.  Another being that Upper Providence, much like Taxpayers, Middletown Township, RTM School District and every single emergency/Fire/Police service agree this through way should be a two way road.

Campaign promises to special interests by Media Dems.
We here in Media are beyond embarrassed with the ineptness of a Borough Council that is squandering a fully financed project  for nothing more than to deliver campaign promises to a group of ten people who don’t want the bridge. These elected official who claim to represent Media have been found  to have signed greenway petitions, funded a website opposing a multi-million dollar bridge, stacked a committee, insulted neighboring communities  who visit  this town, and even included support in their campaign literature for the Friends of Glen Providence park while glaringly neglecting their fiduciary responsibilities.  

Will all of this come at the cost of the PennDot funding?  No one knows!  Emails to Media Borough council regarding this money and “contempt of court” situation have gone unanswered.

It’s no surprise other communities are legally getting involved, as Media Borough council mired in special interests has failed its residents.  A court decision regarding the fate of the bridge is expected soon by Judge Proud and may even happen next week.

63 comments:

  1. I would think Media would be doing everything they can to invite people to their town. I guess not.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Half the park will be filled in by dirt to build this very nasty looking berm.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I like a one way road and do live in Media. Also being a BLCC member I do not like what BLCC is doing with my money to go to court. Let Upper Providence help pay for the maintenance of the road in the future because that will be Media Tax payers money. Upper Providence is already getting a benefit by going in on the bridge.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bingo! Agree 100%. BLCC is doing just fine with no road. And now they're getting a new dam for free. I guess not every member there is as level headed as you.

      Delete
    2. If you do not like what BLCC is.... "doing with my money"...... why not join another club.

      Delete
    3. There is no other swim club in Media. If you have kids that swim on a swim team at BLCC and they are old enough to go by them self. You will be scared too if your kids have to face a lot of traffic from that bridge. 3rd street is not that wide for 2 lanes of traffic and kids biking up and down that hill.

      Delete
    4. If your kids are old enough to go to the pool by themselves then they should be competent enough to cross Third Street safely. It's not like they're crossing over the Blue Route for pity's sake.

      Delete
    5. there r plenty of other swimming clubs in the area hidden hollow riddlewood or do you not want to go 2 miles out of the way. when i was a kid i rode my bike from penn state on 352 to riddlewood everyday in the summer suck it up if your kid gets hit on 3rd st they deserve it

      Delete
    6. 3rd and Orange and 3rd and Orange Sts have a 4 way stop sign and about 25 ft from that there is another 4 way stop at the pool. If a child can't get across the street safely with all of this, they shouldn't be walking by themselves anyway. I remember when it was two-way. There were no problems, we had more children in the neighorhood and no 4-way stop on Lemon.

      Delete
  4. A one way road into Media on Third Street hardly presents a traffic issue for Upper Prov Twp. The road will allow for two way traffic for emergency vehicles. "We" here in Media must not be too upset about the plan because there were hardly any borough residents at the last council meeting to complain.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What alternate universe are you living in?

      Delete
    2. Imagine a universe where there is no bridge traffic and downtown Media is full of people at all times. Now imagine that universe when traffic enters Media from Kirk lane by crossing over a bridge on 3rd street. Now imagine that same traffic leaving Media on Baltimore Pike, turning right on Ridley Creek Road, and then turning onto Kirk...............kind of blows your mind, huh?

      Delete
    3. It does blow my mind...how such batty liberals in this town can screw up what was there for a century not only for us, but for future generations. This was done to appease a NIMBY group ONLY as the expense of the rest of us.

      Restore it to what it was!

      Delete
    4. @ Steve: Is there a real problem not having the bridge open for traffic right now? The downtown is slammed with people all of the time.

      Also, how do you explain the lack of Media borough residents speaking out in opposition to council at the lsat meeting? It seems people with a real desire to want a two lane bridge at any cost are a small, but vocal, minority.

      Delete
    5. Mike...I'm not Steve, but will answer for myself....I want the two lanes back, and so do a lot of people. Maybe we didn't come to the last council meeting because we are fed up with council. We've been to concil meetings to get what we want out there, and questions do not get answered by the council. I for one am fed up with them and the arrogance of a select few on council.

      Delete
    6. Ill answer your question with a question - who is this council to pander to a small group of homeowners in spite of an entire community?

      Also, I watched the meeting and the high majority of those speaking in favor of the b.s. compromise that really wasn't were full fledged members of the FROGS, our local terrorist group. I don't take their propaganda as what the residents truly want!

      Delete
    7. @anon 7:39 AM: That is fair, and I'm sure it's not a 97% - 3% situation in favor of the council, but I think Tedman, Steve, Michael Jordan (when he's on here), Cunningham (via Media Patch), and others are overstating the % of borough residents who want a full out two lane bridge. To be really honest, I'm in favor of the option that does the least damage to the park. I have no problem going in and out of the borough using North Orange Street or Baltimore Pike, and really enjoy walking in the park.

      I live on the East side of the borough right now, so traffic that the bridge would take away from Orange, Lemon, and Baltimore wouldn't really change my day at all. The current higher traffic on those streets doesn't impact me much either. My fear is that a two lane road over the 3rd street bridge is going to send a lot of PM worker traffic drag racing out of town through the neighborhood rather than existing ways out of town that are more suited to being able to handle that type of traffic. I also worry about DUI traffic headed over 3rd street out of town to avoid the police and causing a major increase in accidents on that side of town. A weaving drunk on Baltimore Pike isn't as likely to be clipping parked cars as opposed to 2nd, 3rd, Lemon, etc.

      Delete
    8. @ Steve: To throw around the word "terrorist" at a community organization is poor rhetoric on your part. So is answering a question with a question. I'll answer your question as a courtesy to the issue. There is not any level of proof that more Media residents are in favor of a full two way bridge than those who wish a smaller traffic footprint. Therefore council is not "pandering" at all.

      I'll again ask the question; what is the benefit to Media borough that warrants a full opening of the 3rd street bridge to two lane traffic? I see full parking lots and garages, busy patronage of our businesses, and an overall vibrant downtown full of people enjoying themselves. How does a two lane bridge improve this?

      Delete
    9. The term 'terrorist' is fully justified concerning this group of animals, taking away what was a part of this community for a century, villifing those who didn't deserve it, passing around faulty propaganda as Gospel, promoting bogus environmental claims as gospel.

      Your question is invalid due to the fact that the bridge was there for a century as a two-way structure, served the community up until it and the dam were damaged in 1996. The real question to be asked is why and how do you justify downgrading to a one-way bridge when 1) a two way bridge was there for a century, 2) People regularly used that bridge until it shut down, 3) both sides of the road on either side of the bridge are two-way, and 4) The long-term cost of a one way bridge will hurt us more not only in our pockets (Gas) but with the school district? Also, bonus question, why is one of the council members maintaining the FROGs website?

      Delete
    10. @ Steve:

      - I'll not grant the likes of you the ability to call my question invalid, so what makes a two lane roadway needed?

      - "Animals" now! You're on quite the roll. You might need to relax, you'll live longer.

      Delete
    11. I don't need any grant from you, your question is invalid. I'd take it seriously if the bridge was a new structure connecting two previously independent roads together. Bu since this bridge is to replace a two-way bridge damaged for 16 years that connected two two-way roads, a bigger question should be asked when modifying it: Why? Why deduct from something that served this community for a century?

      -Damn straight they're animals, and I'm being generous.

      Delete
  5. A one way bridge would be totally corny. It should be two lanes (one lane each way) with a sidewalk. How else will the residents from all those new houses west of the bridge get back and forth to patronize Media? As long as the aesthetics are legit should be good to go. Could be like a mini Chestnut Hill bridge.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But the only people that would NEED to go West on Third are the UP residents that live along Kirk, Highland, and in the "Wood"lands. Beyond those streets, it's faster to take Orange or Baltimore Pike.

      Delete
    2. And those of us who live in the borough and work on the other side of town...

      Delete
    3. ...and where exactly is it that you work that is not already accessible? Please don't say the highschool, because this bridge won't make that commute any faster.

      Delete
    4. I guess you made up your mind then that the bridge only benefits homes in its vicinity. Why only favor the homes on the East side then? Do you live there?

      Delete
    5. phillyboy is right.
      One-lane bridges are a waste of money and extremely dangerous considering it is at a low point in the road with cars approaching from each direction downhill, potentially playing "chicken" on who gets there first.
      I used to live on West St., belonged to Broomalls and enjoyed GPP often.
      I also have experience in traffic control.
      There is NO reason why a 2-lane bridge with sidewalk could not be built.

      Delete
  6. I wish people on here would STOP villifying BLCC! It's amazing that after 16 years and numerous prior compromises by the club that in the 11th hour, when all was said and done with the agreement, now it's 'all the club's fault'. You newbies have no idea what has transpired in the past over 16 years, multiple boards having to turf this issue, and the lost revenue from gatherings that were not held or lost simply because of access to the entrances and all the while complying to every request as it relates to inspections, water levels and even so-called 'consultants' hired by the FROGs to find a way to propagandize the lack of motion as the club's fault. Unless you have access to all the water under the bridge (oun intended) keep your nose OUT of our club's business!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BLCC is suing the borough. That MAKES it our business.

      Delete
    2. Fact Check------BLCC is not suing the Borough. More faulty arguments and false propaganda. What is BLCC "suing" for? You don't even know what you are talking about.

      Delete
    3. Well that makes all the difference.

      BLCC filed a contempt of court petition against the borough. That MAKES it our business.

      Delete
  7. Personally I think the folks on Orange Street DO object to the extra traffic - even more so with the Woodlands (oximoron) as Toll Brothres cut the WOODS down (I have no problem with the development just the name knowing what was there before $500K+ x 50 homes). This closure truly makes my blood pressure rise (actually had it tested by an RN just after a heated discussion with of all people someone who was on the side of 2 way traffic, much like myself (etal)! Had it been with the opposition I probably would've gone into cardiac arrest and needed emergency aid - chances are since they would've had to go a circuitous route I wouldn't be around to type this message!
    I'm hoping the RTMSD school board jumps on the band wagon - they are the ones who will have to deal with routing issues.

    ReplyDelete
  8. WHY DONT WE ALL JUST GROW UP AND RESTORE THE BRIDGE TO IT'S ORIGIONAL 2 LANES AND GET OVER IT

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree! I miss being able to get to the schools and the mall without having to fight the Baltimore Pike traffic in the AM and PM. Why are we being held hostage by a few people, who hardly use the area they are trying to change.

      Delete
  9. Frankenstorm + one of PA's worst dams, could equal big lawsuit for Media Borough if it god forbid it gave way. That would be just Media's luck to have all the pieces in place to fix, but failure to do so because of something as petty as semantics.

    ReplyDelete
  10. IGNORE PREVIOUS UNFINISHED COMMENT. I THINK MEDIA BOROUGH COUNCIL SHOULD JUST GROW UP AND RESTORE THE ROAD TO 2 LANES LIKE IT HAS BEEN FOR OVER 100 YEARS AND BE DONE WITH IT. ONE WAY INTO MEDIA? WHAT WERE THEY THINKING! WHERE DOES THE ONE WAY BEGIN! OH MAYBE A SOURCE OF REVENUE, STOP PEOPLE GOING THE WRONG WAY AND ISSUE TICKET. HMM NEW CONCEPT. PLEASE ENOUGH IS ENOUGH

    ReplyDelete
  11. I'd say that BLCC is fighting for us residents who want the two lane road restored. Our council seems to only have the interests of a select few who benefit from the rd remaining closed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your right, but I think it's been shown a lot more people want this two-way road. If we're to believe Upper Prov gets involved, than this must be pretty important. I think the school board has stated the same.

      Regardless, if only to make it a two-way road for the Fire, Police and Ambulances, then that should be enough to do it.

      Delete
  12. Michael Jordan, MediaOctober 26, 2012 at 12:07 PM

    Future generations will be grateful that the 3rd Street bridge/roadway is two-way.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Is there an online petition for one way or two way?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Borough Council should provide a free website to those in favor of a two-way road. Much like they did by providing one for the FROGs.

    What do you say borough council?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's pretty conservative, but does this one cost too much? Otherwise, what's your group's name, DamNation?

      Delete
    2. How about: www.twotimedoublecrossing.com. As in the road and as in this council.

      Delete
    3. Nope, definitely: Swimclubownsdelco.org

      Delete
  15. If there isn't there should be ~ If anyone knows of one post it here.

    ReplyDelete
  16. MediaMike, you assume BLCC is doing fine (didn't they say the road closure impedes their business traffic?), you assume State Street is slammed and booming (according to whom and based on what grounds - sales data?), you assume a 2 way bridge would only benefit the folks around Kirk Lane (although the school district can use it, emergency vehicles can use it, commuters can use it - or do you think they wouldn't or shouldn't?). The pros of the two-way bridge easily appear to outweigh the cons when speculated against your beliefs. I wonder which viewpoint would hold more weight if it could be backed up with some facts over opinions?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ Anon 4:38:

      - I'd like to see some proof that BLCC isn't doing well. I often see a full parking lot when walking by. I don't see how allowing people to drive in from out of Media on 3rd, but asking them to head back down Lemon or West Street out of town would create a major problem. What percentage of people using BLCC from out of town would really need Kirk/3rd as their primary method of entry to BLCC? The burden of proof is on BLCC. They can feel free to do an analysis of the addresses of their members to see how many are impacted by the bridge on 3rd.

      - Yes, business seems to be doing well on State Street and in Media Borough. Compare Media Borough and the Granite Run Mall. Media Borough has almost no vacant store fronts and any business that has folded has been replaced in short order. The Granite Run Mall has a very high percentage of empty stores. There are no problems getting in and out of the mall. Every major event on State Street is very well attended and each year's event seems to be more busy than the last. Tables are full at almost every restaurant for Dinning Under the Stars. So based on what I see with my own to eyes in daily trips on State Street, I believe business there is doing as well as anywhere else in this slower economy.

      - I believe the borough council made allowances for emergency vehicles to use the bridge in both directions. There was some type of communication of that nature from council at the time they voted for a one lane bridge. If one looks at a map of Media and surrounding areas, there really are a minimal number of people who would benefit from direct access back out of Media via the 3rd street bridge. I don't think their minimal number of trips in and out of borough would outweigh the drag racing that woudl go out by commuters trying to short hop some of the Baltimore Pike traffic by speeding over Third, down Kirk, on to Ridley Creek Road, and then Baltimore Pike.

      https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=media+pa+map&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x89c6e9083c73ed37:0x9e63d94ef5224bce,Media,+PA&gl=us&ei=XcyLUKnFNrSA0AHlpYGwAQ&ved=0CB0Q8gEwAA


      All in all, I don't see any benefit that outweighs the drawbacks of having a two lane road on the bridge on 3rd.

      Delete
    2. When there was no 4 way stop at 3rd and Lemon, there was not a lot of traffic on third street coming or going. Residence of both Media and Upper Providence used the bridge to get to Providence Rd the two schools, the park, etc. With it closed I have had to go out of the way and spend too much time and gas on the Baltimore Pike parking or the Kirk Lane parking lot in the afternoons. I have missed this road way. It is an inconvenience to me and many others. The promise was that it would be restored. Why not? This great traffic danger that keeps coming up, never was and is just the imagination of a few people complaining because they feel entitled.

      Delete
  17. How do we know BLCC is doing well? Yes, it it is crowded during the summer months when the pool is open. But what about weddings and other events that they may have lost out in that we do not know about? It isn't just a pool, sme people may have loved the facilities and decided against it because of the closed bridge. It is quite the eyesore with all those cement blocks and gates.

    ReplyDelete
  18. MediaMike, I disagree. But you do make some valid points.

    Full access in and out of Media is important not only for commerce, but for public safety. Such as a Hurricane like Sandy which is going to hit us on Monday. Borough officials better hope nothing bad happens.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Just make it two ways like it was 20 years ago. I was a kid then and had no problem biking and walking on that stretch of road when it was two ways.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Boro officials need to be replaced!

    ReplyDelete
  21. JUDGE JAMES PROUD isn't going to be happy revisiting this case. Remember, the old saying, "Fool me once, shame on you, Fool me twice, shame on me."
    I predict, the good judge isn't going to be fooled twice by the word-spliting Media Borough politicans.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Amen,to that. Media Borough deserves a good lecture on what the law is about. You sign an agreement, you keep it. You don't wordsmith it after the fact. Intent is what is paramount.

      Delete
  22. I think contempt of court is a pretty serious charge. Media Borough used to be a law-abiding town. Now I don't know. I would never do business with these people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The check is in the mail. And it is not true. Media Borough Council signs an agreement, and then says it doesn't mean this. It means that. Lies, lies, lies. Trust in local government is 0.

      Delete
  23. Enter this new thought: ONE WAY NO! / TWO WAY w/narrowing over the waterway and a YIELD TO ONCOMING TRAFFIC YES!!! Just like on Ridley Creek Road (coming from Media) just before you can have to option to make the right hand turn onto Sycamore
    How could this not make those who want minimal invasion of the park property unhappy????? AND as someone else previously mentioned where does the one way start on the Borough side - how about up near the courthouse and let those in the immediate vicinity of said bridge closure on the Media Borough Side be inconvenienced as well!

    ReplyDelete
  24. Media ain't going to win in court. The FROGS are still in control in the borough, but not at the Court House. Sorry, FROGS. Ready for frogs legs,anyone. That's all folks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The FROGS now need a new contingency of people to get in bed with, literally.

      Delete
    2. Love FROGS legs - "deep fried not steamed"

      Delete
  25. It's 11:30pm on Wednesday Oct 31st Tomorrow is Thursday Nov 1 and "Workshop" for Media Borough Council PLEASE show up for the public forum and not this issue be "silent" THEY have not won yet!!! (Most)Everything that has been said on this blog needs to be presented and voiced ~ Don't let THEM win!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tedman needs to show up at the meeting and state his case. Let them answer to him!

      Delete