Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Third Street Bridge Update: It may come down to the 1996 design report

17 years and counting
From what I learned, today's meeting with Judge Proud didn't produce any ground breaking, definitive direction on the Third Street Bridge.  What did happen will include the parties returning to court on February 15th with prepared briefs.  

Based on what was discussed in court, It appears the outcome of all this may likely come down to the Schnabel design report created back in 1996.  Back then, there was clear intention of a two-way roadway and no talk of a one-way option.  The one-way option only came to light recently.  Apparently is was Media Borough's so called one-way compromise, but who was it a compromise with?  Not BLCC, the County, RTM School District and emergency services, but a compromise with a handful of people who self appointed themselves as representatives of a county park.  They also going to tell us when and how to visit the park that everyone should have equal say in?

During today's visit with Judge Proud, Media Borough had nothing prepared despite the fact that BLCC in good faith made multiple attempts to discuss the issue with Media Borough over the course of the last 45 days.   Due to the severity of the situation, both as a physical danger and possible loss of funding, BLCC initiated contact on a one way roadway in lieu of maintenance and responsibilities for their share of the bridge.

What does Media Borough Council want?  They didn't come to the table to negotiate, they didn't even respond to a possible one-way roadway negotiation that they have used to hold this whole project up. They tell the community one thing, while behind the scenes they again do nothing to move this forward.  17 YEARS!  Is this all one big game to wait it out so it goes back in the courts and funding eventually expires?  As far as they are concerned, what they have now at Third Street isn't a two-way or one-way road, it's their version of a "Greenway."

Media's safety and fiduciary responsibilities take a back seat to Borough Council's Political games and cronyism.  So much for transparency and leadership you can trust. 






44 comments:

  1. As someone who lives in the borough I don't want the extra traffic this bridge would bring. I also think this money could be put to better use- like maybe the library.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OMG, the circus is back in town. Where in the borough does this clown live? Funding the library with county and state monies that were for the bridge!!!

      Delete
    2. I agree anon 6:21 the extra traffic is not worth it. The BLCC knows they misread the backlash and are now trying to CYA before the judge. Maybe the club should be forthright and open about their real agenda.

      Delete
    3. I agree! I also think it's unfair for taxpayers to have to bear the burden of the swim club's responsibilities. I am a member of BLCC, and I can't understand why they initiated this lawsuit.

      Delete
    4. Maybe kent Davidson should be forthright and open about his real agenda.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous 7:13 pm stop drinking the Boro & Frog's kool aid BLCC did not initiate the lawsuit. The Boro sued BLCC and the County over ownership of Third St. All BLCC did was respond to a lawsuit in a way where the Dam and Roadway would be replaced without costing Media Boro residents anything out if pocket. The county agreeded----the SEVEN members of the previous council agreed and a solution to a 17 year old problem was found. Now special interest---personal interest and politics screwed it all up. Know the facts before you blame BLCC for protecting its rights against a self serving council.

      Delete
    6. Davidson 's next re-election slogan:

      Kent Davidson: I'm in it for myself

      Delete
    7. Throw Brian "the wimp" Hall out so we don't lose our funding for the bridge.

      Delete
    8. Tear down the dam, drain the pond, build a pedestrian/bicycle bridge

      Delete
    9. Tearing down the dam, draining the pond and building a bridge would cost more then a two way two lane roadway. Ask Boro Council they already admitted it. Anymore bright ideas you misinformed know it all

      Delete
    10. Well, I do know:

      - I didn't say it wouldn't be cheaper.
      - The current dam would be razed and the pond drained to build a new roadway, anyway.
      - I did say a pedestrian bridge. Perhaps a nice little foot bridge over the natural stream that returns? That is, if BLCC is willing to fund it's maintenance.

      Sticks and Stones...

      Delete
    11. Perhaps you could research "REALITY" Why would BLCC fund it's maintenance?
      BLCC agreed to fifty percent of the maintenance on the project as set forth in the Schnabel 1996 report for dam and roadway re-establishment. BLCC is willing to continue with the fifty percentage agreement as long as the stipulation the club signed is honored. (two lanes two ways)
      Should the Boro wish to change the stipulation--- the club has agreed not to dispute what the Boro wishes as long as BLCC has no financial responsibilities on the new project. If the Boro wants to change the agreement they can--- they just have to assume their own (financial) responsibility for their changes.

      Delete
    12. And remove all their storm water infrastructure on the BLCC lands!

      Delete
    13. Wouldn't we all like to have a say in just how much traffic travels up and down our streets. This 17 year discussion should have never even taken place. This street should have been repaired to it's original design. The time, money and head-ache this has caused is getting out of hand. Please let me know if I can change Kirk Lane to one lane??????ILL GET RIGHT ON IT!!!!!

      Delete
  2. @Anonymous 1/15/13 @ 6:21pm You are certainly entitled to your opinion however wrong it maybe. Extra traffic??? Vehicular traffic is entering the borough whether you like it or not albeit and one case from a dangerous intersection (Ridley Creek Road / Left onto Baltimore Pike) Traffic has increased ten fold (rough estimation probably more) since 1996 (17 YEARS AGO)on Orange Street ask any resident who lives between Rose Tree Road and 5th Street for starters - particular between Kirk and 5th.
    "This money" that you speak of was not put aside or for a granted use what ever term you like for "the library" but for that particular section of roadway. It was and is a funded Penn DOT issue. If you want more money for the library how about a Super WaWa (much like the one that was proposed) with the increased tax revenues it would've brought.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cindy, you won't be missed.

      Delete
  3. The RTM school board wants the roadway--2-Way. Middletown, Lima, Upper Providence, too. The general good and common sense is going to prevail, if I might make a prediction.

    Future generations will applaud a 2-Way decision.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Michael, I and others applaud you for the common sense you so apparently have and feel so sorry for those don't.

      Delete
    2. I think I understand what BLCC offered the taxpayers of Media. The Club is willing to accept a one-lane/one-way roadway design on Third Street IF Media Borough agrees to release them from their legal and financial obligations for care of the dam. These are responsibilites and liabilities that were stipulated in the legal agreement signed by BLCC, Delaware County, and Media Borough. In other words, the taxpayers should foot a $3.8 million bill to build a new dam to preserve a private lake that the public can never use AND also pay for the dam's maintenance and repair over the next 100 years. Does any taxpayer in Media really believe that our Council should accept this "deal"?

      One suspects that BLCC's litigation stratey regarding the one-lane/one-way option was only a tool to leverage what they really wanted from the beginning -- freedom from all legal liability or financial responsibility for the dam, while enjoying its benefits.

      The ONLY factor holding this project up now is the BLCC legal action. If the Club withdrew their legal petition tomorrow, the Borough would move forward with a project that repairs a dangerous dam, preserves Broomall's Lake for the benefit of the Club, provides a two-way roadway for emergency vehicles serving both Media and Upper Providence, eliminates the need for auto drivers to make a hazardous left-hand turn onto Baltimore Pike from Ridely Creek Road, and opens up automobile traffic from Upper Providence into Media. And, yes, a more narrow structure would reduce the damage to the Park that would be caused by building a wider dam/roadway.

      Media Borough Council did not -- unfortuantely, from my view point -- decide to remove the dam and build a pedestrian-bicycle greenway at Third Street. The Club and the proponents of reestablishing a road for automobiles won everthing but a single lane back into Upper Providence. Now, it's apparent that the Club has much bigger ambitions than another auto lane - and it seems that they are willing to delay and endanger the project to win greater financial and legal concessions.

      Delete
    3. I know you're not a resident, Cindy, but will you run for borough council anyway?

      Sincerely,
      The Non-FROGS of Media

      Delete
    4. Terry the way most people in Media understand it the new roadway and dam would be well underway & fully funded if the FROGS stopped their campaign of distortion & lies.
      Please do the town a favor & move back to Chester wait for 420 to be legalized & open a pot shop.

      Delete
    5. Fact check: BLCC simply responded to an action by Media Council to disregard an agreed upon solution (re-establish 2 lanes according to 2011 agreement)with their 'one-way vote'. Case closed. Mr. Rumsey should stop listing justifications and go back and read the stipulation. Council drew first blood on this one: if they are not abiding by the original intent of the agreement, then DO NOT villify and throw blame to BLCC for re-aligning their position in the stipulation - merely tit for tat.

      Delete
  4. Cindy isn't going anywhere. You wish.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Judge Proud is holding up the bridge development. Now it is February 15, 2013 with legal briefs. Why didn't he order that last month? Is it going to be another 17 years going through the courts? My gradkids will have their driving licenses by them. But I won't be around.

    ReplyDelete
  6. To hear this BS from a bunch of a$$holes in Media is the last straw. Maybe it's time to move to Middletown. F U Davidson!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please do! Enjoy the Big Box stores on the Franklin Mint site and the "rural" character of Middletown. Bye!

      Delete
    2. Please move to Middletown your stench will not be missed.

      Delete
  7. This town is seriously out of control. Quite sad really and not very becoming to new businesses.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Does anyone know Judge Proud's political affiliation? I would assume he is a republican so why doesn't he just rule in favor of the club and county? Whomever controls him needs to make a call now. Open the bridge!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Honestly people this is not rocket science! All thats needing in putting this to rest is the 2011 council to testify as to the intent of the signed agreement, get the Schnabel guy before the judge as to his understanding of the original design (2 lane, 2 way), define the term 're-estabish' and then impose fines on Media Boro for each day they delay the intended go forward plan.
    A question for those FROG's living on Parks Edge Lane: If you all are SOO concerned about the fate of the park, why did you purchase property that obviously violated parklands just upon it's creation? The epitome of hypocritical, don't you think?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The FROGS need jobs to occupy their idle minds. Seriously, do any of them have one?

      Delete
    2. Yes - perusing blogs and annoying the rest of Media.

      Delete
  10. Some people are getting down right mean,civility...please.
    I hear bashing of BLCC but how many living nearby point out the beauty of the lake...to friends and visitors?
    How selfish can people be to say what is best for taxpayers,one lane benefits small #,nearby homes,bike riders ,stroller pushers,mostly daylight activities?Two lane..with Bike ped access...day and night drivers,gas buyers who pay liquid fuel tax FOR ROADS AKA Pendot,funder of damn,more bang for the buck.Cars and ped bikers all get a piece of the pie...

    ReplyDelete
  11. I think the Judge is taking the FROGS side. Why would he be giving them more time and Media is going to loose the funding. Is Daly pressuring the Judge and the court to keep the road closed forever. Maybe.

    ReplyDelete
  12. A former Councilman intimated that Frank Daly is for 2-Way. I say, put him under oath. Mayor Bob McMahon was for 2-Way before he was for 1-Way. I believe Daly is for No-Way. Just like it is now.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Media businesses have done just fine without traffic on Third Street. Media does not have a shortage of traffic. It has a shortage of green space (especially compared to Middletown and Upper Providnce). Every single best community quality rating includes access to bicycle and pedestrian pathways. They benefit everyone, even if you choose not to use the park.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon Jan 18- Media business has done fine you say? How do you know that? People are not asking that Barrel field be turned into a parking lot they want a road reopened. Why not knock down your house so you can turn it into a greenway? GPP is as good of a green space that any town has and that would not change with a road being fixed.

      Delete
    2. It is not a choice, friend, if you value your life. I would love to use the park. But it is unusable. Period. Did you ever walk down there from the so called 3rd Street "Entrance?"

      Trees falling down, pathways unpassable. Brush out of control. If it was a house, it would be "Condemned."

      Delaware County abandoned the park for the last 60 years. It was once a showcase of beauty. Shame on the Republican team in the Courthouse.

      Delete
    3. Value my life? If you find the park threatening I don't know what to tell you. As for the condition I know for sure you can find a group looking for volunteers with maintenance. Shame on you if you don't

      Delete
    4. Media Democrats are to blame 2. Now they don't want the roadway opened, and they pose as "friends of the park". They are all hypocrites.

      Delete
  14. I think you're right. The Media Dems were wrong to play up the FROGS. Didn't think then, but now feel the coup a few years back may have been the right move. Something is not right with this current council.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are just figuring that out, Anon:9:17 AM. What else is news.
      The Dems, as usual in Media, fooled the voters. Davidson, Robertson, Hall are our three STOOGES. wE DEServe the government we got.

      Delete
    2. How about "My name is Daryl, this here is my brother Daryl and this here is my other brother Daryl" quote from Bob Newhart show

      Delete
  15. Tedman I'm making my way to the bathroom - Time to get sick yet again!

    ReplyDelete