In addition to Upper Providence, Middletown Township tonight passed a resolution in support of opening Third St. Bridge to traffic.
Based on these actions, it's apparent that the local communities are in favor of having a "bridge" and additional access to Everybody's Home Town.
There is nothing wrong with some bridge access for folks west of town. If the people of Media favor the bridge, then there is no reason to keep it from moving forward. For the record, I completed my survey BOTH in favor of a new bridge with no dam AND a greenway with no dam.
ReplyDeleteIn either case, I'm fine with the bridge coming back. It still remains a waste of tax payer dollars to create a dam for a private lake because:
- a dam/lake degrades the quality of the steam water, and ultimately the Ridley Creek
- any dam is a time bomb of risk of failure and costly replacement (like we're doing now!)
- public money used to make a private lake is hard to justify
Please do not reopen this road to non-emergency traffic. Additonal traffic capacity is not needed between Kirk and 3rd, and it will only be a safety hazard to those who walk.
ReplyDeletedid they say if those 2 communities were willing to contribute financially to a bridge?
ReplyDeletethey already are, through state funding.
Deleteactually the costs of maintenance for a bridge is not funded by the state, i should have been more clear. a sidewalk would also have to be approved by both Media and UP for both sides of a bridge with the costs of that the responsibility of both the township and borough respectivly.
DeleteAnon 7:55 and the rest of the Media Borough residents who think you are paying for this need to get a mental tune up.
DeleteThe money is coming from a Transportation Improvement Plan as well as additional funding from Senator Pilleggi. All this money is either state or county tax money that everyone contributes too. If you think about it this way, based on number of residents alone both Upper Providence and Middletown Township are contributing more than the residents of Media.
wow, i hope that you have an opportunity to really understand all of the facts. perhaps you can follow all the research and filter out the opinions. good luck with that.
DeleteThey don't need to, brainiac, as funding IS ALREADY IN PLACE and has been since last year! And, to go one step further, the future maintenance has already been addressed in the court order.
ReplyDeleteGit R Done, folks and let's move on!
fact check maintenace of a dam and maintenance of a bridge are two different things. can you comment without insults?
DeleteFew elitist want no cars going by MY house...though their NEW homes added to the traffic...all that extra driving bacause of closure, bad for nature
ReplyDeleteDont drive by MY house..calls to protectct park are nice but those leading the charge to stop bridge are interested in keeping traffic off their street...when it is THEIR NEW HOMES THAT added to the traffic and park degridation.Elitists!
ReplyDeleteHow can you blame people for not wanting more traffic on their street?
DeleteBTW - my house has been here for over forty years and I prefer the greenway option.
Have you lived in your house highlander for those forty years? I have lived in Upper Providence for 50 years and never saw or experienced a problem with heavy traffic in the area of question. All the new homes built in this area sure haven't been an asset to the environment (water runoff....)
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be contradicting your anonymous self. But maybe you're right - maybe there won't be more traffic then 50 years ago.
DeleteShouldn't all residents have a say, even if they're new? or do you have to earn tenure to have an opinion?
Obviously, every one has their opinions. The fact is that 3rd Street was a street long before your house or my house was there 40 years ago.
ReplyDelete...and therefore should forever remain the same until the sun engulfs the earth
Delete