Upper Providence residents conducted their own survey showing strong favor for option 1A: Replace Dam/Auto, Bicycle, Pedestrian.
On tonight's Borough Council agenda, the CAC will be presenting their report on the 3rd St. Bridge. I don't know if any formal decision will be made, but I'll provide an update after tonight's meeting. The meeting starts at 8pm at the community center.
This week I received a well written report from a reader, which is not only unbiased, but provides a comprehensive history on the issue. The report is a quick read and may be useful for those not familiar with the bridge's 16 year history.
 |
| Report on the Third St. Bridge |
WHO publishes a paper without an author's name?!? WHO WROTE THIS?
ReplyDeleteWriter prefers to be anonymous
ReplyDeleteI don't have a problem with the author's name not being on the report. The report is able to be judged on it's own merits without having a name on it.
DeleteSums up this whole mess pretty well. Political ambitions and a waste of money. In a perfect world Media should have never damaged the bridge and road way or atleast fixed the damage they caused and the road would have never closed. Politics at their worst.
ReplyDeleteOh yeah
ANON 7:56 pm who posts anonymous and complains about not having a name to go with the paper -- HYPOCRITE
There are several issues/inaccuracies here with keeping the dam from this report.
ReplyDelete1) The loss of 70 trees in the park to maintain a dam (page 7)is an unacceptable tradeoff.
2) Claiming that removal of the dam will make the current lake area lose its value for flood control is 100% incorrect(pages 9-10). If nothing is built in the area currently covered by the lake, that area would be part of a flood plain. Also, increased water downstream would branch out over areas adjacent to the creek. Finally, "many" homes at risk of flooding is a vast exaggeration. Knowing the layout of the lake, dam, park, and stream, would lead one to wonder how any homes would be at risk.
3) The real danger is in keeping the dam. All dams are costly to maintain, must be repaired at some point, and prone to failure. Need I remind anybody over the near failure of the dam on the Springton Reservoir during Hurricane Floyd? Chanel 6 news had no problem parking a news van up there all afternoon to monitor the water company’s obvious level of concern. A dam failure would wipe out Baltimore Pike whereas a normally flowing creek, even in a major Floyd style rain event, would not create any damage given the existing topography of the park area.
I will state and re-state this as many times as I have to. The ultimate type of roadway re-opened on 3rd street needs to be of the most benefit to the residents of both Media and Upper Providence. The dam / lake is of no public benefit, is a waste of tax-payer dollars, and presents a catastrophic risk in the event of a failure. No free flowing creek with a functional floodplain comes even close to this type of risk.
if that lake was publically owned by the borough or the county, the bleeding-green hearts in this town would be all over protecting it by any and ALL means. Nevermind it's much older than the park, or that its a major part of this town's history, or that wildlife takes to it as it does the lake in the park, or that there are some of us out there that appreciate it as is and would appreciate it more if we could walk or ride by it on a daily basis (Bridge?).
DeleteIf the dam is breached, I want the plastic pipes in Glen providence park removed that feed stormwater into the "natural pond" - if we're going to return the area to it's natural-flowing state, we might as well go all out without being hypocritical.
Media Mike great point i remember the news coverage from the Springton Lake Dam after hurricane Floyd. Sure glad the local politicians dismantled that dam for our future safety after the storm. You are a complete moron. Go back to your Friends of Glen Providence Park meeting and sing some folk songs.
DeleteThank you for proving you have nothing to add to the conversation by going into personal attacks.
DeleteThis is not a report or paper it is an opinion article veiled as a report. Sorry Tedman, but this is far from an unbiased report when the author supplies his opinion it becomes something else. I think we all know what that something else is.
ReplyDeleteIt is possible that the legal stipulation, signed before anyone thought to ask whether PennDot would pay for dam removal, can be re-visited by all three parties. The shame is that its existence has been used as a reason not to disclose, in detail, all that is known about the economic and environmental impact of dam replacement or an alternative bridge design. Where are the fiscal conservatives in Delaware County? Maybe there's more agreement possible on the hybrid ideas.
ReplyDeleteSounded like council was studdering with Robinson handing off to Hall and Davidson deflecting. Get down to the nitty griddy fellas.
ReplyDelete