 |
| Unprecedented support to open 3rd St. Bridge |
First it started with an Upper Providence resolution, then followed by Middletown Township, and now the Rose Tree Media School District. Tonight, the School Board voted unanimously in approval of opening the 3rd St. Bridge to vehicles. This will be vital, needed infrastructure for school buses transporting children to Media Elementary, while alleviating congestion on Kirk Ln. and Orange St.
After 16 years and political agendas costing taxpayers millions of dollars in delays, Media residents and neighboring communities are quickly uniting and voicing their support for opening this bridge. With Penndot funding in place, along with grant money provided by Senator Pileggi, all that is left are the votes on May 17th from Borough Council to start.
WTF does the RTM School board have to do with a road?
ReplyDeleteSchool Buses run on roads...3rd st. is/was/could be a road...
ReplyDeleteSo....more voting? It's not going anywhere. Somehow, someone will screw this up to. Media isn't what it used to be at all. It's all BS. How much did they sell the old police station for $625,000 when they could have got $900,000 a couple years ago. What a joke.
ReplyDeleteAt last I can agree with the RTM school board on somthing.
ReplyDeleteYou want a greeway? Let's build it through Park's Edge Lane down to Glen Providence Park. Take the street away and give it back to nature; a trail everyone can use. Funding? 3.5 hrs of bulldozer rental ought to cover it. Then we will have the park back as nature intended it to be. I'm tired of this ".005 acres will be lost forever...the community wants a greenway." The community DOESN"T want a greenway.
ReplyDeleteTell your master "No" Democratic members of Borough Council. Which is more important your legacy to the wider community and our children or your boss on West Street? Read John F. Kennedy's
ReplyDelete"Profiles in Courage" before you vote on May 17.
If "the community DOESN'T want a greenway," why was the option to remove the dam and build a bicycle, pedestrian only greenway the option with the most support? hmmm. Interesting reasoning. Tax payer dollars to build a new high hazard damn for a lake that will no longer be a lake if it isn't dredged (as if the country club has 1 million to do that!). Great idea.
ReplyDeleteAnon 8:37 your not telling the full story. Combined 336 Stongly Approve/Approve options 1A and 2A (Replace Dam or Remove Dam with Auto, Bicycle, Pedestrian Access) to 290 who stongly approve/approve option 1B and 2B Replace Dam or Remove Dam with Bicycle Pedestrian Only). Clearly more combined voters support having Auto access restored to 3rd Street.
Delete368 stronly disapprove/disapprove of options 1B and 2B (greenway) compared to 357 who stongly disapprove/disapprove of options 1A and 2A (roadway). Again more people are not only for the roadway but are against a greenway.
As for Dam removal more ppl do support dam removal but a greenway did not have the highest amount of votes combined.
Also, when you consider the issues with this survey such as lost surveys and duplicate surveys you can not even say the results are accurate. Many areas did not
even receive the survey.
Also as the author of this blog has reported Upper Providence, Middletown, and now Rose Tree Media SD are all in support of opening 3rd street. All first responders are in support of opening the roadway. Not to mention the business owners who support opening the roadway to vehicular traffic.
Council will not please everyone and they have to consider the majority, not the NIMBY's and special interests who have organized themselves. Even an organized effort could not tilt the results in their favor. It will be hard for council to ignore these findings.
To Anon @ 10:06p Well Well Well Thank You Thank You Thank you for your support of uniting 2 communities instead of dividing them. A BIG THANK YOU to the RTM School Board for their unanimous support - well at least they and the Upper Prov Council have something in common as at a recent meeting they too voted unanimously to restore the bridge. Media Council how much more convincing do you need??? The price tag for this repair goes up with each word I type on this blog. Has anyone ever considered what it would've cost "back in the day" to do the repairs, etc vs 16 years later - difference??? I'm gonna guess 100's of thousands - dollars that is! And as I type I can't help but wonder how many retained lawyers are buying boats at the expense of guess who - taxpayers. As for the Woodlands at Ridley Creek - well what kind of oxymoron is that??? All the woods are gone to build the houses!!! I would hope that if anyone in that development is against the restoration of the bridge/road they are never in a life or death situation as Third Street is the most direct route to Upper Prov and "that neck of the woods".
ReplyDeleteWe in Upper Prov may not pay borough taxes but we do pay State taxes which is where most of the funded money is coming from - so Media asks us to pay? Well we already are!
It seems like some people are still misinformed about this.
ReplyDelete- None of the options being considered will prevent emergency use of the bridge.
- The CAC did not make a reccomendation, and the statistics from the survey aren't a referendum vote. Don't forget that people were allowed to indicate multiple choices.
- Long term residents have as much say as someone who moved in yesterday.
- While Borough Council is weighing the opinions of Upper Providence, Middletown, RTM School Board, and non-borough residents, the choice ultimately depends on Media Councilmembers to dutifully represent the wishes of their constituants.
In my opinion - It seems everyone has done just fine without this roadway for the last 16 years, and that it doesn't need to be reopened to traffic. Also, throwing around the term NIMBY seems hiocritical if you have anything to say about this project.
Highlander
DeleteOption B states "a possible exception for emergency use." To me that does not sound like a guarantee for emergency access. Based on this councils interpretation of a court order that states "to return vehicular traffic" and them not complying with that I would not say that emergency access will be included, even though all first responders have requested it.
Yes, people were allowed to make multiple choices, and they did. If Media council members were dutifully representing the wishes of their constituents they would use the survey that was requested by them and paid for by tax payer money. There is no agrueing the results, more ppl prefer opening the roadway to vehicular traffic than a greenway.
The choice is up to media council members but do not forget the other 2 stakeholders involed, Delaware County and Broomall. All 3 parties signed a court order, one that detailed out ownership as well as what must be completed. No where in that court order did I see a greenway.
Your opinion is that you do not want traffic on your street. Of course everyone has done fine with out it but why should everyone have to continue to be inconvenienced so that a few can enjoy a greenway or a peaceful walk without traffic. Just remember, the road was always in their backyard. The only thing that has changed is that everyone that lives within 2 blocks of this project has enjoyed not having traffic and now that dont want it back.
As a resident of Upper Providence and a parent who sends their children to Media Elementary I do believe I have a say. To all those media residents who think they are paying for this with their tax dollars and that this decision is yours are sadly mistaken. Their are 3 parties involved and just because a couple hundred residents prefer a greenway does not give you the justifcation to make it a greenway. Their is also a court order recogizing the 3 parties and this has been settled.
ReplyDeleteThis dam and road was here long before any of you were. It is not a new road, if it was I could understand your complaints. The intention was to always open the roadway once settlement/ownership was established. This has now been established and the few who live in the immediate area now do not want the traffic on their street. A dam or a bridge should be the only point of debate. As for returning vehicular traffic it was always planned to be returned.
Media borough, resolve this issue and stop the waste of taxpayer money. A question will be posed at the next meeting as to the exact amount spent to litigate this matter with outside council as well as our solictors billings for dealing with this issue. Council has made this a personal decision. How can you not say it is when one lives at the base of this roadway and 2 others signed a petition supporting FROG's and their desire to have this turned into a greenway. They are spending our tax money for their personal gains and special interests.
Right on, Anon 9:20! I also am an UPT resident who's kids go to Media Elem, and the amount of time it takes multiple buses to skirt around 3rd street is ridiculous! I actually spoke to a RTM transportation rep, who estimated approx 30 buses in total have been re-routed - take into consideration the boro kids who go to SLMS and Penncrest!
DeleteDid anyone see Sue Serbin's piece in DelcoTimes yesterday that during the May 3 meeting 'residents specifically said they did not want any more money spent for legal action' which is sure to follow if Media council breaches the court order.
In my opinion everyone has done just fine..that is just an opinion.NOT FACT.
ReplyDeleteI do not know how many hours ,gallons of ga used,taking my families life in my hands turning onto Balt Pk at Ridley..because of bridge being out..yea doing fine.
The spearhead of the opposition is more concerned about thei little no traffic detour then the plebicites wishes.
Want to help the park...sell the homes an Parks edge to an open space group...put you house where your hyocrisy lies..greenway protewct nature Yes I agree but vehicles must return...
Come on down tonight. Thursday, May 10, 2012/7:30 PM--Media Borough Hall.
ReplyDeleteLast time to have your say--or forever hold your peace.
Not going to waste anymore of my time. Time to enjoy a nice dinner in town.
ReplyDeleteLou, we all know you are too cheap to dine out.
DeleteAs a matter of fact, Upper Providence residents are not entitled to a $3.8 million short cut through Media. They should fix their own dangerous intersection at Baltimore Pike and Ridley Creek Road and buy their own ambulance.
ReplyDeleteWell, as an Upper Providence resident I feel I am entitled to easy access to Media via third street. I didn't pay this amount of money for my new home to be forced to take a detour that costs me more gas money that could be better spent landscaping my abode. I would love to look at he lake as I blow down third street to spend my $$$ in media.
DeleteTedman or anyone at the meeting last night? I am looking forward to see what came of this meeting. I am sure nothing ground breaking.....more of the same!
ReplyDeleteI'll provide an update later this weekend. Nothing "ground-breaking " from last night's meeting.
ReplyDeleteBuild it and they will come, Media.
ReplyDelete