Both Media and Upper Providence Police sit at the bottom of this hill to enforce speed restrictions. It's a dangerous enough intersection, that they are there almost everyday. School buses with kids going to Media Elementary are exposed to this risk day-after-day, yet wouldn't have to be if the Third Street Bridge was open.
The Police, Fire Department, Emergency Medical Services and the RTM School District are all in favor of opening Third Street for the sake of safety, but Mayor Bob McMahon and Media Borough Council still can't get the job done after 18 years. What was once $1.4 million to fix this bridge, has now increased by millions due to lack of leadership.
 |
| Media's most dangerous intersection because Third St. Bridge remains closed. |
What else needs to be seen or what BS needs to be heard from this council? If one of those buses gets clipped, or God forbid something worse, Media should be sued and the public officials should all be held accountable.
ReplyDeleteRight on, Fed! This is such an egregious lack of concern for the welfare of our youngest it makes me sick. A bunch of NIMBY FROGs get more benefit of the doubt than the safety of our children. Hey all you voters out there - PLEASE make sure that you ask and comment to each school board candidate running for RTM about their position on this issue. I see Mr. Hall and Ms. Simpson try and deflect the issue in their letters to the editor - why do they not mention that by AMENDING the narrow specs (28 ft) to which their council voted in Sept would allow EVERYTHING to move forward! Why do the council people not mention that they took an advance against the PENNDOT money to re-design what was perfectly acceptable by Schnabel? Why would they not honor a 'true compromise' by allowing design and construction at an acceptable width for two lanes, thereby allowing the blacktop width to the vote of whichever council is in place after the election? Why - because THEY are the ones who are so tight fisted in their thinking they will not waiver one inch from their stupid September vote. Meanwhile every day that passes our children are forced out to this dangerous intersection, say nothing of the carbon footprint these diesel buses make by waiting for an available traffic opening. You're right Fed, they should be sued and sued good.
ReplyDeleteIf only there was some other way to travel from Upper Providence into Media.
ReplyDelete- The left turn problem at that intersection will be totally solved.
- The 25mph speed limit on Southbound Baltimore Pike can finally be ignored.
- School Busses will no longer cause traffic delays or emit pollution.
- Partisan poliitcs will finally be a thing of the past.
Well, we ALMOST had that, Anon 9:22--a safe, one-way road on third street INTO Media, avoiding the need to use this scary turn. Then the Swim Club blew it by getting the whole arrangement thrown out.
DeleteOooh! I get it! I get jokes.
DeleteThe one-way road solution offered by council solves this issue.
ReplyDeleteThis sounds great if you ignore the fact that Borough Council had a plan in place to replace the dam and open 3rd Street into town, eliminating the need to make that left turn on Baltimore Pike, at the same time preserving as much of the park as possible and saving some money. Why is that such a ridiculous compromise? The Frogs were not getting their wish of NO traffic (well, now it seems they are) and the dangerous conditions (a failing dam, a left turn on Balt.Pike and lack of emergency vehicle access in both directions) were all being addressed – for less taxpayer money. BLCC supposedly coming back with an “offer” of a one way road in exchange for relieving them of all responsibility for future dam maintenance shows that they are not really all that opposed to the idea. Aren’t they the ones that are now holding up the project with their lawsuit?
ReplyDeleteI live on Front Street which is one way, next to the one block of Manchester Ave that is one way and you know what, it’s a pain in the ass to get to my house every day but I deal with it. A lot of Media’s charm has to do with the pedestrian friendly streets, the old growth trees and the non-chainey nature of the town. There are at least 5 or 6 of the huge oak trees on the east side of town that have been cut down in the past year and building gas stations/convenience stores and coverting park land to roadways are all steps in the direction of destroying that charm. What’s next – an Applebee’s?
Borough Council had very little say in the sale of privately owned land to build of homes on Parks Edge lane, but they (and by they, I mean WE) DO have a say in what happens to Glen Providence Park. Why wouldn’t we as a town want to preserve it? There is much talk of “reinstating” the roadway to what it was, but what about retaining the Park as it is and always has been?
Well said anon 10:21 agree 100%.
DeleteGreat I hope Borough Council has very little say when BLCC sells all of their private land and develops the property. At over 11acres they could get about 50 twins.
DeleteThat would be unfortunate, but doesn't that make keeping our park intact more important than ever? It also raises the question of who would have been responsible for dam maintenance under the old stipulation. I hope any new agreements are more comprehensive and establish ownership once and for all.
DeleteThis blog has turned into the "Third Street Bridge" Blog. Can we please find focus on the good things that are happening in the borough? Right now it's all sour grapes over the author's unsuccessful council election bid.
ReplyDeleteActually, if you read this blog regularly, he posts a lot of good things that are happening in the borough. And he's also willing to post criticisms about him.
ReplyDeleteSave me from these ridiculous posts that do not get to the heart of the issue! PLEASE explain to me, Anon 10:21, how a 28 ft wide span, with landscaping AND sidewalks, is spending LESS taxpayer money than 32 feet of blacktop? Can someone please address this whole 'one way is cheaper' argument that FROGs in sheeps clothing continue to post?? As for you, you purchased your house on Front street with the full knowledge of the traffic patterns, which did not change AFTER you made your real estate investment! DO NOT even throw stones the BLCC way, who made MORE THAN ONE effort to address the 'one way' (i.e. make the underlying structure WIDER and do whatever you want with the road!) You act as if reinstating the roadway in both directions would totally eliminate the park! Not true! They lose a couple of trees - would you like me to walk around the borough with you and show you all the trees that have been cut down BY THE BOROUGH in the name of fixing sidewalks or power lines? The specs you throw out on the 'one way into the borough, no way out' do not solve the problem of getting the students from INSIDE the boro OUTSIDE to SLMS or PHS! Until someone posts clear dollars and cents to the 'one way is cheaper' position I will continue to stand by the district (AS A WHOLE, including UPT and Mtown) and say the circuitous transportation routes are a financial drain. And that, was nowhere part of the Media Borough/FROG compromise.
ReplyDeleteWell, I gotta hand it to you. PennDOT should have figured out years ago that the way to fix a dangerous intersection is to open a road nearby. Seriously, what does the accident data show for this intersection. If the data meets PennDOT warrants, then install additional traffic control devices (signs or signals). The road has been closed for 20 years. Unless you have quantifiable, verifiable accident data, I'm not buying this argument. And, even if you do, you'd need to address the intersection (even if the road were opened). Thanks for spending more taxpayer dollars. Nice.
ReplyDeleteLooks dangerous to me. Also for the driver in a car going south on the road. An accident waiting to happen.
ReplyDeleteCan't argue much with that picture. This blog should have a comedy section and include coverage of Swarthmore. The writer would have a bonafide, F'n field day on the communists in our town.
ReplyDeletePlease define "communist" and provide specific examples of how residents of Swarthmore meet this definition. A real definition and examples please, not regurgitated Bachmann/Palin/Limbaugh/Coulter hacked nonsense.
DeleteYes, the 3rd street bridge construction (or I should say lack thereof) is a joke at best. I'm not attempting to discount the importance of clearly needed remedy along that entire stretch of Baltimore Pike, including the Ridley Creek Road dogleg.That being said, you folks that are slamming Borough Council and Mayor McMahon do understand that this location is in Upper Providence Township, right?....I'm just saying...
ReplyDeleteOne way bridge into Media solves this issue. And if Upper Prov was a good neighbor they'd put a stop light there, even if only temporary until the bridge is resolved.
ReplyDelete...but then making a left up Kirk would seem too steep, so U.P. should probably flatten that out too.
DeleteMaybe UP should make Orange St one way into Media also then those residents could get a reprieve from traffic like the NIMBYS want.Was two lanes when it closed should be two lanes when it opens.As far as park being lost is nothing more the a red Herring.
ReplyDeleteAs far as East Front and Manchester issue your talking ONE BLOCK not miles out of you way as the Third St issue causes.
...or about 1 mile and a half if you measure.
DeletePlease direct concerned parent to BLCC - compromise would have addressed their concern, but private club sends it back to court.
ReplyDeleteCorrection - Please direct concerned parent to Media Borough Council - stipulation would have addressed their concern, but ineptness sends it back to court which has been the case for 15 years.
ReplyDeleteRTM Parents: It's a lovely situation when local Media officials protect trees over kids!
Stop the insanity! Fact check: Yes, the intersection shown above is located within the boundaries of Upper Prov, but is under PENNDot juristiction (Balt Pike/Ridley Crk Rd) - hence, UP does not have the authority to address this issue unilaterally. Also, 'concerned parent' above is a member of BLCC and has addressed this issue numerous times with ALL parties involved: Media Borough, Del. Co Council, and BLCC. With all documentation discussed and provided regarding the approach that the county AND BLCC have made towards Media Borough, the evidence that the issue is stalemated RIGHT NOW falls to Media Council. Media DOES have the ability to construct the dam/bridge WIDER than the 28 feet, but blacktop to whatever width their little hearts desire. I am still waiting for Mr. Hall and crew to quantify in a dollars and cents argument, how a 28 ft total width of road, sidewalk, and AESTHETIC GREENERY (remember in the Dec. meeting they voted to hire a 'landscape architect') is cheaper to construct than 32 feet width of road to accomodate 2 way traffic with appropriate buffers on either side - which would also act as safe pedestrian access on EITHER SIDE of Third St, whereas sidewalks are only proposed on one side. Let's stop throwing stuff out there unless you can back it up with legitimate, quantifiable data. Please remeber in terms of vehicle access, the Penndot $$ is there to pay for it, with any other 'chachka's' the costs of these would be covered exclusively by Media Borough taxpayers. And, oh, regarding litigation - everyone's aware that Media Borough crossfiled against BLCC, right?
ReplyDelete