Friends of Glen Providence Park Offer 3rd St. Vision to Borough Council

The Friends of Glen Providence Park presented its vision of public safety, minimal environmental impact and community enjoyment for the 3rd Street Project to Media Borough Council.

The Friends of Glen Providence Park presented its vision, principles and key elements for the 3rd Street Project at Thursday's Media Borough Council meeting.

The group's vision is public safety, minimal environmental impact and community enjoyment.

Borough resident Linda Healy, a member of the Friends group, said this vision is a shared vision of the community shown by both local political parties, project stakeholders and in public opinion surveys.

In May, that has both a vehicular and pedestrian component.


Robin Lasersohn, a borough resident and member of the Friends group, offered five elements that the group believes need to be a priority in the design of the project. (See attached PDF).

  • One automotive vehicle lane
  • One-way automotive traffic from Upper Providence into Media (with two-way availability for emergency vehicles)
  • Borough-managed traffic control, such as a gate or bollard across the roadway
  • Attractive pedestrian pathway
  • Use of materials that would complement a historic park

Lasersohn said the group strongly advocates that the design would only include one vehicle lane.

"The narrower the structure is, the less damage that will be done to that end of the park," Lasersohn said.

She said the group is also working with a landscape architect on a detailed design based on these same elements and they hope to present it to council and the community at the September workshop meeting.

Borough resident and Friends group member Terry Rumsey said the group believes that public opinion has also supported this same vision.

Rumsey said the public has shown its support for this vision through a petition, town meetings held by the project's Citizen Advisory Committee, special borough council meetings and the CAC survey. 

"The clear, favored preference through that survey was for dam removal and pedestrian-bicycle only traffic, again specifying that there would be emergency vehicle access," Rumsey said. "That was by far and away the most popular option."

However, many . About 3,800 surveys were mailed to renters, property owners and business owners and only 651 were returned by the March deadline, according to Rumsey.

But, the 651 respondents or 17.6 percent is the, "most extensive collection of public opinion data on any issue in the history of the borough," according to the Friends of Glen Providence Park information sheet. (See attached PDF).

"We think that the people of Media have consistently, as a majority, expressed the most minimal environmental damage to Glen Providence Park, restricting automobile traffic and emphasizing and prioritizing pedestrian and bicycle traffic and ensuring access for emergency vehicles," Rumsey said.

Borough Council did not formally respond to the Friends of Glen Providence Park representatives however after being asked by borough resident Paul Indorf about the progress of the project, Council President Brian Hall said he expects and hopes to have more information to give to the project's design professionals in September.

At council's Aug. 2 workshop meeting there was much discussion over the width of the roadway and whether it be open to one- or two-way traffic.

One council idea at that workshop meeting was to make the roadway as wide as two lanes, but only use one lane for vehicles, leaving the other for pedestrians and bicycles. Therefore having the option of making the roadway open to two-lanes of traffic, years down the line, if needed.

No formal decisions were made at the workshop meeting but council asked the borough engineer to investigate an appropriate width of the roadway.

Read more from that workshop meeting here on the Delaware County Daily Times.

What do you think? Tell us.  

Chickadee August 17, 2012 at 03:23 PM
I feel that the phrasing of your poll/question is too 'black and white' and runs the risk of dividing the community further on a difficult question. There are a lot of possibilities out there and the more creativity the community brings to the project, the better the outcome will be.
Courtney Elko (Editor) August 17, 2012 at 05:09 PM
Thanks for the feedback. The question is asking if you agree with the Friends of Glen Providence Park vision that is listed above. The Friends group says the majority of the community has its same vision, do you agree?
Chickadee August 17, 2012 at 09:34 PM
What I am saying is that there may be people out there who do not "completely disagree" with the Friends of the Park's position. You offer no middle ground -- "I agree with some" of the Friends vision. Do you understand what I mean?
Terry Rumsey August 17, 2012 at 10:07 PM
Courtney: The Friends of Glen Providence did not just "say"(i.e. make an unsubstantiated claim) that the majority of the community supports 1) minimal damage to Glen Providence Park; 2) Restricting automotive vehicles on the Third Street roadway over Broomall's Run stream; 3) Prioritizing pedestrian/bicycle traffic on the Third Street roadway; and 4) ensuring access to emergency automotive traffic over the Third Street roadway. We submitted publicly recorded data/evidence from several Borough Council-sponsored meetings and a Council-sponsored public opinion survey on the Third Street issue. The data/evidence speaks for itself. Terry Rumsey, Friends of Glen Providence Park
Courtney Elko (Editor) August 17, 2012 at 10:50 PM
You are correct, I did not offer a "semi-agree" option. I chose to keep the responses, yes or no, and the comments section is always available for people to expand on their responses, as you've done. Thanks.
Courtney Elko (Editor) August 17, 2012 at 10:59 PM
Hi Terry, Thanks for the feedback. The Friends of Glen Providence Park said/presented the points you've listed and I've included in the article. It does not say "unsubstantiated claim" anywhere in the article. I've also included where you've gathered your data and evidence, same as you list above. If there is any inaccurate information in the article please let me know.
Terry Rumsey August 17, 2012 at 11:27 PM
Courtney: The article presented accurate information. I was responding to your comment to Chickadee. Thanks, Terry
matt September 18, 2012 at 02:48 AM
Friends of glen providence did not exixst until bridge was ready to move forward..Should be opened to two way traffic..it will have NO impact on park, same as it did when two lanes were there.Local residents in area want their street to be little or no traffic..pedestrian and Bicycle options can be met with two lanes..gimme a break..now they care about the park..?


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something