Out With The Old, In With 2016

While the seasons don’t seem to have varied much around here this year, a number of changes did come our way in 2015, with more headed our way for 2016. Some are positive, and for others, the jury is still out. 

·        With relatively little fanfare, the cloverleaf intersection at Trooper Road and 422 was completed and opened. Outdated when it opened back in the early 80’s, not having a full interchange led to extra traffic being funneled onto Egypt Road as cars made their way to the Oaks interchange in order to be able to head westbound on 422.  About ten years ago, representatives from several local townships, including LP, went to Washington to ask for money to be appropriated to complete the interchange (as well as widen 422 and complete Sullivan’s bridge, under construction now). Now complete, it’s open, and traffic appears to be flowing better through Audubon with less congestion at rush hours. Hallelujah! 

·        Repairs to the Arcola Road Bridge are slated to be completed and the bridge re-opened to traffic no later than July 5, 2016. Given the warm fall we’ve had thus far, and the flurry of recent activity (crews were spotted working on the beams for the decking on Christmas Eve!), and presuming weather stays relatively mild and/or dry early in 2016, it’s a real possibility we may see the barricades removed early, sometime next spring. Fingers crossed!

·        In a stunning upset, for the first time ever, the Methacton School Board is now controlled by Democrats. The losing incumbents had been entertaining the possibility of closing an elementary school or two due to declining enrollment and projected higher pension costs on the horizon as an alternative to raising taxes, but the CARE (Community Advocates for Responsible Education) team disputed all of that, and took issue with the manner in which the school board was conducting its business.

CARE, which claimed to be bipartisan despite being primarily Democrat in political registration and orientation, and despite receiving primarily Democrat party funding, now has a voting majority on the school board. While I’m trying to keep an open mind and hope they are approaching the tasks before them grounded in reality, I suspect we will find ourselves needing to hold onto our wallets more than ever in 2016.

·        Speaking of Methacton, after decades of stalling and delays, we finally got a new turf football field constructed, bringing Methacton into the same era as most local school districts’ athletic programs. Available for play just as the current school year began, making this project a reality was the culmination of hard work and serious fundraising by dozens of people. While there is some evidence that turf fields contribute to more sports injuries, time will tell as to how that plays out at Methacton.  

·        After a 39-year career in law enforcement, LP Police chief, Francis “Bud” Carroll, appointed as chief in LP in 2000, is retiring. Stepping into his big shoes as incoming chief is Bud’s second-in-command, Lt. Stan Turtle. Many of our veteran officers have retired in the last two to three years, all after distinguished careers serving in Lower Providence, but this is a de facto ‘changing of the guard’. Best wishes, Bud, in your well-deserved retirement. Perhaps I’ll see you around down at the courthouse in Judge Ferman’s courtroom.

·        Bud’s Bar (also known as the historic Jack’s Tavern, and no relation to the aforementioned Bud Carroll), which stands at the intersection of Egypt/Park Avenue/Pawlings Road, has long been closed and become something of a dilapidated eyesore. One of the limitations of the property is the small lot size and the zoning, which results in a negative building envelope requiring numerous waivers for anything viable to be built or operate there. 

      Since having the bar repainted in 2011 as part of my campaign for township supervisor, I've been contacted from time to time by several of the real estate agents carrying the listing, with clients interested in the property and hoping to marry the two. Several interested clients wanted the possibility of a drive-through, and moved onto other properties in different communities when told that was off the table by ordinance (along with all the other challenges that property represents). 

Much to the township’s credit, they voted this month to authorize advertisement of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment revising Audubon VC Village Commercial District (in which Bud’s Bar is located) to permit facilities with drive-through services as a conditional use. Our township solicitor noted that the ordinance would permit this usage just in this portion of the Village Commercial District, which already has several drive-throughs existing on nearby commercial properties. Both the Township’s Planning Commission and the Montgomery County Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendment and surfaced no issues, making the supervisors more comfortable with it.  If passed after public hearing, it gives the Township the ability to evaluate, on a case-by-case basis, applications for use of the property that contain a request for a drive-through and decide whether it works for the requested use on a given property. 

I think this signals a realistic approach by the Board of Supervisors to try to get a viable business in that spot. The alternative is that businesses will continue to bypass the location due to the numerous challenges and restrictions, and Bud’s will continue to deteriorate until the only viable option is to demolish it. Hopefully an interested business will come along that’s willing and able to afford to purchase and rehabilitate the building, and the Township will be amenable to making that happen.

As for me, 2015 brought new wheels and a terrific new guy into my life, so I haven’t had as much time to write as I would have liked, but I’ll be back at it full force in 2016. I hope your holidays were as fantastic as mine were (both kids were home, including my daughter, who lives down South) and that, like Lower Providence and Methacton, your New Year is full of wonderful developments too.

Bridge Envy

You could be forgiven for thinking that founding father and American Revolution-era author Thomas Paine must have been inching along in traffic on a stiflingly hot August day, late for an appointment, when he uttered his famous quote “These are the times that try men’s souls”.

Literary references aside, local traffic jams caused by road construction, paving, sewer line installations, roadside power line upgrades, and numerous bridge replacement projects – all more or less taking place at the same time - are testing motorists’ good will and patience this summer as many LP residents find themselves going nowhere fast when attempting to get to work, shuttle kids to camp and athletic events, get to the doctor or dentist, or run even the smallest of errands.

We’re all used to road projects. It’s for good reason that a running joke is that the Pennsylvania state tree is a traffic cone. We all understand intellectually that road and infrastructure improvements are an inconvenient but necessary part of life. But locally, two major projects taking place simultaneously – the replacement of the Arcola Road Bridge (closed in August 2013) between Lower and Upper Providences, and the completion of the cloverleaf at Trooper Road and 422 - are the primary culprits, and other projects affect the detours and secondary routes we all use to avoid them.

Over in neighboring Chester County, the announcement in April of the commencement of work to the Pickering Creek Dam bridge on Route 23 near where it intersects with Pawlings Road – the main route from the southern end of LPT into Phoenixville and Valley Forge – has only added to the delays and frustration.

So, what’s a community to do when they aren’t fortunate enough to have former county commissioner and new PennDOT chief Leslie Richards embedded in the community as a resident capable of getting a bridge (really two culverts side by side) engineered, rebuilt and reopened in her locale in a mere five months? (detailed here)

The Pickering Dam bridge, like the ARB, is a total teardown and rebuild project (with repairs to the piers, instead of replacing them), but unlike the ARB, it’s cost was approximately $1.7M and is expected to be completed in a mere 6 months (originally scheduled to be completed in April of next year, new performance incentives have accelerated its anticipated completion date by 6 months - story here). 

Despite claims from some of our local officials that the projects aren’t similar at all (although in many ways, they are…they are both similar lengths, widths, square footage, and span), Chester County and state officials, including state Sen. Andy Dinniman, were able to find the funds to reopen and renegotiate the contract with successful bidder J.D. Eckman to build in incentives for each day Eckman improves upon the original project completion date and the Pickering Creek Dam bridge is reopened early. The contractor also agreed to work five ten-hour days per week instead of four.

Naturally, LPT residents are scratching their heads and enviously asking: Why do we have to wait a long three years’ worth of sitting in traffic and detoured routes for OUR bridge (closed in August 2013) to be completed when it is clearly possible to do so faster?

Photo credit: Main Line Media News

While the two projects are similar in some ways, a direct comparison is difficult because in many ways it’s an apples-to-oranges scenario. For starters, Pickering/Route 23 is a state road and 100% state project, versus ARB, which is a Montgomery County-owned bridge. The repairs are being funded partly by the federal government, along with state and county funds. Their design and bid processes are different right out of the gate.

Second, Pickering is a part of a larger state project known as Act 89. Also known as the Transportation Bill, it covers numerous bridge and road improvements across Pennsylvania and was signed into law in 2013 by Governor Tom Corbett. It allocates $2.3 billion in funding for transportation-related projects in Pennsylvania, including road and bridge projects.  PennDOT claims Act 89 “promotes coordinated planning and implementation to ensure greatest return on investment.”

And, the Pickering Dam bridge project was on the state’s radar for the past ten years as needing replacement so some preparation had already been made by the time Act 89 was enacted, whereas several past County administrations had kicked the ARB can down the road until it could no longer be postponed. While design plans had been drawn up some time ago - which called for a side-by-side rebuild while the existing bridge was still open - deterioration and closure of the ARB in August 2013 necessitated scratching that plan and starting over.  Single-source funding under Act 89 made it easier to do incentives on that project.

Third, the ARB required the purchase of a number of easements from private residents, some of which had to be negotiated, and this dragged out the timeline before construction could even begin. The Pickering Dam bridge project did not require acquisition of easements.

Fourth, Pickering Dam Bridge carries approximately 20,000 cars per day whereas ARB carries in the neighborhood of 9000 cars per day, and with 11,000 more pain points over in Phoenixville, clearly Pickering Dam Bridge appears to be a higher priority from a regional perspective.

Photo credit: Mike Vereb

And let’s not forget that there was about a six-week delay in December 2014-January 2015 when workers for successful bidder Allan A. Myers L.P. of Worcester who were tearing down the old ARB bridge discovered the presence of lead-based paint (verified by PennDOT officials), requiring a revamped, nonhazardous demolition strategy. 

Montgomery County is the conduit through which PennDOT bid the job, negotiated the final construction contract, and payments to the contractor are being made. Despite the fact that the lowest bid for the ARB project was almost $2.5M less than the amount budgeted for the project, the July 5, 2016 timeline was built into the contract and, unlike the Route 23/Pickering project – for who knows what reason – there were no performance incentives included in the deal to encourage them to get it done faster. In addition, there are, as far as I can tell, no terms that require a certain number of hours to be worked per day or a particular number of employees to be dedicated to the ARB project.

By comparison, the Pickering Dam bridge contract specifies working hours of 9 am to 3 pm (to avoid rush hours) and allows for the possibility of overnight work. The newly negotiated agreement does not note a total cost for the incentives but notes “Cost has been negotiated and agreed with Department representatives. Acceleration has been started with extended work hours, overtime, and extra Friday work shifts.” A cover letter accompanying PennDOT’s response to my Right to Know request states that “ While PennDOT has agreed to pay a lump sum to accelerate delivery of the project to November 26, 2015 (as evidenced by the enclosed Contract Work Authorization) it has not yet reduced to writing its agreement in principle with the contractor relative to an incentive payment. Subject to change, the parties have conceptually agreed that if the contractor completes the project early, it will receive $3,000 for each day in advance of the November 26, 2015 date.” (more info here)

Residents driving by the Arcola Road Bridge project regularly report via Facebook seeing no, or only one or two, workers during normal working hours. Progress appears to be moving at a snail’s pace, and whatever is getting accomplished down there seems to be happening far too slowly for most residents. However, Upper Providence Township supervisor John Pearson, who lives along the UPT side of the bridge and whose home looks down upon the creek bed, told us at a July 30 public meeting held by state Rep. Mike Vereb at the LP Township building in response to complaints voiced at the “Living in Lower Providence” Facebook page, that workers are indeed there every day, often begin work at 6 am, and that it can be difficult to see from road height just what is happening.

So, don’t blame the contractor, Allan Myers.When the Montco commissioners/PennDOT bid the ARB job, more than $7 million was budgeted, but the lowest responsible bidder (Myers) came in at $5.3M. Thus, there is additional money available to reopen and renegotiate the contract to provide performance incentives for Allan Myers (which various sources familiar with this and similar projects have suggested would run in the neighborhood of $200,000-$300,000).



photo credit: Times Herald Oct 2014

So – why haven’t our local officials tried to do the same thing for our bridge project? Why can’t we, too, renegotiate the contract to build in some financial incentives to the contractor to speed up completion and reopening?  Fact is, they have raised the subject, but so far it’s fallen on deaf ears with the Montco commissioners.

According to Charles Metzger, PennDOT Community Relations Coordinator, told me that it was easier to do incentives on the Pickering Dam bridge project because as an Act 89 project which funds numerous other highway/transportation projects across the Commonwealth, it was easier to move money under that funding umbrella from another, less-critical project to this one to provide the incentives.

As to ARB, while Vereb initially (and, as it turns out, erroneously) stated at the July 30 meeting that contracts like ARB that are largely federally funded could not have incentives, I’ve learned that’s not exactly the case. Not only are they permitted, but the federal government actually prefers to build incentives into their agreements wherever possible.

As of 8-31-15. Photo credit: Susan Wozniak

Since Montgomery County has the least amount of skin in the game – 5% versus 15% from the State and 80% from the feds - and it IS their bridge, I’m not sure I understand why something can’t be done, particularly since the County negotiated and awarded the contract in the first place.

Considering that Montco commissioner’s chair Josh Shapiro has been quoted in the press recently boasting about their financial prowess and how they are sitting on enough reserve cash to float numerous social service agencies in the area for several months during the prolonged state budget standoff, surely their alleged financial acumen could be applied to ponying up some incentive money to get the ARB completed much faster than July 2016, especially given that the bid award was substantially less than that budgeted for the project.

LP’s traffic engineer, Casey Moore, from the firm McMahon Associates, told me that “contractors like Allan Myers are always looking for performance incentives because they have an ability to meet them and make some money”, and that they’d thus likely be very open to the possibility.

I also spoke to Seth Myers, Vice President of Business Development at Allan Myers, who reiterated that the speed and pace of construction is out of their control, noting that “We are given specs and a schedule to follow” post-bid award, and allocate their resources accordingly. The firm was, until recently, unaware of all the Facebook chatter directing blame for the slow construction pace and alleged inactivity on the project firmly in their direction, and told me “We appreciate people’s frustration in not being able to use the bridge, but we will deliver the completed bridge on time”. The company manages over 450 projects statewide and has allocated its resources and paced work according to contractual requirements for each – including the ARB.
 

Allan Myers has compelling reasons to deliver on time: there are Road User Liquidated Damages of $27,009 built into the ARB agreement to be assessed for every day or portion of a day after July 5, 2016 that the ARB is not open to unrestricted traffic on all lanes, and another $27,009 assessment for each day or portion of a day that the detour is not removed on or after July 5, 2016.
 

There is an additional cost to the contractor (Construction Engineer Liquidated Damages) of $3,325 for each day that any physical work remains uncompleted after the Required Completion Date, to be deducted from money due or to become due. Thus, for each day that this project remains incomplete after July 5, 2016, it will cost Allan Myers $57,343.
 

At the July 30 meeting, Rep. Vereb reiterated that we shaved about 14 months off the beginning phase of the project because they got the plan designed, approved, bid and awarded in 13 months instead of the 24 months it could have taken, as well as doing a number of things concurrently that normally are done consecutively, such as DEP review, utility relocation plan, traffic impact study, stormwater plan, environmental study, etc. Each normally has a 60-90 day review period, and we saved 6-7 months right there. He also indicated that originally it was hoped that the new bridge could be built side-by-side with the old one while it was still open, but having to shut it down as unsafe rendered that impossible.


But Upper Providence Township supervisor and chairman Lisa Mossie recently weighed in on Facebook, taking issue with the Montco commissioners: "County knew they were going to close this bridge months before they actually did, yet they had no engineered plans in place and it costs us months on the design work. Leslie's [PennDOT chief Richards] Plymouth Road Bridge was closed completely unexpectedly because of sinkholes, and not only did they get it fixed in five short months with no engineering in place, but they filled two developing sinkholes and re-routed a stream. All in less time than it took them to just get started on Arcola."


By all accounts, officials for both townships, Rep. Vereb's office, and State Sen. John Rafferty's office have been relentless in trying to coordinate activities with the county and contractor and push for forward movement. Vereb particularly called out LPT manager Richard Gestrich as being very vocal and tenacious in getting answers and action.
 

Vereb indicated that in all likelihood, if we have a mild winter, the project will be completed early, in mid-spring 2016, and they won’t hold up the opening for esthetics like landscaping and minor finishing touches. However, don’t start your engines just yet: In an August 16, 2015 Associated Press article, Farmers’ Almanac editor Janice Stillman says the Northeast will see a winter of heavy snowfall and below-normal, frigid temperatures.
 

Unfortunately for us, it may be that the contractual maneuverings are just water under the bridge at this point and all we can do is wait for whichever happens first – a performance incentive from the county commissioners (all of whom are running for re-election or, in Castor's case, hoping to be elected back to the DA's office), or spring thaw.

 

Photo credit: CBS Philly

The Bridges of Montgomery County

If you live or have to travel anywhere near the now-barricaded Arcola Road Bridge, you might have read last week with great interest the list Montgomery County published enumerating the 19 structurally deficient bridges it has deemed a priority for repair. I know that, like me, many of you eagerly scoured said list, expecting to see the Arcola Road Bridge at or near the top. But alas, it was missing entirely.

I wondered why, as did many of you I’ve spoken to. Life post-closure in August has been painful, both for the people who regularly use the bridge and must now go well out of their way, and for the residents whose neighborhoods are impacted by additional traffic. The article the list appeared in neither asked nor answered the question as to where OUR bridge was in terms of the list and priorities, so I called Montgomery County’s Dept. of Assets and Infrastructure to see what they had to say.

The young lady who answered the phone explained that the list excluded the Arcola Road Bridge because it is already closed and the process of getting it replaced has already commenced. Those 19 bridges are on a separate RFP just approved by the County, and they’ve hired a consultant to help prioritize them.

She added that they have received a LOT of calls about this bridge. I'll BET they have!

 

"Ugh! These detours! WHEN will the Arcola Road Bridge be open again??"

Speaking of the bridge, at tonight’s Board of Supervisors meeting, township manager Richard Gestrich tried to make it abundantly clear that it is a COUNTY-owned bridge, not a TOWNSHIP owned bridge. My guess is angry residents and travelers are blaming (incorrectly) township officials for the closure and delays in getting it replaced.  

Some updates shared at tonight’s meeting: LP Township officials are meeting biweekly with county officials and state Rep. Mike Vereb as to the status and progress of the project, along with ways to mitigate the pain in the meantime. They have discussed ways to mediate the traffic impacts and make recommendations to PennDOT as to how to rectify them.  The County has appointed Indian Valley Appraisers to meet with adjacent residents to secure rights-of-way to enable the start of construction.

Police Chief Bud Carroll mentioned that he has worked with PennDOT to resync the timing of the traffic light at the intersection of Pawlings Road, Park Avenue and Egypt Road to allow for better traffic flow by increasing the length of the cycle a little bit. Also, we were able to get PennDOT to free up some funds ($125,000!) for a traffic control device at the Perkiomen Bridge intersection that monitors traffic in real time to improve flow to and from Germantown and Ridge across that bridge.  The device is available to us now and we are awaiting its installation, which will hopefully allow us to see some relief from congestion. It’s expected to be in place on or about November 1.

The County now believes it can start the construction in January 2015 and conclude it by August 2016, shaving a good six months off prior time estimates.

All of the above is great, but here’s my question: I, like many of you, signed up at the County’s August Arcola Road Bridge meeting to receive email updates on the project. I don’t know about you, but I haven’t received ANYTHING from the County about this since then, especially not the part about the appraisers or shaving six months off. Transparent? I think not.  

Nice job, though, by our municipality to stay in the loop, have an active voice in what happens and be a part of solutions. Maybe the number of people blowing up their phones and email about this bridge will go down just a bit.

 

 

Bridge To Nowhere

(updated 8/1/13 @ 10:25 pm to add that a meeting will be held by Montgomery County officials on August 12 at 7 pm at the Arcola Intermediate School to discuss these and other concerns.  My understanding is that all LP supervisors will be in attendance, as well as Sen. Rafferty and Rep. Vereb.

(updated 7/22/13 @ 7:45 pm to add map links)

LP’s bicentennial tagline, and the theme around which they redesigned their emblem back in 2005, was ‘Bridge to the Future”.  However, a landmark bridge over the Perkiomen, near where the Skippack Creek flows into it, referred to as the “Arcola Road bridge”, will soon become a bridge to nowhere, and there’s no easy, fast or inexpensive fix in sight.

It’s one of only two remaining bridges that allow for local automobile passage across the Perkiomen between Lower Providence and other communities. A third, the Yerkes Road Bridge, was destroyed in 1972 when Hurricane Agnes blew through the area, so the demands on the remaining two are higher.

The bridge is heavily travelled between LP, UP and Collegeville and particularly used as alternative to avoid traffic on the Perkiomen Bridge between LP and Collegeville, especially for those employees of the pharmaceutical firms in Upper Providence.

A county-owned bridge originally built in 1869 and replaced in 1931, the 258’ (total length), 20-foot wide bridge (also known as the “Cider Mill Road bridge”) handles more than 8,900 cars a day, according to Leo Bagley, transportation planner and assistant director of the Montgomery County Planning Commission.

Slated last fall for partial closure due to repairs anticipated to take 30 days, Montgomery County originally promised to keep the bridge in place before constructing a new one, keeping it functional by having a single lane closure with travel restrictions such as local traffic only while being worked on, but that’s no longer an option. The County recently discovered that the bridge is far too dilapidated for that and they are just going to have to close and replace it.

Originally engineered to withstand 40 tons of weight, the County's website still lists the Arcola Road Bridge at a 12 ton weight limit. However this past spring, Montgomery County’s Dept. of Roads and Bridges reduced the weight limitations on the Arcola Road Bridge twice, from 12 tons to 6, and then from 6 tons to 3 tons weigh capacity, so it’s now restricted to allow vehicles weighing no more than 3 tons to cross. In 2010 it was given a structural appraisal of ‘structurally deficient” and a deck rating of ‘poor’.

Locals report that there are boards literally hanging down from the bottom of the bridge that can easily be seen when you drive up to it, and that they often hear chunks falling off into the water. 

Since the bridge will soon be unsafe for traffic of any weight, it’s on an accelerated inspection schedule due to its condition. The plan now is to close it, remove it, and replace it, while running a detour around it. The new bridge will be two lanes (as is now), width to be determined, with a pedestrian sidewalk on at least one side.  The work will involve both deck replacement and structural improvements to the base.

The next inspection is due to take place August 16 or 17, and it is doubtful as to whether it will pass. Either way the odds are substantially against this bridge remaining open until the scheduled replacement time in about a year - best case scenario would be that construction could start in the summer or fall of 2014 – which may not even happen if the funding isn’t in place.

According to Bagley, while all the preconstruction funding is in place and allows for the design work and purchase of required easements, the total costs of $8-$10 million for the actual construction work still need to be allocated. The biggest chunk, about 75%, comes from Federal TIP (transportation improvement program) money; about 15% from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the rest from the County. The County has their portion of the funding in place, having previously done a bond issue to raise the money, and that will roll forward until used.  Bagley stated “It’s a zero sum game...if we get the funding from the state, something else won’t, and vice versa”. Thus, the pressure is on our local elected officials (state Rep. Mike Vereb, and state senators Andrew Dinniman and John Rafferty) to make sure State funding makes it way to this project. Knowing Vereb and Rafferty, I’m sure they’re already working to do what they can to make that happen sooner rather than later.

Unfortunately the County hasn’t been doing a fantastic job of keeping the impacted communities apprised of what’s going on until very recently, although they did permit them to comment on the proposed detour route. Upper Providence has signed off on the portion of the detour that lies within their boundaries. Lower Providence proposed an alternate (here) to that proposed by the County, but no sooner was that submitted for review than PennDOT came back with an alternate version. LP reiterated that they prefer their version.  Ultimately PennDOT has the final say but LP is waiting to hear which way it goes.  

The PennDOT maps (here) are virtually impossible for even transportation experts to make out, but one version for residents south of the bridge involves traffic heading east on Arcola Road, turning right to head south on Eagleville Road, turning right to head south on Park Avenue, right onto Egypt to head west toward Route 422, and then turning right to head north on either Cider Mill Road or Black Rock Road.  From either of those roads, one could turn right to head northeast on Route 29 and then turn right to head south on the upper portion of Arcola Road.

The second version for those north of the bridge directs travelers north on Arcola Road, turning right onto 29 North, and then turning right onto Ridge in Collegeville by Keyser Ford, and proceeding onto either Germantown Pike or further down Ridge depending on their destination.

The main problem I foresee with any official version is that while they illustrate what they hope drivers will do, we all know that motorists will find the fastest and/or shortest paths to follow. In LP's case, I believe many cars will choose to cross over Pinetown Road instead of going down to Egypt, or snake their way north or south on Redtail Road between Arcola Road and Pinetown Road instead of going out to Eagleville Road. If so, it creates additional traffic congestion and safety concerns for residents of those neighborhoods.

As with the regional sewer authority’s middle interceptor, this is another project that straddles both Upper Providence and Lower Providence, with potential impacts for both. The proposed detour route on Cider Mill Road will run right along the same property on the Upper Providence side of the creek as that owned by the Stiefels, the UP couple who would be directly impacted if the middle interceptor is placed on the UP side. This poor couple is literally being sandwiched from front door to back door between major infrastructure improvement projects. Similarly a portion of the detour route in LP runs right by property owned by some of our residents affected by the same project, although they have more land between their actual homes and the proposed projects/detours.

Once the design process and the easement purchases are finalized, the project can be put out to bid. Hopefully, the money will be there when that’s complete so that this bridge doesn’t have to be out of service one more day than absolutely necessary. In the meantime, prepare to wait and allow lots of additional time to traverse in and out of the township into Collegeville and Upper Providence.