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

No Middle Ground: Setting The Record Straight On the Interceptor

A long-awaited voice has weighed in at last. As a result, perhaps some of the he-said, she-said nonsense surrounding the interceptor project will die down.

Last week the six members of the Lower Perkiomen Valley Regional Sewer Authority (LPVRSA) members voted 4-2 to move forward with plans to place the middle interceptor on the Lower Providence (LP) side of the Perkiomen, but not without a lot of last-minute hysteria, noise, and shell games, played out in the local press, from the usual suspects on the LP side.

Don’t get me wrong. I am not unsympathetic to LP’s plight and I respect them for trying to have a voice in the outcome. However, the thing has to go somewhere, and when the line is crossed into misleading the public because your logic and arguments are defective ("LP Contradicts Its Own Case Against Middle Intercepto Placement"), it's a problem.

Allow me to shed light on several blatant attempts to mislead readers into supporting LP’s position:

·        A letter from a Fred Kaczor which appeared on April 11, 2013 in both in the print and online versions of the Times Herald (here), and online at LP Patch (here), was particularly interesting. It attempted to portray Mr. Kaczor as an independent, unbiased engineer with no political agenda weighing in on the project and how, in his opinion, the interceptor should be on the UP side of the creek. And, in case you didn’t arrive at that conclusion on your own, a very helpful comment from Cathy Beyer, (she of the hand-wringing, harp-accompanied PowerPoint dog & pony show trotted around to every member municipality ad nauseam about how the interceptor just had to go on the LP side to ‘save the environment’, as if there were no similar environment on the other side of the creek) told you so: “finally an engineer perspective with no political objective, just concern for the environment. Just pure common sense”, she gushed in an online Patch post April 10.

In reality, Mr. Kaczor is anything but unbiased. He is an affected party with land along the LP side of the creek and is the sister-in-law of Cathy Beyer. Together both (with their spouses) were appellant plaintiffs in litigation against LPVRSA (which they lost... http://statecasefiles.justia.com/documents/pennsylvania/commonwealth-court/2681-c-d-2010.pdf?ts=1323908994)

 

No political agenda? Hardly.

·        The LP players hung their hats on their claim that the Army Corps of Engineers sided with them in their belief that the lateral must go on the UP side. Indeed, LP township manager Richard Gestrich, in a March 12, 2013 Letter to the Editor which appeared in the Times Herald (print and online versions, here) stated, in part:

 

“The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps of Engineers”) indicated that it is not opposed to location of the disputed portion of the new Middle Interceptor in the same right-of-way and same trench as the existing 42” line that it replaces. Not only that, the Corps of Engineers indicated that the location of the new Middle Interceptor line in the same trench as the old line is actually the preferred location for the line…”.  and that “Furthermore, installation in the existing right-of-way and same trench [on the Upper Providence side] will lead to only temporary interference with the creek, a course which the Corps of Engineers recognized as being preferable to the permanent installation of major stream crossings”.  “With that issue resolved…”(emphasis added).

No, Mr. Gestrich, that issue has not been ‘resolved’ by the Army Corps of Engineers. On the contrary, they appear leery of being dragged into the middle of the dispute. An email dated April 15, 2013, from a Mr. Brian Bellacima, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, Regulatory Branch to all the principal municipalities, legislators, and to LPVRSA contradicts Mr. Gestrich’s assertions. It read, simply:

 

To whom it may concern, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, Regulatory Branch has made no permit decision on any of the alternatives associated with the project known as The Lower Perkiomen Valley Regional Sewer Authority, middle interceptor.

They could have used the same letter to offer a preference or officially take a position one way or the other, but chose not to.

I wonder when we can expect to see Mr. Gestrich issue a retraction of, or to at least attempt to walk back, the statements in his March 12 letter? If nothing else, Beyer and friends should be furious with Gestrich for appearing to have intentionally misled them on the USACE’s position, as they all now have egg on their faces.  

·        "How could LPVRSA do this when the solution is so obvious?" wailed a faux-confused Ms. Beyer in a post-decision comment on Patch.  Yes, I suppose the solution IS obvious when you are only hearing one side of the story.  If you don’t read the Times Herald, you are only getting one side of the story because Patch, particularly the LP version, has been engaged in some odd goings-on regarding the middle interceptor story.   

Online article comments submitted that did not support LP’s position have inexplicably never seen the light of day despite numerous attempts and several calls to their editor. A Letter to the Editor by UP supervisor Lisa Mossie about the project and why it should not be placed on the UP side of the creek was buried on LP Patch’s “More Blogs” page instead of on their landing page, as Ms. Beyer’s numerous letters and editorials are.   The fact that LPVRSA articles originally posted on LP Patch never made it to PV Patch is also concerning. Normally all these ‘Patches’ in a given locale share stories.

I get it that the Patch model is intended to be community-specific on issues, but if Patch is going to wade hip-deep into a regional dispute, they should be prepared to represent the views of all the affected communities so their readers can arrive at their own informed conclusions instead of being misled that there is only one ‘obvious’ answer.

 

Now that the Army Corps of Engineers actually has weighed in with their non-position, it will be interesting to see if the LP Board of Supervisors (and LP taxpayers) continue to engage in time and money-wasting tactics (legal fees!) to punish the other communities and LPVRSA for not siding with them. Watch for the claims that the Indian artifacts extend beyond where they originally said they did.

In addition, all the woes from the LP camp about alleged raw sewage leaking into the creek are undocumented and unproven; they are most likely untrue but have been used in order to create a sense of urgency to get LPVRSA to make a quick decision in LP’s favor, and/or to convince members of the public of same. Thus, it will be interesting to see how LP squares the circle of the "urgency" of stopping this supposed flow of raw sewage into the creek with any delays they try to impose.

Besides, if it were true, If they care so much about the creek, wouldn’t you think they’d want to ‘take one for the team’??

Be My Guest

I've never permitted a guest writer on this blog, but as they say, there’s a first time for everything.  Lower Providence, meet Lisa Mossie.

While I’ve researched and written about our regional sewer authority and LP’s participation in it extensively over the past couple of years (here and here), and particularly the disagreements over the placement of the middle portion of the sewer interceptor project (can we all agree, at least, that we have to have SEWERS??)  I have long felt like the only person paying attention to - and reporting - ALL sides of the dispute.

That is, until Lisa, a supervisor in Upper Providence, the other primary municipality involved in the dispute, was elected in 2011. She quickly developed an understanding of this complex project of many moving parts and political layers and has been a welcome voice of reason. In a recent piece in the Times Herald, ("Lower Providence Contradicts Its Own Arguments",) she frames the status of the project and the disputes well.

With Ms. Mossie’s permission, below I am posting her original unedited piece, containing more details about LP's obviously hypocritical arguments, which were omitted from the Times Herald piece for brevity.  It's an excellent recap of the dispute and, more specifically, how LP officials’ changing positions  just  don’t hold water (pun intended) and don't work for all LP residents, the environment, or the larger community.

                   *     *      *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *

The Lower Perkiomen Valley Regional Sewer Authority needs to construct a new sewer line known as the “middle interceptor” along the Perkiomen Creek in order to serve the needs of its six member municipalities, Trappe Borough, Collegeville Borough, Skippack Township, Perkiomen Township, Lower Providence Township and Upper Providence Township.  A dispute has arisen between the LPVRSA and Lower Providence Township as to which side of the creek an approximately 3,000 linear foot segment of the middle interceptor should be located.

Upper Providence has historically not engaged in media campaigns to achieve political ends.  For the last year, our Board of Supervisors has chosen to remain on the sidelines of the dispute, while the various options were explored.  We remained confident that the decision would ultimately reflect the best possible alternative for all concerned.  Five of the six member municipalities agree that the middle interceptor’s best location is on the Lower Providence Township side of the creek, where it can be constructed as a simple gravity line.  This route is known as Arcola 1. 

Last month, we were informed that Lower Providence Township endorsed a gravity option for the middle interceptor to be placed on the Upper Providence side of the creek.  This route is known as Arcola 3.  Because so much precious time has been wasted in the political and legal maneuvering surrounding this issue, and because time is now of the essence with this project, and because more years of legal wrangling is promised from Lower Providence if their preferred option is not chosen by LPVRSA, as a member of the Upper Providence Board of Supervisors, I wish to provide my thoughts about the proposed interceptor’s location. 

The Arcola 1 route on the Lower Providence side of the creek is clearly the optimal path for the middle interceptor.  Engineering analyses have determined that, due to very steep topography, it would cost at least $2 million more to construct the middle interceptor on the Upper Providence side of the creek than on the Lower Providence side, even taking into account the costs to recover American Indian artifacts on the Lower Providence side.  These additional costs would, of course, be passed on to all of the LPVRSA’s customers, including those living in Lower Providence Township. Constructing the interceptor on the Upper Providence side would also mean that the LPVRSA would lose the additional capacity already provided by the existing interceptor.  This could require another sewer expansion project in the not too distant future, also at the expense of the LPVRSA’s customers.

Lower Providence and a small interest group of residents has waged a coordinated political and media campaign on ever-shifting grounds in an attempt to box in the LPVRSA’s viable options under the presumption that nobody is paying attention to the inconsistencies in their arguments.  It is my opinion that, by endorsing the Arcola 3 route on the Upper Providence side of the creek, Lower Providence effectively contradicts every previous public argument that it has been making for the last several years, in an effort to stall this project. 

At different times during the middle interceptor conflict, Lower Providence and its special interests have raised the following spurious objections:

·         The project is unnecessary.  As part of this process, the LPVRSA conducted an Act 537 study of the region’s sewer needs.  The study reflects the current flows of the six member municipalities and, based upon zoning and other considerations, anticipates future flows for the next 10 years.  This study clearly indicates that the middle interceptor is necessary, and that Lower Providence’s assertions otherwise are false.  Furthermore, Lower Providence’s endorsement of the Arcola 3 route tacitly acknowledges that they also believe the middle interceptor is necessary.

·         Pump station alternatives are better.  The LPVRSA examined several pump station alternatives to the Arcola 1 option.  None were feasible due to monetary and operating concerns related to the construction and ongoing maintenance of these pump stations.  Lower Providence’s endorsement of the Arcola 3 gravity option effectively acknowledges that Lower Providence agrees that a gravity option is the best solution.

·         No residences will be impacted by construction on the Upper Providence side of the creek.  (refer to comments by Catherine Beyer:  http://lowerprovidence.patch.com/articles/lpvrsa-releases-official-position-on-sewer-interceptor).  The map depicting the Arcola 3 route clearly shows that it will impact one residence on the Upper Providence side.  Furthermore, the impact of construction on that residence would be exponentially greater than the impact on any of the residences on the Lower Providence side.  The Upper Providence residence is on a very narrow lot, and the construction easements would have to come within 5 to 10 feet from his home.  Construction on the Upper Providence side will also necessitate 6 months of sewage bypass pumping with a pump placed on this resident’s property.  The lots along the Arcola 1c route on the Lower Providence side are all very deep, with construction activities taking place farther away from the homes. 

·         Placing the middle interceptor on the Lower Providence side of the creek would result in catastrophic damage to the environment.  All parties involved agree that there will be some temporary environmental impact due to the interceptor’s construction.  Everyone also agrees that measures need to be taken to ensure that these environmental impacts are minimized to the degree that they can be.  This has been the strongest and most persistent claim coming from both Lower Providence Township and its residents.  In fact, on May 18, 2012, Lower Providence Township Manager Richard Gestrich sent an urgent e-mail to the other member municipalities, stating that previous interceptor construction “resulted in very harsh environmental consequences” and that “[y]ou should be aware of all the adverse environmental impacts to the creek, before you reach a decision on the [resolution to undertake updated Act 537 planning].”  Yet, despite all of this concern, the environmental impacts resulting from construction on steep slopes on the Upper Providence side of the creek will be far greater than if the interceptor was constructed on the Lower Providence side.  If Lower Providence Township is truly concerned about the wildlife and the health of the Perkiomen Creek, why would they endorse a plan that is so much more impactful on the environment?

·         The DEP never approved the placement of the middle interceptor on the Lower Providence side of the creek.  This is basis upon which many of the legal battles have been fought and the reason for the member municipalities’ requirement to undertake updated Act 537 planning.  In the original Act 537 plan, the path for the middle interceptor was drawn as a thick blue line down the middle of the Perkiomen Creek, and the intended location was described as “parallel” to the existing interceptor, which is on the Upper Providence side of the creek.  Lower Providence’s attempts to delay member municipalities’ commencement of the Act 537 update was yet another effective stall tactic.  Because DEP determined that there was “wiggle room” in the definition of “parallel,” at the recommendation of LPVRSA and DEP, all member municipalities, with the exception of Lower Providence, have undertaken the project to update their Act 537 plans, and they have shouldered the costs associated with that project.

·         The existence of historical artifacts precludes placement on the Lower Providence side of the creek.  The existence of artifacts from ancient Indians is not in dispute.  However, the commissioned Archeological study of the site indicates that “the archeological deposits are significant only for their informational value and do not warrant preservation in place.”  The cost of excavating these artifacts has been built in to the cost of the Arcola 1 option, and is estimated at $66,000.  Furthermore, Lower Providence has not indicated what the status of these valuable artifacts will be if LPVRSA does not undertake the archeological excavation.  Will they be recovered for posterity to enjoy and learn from, or will they remain in the ground, of no value to anyone?

·         Additionally, Upper Providence Township and the LVPRSA proposed the Arcola 1c option, which would run the middle interceptor further down the Upper Providence side of the creek to avoid the historical area.  In an email dated May 25, 2012, the Chairman of the Lower Providence Board of Supervisors, Rick Brown, responded that this proposal “[w]ould mean extending the sewer upstream along the Perkiomen Creek in Upper Providence Township from the former Proffit property (+- 500 feet) to a new point where we cross the stream into Lower Providence.  The route requires more extensive earth work.  According to my sources the Army Corp of Engineers would not approve this plan.”  In other words, locating the middle interceptor on the Upper Providence side of the creek , even for a mere additional 500 feet, is not feasible because of the impact to the environment.

 

The LPVRSA has satisfactorily and comprehensively addressed all of the objections raised by Lower Providence Township and its special interest group of residents.  I believe that the best all-around alternative remains the original Arcola 1 or 1c option, as it has all along.  The numerous stall tactics and delays undertaken by Lower Providence have effectively made time a critical issue in reaching a solution on the middle interceptor, and the LPVRSA is now looking for Upper Providence to assess to the Arcola 3 option in an effort to keep the project moving forward.

We have all been hit by increased sewer rates as a direct result of the years of legal wrangling over this issue.  The residents of Lower Providence have been hit doubly-hard, since they are also funding the lawsuits that have caused the rate increases.  While I have absolutely no wish to unnecessarily expend further taxpayer dollars on this project, nor do I wish to further delay this project more than it has already been by this media and legal circus, I can’t help but conclude that there is absolutely no reason not to place the interceptor in the Arcola 1 area on the Lower Providence side of the creek where LPVRSA has always recommended, except to avoid further lawsuits and delays from Lower Providence.  These lawsuits would only benefit a small handful of residents, would result in greater environmental impacts to the Perkiomen Creek, would leave valuable historical artifacts unrecovered, would result in a vastly greater impact on one of our residents and would cost every resident in the member municipalities more money in increased sewer fees.

It is not too late to purge the bad blood that has been accumulated during this protracted and sometimes ugly process.  It is my hope that the residents of all six member municipalities will join me in calling on Lower Providence officials to look beyond the immediate political considerations, and in calling on our state elected officials, John Rafferty and Mike Vereb, to do what is in the best interests of all parties concerned: end this senseless legal and political maneuvering and agree to let the middle interceptor be installed where the impact on the health of the Perkiomen can be minimized: on the Lower Providence side of the creek.

Call these state elected officials and let them know that enough time has been wasted on the middle interceptor battle:

John Rafferty Ph: (610)-831-8830

Mike Vereb Ph: (610) 409-2615

 

 

Gooooood Moooorning Lower Providence!!

With all due respect to the movie 'Good Morning Vietnam", no one will ever mistake my voice for that of a manic Robin Williams first thing in the morning. Anyone who knows only the most basic details about me is well aware that I am a creature of the night. I'm probably one of the deepest sleepers EVER, and I.hate.mornings.

Seriously, it's like I'm in a coma. I've often said someone could break into my house in the middle of the night and rob me blind, and I would be none the wiser (one more reason I'm really glad we are now Rottweiler owners). My family loves to regale me with tales of crazy things that have happened while I slumbered - stuff that should have had me standing straight up on my bed, like the time a squirrel somehow got in the house and everyone was chasing it around with brooms and jumping on chairs - but which I had no knowledge of until told the next morning.

My biorhythm is such that I have a really hard time waking up, MUST start the day with a strong cup of coffee to even be somewhat coherent, and I don't really mentally wake up til around 11 am.  This does have its advantages, however. I'm just hitting my stride around 4 pm when everyone else is dragging, and I really get wind in my sails around 9 or 10 pm.  Many people I deal with on a regular basis know they may awake to emails from me sent at 2 or 3 am. And, this anomaly of nature - being a night owl, that is  - was definitely a plus as a candidate, when a lot of the work of campaigning - knocking on doors, strategy meetings, fundraisers, meet & greets etc. - is done in the afternoon or evening.

I've had periods of my life wherein I had to be a (very) early riser. I didn't really like it, but I did it for long periods of time when I absolutely had to. It's definitely not my preference  though.

So, when my good friend and newly elected Upper Providence Township supervisor Lisa Mossie asked me to consider taking over her slot doing the 7-8 am shift of our local Fox affiliate radio station, co-hosting "Live and Local" with Barry Papiernik, I was both excited and torn. I've been in full night owl mode for some time now, like having time to myself late at night while everyone else is sound asleep, and I wasn't sure I wanted to give that up.  Life had just gotten back to normal after last year's bruising campaign for supervisor.

If you don't know, "Live and Local" is conservative-oriented talk format which focuses primarily on local politics, issues and current events, but also touches on state and national concerns, especially if they'll have a local impact. Some mornings it's silly; some it's serious business.

Sometimes, we interview guests, such as elected officials or candidates for local office so you can get a better feel for who they are and where they stand (I was a guest about a year ago to talk about improvements to the 'Bud's Bar' property that I was able to accomplish during the primary). Just last week, county commissioner Bruce Castor joined us to talk about how well things are going with his new co-commissioners down at the county courthouse.

While Lisa did the show five days a week, Monday through Friday, I initially committed to two or three days a week, and given my disdain for early mornings, reserved the option to do the show in my pajamas (just kidding). We've now fully transitioned, and I've enjoyed it so much that I've willingly and happily gotten up at the crack of dawn every day to be there and will continue to do so as long as they want me. It's proven to be a GREAT way to wake up and start the day, and I hope you'll think so, too. Even better, Lisa will continue to join us from time to time.

I remain a staunch advocate for Lower Providence, and I'm sure to mention the fine institutions, landmarks and businesses of my hometown whenever appropriate. I hope you'll tune in, consider taking out a reasonably priced advertisement block, or pitch an idea or topic you'd like us to consider or community event to mention. Find us online at http://www.1180wfyl.com/.

Disclaimer: my appearance on WFYL and any comments made by me on-air represent my personal viewpoints and are in no way intended to be representative of any of the employees or elected officials of Lower Providence Township, the Times Herald or my employer.

The Road Toll Is For Thee

I was just checking the online version of The Times Herald, and noticed in their headlines of May 31 "Tolling of Route 422 On Agenda of Transportation Funding Commission"  that the subject of tolling on Route 422 has reared its ugly head again. I was considering writing about it when I noticed Lisa Mossie did so last week based on the Times Herald's sister publication's (Pottstown Mercury) article on the same topic. She wrote eloquently and comprehensively on the subject, which you can read here). How odd that this latest press release about 422 was offered for publication and buried in the newspaper over the Memorial Day weekend when presumably most people who'd find it of interest might be away on vacation.

As I posted last fall, I dislike this idea for several reasons, chief among them because Lower Providence already suffers substantial traffic congestion, which will only be exacerbated by cars seeking to avoid paying a toll on 422, instead routing themselves through roads inside our and other municipalities to avoid it. For us, it's definitely NOT a 'smart traffic solution'. We're already a gateway community through which motorists travel to get to other places (like Norristown, King of Prussia, Collegeville, or Philadelphia) and while I hope they  spend money here while they're coming through, none of those funds raised via tolling will be coming to Lower Providence to help us deal with infrastructure improvements inside our boundaries to support avoidance traffic.

Aside from the fact that our taxpayers already are paying money through federal and state fuel taxes and licensing fees which PennDOT themselves indicate will go toward funding road improvements on other area roads such as US 202 - and which could and should be applied to improvements on 422 - it's interesting to me that the presentation of what is referred to as the "US 422 Corridor Master Plan' (ie the tolling plan) given to our supervisors in June 2010 (for more detail on the information presented at that meeting, see the meeting minutes, Item 7, here) doesn't seem to match what its supporters are claiming now in both the Times Herald/Pottstown Mercury pubications. A year ago the presentation and discussion centered largely around funding for a commuter rail system. Now, according to the article cited above, they claim it's necessary 'above and beyond' normal state funding sources to pay for 'transportation spending' and appear to be downplaying the rail option, almost as if it's an afterthought.

Unfortunately, our sitting supervisors unanimously voted to support the US 422 Corridor Master Plan at their July 1, 2010 meeting (documented in the minutes of that meeting, Item 11, here). 24 other 422 corridor communities in Montgomery, Chester and Berks counties were also pitched the same presentation that we received, as part of what the County referred to as a 'land use transportation study'.  Of those 24 communities, I could not determine how many of them have supported the plan by resolution. Of course, the FAQs on the website http://www.422plus.com/422Corridor/ claims that:

Q. The US 422 Corridor Master Plan resolution supports the idea of studying 422. If my municipality signs the resolution, are they automatically supporting tolling on US 422?

A. No. By signing this resolution, municipalities are not endorsing tolling.

While tolling is one of the options described, there are many other strategies identified in the Master Plan.

If your hometown leaders endorse the resolution, it means only that your local officials are willing to work with their community, the state, the participating counties, and other alliances to explore the 10 planning strategies outlined in the Master Plan.

Well, if you look at those 10 planning strategies as summarized in this handy-dandy brochure put together for each municipality, here, (which oh-so-thoughfully even provides a draft resolution to speed its adoption by each stakeholder muncipality), it strikes me as odd that the only 2 of the 10 I've heard discussed in any meaningful detail in  conjunction with this master plan are the supposed road improvements and the rail line. The fluff of the 10 points all sounds good, but as Ms. Mossie points out, it does seem like the underlying motive for the entire effort to toll is the "government run, public union-staffed, tax dollar subsidized public transportation system that will have absolutely no positive impact on the traffic that 422 commuters sit in every. Single. Day."

The resolution that our Board of Supervisors passed on July 1, 2010 did not carve out any of the ten options as ones they could not support. It endorsed all the 'principles and strategies' in the plan including the two which were primarily discussed, one of which was tolling 422, for however the money would ultimately be used.  In contrast, sister communities Upper Providence and Limerick Townships voted to support the plan but specifically excluded the 422 tolling provisions. As of at least September 2010, two other communities had opposed the master plan in its entirety.


Before tolling on 422 can become a reality, it needs the support of the state legislature, our governor, PennDOT and the federal Dept. of Transportation.  Our new governor has pledged that he will not raise taxes, and the argument can be made that a toll is a tax. Now is the time to contact your elected state and federal representatives and let them know where you stand on this topic, before tolling on 422 becomes a 'runaway train'.