Bridgeville’s Comprehensive Plan

Bridgeville is in the process of updating its long range Comprehensive Plan, for the first time since 2005. I have been involved in long term planning in both the commercial and academic worlds, and am a firm believer that it is a constructive concept, assuming it is updated regularly. I have been following Bridgeville’s efforts in this area for several years, dating back to the Covid era when Bridgeville Planning Commission meetings were available via Zoom. The foundation for the  process was laid then, and it is interesting to me to see how it has progressed.

The current effort began about a year ago with the hiring of Mackin Engineers and Consultants to manage the planning process. It began with surveys of stakeholders to identify areas of concern; followed by a public meeting last October, a business focus group meeting last March, and pair of public meetings (one virtual and one in-person) on August 16 to present a draft of the proposed recommendations.

I recognize that I have no right to participate in Bridgeville’s long-range planning process. I have not lived in the community since 1963. Nonetheless it will always be my home town, and I hope my comments will be considered as constructive.

I participated in both recent meetings and was impressed with the efficiency with which they were presented. The size of the audience for both was disappointing — three outside viewers for the virtual meeting, about two dozen for the in-person presentation. Following the virtual meeting, the outsiders were given the opportunity to make personal comments. The in-person presentation followed a different format; following the presentation, the audience was invited to visit four different stations, discuss specific issues with the presenters, write comments on Post-it notes, and stick them on a comment board.

The presentation began with a list of twelve typical aspirations for the future of the community, as proposed by residents and other stakeholders. Together, despite some minor contradictions, they were bundled into “Bridgeville Borough Vision”. I probably would have focused on exploiting being the contrast between a coherent community with a healthy “downtown” and the sprawling development-based townships that surround Bridgeville. Most of the aspirations fit that vision.

For their presentation, the consultants subdivided seventeen major recommendations into four categories – downtown and businesses; traffic, parking, and wayfaring; quality of life; and flooding. The most significant recommendation related to “downtown and businesses” was a potential long term mixed-use redevelopment project along Washington Avenue in the neighborhood between Bower Hill Road and the Wheeling and Lake Erie Railroad. I would have preferred to focus on improving the current business district, replacing vape shops and tattoo parlors with higher level shops and restaurants.

Surprisingly, the “traffic, parking, and wayfaring” area primarily ignored the frequently discussed congestion problem, except for a minor recommendation for improvements at the Prestley Road intersections. On reflection, most of the congestion complaints I hear are from Upper St. Clair folks eager to convert Bridgeville into an on-ramp for I-79. I certainly am in agreement with the recommendations to improve walkability within the community. I suggested, in both meetings, the addition of a pedestrian bridge linking James Street with the Library, complemented by a sidewalk between the Library and Station Street, on the south-east side of the railroad.

“Quality of life”, of course, is an obvious goal. Expanding use of the Library as a community center is a good beginning; increased financial support of the Library would be a fine investment for all concerned. Other cultural assets of Bridgeville include the churches, the History Center, the fraternal clubs, and Public Art Bridgeville. My suggestion was the construction of a modest Performing Arts Center with an auditorium seating about one hundred spectators for musical and dramatic presentations. Triangle Park is an excellent prototype for additional parklets; perhaps some of them could include recreational opportunities like pickle ball or basketball.

The “Flooding” category contained the most controversial recommendation –  abandoning the flood prone Baldwin Street neighborhood and converting it into a massive detention basin. This concept was originally proposed by an environmental firm after the June 2018 flood on McLaughlin Run. The inherent logical flaws in it still exist; I certainly hope the Borough Council reconsiders including it in the Comprehensive Plan. I continue to question the logic of the demolition of some of the houses on Baldwin Street. We photographed the Murray Toney home at 618 Baldwin Street two weeks before it was torn down; from the outside at it appeared to be in good condition. The plan to redevelop the “non-creek” side of Baldwin Street while abandoning the creek side ignores the fact that both sides are deep in the flood plain. Conversely, the recommendation that the ball field in McLaughlin Run Park be converted permanently into “a flood retention meadow with walking paths” is positive from the flood remediation standpoint and negative from a quality of life standpoint in a community already woefully short of recreational fields.

My principal suggestion in this topic area is that a serious program be initiated to eliminate the abandoned mine drainage pollution in McLaughlin Run. Recently Cecil and South Fayette townships combined successfully to clean up Millers Run, by constructing an unobtrusive active remediation facility for a reported initial cost of thirteen million dollars and an annual cost of one million dollars. Millers Run has four times the annual flow rate of McLaughlin Run and had seven times the pollution content. Any comprehensive plan for Quality of Life in Bridgeville’s future should at least consider this suggestion.

I am impressed with the overall planning process and with the effort already expended by the folks involved in it. I share their concern about the amount of input from the residents in Bridgeville. I wonder what the reaction would be if a copy of the presentation and the feedback survey were delivered to every household in the community.

Comments are closed.