.
Save Upper Allen is a grass roots group of concerned citizens with common interest in avoiding over development of the township. We are bi-partisan.
For 20+ years, the five member Board of Commissioners has been under the control of the same incumbents who encouraged rampant development and then raised our taxes from .25 to 2.75 mills – an eleven fold increase. There is a direct link between increased development and increased taxes.
Over development has placed tremendous burden on township services, the Mechanicsburg Area School District, and long time residents who are forced to help pay for it all.
Many long time residents bemoan the loss of what was once a landscape of beautiful farmland, scenic orchards, woods and streams, country roads and low-density housing that reinforces our local identity and heritage
There was a prior Save Upper Allen website in 2010 which shows just how long the push back against over development in Upper Allen has been mounting. .
The current website was started by Eric Fairchild in 2023 to provide detailed information on township issues and support his and Phil Walsh candidacy for Township Commissioners. Eric also developed the Friends of the Farm website in his years long effort to save the historic Lambert Farm on McCormick Rd. and steer Generations Park toward mostly passive use.
Eric and Phil won their election in 2023 and are now 24 months into their terms. The longtime incumbents have mostly stymied their efforts and recently used unethical means to reappoint one of their own (vs. 12 other applicants) to a Board Vacancy in order to continue their control of the Board Of Commissioners.
We continue our core message of “Save It Before They Pave It” and are proud to have supported Martha Judy Bailey and Marjorie Taylor in the 2025 election cycle. Judy will stay involved in Township affairs and continue her work on the South Trolley Greenway project. Marjorie continues to help with a new guidebook for UAT residents that live in the historic districts.
Policies that we support include more trails connecting neighborhoods and parks, land and open space preservation, historic preservation, no tax increases, and greater transparency.
As the website has grown, we are in process of reorganizing it along subject lines and are moving posts from the home page to the menu pages when time permits. For example, you may find older posts on Bishop Bridge on the home page and newer posts on the Bishop Bridge page.
If you would like to be kept apprised of new posts, please contact us and we will add your name to our email list.
We always enjoy engaging with residents and welcome your suggestions on how to make Upper Allen Township a better place to live.
.
December 9, 2025
The Bishop Road Bridge has been saved for an extended period of time
Per a letter received today from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection; Cumberland County does not have a valid permit to proceed with its planned demolition.
There is apparently a separate process that will need to be followed for a site
“identified in the latest published version of the Pennsylvania Inventory of Historical Places” and this could require an extended period of time.
This will allow the new Upper Allen Township Board of Commissioners and the Cumberland and York County Commissioners time to rationally re-evaluate their respective positions.
Our heartfelt thanks to the folks at the Pennsylvania Historic and Museum Commission (PHMC) and DEP for recognizing the significance of Bishop Bridge and helping to assure that the law is followed and the public interest protected.
December 9, 2025
County Nixes Bridge Extension
See December 8th post under Bishop Bridge
.
December 2, 2025
Upper Allen Township poised to save the historic 1898 Bishop Bridge.
Upper Allen Commissioners Eric Fairchild and Phil Walsh have been working with Commissioner-elect Karen Overly Smith since the November 4th election to further evaluate the historic Bishop Bridge and how best to rehabilitate and utilize it going forward.
Karen has toured the bridge several times and will vote with Eric and Phil at the January 5, 2026 Upper Allen Commissioners meeting to assume ownership of the bridge from Cumberland and York County.
In our opinion, the best course of action is to rehabilitate the bridge for limited vehicular use and to seek the cooperation of Messiah University in allowing the public to utilize the County built emergency access road as a walking trail connection to the stunningly beautiful Bishop Road area and bridge.
We believe the bridge can be fully rehabilitated using historic methods that will save time, money and lessen the environmental impact. It will also serve as a demonstration project for students and engineers interested in historic preservation of other metal truss bridges. There are only about 200 National Register eligible metal truss bridges still standing in Pennsylvania including Bishop.
The project is expected to cost $1.1 million and can be funded through County, State and Township funding streams. Taxpayers should realize they are already paying toward bridge projects when they renew their vehicle registration and/or put gas in their tank.
Special thanks to Cumberland and York County for their continued patience and understanding regarding changes in Upper Allen’s Board of Commissioners.
While the bridge has come perilously close to demolition through a recent bid solicitation; we believe the Cumberland County planning department, lead by Kirk Stoner, has developed a fair and appropriate timeline which allows Upper Allen one last opportunity to take prompt and definitive action.
Bishop Bridge will be on the Upper Allen Board of Commissioners Agenda for December 3, 2025 and on the Cumberland County Commissioners Agenda forDecember 4, 2025.
Those wishing to make written public comment may best do so through the Upper Allen Board Secretary, Alexis Minana, at aminana@uatwp.org
.
November 11, 2025
Karen Smith defeats Jim Cochran for Commissioner Seat
The provisional ballots have now been counted and Karen Smith has defeated Jim Cochran for the 2nd seat on the Upper Allen Board of Commissioners.
Congratulations to Karen! It is truly a new day in Upper Allen and we look forward to Karen joining the Board. Here is further info. on Karen from her campaign:
.
Here are the latest vote totals from Cumberland County:
.
November 4, 2025
General Election Results
Here are the unofficial election results for Upper Allen Township Commissioner per Cumberland County Bureau of Elections.
.
Congratulations to Jennifer Clark and Jim Cochran for their apparent victory. Given there is only a 4 vote difference between Jim Cochran and Karen Smith, we expect the County will carefully review write-in and provisional ballots.
Our heart goes out to Judy Bailey who made a great effort as a first time candidate. She intends to stay involved in township issues.
.
September 14, 2025
Bishop Bridge Update
Seth Kaplan and ABC 27 News have done a story on Bishop Bridge which can be found here. There are beautiful views of the bridge and its setting. Many people care about this bridge:
.
Cumberland and York County are apparently accelerating their plan to demolish Bishop Bridge per a meeting at the bridge on September 4th. The County had previously told the Carlisle Sentinel on July 11 the “Bridge could be demolished in early spring, 2026”; however, it is now “planning to bid the demolition within the next month and award by the end of October 2025 with demolition in early 2026.” Bishop Bridge is on the September 17, 2025 Commissioners meeting as Item 4a. See full post under Bishop Bridge on menu bar.
.
September 10, 2025
Future Land Use
On August 20, 2025, the Upper Allen Township Commissioners voted 4-1 to recommend changes to the Cumberland County Future Land Use (FLU) Map as adopted by the Cumberland County Commissioners on December 19, 2024. This map is part of the County’s new Comprehensive Plan. About 350 acres will now be changed from Suburban (back) to Rural. See full post under Development and Future Land Use.
.
May 20, 2025
Primary Results
Martha Judy Bailey has won a spot as Republican nominee for the General Election in November. Judy was 1 vote ahead of Marjorie Taylor and 296 votes behind Jim Cochran. Jason Saposnek trailed Marjorie by 38 votes.
The two unopposed Democrats; Jennifer Clarke and Karen Overly Smith, will proceed as the Democrat nominees.
Given the various political cross currents; it promises to be an interesting contest in November.
.
May 9, 2025
Message from Marjorie and Judy
Marjorie Taylor, Martha Judy Bailey, and the organization Save Upper Allen are independent voices committed to representing the interests of the residents of Upper Allen Township. Each brings a strong dedication to transparency in local governance, a creative and inclusive approach to community problem-solving, and a deep respect for the township’s historical and cultural heritage. Together, they advocate for a more engaged, informed, and forward-thinking local government.
Marjorie and Martha are grateful to Save Upper Allen for providing a public access point during this important transitional local election. We couldn’t do it without the support of their far-reaching following. We look forward to working with and listening to residents. Look for them in the parks this week and on your door hanger. Please let us know if you would like a yard sign.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
February 14, 2025
Jim is back in
The Upper Allen Township Vacancy Board has appointed Jim Cochran as Commissioner to serve out the remainder of Ginny Anderson’s term which expires December 31, 2025. Jim scored his “win” on the 2nd vote last night.
There were 12 other candidates and I challenge anyone to say they were given anything resembling fair consideration following their January 30th interviews.
This completes an apparent and well orchestrated plan by Ken Martin, Rick Castranio and Sharon Shipman to return Mr. Cochran to power following his defeat in the 2023 election.
Ms. Shipman is a former township employee and Board Secretary. She attended via Zoom even though she lives in Bowmansdale. She asked no questions of the candidates.
So, the pro development forces are now back in power even though the last thing UAT or the School District needs at this point is more residential development.
Watch carefully as they now try to avoid the issue of the Suburban (S) designations shown on the County’s Future Land Use map. “Nothing to see here folks”.
Messrs. Cochran, Martin and Castranio have a long record of being anti-history and the Bishop Bridge project is likely one of the first things they will target.
Robin Banks, Judy Bailey and Ray White made poignant comments about improving township communications, transparency, and the need for younger blood on the Board.
The Board received 4 written public comments which Solicitor Feinour suggested not be read into the record.
Yours truly nominated Mechanicsburg and Messiah University graduate (2011) Shannon Pennington on the 1st vote and her nomination was shot down with nary a reason why.
After the meeting, there was a lengthy off the record discussion between the Board and remaining public. This was beneficial but I doubt anything will change until we get a new elected Board with a new attitude.
Kenneth Mark, longtime MASD teacher and Director of the Oakes Museum said he went through the vacancy application process in good faith but ended up feeling that he didn’t matter.
My apologies for editorial bias but I see a political ring who are more adept at sneaky schemes vs. truly listening to residents or the will of voters. Others see this as well:
Written Public Comment #1
On November 7th, 2023 two democratic candidates running on the slogan of “Save it before they pave it” were elected as township commissioners in a county where Republican voter registrations outnumber Democratic registrations by over 25,000 registered voters. The results were a strong reprimand by the voters against Upper Allen township’s long history of relaxed regulation of development activity. When the results were counted, voters had decided to oust an incumbent commissioner who had a long history as a township commissioner. Residents voted with the hope that the natural splendor of their township could be saved and voted against unrestrained development that will result in a concrete laden future with higher tax rates due to strain on local infrastructure.
I urge those deciding today’s matter to not reverse the vote of the township’s citizens by instating a pro-development commissioner or reinstating a formerly ousted commissioner through murky administrative maneuvers. Let the people’s votes guide the selection. Regardless of what is decided today, you can only swim against the current for so long until you’ll be washed away. Citizens will cast their vote in future elections to correct any decisions or deciders they disagree with today.
I’ll end by commending our local elected officials for promoting what I call “bipartisan appreciation”. Your handling of matters is causing life-long conservatives, like myself, to appreciate the ideas of ethical and competent liberals. Well done?
February 12, 2025
Comparative Data and need for Public Comment at 02-13-25 Vacancy Hearing
For your consideration, I offer a comparison of various demographic and financial data for Upper Allen Township, Mechanicsburg Area School District and surrounding municipalities and school districts over a 20-25 year time horizon.
The attempt here is to identify key metrics and trends so we may better see how we compare as a community. Too much data can be counter productive and my goal here was to limit data to what fits on one page. Anyone can drill down deeper through the links provided at saveupperallen.com. The DCED files offer multiple ways to retrieve and analyze data. Note blue menu bar for taxes, finances, officials, etc.
What can be seen is a pattern of mostly rural, low tax townships, being turned into suburbia with ever increasing tax rates. And because building schools is one of the most expensive public endeavors of all, much financial burden gets placed on the school districts.
One trend that can be found by drilling down on the municipal side is that several of the more rural townships now derive more revenue from the (EIT) Earned Income Tax (generally .5% of the 1.7% rate) than from Real Estate Taxes. These townships include Monaghan, Monroe, South Middleton and Silver Spring.
Silver Spring is also notable for its Farmland Preservation program (funded by .1% EIT) that is on now on track to preserve 1,500+ acres. This results in less density, better finances, and a more attractive community with highly rated schools. A PDF copy of a recent program update is available upon request.
My experience on the Cumberland Perry Vo-Tech board (as 1 of 2 WSSD members) gave me insight to most area school districts. I got to know several long time School Board Presidents who became true friends and mentors. Two things they taught me are to beware of school construction projects and school district debt.
The square mile size of a school district is highly important for absorbing costs. There are also issues with staffing schools in an increasingly difficult labor market. All this puts pressure on educational quality.
It is difficult to measure educational quality based on test scores as they ebb and flow. After looking at several PA Department of Education data sets, I realized they are mostly school specific vs. overall district. There are also factors like teacher to student ratios that should be considered. This led me to public school review .com and their district ratings.
As an FYI, a childhood friend recently retired as a District Superintendent and I asked her how to tell a good school district. She said “I look to see if the children are happy and skipping down the halls”.
A key takeaway here is for Upper Allen residents to realize that MASD is not a large school district and UAT is putting tremendous strain on them and Mechanicsburg Borough by our rapid development. It should be an eye opener that MASD now has more debt than CV. This likely means MASD tax increases for as far as the eye can see.
There has been a push for development by UAT Commissioners for 20 years now and it’s high time this comes to an end. All we are doing is digging a deeper financial hole for ourselves.
There will be a public comment period prior to the “Nomination of Candidates and Voting on New Commissioner” at tomorrow’s Special Vacancy Board Hearing (starts at 5:00PM) and I urge residents to avail themselves to it. If you can’t make the meeting; public comments can be directed to Board Secretary, Alexis Minana at aminana@uatwp.org
https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2001/compendia/ccdb00/tabD2.pdf
https://apps.dced.pa.gov/munstats-public/ReportInformation2.aspx?report=mAfrForm
https://apps.dced.pa.gov/Munstats-public/ReportInformation2.aspx?report=taxes_Dyn_Excel
https://www.publicschoolreview.com/
https://4.files.edl.io/2ad6/02/21/24/155713-607a7f32-888e-41af-a683-896f112ac513.pdf
Please feel free to email me for a PDF copy of this:
.
.
February 10, 2025
Future Land Use Maps
Another issue that needs immediate attention from any new Upper Allen Township Commissioner is the recent change in the Future Land Use Map as part of the 2024 Cumberland County Comprehensive Plan. This plan was approved on December 19, 2024. See links and full size photos below.
The Upper Allen changes become evident when one compares the prior 2017 map to the 2024 map. The old map shows Rural/Agriculture (R) in brown vs. the new map which shows Rural (R) in light gray and Suburban (S) in light yellow.
The new map changes much of the East Lisburn Rd./Rt. 114 corridor (starting West of Arcona Rd.), western McCormick Rd., and Bishop Rd. from Rural/Agriculture (R) to Suburban (S).
Suburban is a broad land use category that includes (per the County’s definition) everything from single family housing, townhomes, apartments, commercial retail, office, and industrial uses with operations compatible with surrounding community.
Isn’t this something people should know about? Do UAT residents really want to open the doors to even more development at this point? Do we really want apartments along McCormick Rd.? Do the candidates for the Board Vacancy support this change?
A key phrase in land use planning is consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and/or future land use. Consistency is what developers argue when they request a zoning change. Unless amended, the door will be open for developers to request zoning changes so as to be “consistent” with the future land use map you see here.
What Phil Walsh and I found out in looking into the matter is that some of the larger Upper Allen land owners are not even aware of the change. Phil contacted one land owner and learned this is not a change he wants.
Phil and I happened to attend the Cumberland County Commissioners meeting on December 19th to speak about Bishop Bridge – and informally brought possible map errors to the attention of County staff. They were most gracious in hearing our concerns (especially about McCormick Rd. as a scenic gem and historic district) and expressed a willingness to amend the map if Upper Allen wishes.
To date, there has been no action by Chairman Ken Martin or Township staff to bring this issue before the Board Of Commissioners. As a “first class” Township, we should have already evaluated the map changes and pro actively responded to the County.
If a pro-development fox now gets in the henhouse; you can bet UAT will continue to delay action and a map amendment request to the County will never see the light of day.
https://gis.ccpa.net/comp-plan-maps/ 2017 map
https://gis.ccpa.net/labs/flu/?page=Main-Map 2024 map
February 6, 2025
Board Vacancy and Bishop Bridge Update
The true colors of Upper Allen Township Commissioner Chairman (Ken Martin), Vice Chairman (Rick Castranio) and Solicitor (Stephen Feinour) were on display last night as they shut down consideration of 9 of the 13 applicants to fill the Board Vacancy created by the resignation of Virginia Anderson.
After one round of nominations (for Jim Paulus, Jim Cochran, Jeff Williams and Barry Strock), the Solicitor ruled that the matter should be forwarded to the vacancy board to be Chaired by Sharon Shipman, the Tax Collector.
This ruling took yours truly by surprise as there was no indication it was coming and it was/is a total disservice to the 9 other candidates who applied – many of whom were sitting in attendance last night.
I’m not sure where the Solicitor got his law degree but there is no indication in Section 530 of the First Class Township Code that there need be only one round of nominations before moving the matter to the vacancy board.
Despite the Solicitor’s opinion, I nominated – and Phil Walsh seconded: Judy Bailey, Anthony Foschi, Jim Damschroder, Shannon Pennington, Kenneth Mark and Karen Smith. All these names were met with silence or NO from Ken Martin and Rick Castranio.
The irony is the majority of applicants nominated by Phil and myself are registered Republican and there were still 3 other Republicans in the mix that received zero consideration: Steve Leasure, Eric Clancy and Mike Lucas.
Where we go from here is unclear. The rules are made up as we go along. It is apparent that Ken Martin and crew expect Sharon Shipman to support the preferred insider nominee – Jim Cochran.
This afternoon I received word that the vacancy board meeting will be held Thursday February 13th at 5:00pm. Unlike last night, Manager Fraser expects Board members will take turns nominating a candidate, voting and then continuing the process until someone receives three votes.
In other news, the Township has received a favorable response from Cumberland County regarding Bishop Bridge. A time extension has been granted and the County is offering $275,000 to go toward the bridge rehabilitation. On the petition front, 214 people have now signed the change .org petition to save Bishop Bridge vs. 15 to not spend any taxpayer $ on the bridge.
January 20, 2025
Glen Allen Mill / McCormick Rd. Bridge – Next on the chopping block?
While out for a walk on McCormick Rd. last weekend, I came upon a group of happy people taking photos of themselves with a newly wed couple on the Glen Allen Mill/McCormick Rd. bridge. It was a happy occasion and they didn’t mind me taking my own photo of them. The bride was a good sport to stand there in the cold for so long.
This post is to draw your attention to how our beautiful historic bridges are used and to let everyone know why they are under threat of demolition by the County’s unless townships like Upper Allen and Monaghan get their act together on how to save them.
It comes down to current York and Cumberland County policy for older, low usage bridges like Bishop (#249) and McCormick (#253). The policy is basically to not maintain them and, when they fail inspection – move to close/demolish or offer for “turn-back” to the Townships. The County system is based on a “lead” for each bridge.
See the link and PDF below for more information by York County:
https://yorkcountypa.gov/338/County-Bridge-Program
https://yorkcountypa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1375/2019-York-County-Bridge-Plan-PDF?bidId=
Per the 2019 policy guide, Bishop was then rated as a “D” and McCormick as a “C”. Here is the specific language for “C” bridges like McCormick:
“All bridges in Group C will be offered for turn-back to the municipality. The exception is a bridge that joins two municipalities. These will likely not be considered because of the complexity of joint ownership regarding agreements for funding by two different entities. Municipalities were made aware if they had a Group C bridge and that these bridges are a low priority for the County.”
A careful reading of the above shows how/why it made/makes sense for Upper Allen to step forward to assume ownership of Bishop Bridge, especially with the pending demolition. As explained elsewhere, there was/is little time to have sought grants and Monaghan has much less resources to work with than Upper Allen.
On the Glen Allen Mil/McCormick Bridge, given the longer timeline, it likely makes sense for Monaghan to take the lead on ownership and then try for an LSA, PennDOT or other historic type grant for the restoration. There are multitude of grants that could be applied so as to avoid having to pay full cost at the township level. UAT needs to be talking to Monaghan Township about #253.
By my count:
Lower Allen has or is in process of restoring 3 historic bridges:
#257 Sheepford Road Bridge (pending rehabilitation as pedestrian bridge)
#258 Slate Hill Road Bridge (restored 2022)
#260 Green Lane Drive Bridge (successive rehabilitations starting in the 1980’s)
Upper Allen has or is in process of demolishing 3 historic bridges:
#248 Gilbert Bridge (metal truss bridge on National Register demolished 2008 and replaced with concrete bridge)
#249 Bishop Bridge (metal truss, NR eligible to be demolished 2025 unless immediate action taken)
#253 McCormick Bridge (headed toward demolition unless UAT or Monaghan intervene.)
Here is what Cumberland/Lower Allen and York/Fairview have done with the 1860 Slate Hill Rd. Bridge:
https://csdavidson.com/project/slate-hill-road-bridge-rehabilitation/
Note that C.S. Davidson is also UAT’s contracted engineer and the intent was/is to have them oversee quality control/inspection of the Bishop Bridge project.
Please sign the petition to save Bishop Bridge if you haven’t done so already.
We are up to 130 signatures at this writing and the County’s may decide to move forward with demolition this week. There is no need to donate to change .org
Petition · Save the 1898 Bishop Road Bridge – United States · Change.org
January 9, 2025
Report on 01-08-25 Commissioners Meeting
The Commissioners deadlocked last night (2-2 vote) on whether to accept ownership of Bishop Bridge. After much discussion, it was decided 3-1 (with Martin, Fairchild and Walsh “for” and Castranio “against”) to notify the County of the impasse.
The communication to the County is to include some suggested conditions that could make accepting ownership of the bridge more feasible and to seek a 45 day extension. Part of the difficulty in making a decision last night was the board vacancy created by the resignation of Ginnie Anderson.
There were 10 written public comments received. 8 were in favor and 2 were against. There were 6 public speakers. 2 were in favor (Don Paul Shearer and Janice Lynx), 1 was neutral (Barry Strock), and 3 were against (Jim Cochran, Jeff Williams and Mike Klinepeter).
The bridge discussion was amicable but there were disagreements on what the project may cost, whether WIBW was fully responsive to the RFP, whether the county would provide the money set aside for demolition, how many people would use the bridge, etc.
Phil and Eric are trying to “do the right thing” on the bridge. “Do the right thing” used to be part of the Township’s mission statement but it can no longer be found on the township website.
Hopefully, the county will see how close we are to saving the bridge and “do the right thing” itself by giving us some more time to bring on a new board member.
Commissioners accepted Ginnie Anderson’s resignation and discussed how to proceed in appointing someone to finish Ginnie’s term which expires December 31, 2025.
The Commissioners have 30 days to appoint someone to fill the position. If they can’t make a decision in 30 days, the matter goes before the vacancy board which is comprised of the 4 sitting Commissioners and Ms. Sharon Shipman (the tax collector).
The vacancy is now posted on the Township at
https://cms3.revize.com/revize/upperallen/Board%20of%20Commissioners%20Vacancy%20Information.pdf
This is not official, but the timeline for making the appointment should go something like this:
January 09 – begin advertising vacancy on township website
January 17 – application submission deadline
January 22 – BOC meeting w/review of applications
January 30 – possible special meeting to interview applicants
February 5 – BOC meeting to select applicant
February 19 – new Commissioner seated
Yours truly is in favor of as open and transparent a process as possible. The bridge discussion shows how much we need board members capable of making complex decisions based on merit vs. politics.
Another important vote last night was to approve (4-0) Upper Allen’s sponsorship of a $1,000,000 LSA grant application on behalf of West Shore Christian Academy. The grant will help support a project involving construction of a state-of-the art gymnasium at the former Delta Dental building at 5091 Louise Drive. The building will be converted for use as a high school with expected enrollment of 400 students. The project is expected to conclude by February 2027.
January 7, 2025
A Plea For Bishop Bridge
The Upper Allen Township Commissioners are to vote Wednesday, January 8th, on whether to accept ownership of the historic 1898 Bishop Bridge. If the township doesn’t want ownership, Cumberland County intends to demolish the bridge in 2025.
The Carlisle Sentinel published a front page story about the situation on Sunday, January 5th. See below for details. Kudos to the Sentinel for it’s timely and fair coverage.
The township has received a proposal to fully rehabilitate the bridge for less than $900,000 (already budgeted). The County will likely spend $400,000 to demolish it.
As noted in the article, there has been back and forth about how county funds could be shifted to the township to put toward the project. This will reduce overall project costs.
There has been consideration of pedestrian use with emergency access and/or vehicular use. There have been delays and the County now wants a decision.
Commissioner Virginia Anderson resigned from the Board on December 31. So, this decision will be made by 4 Commissioners instead of 5.
What has been lacking in all the discussion is public input by residents about how they feel about Bishop Bridge and how they would like to see it used?
The bridge is in a (beautiful!) isolated area of the Township behind Messiah University and some residents may not know it even exists. There already is a paved emergency access road to the University which likely could be used as a walking trail connection.
The are only about 200 metal truss bridges left in Pennsylvania that are eligible for the National Register. Bishop is one of them.
Demolishing the bridge doesn’t mean another bridge won’t be built there in the future. In fact, the Bishop Rd. area is now designated as (S) Suburban in the future land use map per the 2024 County Comprehensive Plan.
Any new concrete bridge would be wider and likely cost 3 to 4 times the amount of the proposal in hand.
Please email the Board Secretary, Alexis Minana, at aminana@uat.org or come to the Board meeting and share your thoughts. When it’s gone, it’s gone.
Sincerely,
Eric Fairchild
The Sentinel article can be viewed at:
Here are some excerpts:
If commissioners vote to accept, they could also vote on a proposal to hire a contractor to rehabilitate the bridge, (Township Manager) Fraser said. A majority vote of no on ownership would render the proposal moot.
“We’re waiting to see what the township wants to do,” County Planner Kirk Stoner said last week. If township officials decide against ownership, plans will move forward to demolish the bridge, he said.
Township Commissioner Eric Fairchild said he first became aware of the plan to demolish the bridge in late February. He noticed reports from the township solicitor about the review of right-of-way involved for a cul-de-sac on the Upper Allen side.
“We went through a process to evaluate the bridge [and] its function,” Stoner said. “Working with the township and its residents, we repaired it in 2014. We also constructed an access road through Messiah College that would connect into the Bishop Road area. We communicated to the public at that time that if the bridge had other repairs in the future, we wouldn’t be performing those repairs. We would be closing the bridge permanently.”
In a phone interview, Fairchild said he favors this lower-cost option over the more expensive and conventional approach of bringing in one or more cranes so that crews could do the rehab work over the water. A 2023 estimate on that option came in at about $2.7 million.
Like Fairchild, fellow commissioner Phil Walsh is in favor of moving forward with the Wrought Iron proposal to rehab the bridge. They want to preserve it for its historical value and other benefits.
“There are so few of these bridges left anymore,” Walsh said. “To lose this one would just be a shame. It would be a wonderful addition to the celebrations that we are planning throughout 2025.”
“There are those who want to preserve the bridge just for the historic aesthetic of it,” said Ken Martin, president of the township’s board of commissioners. “I’m not opposed to that, but I’m not particularly interested in spending a lot of resources on that. There are other needs in the township that would benefit far more residents than that bridge. If we can find a way to preserve it and still make it vehicle accessible, I am in support of that. But I’m not in support of just preserving the bridge for pedestrians because it leads to nowhere.”
January 7, 2025
Further Information On Bishop Bridge
Considerable research and work has gone into finding a viable and cost effective way to rehabilitate Bishop Bridge. This has largely been accomplished. What you see above is how simple it all can be.
Cumberland County and Upper Allen Township now have the opportunity to “lead by example” in showing other PA municipalities how it can be done. This information can hopefully serve as a guide.
What follows is further background info., links, photos and a (bonus!) video by Phil Walsh at the end which includes a drive across Bishop Bridge.
Historic Bridges is the leading information source for metal truss bridges. Nathan Holth, its founder, has made a heroic, 20+ year, effort to help save these bridges.
Please read Nathan’s December 24, 2024 heartfelt post on Skinners Fall Bridge in Millanville, PA to fully understand what is at stake here:
Bishop Road Bridge – HistoricBridges.org
Skinners Falls Bridge (Milanville – Skinners Falls Bridge) – HistoricBridges.org
David Morrison, long time leader of Historic Harrisburg Association, has special interest in Bishop Bridge and the bridge is listed on the Association’s watch list.
Bishop Bridge – Historic Harrisburg Associationch
Bishop Bridge was built by the Wrought Iron Bridge Company of Canton, Ohio in 1898. It was shipped as a “kit” to Bowmansdale, PA by rail and assembled on site. The original cost of the bridge was appx. $5,000.
WIBC was a prolific bridge builder that was merged (by J.P. Morgan) into American Bridge Co. in 1902. Note Bishop Bridge is listed as a surviving WIBC bridge by wikipedia:
Wrought Iron Bridge Company – Wikipedia
This ‘Illustrated Pamphlet” from 1882 shows the types of WIBC bridges and how they were marketed across the country. The single intersection Pratt Truss is shown on pg. 6:
PennDOT and PA SHPO have a Historic Metal Truss Bridge Management Plan intended “to address the accelerating loss of historic metal truss bridges throughout the state”. This 2023 update shows how dire the situation is becoming with a loss of 43 more bridges in 5 years and only 372 remaining (208 NR Eligible):
Update on PennDOT’s Historic Metal Truss Bridge Management Plan – Pennsylvania Historic Preservation
This 2017 Preservation Assessment by Gannett Fleming is important for determining that Bishop Rd. Bridge is eligible for listing on the National (Historic) Register under “Criterion C” for “technological significance”. (see pg. 2).
Note that Mr. Joe Botchie, long time member (and former Chairman) of the Upper Allen Township Historic Architecture Review Board, was also a long time President of Gannett Fleming Architects. Joe led our initial inspection of Bishop Bridge and helped in charting a course of action. On the day we inspected the bridge last March, about a dozen people came walking by:
PDF of Gannett Fleming Preservation Assessment above can be shared by request.
In July, 2021, Upper Allen Township had its (contracted) engineering firm, C.S. Davidson, perform a “Extended Effort (Special) Bridge Inspection Report”. C.S. Davidson can help the township with further inspections should the rehabilitation proceed.
PDF of C.S. Davidson Executive Summary of above can be shared by request.
The issue facing many municipalities is how to rehabilitate these historic bridges for a reasonable cost? A 2023 estimate by HRG Engineers pegs the cost of rehabilitating Bishop Rd. Bridge at $2,700,000 using the conventional (crane) approach.
Screen shot of HRG estimate is included in photos below.
The bridge can be viewed as a large erector set – that can be taken apart in reverse order of assembly by those familiar with historic methods such as “hot riveting”.
Here are further details showing how it can be done. The bridge shown above is Red Mill Bridge in Cambria County. The disassembly was done by WIBW in January, 2022 and witnessed by Janice Lynx of West Shore Historic Society and PA SHPO.
See memo on Bridge Removal Without A Large Crane in photos.
Other disassembly photos are shown below.
The proposal to rehabilitate the bridge is by Mr. Art Suckewer and Wrought Iron Bridge Works of Franklin Park, NJ. This is not yet a public document. Note that WIBW is big on following the Secretary Of Interior standards and using higher quality / fade resistant paint vs. standard spec DOT paint.
The latest letters from the County are shown below in the photos. The County has been most helpful and it is understandable that they would like UAT to decide on a course of action.
Total UAT budget for 2025 is $30,452,120 with no tax increase. There is $900,000 in the budget (from Capital Reserve Fund) to rehabilitate Bishop Bridge in 2025 (see pages 2 and 18). This may be offset by a contribution by the County; however, this is not included in the budget. Should other funding come through for Bishop Bridge, the net cost to the Township will be less than the $900,000 budgeted.
Please take special note of a $345,000 expenditure on page 25 of the budget for “Vehicular Bridge Replacement”. This is not related to Bishop Bridge but it provides a useful comparison. The $345,000 is for an appx. 20 ft. bridge on McCormick Rd. (near the intersection with Ford Farm Rd.) that many people wouldn’t even recognize as a bridge as it more resembles a stormwater pipe. The county is understood to be providing up to $200,000 funding assistance for this bridge.
https://cms3.revize.com/revize/upperallen/2025%20Budget%20Complete%20-%20Website.pdf
The 2013 UAT Comprehensive Plan shows Bishop Bridge on the National Register; however it was Gilbert Bridge (now demolished) that was on the register. Had the techniques shown here been utilized for Gilbert Bridge, its possible that bridge too could have been saved – at much less cost than what was incurred.
National Register of Historic Places listings in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania – Wikipedia
Multiple studies show that properties on the National Register add economic value:
https://dahp.wa.gov/sites/default/files/EconomicValue_ofNR_Listing.pdf
Ms. Janice Lynx has made a remarkable effort to save Sheepford Bridge (in nearby Lower Allen Township) and has provided invaluable guidance on this project. Sheepford is to be rehabilitated as a pedestrian bridge. Janice is also Director of the West Shore Historical Society:
Follow Your Heart: Save Our Bridge – Preservation Pennsylvania
Celebrating the Friends of Sheepford Road Bridge – Pennsylvania Historic Preservation
Sheepford Road Bridge – West Shore Historical Society
PHMC works with PennDOT on historic bridges. Mr. Frank Grumbine is the regional preservation coordinator for our area.
https://pahistoricpreservation.com/meet-the-new-shpo-staff/
https://pahistoricpreservation.com/update-penndots-historic-metal-truss-bridge-management-plan/
https://pahistoricpreservation.com/new-funding-source-for-metal-truss-bridges/
Ms. Veronica Martin leads the PennDOT metal truss bridge program. She has historic and engineering credentials and has provided assistance with the Bishop Bridge project. Ms. Kara Russell has also helped with guidance on PennDOT policy.
https://pahistoricpreservation.com/fall-love-with-metal-truss-bridge/
https://pahistoricpreservation.com/oer-the-bridge/
Here is an example of a nearby metal truss bridge rehabilitated for vehicular use:
https://pahistoricpreservation.com/preserving-york-countys-hull-drive-bridge/
Here is Red Mill bridge done by WIBW team:
O’er the Bridge We Go! – Pennsylvania Historic Preservation
Here is Brooks Bridge done by WIBW team:
https://www.clrconstruction.org/iron-bridges/brooks-bridge/
https://www.clrconstruction.org/iron-bridges/brooks-bridge/brooks-bridge-gallery/
Here is Wilson Bridge done by WIBW team members in 2007. Note Jim Barker was the engineer on this project. Jim helped develop bridge rehabilitation guidelines used by the National Park Service. The paint has faded but there are no other issues. The 122′ long bridge remains open to traffic with a 14 ton rating.
https://www.clrconstruction.org/iron-bridges/wilsons-bridge/
https://www.clrconstruction.org/iron-bridges/wilsons-bridge/wilson-bridge-gallery/
Here is the “new” 2024 Comprehensive Plan for Cumberland County and the Future Land Use Map. The 2017 plan and map are provided for comparison.
2024 Comprehensive Plan:
2024 Future Land Use Map:
https://gis.ccpa.net/labs/flu/?page=Main-Map
2017 Comprehensive Plan. Note it contains much more detail on historic resources:
2017 Future Land Use Map:
https://cumberlandcountypa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/28870/2017-Future-Land-Use-Map-Adopted?bidId=
Messiah University is located appx. 1/2 mile from Bishop Bridge and has several Engineering programs. Our hope is that Messiah may want to become involved in this project as a teaching tool for students.
Majors, minors, and programs | Messiah, a private Christian University in PA
Here is a great tutorial on restoration methods:
Here are some photos of Bishop and other YB bridges:
Photos: Six historic bridges on the Yellow Breeches Creek
Photos of Bishop Bridge taken in 1933 are shown below.
Last, but not least, is a special video prepared by Phil Walsh. Here you can see what its like to drive across Bishop Bridge:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1M9v8bSOm_ypJ6wBHSt2k5HhHfsS5iRxh/view
Photos:
November 24, 2024:
Generations Park presentation at Park & Rec. Meeting, Tuesday, November 26th @ 6:30 p.m.
The BOC voted 3-2 to proceed with the $1,000,000 LSA grant application at it’s November 20th meeting. Myself and Phil Walsh support more trails but voted “no” because staff gave us insufficient detail and we felt like we were being asked to sign a blank check.
The current plan was not shown at the BOC meeting. The good news is the engineer later said the next phase will focus primarily on building 4,500 ft. (about .85 mile) of perimeter trail for $1,000,000. This should complete the loop. This compares to the current 4,600 ft. (+ parking & stormwater) phase now being wrapped up for $858,000.
The complete C.S. Davidson master plan is not on the Township website for whatever reason. If you want to see what is coming next, please come to the Park & Rec meeting.
November 19, 2024:
Current work nearing completion at Generations Park
The current trails, parking, roads and stormwater project at Generations Park is nearing completion and myself and Commissioner Phil Walsh inspected the work on Sunday, November 17, 2024. This work was bid in June 2024 at a cost of $858,000. Total spending on the farm/park is likely approaching $3 million at this point.
We don’t have a date for when the park is to be opened to the public; however a plan to do so before the end of the year is understood to now be in process. As advocated previously, the sooner the public has access to the site, the better for residents to judge for themselves what should be done moving forward.
C.S. Davidson construction drawing, Master Infrastructure Plan (still not shown on township website) and Derck & Edson Master Plan (for comparison) are as follows.
We started where the new trail connects with the driveway off McCormick Rd. – across from where the 1855 Lambert farmhouse now sits.
The perimeter trail looks well built and there is good visual and physical separation from McCormick Rd. The trails follow the contour of the land vs. heavy grading.
We noticed the trails seemed wider than the 8 ft. specified. They measure a little over 9 ft. wide. This change was made without BOC authorization and it may be on the contractor to correct it or provide compensation.
The emergency access road is 12 ft. wide as per spec. By comparison, McCormick Rd. is 15 ft. wide. See photo with cones. The leg to the barn is to be completed in a later phase.
The barn has been cordoned off with 6 ft. high security fencing. There continues to be no BOC discussion on what to do with the barn or office/annex. Re-routing of electric service also needs consideration.
Stormwater endwalls are plastic and formed to resemble gray stone. Some outlets drain water near steep slopes and neighbor’s property which could create an issue. Large retention ponds have been built on the northwest side of the property and this area now looks more man made than natural.
The long stretch of perimeter trail along the West side of the property looks nice and has enough jogs and turns to feel natural and make things interesting.
Our concern is that many trail sections will eventually be crowded by roadways, parking lots and ill placed features that will detract from the beautiful setting. Unless the park roadways have good separation, are narrow and low speed (10-15 mph), people who come out for a quiet walk or picnic may eventually find cars whizzing by.
While it has been advertised as a trail project; the bulk of the current work and bid $ are going to roadway excavation, site and stormwater work, and finish grading and seeding.
A large area has been excavated for parking and connecting trails. This area is for 20 cars and is the first of 7 parking areas. The C.S. Davidson plan contemplates eventual parking for 547 cars total.
One can see the gleaming asphalt as you enter the park from the Rt. 114 side. Imagine even more parking areas filled with cars and you can visualize what we have been warning about – that parking will overwhelm what is to be primarily a passive park.
The rationale for the large amount of parking is a 660 seat amphitheater – which received only 4% of acorn votes at the public input sessions. If Upper Allen residents really wanted an amphitheater; it would make more sense to build one (or an outdoor stage) at Winding Hills park where we already have 500+ paved parking spaces and restroom facilities.
By far, the worst aspect of the current work are the 8 ft. + wide interior trails to and from the parking area. This results in a cluttered landscape and redundant paved trails that crisscross each other – as if no one should ever have to step on grass or gravel. It is hard to tell the difference between trails and roadways in the photos because the trails are so wide.
While the dust has yet to settle (literally) on the work that has been done; the BOC Agenda for Wednesday November 20, 2024 includes a request to seek a $1,000,000 LSA grant to “further develop walking trails at Generations Park.” See staff memo below.
This is putting the cart before the horse as the full BOC and public have no information on what is proposed next or what it will cost. While grants can be good; signing off on one without any information raises concern. Here is a link to the DCED Guidelines:
https://dced.pa.gov/download/pa-gaming-statewide-local-share-account-guidelines-2022/?wpdmdl=113332
We have previously suggested reconfiguring (shortening) the loop drive and eliminating the amphitheater to maintain more open space – without any meaningful response by staff or the engineer. Options need to be presented.
The project should not move forward without more public input on the amphitheater issue and detailed study of pocket parking vs. parking lots. A landscape architect should be brought back in to review and tweak the engineers work.
Do you like what you see in the photos? Any suggestions?
We urge those interested to leave public comment on the township website or attend the BOC meeting tomorrow night. There are many questions that can be asked about what is going on and what comes next at Generations Park.
Some additional full size photos and information:
September 22, 2024:
Sign Ordinance Update and September 24, 2024 Hearing
Thanks to all those who took the time to make public comment on the township website or at the June 19, 2024 hearing regarding the new Sign Ordinance.
This public input truly helped the Commissioners and Township Staff in trying to balance the need for an attractive community vs. the need for adequate identification, communication and advertising.
For legal and procedural reasons, the June, 2024 draft was approved by the BOC at it’s August 21, 2024 meeting and then immediately amended.
A 7 page “redlined version” of these amendments is posted on the township website and another public hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, September 24, 2024 at 6:00 p.m.
https://uatwp.org/Ordinance-Draft1-Redlined.pdf
Key amendments include the following. Please refer to the draft for complete wording:
Pg 1 Section 2 Table XVIII-1 permits one (1) wall, window, or projecting sign for home based businesses/home occupations in the Agriculture, Residential and Planned Residential Districts. Maximum sign area shall be 2 square feet. [This compares to 8 square feet previously]. Also, one freestanding monument sign of 12 square feet will be permitted in the Ag district [Same as prior draft].
Pg. 1 Section 3 Table XVIII-2 permits two (2) signs per lot (with exceptions) in the Commercial, Mixed Use, Institutional and Industrial Districts. [This compares to baseline of 3 signs per lot previously].
Pg. 2 Section 6 Additional standards in all districts, Subsection Q, shall be amended for Properties with one or more non-residential uses located in the Highway Commercial District (C-2) which abut the street line of the PA Turnpike or U.S. Route 15. Certain properties may have one additional wall or freestanding sign, provided: (a) The sign shall not exceed 100 square feet in size… [This compares to 300 square feet previously].
Pg. 2 Section 7 Electronic message centers, Subsection V, shall be amended as follows: B. EMC signs shall be limited to one (1) per lot or property. [This compares to 2 EMC’s previously].
Pg. 3 Section 9 Master Sign Plan, Subsection E (3) shall be added as follows: … (3) Properties which abut the Pennsylvania Turnpike and/or Route 15. No deviations from Sec. 245.18.13 Q herein shall be permitted except the sign area may be increased to a maximum of 150 square feet. [This compares with no maximum square feet previously]. Note Master Sign Plans are for certain properties in C-2 and Institutional Districts and are by conditional use only.
These changes accomplish most of my previous suggestions and I feel staff has given fair consideration to the comments received.
Residents should know that each time ordinance amendments are made; there needs to be a 30 day window for review by the Cumberland County Planning Commission.
If anyone has additional comments; I urge you to use the “Leave A Public Comment” on the township website or attend the September 24th hearing.
If approved, the Board will likely adopt and enact the amendments its regular meeting on October 2, 2024.
June 19, 2024:
Township staff has kindly developed another map of additional signs that (could be) permitted under the proposed Sign Ordinance amendment. This map includes the PA Turnpike area in addition to the prior map which was for Rt. 15 only. The hearing is this afternoon at 4:00 pm. Public comment is also being accepted on the township website at:
https://uatwp.org/i_want_to/learn_about_find/ordinance_amendments.php
Here is a link to a various studies on digital signs:
https://www.scenic.org/take-action/resources/digital-billboard-studies/
June 16, 2024:
Upper Allen Sign Ordinance Hearing on June 19th – Please make a public comment
by Eric Fairchild
A public hearing is scheduled at 4:00 pm on Wednesday, June 19th to consider amendments to the Upper Allen Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 245. This includes “to repeal and replace in its entirety, Article XVIII, Signs”. See:
https://uatwp.org/i_want_to/learn_about_find/ordinance_amendments.php#collapse1180b1
While this is billed as an update to the 2006 ordinance that incorporates “new best practices, federal and state court decisions, modern definitions and the use of images and charts to better explain regulations” – the result will be a substantial increase in the number and size of signs allowed in Upper Allen.
Total square footage (sf) of signage could easily double or triple under this proposal. The increases can be seen in the Comparison Chart(s) and Potential Electronic Message Centers (EMC’s) map that has been prepared by township staff at the above link.
In the Highway Commercial (C-2), Professional Office (PO), and Industrial (IND) districts; the number of allowable signs will go from 2 to 3 signs per lot. These districts are shown in Red, light Blue, and Gray on the Zoning Map. In these districts; the size of Freestanding Monument signs will go from 25 sf. to 50 sf., Freestanding Pole signs will go from 30 sf. to 60 sf., and Wall signs will go from <40 sf. to 100 sf.
Digital/EMC signs are proliferating and replacing traditional signs. These are typically LED with changeable message and/or graphic presentation. They are generally brighter than ambient light levels. In C-1, C-2, PO, INS and IND districts, two (2) EMC signs would be allowed per property vs. one (1) per property now.
Section 245-18.13 Q allows properties abutting Route 15 or the PA Turnpike in the C-2 and IND districts to have one (1) additional sign not to exceed 300 sf. These are big signs in relation to the others – and they can be digital.
The EMC Potential map for Rt. 15 shows there could be fifteen (15) additional 300 sf. EMC signs in the C-2 district and seven (7) additional 300 sf. EMC signs in the IND district. Many are spaced close together vs. billboards which must be spaced 500 feet apart.
There are numerous exceptions and other conditions in the proposed text. There is a Master Sign provision (245-18.18) that may allow additional signage for some larger properties in the C-2 and INS districts. The Master Sign provision alone could likely address most of the concerns with the present ordinance – without creating more signage everywhere else.
A history of Zoning Hearing Board decisions since 2019 summarizes the eight (8) variances sought by businesses. Most of these were for wall signs which the draft ordinance now addresses by allowing 100 sf. of wall signage vs. 40 sf. before.
I would summarize the proposal as: more signs, bigger signs, brighter signs and extra signs. Taken together, the result will be excessive IMO.
My suggestion is that we allow 1 sign in the AG district and keep the current (baseline) limit of 2 signs in the other districts. This would still allow for larger freestanding and wall signs and the Master Sign provision. EMC’s should be kept to 1 per property or a % of freestanding signs. The additional 300 sf. signs along US 15 should be allowed only under the Master Sign provision.
One thing lacking in the process so far is a comparison chart to what other townships currently allow; i.e., Hampden, Lower Allen, etc. I have suggested using Manheim Township in Lancaster County as a model.
The current ordinance has helped keep Upper Allen attractive and it has not stopped businesses from locating here.
Board of Commissioners decisions are often made with little public input and 4:00 pm not the best time for many people to attend a public hearing.
There is a “Leave A Public Comment” feature on the township website page shown above and I encourage people to use it – especially on this issue.
If just 100 people (out of a population of 23,000+) would take the time to comment, it could change the outcome.
Unless there is more input and pushback from the public; the majority Commissioners will likely vote for this Ordinance as written and more of Upper Allen will look like the Carlisle Pike.
Actually, we may look busier than the Carlisle Pike. Out of curiosity, I looked at the Hampden Township sign ordinance and noticed they limit sign area to 250 sf. per “zone lot” (1721-3 E) and allow only one (1) digital sign per lot (1721-4 L2).
May 16, 2024:
Generations Park Plan moves forward
by Eric Fairchild
The Board of Commissioners voted 3-2 last night to proceed with a bid for trails, roads and parking at Generations Park. Ken Martin, Rick Castranio and Virginia Anderson voted yes. Myself and Phil Walsh voted no.
There were speakers for and against the proposal. As I listened to them I couldn’t help but think it really comes down to values. Those that value nature and those that value what they see as progress.
What you see in the photo is now slated to be paved with 8 ft. wide trails and emergency access road. The paddock in the far background is slated to become a 350 person pavilion unless the C.S. Davidson Master Plan gets altered.
This phase will consume the ARPA grant and the last of the bond money.
Ken Martin and I have had some productive discussions on how to improve accountability and transparency going forward and I’m optimistic that will occur.
May 12, 2024:
Generations Park Plans
by Eric Fairchild
Trails, parking, and access road(s) for Generations Park are on the Board of Commissioners Agenda (as Item 7a) for the May 15 (Wednesday) meeting.
Township staff is recommending a bid advertisement for approximately 4,600 lineal feet of ADA compliant paved trails, 1,300 ft. stone access drive extension, 20 space stone parking lot and stormwater improvements as designed by C.S. Davidson engineers.
I offer the following information and personal opinion regarding what is now being proposed. Most of this information is not on the township website for whatever reason.
Trails are a popular feature at parks and I support developing them at Generations Park so people can become more familiar with the 59 acre farm site between Rt. 114 and McCormick Rd. We will all have better ideas for how the site should be developed once we can access it.
There are many trails previously identified that myself and fellow commissioners can likely agree on now so we can move forward using 2024 funds available; however, there are larger issues such as:
⁃ Transparency and accountability
⁃ Project management and scope of work
⁃ The priorities and order in which we proceed
⁃ Budget
⁃ Elimination of features with intensive parking needs and location of initial parking.
⁃ Elimination of redundant trails and roads so we can lower costs and keep the site as natural as possible.
Trail design has changed in recent years and the current recommended standard is for trails to be 8 ft. wide. This doesn’t mean every trail needs to be 8 ft. wide – or paved to be ADA compliant. Upper Allen has few trails this wide at other parks because they were built to earlier standards. Most other trails are 4-6 ft. wide.
Stone, gravel or similar materials are generally less expensive than asphalt and provide a more natural look. The issue with stone trails is they require more maintenance, can wash out, and are sprayed with herbicide per current UAT practice. For these reasons, UAT staff is asking for paved trails.
The 2024 trail work will mostly be on the North and West side of the farm and a (newly proposed) trail running parallel to McCormick Rd. The trail shown on the West side is really a road as it will be 12’ ft. wide and serve as emergency access drive (through the bird watching and butterfly meadows?) to the barn.
There are differences in the trails now proposed vs. those proposed in the 2022 County grant application. A trail parallel to McCormick Rd. has been added and boardwalk and trail near the Senior Area is now being omitted. This could be viewed as bait and switch.
The estimated cost of the 2024 work is $1,034,530 and it is to be paid for (mostly) using the $450,000 of grant from Cumberland County and $548,071 from the 2021 bond issue.
The cost of the prior Lisburn Entrance Road work was $447,131. The fees paid to C.S. Davidson for Generation Park work so far have been $220,162. By comparison, the township paid $1,100,000 for the entire farm in April, 2020 and total fees paid to Derck & Edson were $41,954.
One can see how UAT will easily spend $4 million just to establish infrastructure under the present course of over development. This would be before any money is spent on features such as renovation of the Barn or Senior Park. This ties in with previous estimates of a potential $20+ million cost for the entire park. Something has to give. It’s not too late to adopt a more passive design approach and save $ millions.
C.S. Davidson assumed design of the park in late 2022. Davidson’s specialty is civil engineering (roads, bridges, stormwater, etc) vs. Derck & Edson who specialized in landscape architecture, civil engineering and land planning. The difference in approach shows and the two plans now bear little resemblance.
The Derck & Edson plan was based on public input. The C.S. Davidson plan has been developed largely without public input. There has been no review of Davidson’s work at a full BOC meeting since June, 2023. It isn’t even clear what the current version of the Davidson plan is as several drawings are still dated May 1, 2023.
People who care about the character and beauty of McCormick Rd. should know C.S. Davidson is also working on a re-design of McCormick Rd. and parking at 500 McCormick Rd. This work is also being done with little public awareness or input. Davidson is approaching this as an infrastructure project as well.
Much of the current Generations Park design is based on erroneous assumptions about the need for a 660 seat Amphitheater and 350 person Great Lawn Pavillon.
These are not the passive type uses voted for by the public (using acorns) and they require tremendous amounts of parking. My view is that these features are being used as a trojan horse for an eventual turf field.
In studying the C. S. Davidson master plan (not shown on the township website) and its 547 parking space configuration, it becomes apparent that a soccer or lacrosse (turf) field could easily be placed on the indicated grass parking area in the future. See the area near the center with parking lines and parallel 8 ft. trails.
In studying the 128 page Derck & Edson master plan (not shown on the township website), one can read (on page 126) meeting minutes from an August 18, 2021 interview where Sean Cochran discusses Keystone Soccer’s “struggle with facilities” and “their wish list would be to send lacrosse out to the new farm property so they could use Winding Hills exclusively for soccer use”. At the time of the 2021 interview, the Keystone program was “up to 1,300 athletes with the Mechanicsburg population being approximately 420 of the 1,300”.
Despite my request as a Commissioner, township staff has failed to provide me with answers to 17 questions posed to C.S. Davidson. Per township procedure, board members are not to contact Davidson directly. All contact is to be through the Township Manager (Scott Fraser) who prefers communication with him be in writing.
Good design saves money. My request included component cost information from C.S. Davidson so that the Board could consider some design alternatives. No such information has been provided at the time of this writing. I also provided an alternative design (with notes) for consideration. Again, no response.
Even without response from staff or Davidson; it is clear that substantial $ could be saved by: minor changes to the entry drive, adding a roundabout, using pocket parking, eliminating a number of redundant trails, and using the former farmhouse driveway for emergency access to the barn.
Township staff has also failed to provide me with a requested accounting of approximately $2 million of funds from the 2021 Bond issue. This money was originally intended to “3) fund various capital projects of the Township, including the planning, designing, acquiring, constructing, furnishing and equipping of a turf soccer field and stadium…”
My understanding is that the township has been paying C.S. Davidson for Generations Park design work directly from the bond fund; however, we won’t know the full extent until we have an accounting. These payments likely exceed $200,000 and are not shown in the budget. The amount shown in the 2024 budget for Park Development Engineering (see pg. 83 of budget) is $10,000.
I notified the Solicitor about the failure of township manager to produce an accounting of the bond funds. The Solicitor expects my concerns will be addressed in “due course” and notes that he reports “directly to the Board of Commissioners as a whole, the Board President and the Township Manager”.
This can be the start of a beautiful park or a $20+ million boondoggle. Taxpayers will foot the bill either way. The true cost will be the loss of natural habitat and a place Upper Allen residents could go for peace and quiet.
My hope is that by making residents better aware of what is going on; many of you will attend the Wednesday meeting and offer your opinions and suggestions for a better course of action.
Links:
https://uatwp.org/i_want_to/read_download/plans.php
https://www.cumberlandcountypa.gov/5022/Cumberland-County-Recovery-Grants
Field Rentals – Friendship 2024
Generations Park Master Plan_CS Davidson, Inc.
November 8, 2023
by Eric and Phil
We were elected! We could never have done it without your support and the wisdom and inspiration of many in this bi-partisan effort. We are honored – and humbled. “Be the change you want to see in the world” has meaning to us. We truly hope for a thriving Upper Allen community and will work to that end to help shape a first-class township. Thank you!
~ Eric & Phil
Click on the table above for all Cumberland County election results at https://cumberlandcountypa.gov/
Save Upper Allen 