Danville intelligencer. [volume] (Danville, Pa.) 1859-1907, 1905-05-12
BOTH SIDES OF
THE QUESTION

There IL much complaint about the
approach to the river bridge on the
Danville side, which at the present
stage of improvements shows up odd
ly. owing chiefly to the location of
the curb lines, which are broken up
into a good many different angles and
lie in directions that do not conform
with any OF the other street lines.
The Commissioners, who are re-
sponsible for the paving OF the ap-
proach say that they gave instruc
tions that they wanted the whole
approach paved with vitrified brick
from wing wall to wing wall and they
are very much displeased that their
wishes were not carried out. They OBJ
ject to the sidewalks because, they say,
they are unnecessary and as at present
located a very bad piece of work that
will detract from the appearance of
the bridge.
Citizens who viewed the approach
yesterday were loud in murmurs of
disapproval. The curbing along the
approach at the southeastern corner OF
Front and Mill streets, which inclines
up the street out of line with the pave.
ment on the east side of Mill street,
was especially objected to and it was
claimed that it Twas thus. arbitrarily
located merely to accommodate an
electric light pole, which stood ON the
spot aud which could be removed for
less than twenty-five dollars.
So much for one side of the ques-
tion. The AMERICAN being ap-
pesled to representative waited upon
both Burgess Pursel and George Reif-
snyder. of the Streets and Bridges Oom-
mittee, to obtain the Borough's side
of the question.
For proceeding to build sidewalks at
the approach of the bridge instead of
paving from wall to wall as recon.
mended by the County Commissioners
the Borough claims to have the very
best of reason. To leave the entire ap-
proaob open as driveway, it is held,
would be to afford pedestrians pro-
lection at all just at a spot where the
greatest danger would exist. Reckless
drivers emerging from the bridge
would trot their horses and with little
regard for foot people would crowd
the side of the approach and accidents
would be the result for which the Bor-
ough might be held liable.
For this reason it was decided to
construct sidewalks protected by a
curbing just as are maintained on the
bridge. The apparently arbitrary looa-
tion of the curb line on the east side
it was explained, was decided upon for
the purpose of widening out the ap-
proach.
1t is very apparent that the approach
looks bad at present. At the same time
it is not improbable that as the work
advances things will take on a better
aspect. The upper wing wall erected
by the State is the worst feature of
the whole affair and this the Commits
sioneIs say will be rebuilt. If the
bridge inspectors approve it next Sat.
urday, the county will make the change
itself, building another wall on the
outside, that will incline up stream at
the same angle as the opposite wing
wall leans down stream. When the de-
feet in wing wall is remedied and the
pavement is laid the curbing very like
ly will not show at such decided
disadvantage. The. Oouncilmen de-
clare that they are not responsible for
the ourbing beyond the Borough line
"a few feet south OF Front street
and did not authorize it.