Fate of Pond Eddy Bridge discussed

By LAURIE RAMIE

SHOHOLA — Engineering consultants recommend replacing the single-lane, 1904 Pond Eddy Bridge with a two-lane concrete structure that would enable an increase in the posted weight limit from the current eight tons to 36 tons.

The proposed four-span, multi-girder bridge would be 512 feet long and 25 feet wide. Carrying a life expectancy of 75 to 100 years, the bridge’s current estimated construction cost is $6.16 million. Annual maintenance would be approximately $5,500.

Rehabilitating the existing 504-foot bridge, the other alternative explored in the study, could cost anywhere from $8 to 10 million with an estimated $27,000 in annual maintenance expenses, to yield a life expectancy range of five to fifteen years.

Tom Jaworski from the Hatch Mott MacDonald consulting firm said that the extensive repair work would necessarily alter the bridge’s historic appearance and require additional construction of a temporary detour bridge for an estimated $2.6 million.

The Pond Eddy Bridge’s fate was the subject of a June 29 public meeting at the Shohola Township Building.

The consulting parties’ meeting was hosted by PENNDOT and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the agency which is assuming control of the Pond Eddy Bridge project. The meeting is part of the Section 106 review to ensure compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act.

What to do about the Pond Eddy Bridge is a long-standing concern. The Upper Delaware River crossing provides the only access from NYS Route 97 in the Town of Lumberland to 26 homes and lands belonging to the PA Game Commission, PA Bureau of Forestry, and Norfolk Southern Railroad on the Pennsylvania side in Shohola Township.

The aging bridge’s eight-ton weight limit is too low for most emergency vehicles and service trucks to safely use to reach the landlocked properties. The condition of the road on the PA side has significantly deteriorated due to the inaccessibility as well.

Preservation championed

Yet the bridge’s historical significance has prompted some to advocate for its preservation. The Pond Eddy Bridge is one of only 10 bridges featuring the picturesque “Pennsylvania truss” design to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places, a designation achieved in 1988. Both states include the bridge on their registers as well.

Friends of the Pond Eddy Bridge, Preservation Pennsylvania, and the Preservation League of New York State have each urged PENNDOT to spare the bridge from the wrecking ball in consideration of its historic and aesthetic value.

While the consultant’s recommended alternative calls for demolition of the current structure due to potential backwater flooding issues from the presence of too many piers in the river, Section 106 requires mitigation of the historic impacts.

At minimum, the bridge’s history would be documented through various media. Robert T. Doble from PENNDOT said that they would consider relocating the structure if an entity willing to assume responsibility for it could be found.

The agencies would also collaborate with local representatives to find architectural features such as artificial stone treatments to aesthetically enhance the concrete bridge.

Jaworski explained that rehabilitation of the current bridge would involve replacing floor beams, stringers, the deck, truss members, and possibly the truss pins to try to gain some strength. There are concerns, however, that the pin removals and welding could compromise the bridge’s structural integrity.

He also noted that rehabilitation work would take twice as long as the one construction season anticipated with no traffic closures to build a new bridge.

The time has come

Shohola Township Supervisor George J. Fluhr, who is also the official historian for the township and Pike County, said that his board has been requesting action on the bridge for 20 years. He urged PENNDOT and FHWA to move forward with the consultant’s recommended alternative.

“Old bridges are nice, but not when the costs are exorbitant and when preservation puts lives at risk,” he said to a burst of applause from the audience. “We must re-think our priorities. To preserve the old bridge seems futile. There has been enough talk and enough paperwork. The time has come to build a new bridge,” he said.

Each of the 15 people who signed up to speak echoed that message. When Fluhr requested a show of hands from anyone who did not support building a new bridge, two women out of the large audience indicated disapproval.

The most common theme among the speakers was an expression of frustration over the number of years that this topic has been debated. They also spoke of fears over emergency responses being limited or delayed by the low bridge posting, and disgruntlement over the failure to address the poor road conditions on the PA side. Doble promised to follow-up on the road maintenance issues immediately.

At the New York-Pennsylvania Joint Interstate Bridge Commission meeting held June 28 in Dunmore, Pond Eddy Homeowners’ Association representatives Chris Gordon and Peter Eustance had presented a petition with 60 signatures demanding construction of a new Pond Eddy Bridge.

Gordon added for the public record at the June 29 meeting that the Historic Preservation Trust of Pike County has also come out in support of a new bridge.

Add river access

Elliot Zucker of Shohola agreed that the consultant’s recommendation is the most economical alternative among the new-construction scenarios, but suggested that a two-span steel bridge might better accommodate concerns over future flooding in light of the two instances of 100-year floods that occurred in the past seven months.

Town of Lumberland Councilman Joe Carr said that his town hopes that developing a new river recreation access on the New York side can be incorporated into the bridge construction plans.

National Park Service Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River Superintendent David Forney agreed with the need for a river access in that location to break up the distance boaters now encounter between public pull-offs, but said that a two-span bridge would accommodate that option better.

2007 bid date?

Asked at the meeting’s conclusion to describe what happens next, Doble replied that notes from the June 29 meeting will be compiled and distributed to all the attendees.

The next document that will be produced is an Environmental Clearance report, which Doble said, “could take a little time.”

He insisted that the decision to proceed with a new bridge “isn’t a done deal” and there will be further opportunities for public input and information exchange as per the Section 106 process.

To facilitate that, Doble suggested that Shohola Township and the Town of Lumberland boards formally request PENNDOT to convene quarterly meetings for updates on the project.

When asked to provide a general timetable, Doble said, “The decision should be crystallized within the next year.” That would be followed by securing of rights-of-way. Letting of contract bids is not likely to occur until 2007.