States plan work for historic Pond Eddy bridge

Controversial bridge replacement still unsettled DUNMORE n The fate of Pond Eddy’s historic river bridge does not look bright. PennDOT Assistant District Engineer for Design, Robert T. Doble, reported earlier this month that the Pond Eddy, N.Y.- Pond Eddy, Pa. bridge has “had the most action” in the past year as the DOT presses on with its long-standing recommendation to replace the 1904 structure while attending to emergency repairs that have further reduced the weight limit. He spoke at the annual meeting of the New York-Pennsylvania Joint Interstate Bridge Commission. From April 1, 2006 to March 31, 2007, PennDOT spent $91,256 in general maintenance funds for the Pond Eddy Bridge. That included repairs to the timber deck and replacing 15 critical stringer beams after an October 2006 in-depth inspection found damage that necessitated a weight posting downgrade from eight tons to three tons. With the 15 new steel stringers in place, the load capacity was upgraded to seven tons. Barrels were installed to confine traffic to the center of the 504-foot, one-lane span. The DOT will work on replacing additional deteriorated stringers, as well as 100 square yards of the wooden deck, in 2007. The DOT’s approximately $6.2 million proposal to build a modern, two-lane bridge posted at 36 tons has been tied up in the alternatives review phase for years due to objections raised over demolishing the Pennsylvania Truss structure that achieved a 1988 listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Engineering consultants who studied the Pond Eddy Bridge concluded that rehabilitating the existing structure, as compared to constructing a new bridge, would carry a higher price tag for upfront costs and annual maintenance, yield a shorter life expectancy, alter its historic appearance, and take twice as long. Leaving the historic bridge in place is not an option, even if a new bridge were built parallel to it. Doble noted that two bridges could not be located in that close a proximity due to the backwater flooding potential caused by the introduction of new piers into the river. Earlier this year, PennDOT began actively marketing the “opportunity to relocate” the 1904 bridge if an entity came forward to take responsibility for its ownership. Doble reported as of June 6 that two municipalities n Harrisburg, PA and South Fallsburg in Sullivan County, N.Y. n have expressed interest in taking the bridge for parts and trail usage, respectively, but that further studies will be necessary to assure the ultimate feasibility of moving the bridge. In the meantime, the environmental clearance process continues. While the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission has signed off on the Pond Eddy Bridge replacement concept, the New York State Historic Preservation Office has not yet acted. PennDOT will send an “effects document” exploring alternatives to all consulting parties within 30 days for their review. A local meeting will be arranged by the end of July, according to Doble. (The last public meeting was held in June of 2005.) The Department hopes to let contract bids for construction in 2009. “We’ve made a lot of progress, although it may not look that way,” Doble said. He added that it’s important for the PennDOT to exhibit due diligence in this situation which finds the involved municipalities (Town of Lumberland, NY and Shohola Township, Pa.) and the majority of Pond Eddy, Pa. residents strongly supporting a new bridge for safety considerations and a faction led by the Friends of the Pond Eddy Bridge just as vocal in advocating for historic preservation of the existing bridge. “If you end up in court, that would be a major setback and we don’t want that to happen. We’re being cautious but there’s light at the end of the tunnel,” Doble said.