State transportation department rejects proposed reopening of Pittston/West Pittston bridge

A proposed reopening of the Firefighters’ Memorial (Water Street) Bridge linking West Pittston and Pittston was not approved by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, according to a recent communication.

“The Water Street Bridge remaining closed is not the decision that the county or residents hoped for, but PennDOT has the final decision on this matter,” county Acting Manager Brian Swetz told council in an email earlier this month.

The county’s consultant, Williamsport-based Larson Design Group, had determined the county-owned span can safely reopen to traffic at a reduced weight limit for passenger vehicles only.

Commonly known as the Water Street Bridge, the crossing over the Susquehanna River has been closed since August 2021 due to concerns over a bent eyebar, causing traffic on the nearby state-owned Spc. Dale J. Kridlo Bridge (Fort Jenkins) to increase from 12,000 vehicles to 20,000 per day.

The state agreed to assume responsibility for the design and construction of a solution for both bridges, which would likely be replacing the Water Street span and rehabilitating or replacing the Fort Jenkins one — both keeping their current footprints, officials said.

However, council members pursued temporary reopening of the Water Street bridge because completion of both spans will take seven years.

Larson Design recommended a 6-ton weight limit.

County Councilman Kevin Lescavage, who lives in West Pittston, said he has requested a meeting with state and county officials, including PennDOT, in early April to hash out what actions are necessary for a bridge reopening.

PennDOT District Executive Richard N. Roman sent the county a letter last month outlining the agency’s concerns and recommendations regarding the county-owned span.

“While we understand the county is proposing to reopen this bridge, we believe that this course of action is not prudent,” he wrote.

According to Roman’s letter:

The 2021 inspection that prompted the bridge closing said two of the four primary load-bearing eyebars in “span 5” were “deformed/kinked/twisted” and noted other load-carrying members in the same span were severely corroded with significant section loss.

This 2021 inspection recommended completion of several maintenance items before a bridge reopening. The most critical was repairing/replacing the “bottom chord.” It listed four other tasks, described as high priority, that had been identified in inspections, some dating back years.

Swetz told council he “can’t speak to why some of the past deficiencies in prior years were not addressed.”

The county operational services division set up a plan for Larson Design to communicate with PennDOT and compile data so the division can generate “cost estimates and timeframes for the anticipated repairs,” Swetz said in the email.

Larson Design’s report was 260 pages and packed with charts documenting its analysis.

Load testing was performed using strain gages and a 36-ton dump truck test vehicle that traveled over the bridge multiple times in October, the report said.

”No apparent distress or unusual behavior of the bridge was observed during the testing and soon after the testing. However, many truss members were identified to have severe section loss and there is heavy corrosion at many panel points,” Larson’s report said.

The PennDOT letter highlighted the consultant’s observation that a bridge repair performed decades ago apparently altered the “behavior” of the original structure because this repair encased many bottom portions of the truss members in concrete curbs.

In its rejection of a reopening at this time, the PennDOT letter cites several ongoing concerns with engineering calculations and a lack of investigation into the eyebar heads.

“With the eyebar heads condition being unknown and the fact that this analysis could not gauge the stress levels at these locations, it is a risk to open this bridge to traffic,” it said.

PennDOT also said it did not see “any consideration given in the engineering report to the possibility of traffic build-up on the structure.”

“With one end of the bridge situated at a traffic signal, there will be routine stopped traffic occurring on the bridge. In our reading of the report, there was no mention of any potential ramifications this may have,” it said.

In addition, it cited enforcement concerns, saying constant surveillance “would prove difficult and a burden on local law enforcement.”

“While it is known that large trucks (i.e. tractor-trailers and dump trucks) would clearly not be allowed, certain smaller passenger vehicles may not meet the 6-ton requirement,” it said.

Before closure, the Water Street bridge had an average daily truck traffic of 5%, or approximately 400 trucks, the state said.

“It was clearly being used by trucks, and the assumption must be made that trucks would try and resume use,” the state said.

It also notes the span is 1,016 feet long, which is a “large asset” that must be considered a large risk.

For the county to advance the proposal, PennDOT expects to receive an appropriate reopening plan addressing all concerns mentioned in its letter, it said, requesting an opportunity to meet and discuss any reopening plan prepared by the county.

“The bridge may not be reopened until PennDOT is satisfied that the engineering study is complete, and the reopening plan is adequate,” the letter said.

Lescavage said he has full confidence in Larson Design’s recommendation. On the issue of enforcement, he said that could largely be addressed through extensive warning signs and visible overhead “headache bars” that would block trucks from entering.

A PennDOT spokesperson said Monday the department has provided its recommendations.

“Further steps will be evaluated by the county to determine if the bridge can be safely opened,” the spokesperson said.

The bridge’s weight limit was 20 tons before it closed.

Reopening the bridge would not jeopardize or conflict with the bridge bundling agreement between the county and state, county officials have said.

Under this agreement, the county will only pay 5% toward the cost of refurbishing or replacing its bridge, with the rest coming from state and federal funding. An estimated $50 million would be needed to replace both spans, which includes river surveying, design, permitting and demolition of the current bridges, officials said.

Built in 1914, the Water Street span was last rehabilitated in 1984 and is not designed for today’s traffic loads, a state transportation consultant has said. It would cost $20.5 million to replace the Water Street bridge and $22.5 million to repair it to continue with a 20-ton limit, the state consultant said.