Yesterday, Northampton County's General Purpose Authority (GPA) met after skipping its May 1 meeting. Perhaps it should have met in May because the meeting lasted four hours and included a "brief" executive session that went for over an hour. It included a number of self-serving speeches by Chair Shawn Langen and a condescending Shawn Donahue, along with all kinds of insults hurled at the county. It also included a "Can't we all get along?" moment from Peg Ferraro, who has skipped several meetings thus year and admitted she knows next to nothing about the GPA bridge projects. Fortunately the meeting included about 13 people from Lower Mont Bethel who streamed in, so to speak, to educate her. As they made abundantly clear, former Executive John Brown included five bridges located along Little Creek Road in this 33-bridge project. That stretch, a designated scenic byway, is part of the Delaware River Valley Scenic Byway. Without bothering to consult with the Township in any way, Brown selected five bridges in that corridor for replacement even though four and possibly all five bridges need no work. He ignored bridges in the county that actually are structurally deficient* and then refused to respond to inquiries from residents and Township officials. In one instance, he used a tag team of county and GPA lawyers to threaten a 75 year-old resident who has lived along that road for the last 30 years.
Let me tell you about Little Creek Road. Resident Michele Szoka did a better job than I could in the video above, in which she drives along the road and the bridges slated for replacement. The road is hugged by shale hills on one side and a high quality trout stream on the other. The speed limit in that area is just 25 mph, which is helped along by one-lane bridges. As Szoka observes, widening the bridges or altering the curbs in the road will only invite drivers to speed. She adds that many of the homes are right against the road, and fast cars or big trucks will endanger the lives and safety of children who live there.
 |
| Lower Mt Bethel residents arrive in force |
Solicitor John Lushis denied he had contacted any resident, and then resident Quentin Carnicelli produced what he called a threatening letter from him, which Lushis apparently forgot..
Newman and Szoka both referred to the scenic bypass as a "gem" and argued that the bridge replacements are totally unnecessary while Langen and Shawn Donahue blamed everything on the county, saying the county selected these bridges.
It would be more accurate to say that John Brown the former Executive picked them. Langen suggested that the bridges could be swapped out for five others. Another possibility would be to reduce the scope of the project by five bridges. No construction or design work has been done on any of them, so Kriger's costs should be minimal.
Here are the five bridges slated for replacement
Bridge 185 (built 1917) is considered functionally obsolete because it is one-lane, but is not structurally deficient. Average daily traffic is 200 cars.
Bridge 41 (built 1946) is neither functionally obsolete nor structurally deficient. Average daily traffic is 200 cars. There is a 20-ton weight limit.
Bridge 43 (built 1911) is a concrete, arch-deck bridge that is rated functionally obsolete, but is not structurally deficient. It is considered stronger than most county bridges, but is single lane. According to Szoka, any attempt to widen it will result in destruction of properties on either side, and will destroy flora and fauna in and around the creek. Average daily traffic is 350 cars. There is a 20-ton weight limit.
Bridge 44 (built 1957) is a steel-beam bridge considered neither functionally obsolete nor structurally deficient. Average daily traffic is 200 cars. There is no weight limit.
Bridge 195 (built 1927) is a concrete-encased steel beam bridge that is rated both functionally obsolete and structurally deficient. It is single lane. I question whether it is really structurally deficient because the structural evaluation numbers are all 4 or higher. According to Supervisor Newman, the Township Engineer and a third-party engineer have determined the bridge is adequate. Average daily traffic is 150 cars. There is no weight limit.
Obviously, these bridges should never have been included in the P3
In other business, newly appointed members Paul Anthony and Frank Pintabone are doing something the GPA should have been doing all along - asking questions. They both had questions about the bills from Conrad O'Brien and Lushis. Anthony asked again to see wage certifications.
Pintabone also took Langen to task for failing to provide any meaningful responses to Lower Mount Bethel residents "If we're speaking just to let them speak, I can go home," he said. "The only thing we've done so far is say, 'It's not us.'"
Langen did step down as the GPA authorized rep on the P3 project. He claimed he is too busy, but I think the more likely reason is that he has not been paid. Though the GPA is looking for someone else, this seems like a waste of time. The third-party engineer can just report monthly as he has been doing.
* Bridge Lingo
Sufficiency Rating is essentially an overall rating of a bridge's fitness for the duty that it performs based on factors derived from over 20 NBI data fields, including fields that describe its Structural Evaluation, Functional Obsolescence, and its essentiality to the public.
"Structurally deficient" means that the condition of the bridge includes a significant defect, which often means that speed or weight limits must be put on the bridge to ensure safety; a structural evaluation of 4 or lower qualifies a bridge as "structurally deficient".
"Functionally obsolete" bridges are those that do not have adequate lane widths, shoulder widths, or vertical clearances to serve current traffic demand, or those that may be occasionally flooded. A functionally obsolete bridge is similar to an older house.
"Structural evaluation" is a number for a bridge, based on its deck, superstructure, substructure, and culvert. Anything below a 4 is trouble.
14 comments:
They should show that video to County Council, tell them to call Kraft and get on the agenda
I think LMB should repave that road before it turns to dust like that of the 1920's lol. They bring up safety issues, but what happens when in the future ( either near or far)a bridge collapses or is lost in a flood? I have family up in that area and back in 2004 the open grate bridge and the one north of it nearly collapsed when their foundations washed out. Not sure if I would want to wait and see attitude is smart and the county not have the $$ available to replace those structures then and the road closed for several years. These residence bring up safety to bikers, motorcycles, walkers , yet mock safety of a 2 lane road and bridge. No sense in the logic here folks. I wonder if the resident who complains about the first bridge near the red house floods all the time why you live there if its so bad? I'm sure if it floods as you state, you can not get flood insurance any longer due to the changes in FEMA regulations. Just wondering. NIMBY in action .
7:58, Of the five bridges picked for replacement, four of them are perfectly safe. The fifth bridge has been deemed safe by two engineers.
I like the previous post, but the party forgot one thing. These residence bring up public safety , fire , emergency services .... What happens if a bridge is lost during one of those flood events the video lady speaks about or if a bridge has a lowered weight limit restricting the roads use? You can't use the road then and you are more restricted than that of the construction time. ??? Not very smart on your part. Then again, we are talking LMB here. They still live back in the 1800's.
She is not video lady. Unlike you, she has a name. Several of you want tractor trailers to be able to navigate everywhere. Some people do not want that. It is very clear that the county totally failed to consider the interests of the community in selecting these bridges. These bridges do have weight limits, and that is completely consistent with their rural character. Sure a bridge could be lost in a flood event and that could happen just as easily to a new bridge. Independent of the community sentiment, it seems unwise to devote precious county resources to replace bridges that are in good shape when there bridges out there that really are unsafe. I am unable to speak to flood insurance, bt doubt you are correct.
Nice thorough analysis. Thanks, Bernie, this is a public service.
With all of the problem bridges, it is amazing anyone would have proposed to replace bridges that only serve 200 cars and that are structurally OK.
In response to a comment above, federally subsidized flood insurance is still available to all residents. There has been discussion about limiting insurance for properties that repeatedly have expensive flood damage, but that has not been enacted. Flood insurance rates have increased, particularly for investment properties, but Congress has limited some of the increases for residents.
From the traffic counts alone it's apparent that these bridges are no longer vital to transportation on the county scale. They are however, very important to those who live along the roadways. In short, they are of a more local importance.
My suggestion would be that all five of these bridges, and others in the county with similar limited use, be turned over to the local municipalities to properly care for them.
As noted in the main post, none of the 5 bridges are structurally deficient so LMB should have no problem accepting the bridges in their current condition. The Township obviously has a much better appreciation for the bridges and is far more likely to protect the bridges in the future.
Please advise if you can drive with livestock (pigs) over Little Creek Bridge.
One question is whether replacing the bridges would be the start of wanting to develop the land along those roads.
Or is it simply how much money can we make replacing bridges.
Or both
i suspect double lane bridges will lead to much of he over-development that has occurred elsewhere in the Lehigh Valley.
Easy solution to all this. Let the people of LMB and Little Creek Rd. petition the county to have the township take ownership of the bridges. That is legal to do. Problem solved and no more complaining. They will need to agree to maintain and have the bridge inspected according to the laws . Then you don't have to worry about the county doing what some feel needs to be done for your future safety.The residents state the bridges are all in good shape and safe ( expert opinions), so there should be no issue correct? Wow , that was easy. Step up to the plate if you don't want progress in the township. As an interested taxpayer that lives near this area, put your thoughts and actions to where you really want to protect your community. I've traveled this road many times and there are already trucks using it that shouldn't be there ( yes, 18 wheelers). But you don't provide law enforcement for the taxpayers so there is no legal law enforcement agency to watch over this on a routine basis ( PSP doesn't have the resources). Take the bridges over from the county. I'm sure they won't mind one bit. Lets see if you maintain them as well as you do your roads ( a whole other subject).
6/6/18 10:14 pm,
Where the hell are you going to develop along the "Valley of the Bridges" ? Some forget that the gov't considered 15 yrs ago or so about creating a damn in Martins Creek near the old grist mill and flood the valley as an lake. Maybe this should be looked into again. Solves everyone's problems with a few bridges doesn't . ???
Why would Judge Murray fix an All Star Vote for his Son Joseph ?
Post a Comment