Dallas City News

Several Luzerne County Council members expressed displeasure Tuesday with an updated outside consultant report that now recommends building a new Nanticoke/West Nanticoke Bridge over the Susquehanna River instead of mostly replacing the existing one.

In January, Alfred Benesch and Associates appeared before council and recommended a $39.6 million project that would fully replace the truss section with four new steel bridge spans on new piers, replace the beams and deck on the 21 approach spans and repair the remaining existing piers and abutments.

This option would accommodate potential future industrial development by widening the county-owned bridge to 32 feet and adding a right turning lane onto Route 11, said Benesch, which was hired by the county to determine the “best and most economical option.”

A new bridge west of the existing one would cost an estimated $64 million, the January presentation said.

Benesch representative Dominic Yannuzzi said the revised recommendation put more emphasis on community impact around the bridge.

For example, it cites a $15.3 million “road users liquidated damages” cost that represents additional time and fuel motorists are projected to shoulder due to a 2.6-year detour during partial replacement. A detour would not be necessary with the new bridge if the current one is kept open during construction.

The new bridge option also was reduced by $9.5 million on paper by making demolition of the current bridge a separate project, which brought the construction cost below the $55 million the county has available from casino-gambling revenue.

Council reaction

Council Chairman John Lombardo obtained verification from Yannuzzi that it is possible the current bridge could shut down any time due to its deteriorating condition, which means there is no guarantee it could remain open to avoid detours throughout the construction of a new bridge.

Yannuzzi said the critical “priority 1” items are the bearings that are severely rusted as shown in report photographs. Upgrading/replacing bearings was estimated to cost $2.5 million based on a 2019 bid, which could now equate to as much as $5 million because prices have “skyrocketed” since then, he said.

Lombardo said this additional cost should be added to the new bridge estimate if it is being held up as an option that will avoid construction detours.

Councilman Jimmy Sabatino questioned the use of funds under the new-bridge scenario, saying the county could have to pay $5 million to keep the current bridge open and then $9.5 million to tear it down after spending $53.6 million to build a new bridge.

Councilman Kevin Lescavage objected to the new report’s inclusion of $15.3 million for “road users liquidated damages.”

“There were no guarantees that the (current) bridge was going to stay open past the next six months, so these numbers that you put forward to me are irrelevant. They mean nothing,” Lescavage said.

Lescavage also said he was annoyed the current bridge demolition was separated out because it is a necessity tied to a new bridge, particularly to avoid two bridges blocking the river flow if it floods.

He said he supports the partial replacement for its enhancements and because it will leave additional funds in the $55 million infrastructure fund to tackle other pressing county road/bridge needs as intended when a council majority agreed to guarantee the borrowing.

Council Vice Chairman Brian Thornton concurred, saying council had promised it also would use some of the funding to address “dire needs” in other areas of the county.

“I’m not going to thumb my nose at those residents and pull that money back now,” Thornton said.

Thornton, who had worked as a project engineer in New York City at the start of his career, went through an exhaustive series of concerns with the revised report.

He started by obtaining acknowledgements from Yannuzzi that both bridge options had similar expected life spans, widths and an improved turning lane.

A new bridge also would require the county to take more private property, he verified.

Thornton also highlighted differences in a color-coded comparison that ranks project components as low, moderate or severe along with a final rating, with severe considered a negative.

The January report ranked partial replacement as low and a new bridge as severe, but the new one places both options as moderate.

Thornton argued a few components were removed from the equation to improve the new bridge ranking and make the partial replacement less favorable.

“I find that alarming. I find it concerning,” Thornton said.

He also vehemently disagreed with the inclusion of motorist detour costs on the summary for the partial rehabilitation.

“I think that’s unfair to the council here. I don’t think that should have been done. I’m just shocked, I really am, that you would take this route,” Thornton said.

Councilman Gregory S. Wolovich Jr. also expressed concerns about the flooding impact of two bridges during construction of a new bridge.

Councilman Harry Haas also questioned the revisions since January.

“A lot of this just seems very arbitrary to me because we had a great presentation, and now there’s many things that are changing,” Haas said. “This is just very difficult to swallow. That’s just my major concern. It’s a little disturbing to me, to be honest with you.”

LeeAnn McDermott was the only council member to speak favorably about a new bridge during Tuesday’s work session and pointed out the life expectancy is not identical for both options.

Yannuzzi said the sections over the river would have the same life span, with new substructures and superstructures. The superstructure of the approach span from Nanticoke to the river would be new with partial replacement, but the substructure of this section could require some maintenance down the road because the substructure is about 50 years old, he said.

“If you build a new bridge on top of them and they don’t hold up, that’s a waste of money,” McDermott maintained.

Council must choose an option at a future meeting.

Lombardo said Wednesday he has no set date on when council will vote.

While delays increase the cost, he said council must perform all due diligence. He added he is concerned about recent alterations to the report.

“We need to make sure all of our questions are answered and pick the project that is the best fit for the community and county as a whole that is done in the most fiscally responsible way,” Lombardo said.

Reach Jennifer Learn-Andes at 570-991-6388 or on Twitter @TLJenLearnAndes.