Several Luzerne County Council members showed dissatisfaction on Tuesday with an updated report from an outside consultant, which now suggests building a new Nanticoke/West Nanticoke Bridge over the Susquehanna River instead of mostly replacing the current one.
In January, Alfred Benesch and Associates appeared before the council and suggested 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.
According to Benesch, who was hired by the county to determine the “best and most economical option,” this choice would allow for potential future industrial development by widening the county-owned bridge to 32 feet and adding a right turning lane onto Route 11.
A new bridge west of the existing one would cost an estimated $64 million, as stated in the January presentation.
Benesch representative Dominic Yannuzzi said the revised recommendation emphasizes more on the community impact around the bridge.
For instance, it mentions a $15.3 million cost for “road users liquidated damages,” representing additional time and fuel that motorists are projected to bear due to a 2.6-year detour during partial replacement. A new bridge would eliminate the need for a detour if the current one is kept open during construction.
The cost of the new bridge option was reduced on paper by $9.5 million by making the demolition of the current bridge a separate project, which brought the construction cost below the $55 million available from casino-gambling revenue.
Council reaction
Council Chairman John Lombardo verified with Yannuzzi that it is possible for the current bridge to shut down at any time due to its deteriorating condition, meaning there is no guarantee it could remain open to avoid detours throughout the construction of a new bridge.
Yannuzzi mentioned that the critically important “priority 1” items are the bearings, which are severely rusted as shown in report photographs. The upgrading/replacing of bearings was estimated to cost $2.5 million based on a 2019 bid, which could now be as much as $5 million due to price increases since then.
Lombardo stated that this additional cost should be included in the new bridge estimate if it is being considered as an option to avoid construction detours.
Councilman Jimmy Sabatino questioned the use of funds under the new-bridge scenario, suggesting that the county could end up paying $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 expressed annoyance that the current bridge demolition was separated out because it is a necessity linked to a new bridge, especially to avoid two bridges blocking the river flow in the event of a flood.
He said he is in favor of the partial replacement because it will leave extra funds in the $55 million infrastructure fund to address other urgent county road/bridge needs as originally intended by the council majority when they agreed to guarantee the borrowing.
Council Vice Chairman Brian Thornton agreed, stating that the council had also promised to use some of the funding to address critical needs in other areas of the county.
“I’m not going to disregard those residents and withdraw that money now,” Thornton said.
Thornton, who had previously worked as a project engineer in New York City at the beginning of his career, raised several concerns with the revised report.
He began by getting confirmations from Yannuzzi that both bridge options had similar expected life spans, widths, and an improved turning lane.
A new bridge would also require the county to acquire more private property, he confirmed.
Thornton also pointed out differences in a color-coded comparison that rates project components as low, moderate, or severe, along with a final rating, with severe being considered negative.
The January report rated partial replacement as low and a new bridge as severe, but the new one places both options as moderate.
Thornton argued that a few components were excluded 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 strongly disagreed with the inclusion of motorist detour costs in 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.
Lombardo stated that it's important to get all our questions answered and choose the project that best suits the community and county in a financially responsible manner.
