Bridge Envy

You could be forgiven for thinking that founding father and American Revolution-era author Thomas Paine must have been inching along in traffic on a stiflingly hot August day, late for an appointment, when he uttered his famous quote “These are the times that try men’s souls”.

Literary references aside, local traffic jams caused by road construction, paving, sewer line installations, roadside power line upgrades, and numerous bridge replacement projects – all more or less taking place at the same time - are testing motorists’ good will and patience this summer as many LP residents find themselves going nowhere fast when attempting to get to work, shuttle kids to camp and athletic events, get to the doctor or dentist, or run even the smallest of errands.

We’re all used to road projects. It’s for good reason that a running joke is that the Pennsylvania state tree is a traffic cone. We all understand intellectually that road and infrastructure improvements are an inconvenient but necessary part of life. But locally, two major projects taking place simultaneously – the replacement of the Arcola Road Bridge (closed in August 2013) between Lower and Upper Providences, and the completion of the cloverleaf at Trooper Road and 422 - are the primary culprits, and other projects affect the detours and secondary routes we all use to avoid them.

Over in neighboring Chester County, the announcement in April of the commencement of work to the Pickering Creek Dam bridge on Route 23 near where it intersects with Pawlings Road – the main route from the southern end of LPT into Phoenixville and Valley Forge – has only added to the delays and frustration.

So, what’s a community to do when they aren’t fortunate enough to have former county commissioner and new PennDOT chief Leslie Richards embedded in the community as a resident capable of getting a bridge (really two culverts side by side) engineered, rebuilt and reopened in her locale in a mere five months? (detailed here)

The Pickering Dam bridge, like the ARB, is a total teardown and rebuild project (with repairs to the piers, instead of replacing them), but unlike the ARB, it’s cost was approximately $1.7M and is expected to be completed in a mere 6 months (originally scheduled to be completed in April of next year, new performance incentives have accelerated its anticipated completion date by 6 months - story here). 

Despite claims from some of our local officials that the projects aren’t similar at all (although in many ways, they are…they are both similar lengths, widths, square footage, and span), Chester County and state officials, including state Sen. Andy Dinniman, were able to find the funds to reopen and renegotiate the contract with successful bidder J.D. Eckman to build in incentives for each day Eckman improves upon the original project completion date and the Pickering Creek Dam bridge is reopened early. The contractor also agreed to work five ten-hour days per week instead of four.

Naturally, LPT residents are scratching their heads and enviously asking: Why do we have to wait a long three years’ worth of sitting in traffic and detoured routes for OUR bridge (closed in August 2013) to be completed when it is clearly possible to do so faster?

Photo credit: Main Line Media News

While the two projects are similar in some ways, a direct comparison is difficult because in many ways it’s an apples-to-oranges scenario. For starters, Pickering/Route 23 is a state road and 100% state project, versus ARB, which is a Montgomery County-owned bridge. The repairs are being funded partly by the federal government, along with state and county funds. Their design and bid processes are different right out of the gate.

Second, Pickering is a part of a larger state project known as Act 89. Also known as the Transportation Bill, it covers numerous bridge and road improvements across Pennsylvania and was signed into law in 2013 by Governor Tom Corbett. It allocates $2.3 billion in funding for transportation-related projects in Pennsylvania, including road and bridge projects.  PennDOT claims Act 89 “promotes coordinated planning and implementation to ensure greatest return on investment.”

And, the Pickering Dam bridge project was on the state’s radar for the past ten years as needing replacement so some preparation had already been made by the time Act 89 was enacted, whereas several past County administrations had kicked the ARB can down the road until it could no longer be postponed. While design plans had been drawn up some time ago - which called for a side-by-side rebuild while the existing bridge was still open - deterioration and closure of the ARB in August 2013 necessitated scratching that plan and starting over.  Single-source funding under Act 89 made it easier to do incentives on that project.

Third, the ARB required the purchase of a number of easements from private residents, some of which had to be negotiated, and this dragged out the timeline before construction could even begin. The Pickering Dam bridge project did not require acquisition of easements.

Fourth, Pickering Dam Bridge carries approximately 20,000 cars per day whereas ARB carries in the neighborhood of 9000 cars per day, and with 11,000 more pain points over in Phoenixville, clearly Pickering Dam Bridge appears to be a higher priority from a regional perspective.

Photo credit: Mike Vereb

And let’s not forget that there was about a six-week delay in December 2014-January 2015 when workers for successful bidder Allan A. Myers L.P. of Worcester who were tearing down the old ARB bridge discovered the presence of lead-based paint (verified by PennDOT officials), requiring a revamped, nonhazardous demolition strategy. 

Montgomery County is the conduit through which PennDOT bid the job, negotiated the final construction contract, and payments to the contractor are being made. Despite the fact that the lowest bid for the ARB project was almost $2.5M less than the amount budgeted for the project, the July 5, 2016 timeline was built into the contract and, unlike the Route 23/Pickering project – for who knows what reason – there were no performance incentives included in the deal to encourage them to get it done faster. In addition, there are, as far as I can tell, no terms that require a certain number of hours to be worked per day or a particular number of employees to be dedicated to the ARB project.

By comparison, the Pickering Dam bridge contract specifies working hours of 9 am to 3 pm (to avoid rush hours) and allows for the possibility of overnight work. The newly negotiated agreement does not note a total cost for the incentives but notes “Cost has been negotiated and agreed with Department representatives. Acceleration has been started with extended work hours, overtime, and extra Friday work shifts.” A cover letter accompanying PennDOT’s response to my Right to Know request states that “ While PennDOT has agreed to pay a lump sum to accelerate delivery of the project to November 26, 2015 (as evidenced by the enclosed Contract Work Authorization) it has not yet reduced to writing its agreement in principle with the contractor relative to an incentive payment. Subject to change, the parties have conceptually agreed that if the contractor completes the project early, it will receive $3,000 for each day in advance of the November 26, 2015 date.” (more info here)

Residents driving by the Arcola Road Bridge project regularly report via Facebook seeing no, or only one or two, workers during normal working hours. Progress appears to be moving at a snail’s pace, and whatever is getting accomplished down there seems to be happening far too slowly for most residents. However, Upper Providence Township supervisor John Pearson, who lives along the UPT side of the bridge and whose home looks down upon the creek bed, told us at a July 30 public meeting held by state Rep. Mike Vereb at the LP Township building in response to complaints voiced at the “Living in Lower Providence” Facebook page, that workers are indeed there every day, often begin work at 6 am, and that it can be difficult to see from road height just what is happening.

So, don’t blame the contractor, Allan Myers.When the Montco commissioners/PennDOT bid the ARB job, more than $7 million was budgeted, but the lowest responsible bidder (Myers) came in at $5.3M. Thus, there is additional money available to reopen and renegotiate the contract to provide performance incentives for Allan Myers (which various sources familiar with this and similar projects have suggested would run in the neighborhood of $200,000-$300,000).



photo credit: Times Herald Oct 2014

So – why haven’t our local officials tried to do the same thing for our bridge project? Why can’t we, too, renegotiate the contract to build in some financial incentives to the contractor to speed up completion and reopening?  Fact is, they have raised the subject, but so far it’s fallen on deaf ears with the Montco commissioners.

According to Charles Metzger, PennDOT Community Relations Coordinator, told me that it was easier to do incentives on the Pickering Dam bridge project because as an Act 89 project which funds numerous other highway/transportation projects across the Commonwealth, it was easier to move money under that funding umbrella from another, less-critical project to this one to provide the incentives.

As to ARB, while Vereb initially (and, as it turns out, erroneously) stated at the July 30 meeting that contracts like ARB that are largely federally funded could not have incentives, I’ve learned that’s not exactly the case. Not only are they permitted, but the federal government actually prefers to build incentives into their agreements wherever possible.

As of 8-31-15. Photo credit: Susan Wozniak

Since Montgomery County has the least amount of skin in the game – 5% versus 15% from the State and 80% from the feds - and it IS their bridge, I’m not sure I understand why something can’t be done, particularly since the County negotiated and awarded the contract in the first place.

Considering that Montco commissioner’s chair Josh Shapiro has been quoted in the press recently boasting about their financial prowess and how they are sitting on enough reserve cash to float numerous social service agencies in the area for several months during the prolonged state budget standoff, surely their alleged financial acumen could be applied to ponying up some incentive money to get the ARB completed much faster than July 2016, especially given that the bid award was substantially less than that budgeted for the project.

LP’s traffic engineer, Casey Moore, from the firm McMahon Associates, told me that “contractors like Allan Myers are always looking for performance incentives because they have an ability to meet them and make some money”, and that they’d thus likely be very open to the possibility.

I also spoke to Seth Myers, Vice President of Business Development at Allan Myers, who reiterated that the speed and pace of construction is out of their control, noting that “We are given specs and a schedule to follow” post-bid award, and allocate their resources accordingly. The firm was, until recently, unaware of all the Facebook chatter directing blame for the slow construction pace and alleged inactivity on the project firmly in their direction, and told me “We appreciate people’s frustration in not being able to use the bridge, but we will deliver the completed bridge on time”. The company manages over 450 projects statewide and has allocated its resources and paced work according to contractual requirements for each – including the ARB.
 

Allan Myers has compelling reasons to deliver on time: there are Road User Liquidated Damages of $27,009 built into the ARB agreement to be assessed for every day or portion of a day after July 5, 2016 that the ARB is not open to unrestricted traffic on all lanes, and another $27,009 assessment for each day or portion of a day that the detour is not removed on or after July 5, 2016.
 

There is an additional cost to the contractor (Construction Engineer Liquidated Damages) of $3,325 for each day that any physical work remains uncompleted after the Required Completion Date, to be deducted from money due or to become due. Thus, for each day that this project remains incomplete after July 5, 2016, it will cost Allan Myers $57,343.
 

At the July 30 meeting, Rep. Vereb reiterated that we shaved about 14 months off the beginning phase of the project because they got the plan designed, approved, bid and awarded in 13 months instead of the 24 months it could have taken, as well as doing a number of things concurrently that normally are done consecutively, such as DEP review, utility relocation plan, traffic impact study, stormwater plan, environmental study, etc. Each normally has a 60-90 day review period, and we saved 6-7 months right there. He also indicated that originally it was hoped that the new bridge could be built side-by-side with the old one while it was still open, but having to shut it down as unsafe rendered that impossible.


But Upper Providence Township supervisor and chairman Lisa Mossie recently weighed in on Facebook, taking issue with the Montco commissioners: "County knew they were going to close this bridge months before they actually did, yet they had no engineered plans in place and it costs us months on the design work. Leslie's [PennDOT chief Richards] Plymouth Road Bridge was closed completely unexpectedly because of sinkholes, and not only did they get it fixed in five short months with no engineering in place, but they filled two developing sinkholes and re-routed a stream. All in less time than it took them to just get started on Arcola."


By all accounts, officials for both townships, Rep. Vereb's office, and State Sen. John Rafferty's office have been relentless in trying to coordinate activities with the county and contractor and push for forward movement. Vereb particularly called out LPT manager Richard Gestrich as being very vocal and tenacious in getting answers and action.
 

Vereb indicated that in all likelihood, if we have a mild winter, the project will be completed early, in mid-spring 2016, and they won’t hold up the opening for esthetics like landscaping and minor finishing touches. However, don’t start your engines just yet: In an August 16, 2015 Associated Press article, Farmers’ Almanac editor Janice Stillman says the Northeast will see a winter of heavy snowfall and below-normal, frigid temperatures.
 

Unfortunately for us, it may be that the contractual maneuverings are just water under the bridge at this point and all we can do is wait for whichever happens first – a performance incentive from the county commissioners (all of whom are running for re-election or, in Castor's case, hoping to be elected back to the DA's office), or spring thaw.

 

Photo credit: CBS Philly

The Bridges of Montgomery County

If you live or have to travel anywhere near the now-barricaded Arcola Road Bridge, you might have read last week with great interest the list Montgomery County published enumerating the 19 structurally deficient bridges it has deemed a priority for repair. I know that, like me, many of you eagerly scoured said list, expecting to see the Arcola Road Bridge at or near the top. But alas, it was missing entirely.

I wondered why, as did many of you I’ve spoken to. Life post-closure in August has been painful, both for the people who regularly use the bridge and must now go well out of their way, and for the residents whose neighborhoods are impacted by additional traffic. The article the list appeared in neither asked nor answered the question as to where OUR bridge was in terms of the list and priorities, so I called Montgomery County’s Dept. of Assets and Infrastructure to see what they had to say.

The young lady who answered the phone explained that the list excluded the Arcola Road Bridge because it is already closed and the process of getting it replaced has already commenced. Those 19 bridges are on a separate RFP just approved by the County, and they’ve hired a consultant to help prioritize them.

She added that they have received a LOT of calls about this bridge. I'll BET they have!

 

"Ugh! These detours! WHEN will the Arcola Road Bridge be open again??"

Speaking of the bridge, at tonight’s Board of Supervisors meeting, township manager Richard Gestrich tried to make it abundantly clear that it is a COUNTY-owned bridge, not a TOWNSHIP owned bridge. My guess is angry residents and travelers are blaming (incorrectly) township officials for the closure and delays in getting it replaced.  

Some updates shared at tonight’s meeting: LP Township officials are meeting biweekly with county officials and state Rep. Mike Vereb as to the status and progress of the project, along with ways to mitigate the pain in the meantime. They have discussed ways to mediate the traffic impacts and make recommendations to PennDOT as to how to rectify them.  The County has appointed Indian Valley Appraisers to meet with adjacent residents to secure rights-of-way to enable the start of construction.

Police Chief Bud Carroll mentioned that he has worked with PennDOT to resync the timing of the traffic light at the intersection of Pawlings Road, Park Avenue and Egypt Road to allow for better traffic flow by increasing the length of the cycle a little bit. Also, we were able to get PennDOT to free up some funds ($125,000!) for a traffic control device at the Perkiomen Bridge intersection that monitors traffic in real time to improve flow to and from Germantown and Ridge across that bridge.  The device is available to us now and we are awaiting its installation, which will hopefully allow us to see some relief from congestion. It’s expected to be in place on or about November 1.

The County now believes it can start the construction in January 2015 and conclude it by August 2016, shaving a good six months off prior time estimates.

All of the above is great, but here’s my question: I, like many of you, signed up at the County’s August Arcola Road Bridge meeting to receive email updates on the project. I don’t know about you, but I haven’t received ANYTHING from the County about this since then, especially not the part about the appraisers or shaving six months off. Transparent? I think not.  

Nice job, though, by our municipality to stay in the loop, have an active voice in what happens and be a part of solutions. Maybe the number of people blowing up their phones and email about this bridge will go down just a bit.

 

 

The Road Toll Is For Thee

I was just checking the online version of The Times Herald, and noticed in their headlines of May 31 "Tolling of Route 422 On Agenda of Transportation Funding Commission"  that the subject of tolling on Route 422 has reared its ugly head again. I was considering writing about it when I noticed Lisa Mossie did so last week based on the Times Herald's sister publication's (Pottstown Mercury) article on the same topic. She wrote eloquently and comprehensively on the subject, which you can read here). How odd that this latest press release about 422 was offered for publication and buried in the newspaper over the Memorial Day weekend when presumably most people who'd find it of interest might be away on vacation.

As I posted last fall, I dislike this idea for several reasons, chief among them because Lower Providence already suffers substantial traffic congestion, which will only be exacerbated by cars seeking to avoid paying a toll on 422, instead routing themselves through roads inside our and other municipalities to avoid it. For us, it's definitely NOT a 'smart traffic solution'. We're already a gateway community through which motorists travel to get to other places (like Norristown, King of Prussia, Collegeville, or Philadelphia) and while I hope they  spend money here while they're coming through, none of those funds raised via tolling will be coming to Lower Providence to help us deal with infrastructure improvements inside our boundaries to support avoidance traffic.

Aside from the fact that our taxpayers already are paying money through federal and state fuel taxes and licensing fees which PennDOT themselves indicate will go toward funding road improvements on other area roads such as US 202 - and which could and should be applied to improvements on 422 - it's interesting to me that the presentation of what is referred to as the "US 422 Corridor Master Plan' (ie the tolling plan) given to our supervisors in June 2010 (for more detail on the information presented at that meeting, see the meeting minutes, Item 7, here) doesn't seem to match what its supporters are claiming now in both the Times Herald/Pottstown Mercury pubications. A year ago the presentation and discussion centered largely around funding for a commuter rail system. Now, according to the article cited above, they claim it's necessary 'above and beyond' normal state funding sources to pay for 'transportation spending' and appear to be downplaying the rail option, almost as if it's an afterthought.

Unfortunately, our sitting supervisors unanimously voted to support the US 422 Corridor Master Plan at their July 1, 2010 meeting (documented in the minutes of that meeting, Item 11, here). 24 other 422 corridor communities in Montgomery, Chester and Berks counties were also pitched the same presentation that we received, as part of what the County referred to as a 'land use transportation study'.  Of those 24 communities, I could not determine how many of them have supported the plan by resolution. Of course, the FAQs on the website http://www.422plus.com/422Corridor/ claims that:

Q. The US 422 Corridor Master Plan resolution supports the idea of studying 422. If my municipality signs the resolution, are they automatically supporting tolling on US 422?

A. No. By signing this resolution, municipalities are not endorsing tolling.

While tolling is one of the options described, there are many other strategies identified in the Master Plan.

If your hometown leaders endorse the resolution, it means only that your local officials are willing to work with their community, the state, the participating counties, and other alliances to explore the 10 planning strategies outlined in the Master Plan.

Well, if you look at those 10 planning strategies as summarized in this handy-dandy brochure put together for each municipality, here, (which oh-so-thoughfully even provides a draft resolution to speed its adoption by each stakeholder muncipality), it strikes me as odd that the only 2 of the 10 I've heard discussed in any meaningful detail in  conjunction with this master plan are the supposed road improvements and the rail line. The fluff of the 10 points all sounds good, but as Ms. Mossie points out, it does seem like the underlying motive for the entire effort to toll is the "government run, public union-staffed, tax dollar subsidized public transportation system that will have absolutely no positive impact on the traffic that 422 commuters sit in every. Single. Day."

The resolution that our Board of Supervisors passed on July 1, 2010 did not carve out any of the ten options as ones they could not support. It endorsed all the 'principles and strategies' in the plan including the two which were primarily discussed, one of which was tolling 422, for however the money would ultimately be used.  In contrast, sister communities Upper Providence and Limerick Townships voted to support the plan but specifically excluded the 422 tolling provisions. As of at least September 2010, two other communities had opposed the master plan in its entirety.


Before tolling on 422 can become a reality, it needs the support of the state legislature, our governor, PennDOT and the federal Dept. of Transportation.  Our new governor has pledged that he will not raise taxes, and the argument can be made that a toll is a tax. Now is the time to contact your elected state and federal representatives and let them know where you stand on this topic, before tolling on 422 becomes a 'runaway train'.