Torrington High School students learn about apprenticeships at fair
.webp)
SLOAN BREWSTER
TORRINGTON – Torrington High School senior Christopher
Martinez wants to work with his hands.
One of more than 65 students who stopped by a career fair
hosted by trades unions during lunch period Wednesday, Martinez visited tables
and chatted with union members about the various trades they represent.
Part of a 10-year agreement involving the city, school district,
and the Hartford and New Britain trade unions that allows residents to get
apprenticeships in various trades, the fair gives students the chance to
explore career opportunities, said Yolanda Rivera of the CT Building Trades
Institute.
Trades represented at the fair included HVAC, iron workers,
brick layers, operating engineers and carpenters.
Flanked by several other students at a table for Carpenters
Local 326, Martinez asked union representative Marc Okun about the field, the
importance of grades for securing apprenticeships, and whether it would matter
if someone performed well in some subjects and not so well in others. Okun
assured him grades matter but said an interview process allows candidates to
explain why they excelled in one area compared with another.
Martinez said he went to the fair to get a better
understanding of his future options. He said he grabbed applications for
apprenticeship programs from a few tables, including the masons and iron
workers.
“I mostly want to work with my hands,” he said. “It gets me
out, and I just want to be outside and do stuff.”
Martinez said he plans to attend Northwestern Connecticut
Community College in Winsted for two years while honing in a career. At the
moment, he anticipates it will be iron work because he enjoys welding.
Dwight Hewins from Local 777, the plumbers and pipe fitters
union, said students were stopping by and asking about the IUOE Local 478
Training Center in Meriden, where welding, plumbing, pipe fitting and HVAC
apprenticeship programs are offered. Though such programs vary by field, they
usually involve 4,000 to 10,000 hours of on-the-job training, Hewins noted.
Programs for pipe fitters, plumbers and welders take five
years, and consist of full-time work and a week of in-class training every six
weeks. Apprentices in HVAC programs take classes two nights a week. All programs
include 250 hours of training, Hewins said. Apprentices going into construction
require 1,600 work hours per year of on-the-job training, while HVAC has 2,000
hours annually.
“The main thing is it costs them absolutely nothing to go to
school,” Hewins said. “It’s the best deal you can get.”
Not only are apprentices paid on the job, the weeks they are
in the classroom and not working, they can collect unemployment compensation,
Hewins said.
To be selected for an apprenticeship, applicants must
complete a 40-hour construction readiness program, Rivera said. Last year, 10
applicants completed the program. Once applicants take that step, staff from
the institute work with them on their application to the trade of their choice.
Of last year’s 10 graduates, five entered the laborers apprenticeship program,
one went into a plumbing program, another into carpentry, two are learning to
be brick layers and one is an electrician apprentice.
The Torrington fair was part of recruitment efforts for the
next apprenticeship cycle, which Rivera hopes will begin in June, after high
school graduation.
DOT proposes $25.5 million plan to replace Stonington borough viaduct
Carrie Czerwinski
Stonington — In a move that could have significant impacts
on residents and some private property owners, the Department of Transportation
has expressed its intention to replace rather than repair the 83-year-old Alpha
Avenue viaduct at a cost of $25.5 million.
During the year-long project, slated to begin in the spring
2026, traffic would flow along one side of the 625-foot-long span, while crews
replace the other side. Once that work is complete, drivers would move to the
new section so the remaining half of the bridge can be replaced.
The plan also calls for permanently closing off Cutler
Street as well as Mathews/Main Street, which means drivers can no longer drive
under the viaduct in those locations. This would require drivers to take
alternate routes to avoid the dead-end streets.
A consultant’s report on the project also states the plan
would require the taking of “a part of a building,” which is shown in a photo
as the Stonington Community Center’s Thrift Shop on Cutler Street which is next
to the viaduct, parking lots and a portion of a boatyard.
While the boatyard is not identified by name, the only
boatyard near the viaduct is Dodson’s Boatyard which uses its property along
the viaduct to store boats in the off season.
Plans also call for raising the height of the bridge by at
least 3 feet, 7 inches because it currently does not meet the required
clearance over the electrified Amtrak line below.
“It’s so early on, but I would say two things of import
would be: Why are you doing this -- why is it a replacement and not a repair,
and that hasn’t been explained -- and what’s the impact,” Warden Michael
Schefers said on Wednesday about the DOT’s plan.
According to an April 20 letter to former borough Warden
Jeff Callahan and a DOT draft press release, the DOT is seeking to replace the
bridge even though the engineering consultant it hired for the project, CHA
Consulting Inc. of Mansfield, recommended one of the three other repair options
-- a $13.3 million rehabilitation of the bridge that takes no land and leaves
Cutler, Main and Mathews streets open.
In the two documents, the DOT said the 83-year-old bridge is
in poor condition, and that it is developing plans to replace it. The letter
also said the DOT does not anticipate holding a public hearing on the plan, but
that a public information meeting will be held after the preliminary designs
are completed toward the end of this year.
The press release states the federal government will pay for
80% of the project, the state 5% and the town 15%, or $3.8 million.
The DOT did not respond to questions from The Day this week
about the project.
Town, borough and DOT first discussed plan in January
A virtual meeting between the DOT and town and borough
officials, including First Selectman Danielle Chesebrough, Callahan, Town
Engineer Chris Greenlaw and a member of the Public Works Department, was held
in January during which the DOT presented three potential plans for repair and
a fourth for complete replacement of the sole access point into the borough.
“Our understanding, based on their presentation to us is
that they are going with option four, which was the full replacement, which
comes with, from our view, some more concerns about the impact,” Chesebrough
said Wednesday.
“There are some significant changes to the area with the
full replacement, which is where the concerns got raised,” she said, adding,
“There’d be two different dead ends where the fields are for the (Stonington
Community Center) COMO field, and then one on the borough side closer to the
firehouse.”
“We want to understand -- there has to be enough room
obviously for firetrucks to turn around, and in order to do that, does that
mean taking of land,” she said.
The report prepared by CHA Consulting, Inc. discusses the
four potential options for the bridge, which last saw significant work in 1992.
The fourth option, the $25.5 million replacement was not
recommended by the firm for a number of reasons including the impact to private
property. But it did say the option would be the far more cost effective in
terms of maintenance over the next 75 years compared to the other three
options,
“This alternate requires permanent (right of way) takes for
property located beneath the bridge. These include local roads, parking lots, a
part of a building and a portion of a boat yard. Both Matthews Street/Main
Street and Cutler Street will no longer pass under Alpha Avenue and will be
dead ended at the new embankment,” the report said.
A permanent right-of-way take is a specific type of eminent
domain in which the government acquires private property for public projects
such as roads or railways. The government can use the land indefinitely but
must compensate the landowner for it.
Under state law, the Department of Transportation has the
authority to acquire private property for public use.
The report ultimately recommends the third, extensive repair
option, which would repair or replace the substructure of the bridge, but would
not replace the entire structure.
In this $13.3 million plan, which includes pier replacement,
girder strengthening and deck patching, the current deficiencies with the
substructure of the viaduct would be addressed, any unseen deterioration would
be repaired, and the life span of the bridge would be extended by 50 years. The
analysis states that vehicular and train traffic would see only minimal
disruption during the project.
A second meeting of town and borough officials was held the
first week of May to get input from Borough Fire Chief Jeff Hoadley and to
apprise the newly-elected Schefers of the DOT’s plans.
Chesebrough said the town has only been given preliminary
narrative plans, and she is working to arrange another meeting with the DOT to
include Schefers, who was not present at the first meeting.
She said another meeting would offer local officials the
opportunity to understand why the DOT had decided to replace rather than repair
the span and to share with the DOT the town’s concerns about the project before
the state puts more time and money into further developing it.
“We just want to be able to sit down and have a deeper
conversation to see if there is any opportunity from their perspective to
really pursue the repair options, or if there are reasons for the replacement
that can be shared and understood by the public. I think a better, deeper
conversation at this point is kind of where we are,” she said.
Schefers agreed.
“We’ve got to get the stakeholders to meet with the
appropriate parties to further discuss this, that’s the bottom line,” he said.
Eversource takes first step to get out of wind farm development with sale
Eversource Energy took its first steps Thursday to getting
out of the wind farm development business, selling its 50 percent ownership
stake in a 175,000 acre site located 25 miles off the southern coast of
Massachusetts.
The company sold its ownership stake for $625 million to its
joint venture partner, the wind farm developer Orsted, Eversoujrce
officials said. The Danish energy company currently owns the other 50 percent
of the joint venture.
The deal between the two companies is expected to close by
the end of the third quarter this year. Because Orsted is a Danish company, the
lease sale will require the approval of the U.S. government's Committee on
Foreign Investment.
At the same time that Eversource is selling its ownership
stake in the uncommitted wind farm site, the company has also signed a letter
of intent with Orsted to buy tax credits that the Danish company has in
the South Fork
Wind project. The two companies are currently equal partners in that
project, which is under construction 35 miles east of Montauk Point on
Long Island and is scheduled to begin operating this fall, producing enough
electricity to power 70,000 average homes.
Jeff Kotkin, an Eversource spokesman, said the company is
buying the tax credits it does not already own as a partner in South Fork joint
venture
"There are significant federal tax credits that are
available to those who invest in renewable energy projects," Kotkin said.
"Sometimes those tax credits are sold to an investor rather than retained
by the owner."
The purchase of the tax credits from Orsted is expected to
close in the third quarter of this year, he said.
The two transactions Eversource announced Thursday are the
first step in the company's ultimate goal of getting out of the wind farm
development business entirely. Eversource is looking to sell its 50
percent ownership stake in the South Fork project as well as two other wind
farms on which construction has not yet started.
Those two projects are Sunrise Wind and Revolution
Wind. Sunrise Wind will
be located more than 30 miles east of Montauk Point and produce enough
electricity to power nearly 600,000 homes when it becomes operational in 2025.
Revolution
Wind will be located 15 miles south of the Rhode Island coast and 32
miles southeast of the Connecticut coast when it begins operating in 2025. Of
the 704 megawatts of electricity that Revolution Wind will produce when it
begins operating, 304 megawatts will be used to power Connecticut homes
and businesses, with the remainder going to Rhode Island.
Eversource expects to announce the buyer of its ownership
stake in all three projects by the end of June, company officials said.
Joe Nolan, Eversource’s president, chief executive officer,
and chairman, said while the company is exiting the unregulated offshore wind
business, it is "is fully committed to being a catalyst to the region’s
clean energy transition, with our regulated companies building many of the
facilities that will enable more than 9,000 megawatts of offshore wind
generation to reach the homes and businesses of Southern New England."
"We share the same goals as the states in which we
operate when it comes to building the clean energy delivery systems of the
future," Nolan said in a statement.
David Hardy, Orsted's group vice president and chief
executive officer for the company's operations in the Americas, said,
Eversource's six-year partnership with the company "strategically advanced
the onshore scopes of our three projects."
Eversource
first announced its plans to exit the wind farm development business a
year ago. The company's decision - and whether the Revolution Wind
project is built - is important because it is one of two major wind farms
planned off the southern New England coast that would generate electricity for
Connecticut.
The other project is the Park City Wind farm in the works by
Orange-based Avangrid. Park City Wind construction will be staged
primarily out of Bridgeport, but
Avangrid is in the midst of trying to change the terms of its offshore wind
contract with Connecticut,
Connecticut is counting on both projects to meet statutory
goals it has set to cut carbon emissions by 2040. Completion of the two
projects is also important because of continuing uncertainty over Dominion
Energy's long-term plans for its two nuclear reactors at Millstone Power
Station in Waterford.
Millstone supplies a quarter of New England’s electricity.
Clean Energy Megaprojects Face Iron Law
ZeroHedge
Developers looking to build thousands of wind turbines off the Mid-Atlantic and New England coast are coming up against a force even more relentless than the Atlantic winds: the Iron Law of Megaprojects, offering a warning of the trouble ahead for green-energy projects. The Iron Law, coined by Oxford Professor Bent Flyvbjerg, says that “megaprojects” — which cost billions of dollars, take years to complete, and are socially transformative — reliably come in over budget, over time, over and over.
From Boston’s Big Dig to California’s high-speed rail to New York’s 12 years-overdue and 300% over-budget East Side Access rail project, big boondoggles routinely demonstrate the validity of the rule.
Offshore wind projects are not immune to the Iron Law, regularly experiencing vast cost overruns before a single watt is generated.
The New York state government, looking to replace oil- and gas-fired powerplants with hundreds of wind towers off Long Island, set out in 2019 to create an offshore wind supply chain from scratch, beginning with a massive state-funded turbine fabrication facility about 100 miles north of New York City on the Hudson River.
Ground still hasn’t even been broken, but the budget certainly has: The price of that Port of Albany facility has already doubled from $350 million to $700 million. An additional $100 million may be needed for equipment costs, raising the final price tag to $800 million.
A similar situation is playing out in New London, Connecticut, where a state-funded pier facility being built to support that state’s offshore wind buildout has more than doubled in price from an original estimate of $95 million to $250 million.
And in Massachusetts, developer Commonwealth Wind has asked the state to scrap its power purchase guarantees and rebid the project, arguing that inflation and supply chain problems mean the project is not financially viable under its current contracts.
Big projects tend to exceed their cost projections for many reasons. One is the unanticipated, and sometimes unprecedented, complexity of these projects. Further uncertainties and costs arise from the challenge of navigating the red tape of the modern regulatory state. In addition, there is the risk of inflation for projects that take years, sometimes decades, to develop. Underlying all these is often a failure to spend enough time on careful planning that treats reality as a fundamental constraint.
But sometimes project sponsors may simply worry that accurate cost projections could scare away public support at the outset, and choose to employ what Prof. Flyvbjerg politely calls “strategic misrepresentation.”
As former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown said, “If people knew the real cost from the start, nothing would ever be approved. . . . Start digging a hole and make it so big, there’s no alternative to coming up with the money to fill it in.”
If that sounds too cynical, note that the current Chair of the Connecticut Port Authority has admitted that when officials first proposed the pier facility, they already knew it would cost more than they were claiming.
Ironically, the New York and Connecticut projects aren’t even big enough to be considered megaprojects, and yet even they have run into the Iron Law of being over budget and behind schedule. The challenges won’t diminish with bigger and more ambitious green energy projects.
In New York, the state’s huge Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act — of which the Port of Albany project is the first substantial investment — is projected to cost between $270 and $290 billion. At that price it is a gigaproject composed of numerous individual megaprojects.
The benefits, mostly in the form of greenhouse gas reductions, are supposed to be up to $415 billion. But if the overall cost of the policy climbs by merely 55 percent, which is in the normal range for megaprojects (and much less than the Port of Albany cost overrun), the costs will exceed the benefits, creating a net loss for New Yorkers.
If costs balloon to twice the initial estimates, which is not uncommon, the state stands to spend more than more than a hundred billion dollars more than gained in benefits That would be a loss of over $30,000 per New York household by 2050.
And that’s assuming the benefits are as good as promised. It gets even worse if, as is common, the benefits have been overstated.
The tale of megaprojects is a cautionary one for the whole country as we attempt to transition away from fossil fuels. Cost estimates for a nationwide transition span from $4.7 trillion to over $60 trillion – almost three times U.S. GDP. Such uncertainty should give us pause for thought before jumping wildly into the financial unknown.
If we’re not careful, we may be digging Willie Brown-style holes, and politically and financially we may find ourselves in too deep to ever get ourselves out.
Fairfield residents oppose 40-unit affordable housing proposal on Berkeley Road
FAIRFIELD — Residents pushed back against an affordable
housing project to add 40 apartments on Berkeley Road saying the
project is too big for the area, which is already busy and full of smaller
lots.
The proposed
34,000-square-foot building at 277 to 301 Berkeley Road would be about
47 feet tall on one side and about 60 feet tall on the other, given the slope
in the property. It would have eight studio, 29 one-bedroom and three
two-bedroom apartments on a lot that is less than one acre.
Many speakers said they didn't oppose apartments or
affordable housing in the area, as many already rent in the neighborhood and
another affordable housing project was approved nearby. Most said this project
was too big for the area given the narrow road, traffic and already unsafe
conditions. They pointed to health and safety concerns as the main reasons they
opposed the project and questioned the project's potential impact on the environment
and Rooster
River flooding.
"It's a real problem," said Jennifer
Barahona, who lives in the area and serves on the Representative Town Meeting
for District 5. "We love our community. We love our neighborhood."
She said there aren't sidewalks in the area, people drive
fast and so she and her children take their lives in their hands when they walk
to nearby McKinley Elementary School.
"I did a site visit," said Commissioner Meg
Francis. "It's heavily parked and narrow."
Some said there are medical emergencies on the road, which
makes it difficult, if not impossible, for other cars to pass when there
are emergency vehicles parked there responding to the call.
Other parents said people blow through the stop sign and
there are blind spots made worse by how many cars park along the road. The
amount of parked cars also make it challenging to walk or bike in the
area, which many people do with their families or pets.
"Everyone on the street has a pet, a child, or
both," one neighbor said.
Residents challenged the proposed 51 parking spots, saying
that wouldn't be enough for the building and tenants and their visitors would
have to park on the street that already doesn't have room for more vehicles.
John Fallon, the attorney for the developer, Berkeley
Rd. LLC., said he believed the parking would be sufficient and would remove the
cars parked in front of the proposed site because the tenants would park in the
designated lots.
The project would add a sidewalk along the front of the
site, but it wouldn't connect to anything since there aren't existing sidewalks
near there.
He also said the proposal is in compliance and cars parked
on the street don't factor into the sightline requirements. He added a number
of Fairfield departments and commissions have already signed off on the bulk of
the project, including wetlands, fire, engineering and police.
He reminded the commission that since this was an 8-30g
application, the burden would be on the town to prove the health and safety
concerns outweigh the need for affordable housing in Fairfield. He pointed to
other cases in nearby towns where traffic and parking wasn't enough to uphold
the denial.
Many speakers and several commissioners questioned the
developer's traffic study though, saying the numbers were collected during
Thanksgiving week in 2021 when people weren't traveling due to the holiday and
COVID-19. They asked for another study to be done to get a more accurate
picture of the current traffic situation.
Fallon said they used the state Department of
Transportation's recommendation to increase the numbers counted during COVID by
20 percent, which should be sufficient.
"I don't think this particular project should be held
to a different standard in terms of traffic report than what the DOT and
commission have expected in the past," Fallon said.
He said the project is needed and helps address Fairfield's
housing needs, since a third of the town's households are housing cost
burdened, meaning more than a third of their income is spent on housing.
"This site is going to deal with that in a positive
way," Fallon said.
Many speakers didn't challenge the need for affordable
housing, just that the area was already dense and adding more cars and people
would be unsafe.
"I'm not against affordable housing," said Jay
Wolk, a District 5 RTM member. "I'm for safety first."
The public hearing is now closed, though the commission is
awaiting some more information before making a decision.
Panel pushes for analysis of 2 possible Meriden senior center sites
Michael Gagne
MERIDEN — The panel tasked with developing a plan to
relocate and build a new senior center, combined with a new location for the
city’s health department offices, asked the city’s consultant this week to
develop plans for two different sites.
The Senior Center Building Review Committee, during its
meeting Wednesday night, was scheduled to recommend a site for the
combined new senior center and health department project. Instead, the
committee opted not to select a site, with its members appearing to agree that
more information needed to be gathered regarding the two primary locations
under consideration: 116 Cook Ave. and the former Westfield Care & Rehab
facility on Westfield Road.
The cost of studying and designing plans for two sites
instead of one is expected to be an additional $40,000. It will also push back
the deadline for when the committee was set to present its senior center
recommendation to the City Council. The previous deadline was early August. Now
it will be early September.
Mayor Kevin Scarpati during Wednesday night’s discussion
said even though there is increased cost associated with developing plans for
two locations, that increase does not mean there will be cost overruns. Last
November, the City Council authorized spending $250,000 in American Rescue Plan
Act funds to design plans for a new senior center. The project is currently
within that spending limit.
During a public meeting last week, design consultant EDM and
its partner firm SLR discussed the advantages and disadvantages of the Cook
Avenue and Westfield sites, as well as three others that were under
consideration for the senior center and health department project.
On Wednesday, a week later, City Councilor Bruce A.
Fontanella, the Senior Center Building Review Committee chairman, asked
project manager Chris Wante, of EDM, what has happened since that meeting when
options were presented.
Wante said his team took a look at the data given by City
Manager Timothy Coon — primarily the cost to purchase the Westfield property
versus the cost to remediate the Cook Avenue property. But they still need to
dig into the numbers a little bit further.
Wante said based on his best estimate, the cost to acquire
and develop Westfield, which the city does not own, would be between $1.5
million and $2 million. But, he noted, there are still “a lot of variables in
there.”
Meanwhile the site development cost for the Cook Avenue
property, which the city does own, is currently estimated to be between
$500,000 to $1 million, as much of the costs to remediate will be handled by
grants the city already has received, Wante said.
Wante proposed working with the environmental analysis
currently being completed by the engineering firm Fuss & O’Neil, to develop
what he called an environmental use restriction plan for the property while
developing a site plan for it as well.
Wante said his firm would work with Fuss & O’Neil to
“nail down exactly what” the environmental costs will be.
Fontanella asked if there is any possibility that the
environmental analysis would find that no building of the size sought for the
senior center could be built on the Cook Avenue site.
“We’re under the impression that that would not be a
concern,” Wante said.
Scarpati had concerns about potential restrictions due to
the areas on the Cook Avenue site that are presently capped. He asked if the
study would take into consideration extracting that capped contamination.
Wante responded that it would — determining what areas are
most ideal for building structures, green space, parking and how much
contaminated soil would need to be removed from the city.
“It will give us exact specs for what’s in the ground. Would
be able to give us a good idea what that site development cost would be not to
remediate, but prepare the site for our structure and our site development.’”
Fontanella asked Wante if the costs for developing the
Westfield or Cook properties are separated “by millions, tens of thousands or
hundreds of thousands.”
Wante said his gut tells him the building costs and site
costs would be fairly similar, but he estimated a “$1 million delta” based on
the procurement costs for Westfield and the environmental cost at Cook.
Wante explained it would cost an additional $40,000 to study
the second site. The firm would request an additional month to complete both
site analyses.
Fontanella said based on the questions lingering he believes
the committee should authorize spending $40,000 to retain the consultant to do
a further analysis of both sites, for a presentation at a later date, followed
by a more informed decision.
“So postpone until a date when we have more information,
more definite numbers, program evaluations, to lead us to make a better
decision,” Fontanella said.
Fontanella raised the question of whether the city had
permission to build on Cook Avenue.
Scarpati said the $2 million grant the city received from
the state Department of Economic Community Development to tear down the
building at 116 Cook Ave. doesn’t prohibit the city from building a senior
center there. However, if the state deems building a senior center on the site
is not permitted under the grant, the city would need to pay back the grant
through a loan.
Coon responded to concerns raised about 116 Cook being
within the flood zone.
“The building is outside of the practical flood zone,” Coon
said. “When work is completed it’s going to be completely out of the flood
zone.”
The city manager also noted a substantial amount of
environmental remediation has already been completed to date.
“We know exactly what is beneath the slab,” Coon said,
adding that the remediation work will be completed “regardless of whether a
senior center comes onto this site or not.”
Committee member Dennis Tobin raised concerns about what
becomes of the site that is ultimately not picked. “If we don’t pick Westfield,
what are our options, what kind of tax base, economic development — what’s that
going to mean to the town?”
Fontanella asked Coon if there has been any talk regarding
the implications of the sites if they’re not used.
Coon responded there has not been much talk regarding
the Westfield property. “The only thing I’m aware that there is a possible use
for is residential,” the city manager said. “Certainly 116 Cook has a lot more
opportunity for development.”
Coon noted that the city owns 14 acres of property in the
vicinity of the Cook Avenue site.
Members of the public who addressed the committee had mixed
thoughts regarding both sites. Some expressed a preference for Cook Avenue,
given its central location and accessibility, while others felt Westfield
offers a potentially quieter and more set back location.
NTSB Calls for Corrosion Checks to U.S. Bridges Similar to Collapsed Pittsburgh Bridge
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Investigators looking into the 2022 collapse of a Pittsburgh
bridge want transportation officials nationwide to examine more than 10,000
other spans in the United States with similar construction to ensure they do
not have the same kind of corrosion that was found on that city's Fern Hollow
Bridge.
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) said in a
report released May 18 that drainage problems on the weathered steel bridge
that failed allowed the metal legs to deteriorate over time. It also found that
for years maintenance needed to clear the debris, dirt and leaves that were
causing the problem at the Fern Hollow Bridge site was not properly done, the
Associated Press reported, even though inspectors noted the issue.
Rust that caused the deterioration of the Pittsburgh
bridge's steel legs and allowed holes to form in the structure was noted on
every inspection done since 2005, including one completed just four months
before the Fern Hollow Bridge fell into a ravine on Jan. 28, 2022.
Work was done in 2009 to clear the debris clogging the
bridge's drainage system, but that was not repeated in the years since even
after inspectors noted on all reports between 2011 and 2021 that the drains had
become clogged again.
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT)
spokesperson Alexis Campbell said in a statement that the agency is still
reviewing the NTSB report, and the state will continue cooperating with the
investigation. Last fall, PennDOT issued a safety bulletin focused on the
maintenance issues with these steel bridges in response to the NTSB's
preliminary findings.
"Safe, reliable infrastructure is a top priority of the
[Gov. Josh] Shapiro administration, and we are committed to ensuring
Pennsylvanians and all motorists can travel across the Commonwealth
safely," Campbell said. "To that end, PennDOT remains proactive in
its review, analysis and maintenance of its bridges."
Feds Urge States to Properly Maintain Steel Bridges
The Pittsburgh bridge span that fell last year dropped a bus
and four cars some 100 ft. into a ravine, injuring several people just hours
before President Joe Biden was scheduled to visit the city to promote his
massive infrastructure law. The span carried Forbes Avenue over Frick Park,
Fern Hollow Creek and Tranquil Trail.
A new bridge opened to traffic last December after its
design and construction were fast-tracked.
The NTSB said that these types of steel-frame bridges can
last for decades if they are properly maintained.
In the Pittsburgh case, however, the drainage issues
prevented the steel from developing a protective patina that would have kept
the corrosion at bay. The federal agency's investigators looked at 10 other
steel-framed bridges in Pennsylvania and found similar maintenance problems,
although none were as severe as what was discovered at the Fern Hollow Bridge.
It is unclear how widespread these issues are nationwide,
but the NTSB wanted to urgently call them to bridge owners' attention even
though it has not completed its investigation of the Pittsburgh bridge
collapse.
The NTSB said in its report that it is critical for bridge
owners — usually cities and states — to clear any "accumulation of water
and debris on bridges with weathering steel components."
The agency wants the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
to help bridge owners identify similar problems and complete the needed bridge
safety work. In addition, the FHWA will review the NTSB recommendations and
work with bridge owners to carefully study inspection reports to decide what
needs to be done.