Pittsburgh could lose $4.6 million if Council fails to act on North Side bridge replacement |

Pittsburgh could lose $4.6 million if Council fails to act on North Side bridge replacement

A sign advises motorists that West Ohio Street in Pittsburgh’s North Side is closed at a bridge crossing Norfolk Southern Railroad tracks. The bridge is open to pedestrians and bicyclists.Signs advise motorists that West Ohio Street in Pittsburgh’s North Side is closed at a bridge crossing Norfolk Southern Railroad tracks. The bridge is open to pedestrians and bicyclists.

Pittsburgh could lose about $4.6 million in federal and state highway funds if City Council fails by Sept. 20 to allocate the money for construction of a new bridge on West Ohio Street that crosses Norfolk Southern Railroad tracks, a city official said Wednesday.

Federal and state officials could also order Pittsburgh to repay about $1.5 million that the city has spent since 1999 on design work for the North Side bridge, according to Karina Ricks, director of the Department of Mobility and Infrastructure.

Council on Wednesday at the request of Councilwoman Darlene Harris, who represents that section of the North Side and opposes the bridge design, postponed a vote for one week on allocating the money. Harris of Spring Hill said her constituents oppose raising the bridge three feet so double-stacked rail cars can pass under it. The city closed the century-old bridge in January because of structural deficiencies.

“Right at this moment of time, the city is in danger of losing ($4.6) million,” Ricks said. “We’re just dangerously close. I think that our absolute drop dead date is more like Sept. 20. Even that is pushing that. Every day is pushing it at this point.”

She said the city under federal highway rules would have six more years before it would be required to repay the $1.5 million.

“If they don’t take action on this we would not need to immediately pay that money back, but we would need to come up with our own money to build the bridge,” she said, estimating it would cost about $7 million.

She said another major problem is the closing of West Ohio, one of the city’s busier streets. Residents on nearby North Avenue are complaining about an increase in traffic detoured because of the closure.

“We need that street connection,” Ricks said. “There’s a whole chain reaction of things that happen if that connection is essentially permanently lost to the city.”

The bridge has stirred neighborhood controversy for years. It intensified after Norfolk Southern won a 2005 Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court case forcing the city to raise the bridge. Pittsburgh in 1999 intended to replace the bridge, built in 1903, at its original 19-foot elevation. The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission approved the construction.

Norfolk Southern appealed to Commonwealth Court, and the court ruled the bridge must be elevated to 22 feet.

Harris said residents objected to altering the historic bridge elevation and are concerned about double-stacked trains passing through the heart of Pittsburgh. The rail line runs from Manchester and three other North Side neighborhoods, crosses the Allegheny River near the David L. Lawrence Convention Center and runs generally through the Strip District, Bloomfield, Oakland and Schenley Park to the Monongahela River.

“These trains are carrying dangerous chemicals and everything else, and you saw what just happened,” she said, referring to an Aug. 5 Norfolk Southern derailment of nonhazardous goods at Station Square in the South Side. “I want to make sure the residents of the city are safe.”

Harris said residents want railroad and state officials to meet with them and discuss the plans, adding that a meeting in July was not informative.

Norfolk Southern runs double-stacked trains through an alternative route paralleling the Ohio and Monongahela Rivers. It wants to use the shorter route through the city, but four bridges, including West Ohio Street, are too low for trains to pass underneath. West Ohio would be the first bridge raised.

“There is a (Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission) order out there requiring the replacement of the bridge within a certain timeframe,” railroad spokesman Rudy Husband said. “If they don’t approve (the allocation of money), then they’ll be in violation of that PUC order.”

Pittsburgh already violates the order, according to a PUC document that in 2006 gave Pittsburgh about two years to develop and submit plans for replacing the bridge.

“Just in general, noncompliance with an order can lead to penalties, but there has not been any in this case,” said PUC spokesman David Hixson. “The commission is still waiting for final plans for rebuilding it in accordance with the order.”

Harris said she intends to speak over the next week with state officials about extending the deadline for allocating the money.

But “if we don’t have the money to put the bridge up, then we don’t have the money,” Harris said.

Bob Bauder is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Bob at 412-765-2312, bb[email protected] or via Twitter @bobbauder.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.