So the current plan is to destroy the deck but leave piers up for possible construction of a future bike/pedestrian bridge? Why not just save the money that would be spent on demolition & cleanup and open the existing bridge for bike & pedestrian use? Win-win, right?
below are excerpts from a Post-Gazette story:
Harmar-Plum turnpike bridge to be razed this month
Piers to be spared for bike-hike plan
Friday, July 02, 2010
By Len Barcousky and Jon Schmitz, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
The old Pennsylvania Turnpike bridge crossing the Allegheny River from Harmar to Plum will be brought down by two explosions this month, the turnpike commission announced Thursday.
The first will be at 10 a.m. July 13 and the second toward the end of the month.
The concrete bridge piers will remain in place for the time being, as Allegheny County Council decides whether to take responsibility for them in hopes of someday developing a bike-pedestrian bridge, turnpike spokesman Tom Fox said.
...County Council is scheduled to vote July 13 on a measure to take over what remains of the old bridge.
Council's Parks Committee met recently with turnpike CEO Joseph Brimmeier to discuss the structure's future. The issue came before the committee after Dave Fawcett, a former councilman, lobbied his former colleagues to consider saving the bridge.
A river crossing there could be a key piece in a long-discussed plan to develop a riverfront park along the county's four major waterways: the Ohio, Allegheny, Monongahela and Youghiogheny rivers....
Or even for cars? They are in the process of planning a new bridge next to the hulton bridge where this is going to be an issue again.
The problem with the riverfront park option is that the bridge is like 300' above the river and goes ridge to ridge, so to get back down to the river you have to cross freeport or descend down a mountain on the south side.
The problem with the riverfront park option is that the bridge is like 300' above the river and goes ridge to ridge, so to get back down to the river
I'm hoping for a giant spiral ramp corkscrewing down from on high.
I'm hoping for a giant spiral ramp corkscrewing down from on high.
with a shallow bank at the top, increasing as it descends.
pay per use like the turnpike! people totally would.
They had one of those in Shanghai. The Nanpu Bridge. Just a couple blocks down they had another bridge, and a tunnel (at the same point in the river!). You could pick whatever one seemed like it had the least traffic, from what I could gather.
Not sure how all the cyclists got across the river 
with a shallow bank at the top, increasing as it descends.
And an exit ramp to Freeport road at the bottom, you could shoot out onto the road at 55 mph and not have to pedal until you get to the hill by the power plant in Springdale.
Maintenance of something the size of a Turnpike Bridge would be incredibly expensive. I suspect insurance would also be exorbitant. I haven't taken a look at the bridge recently. What does it connect to on either end?
Steevo is right on the money when he says it's way up there. I would say it "connects" to Oakmont Country Club on one side reaches street grade around the old Gulf Lab on the other. It would cost a fortune which is why I feel free to speculate about high speed ramps. But as Rich Fitzgerald said, preserving the piers is a good idea if it can be done. Having piers in place would greatly reduce the future costs of building some kind of crossing.
The piers could be chopped down to be closer to a normal crossing height. I suspect that this would be their plan.
+1 jeffinpgh and Swalfoort
Raze the current structure, keep the piers. But what would a new bridge there do for us that the Hulton Bridge, just a mile or so downstream, does not?
Well, I guess the same question could be asked of the FtDuq/6th/7th/9th/16th/31st bridges.
nvm
People, how many times do I have to say this;
zip. lines.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3r0pROzHY5M
This is great news to hear, especially with the uncertainty surrounding potential re-use of the Hulton Bridge as a bike-ped bridge when a whole new span is constructed next to it. Also, the piers themselves are probably only something like 75' high, which could be presumably chopped down to some useful height in the future as Marko stated. I think the big talking point is that things could be more flexible with piers already in place because of the exorbhant cost of constructing new bridge piers on the river.
I still will favor simply re-using the Hulton, but keeping the piers in place increases the flexibility for infrastructure development in the area for the future. However, the way any of these bridges could really shine would be to complete an Allegheny River trail. Complete that trail and all of a sudden the numerous Allegheny River Valley communities become even more "liveable". It wouldn't even require a new MFE-thing to do so. Though, PA 28 is ALREADY there, so I'm not sure that excuses it or not.
Can I take my bike on the zip line? All the time, or just during off peak hours? Do I have to pack it in a box first?
^^ No box necessary
Awesome.
Next time I am at the Thrift Store I might have to pick up one of those Suzanne Sommers Thigh Master devices if I have to carry my bike like this........I'd hate to lose it halfway across.
I might have to pick up one of those Suzanne Sommers Thigh Master devices if I have to carry my bike like this...
Yes, of course. I'm sure Suzanne would have no trouble doing that at all.
I think thats that bumper bike dude.
I emailed Tom Baxter, of Friends of the Riverfront, asking "isn't this a once-a-decade opportunity for a 'free' bike bridge?". He replied:
"Not so straight forward. We are working with Allegheny County and PEC to look at the issues through a contract with McTish Kunkel & Associates. There are numerous issues that must be fully reviewed including ownership, maintenance, insurance, separation of grade, connectivity, easement agreements and so forth."
Whether the best answer is "save the Harmar-Plum bridge as-is" or "keep the piers only and build a lower bridge", we should speak up.
Have others of you spoken to people you know in a position of influence, to make sure the bike community's voice is heard regarding the future of this bridge?
I just did a search of post-gazette.com articles for "harmar AND bridge" and found the following, so I guess the save-the-piers proposal has been successful, which is good news.
----
Allegheny County Council asks delay in pier demolition
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Allegheny County Council would like the piers holding up a Pennsylvania Turnpike bridge to be spared from demolition.
A divided council voted Tuesday night to ask the Turnpike Commission to delay blowing up the piers to allow time for a deal to be worked out to have the county take ownership of them.
The bridge over the Allegheny River, which links Harmar and Plum, has been replaced by a new double span.
Supporters say the old bridge supports could provide the future foundation for a smaller bike-and-pedestrian bridge to link portions of a proposed county-wide riverfront park.
"Saving the piers could provide an economical way to cross the river," Councilman Michael Finnerty, D-Scott, said.
Councilman Matt Drozd, R-Ross, opposed the "sense of council" resolution. The state and county already face budget crises and should not take on additional projects, he said.
Any agreement on county ownership of the piers would have to be worked out between the county executive's office and the Turnpike Commission and then returned to council for approval.
Demolition of the first section of the bridge's steel frame is scheduled for Tuesday. A spokesman for the Turnpike Commission has said the piers should not be damaged by that work.
----
This was in the paper today...
Turnpike bridge piers unlikely to be left standing in Allegheny River
By Michael Aubele, VALLEY NEWS DISPATCH
Saturday, July 10, 2010
A proposal to keep the old Pennsylvania Turnpike bridge piers standing in the Allegheny River has suffered its own demolition.
Kevin Evanto, spokesman for Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato, said Friday little chance exists that county officials will agree to preserve the piers.
?As we went through this process, the likelihood that the county wanted to take ownership of the piers was very slim,? he said. ?The cost to the taxpayers doesn't make it viable.?
Dave Fawcett, a former county councilman from Oakmont, made a pitch to council and turnpike officials for keeping the piers in the river, arguing they could support a pedestrian bridge that would connect trails on both sides.
Those trails don't exist, although county officials do have designs on creating a riverfront park and trail system along both sides of the Allegheny from downtown Pittsburgh to Harrison Hills Park in Harrison.
Evanto said after the county told the Turnpike Commission of its interest in retaining the piers, it turned the matter over to its legal and public works departments. The reports coming back were negative, he said.
He cited the following concerns:
• Liability problems that include the county's responsibility if someone were injured climbing a pier or if a boat struck one.
• Land easements. He said the turnpike has easements with the property owners on both the Harmar and Plum sides of the river, but that the county would have to negotiate new agreements.
• The structural integrity of the 59-year-old piers and the ongoing cost to maintain them.
• The cost of building a walking/biking bridge, saying it would be expensive to build one because its height — about 50 feet — would require ramps with multiple switchbacks.
Evanto said there was no real need for the bridge.
?We have new bridges going in at Oakmont (the Hulton Bridge) and Freeport that will have bicycle and walking access,? he said.
Nick Futules, an Oakmont resident and Harmar business owner who represents several Alle-Kiski Valley communities on council, said the problems with the proposal weren't immediately apparent.
?It sounded good, but the liability and property issues got in the way,? he said.
Council President Rich Fitzgerald said he feels the issue isn't dead.
?I think the way we may be going now is that the proposal is not as promising as we thought,? he said. ?Still, I don't know that a final determination has been made.?
Turnpike officials have supported the proposal, going as far as to draft a contract that conveys ownership of the piers to the county.
Crews are set to demolish a portion of the bridge's steel superstructure on Tuesday. The remaining superstructure is slated to come down later in the month.
Meantime, Fawcett said he's hopeful that county residents contact Onorato and council members to voice their support for keeping the piers in place.
?First of all, I'm hopeful it's not a definite? the piers will come down, Fawcett said.
He indicated a VND reporter's phone call was the first he heard of county officials moving away from his proposal.
?I think it still would be prudent to hold off and further study the options,? he said. ?I haven't heard of anything that would be insurmountable.
?This is an opportunity that shouldn't be lost, and I'm hopeful residents who value this express their opinion in favor of keeping those piers in place.
?The northeastern part of the county — Harmar, Cheswick and East Deer — is underserved in terms of river and trail access,? Fawcett said.
?The bottom line is that (demolishing) the piers is forever. Leaving them leaves options.?
thanks for the info greasefoot.
uh - if some jackass climbs up on property that is marked "no trespassing" and injures themselves, there's a problem with this state's laws if the property owner is held responsible.
ditto for a boat that can't avoid a stationary object. can't steer your boat? don't drive your boat.
as for land access, couldn't public good / eminent domain be used? "they've" use it in a variety of other places that make less sense than this.
Seems like another situation where there is not only no money, but no willingness to even entertain the idea.
I have heard the state is planning a new bridge in Oakmont as well. If they decide to keep and re-use the Hulton Bridge, then the Harmar span would be kind of redundant. That said, there have been bridge piers left in place all around that eventually found re-use.
They have been there for years and years. River traffic is accustomed to them being there, so I don't buy the argument of restricting river traffic. My vote, if I had one, would be in favor of leaving them in place, knocking the tops down so that some future bike trail would require less ramp-up.
My sister, who had never been in Pittsburgh before, looked at the 6th, 7th & 9th Street Bridges and asked me, outright, "Why don't they knock down a couple of those bridges? Seems like a waste having to maintain all that redundancy." I didn't try to explain that, really, all three are necessary, but it's worth noting that people who don't think like us think like that.
There is no redundancy with bridges. The more the merrier!
my video of the bridge demolition today:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDb5wvFlmmA
living on the penn hills side of verona, constantly having to go north for work/family, I can say with confidence that there's no such thing as too many bridges. Anyone who's tried to cross Hulton Bridge between 3 and 7PM on a weekday when school is in session (smooth move, Oakmont, put the highschool drivers beside the only bridge for miles), would agree.
if they don't keep this bridge, maybe I'll buy a boat and start a ferry service for peds/bikes. That would be an awesome way to spend the day.
Why don't we have more ferries?
