Two perspectives on a one-lane bridge

The water under this Chester County bridge might not be troubled, but the debate over the deteriorating span's future is awash in conflict.

The Chandler Mill Bridge, a 99-year-old county-owned structure of stone and steel, sits next to the juncture of Chandler Mill and Bucktoe Roads in a bucolic swath of Kennett Township.

The bridge's single-lane width forces motorists to yield to oncoming traffic, a pause that invites a view of the West Branch of the Red Clay Creek as it gently laps over the rocks below.

Four hundred acres of the surrounding land, populated mainly by chirping birds and insects, have been placed under easement to prevent development, said Gwen Lacy, executive director of the Kennett Township Land Trust.

As a result, she and residents of this winding country road also want to preserve the character and tranquillity of the bridge.

"We're all into the historic nature of this area," said Hillary Jones, a Chandler Mill Road resident.

That view is supported by the Chandler Mill Bridge Consortium, an organization of residents; Safety, Agriculture, Villages and Environment Inc.; and other advocacy groups.

Opponents of the status quo - a two-way one-lane bridge - include the county and its two engineering firms, which say quaintness should not trump safety.

Time has taken a toll on the span, said Sandy Martin, an associate from McCormick Taylor who serves as Chester County's bridge engineer.

Martin said that she has been monitoring the bridge since 1988, and that its condition has worsened. Designed for horses and buggies, the span has an eight-ton weight restriction. That means full-size school buses, fuel and trash trucks, and even most emergency vehicles shouldn't use it, she said.

If the bridge's steel continues to be stressed, the weight limit might have to be dropped to three tons, the lowest posting, or the bridge might have to be closed, Martin said, an option no one wants.

Martin said the county has delayed the project for the last year and a half to accommodate residents.

"We're not insensitive to their needs," Martin said. "We're not trying to build a plain-Jane bridge."

She said the county proposed numerous options, all of which have failed. They included reducing the width from PennDot's standard of 28 to 24 feet - about seven feet wider than the present structure; agreeing to use the same steel and stone materials; offering to move the old bridge to a park or private location; and making the bridge one-lane but one-way.

Ron DeNadai, a retired engineer hired by the consortium, said the residents would be "easy to please" with an "in-kind" replacement.

"The county has a long list of reasons why things won't work, but they haven't made a bona fide effort," he said.

Martin said the county even tried to give the bridge to the township. Allan Falcoff, vice chairman of the Board of Supervisors, said the township "is in no position to assume the risk of owning a bridge."

Risk is also a concern for PennDot, Martin said. Because the agency controls the bulk of the project's funding - $1.9 million of the estimated $2 million - it has to approve the design.

PennDot spokesman Charles Metzger said the agency has funded a one-lane bridge in the past but would never compromise safety. He said the agency would not comment further until the county submitted its design.

Martin said that after the county approached PennDot a year ago about the one-lane, two-way design, the agency responded in February that if the county can "demonstrate that the design of a single-lane bridge is safe, meets the project need, and is consistent with the context of the project, we would approve a design exception for the project."

Martin said neither her firm nor the firm hired to design the replacement could do that.

"We can't prove it's safe," Martin said.

DeNadai, whose engineering career included 15 years at PennDot, said he has already done that. He said he completed a design exception report and gave it to the county a month ago.

"All they have to do is submit it. . . . PennDot makes the decision," DeNadai said. "If it's not accepted, they can blame the consortium."

DeNadai said he agreed with the county that the bridge needed to be replaced, not rehabilitated. He acknowledged that some changes might need to occur to ensure proper water flow; however, those alterations would not require widening the structure, he said.

Some residents worry that increasing the width would create a traffic hazard, turning the road into a winding racetrack. The current setup requires drivers to slow at the entrance and sometimes yield to oncoming traffic.

"It's a good-karma thing," Jones said, adding that having to stop at the bridge offers a personal experience that would be lost with a modern bridge.

Stephen Fromnick, director of Chester County's Department of Facilities Management, said traffic still would have to slow at the T-intersection where Chandler Mill Road meets Bucktoe regardless of the bridge's size.

Martin said the project was moving forward again, and barring other obstacles, construction would begin in about two years.

Still unresolved is an effort to get the bridge on the National Register of Historic Places. Lacy said a hearing was scheduled for Oct. 6.

DeNadai said that if the bridge was deemed historic, the county would have to pursue alternative designs, prompting another point of disagreement. Fromnick said the county would simply need to take more photos to document the bridge and possibly find "an alternative site" for it.

So far, there have been no takers.