State says it can, city has concerns

By DONNA KENNY KIRWAN

PAWTUCKET — Saying that it was likely built for “horse and buggy use,” at least one Pawtucket Councilor is raising concerns about how the Division Street Bridge will stand up to the heavy truck traffic resulting from the Pawtucket River Bridge detour on I-95.

At Wednesday’s City Council meeting, Public Works Director John Carney gave the council an update on the detour situation, which includes the use of the Division Street Bridge as part of the state I-95 North truck detour. Carney said that despite some traffic back-ups at several locations during the morning and afternoon peak commuting times, “everything has mostly gone smoothly.”

However, Councilor John J. Barry III, who represents Ward 4 and lives on Division Street, told Carney that he is very concerned about the state’s decision to use the historic bridge as a heavy truck carrier — especially since the estimates to repair the Pawtucket River Bridge span of I-95 have been placed at taking anywhere from three to five years.

Barry said the bridge was built in 1872 — even five years earlier than the state says it is — and questioned the accuracy of the last inspection report that was sent to Carney by the Department of Transportation ’s chief engineer. He also raised the point of whether the railings on the Division Street Bridge are strong enough to withstand a crash from a large truck.

In particular, Barry said he questions whether the DOT inspection considered heavy truck trafic or simply used the parameters for regular vehicles. “This is an historic structure. It was not made for 22-ton trucks,” Barry stated. He added that he has little faith in DOT’s inspections given the fact that the Pawtucket River Bridge was allowed to reach a point where it is now deemed unsafe for heavy trucks. “That corrosion didn’t happen overnight,” he stated.

Carney replied that, while the bridge is old, its design makes it actually safer than some newer bridge models. He said that, based on information from the DOT, he thinks the bridge can handle the heavy truck traffic over a short-term period. However, he agreed with Barry that he would be concerned about having to use the bridge for the next three to five years.

Councilors Thomas Hodge and Paul Wildenhain also voiced concerns about the long-term use iof the Division Street Bridge. Hodge also told Carney that he would like him to look at the traffic routing near School Street and Division Street, saying that there has been considerable gridlock at certain times of the day.
Barry told Carney he wants to see a more current inspection of the Division Street Bridge and frequent, if not daily, monitoring of the structure during the truck detour. “I would like some more assurance from the state on the safety of this bridge,” he stated.

When contacted on Thursday, Farhoumand said the Division Street Bridge is “absolutely” able to carry heavy trucks, even for a lengthy period, if need be.

In his letter to Carney, Kazem Farhoumand, acting chief engineer for the state DOT, said that the load rating data show that the structure is capable of carrying all “legally permitted trucks.”  He also stated, “Additionally, we do not feel the remaining service life of the bridge would be reduced by any significant amount by allowing truck travel for an interim period, prior to the replacement of I-95 Bridge No. 550 (The Pawtucket River Bridge).

Farhoumand said that as an added safety measure, no overweight vehicles will be granted permits for traveling over the Division Street Bridge.

Farhoumand said the bridge was last inspected in June of 2006 and is scheduled for another inspection within the next 5-6 months. He added that every state bridge is inspected on a minimum of every two years.

As to the safety of the railings in the event of a crash, Farhoumand said he did not have recent data readily available. However, he noted that the bridge is designed for low-speed travel and that the trucks passing over it will be traveling at a much lower speed than they would on a highway. “That’s a local road, not a freeway,” he said. But, he added, “We will be keeping an eye on it.”