Masontown residents view bridge plan
MASONTOWN – During an open house Wednesday evening, nearly 90 sets of eyes pored over three possible alignments for the span to replace the almost-80-year-old Masontown Bridge. The bridge is the centerpiece of a proposed upgrade of the 3-mile stretch of Route 21 from the Route 166 interchange to the intersection with Route 88 in Greene County. Officials from the state Department of Transportation and the engineers who will design the plans for the new bridge met with public officials and the public at American Legion Post 423 to get more feedback before an alignment is selected.
Of the alignments, two are positioned south of the existing bridge, while the third veers north of the current structure. Each has its own pros and cons, according to Glenn Stickel, project manager for SAI Consulting Engineers of Pittsburgh.
According to information at the session, 20 to 33 properties will be affected by the project, which includes the widening of the entire stretch to four lanes and construction of a new bridge that will be higher than the current span.
“People are concerned about losing their home, and we are sensitive to that,” Stickel said. “These are the prices we pay for taking a 1920s project and building it to today’s standards.”
The effects on property and access are ones that Masontown Borough Council members are not taking lightly, according to Councilman Tom Loukota. He said the council members want to make sure that any new alignment will not negatively affect a tract of borough-owned land near the Monongahela River that could be developed in the future.
“We asked for more detailed drawings to get an idea of traffic control and how River Avenue and other roads will tie into the corridor,” he said. “We like being included in the planning stages and to know that our comments are being considered.”
Loukota said he prefers the “blue alignment,” the southernmost of the three proposed alignments, because it allows better traffic flow from the borough and does not encroach on the proposed development site; however, that alignment requires the most property disruption.
“It would mean more relocations but would require less adjustment after,” he said. “We would be getting a relocated River Avenue and a relocated Mount Sterling Road.”
He, along with council President Joe Volansky and Councilman Frank McLaughlin, attended the public officials meeting before the public open house.
On the other side of the river, the Rev. Rodney Torbic of St. George Serbian Orthodox Church said he came Wednesday night to see the alignments and try to determine which one would have the least effect on his church.
Torbic, who said he already hears the traffic from Route 21 at all hours of the day and night, at least wants to have an idea of what planners are thinking before construction begins. Work on the road could start as soon as 2005, according to information distributed at the session.
He said it appears the alignment that has been favored to date is one that would bring the road closer to, not farther from, the church.
“We need to consider noise, access and aesthetics. I live with the power plant every day,” Torbic said. “I hear people on 21 now. What’s going to happen if it gets closer to me?”
Melvin and Theresa Dragich of Crucible, who own six lots near Route 21, came to see the proposed improvements to the road and left satisfied that the work will not affect their land.
“The bridge is outdated. It was built when I was a little kid,” Melvin Dragich said. “Let them get in there and replace it.”
Charles and Carol Jeffries of Carmichaels, who live along Route 21 near the Robena mine memorial, left Wednesday’s meeting happy. They both said the proposed alignments hold little change for their property.
“We were worried about the effect this work would have on us,” Charles Jeffries said. “We live near the road, and it can’t get much noisier than it already is.”
Stickel said he was pleased with the turnout Wednesday and said the comments he gleaned from those in attendance will be helpful in selecting an alignment by summer so final design can begin. He said PennDOT will hold at least one more meeting to discuss the project before construction begins.
“We’re going to take today’s feedback, compare it to everything else and see what we come up with,” he said. “We hope to come back and show people what’s been happening, what has been changed or modified and hopefully improved upon.”
More information about the proposed work is available on the project’s Web site: www.rebuild21.com.