 |
 |
 |
Worsham Street Bridge Update
by Friends of Worsham Street Bridge
The city’s war against the bridge escalated sharply in July. In lock step with the Register & Bee in what appeared to be a series of carefully timed one-two punches, the bridge was closed without warning to all traffic on July 14. City management would make a move; the R & B editor would then pound it home.
Here is how events played out. First, the bridge’s only pedestrian walkway was closed at the end of June after Schwartz & Associates’ hammers broke up a cantilever supporting the walk. (Interestingly, the old Main Street bridge has had broken and exposed cantilevers for quite some time and the damage wasn’t inflicted by hammers!) A few days later one of North Danville’s most venerable churches sent a letter to our city manager, mayor and council members respectfully asking them to not act too hastily and consider possible ways to save the bridge instead of concentrating on its demolition. Two or three days after that letter was received the bridge was shut down completely. A coincidence? Or was it timed deliberately in an attempt to stop the rapidly increasing resistance to the bridge’s planned destruction?
Let’s be very clear. Safety is of utmost importance. That is a given. Shortly after the church letter was received, city officials paid a quick visit to Schwartz’ Lynchburg office, where it was apparently noted that should a motorist lose control of the vehicle while crossing the bridge – punching numbers into a cell phone, for example – and drive onto the sidewalk, there could be a safety problem. That statement, or something similar, put the city in the position of having to make a decision, one way or the other, about closing the bridge. But that visit to Lynchburg also provided a timely opportunity for the city to play its trump card.
To repeat the obvious, no one wants an unsafe bridge open to traffic. What is wanted, however, is a thorough and objective re-evaluation performed by a qualified, independent bridge engineering firm. To many of our citizens, Schwartz does not fit this description. This request has been put to city council many times but to date it has been ignored.
To better understand the drama surrounding Worsham Bridge and the genuine skepticism about the selection of Schwartz & Associates to carry out the second evaluation, we need to go back in time about 17 years. Despite being a vital link between two sections of the city serving large volumes of local commercial and private traffic, plus significant traffic from points far north and south of the city, city council in the late 1980’s decided to stop maintaining the Worsham Bridge. The decision to condemn it was thus made.
Council was well aware of the fact that prior to the late eighties decision, the bridge was listed in the Virginia and National Registers as a contributing resource, according tit all protection and planning remedies offered under Section 106 of the National Historical Preservation Act. That designation is still valid today.
Several years later, in 1994, the city retained Schwartz & Associates to evaluate the bridge. By all accounts, the evaluation was superficial. The report contained a few specifics on materials tests results but no structural analysis or findings related to the bridge’s load bearing capacity. Yet, the report stated the bridge was not worth saving. Many consider that Schwartz was asked to produce a report simply to confirm, or justify, council’s earlier decision. Sadly, that conclusion was likely on target.
In 2004, Schwartz was again asked to re-evaluate the same bridge the firm had basically condemned ten years earlier. Skepticism about this firm’s independence and objectivity is easy to understand. Refusal by city management and council to engage an independent firm to perform the second evaluation is not easy to understand and has damaged credibility on this issue.
A large percentage of our local citizens are dismayed over the city’s lack of response to their requests to at least look for reasonable alternatives to destroying Worsham Bridge, ways to preserver Danville’s historic landmark as many other cities have done in their own downtown or inner-city revitalization process. The R & B has rather abruptly dismissed these concerned citizens as fuzzy sentimentalists. No so. They are active, productive, taxpaying folks who care deeply about Danville and want to see the city thrive economically once again. They also see the value in our city’s historic assets and the attraction they hold for individuals and industries looking at Danville as a potential relocation site. The Tobacco Warehouse District (Carrington Pavilion, Science Center, Luna, etc.) where the city has successfully invested much time and effort, and the recently designated North Danville historic District, with Worsham Street Bridge connecting the two, are prime examples.
These citizens are professionals, individuals, business owners, garden club members. And they vote. They are not asking for miracles, but simply want to see all reasonable and affordable options explored. For example, the money spent to demolish the bridge can be used to restore it. Congressman Goode appropriated $2 million to help restore a historic bridge in another part of the state. He can be asked to do the same for Danville. Perhaps there are grants available. Definitely, there are options for city officials to pursue. But the first move should be to retain an independent engineering firm with expertise in concrete bridges to perform a proper evaluation, whose findings will merit a high level of credibility. If the results prove the bridge cannot be saved then that should put the matter to rest.
We are fortunate to have a dedicated and hard working city council and the fate of Worsham Street Bridge clearly lies with council.
What is being asked is that the bridge be given a fair hearing, not a lynching. That is not asking too much. |
 |
|
(fields marked with * are required)
|
|
|
Friends of the Worsham Street Bridge - Danville, Virginia
We, the undersigned, believe that the Worsham Street Bridge can be preserved and should be preserved. The responsible position for the City to take is to authorize a fresh evaluation of the bridge, the one by a qualified, objective, independent bridge engineering firm, which looks for an efficient and effective way to preserve the bridge. |
|
The views expressed in this petition are solely those of the petition's
sponsor and do not in any way reflect the views of iPetitions.
iPetitions is solely a provider of technical services to the petition
sponsor and cannot be held liable for any damages or injury or other
harm arising from this petition. In the event no adequate sponsor is
named, iPetitions will consider the individual account holder with which
the petition was created as the lawful sponsor.
|
|
|
