Charleroi-Monessen Bridge

"C. Vance Deicas Memorial Bridge"

Bridge Documented: July 11, 2009

View Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) Documentation For This Bridge

This historic bridge is slated for demolition because of PennDOT and Senator Barry Stout!

This monstrous three main span bridge features two large Pennsylvania through truss spans covered in v-lacing and lattice, as well as a similarly designed smaller truss span except it follows the Parker configuration.  It is extremely significant for its massive size, age, rare truss configuration, and historic integrity. The connections on the bridge are pinned. The bridge was built by the Mercantile Bridge Company. The west approach to this bridge is excessively wide, as it was built in more recent years. The photos and the bridge speak for themselves... setting aside the historic significance of the bridge, the visual qualities of this bridge alone are without comparison. Its size makes it very impressive, and its complex truss configuration along with the v-lacing and lattice on its built-up beams create a geometric art that is far more stunning than any modern bridge. This is a bridge that it so big you can't help but notice its presence. Its complex engineering that form a structure that is both a town landmark and a work of art. It functions as a local landmark and impressive gateway into the communities it serves.

Be sure to check the HABS HAER entry for this bridge for a more technical description, detailed history, and less flowery description of the bridge. Either way, the facts speak for themselves. This is a bridge for which preservation is important.

The bridge was closed in early 2009 due to a structural problem. As one might suspect in a state with an extremely low number of preserved historic truss bridges despite a large number of surviving historic truss bridges, PennDOT quickly moved to replace this bridge. Even before PennDOT held public information meetings, even before the public comment period had concluded, PennDOT was already telling the local newspapers that this historic bridge must be demolished and replaced, even though many members of the community want the bridge preserved, and despite the fact that studies had not been made which might very well show that preservation was feasible and fiscally responsible.

As if PennDOT was not bad enough, Pennsylvania State Senator Barry Stout (D) immediately sought out 44 million dollars and has been demanding that everyone forget about preservation and replace the bridge quickly, again before the normal process of examining alternatives and seeking public input had concluded. Stout's position is very alarming since although a Democrat, Stout's action's go directly against President Obama's initiatives to transform the United States into a government of transparency, fiscal responsibility, and sustainability. Because both PennDOT and Barry Stout both demanded the demolition and replacement of the bridge before all alternatives to demolition were analyzed, considered, and evaluated  by the public as required by Section 106 and Section 4(f), they effectively were bypassing and mocking the logical and democratic process that Section 106/4(f) lay out.

Indeed, Senator Barry Stout is perhaps the only person more against historic bridges than even PennDOT itself. PennDOT often does not make any move to preserve historic bridges, and they may not be willing to listen or seriously consider alternatives to demolition. However, they at least have enough respect and decency to at least not say that it would be nice to preserve historic bridges, even if 99% of the time they believe and decide that it isn't possible. In contrast, Senator Barry Stout has gone beyond simply expressing support for a  demolition and replacement project, but he as also attacked the very heart and concept of historic bridge preservation. His despicable comments are cruel and insulting to the efforts of the historic bridge community, nor do they reflect the reality of the world in which he lives. Stout has said this of the Charleroi-Monessen Bridge "The bridge was meant for commerce" and "It's not meant to be a museum." This comment is obscene because it implies that history and function cannot coexist with bridges, which is clearly untrue. What does he think Pittsburgh's Smithfield Street Bridge is? The Brooklyn Bridge? The Golden Gate Bridge? Or even the many lesser-known bridges such as the Bridge Street Bridge in Portland, Michigan? As any New Yorker or Californian if the Golden Gate Bridge or Brooklyn Bridge is still being used for commerce today. The volume of traffic on these bridges is incomprehensible. Yet, then ask them if the bridge is a museum at the same time. Bridges can be both museums and functional crossing. The question is do DOTs, legislatures and the public have the backbone to rehabilitate the bridge and breath new life into it? Apparently, in Charleroi, the answer is no.

Senator Stout has made other deplorable comments directed at preservationists. One of the most infamous is his statement "This ongoing hassle to preserve the bridge – I’m just frustrated at the people dragging out the process," said State Sen. J. Barry Stout." What Stout refuses to admit is that if he had embraced a repair project, the bridge could have been reopened to traffic in under a year. If anybody has dragged the process out, it was Stout himself.

HistoricBridges.org urges anyone who cares for historic bridges to contact those involved with the demolition plans including Senator Stout and PennDOT District 12 and expressing support for the preservation of this important historic bridge and historic bridges elsewhere in the area.