Newtown Creek Pedestrian Bridge Rebid Questions
Executive Summary
The Newtown Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge and Trail project is currently in a rebid phase as of June 2026. The project is supported by a grant of $999,979, with approximately 11.7% ($116,953.56) already expended on engineering and legal costs.
To manage costs and provide flexibility, the rebid structure utilizes a “Base Bid” for critical elements—such as cast-in-place concrete foundations and cedar post fencing—while introducing several “Add/Alternate” items for optional materials and trail extensions. For more on that, read “Newtown Creek Bridge Rebid Specifications”.
Financial Status and Funding Constraints
The project is governed by the limitations of a single awarded grant. The current financial data reveals a discrepancy between historical bid pricing and available funds. Howell Engineering is the Principal Engineer of record, with Jeremy S. Madaras, MSc, PE, serving as the primary contact for technical inquiries. Legal oversight is provided by Kilkenny Law LLC.
Grant Allocation and Expenditures
| Financial Category | Amount |
|---|---|
| Total Grant Awarded | $999,979.00 |
| Total Expenses to Date (Engineering & Legal) | $116,953.56 |
| % of Grant Spent to Date | 11.7% |
| Estimated Future Invoices (Howell & Kilkenny) | $47,000.00 |
| Remaining Funds Available for Construction | $836,025.44 |
Historical Bid Data (Rejected)
Previous bids for the project significantly exceeded the grant amount:
- Ply-Mar Construction Company Inc: $1,115,950.00
- PKF-MARK III Inc: $1,312,960.00
- Richard E. Pierson Construction Company Inc: $1,536,800.00
- Average Bid: $1,321,903.33
Questions From Bidders
In response to bidder inquiries and budgetary requirements, the project has categorized various components into Base Bid and Add/Alternate items. Howell Engineering has answered several questions from potential bidders. I summarize a few important ones with my concerns below (see Responses to Bidder Questions #2 (REBID)...).
Q: Are you open to alternative bridge design including the following?
(1) Driven round stock timber pile foundations in lieu of the concrete foundations shown on the plans.
A: The Project cannot commit to the use of Timber Pile Foundations in lieu of concrete foundations. This option will, however, be coordinated with approving entities and agencies (e.g., Newtown Board of Supervisors) for consideration. IF acceptable, the timber piles foundations will be included as an Add/Alternate Item.
MY CONCERN: Will Supervisors understand the structural implications? My concern is that timber pilings are less robust and long lasting compared to concrete and may incur expensive repairs/maintenance in the future.
More About Those Concrete Piers
A response to my Facebook post defended the “robustness” of wood pilings: “If the wood pilings at my marina have lasted over 40 years in saltwater they should be just fine over a creek.”
OK, but we were promised something more in line with the historic nature of the site, The design philosophy for the bridge is "Complementary vs. Mimicry." The engineer’s said they are committed to honoring the site’s history as a trolley crossing (1895–1923) without creating a false historical narrative.
On June 26, 2025, the Newtown Creek Coalition held a public meeting to present plans for the Newtown Creek Pedestrian Bridge. View the video I created from audio and photos at that meeting.
At the meeting, this is what Jeremy Madaras, the Howell engineer, said about the concrete piers at a public meeting in 2025 (view the video: “Newtown Creek Bridge Public Presentation”):
“So here's your first real view in terms of what our peers are proposed to look like. And basically what I am proposing is that the base of our peers will be uh formed concrete. So we'll basically configure a shape and that shape will be complimentary to the shape of the original trolley peers — sort of triangular but with points facing upstream and downstream. So, they'll have a similar shape.
“Uh the other idea is to have uh a concrete form line which basically means that instead of just being uh flat concrete that'll have a pattern that matches some sort of stone...you want to stay away from trying to mimic these peers exactly because if you can't match them exactly then it's going to be sort of the uncanny valley.
“You look at the our new concrete peers, you look at the original peers, they're going to be similar, but they're not going to be the same. So, it's going to be it would actually be detrimental from a historic setting to try to match that. So, what we want to do is we want to try to do something historically or period accurate uh but that's just complimentary and not uh again trying to exaggerate. There will be some sort of stone pattern uh tinted to look like uh different shades of stone. You might have seen that on the newer PENNdot or uh turnpike bridges. They're starting to do more and more of the uh the formline concrete with the uh with the tints.”
(2) Hardwood decking in lieu of composite decking shown on plans.
A: Hardwood decking has been included as an Add/Alternate Item.
MY CONCERN: Will hardwood deteriorate over time (e.g., warp) or require additional maintenance such as fungi removal that composite decking will not require?
(3) Timber handrails using timber posts w/ wire mesh in lieu of aluminum handrail shown on plans.
A: Timber Guardrail has been included as an Add/Alternate Item (#2-8). An Addendum Detail/Specification will be distributed to define the parameters of this railing.
Howell Engineering suggested the following manufacturers of "off-the-shelf" hog-wire panel railing:
Q: It is understood there was a grant awarded of $999,979 to fund this project. Has additional funding been secured, should the re-bid go over this dollar amount?
A: Additional funding has not been secured. Note that design, direct, and administrative costs in the range of 11 to 12 percent of the grant are a portion of that award.
This leads to a question I have:
Will There Be Enough Grant Money to Cover the Cost?
As I noted in comments at the 13 May 2026 Newtown Board of Supervisors meeting and above, the township (and Borough) have already paid Howell Engineering $113,062.81 in engineering fees for bridge design and project management as well as paying legal fees relating to the project totaling $3,891 (UPDATED 6/27/26). The total = $116,954, which is 11.7% of the $999,979 grant. Since Howell Engineering admitted that 11 to 12 percent is the cost range for these services, we are ALREADY at that point.
The problem as I see it is that there will definitely be additional “design, direct, and administrative costs” prior to and during construction and these costs will then exceed 12% of the grant. I am not sure this limit is written in stone as part of the grant, but these additional costs must be considered when considering the rebids.
By my estimate, there will be an additional $45,000 in invoices from Howell and $2,000 from Kilkenny (leaving aside the question of the 12% limit). That leaves only about $836,000 for work done by contractors. That, therefore, would be the highest bid amount acceptable UNLESS the township and borough chip in thousands of additional funds, which I am sure would be unpopular with many residents who have already complained about costs (for more on that, refer to my survey results...)
Connect With Us