Geigel Hill Bridge at Sheephole Road

This Pratt Pony Truss bridge was built in 1887 by Bucks County in response to a petition from local residents, led by Lewis Overpeck, the blacksmith and butcher whose shop is still alongside the creek at the bridge. Fifteen feet wide, and rated originally for fifteen- ton vehicles, the ingenious bridge design used precious steel and allowed bolt-together construction on site. Years later, PennDOT (the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation) assumed ownership. They did little maintenance in recent years and haven't painted it since the 1960s. Nevertheless, the bridge functioned at full weight limits for well over a century. It was closed to vehicles in 2002, when a truck crashed into an upright truss member.

The last 20 years:

February 1988: PennDOT sends letter to Tinicum advising that this
bridge will be replaced in 1990 with a new bridge. The new bridge
will be nearly 50 feet wide with a banked curve and shoulders and
will require the road for hundreds of yards on both sides of the
bridge to be moved.

July 1989: Bucks County Conservancy identifies the area as
historical. Pennsylvania elevates the Tinicum Creek to prime wild
and scenic status. Tinicum expresses concerns to PennDOT about the
width and impact of the new bridge, which would have removed a
number of historic structures. Tinicum proposes alternatives,
including repair. For a rehabilitation or restoration that preserves
the abutments, no significant permits would be necessary and work
could begin immediately. This is still true today.

September 1992: A district two miles long of farms and buildings
along the Tinicum Creek is listed on the National Register of
Historic Places. The district is centered on this bridge.

1993: PennDOT proceeds with a new box culvert bridge design with 30
feet wide roadway, banked to keep speeds up, elevated four feet
higher at Sheephole Road.

1995: PennDOT announces construction to start 1996. Pennsylvania
Historical and Museum Commission rules that the plan would have an
adverse effect on the historic district. After years of pending
protection, Pennsylvania officially gives the Tinicum Creek
Exceptional Value status, its highest rating.

2000: U.S. Congress lists the Tinicum Creek as a Federal Wild and
Scenic river, in large part because of the historic district
centered on this bridge.. Oblivious, PennDot continues to pursue its
plan to remove all traces of the historic bridge and widen this
section of Geigel Hill Road by ten feet to make it the only part
ever likely to be designed to full modern highway standards, despite
the fact it is the only part of the road in a National Historic
Register district.

2001: National Park Service finds the 1993 bridge plan would cause
an adverse effect on the Wild and Scenic River and the qualities for
which it was listed. NPS recommends rehabilitation of the existing
bridge. By the end of the year, PennDOT is left with no remaining
valid permits for its box culvert design.

PennDOT suggests another approach. The bridge could be reconstructed
quickly if the Township would take ownership, but PennDot would
provide no money with it for maintenance. Otherwise, PennDOT will
rebuild the bridge to full modern highway standards though that
creates problems on every level in that confined and historic
location.

October 2002: Truck crash breaks one upright truss member. Though
the driver is cited by the police, PennDOT never attempts to collect
repair costs from the driver's insurance. PennDOT refuses to yield
on their no longer permitted box culvert design and still promotes
it as the only solution unless the Township will take ownership
without a maintenance fund.

2003: Township and PennDOT discuss design alternatives for a PennDOT
owned bridge.. World reknowned bridge engineer Abba Lichtenstein
offers plan to rehabilitate existing bridge to modern loads for
$350,000, PennDOT rejects it and proposes a new modern box-beam
design. Because it would make significant changes to the floodplain,
the stream, and the historic district, no permit processes could be
waived, and approval would take five to seven years, even without
any local opposition.

September 2004: PennDOT proposes building a new truss bridge.
Township agrees if it won't block the floodplain or significantly
elevate the roads.

February 2006: To meet their own modern design standards, PennDOT
requires the new bridge and approaches must be one continuous
elevated and banked high-speed curve twice as wide as the existing
bridge, raising new problems at nearby Clay Ridge Road and Sheephole
Road intersections. PennDOT also requires elevated approach ramps
that would unavoidably block the floodplain. The same five-to-seven-
year permit process would be required. Tinicum again requests a
simpler plan.

March 2006: A breakthrough! PennDOT agrees to reconstruct the bridge
to Township specifications and give the bridge and a few hundred
yards of adjacent road to Tinicum, along with a one-time endowment
for future maintenance. Tinicum agrees.

June 2006: Tinicum provides PennDOT with its specifications.

December 2006: As requested by PennDOT, Tinicum signs agreement
committing the Township to the new plan.

August 2007: Preliminary PennDOT drawings show considerable change
from Tinicum specifications.

December 2007: The US Army Corps of Engineers begins a review called
the Section 106 process. This review is required by federal law for
protected historic resources, and it brings all parties, including
all involved state and federal permitting agencies, together to
comment on the new plan and consider any alternatives. At the first
106 meeting, PennDOT announces it will not provide the endowment
after all. It pushes a plan for a much-widened bridge with extensive
new concrete structures and highway guardrail throughout, despite
the Township agreeing to take ownership. PennDOT also asks Tinicum
to take over all of Geigel Hill Road. Tinicum asks for return to the
previous agreement and specifications.

January 2008: PennDOT tentatively agrees to go back to their
original terms on the endowment and road ownership and scales back
the new concrete and guardrail, but then announces abruptly that it
plans to demolish the historic bridge, throwing a new cloud over the
whole deal.

February 2008: Tinicum and PennDOT resolve new bridge design details
and agree to a "letter of intent" committing all parties, including
neighbors, to the bridge reconstruction plan. Neighbors and Tinicum
sign the agreement.

PennDOT suddenly declares the bridge in imminent danger of collapse,
though nothing about its condition has changed in the five years
it's been closed to traffic, and declares an emergency to begin
demolition. PennDOT will neither agree in writing to plans for a new
bridge nor to saving the trusses and other useable pieces of the
historic bridge for use in the new bridge.

March 2008: Regulating agencies propose a memorandum binding PennDOT
to the deal. PennDOT refuses to commit in writing, focuses instead
on demolition.