Bridge Update

On April 8, 2008, the Geigel Hill Bridge was the subject of a marathon legal proceeding before the Environmental Hearing Board (EHB). After nearly 12 hours, the judge ruled that PennDOT could not destroy the bridge immediately because DEP had improperly applied the notice requirements. The agencies had asserted that the 30-day notice specified by law could occur prior to the permit’s issuance rather than after the permit has been issued. The judge disagreed. This effectively blocked the demolition for at least a month.

The judge has yet to rule on the larger issues of whether an emergency can trump environmental protections under the statute and regulations; and also whether the facts of the situation constitute an emergency or not. Thus, the threat of a potential adverse ruling against any of the parties should serve as a motivator to get all of the sides talking again. The judge urged all parties to seek a final resolution, which had seemed so close at hand several months ago.

Although the township has continued to work toward a solution, PennDOT had recently refused to attend an important meeting that included the Army Corp of Engineers and the National Park Service. Hopefully, PennDOT will now return to the table in good faith and provide the township with the design drawings of the replacement bridge they promised months ago, which we believe (based on PennDOT’s presentations) will be satisfactory.

During the proceedings it was interesting to note that PennDOT could not and did not produce any inspection reports to prove that the bridge had to be demolished or was at imminent risk of collapse. In fact, they avoided even having the consultants who had prepared the cursory reports upon which PennDOT based their case in the courtroom. While keeping the people who had examined the bridge hidden and protecting them from cross examination, PennDOT called staff witnesses (the most senior of whom admitted that he had not even been to the bridge since 2002) who testified that in the event of a flood, earthquake, or ultra high winds, someone fishing beneath the bridge could be injured if it collapsed. To one witness’s credit, he did say more rationally that downstream damage could occur if the bridge was washed out prior to its demolition, but of course, that is true for any bridge.

The importance of the testimony lies in the possibility that PennDOT may exercise the irrational option of disregarding the judge’s desire to see a reasonable solution and continue to try to get an emergency demolition permit without committing to a bridge reconstruction plan. If they do, the judge has a number of options to consider and we are hopeful that he will agree that this is more than a procedural matter. Further, it is our hope that he will not allow PennDOT to trump up emergencies as a means to bypass the wide variety of resource protection measures enacted by Congress and Pennsylvania State Legislature.

Once again, we urge you to contact your legislators and let them know that you want a solution not more delays!

Congressman Patrick Murphy
60 North Main Street Doylestown, PA 18901
(215) 348-1194
Fax: (215) 348-1449

Marguerite Quinn
State Representative 143rd District
1032 North Easton Road Doylestown, PA 18901-1055
(215) 489-2126
Fax: (215) 489-2129
email: mquinn@pahousegop.com

Chuck McIlhinney
PA Senate District 10
22 S. Main Street Doylestown, PA 18901
215-489-5000
email: cmcilhinney@pasenate.gov