The Catskill Chronicle

March 27, 2012

Pennsylvania DOT

Interstate Bridge Commission

Geo. J. Roberts P.E., District Executive, District 4-0

55 Keystone Industrial Park

Dunmore, PA 18512

New York State DOT

Interstate Bridge Commission

Jack Williams P.E., Regional Director, Region 9

33 Mitchell Avenue

Binghamton NY 13901

Dear Sirs:

With local, state and national officials all calling for a reexamination of the decision to remove the historic Pond Eddy Bridge, I am resigning from the PennDOT-sponsored Design Advisory Committee as the designated member the Upper Delaware Scenic Byway (UDSB) Advisory Board.

It is the belief of the UDSB Advisory Board that the existing bridge should be retained and brought back to its original design load of 15-18 tons. The UDSB Advisory Board has asked that the Interstate Bridge Commission reopen the study of this bridge, and consider alternative methods of providing access to Pond Eddy, Pennsylvania.

Previous studies did not contain accurate information about alternatives, and never provided a true cost comparison. It is clear that the firm leading the design exercise for PennDOT did not allow bridge restoration to be part of a comprehensive or comparative discussion.

In fact many issues that relate to a new bridge were not allowed as part of the discussion. These include:

· DECREASE IN CLEARANCE BETWEEN BRIDGE STRUCTURE AND WATER LEVEL. All of the proposed new designs lower the structure relative to the river water level in comparison to the existing bridge.

· PERMANENT DISRUPTION IN RIVER FLOW. Designs that add additional piers increase the possibility of flooding hazards. PennDOT argues that additional piers would enhance the river flow based on their assertion that the existing pier is in the middle of the deepest river channel section, and the new piers would be smaller and on either side. Visual inspection indicates that the existing pier and the river bed would have to be removed in order to assure that the mid-channel is deepest.

· TEMPORARY DISRUPTION IN RIVER FLOW #1. PennDOT indicated that bridge replacement construction can only be accomplished by building a “causeway” across the river, so that during the period of construction for the new structure heavy equipment can have the access.

No specific plans for this one or two-year river blockage have been revealed. No permits have been obtained. The potential of flooding hazard from a causeway will be extreme.

· TEMPORARY DISRUPTION IN RIVER FLOW #2. A causeway will result in a one or two-year disruption in the recreational use of the river. This will be devastating to the rafting and fishing industries – and have an adverse effect on migratory and other fish species.

· TEMPORARY DISRUPTION IN RIVER FLOW #3. PennDOT has totally ignored the flooding hazard during construction, which will involve two sets of piers – one pier for the existing bridge, and two or three piers for the new bridge. All the piers and the causeway will be simultaneously in the river during construction. These issues need to be part of the design review.

· DISCLOSURE OF PLANS FOR THE PENNSYLVANIA ROAD CONNECTION. Since the proposed new 40 ton capacity bridge will connect with what is essentially a one-lane dirt track, PennDOT should indicate its plans for the road. The bridge approach on the Pennsylvania side will need work in any case. Is this part of the bridge project or the road project? Technically this lack of disclosure is known as “segmentation” – i.e. the ultimate conclusion of the project is not revealed in the approval process.

· DISCLOSURE OF PLANS FOR CONSTRUCTION STAGING. A project of this duration and complexity will require a substantial staging area on the New York side. This will create a disruption [perhaps of a large scale] to Route 97 and adjacent private properties. This is a critical issue for the Upper Delaware Scenic Byway, as our mission is to protect and enhance this scenic highway.

· COST ESTIMATE CREDIBILITY. If the new Barryville Bridge project is an indicator, the eventual cost at Pond Eddy could be up to double the present preliminary projections. No comparisons have been presented that include the option of keeping the existing bridge and upgrading the land route to Pond Eddy.

· THE “AESTHETIC” QUESTION. All of the visual alternatives presented by the PennDOT consultants are from the same engineering firm. None considered a smaller bridge to serve the actual population being served.

It is my understanding that fewer than a dozen people actually live full-time on the Pennsylvania side of the river. This lack of real information about the number of residents is part of the problem. According to a search of the Pike County tax maps (within the last month), it appears that there are only 23 private tax parcels on the Pennsylvania side served by the bridge – not 26 as PennDot claims, although it may be including state land parcels. The combined market value of the 23 parcels is $2,148,013 (or assessed value of $459,960 x 4.67 “common level ratio” to get the market value). Of course this indicates that the cost of a new bridge will be in the range of five times the market value of the properties that it serves.

The existing bridge already allows access of vehicles up to seven tons. This historic structure should be brought back to its original capacity [approximately 15 to 18 tons] which will then allow crossings by emergency vehicles [like the Lumberland fire truck parked across the river] and delivery trucks. If heavier fire trucks are needed for a real emergency, these can travel down the railroad right-of-way.

If there is an additional need for trucks of greater tonnage, then Pennsylvania should extend one of three existing roads that reach close to Pond Eddy. Parkers Glen Road comes within 1.8 miles and is roughed out the remaining distance [it can be seen on Google Earth]. Fire Tower Road comes from Route 6 to within .8 miles, but it would need to cross over the hill to Pond Eddy. A third road comes up from Matamoras through Mil Rift. There is also a railroad running through Pond Eddy, capable of carrying huge loads, on the chance someone actually wanted to construct a new house.

New York Congressman Maurice Hinchey stated the issues well: “The demolition of the Pond Eddy Bridge and the construction of a modern, overpass-style replacement structure would diminish the historic character of the Pond Eddy area and adversely affect scenic, recreational and environmental qualities that contribute to the Upper Delaware’s federal designation as well as its designation as a New York State Scenic Byway. As we have seen in previous PennDOT projects in the Upper Delaware, the agency’s replacement bridges are sorely out of place and out of scale with the rural character and historic heritage of the River corridor. In addition to destroying a unique structure that contributes to the region’s historic character, this project would require interruption of the free flow of the Delaware River for at least one year. This diversion of the River would impact the recreational use of the River that is so vital to tourism businesses in Sullivan County. Interruption and changes to the River’s flow could also threaten the natural resources of this section of the Delaware, which is classified as Special Protection Waters by the Delaware River Basin Commission.”

I believe that PennDOT has exceeded its authority and acted illegally by allowing its bridge engineering firms to present inaccurate and unsubstantiated information guaranteed to lead to the conclusion that the Pond Eddy Bridge needs to be replaced. Essentially, if Pennsylvania believes that this community should receive services that everyone in the Commonwealth is entitled to – then it should provide them. PA should not destroy a nationally recognized bridge, threaten the Delaware River – and ask the citizens of New York to pay half the cost.

Sincerely,

Glenn Pontier

UDSB Representative to the PennDOT Design Advisory Committee for the Pond Eddy Bridge

cc: Commissioner Joan McDonald/New York State Department of Transportation

Paul J. DeAngelo, Skelly and Loy, Inc.

Hon. Kristen Gillibrand

Hon. Maurice Hinchey

Hon. John Bonacic

Hon. Aileen Gunther

Hon. Kathleen M. LaBuda

Superintendent Sean McGuinness/National Park Service

Upper Delaware Council

Upper Delaware Scenic Byway