After trying for 18 years to find a way to wedge a modern bridge into this location, PennDot finally agreed with Tinicum in 2006 to build a compatible replacement. PennDOT would reuse the trusses of the original Geigel Hill Bridge in a new bridge, which would have the capacity to carry all modern traffic, including emergency vehicles, while preserving the historic appearance of the bridge. The Township would then have ownership of that bridge along with an endowment to pay for future maintenance.

The Township signed this agreement in 2006. PennDot says they agree, and everyone has been waiting for PennDot to sign too. Instead, PennDOT has just announced that they intend to demolish the old bridge, claiming that the danger of possible failure exists. In fact, however, the latest engineering evidence shows that the bridge is perfectly sound and there is no emergency. link to Township Takeback Resolutionlink to PennDOT DMJM Engineering Reportlink to Defreytas Inspection ReportBecause the bridge is on the National Register of Historic Places it is protected by the US Department of the Interior and National Park Service, which has called for a binding contract, signed by both parties, to lock in the design of the new bridge before demolition. Without such a contract, the efforts to reopen this bridge will remain stalled, and the subsequent repair of the Headquarters Road Bridge just down stream will also be delayed.

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 (link to NPS document). 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 (link to design) 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. On March 4, the PA-DEP gave the required 30 day notice of intent to give PennDOT a bridge demolition permit on April 3 that would be effective immediately. An appeal was filed by Tinicum Township, township citizens and the Institute for Community Preservation. The PA-DEP responded by saying that since they hadn't actually issued the permit yet, they had done nothing appealable. Thus, the PA-DEP position is it that the permit cannot be appealed until it's issued, at which point there is no time left to stop them.

April 2008: The Environmental Hearing Board heard PennDOT's arguments in support of an emergency permit to demolish the Geigel Hill Road bridge. At the hearing, PennDOT could not produce any inspection reports to prove that the bridge had to be demolished or was at imminent risk of collapse. The Board effectively blocked demolition for at least a month and advised PennDOT to complete the plans they had developed with Tinicum Township to reconstruct the bridge. PennDOT may continue to try to get an emergency demolition permit without committing to the bridge reconstruction plan. If so, they will spend a lot of additional money on not building the bridge and further postpone the day when the bridge is reopened. PennDOT is taking an unnecessary and confrontational route when the solution is in hand.

On Tuesday April 8, the Environmental Hearing Board heard PennDOT's arguments in support of an emergency permit to demolish the Geigel Hill Road bridge. At the hearing, PennDOT could not produce any inspection reports to prove that the bridge had to be demolished or was at imminent risk of collapse. The Board effectively blocked demolition for at least a month and advised PennDOT to complete the plans they had developed with Tinicum Township to reconstruct the bridge. PennDOT may continue to try to get an emergency demolition permit without committing to the bridge reconstruction plan. If so, they will spend a lot of additional money on not building the bridge and further postpone the day when the bridge is reopened. PennDOT is taking an unnecessary and confrontational route when the solution is in hand.  Link to additional hearing information