TRR photo by David Hulse A crew from Hatch Mott MacDonald Inc., of Millburn, NJ, is pictured in April working on barges in the Upper Delaware in preparation for planned construction of a new interstate bridge. Workers have been taking core samplings to determine the stability of soils and the depth of bedrock at several possible sites for the new crossing. (Click for larger image)

Save the Pond Eddy Bridge

By PETER COMSTOCK

For the past six weeks, the presence of a barge working alongside the Pond Eddy Bridge reminds us that the project for removal and replacement of the bridge seems to be moving ahead in spite of some basic questions, which remain unanswered. Replacing or preserving this structure over the Delaware River became an issue for me several years ago when some public input was invited. Too busy at the time, I left any involvement in this issue to others—it’s called apathy, I guess.

Recently, I have been aware of the efforts of a group called Friends of the Pond Eddy Bridge. By way of background, an excerpt from a letter by its secretary, Dorothy Amey, a Pond Eddy resident, to the Governors of Pennsylvania and New York, would be useful:

“Listed since 1988 on the National Register of Historic Places and the Pennsylvania and New York State Registers, the Pond Eddy Bridge was constructed by Oswego Bridge Company in 1904. In 1982, its importance to the community was recognized with designation as ‘All Veteran’s Bridge,’ in commemoration of American War Veterans. Apart from its own historical significance, it lies at the center of one of the most unique concentrations of cultural heritage artifacts along the Upper Delaware. Its destruction would jeopardize the coherence of this unique environment…. Included would be the serious archeological issues related to the canal remains on the New York side; and the equally serious ecological questions related to the Pennsylvania side riverbank. The great potential of Pond Eddy as a unique destination related to cultural and eco-tourism along the Upper Delaware will be threatened….”

Given the current condition of Albany’s budget, the wisdom of New York spending $6.3 million toward the $13 million project—Pennsylvania is funding the rest—is open to question. Replacing an historic bridge with a much larger, two-lane concrete structure has the potential to overwhelm this stretch of the Delaware, particularly when one takes into account the massive excavations needed to construct approaches on each side of the river.

Aside from financial, visual and environmental problems, the project seems to fly in the face of the good intentions embodied in the Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River and the Route 97 Scenic Byway, initiatives aimed squarely at preserving the natural and cultural landscape.

Pragmatic concerns such as fire protection are worthy of discussion. Lumberland has only one small-attack vehicle capable of crossing the bridge, which would begin operations until trucks could arrive from Westfall. A small fraction of $13 million could provide Lumberland with another bridge-rated vehicle, or could provide a truck and equipment located on the Pennsylvania side dedicated to that area only.

Whatever the final solution to the fire and transportation problems, a lot more input and discussion should take place. I understand that some mandated reviews, at the state and possibly federal level, are still forthcoming. Planning issues like this are a lot like junking the old family phonograph or trashing the storefronts in an historic district. Years go by and finally everyone looks back with regret, realizing too late how priceless heritage can be.

So, I hope it’s not too late. No expert on planning, just a concerned citizen, I’d like to see the issues related to the Pond Eddy Bridge examined further in a public forum. The Milanville and Dingman’s historic bridges have been preserved and are routinely maintained without apparent problems. Is the Pond Eddy Bridge so different? Can we justify spending $13 million of public treasure to improve access to a few houses? Weighing the merits of this project are especially important now since actual design configurations for a new bridge are appearing. All of a sudden, we see that bridge replacement means a lot more to the area than just a new bridge.

[Peter Comstock is the co-founder and head of the Homestead School in Glen Spey.]