As the word gets out about PennDOT’s Skinners Falls Bridge project, people have been getting their comments in to PennDOT. Some sample comments are shown below.

The deadline for making comments is now June 1, 2021.
See PennDOT’s sign at the Bridge, announcing this change.

Thanks to the large number of comments by the public, the deadline for making comments has been changed from April 30, 2021 to June 1, 2021. There is still time to get your comments in. At the very least, please ask PennDOT to extend the comment period by at least 60 days. DCS has prepared instructions and pointers for making comments.

The Upper Delaware Council, Inc. (UDC) whose 13 towns and townships, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the State of New York as voting members work in partnership with the National Park Service to conserve the 1978 federally-designated Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River, offers these comments in response to the Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) Study underway for the Skinners Falls, NY-Milanville, PA Bridge.

The UDC comments state: “In conclusion, while we recognize the need to invest dollars wisely for construction and long-term maintenance expenses, the UDC believes that tearing down the iconic Skinners Falls-Milanville Bridge in favor of replacing it with an unremarkable and unnecessary modern bridge would create new and potentially more consequential problems, while permanently destroying the historical and cultural value it offers to the Upper Delaware River Valley.”

The Upper Delaware Scenic Byway, Inc. (UDSB) Committee has commented to PennDOT, expressing their “steadfast support for the preservation and restoration of the 1902 Milanville, PA-Skinners Falls, NY Bridge”.

The UDSB comments conclude: “This one-of-a-kind bridge stands testament to our historic and aesthetic values. It is also perfectly adequate in size and scope for the setting it serves, including small businesses, attractions, and visitors that are economic drivers for the regional tourism industry that we promote.”

“The Upper Delaware Scenic Byway urges the rehabilitation and reopening of the Skinners Falls-Milanville Bridge.”

Comments by Local Residents:

• The time allowed for public comment should be extended to a minimum of 90 days. The community has not been given proper amount of time to review and comment.
• I am in support of restoring existing bridge for the following reasons:
• The preservation of the surrounding local area.
• The preservation of a National Landmark structure situated in a Historic District
• Alternate routes, planned to accommodate larger vehicular traffic, exist within 5 miles in either direction.
• Maintain “quality of life” and ambiance at local attraction (Skinners Falls), the adjoining road in Milanville and property directly adjoining the Bridge.
• Please include area residents, property owners as part of “stakeholders.”
• An environmental impact of all 3 scenarios is necessary before any decisions are made.

• Given the potential environmental, historical and economical impact on the community and lives of the people surrounding the Skinners Falls Bridge it is absolutely necessary that the public comment period be extended so all voices can be heard. Removing the historic and beautiful bridge to replace it with a costly concrete behemoth is unnecessary. The existing bridges downriver at Narrowsburg and upriver at Cochecton were built to accommodate the kind of traffics PennDOT thinks necessary for the Milanville area. It isn’t. The roads adjacent to the bridge weren’t built for it.

  At a time when we are witnessing plant and animal extinctions at an alarming rate the sensitive nature of the Delaware River cannot be overstated. It is absolutely necessary for a full and comprehensive environmental impact study.

  The reasons to save and maintain the Skinners Falls Bridge far outweigh replacing it.

• The time allocated for public comments on this project is totally inadequate. The comment period should be 120 days (90 days minimum), to allow people time to digest the issues involved and make informed comments.

• The decision making structure of this project is unclear. What is the relationship of the of the PEL Study Team and the Project Advisory Team? The public is the major stakeholder in this project, yet I see no direct way for the public to make its voice heard, except via this survey. This is not acceptable.

  This survey is inadequate as a means for getting public feedback on this project. Where are the questions on the cultural, historic and scenic importance of the bridge? The presentation indicates that the option of a new 2 lane, 40 ton has been pre-determined (see sections on “Role of Purpose and Need” and “Local Needs”). The PAC has made this determination without input from the public (see slide “Project Advisory Committee Feedback”). This is not acceptable.

• It is not clear from the presentation of March 30, 2021 whether or not PennDOT plans to do an Environmental Impact Study for all 3 bridge options, although it appears that they do not.

  Slide 24 states: Purpose and Need “Establishes the transportation need for the investment”. This indicates that PennDOT considers transportation to be the overriding criteria for this project.
  Slide 24 also states: “Only those alternatives that meet the established Purpose and Need can move forward into design”.
  Slide 31 states: “Begin design and environmental review process”.
  These statements, taken together, indicate that environmental review will only be done for options that go into the design phase.

  The PAC has determined (slide 27), without any supporting evidence, the “need to reinstate bridge connection with: two travel lanes and full weight access” (there are other statements in the presentation that indicate that PennDOT has pre-determined that a new bridge is required). This indicates that only a new 2 lane 40 ton bridge will go into the design phase and that only this option will have an environmental review. This is not acceptable.

  An Environmental Impact Study must be done for all project options. The results of the environmental reviews must be considered, along with other criteria, before an option is chosen. A new bridge will probably have the worst environmental impact of the 3 options. Whether or not this impact should outweigh the other criteria cannot be known unless an environmental review is done for all options.

  Note that the Skinners Falls Bridge has served the needs of the local community for approximately 120 years. The only times it has not served those needs is when it has been closed for repairs. The reason it has been closed for repairs is that it has not been properly maintained over the years. This is PennDOT’s responsibility.

• The first Project Advisory Committee (PAC) was held in February, 2021, with no public notice or participation. This indicates that PennDOT is not interested in timely input from the public. Therefore, the PAC does not adequately represent the interests of local businesses and residents (such as myself). The PennDOT project website and March 30, 2021 presentation do not provide any means for the public to express its views to the PAC, nor do they even say who is on the PAC. This is not acceptable.

  The following are based on the March 30 presentation:
  Slide 26, Local Needs:
  “Project Advisory Committee felt that a transportation connection is needed that can serve all vehicle types”. They FELT a 40 ton bridge is needed? On what basis? Is PennDOT going to destroy a 120 year old Landmark structure because someone had a feeling that a 40 ton bridge is needed? The public must be shown the data that supports this conclusion and be allowed adequate time to comment on it.

  Slide 27, Project Advisory Committee Feedback:
  1. “Past usage was low due to width and condition – not lack of demand” – This is an unsupported statement. Show us the data.
  2. “Usage by overweight vehicles demonstrates need for unrestricted weights” – It absolutely does not. This statement indicates bias by the PAC. There are 40 ton bridges on either side of the Skinners Falls Bridge within 4 to 6 miles in either direction. If someone runs a stop sign, it does not demonstrate a need for a traffic light. It demonstrates that people do things for their own convenience. PennDOT data on Slide 12 shows that large vehicle traffic over the Skinners Falls Bridge has decreased by 84% over a 19 year period. In addition, the roads on the PA side of the bridge are narrow, winding and rated at 10 tons. It would be damaging and unsafe to dump unlimited weight vehicles onto the roads in historic Milanville.
  3. “Emergency response times have increased since closure” – Show us the data. How many responses over what time period? What is the alleged increase in response time?
  4. “Need to reinstate bridge connection with: Two travel lanes and Full weight access” – Another unsupported statement. Where is the data? Why is PennDOT doing a study of 3 options when it has already decided that a new 2 lane 40 ton bridge is needed?

  Slide 28:
  “Improved bridge could enhance tourism economy and support increased traffic needs due to increased migration and visitation due to COVID”. COULD enhance tourism? What is the basis for this statement? A new bridge is much more likely to damage the tourism economy. Tourists come to look at the existing historic, landmarked bridge and its beautiful setting. Is there any evidence of increased traffic due to COVID? Even if there is, the COVID crisis will, hopefully, be over by the time a new bridge is built.

  In summary, PennDOT has not adequately involved a major stakeholder, local residents and businesses, in the Skinners Falls Bridge project and has not provided a meaningful way for the public to comment on this project (the existing survey is clearly biased, as it asks nothing about the historic, cultural, environmental and scenic issues involved).

  Therefore, PennDOT must provide to the public the data that support its conclusion that a new 2 lane 40 ton bridge is needed. It must give the public adequate time to digest this data and make reasoned comment. PennDOT must provide a minimum comment period of 90 days after the release of project data to the public.