Upper Allen forum divides over future of 1898 Bishop Road Bridge as county readies demolition bid

Upper Allen Township commissioners on Nov. 19 convened a packed public forum to weigh whether the township should accept ownership of the 1898 Bishop Road Bridge and try to save it, or allow Cumberland and York counties to proceed with demolition after a recent demolition bid.

The bridge, a pin‑connected Pratt through truss built from a Raw Iron Bridge Company kit in 1898 and determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, drew competing technical and fiscal assessments from county officials, state preservation staff, engineers, contractors and dozens of residents.

"We determined that there was no vehicular transportation need for the bridge," said Kirk Stoner, director of planning for Cumberland County, summarizing the county's position that the structure carries very low average daily traffic and does not meet county transportation‑priority thresholds. Stoner told the forum the county recently received a low bid of $181,000 to demolish the span but that historic‑review coordination with the Pennsylvania Historic and Museum Commission has slowed immediate removal.

Why it matters: the counties that jointly own the bridge cannot use their liquid fuels or vehicle‑registration bridge funds for historic or pedestrian‑only projects, so finding an ownership and funding solution for preservation would require different state or private sources. "These are vanishing resources," said Tyra Gayton of the Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Office, noting the statewide loss of metal‑truss bridges and that Bishop Road Bridge was determined eligible for the National Register for its engineering significance.

Technical and cost questions loomed large. Logan Schwarz, the township's bridge engineering manager at CSD Davidson, warned that any plan to reopen the span to vehicles would require PennDOT structural‑adequacy approval, abutment rehabilitation and a detailed load‑rating analysis — each of which can significantly raise cost. Schwarz said some elements (substructure and in‑stream work) are difficult to assess until disassembly occurs.

Contractor proposals and precedents: Ross Brown of Raw Iron Bridge Works described a historic restoration method that avoids crane‑lift demolition, disassembles the truss in place, shops and restores pieces, and then reassembles the bridge. "I will take it back to Indiana. I will do a full restoration on it, bring it back out and put it back up," Brown said, offering lump‑sum design‑build options. Janice Lynx of the West Shore Historical Society recounted her group’s successful Sheepford Road Bridge campaign, which used PennDOT TASA and other funds to preserve a nearby bridge as a pedestrian asset.

But professional engineering estimates differed. County and independent engineering firms have placed full vehicular rehabilitation estimates between roughly $2 million and $2.7 million in prior studies; Raw Iron and related proposals presented lower lump‑sum figures in the $1.0–1.3 million range. Multiple engineers at the forum cautioned that early bids often rise once disassembly exposes hidden deterioration, and that rehabilitation typically costs more than replacement.

Residents split along fiscal and preservation lines. Some urged the township to take ownership and pursue grants or private fundraising for a full restoration or careful disassembly and storage; others — citing high township taxes and uncertain long‑term maintenance and liability costs — urged the board to decline ownership and allow the counties to proceed with demolition. "For every allocation of public dollars, township leadership should go through a prudent assessment of cost benefit," resident Eric Clancy said.

Next steps: the forum closed without a vote. Commissioners invited written comments and technical proposals and recessed to an executive session; county staff said they need a timely decision from the township on whether it will accept ownership so the counties can proceed with either demolition permitting or transfer negotiations. The record shows at least three distinct cost estimates and competing legal, financial and technical constraints; commissioners signaled they will seek more detailed, PennDOT‑compliant engineering specifications and clearer, competitively solicited bids before deciding.

What to watch: whether the township requests a formal, PennDOT‑compliant design package and competitively bid contracts; whether state historic bridge funds or local grant sponsors step forward; and whether the county moves forward with demolition permitting if a transfer is not agreed within the counties’ permit window.