I also noted that the company that designed the replacement bridge... and who likely conducted the rehabilitation feasibility analysis for the historic bridge during Section 106... has absolutely no experience rehabilitating historic metal truss bridges, based on their portfolio. Hiring firms that lack a deep and varied portfolio of successfully rehabilitating historic metal truss bridges to conduct rehabilitation feasibility analysis for metal truss bridges has been a repeating problem in Pennsylvania.
In response to your question about the Historical and Museum Commission (PHMC), I would compare their role in the process to that of an ant telling a steamroller to stop rolling toward it. PHMC advocates for preservation during the Section 106 process, but in my observation they have little more power over PennDOT than the average citizen.
Sad...but likely true.
Like a county hysterical society here in Indiana that wouldn't step up to save a 120+ year old abandoned Whipple truss from senseless destruction by the worthless county commissioners...because they were afraid they would lose their share of the casino revenues.
It's likely one of those agencies or groups that is the opposite of what it says it is. Political moves. Obfuscate wildly. Up is down, Yes means no, Historical means ready to bulldoze over, etc.
Probably because bridges have nothing to do with the american revolution so they don't care about it.
Pennsylvania has a Historic Commission?
Where the HELL are they hiding while all the state's HISTORIC bridges are being obliterated??
Just saw the replacement UCEB
I'm sorry but I don't see how engineers think this is a successful solution.