Interesting points about the landscape preservation issue! Most of my concern was based on the sensitivity , or lack there of, of engineering and planting issues. I'm a landscape architect, so these things do yell out at me. The 522 bridge N. of Shirleysburg could have been designed with more sensitivity toward the part of history that it would seem to me, a lot of effort is being made to 'preserve.' PennDot could/should be working with NPS or like design professionals to maintain a 'historic' integrity. While I totally appreciate the tremendous history of the Blacklog Narrows the SW Pa region has a good deal banking on maintaining a '1950's rural character. Isn't it the landscape the trains run through that take us the C&TS WP&Y EBT. Isn't it the lack of 'development' that make these places especially attractive? Doing it 'right' doesn't even necessarily have to cost more. Look at the great design of the modern buildings on the Reading & Northern in Port Clinton.

IMHO I would be very concerned about an operational grade crossing at this point, due to current driving habits. Heading northbound on Rt. 522 approaching the crossing & bridge, vehicles tend to pick up a lot of speed on a long gentle downgrade into the valley. And, a rocky outcrop on the left just before the crossing could possibly hinder driver's view of an approaching trolley. I would hate to see an SUV or pickup truck broadside one of RTM's beautifully-restored wooden trolleys! While visiting in April, I parked my car on the side road on the north side of the bridge in order to walk over to see the new RTM end of track, and I had to take my life in my hands to walk across the highway at this point.

IMHO an operating grade crossing here would need warning lights visibile a long way up the road. And, the proposed 5 ft. increase in highway grade just complicates matters even further...it's not high enough to accomodate a highway overpass above the ROW grade, it appears impossible to lower the RR ROW without extensive blasting, and a railroad overpass would require an extensive fill/ramp on both sides of the highway.

I have heard the suggestion that if the EBT should ever outgrow its relatively small parking lot at Rockhill Furnace, that an alternate parking lot could be established on the east side of Rt. 522 at this point, and visitors could then ride the RTM to Orbisonia station. Perhaps someone could draw up a preliminary plan of such an outlot, to see if it could be accomodated into the new bridge & realignment project.

jvliet@optonline.net

This reply comments on posts in this string by Chris Coleman and Jim Vliet. There are fans enraptured by studying legal opinions involving railways, convinced that to do so is to live like God in France. Please do not count me among them.

That said, the September 26, 2001, Recommended Decision of Administrative Law Judge Louis Cocheres contains a lot of interesting information and gives context to the Pennsylvania PUC Opinion and Order of May 9, 2002.

In the Cocheres Recommended Decision, Railways to Yeterday testified that the "planned 8% super-elevation" proposed for the curve in the upgrade of U.S. Route 522 could be traversed by RTY's trolley cars. (Finding 48). The East Broad Top's owner testified that the EBT's "narrow gauge trains could negotiate the proposed highway super-elevation" (Finding 97). However, the EBT's representative also testified that certain aspects of that would require further study including whether standard gauge engines could negotiate the proposed superelevation, the slope on the rail approaches to and from the crossing, and whether couplings (not specified whether narrow or standard gauge) could negotiate and "withstand the stress of passing over the hump created by the super-elevation" (Findings 98-99). Mr. Kovalchick was willing to pay for an engineering study to determine the answer to the last issue (Finding 99).

The need for modern grade crossing protection, should the crossing be made active, was accepted by the parties. RTY testified that it "anticipates that its operations would require lights and gates at the crossing as well as advanced warning lights" (Finding 61). In his analysis, Judge Cocheres took note of PennDOT's rough estimate that the cost of installation of "a full depth concrete crossing with warning lights and associated circuitry was about $200,000." He found that "the Railroad and Yesterday [RTY] will both benefit from the construction of a new at-grade crossing on the new road and should share the costs among themselves." He also stated his intention to recommend tht RTY's share of the cost be capped at $80,000.

So, if upgrade of 522 in this section has been ordered to proceed, why is the above important? The change in the action ultimately ordered to suspend, rather than abolish, the crossing is much more than just something that happened "during the wrangling." In suspending the crossing, the Pennsylvania PUC gave the EBT and RTY three years to decide whether to activate the crossing. If no decision to activate is taken at the end of three years, the status of the crossing will transfer from suspended to abolished.

This has an effect on compensation to Mr. Kovalchick for EBT-owned land. The land has been treated as two separate parcels: the land PennDOT actually needs for the highway improvement (.372 acres) and the stub parcel of land (.814 acres) east of 522 [old Shade Gap Branch ROW]. Under suspension of the crossing, PennDOT has been ordered to compensate Mr. Kovlachick for the former parcel. PennDOT will not be required to compensate Mr. Kovalchick for the latter unless and until the crossing is abolished.

Jim Vliet's opinion that everyone would be well served by satellite parking in this area to access RTY is a good one that has been considered and recommended in various plans. Some years ago, I have been told, in its original approach to RTY for modernizing this section of 522, PennDOT proposed to create satellite parking east of 522 with a pedestrian bridge over the highway to access a boarding station at RTY's end-of-track. As we know, the EBT's owner elected to make an issue of preserving the crossing with a grade separation (i.e. bridge = $millions) or substantial compensation for loss of access to EBT right-of-way east of 522 [.814 acres]. See Findings 82-84. Whether or not that was just a going-in position, there ensued the lengthy negotiation/arbitration now apparently concluded, during which PennDOT's offer disappeared. Whether or not the idea can be resuscitated would be an interesting question to explore, probably resting in part on the amount of good will remaining between the parties.

It is a complete mischaracterization to say that PennDOT "seems to have considered the railroad [EBT] something to be overcome rather that to preserve." The planning and actual work to modernized Route 522 through Huntingdon County has been a very long process. In 1985, a nonprofit group, EBT Museum Foundation, decided to take public its plan for full restoration of the EBT in part because PennDOT planning for 522 was advancing and there was concern that the EBT National Historic Landmark not be severed or encroached on out of ignorance of the viable potential for restoration (as it then stood). Taken at the cost of the Foundation's relationship with Mr. Kovalchick, this step began to result in many useful decisions at local, state, and federal levels to the benefit of the EBT NHL within a very short time and by no means limited to highway-related issues.

Specific to road improvements, to my personal knowledge from 1985 to the present, PennDOT has consistently listened to and taken into account the positions on the EBT of the Huntingdon County Preservation Officer and the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission. Mr. Kovalchick certainly has influenced when, where, and how highways crossing the EBT would be upgraded. However, historians acting for the benefit of the Landmark also had a voice with the result that the principle in general of preserving the EBT's integrity at such crossings has not been in serious dispute within government for at least the last 17 years. The proposition that Mr. Kovalchick's intervention alone brought about this result is not supported by the facts.

Similarly, the notion of PennDOT "indifference to the EBT's historic importance" is refuted by PennDOT's exceptional flexibility and patience in holding open the opportunity to apply TEA-21 funding to preserve and restore part of the EBT as a pilot project. That is a long, but consistent story. Although some never will embrace the salient facts, I hope the following two points will suffice for the majority.

First, when the EBT's original application for TEA-21 funding fell below the cut, PennDOT increased the number of awards to include the EBT (and a couple of other, smaller projects). Second, despite the applicant's repeated failure to answer questions crucial to basic stewardship of public money, PennDOT maintained a placeholder for the EBT in TEA-21 funding from 1999 until 2002. PennDOT cooperated to increase the amount through several imaginative attempts to find a structure for the project that would satisfy the applicant until, finally, Allegheny Ridge Corporation (who would have held the money and managed the project) withdrew its request to fund the EBT's application. The reasons for that have been reported in a Brief on RYPN.

ebt4evr@aol.com