We are all deeply saddened by the tragedy that befell the motorists on the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis last week, and we hope it will not happen anywhere else.
Hope is the operative word in Pennsylvania . . . because the state’s department of transportation has declared that we ordinary folks do not have the right to know the conditions of the state’s bridges.
The Beaver County Times actually asked for information on the bridges from PennDOT back in April. The newspaper was turned down then, and it was turned down when it asked again after the collapse in Minnesota.
Why?
Well for one thing, said the agency’s counsel, the information is not a public record as defined by current state law. Melissa Melewsky, media law counsel at the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association, confirmed to the Times that such information is not covered – although she hastened to add that she was interpreting the law not supporting the decision. “It really comes down to the fact that we have a bad law, and it needs to be changed,” she said. “I think the public has a right to know whether or not they’re traveling on safe bridges.”
That, of course, is her opinion. PennDOT spokesman Joe Struzzi said that having such information could be dangerous. The agency, he explained, has a numerical ranking system for bridges. Those that are deemed structurally deficient have some deterioration and conditions that need to be addressed. But that does not necessarily mean they are unsafe.
OK. That makes sense. So why keep it a secret?
“There’s a fear that the general public might not understand what those numbers mean,” Struzzi told the newspaper. “It might set off undue concern. A bridge might have a structurally deficient rating, and that might be low, but that doesn’t mean that bridge is unsafe or will collapse.”
Ah, it’s for our own good. But why is it better that we have no idea about the condition of our bridges? How does that increase our confidence in the public infrastructure? Wouldn’t it make more sense to educate us about the rating system, the condition of our bridges, and the steps being taken to bring the deficient ones up to standard? If the public can pay for the bridges . . . and the repairs . . . and the salaries of the PennDOT employees, why can’t it be trusted with the facts? How can we have an informed electorate when our own agencies insist on keeping us in the dark? (For some information on the current state of our bridges, see Bob Bauder’s earlier article in the Times
Hopefully, such questions will come up at today’s hearing on open-records reform. In a letter inviting Transportation Secretary Allen Biehler to attend, Rep. Babette Josephs (D-Philadelphia), chair of the State Government Committee, wrote:
“In light of the recent events in Minnesota, PennDOT’s decision to withhold information is disturbing. Where does PennDOT get the legal authority to decide that the public cannot handle certain types of information?”
It gets the authority from the current right to know law. Which is just one more reason why the law should be changed.