Bridge advocates urge boro to save Rt. 36 span

Preservationists ask council to seek injunction against DOT plan

BY SUE MORGAN Staff Writer

BY SUE MORGAN
Staff Writer

COURTESYOFPAULSCHARFF Highlands Bridge COURTESYOFPAULSCHARFF Highlands Bridge SEA BRIGHT – Residents from both sides of the Highlands-Sea Bright Bridge are urging officials in the borough to seek an injunction to halt the state’s planned replacement of the aging span.

Alleging that the New Jersey Department of Transportation (DOT) deliberately led Sea Bright’s governing body to believe that the 74-year-old drawbridge was beyond repair and must be replaced, several historic preservationists appeared at the Borough Council’s Nov. 21 meeting and called upon officials to take legal action against the state agency.

Neither Mayor Jo-Ann Kalaka-Adams nor any of the council members verbally committed to seeking an injunction even after the bridge advocates voiced emotional appeals during the public portion.

Later on, however, Kalaka-Adams and Council President William “Jack” Keeler, both admitted skeptics of DOT’s construction plans, expressed interest in hearing them out.

Seeking an injunction to halt the project, set to begin in April, is an idea worth considering, Kalaka-Adams said after the meeting.

“Jack and I weren’t really feeling good about this from the beginning,” Kalaka-Adams said.

When DOT’s engineers, planners and consultants presented designs for the proposed 65-foot-high fixed span to supplant the existing 35-foot-high drawbridge during council meetings earlier this year, it was easy to get “caught up in the technical process,” Keeler said.

Before the council voted in June to authorize Kalaka-Adams to sign a state contract endorsing the DOT’s plans, Keeler said he doubted the state agency had thoroughly explored rehabilitating the existing bridge.

“I wish that I had been more questioning earlier on in the process,” said Keeler, who cast the sole dissenting vote against allowing Kalaka-Adams to sign the DOT contract.

Concerns about the historic value of the existing drawbridge and the safety of the higher replacement span, as raised by bridge advocate and Highlands resident James Parla, ought to be looked at, Keeler added.

“I don’t know if it’s too late,” Keeler said. “I would like to pursue the matter with [Parla], who spoke earlier.”

Parla told the council that the drawbridge has one of the “best safety records in the state” because it is “mostly flat.”

The higher fixed bridge, with inclines at both ends, would not be such, particularly in inclement weather, Parla asserted.

“This monstrosity will dominate the landscape,” he said.

Sea Bright officials and residents, like those in Highlands, have been convinced by DOT officials seeking to carry out a big-ticket, federally funded project that a higher, fixed bridge is needed as a matter of public safety, Parla went on.

To thwart the project, borough officials and residents should write letters en masse to Gov. Jon S. Corzine.

“It may take a thousand letters to convince the governor,” Parla said. “But more than that, we need Sea Bright to sue the DOT for an injunction to ensure that this demolition doesn’t happen.”

While acknowledging that Parla’s assertions might be valid, Borough Attorney Scott Arnette defended the borough’s entrance into the contract.

“The DOT sent their officials down here,” Arnette said. “We signed the agreement based on the information presented at that time. That agreement has been signed and sent back to DOT.”

If it turns out that the DOT misled the council, the agreement should be challenged in the courts, said borough resident Jean Kingman.

Like Parla, Kingman raised the drawbridge’s historic status in the area.

“I think there are a lot of people in town who would like to see the bridge stay,” Kingman said. “It would make me happy to know the position of the council on this.”

Remarking that he also would like to see the drawbridge remain, Councilman Brian Kelly told Kingman that he had suggested to DOT officials during their visits that they rehabilitate the structure instead.

“Their arguments were that it would be too cost-prohibitive to update the bridge,” Kelly said.

Kalaka-Adams, Keeler, and the rest of the council had repeatedly proposed rehabilitating the bridge, only to be shot down by DOT, said Councilwoman Dina Long.

“It was a question of federal money,” Long said. “[DOT] said federal money is not available for rehabilitation.”

Identifying himself as a Rumson native, Spencer Adler, accompanied by his sister Laura Adler of Highlands, also called upon the borough to seek an injunction.

Though DOT officials have estimated that the demolition of the existing drawbridge and the replacement span will cost about $90 million to build, the actual figure for the entire project hovers around $137 million, Adler said in a prepared statement.

The estimated price for constructing a temporary bridge alongside the current one as it is rehabilitated would altogether come to about $76 million, including removal of the temporary span, he continued.

If the DOT constructs the bridge it has proposed with two southbound lanes exiting onto one lane at Ocean Avenue in Sea Bright, they will ultimately complain that the local road, a continuation of state Route 36, is too narrow to handle the traffic, Adler predicted.

“And they’ll turn Ocean Avenue into a four-lane highway just like Route 36 is up north,” Adler said. “They’ll take the land on both sides of the road, and the usable Sea Bright will be some tiny fraction of what it is now. This is how towns disappear.

“Sea Bright will become a rest area on the highway to Pier Village in Long Branch,” he added.

Referring to statements by DOT officials that the project will go forward, Adler implored the council to take action.

“Now is your last chance to file an injunction to stop the Highlands drawbridge demolition before the contract is awarded …,” Adler said. “Fraudulently induced approvals can be rescinded.”

Because DOT “lied to” the borough about the need for the replacement, Sea Bright could legally break its contract with the state agency until an outside bridge restoration firm studies the span’s structural integrity and rules if rehabilitation is an option, he continued.

“For a relatively minor cost in the tens of thousands of dollars, you may hire them to independently review the feasibility of a Highlands drawbridge restoration project,” Adler said. “The bill for that professional peer review should be paid for by the DOT.

“I would expect a judge would be on your side,” Adler concluded with his remarks drawing applause. “And I know the people are.”

Parla and Adler indicated after the meeting that they intend to advise the Highlands governing body to file an injunction as well.

“We will raise the issue for discussion in a future Highlands council meeting,” Parla said.

As of Monday, no one from the historic preservation group had approached the officials in Highlands about placing the bridge construction on the agenda for the next borough council meeting, which is scheduled for next Wednesday, according to Highlands Borough Clerk Nina Flaherty.

Kalaka-Adams has previously stated concerns about the safety of the proposed bridge, given its exposure to the Atlantic Ocean, its downward descent into the borough, its 45 mph speed limit, and a planned pedestrian walkway ending on the east side of Ocean Avenue, across from local homes and businesses. In addition, Kalaka-Adams said she is troubled by the DOT’s insistence that the posted speed limit on the new bridge be set at 45 mph even as it descends eastbound onto Ocean Avenue in Sea Bright.

In response to a letter-writing campaign generated by Parla and fellow bridge advocates, the N.J. Historic Preservation Sites Council voted unanimously Oct. 20 to recommend that the DOT not be allowed to demolish the current bridge, due to its historic value and its connection to the Twin Lights.

The Trenton-based council, an advisory branch of the state Department of Environmental Protection, cannot issue mandates to other state agencies. However, DEP Commissioner Lisa Jackson is expected to decide if the Historic Sites Preservation Committee’s vote will stand as a mandate to prevent the DOT plan from proceeding.