By Lisa Coryell
HOPEWELL TOWNSHIP — As the county moves into the design and engineering phase of the controversial Jacobs Creek Bridge replacement project, the township committee is reconsidering the idea of taking ownership of the aging span to halt the project.
At a meeting this week committee members said they will reach out to Mercer County Executive Brian Hughes to see if his offer to deed the 129-year bridge to the township still stands.
“We’d certainly like to evaluate that option and find out whether it’s feasible,” Mayor Jim Burd said in an interview yesterday.
Hughes, who has been frustrated by the committee’s 11th hour opposition to the plan to replace the structurally unsound iron truss bridge, offered to hand over the bridge to the township last October.
He gave the committee until the end of that month to accept the offer and refused the township’s request for a year to consider the offer. The deadline came and went.
Yesterday he said the offer is still on the table but said time is of the essence.
“The clock is ticking,” Hughes said. “They had close to six months to evaluate this offer and we haven’t heard from them. Now that they see the county and the freeholders aren’t going to back down from this project, all of sudden they want to act. We aren’t going to sit around and wait another six months for the committee to take action.”
The county-owned bridge, closed as structurally unsound since the fall of 2009, is slated to be replaced with a bigger modern span to accommodate today’s traffic and allow emergency vehicles to cross it. The road leading to the bridge would be realigned to improve the flow of traffic across the creek.
In years past, the argument against the bridge replacement project has centered on the historic value of the bridge itself. But in the last two years, the focus has shifted to the historic value of the creek vista as one of the only remaining undeveloped segments of Washington’s so-called Victory Trail march to the Battle of Trenton in 1776. The creek sits in an idyllic woodsy corridor with houses tucked away here and there on higher ground.
Efforts to prevent disturbance to the neighborhood have focused on obtaining historic status for the zone, thereby obtaining certain protections from projects such as the county is contemplating. That process will take months.
The township committee, which had once reluctantly signed off on the county project out of concern for motorists’ safety, withdrew their support as concerns for the historic value of the Revolutionary War crossing site grew.
Three weeks ago, a group applying for historic status for the site found a 1700s coin and a metal stirrup during an archeological dig there.
Burd said the find has fueled his determination to preserve the site. So has the freeholder board’s decision to release funds for the design and engineering phase of the bridge project, he said.
“They decided to take the next step and we want to see what we can do to preserve the area,” he said.
The issue of taking possession of the bridge was raised by residents Monday night. Once the design of the bridge is completed the county can apply for wetlands permits it needs to begin construction, an issue that worries resident Kim Robinson.
“It is clearly now a race as to what occurs first, the county’s filing of project permits or the historic application review and designation,” she said. “While we are all hopeful a historic designation would change the course of the project, it is not a guarantee. The only guarantee Hopewell Township can protect the area the way it wishes would be for the township to take ownership of the bridge and roadway. I think it’s time for the township to once again consider this option.”
Deputy Mayor Michael Markulec said he had asked Hughes months ago about possible funding sources to repair and maintain the bridge but had not gotten an answer.
Burd said he will once again seek those answers.
Committeewoman Kim Johnson said the township must proceed cautiously with regard to taking ownership of the bridge.
“I thought it was a dead issue,” said Committeewoman Kim Johnson. “If it’s not we should explore this. But to me it’s too much money and there are too many unknowns.”
Hughes himself said he told Markulec there would be no funds coming from the county, state or federal government to repair the bridge if the township takes possession of it.
“The reason we want to build a new bridge is that it’s too expensive to keep repairing the old one,” he said. “If the township wants to take over this bridge they’ll assume responsibility for funding the repairs every two years.”
Hughes said the state funds that would be used to build the new bridge are only available if the bridge is built to federal standards — meaning unlimited weight capacities.
Those who hope to ultimately prevent the county from building a new bridge where Washington and his troops slogged across an icy creek with horses and cannons in tow are pinning their hopes on the county freeholders.
They said they were heartened by the freeholder board’s promise to thoroughly review the bridge design and make sure it fits into the area’s character before approving more funding for the project.
“I really believe them when they say they want to see the design plan to understand what everyone is so fearful of,” Johnson said. “I’m hoping when they see it, they’ll understand what (those pushing to preserve the area) are talking about.”
You've got to love that comment by Committee Member Kim Johnson, who only got on the Township Committee because we, the supporters of Save the Victory Trail, put her there in the first place . . . hoping that the Republicans might actually do something about our Jacob's Creek Bridge problem.
Now, what does Kim Johnson say about this key bridge issue, when she finally has a chance to step up and do something for the cause . . . such as having the township take over this responsibility since, clearly, the County has failed to listen to the people?
According to the Trenton Times, "Committeewoman Kim Johnson said the township must proceed cautiously with regard to taking ownership of the bridge."
CAUTIOUSLY. HOW MUCH MORE CAUTIOUSLY SHOULD WE PROCEED? IT'S BEEN YEARS SINCE WE ELECTED KIM INTO OFFICE TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS!
"'I thought it was a dead issue,' said Committeewoman Kim Johnson. 'If it’s not we should explore this. But to me it’s too much money and there are too many unknowns.'"
Way to step up and reward your constituents . . . all of us who put you in office, Kim, hoping you might actually do something. A dead issue! Is that what you thought?
Posted by: Disgusted Save the Victory Trail Supporter | 04/07/2011 at 01:30 PM