>
photo by Boyd loving
“Ridgewood school district hopes to reopen bridge.” Reader says better to replace bridge than fix it
A couple of points from this article that should be noted.
1) It has long been obvious to anyone and everyone who has had a conversation with an administrator or a BOE member about the bridge that they want no part of replacing it. They are scared to death that they will be forced to replace it and what the potential costs could be. (Can’t say I blame them.) Remember that when you try to digest their concerns about “ramps” becoming “dams.” That bridge is already a dam directly in the path of the river and greatly contributes to the flooding on Vets, Stevens and the RHS Field. “Ramps” would be outside the path of the river and would only become “dams” after the river has already flooded. That is a big difference. To try and argue that they are the same is ludicrous and indicative of how far they are reaching to ensure they do not have to pay to replace the bridge. It would also be very easy to build ramps that allowed flood water to run under them in the case of a major flood.
2) Allowing Angelo to be the person discussing things with the DEP is one more way to try and ensure that nothing gets done with the bridge. His job is to say “no,” especially when it comes to spending money. How do you think we ended up with the fake cupola on top of the HS? He thought no one would notice and the BOE could save some bucks. Thankfully it didn’t work out that way. He should not be involved in any of this until a decision is made and costs need to be evaluated. There should be a committee of people working with our elected state representatives to find out exactly what could be done to replace that bridge. The discussions should include; potential grants for flood relief, streamlined fast tracked approvals and guidance from the state and county and viable options that could be done quickly and cost effectively.
3) The fact that the current “Specs” demand (taking Angelo’s word which is very risky) that there be 84′ of ramps on both sides in order to raise a simple pedestrian bridge over a small stream shows just how out of touch Trenton and government as a whole has become. Governor Christie has pledged to bring common sense back to environmental restrictions. If we really want to address the bridge and the resulting flooding it would probably be good if we reached out to Christie’s office and got some direction on who we should be talking to at the DEP and get them to the site and find out what kind of options we have. There are always options when you refuse to take “no” as the answer the first time you ask. I am sure there is another way to build a small pedestrian bridge without constructing 168 feet of ramps for a 15 foot wide stream.
If we don’t get the DEP to the site and find out a way to replace that bridge we’re going to be paying $50,000 a clip to clean and renovate the fields every time we get a significant flood and then we are still going to have to pay to have it replaced because it is going to continue to erode and deteriorate no matter what the BOE thinks. We should spend the bare minimum on the bridge to get it re-opened for the short term and we should start immediately working on getting a plan together to replace it or we’re going to have the same conversations in another couple of years when the bridge needs yet again more repairs.