Save the Victory Trail & Jacobs Creek Bridge

"The Mercer County Administration has provided its answers to the following FAQ's about the proposed realignment of Bear Tavern Road and new Jacobs Creek Bridge, which it has posted on their website as evidence of its transparency and forthrightness. However, we feel the information provided is incomplete and in some cases clearly misleading and inaccurate. Therefore, we have added our own responses to each of the county administrations answers".

Why did Mercer County close Jacobs Creek Bridge?

The County says that the “… recent closure of Jacobs Creek Bridge was necessitated as aresult of an independent engineering assessment that the structure could no longer sustain the repeated misuse of vehicles in excess of 3 tons….Based on the findings of its inspection, the firm determined the bridge has been stressed to such a degree that it believes safe passage of vehicles heavier than the 3-ton maximum weight limit could not be guaranteed, and stated that if vehicles over that limit were to use the span, the bridge might experience further structural deterioration.

As noted by the County, the problem does not lie with the structural integrity of the bridge itself or its ability to support the load for which it is posted, but rather in enforcement of that posted load. While we believe that rehabilitation could, in fact, increase the load for which the bridge might be posted, we also believe it is the responsibility of local law enforcement, perhaps with the aid of the County or State, to develop methods which will ensure future enforcement of load limit both on the road and at the bridge. We do not believe that building an unlimited weight limit bridge to accommodate the lawbreakers is a valid alternative to enforcing the law.

Would realignment of the bridge worsen traffic safety conditions at the curve on Bear Tavern Road near Jacobs Creek Bridge?

The County states that, “ realigning Jacobs Creek Bridge does not increase travel speed on the curve near the Jacobs Creek Bridge and would consequently not worsen traffic safety conditions on this section of Bear Tavern Road.” It further states that… many of the conditions and circumstances that have contributed to the crashes on Bear Tavern Road north of the bridge would be alleviated with the realignment of Bear Tavern Road and replacement of Jacobs Creek Bridge.

While the realignment may not increase travel speed on the curve on the south side of the bridge, as stated by the County, an unlimited weight limit bridge would most assuredly attract truck traffic, as 579 would be viewed as a cut through from 95 to 31/202. The steep, downhill curve in question is difficult to navigate by cars, especially in wintertime conditions; it is much more difficult to navigate by trucks, and thus, we believe that traffic safety conditions would certainly be negatively affected.

Regarding the north side of the bridge, the County’s claim that the realignment would reduce accidents north of the bridge is not supported by accident report data which indicates that “wet road conditions” was the major contributing factor in the majority of the accidents, with many of the cars sliding across into the oncoming lane. There is no reason to believe that the replacement of the bridge could help eliminate this type of accident.

How would the proposed realignment of the bridge address traffic safety concerns?

The County states, “The existing structure is currently posted at 3 tons, which precludes use by emergency vehicles, school buses, and most delivery and service vehicles. Consequently, operators of vehicles that exceed 3 tons wishing to access Bear Tavern Road between Washington Crossing Road and the Jacobs Creek Bridge must enter from the north and travel past Bear Tavern School. With a new structure in place, vehicle operators, particularly those entering and exiting the Janssen Pharmaceutical site, could avoid this section of Bear Tavern Road altogether…since 2004, 11 crashes have been reported involving motorists losing control on the roadway curve approaching the Jacobs Creek Bridge and a total of 6 crashes have occurred where the bridge intersects Bear Tavern Road. Other incidents involving motorists losing control on the curve have been communicated anecdotally. Many of the conditions and circumstances that contributed to these crashes would be alleviated with the realignment of Bear Tavern Road and replacement of Jacobs Creek Bridge.”

As discussed above, the traffic safety data does not support the County’s claim that realignment will reduce accidents on or around the bridge. As for emergency vehicles, they do not need to use the Jacobs Creek Bridge in order to access Bear Tavern Road between Washington Crossing Road and the bridge from the south, as such access is already available on Maddock Road. In fact an unlimited weight limit bridge, with no proven method of enforcement of road weight limits, will adversely affect traffic safety by attracting increased truck traffic, which will attempt to use Rt. 579 as a cut-through from I-95 to Rts 31/202. There are already trucks using it as a cut-through; the new bridge will guarantee more. As 579 is not designed for this type of traffic (narrow road width, few lights, lots of deer, elementary school, working farm, soccer fields, etc), accidents will surely increase in both number and severity.

What type of bridge is Jacobs Creek Bridge?

The County describes the bridge as follows: “The existing Jacobs Creek Bridge is a fracture critical through truss. This type of structure will not lend itself to partial removal or widening.”

It is not accurate to say that a bridge like the JCB “will not lend itself to partial removal or widening,” when, in fact, other similar bridges have been successfully rehabilitated. One example of a similar bridge where this was accomplished was in Califon, NJ. There, an 1887 pin-connected Pratt thru truss bridge (same as the Jacobs Creek Bridge) was rehabilitated and widened when rolled I-section steel stringers were added beneath the trusses, and the bridge functionally became a stringer rather than a truss span.

Although the functionality changed, the original fabric of the bridge was preserved. Due to the sensitive way in which this rehabilitation was done, the trusses were wellpreserved, and as a result, the structure retains its individual eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under Criteria A and C.

For those interested in the meaning of the term “fracture critical”, the ASSHTO Guide Specification for Fracture Critical Bridge Members states that “Fracture Critical Members or member components (FCM’s) are tension members or tension components of members whose failure would be expected to result in collapse of the bridge.”

Why does Mercer County need to replace Jacobs Creek Bridge?

The County supports its decision to replace the bridge as follows: “Prior to its closing, the existing structure received a sufficiency rating of 6.5 out of 100 by the New Jersey Department of Transportation’s bridge inspection consultant, making it the lowest rated bridge in Mercer County. It was also deemed structurally deficient and functionally obsolete. The reason for the low weight-limit on the bridge was due to its deteriorated condition and the fact that it was not designed for current minimum weight loads. The structure is not safe for vehicles, especially those weighing more than 3 tons, such as emergency vehicles, fire trucks, and school buses.”

This answer is misleading and inaccurate. In fact the Jacobs Creek Bridge has NOT been found to be unsafe, and passed the County’s own most recent safety inspection in July 2009.

The Bridge Sufficiency Rating formula is a method of evaluating factors which indicate a bridge’s sufficiency to remain in service. Structural adequacy and safety make up a maximum of 55% of this formula, while other factors, including Serviceability and Functional Obsolescence and Essentiality for Public Use make up the other 45%. While the Jacobs Creek Bridge received a sufficiency rating of 6.5%, and may have been the lowest rated of County-owned bridges, it is not the lowest rated bridge in Mercer County. The Calhoun Street Bridge (owned by the Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission), which will be rehabilitated in 2010, received a sufficiency rating of 3, and the Washington Crossing Bridge (also owned by the DRJTBC), received a sufficiency rating of 5.

As of last year, twelve percent of the nation's bridges were deemed structurally deficient, according to the Federal Highway Administration, meaning they are not unsafe but are so deteriorated that they must be closely monitored and inspected or repaired. We agree that the Jacobs Creek Bridge has been left in a state of disrepair by the County for years, and we feel that rehabilitation is the best remedy.

Functionally obsolete bridges are those with deck geometry (e.g., lane width), load carrying capacity, clearance, or approach roadway alignment that no longer meet the criteria for the system of which the bridge is a part. In other words, current design standards would call for the bridge to be wider, taller and carry more load than it currently does. This designation has nothing to do with structural safety.

Regarding use by fire and emergency vehicles, a new bridge is not needed as alternate routes are available.

Regarding design standards, as discussed above, the JCB, which can be rehabilitated in a manner similar to the Califon bridge, does not need to be replaced.

What is the County’s current plan regarding Jacobs Creek Bridge?

The County describes its plan as follows: “The project consists of constructing a new bridge adjacent to the present site of the existing bridge and removing the existing Jacobs Creek Bridge to a park setting after rehabilitation to be exclusively used by pedestrians. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 requires analysis for economical mitigation and Section 4 (f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 requires a demonstration of “no prudent or feasible alternative” to the impact.

As part of the Historic Bridge Alternatives Analysis Report (more information on this analysis below), more than 15 different options were presented to the Hopewell Township Committee, New Jersey Historic Preservation Office (NJHPO) and to the Hopewell Township Historic Society. After several iterations, finally all three bodies gave their approval for a plan that calls for: the new alignment of Bear Tavern Road (County Route 579), a new bridge and relocation of the existing structure. The new bridge will be designed to current standards that include no weight restrictions. The type of structure the new bridge will be has not been determined.”

As with any project, needs must first be documented. Once this is accomplished, alternatives can be identified and explored, and a solution chosen that best satisfies those needs. The County has not produced one single document indicating that this process was followed. The Historic Bridge Alternatives Analysis referred to by the County is a report produced by an engineering firm, which focuses almost entirely on the engineering needs of the project. The project needs identified pertain to load carrying capacity, roadway width on the bridge, overhead clearance, speed limit, and traffic flow. It does not address non-engineering needs such as the safety of residents and a school community, environmental impacts, cost, or historical concerns regarding the site.

A major piece of historical data, the fact that the current bridge is located at the site where Washington’s men forded the Jacobs Creek on their march to Trenton during what is known as the ten crucial days of the American Revolution, did not come to light until after the County’s decision regarding replacement had been made, and is not even mentioned in the report. Therefore, not only is this latest piece of information one more non-engineering concern that was not considered, but this one happens to be of national historical significance.

It is our feeling that all project needs, both engineering and nonengineering, should be considered when identifying alternative solutions. Only in this way can the most ideal solution be determined.

The County’s claim that its plan has the endorsement of local and State agencies is inaccurate and misleading. Although the Hopewell Township Committee did conditionally endorse the plan in March 2009, the Committee has since effectively withdrawn that endorsement, by asking the County to consider the potential impact of the project on the Victory Trail; the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) is currently reconsidering its own endorsement of the County’s plan given new information it received about the Victory Trail; and the Hopewell Township Historic Preservation Committee refused to endorse the county’s design without full consideration of its potential impact on the Victory Trail.

Why does the County’s plan call for a new bridge rather than rehabilitating the existing Jacobs Creek Bridge?

The County justifies its decision to replace the Jacobs Creek Bridge and realign the road at a cost of $5 miilion, rather than rehabilitating it at a cost of $1 million as follows: “Rehabilitation of the existing structure was strongly considered as one of the alternatives in the Historic Bridge Alternatives Analysis Report. However, due to the original configuration of the structure, the extent of deterioration and addition of numerous repairs, rehabilitation would require substantial and intricate strengthening and select component replacement of main and secondary members. Because of the level of strengthening that would be required, a rehabilitation effort on the bridge would significantly affect the original design and workmanship of the existing bridge and cause it to lose all historical significance. The required work on the original trusses also does not comply with the Secretary of the Interior Standards. Consequently, a rehabilitation option was not deemed viable.

Even if a rehabilitation of the existing structure were deemed feasible, it would only extend the life span of the bridge for a few years after which time other options would need to be considered. The new structure has a projected lifespan of approximately 75 to 100 years. It is the County’s responsibility to be fiscally frugal and to improve safety. The new structure will provide the availability to allow fire apparatus and ambulances a better response time to an emergency and also school buses a more direct route to the Bear Tavern School. Finally, the County’s plan to relocate the existing bridge to another area of the township for use as a pedestrian bridge in a park will not only ensure its historical value is retained, but allow it to be used and admired for many generations of Hopewell residents in the future.”

A careful reading of the Historic Bridge Alternatives Analysis (available for review by clicking on the Links tab), which the County would not release to the public until compelled to do so by the State Attorney General on October 30, 2009, makes it clear that the County chose replacement over rehabilitation not because rehabilitation was not feasible, but rather because it focused on engineering concerns, while excluding other concerns such as the preservation of the Victory Trail.

The County’s alternative #2 was defined as rehabbing the bridge to 15 tons and maintaining SOI compliance. The engineering firm found that complying with the SOI standards would be “nearly infeasible.” Nearly infeasible does not mean infeasible. Even so, this alternative was not rejected due to compliance or non-compliance with SOI standards; it was rejected due to the fact that “the roadway width on the bridge, the posted speed limit, the overhead clearance and the traffic flow pattern would be unchanged.” Only engineering concerns were considered when determining its viability.

The County’s alternative #3B was defined as Modified Rehabilitation. This alternative, which was the preferred alternative by the JCB Task Force, involved making changes to the bridge similar to those made on the Califon Bridge. As stated previously, although modified, the Califon Bridge remained eligible for listing on the Register of Historic places under two criteria. And again, this alternative was not rejected for any reasons related to historic preservation, but simply because “the traffic flow pattern would not be improved.”

Finally, the County indicates that rehabilitation would only last a few years. The Califon bridge rehabilitation was done in 1985, over twenty years ago; we are not aware of any pending need to replace or further rehabilitate that bridge at this time.

Has the County made an effort to include the public in this process?

The County’s description of its alleged efforts to include the public in the process is blatantly misleading: ”The proposed realignment of County Route 579 at Jacobs Creek has been in discussion for more than 40 years. In 1966, Mercer County acquired Right of Way to accommodate the new alignment of Bear Tavern Road. In 1991, the New Jersey H storic Preservation Office determined the bridge was eligible as a historic resource. In 2004, Hopewell Township created a Bridge Task Force composed of local residents, township representatives, and County representatives to examine the options for the rehabilitation or replacement of Jacobs Creek Bridge. The task force selected a preferred option, which called for rehabilitation of the existing bridge, an option later determined not viable. Since any changes to the existing structure would require approval by the New Jersey Historic Preservation Office, Mercer County subsequently contracted with a consultant in 2005 to perform an independent Historic Bridge Alternative Analysis, which examined more than 15 options.

Results of the report were subsequently presented and discussed at meetings with the State Historic Preservation Office and Hopewell Township Bridge Task Force members. Two public meetings were later held with the Hopewell Township Preservation Commission (HPC). In February 2009, the township’s HPC officially supported the Alternatives 5A/5B Modified 3, which calls for a new single-span bridge and relocation of the original structure to a location selected by the HPC. These efforts culminated in the township’s adoption of a resolution in March 2009 supporting the same. In May 2009, the State Historic Preservation Office concurred and also supported the plan. Most recently, area residents were provided the opportunity to present their concerns for the proposal at the Sept. 8, 2009 meeting of the Mercer County freeholder board as well as the Sept. 9, 2009 meeting of the Hopewell Township HPC. Mercer County will continue to engage the public as its moves forward with required studies and how to best preserve this historic setting.”

In fact, the public has not been kept well informed about the process, the most glaring example of which is the County’s refusal to release the Historic Bridge Alternatives Analysis (the only document which examines the alternatives) without intercession from the Attorney General.

Many current Hopewell Township residents were not Hopewell Township residents 40 years ago, nor even five years ago when the Task Force made their recommendations. In our canvassing efforts, we found that the majority of residents along Bear Tavern Road were unaware of the County’s plans to replace the Jacobs Creek Bridge. Now that the residents have had a chance to examine the report, and its inadequacies have been identified, it is clear that a new analysis must be performed, one that takes into account all project needs, not just those related to engineering.

What is the cost of the plan for a new bridge? Where is the funding coming from?

The County responds as follows: “The project is anticipated to cost approximately $5 million, which includes the cost of construction of the new bridge, the roadway realignments, and the relocation of the existing bridge. All of the funding for this project is secured. Mercer County obtains funding for its bridge replacement program from the New Jersey Department of Transportation through the Annual Transportation Program (ATP). A requirement of this funding is that the bridge be designed to current standards that include unlimited loading, lane width, and other specifications.”

According to the Historic Bridge Alternatives Analysis, the estimated cost for the new bridge is in fact $5 million. However, the estimated cost for Alternative 2 (Rehabilitation of the bridge to a 15 ton capacity) is only $900,000, and the estimated cost for Alternative 3A (Modified rehabilitation) is $1.65 million.

Just because funding is available does not mean that it must be used. Cost effectiveness must be considered and in its rush to approve its plan for an unlimited weight bridge, the County clearly failed to do so. Further, the County states that a requirement of the funding is that the bridge be designed to current standards including unlimited loading, etc. These standards of unlimited loading, a 40 foot width, etc only apply to new construction; they would not apply to a rehabilitation.

What is the County doing to ensure the historic value of the site is preserved?

The County sets forth its alleged efforts to preserve the historic value of the site as follows: “Mercer County understands and appreciates the history of the area and the passion that the residents in the immediate area and beyond share for it. The singular reason this project has been more than 40 years in the making is precisely because of the delicate nature of the history at the site, and the County’s steadfast determination to make sure the project is done correctly and with minimal impact to the area or the original, historic bridge itself. To that end, the County’s plan calls for saving the entire original bridge for use as a pedestrian bridge into perpetuity. In addition, before any actual disturbance of the land surround the bridge can be done, the County will conduct archeological surveys of the area.

These surveys are being expedited at the request of Hopewell Township. The surveys will allow for the area to be professionally surveyed, and eventually protected and interpreted as a Revolutionary War resource. In addition, Mercer County Executive Brian M. Hughes, County Department of Transportation and Infrastructure staff, Hopewell Township Mayor  Vanessa Sandom, and Richard Patterson, executive director of the Old Barracks Museum in Trenton, met with representatives of the Crossroads of the American Revolution Association on Oct. 1, 2009 to discuss the importance of historical preservation around Jacobs Creek Bridge. In this meeting, the significance of the landscape, the terrain of the Washington Victory Trail, and sensitivity to the history of the area as the project moves forward were all discussed at length. The County also took under advisement a request by the Association for the installation of interpretive Revolutionary War-era signage and a vehicle pull-off area as part of the project.”

The County states that “the singular reason this project has been more than 40 years in the making is precisely because of the delicate nature of the history at the site, and the County’s steadfast determination to make sure the project is done correctly and with minimal impact to the area,” yet it was announced last month that no one involved in this project realized that this site is where Washington’s men forded Jacobs Creek on their “Victory Trail” march to Trenton during the ten crucial days of the Revolutionary War. This is a site of national significance, and not realizing it was a significant oversight. As stated previously, all project needs, including the preservation of this historic site, should have been identified at the onset of the project, as the needs would guide the identification of the alternatives considered. A new analysis must be performed.

What has the County done to address related traffic safety concerns?

Mercer County responds as follows: “Mercer County is examining speed limit reductions on Bear Tavern Road including a reduction in the school speed limit in front of Bear Tavern School. Mercer County is also considering traffic calming measures proposed by Hopewell Township. Most recently, acknowledging concerns from township and school officials as well as local residents, Mercer County in cooperation with Hopewell Township eliminated the passing zone in front of Bear Tavern School. The County recognized and concurred with local residents that the Passing Zone in front of Bear Tavern School was inappropriate and should be eliminated. The County and the County Freeholder Board quickly responded this issue, and in mid-October 2009, the Passing Zone at this location has been eliminated and the road was re-striped. There is now “no passing” along the majority of Bear Tavern Road.

Also, in 2008, Mercer County was contacted by local residents as well as the Ewing Township police and asked to address traffic safety conditions at the curve on Bear Tavern Road near Jacobs Creek Road. There was a reported history of numerous crashes involving motorists losing control and veering off of the roadway. The relatively steep grade and a sharp horizontal curve were presumably significant contributing factors. Both short and long term measures to address these conditions were evaluated. Realignment and regrading of Bear Tavern Road in the vicinity of Jacobs Creek Road is neither practical nor feasible. Upon conducting a review of this situation, however, it was determined that existing signs should be upgraded and new signs installed. In November 2008, advance warning signs were added and existing signs were replaced with larger signs. Mercer County also installed “chevron” signs to better delineate the curve. Recent crash data provided by the Ewing Township Police Department shows a significant decrease in crashes from 15 in 2007 to 3 in 2009. Mercer County is also installing in-pavement reflectors or Raised Pavement Markers (RPMs) on the approaches and through the subject curve, which will further increase the visibility of the roadway, particularly during low ambient light and wet weather conditions.”

A 50 mph speed limit in front of an elementary school, a school that has functions on its front lawn, is simply not acceptable, and there should be no reason for the County to be considering whether or not it should be lowered. It must be lowered. The County indicates that they quickly responded to resident concerns voiced in 2009 regarding the passing zone in front of the school, and they have now removed it. They do not mention the fact that hundreds of residents petitioned the County ten years ago to reduce the speed limit in front of the school and eliminate the passing zone, but the County at that time chose to take no action.

Will a new Jacobs Creek Bridge attract additional truck traffic to the area, especially with the widening of the Scudder Falls Bridge?

The County’s answer is once again blatantly misleading and inaccurate: “Mercer County, together with Hopewell Township and Ewing Township officials, has lobbied the New Jersey Department of Transportation to prohibit commercial vehicles in excess of 4 tons on Bear Tavern Road north of I-95, and Hopewell Township has adopted a resolution in support of this measure. Mercer County officials held a very positive meeting with NJ DOT Commissioner Stephen Dilts on this issue, and, as a follow up to the meeting, Mercer County provided required information to the State for approval these restrictions.

At this time, the NJ DOT is reviewing the submission package. Motorists traveling to and from Pennsylvania are now often faced with delays using Scudder Falls Bridge. Consequently, commuters divert to alternative routes, including Bear Tavern Road and Washington’s Crossing Road to cross the Delaware River. An improved Scudder Falls Bridge would presumably provide a more desirable and direct route to regional employment centers thereby diverting traffic from local roads. Furthermore, if approved by the State, trucks over 4 tons would not be permitted to use Bear Tavern Road north of I-95.”

Adding a lane to the Scudders Falls Bridge which terminates at Bear Tavern Road, will obviously add more traffic to Bear Tavern Road. Nevertheless, while we applaud the County’s plan to restrict Bear Tavern Road to a 4-ton limit north of 95, Hopewell Township has indicated that they do not have the manpower to enforce such a limit. We believe that the 4-ton limit must be coupled with a plan for regular enforcement.

What are the next steps?

The County responds as follows: “Mercer County will conduct the archaeological surveys that are required under the Fresh Water Stream Encroachment permitting process as soon as an archaeological consultant can be hired, and will work with the New Jersey Historic Preservation Office to establish the scope of work that the consultant will be asked to perform. The County continues to work with the New Jersey Historic Preservation Office and Hopewell Township.”

The County’s analysis upon which it solely based its decision to replace the Jacobs Creek Bridge with an unlimited weight bridge and realign the road, was fatally flawed in that it ignored key historic, safety, fiscal, and environmental concerns, and only considered engineering needs. Therefore a new analysis must be performed.