The dispute between those interested in the safety and engineering needs of the Glimmer Glass Inlet Bridge and those interested in its esthetic and historic aspects continued in a recent public hearing. The hearing was intended to air both sides of the dispute. However, based on an account in the Asbury Park Press, it seems to me that both sides are further apart than ever. As some readers noted in response to my previous column (see CE News, February 2008), the conflict between public safety and historic preservation is an increasing concern.

The Glimmer Glass Inlet Bridge is a protected structure, but its 3-ton weight limit restricts access by fire vehicles, creating a public-safety issue for residents.

During the public hearing, the county engineer stated that the (overall) 279-foot-long bridge and especially the 34-foot-long movable section are structurally deficient. The span is not only too narrow, but also has a posted load-carrying capacity of 3 tons. In fact, the local fire director has taken the position that since an average fire apparatus weighs more than 20 tons, crossing the bridge with such weight is not a risk he is willing to accept. But, he added, "Any delay currently caused by emergency vehicles having to take a detour around Glimmer Glass … is unacceptable."

Another variable recently entered the equation. On Feb. 28, 2008, the New Jersey Register of Historic Places added the bridge to its list of protected structures. That means that under state law, "All public undertakings that may affect [such] sites … must first be authorized by the state Commissioner of Environmental Protection." Additionally, the Glimmer Glass Bridge has been referred to the National Register of Historic Places for consideration as being worthy of protection at the national level.

It’s quite a problem without an easy answer, although one reader suggested a reasonable solution. Larry Timmons wrote "What’s the problem? Just construct a new 28-foot-wide bridge alongside the old one and designate each for one-way traffic."

Roy Sullivan said that as an Ocean County resident, he knows the bridge well, and it is dangerous. "The [column] is particularly interesting in the way it exposes the well-intentioned historians’ position in conflict with public safety," he said. "My work is 100-percent industrial, but we do not escape the historians. I have a client in New Jersey who has property along the Delaware River. The property lies [at] the location of the first piece of real estate purchased by the U.S. government. The closing date for that sale was July 5, 1776. Once the fellows in Philadelphia signed the Declaration of Independence, they knew they could be expecting company from our friends across the pond [the British], so they bought the land for a fort (Fort Billings). [The property has been called] the ’Birthplace of Homeland Security. [The locals] are pressing my client to pay for archeological studies, even though the site of the former fort is not being touched by the project. Because these well-intentioned folks have the ear of the local government, my client is forced to keep dancing with them. Not at all fair, but unfortunately it is the way of the world."

Byron Johnson, P.E., compared the Glimmer Glass Bridge dispute with an old joke related to historic preservation: "A guy walks into a pawn shop and says, ’I have George Washington’s hatchet, and I’d like to sell it to you. It’s the original one he used to chop down the cherry tree.’ ’Really?’ asks the shopkeeper. ’That’s amazing. If it is the original, it’s worth a fortune. But this one looks brand new.’ To which the man replies, ’Well, over the years we’ve changed the handle and the blade a few times—but other than that, it’s the exact same hatchet!"

The historical nature of the Glimmer Glass Bridge is not exactly the same as Washington’s hatchet, but there are similarities and, most importantly, there is the safety issue, which should supersede all other concerns. I trust this will have a reasonable outcome. In the meantime, let’s hope that no one gets killed because of the manner in which this issue is being handled.

Alfred R. Pagan, P.E., is a consulting engineer in Hackensack, N.J. He can be reached at 201-441-9719; or e-mail him at pagan@cenews.com.