March 5, 2002
DOT Compromises on New Batchellerville Bridge
The decision is in! The New York State Department of Transportation will replace the flat, low Batchellerville Bridge across Great Sacandaga Lake at Edinburg with an arch-like span that at its highest point, out in the center of the lake, will have a 42-foot vertical clearance for sailboats. The new structure, which will have a sidewalk for pedestrians, will be built immediately south of the existing bridge.
The announcement, made jointly on February 27 by DOT, the Town of Edinburg, and Saratoga County, showed that a group of determined citizens fed up with being pushed around by Big Government could indeed make a difference. The Batchellerville Bridge Action Committee (BBAC) rallied public opinion against DOT's original plan to build a much higher bridge with a vertical clearance of 55 feet. That design would have overwhelmed the view from hundreds of residences north and south of the bridge, and its safety in icy and windy conditions also was of concern. In addition, the BBAC successfully lobbied for a sidewalk on the bridge.
The new bridge will be 37 feet wide (compared with 26 feet for the existing bridge). It will have two 11-foot-wide travel lanes, two five-foot-wide shoulders for bicycles, and, on the south side, a five-foot-wide sidewalk. The maximum grade will be 1.5 percent. It will have a sight distance (length of roadway ahead) of 755 feet, exceeding the standard value of 525 feet. It will support vehicles weighing up to 45 tons, versus 15 tons for the existing bridge.
It may be helpful to compare the profiles of the two bridges, old and new. Remember that the term "vertical clearance" refers only to the empty space under the bridge. To obtain the structure's total height, you need to add eight feet, the thickness of the concrete-and-steel deck that you drive over.
When the lake/reservoir is "full" in June, the deck of the existing bridge is 32 feet above the surface of the water. When the new bridge is built, its east (Batchellerville) end will be 33 feet above the lake, its west end will be 38 feet above the lake, and its central spans will be 50 feet above the lake.
In its announcement, DOT said that 77 percent of sailboat owners surveyed will be able to sail under the bridge. The actual figure is higher. When DOT originally announced its survey results, it did not tell us that it had added four feet to each mast height to allow for wave action and radio antennas. But some sailboats don't have radio antennas. And they are sailing on a flood-control reservoir that is "full" for only a few short weeks in June. DOT's announcement concludes: "While not all sailboats would have unrestricted access to north of the new bridge, they still have 31 square miles of lake available, the second largest area of water within the Adirondack Park."
I appreciate the kind words many of you have emailed me. I'd have been happier if DOT had opted for a 35-foot vertical clearance, but, all in all, I feel we made significant progress against a mammoth state agency with a reputation for arrogance and indifference toward the public's wishes. In the beginning, I wondered if anybody really cared. But the response was overwhelming. I doubt if DOT will soon forget that rowdy "public informational meeting" in the gym of Edinburg Common School on September 30, 2000, when its coverup came unglued in front of 300 people. including reporters from three TV stations and three newspapers. How exciting it was when Marilyn Sargent mounted the bleachers, stilled the crowd, told off DOT, and called for a straw vote that we won! And at last year's town meeting at Northville Central School, attended by 350 people, the low-bridgers well outnumbered the high-bridgers, as DOT's official meeting summary confirms. Special thanks to those of you who went to the mike and spoke your piece. It isn't easy to stand up in front of a large audience, especially when some of the faces are glaring at you!
For reasons I don't understand, the BBAC's role in lobbying for a sidewalk on the bridge is disputed by some members of the opposition. So here's the documentation: On July 4, 2000, the DAILY GAZETTE reported that DOT had ruled out building sidewalks on the bridge: "Edinburg Supervisor Jean Raymond said the decision not to include a sidewalk on the new bridge wasn't a surprise. 'That's something we talked about early on,' she said. 'It's considerably more expensive, but also considerably more complicated as a maintenance issue.'" The following month, I sent local newspapers the first of my many letters on the bridge-replacement project. It spotlighted the DOT's attempt to sneak its plans past the public by holding its "final" public informational meeting three weeks after Labor Day. It asked, in part: "Doesn't DOT want to defend its decision to save $2 million by not equipping the bridge with a raised sidewalk? The ability to cross the bridge safely on a raised sidewalk would be a real plus for people out for exercise or for admiring romantic sunsets over the mountains. It would be a real draw (something Edinburg sorely needs)." In addition, ever since our web site was launched in December 2000, it has proclaimed our support for a raised sidewalk. It's always been obvious to me that far more people will walk across that bridge than ever sail beneath it.
On the siting issue, north or south, we lost. In the half mile immediately south of the bridge, there are about twice as many residences as there are in the same distance immediately to the north. But DOT chose to move the bridge to the south, toward the greater number of people, violating the democratic principle of taking actions that benefit the greater good. A south alignment also adds to the series of counterclockwise curves you encounter as you approach the bridge's east abutment from the south, which could have hazardous consequences. Finally, a south alignment slices 15 percent off the Town park/beach, which is shortsighted in view of the Town's expected future growth. DOT based its decision on the fact that a north alignment would require the removal of five residences, while a south alignment would require the removal of two.
One of the BBAC's successful initiatives is of interest only to people who live very close to the new bridge. Initially, DOT proposed to raise the west abutment by 17 feet, essentially running an elevated highway through one of the finest residential areas on the lake. We helped to push that back down to just six feet, which is bad enough (it will still complicate access to Lakeside Avenue and Park Drive immediately south of the abutment and to Wessels Road immediately north of the abutment).
What's next? No structure higher than 40 feet can be built in the Adirondack Park without prior approval by the Adirondack Park Agency. DOT still has to obtain that. In addition, I suspect that DOT will have to file a Draft Environmental Impact Statement, a document that sometimes leads to legal challenges. Surprisingly, with the project now in its fourth year of planning, the state and Saratoga County are still debating about who owns the bridge (and therefore about who gets the honor of picking up the $36 million tab, less the Federal Government's contribution). Because of the national recession and the tragic events of 9/11, the state's coffers are very low. Funds for the bridge were included in the infamous Transportation Bond Act, which state voters turned down by a huge majority in 2000. The latter included the residents of Edinburg, who voted against it by a margin of two to one. Construction was supposed to start in 2004. We'll just have to wait and see.
Where does the BBAC go from here? The winds of change are gusting down the Sacandaga Valley, and the things we value most could disappear almost overnight. We are going to stick around for a while and make certain our members are aware of issues like the proposed asphalt plant in Northville and the Adirondack Park Agency's new regulations on telecommunications towers. As always, the BBAC will continue to focus exclusively on the interests of property owners. We hope you'll stick with us.
With the lack of snow cover, some campers are wondering about water levels this summer. I spoke last week with a meteorologist at the local office of the National Weather Service. He told me that precipitation and temperatures are expected to return to normal for March, April, and May. Remember, folks, that if this forecast proves to be inaccurate, it isn't considered good form to shoot the messenger!