I read with interest your article in the Dec. 24 issue regarding the replacing of the Oceanic Bridge. While I applaud the efforts of Todd Thompson to assure that any replacement span would replicate the “ … aesthetic and practical aspects of the present bridge …,” I fear that what is in the cards is really a replay of the choreographed dance we were treated to, as justification for the new high-rise monster joining Sea Bright and Highlands.

The main reason cited by our state engineering “experts” is that the present bridge is “at the end of its useful life; is structurally deficient, and in overall poor condition.”

This begs the question of why this fine structure was allowed to deteriorate? Our politicians and their appointees apparently cannot adequately maintain a bridge built in 1940, so they let it rot and then devote their efforts to building an eyesore replacement.

If we look at the city of London, England, its bridges over the river Thames, carrying vehicular, rail and pedestrian traffic have been open since the following dates:

Tower Bridge — opened in 189 4 Westminster Bridge — opened in 1862

Hungerford Bridge — opened in 1865

Waterloo Bridge — opened in 1945

Southwark Bridge — opened in 1921

Blackfriars Bridge — opened in 1869

Cannon Street Bridge — opened in 1866.

All of these seven structures have been adequately maintained and are operational today.

Your article states a final decision on the bridge will be made by the state and federal government by the end of the second quarter of 2010.

Don’t bet on it. It will drag beyond the midterm elections of 2010.

We must prevent another shameful example of our elected officials ignoring the will of their constituents in order to appease the construction lobby. They should be put on notice that to build another “skyway bridge” will result in their collectively hitting the road. They can cross that bridge on their way out of their jobs.

Samuel Fortunato

Little Silver