Restored Bridge of Lions Has Dozens of Malfunctions

[BridgeTroll]

I just noticed this;

Now $82mm later, the new one is 10X worse than the old one.

Nowhere in the article does it say it is 10X worse.  In fact... a subsequent article claims it is some kind of engineering marvel.

http://staugustine.com/news/local-news/2010-11-20/bridge-lions-called-one-nations-top-10

The rehabilitation of St. Augustine's historic Bridge of Lions, led by facilities and infrastructure consulting firm RS&H, has been ranked fourth in the nation's Top 10 Bridges of 2010, according to Roads & Bridges magazine.

Umm...yeah...well it's a 'marvel' alright...in a certain sense...

http://www.news4jax.com/news/23955121/detail.html

http://staugustine.com/news/local-news/2011-03-08/fdot-working-bridge-lions-problem

http://jacksonville.com/community/st_johns/2010-03-19/story/st_augustines_bridge_of_lions_reopened_after_drawbridge_problems

http://staugustine.com/news/local-news/2010-04-28/bridge-lions-broken-again

I am sure we could have a cheaper Fuller Warren style bridge...

[ChriswUfGator]

No matter where anybody was from 1975 to 2005 (give or take a year):

#1-FDOT lost the fight to replace the old bridge with a 4-lane high level bridge.
#2-The new bridge would have been cheaper if there hadn't been a fight.
#3-The new bridge should work better.

In a year or two, only #1 will be important.

You're still misstating the facts...

Renovating the existing bridge was much cheaper even than the FDOT's initial proposal, let alone the actual finished product. You seem to think the de minimus additional costs involved in sticking some salvaged pieces of the old bridge onto the new one are somehow responsible for the cost increase, and that is simply wrong.

The cost difference was comprised mostly of the additional costs of having to demolish, remove/haul, and dispose of the old bridge, and to build a completely separate and up-to-code additional temporary bridge across the river to carry the traffic while the old one was demolished. They actually had to build a whole separate additional bridge to do it their way, which wouldn't have been necessary f they had just done what people wanted and renovated the old one. You do realize that the finished bridge only wound up being 4% over the initial project budget right? The better alternative, that the residents actually wanted, was almost a full 50% cheaper.

[ChriswUfGator]

Did you happen to see any of the removal of the old concrete structure?  I watched a few bits being removed and could plainly see large chunks of concrete falling off into the water as they dismantled it.  The internal rebar was almost completely disentigrated in the peices I saw.

Yes, and like every other bridge maintenance project, you just erect a temporary support and then remove and repour the damaged section according to the specs of the original plans, wash rinse and repeat until you've fixed all the damaged sections. Normally the bridge can even remain open during most parts of the process. This wouldn't exactly have been the first time in recorded history we've repaired a bridge, you know. If you haven't noticed, we tend to have a lot of them in Florida and almost all are reinforced concrete. Just the same, I'm sure you're probably right and NASA would have had to send a mission to have the aliens teach us how to repair some rusted rebar. 

FWIW, they just finished doing that exact process to the Ortega River bridge, that was built around the same time,  with no fuss. I am not sure where they put up the concrete-repairing aliens while they were here doing the work, I didn't see any flying saucers. I'll ask around. Maybe that was the secret purpose behind that ridiculous dome they wanted to put on the new courthouse, flying saucer parking?

[Jason]

Please can the sarcasm, I can read and interpret quite well without it.  I haven't been attacking you, just carrying on a conversation and relaying my opinion from my own observations.   

From what I've seen of the old structure I can't help but think that the actual condition of the bridge was much worse than anticipated.  Concrete fascia crumbling from the edges, railings rusted through, piles that were failing...   I just don't see how rehabbing would have bought much in the long term.

Do you suppose the load capacities could have been reinstated with a rehabbed bridge?

[Dashing Dan]

No matter where anybody was from 1975 to 2005 (give or take a year):

#1-FDOT lost the fight to replace the old bridge with a 4-lane high level bridge.
#2-The new bridge would have been cheaper if there hadn't been a fight.
#3-The new bridge should work better.

In a year or two, only #1 will be important.

You're still misstating the facts...

Chris - You can word Fact #2 and Fact #3 any way you want. 

#1 is indisputable, and it's the only fact that really matters.

[ChriswUfGator]

No matter where anybody was from 1975 to 2005 (give or take a year):

#1-FDOT lost the fight to replace the old bridge with a 4-lane high level bridge.
#2-The new bridge would have been cheaper if there hadn't been a fight.
#3-The new bridge should work better.

In a year or two, only #1 will be important.

You're still misstating the facts...

Chris - You can word Fact #2 and Fact #3 any way you want. 

#1 is indisputable, and it's the only fact that really matters.

True. And thankfully. A Fuller-Warren style bridge would have, as Bridge Troll noted, been much worse.

[ChriswUfGator]

Please can the sarcasm, I can read and interpret quite well without it.  I haven't been attacking you, just carrying on a conversation and relaying my opinion from my own observations.   

My apologies, I never realized you were offended by the use of sarcasm as a device to lighten up a conversation;

Sounds like a buch of scientists with breast milk fetishes can't get it from their post menopausal wives anymore so they have to make their own.     The funny part will be the YouTube video of them nursing on the cow... 

From what I've seen of the old structure I can't help but think that the actual condition of the bridge was much worse than anticipated.  Concrete fascia crumbling from the edges, railings rusted through, piles that were failing...   I just don't see how rehabbing would have bought much in the long term.

Do you suppose the load capacities could have been reinstated with a rehabbed bridge?

Well it was all fixable, and as the DOT even acknowledged, for only half the cost of replacing it with a new bridge. But they wanted what they wanted, and the taxpayers and DOT had a 30 year battle over it. Regarding the weight limits, I wouldn't see why that would be an issue, the renovation proposed for the original bridge wasn't adding any additional lanes, and semi trucks are banned from transiting the downtown Saint Augustine tourist district anyway.

[BridgeTroll]

No matter where anybody was from 1975 to 2005 (give or take a year):

#1-FDOT lost the fight to replace the old bridge with a 4-lane high level bridge.
#2-The new bridge would have been cheaper if there hadn't been a fight.
#3-The new bridge should work better.

In a year or two, only #1 will be important.

You're still misstating the facts...

Chris - You can word Fact #2 and Fact #3 any way you want. 

#1 is indisputable, and it's the only fact that really matters.

True. And thankfully. A Fuller-Warren style bridge would have, as Bridge Troll noted, been much worse.

I don't want a FW type bridge.  I and many others are pretty happy with the new/refurbished bridge.  It will be an asset long into the future once the bugs get worked out of the replaced mechanisms.  The writers and engineers of Roads and Bridges are pretty impressed with the unique work done.

[Jason]

Well it was all fixable, and as the DOT even acknowledged, for only half the cost of replacing it with a new bridge. But they wanted what they wanted, and the taxpayers and DOT had a 30 year battle over it. Regarding the weight limits, I wouldn't see why that would be an issue, the renovation proposed for the original bridge wasn't adding any additional lanes, and semi trucks are banned from transiting the downtown Saint Augustine tourist district anyway.

But my questions are would a rehabbed bridge be of the same structural integrity as what was just recently done?  How much time would simply fixing the bridge have bought us?  If the bridge were repaired, would we be having this debate again in 10 years, 20 years, 100 years?  Truth is, that bridge carries MUCH MUCH more traffic than the Ortega River bridge you used as a comparison.  Throw in all the red tape involved with doing any sort of construction in the historic district, having to repair it again in the near future could offset the costs of doing what was done.

If the wood siding on your house is slowly rotting peice by peice do you replace it (repair it) as needed or do you knock it out all at once to save the trouble of multiple starts and stops and potential cost increases due to the smaller amounts of material and fluctuations in labor rates?  

Furthermore, there are other hidded cost factors such as negotiated labor rates, negotiated material costs, fees, permitting, review boards, etc. that all play a big role.

[Timkin]

With regard to the Ortega River Bridge, I would concur Jason.  I think in days gone by, it probably carried substantial traffic.

[mtraininjax]

With regard to the Ortega River Bridge, I would concur Jason.  I think in days gone by, it probably carried substantial traffic.

Do you or Ock have a picture of the old US 17 bridge, before they went to 6 lanes? I think I have seen an old ACL picture with the bridge in it, but I think it used to only be 4 lanes, and not as high as it is today.

[Timkin]

The old US 17 Bridge over Ortega River?  Doctors Lake?  Black Creek ? all were US 17 Bridges.. and no I would not.. but Ock probably would.

[mtraininjax]

The old US 17 Bridge over Ortega River?

Sorry, yes over the Ortega River. The new US 17 bridge helps the Ortega Blvd bridge, for sure. You'd never see a semi over it, that I can remember.

[Timkin]

I don't have a pic of it but remember it. OCK? Paging OCK!!! 

[NthDegree]

Chris .... careful, us old bridge huggers are still around to keep the record straight.  I have refrained from weighing in until now but a man can only take so much .... 

FDOT did not seriously consider a flyover bridge.

The bridge is a rehabilitation that has an estimated life span of 75 years. A "renovation" as you suggest would not have given the structure that kind of life span. 

The temporary bridge was built to prevent the economic consequences for businesses of a lost town/beach connector during construction.  The business community greatly feared your suggested "renovation" scenario because it would have created a nightmare of closures.   

The temporary bridge material was mostly recycled including the lift span. 

The community is highly sensitive to each and every opening/closing event of the bridge, malfunctions included. The malfunction rate has drastically declined in the later months of the first year of operation.

IMHO, I would much rather the FDOT and FHWA drop their dollars on a project like this, with a result like this, than building new roads and highways to suburbia, exurbia and ex-exurbia of Americana.