Restored Bridge of Lions Has Dozens of Malfunctions

[Jason]

I'm hoping to hop over there this weekend and get some shots. 

I'm glad they're back!

[ChriswUfGator]

I still think it was an unnecessary project. The reason they spent the better part of $100mm on a new bridge was because the old one often broke down requiring repair. Now $82mm later, the new one is 10X worse than the old one.

[tufsu1]

or perhaps because the old bridge was strcturally deficient.

[Timkin]

I still think it was an unnecessary project. The reason they spent the better part of $100mm on a new bridge was because the old one often broke down requiring repair. Now $82mm later, the new one is 10X worse than the old one.

In the South we call this .... Progress

[BridgeTroll]

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.

[Dashing Dan]

The old bridge was definitely deficient and in need of replacement.  Fortunately for downtown St. Augustine, the replacement is visually similar to the original bridge.  A lot of people fought very hard to make that happen.  The original design would have been a very bad thing.

The Bridge of Lions project should be an inspiration for similar efforts on behalf of downtown Jacksonville.  Imagine what the Acosta Bridge might have looked like, or Riverside Avenue through Brooklyn.

[Timkin]

True, Dan. 

[ChriswUfGator]

Oh come on guys it wouldn't have cost $82mm to repour a roadbed and stabilize some cracks in concrete.

Sorry, but to the rest of us who aren't involved in planning, engineering, design, construction, etc., it was unnecessary.

And as I already pointed out, which point both Dan and Tufsu ignored, the new bridge has actually turned out to be FAR more problematic than the old one. So bad, in fact, that the state and city are considering suing the contractor and engineers over a seemingly absurd number of construction defects.

When you're 82 million in the hole and what you wind up with is worse than what you had, it's a waste in my book.

[BridgeTroll]

A nice Fuller Warren style bridge would have been much better.

[Timkin]

Well...Most of Downtown St.Augustine has historic structures.. (Funny a small town like St.Augustine has preserved most of their landmarks , but just North of them in Jacksonville, comparatively, most of them are gone) ...so it makes sense in this instance to replicate the bridge.  Sure a bridge like the FW would have eliminated the need for the drawbridge but it would stick out like a sore thumb in that spot. As to costs, I have zero idea but is it possible a FW style bridge would run the same $ or even more? 

[tufsu1]

Sorry, but to the rest of us who aren't involved in planning, engineering, design, construction, etc., it was unnecessary.

which is why you're not an engineer!

[Dashing Dan]

The choice was never between fixing up the old bridge or replacing it with a new bridge.  The choice was between replacing the old bridge with a Fuller Warren type structure (no drawbridge) or replacing it with something that would look more or less the same as the old bridge.

At that location a high level replacement bridge would have been a catastrophe.  I'm very thankful that they didn't do that.

Whatever the problems are with that bridge, those problems will be resolved within a year or two.  On the other hand, the blight of a high level bridge at that location would have been forever.

If the Acosta Bridge was still a drawbridge, downtown Jacksonville would be more attractive today.

[Dashing Dan]

Oh come on guys it wouldn't have cost $82mm to repour a roadbed and stabilize some cracks in concrete.

That project would have given us a nice new deck sitting on the bottom of the river.

The bridge structure was deficient.

[Timkin]

The choice was never between fixing up the old bridge or replacing it with a new bridge.  The choice was between replacing the old bridge with a Fuller Warren type structure (no drawbridge) or replacing it with something that would look more or less the same as the old bridge.

At that location a high level replacement bridge would have been a catastrophe.  I'm very thankful that they didn't do that.

Whatever the problems are with that bridge, those problems will be resolved within a year or two.  On the other hand, the blight of a high level bridge at that location would have been forever.

If the Acosta Bridge was still a drawbridge, downtown Jacksonville would be more attractive today.

Not to steer the thread to the Acosta, but i vividly remember it being stated that the Old Acosta was "unstable" .. Not structurally deficient , just unstable.  While I DO miss the span, it was outdated in terms of being able to keep up with the volume of traffic.   I do remember sitting in the car on either approach to the span and , if a Semi came by , you could feel the vibration in the road.  So in that respect, much like the Gilmore Street Bridge (current known as Fuller Warren), it was not likely designed for the large amounts of vehicle traffic , even though it was the original thoroughfare to Downtown.   

I am not taking sides in regard to the Old Bridge of Lions but I would imagine it fell under a similar scenario. Certainly wish after so much was spent to replicate it ,that it was dependable. Maybe eventually they will get the bugs ironed out

   I wish the Old Acosta Span had been spared and somehow incorporated into a new bridge or new location but it was , as is most of the older stuff in Jax , destroyed instead.

[Dashing Dan]

I'm not suggesting that the old Acosta Bridge should have been preserved, or that a drawbridge would have worked at that location.  But drawbridges do have an aesthetic advantage over high level bridges, and I do feel that the new Acosta Bridge was built for more traffic than it is ever likely to carry.