Restored Bridge of Lions Has Dozens of Malfunctions

[ChriswUfGator]

I've been around awhile, Nth, I've lived here all my life. My understanding was the FDOT initially wanted a highrise in the 1980s. I am not sure if it got to the stage of a formal proposal or not. Regarding the rest, I was around during construction, I know why they did the temporary bridge etc., no disagreement there. As to projected lifespan, there is room for differing opinions on that one. My thoughts are that if you can get 40 years for 1/2 of the cost of getting 75 years, and the end products would otherwise be comparable, then why not save the money? Assuming the funds otherwise invested would earn a normal rate of return, or at least would not accrue interest in the form of bond payments, and given the time value of a dollar, you come out ahead doing what is necessary but also least expensive. The economic aspect of it would be a different story if the costs were comparable, but that wasn't the case, one option was double the other.

That and the new bridge looks bland compared to the old one.

[Dashing Dan]

I liked the old Bridge of Lions, and I also like the new one. 

The new Acosta Bridge looks good enough, but it's so high up in the air that it doesn't fit in with its surroundings.

What really annoys me about the bridges in downtown Jacksonville is that their approach ramps are designed like freeways.  The rebuilt approaches to the Bridge of Lions are much much better.

[NthDegree]

My thoughts are that if you can get 40 years for 1/2 of the cost of getting 75 years, and the end products would otherwise be comparable, then why not save the money? ...

Sure, "save the money" but put the community through two periods of construction fatigue and more debate?  Never mind the cost of inflation over 35 years.  Not likely.  When the FHWA got the project fully funded it was game over. 

As far as the look of the bridge as it stands today, you are entitled to your opinion.  I never liked those aluminum hand rails and light poles and was happy to see the barges float them away.  And that the FDOT took the time to put back the original 1925 design handrails, gates, towers, light fixtures, etc.?  A 1925 Florida Boom Era bridge brought up to today's safety standards.  Wonders never cease. 

   

[Timkin]

My thoughts are that if you can get 40 years for 1/2 of the cost of getting 75 years, and the end products would otherwise be comparable, then why not save the money? ...

Sure, "save the money" but put the community through two periods of construction fatigue and more debate?  Never mind the cost of inflation over 35 years.  Not likely.  When the FHWA got the project fully funded it was game over. 

As far as the look of the bridge as it stands today, you are entitled to your opinion.  I never liked those aluminum hand rails and light poles and was happy to see the barges float them away.  And that the FDOT took the time to put back the original 1925 design handrails, gates, towers, light fixtures, etc.?  A 1925 Florida Boom Era bridge brought up to today's safety standards.  Wonders never cease. 

   

I have not seen the current span but look forward to visiting to see it..  In Jax they replace classic and beautiful with REALLY UGLY.

[tufsu1]

Assuming the funds otherwise invested would earn a normal rate of return, or at least would not accrue interest in the form of bond payments, and given the time value of a dollar, you come out ahead doing what is necessary but also least expensive.

how does government take tax money now and reserve/invest it for transportation projects 30+ years from now...oh wait, they can't...at least not without first creating the often-suggested infrastructure bank.

[ChriswUfGator]

Assuming the funds otherwise invested would earn a normal rate of return, or at least would not accrue interest in the form of bond payments, and given the time value of a dollar, you come out ahead doing what is necessary but also least expensive.

how does government take tax money now and reserve/invest it for transportation projects 30+ years from now...oh wait, they can't...at least not without first creating the often-suggested infrastructure bank.

Well actually we do have both state and federal transportation trust funds, Tufsu. Additionally, even if those weren't in play, then money not spent that would otherwise be subject to interest in the form of bond payments is effectively a superior return.

[Dashing Dan]

Quoting myself:

The Bridge of Lions project should be an inspiration for similar efforts on behalf of downtown Jacksonville.

Metro Jacksonville should be holding the Bride of Lions project as the standard for all other major road and bridge projects in this region.  Sure it costs extra for outreach and to figure out historic contexts, etc, but isn't that what MJ is all about?

[NthDegree]

Quoting myself:

The Bridge of Lions project should be an inspiration for similar efforts on behalf of downtown Jacksonville.

Metro Jacksonville should be holding the Bride of Lions project as the standard for all other major road and bridge projects in this region.  Sure it costs extra for outreach and to figure out historic contexts, etc, but isn't that what MJ is all about?

Clap. Clap. Clap.     

[ChriswUfGator]

This site works for a lot of things, historic preservation (rather than replacement) being among the very top of the list. What happened with this bridge is akin to the SRG/Springfield situation, where historic houses were demolished and replaced with copies. And financially, preserving the existing structure was, even by DOT's own admission, much cheaper. So say what you will about your viewpoint, and I can certainly respect your viewpoint, but that doesn't change the (valid) points I've made. We paid double for a copy of what it would have taken to preserve the original.

But what's done is done, and in the end calculation I am just glad this did not wind up being another generic concrete bridge as the DOT has originally envisioned. Three decades' worth of efforts by the City of Saint Augustine and SaveOurBridge prevented that. The result is light-years better than it otherwise would have been, and if that is your point, then I can get behind that.

[tufsu1]

Well actually we do have both state and federal transportation trust funds, Tufsu

read up on how those trust funds work and then get back to me

[wsansewjs]

Here we go again, Tufsu and Chris. -shake head-

-Josh

[NthDegree]

Chris,

Actually the FDOT did preserve the structure.  They just did not do it according to your standards.  They used the standard of federal law: The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation.   

Yes, a large portion of the materials are new but the character defining features of the historic bridge were kept and/or restored.  What are the principle character defining features?  Primarily, the towers. Secondarily, the steel arched girder spans. The towers are original, the steel arched girder spans are original.
So, you and I will not agree that it is "a copy."  Further, you will not get agreement from FDOT, FHWA, U.S. Coast Guard, ACHP, ACOE, COSA, NPS, FSHPO, NTHP or any of the other involved agencies or organizations that recognize or are bound by federal law.         



       

[ChriswUfGator]

Ok, so I already stated that replacing a historical item with a copy that happens to use a few bits and pieces isn't my idea of preservation. You obviously have a different opinion. As far as ACHP goes, their guidelines are advisory at best on active transportation infrastructure, not sure why you even brought that up. Are you just trying to throw alphabet soup at everyone in the hopes that this causes the appearance that you've made a valid point? That generally doesn't work around here, FYI. I know you're new, but if you want to talk about standards in an agency publication, post the relevant section of the publication and we'll go from there. Dropping a bunch of acronyms without posting any data, or the relevant section of whatever agency publication relates to the debate, proves only that you know how to use google.

While you're at it, google "Ship of Theseus"...

[tufsu1]

Ok, so I already stated that replacing a historical item with a copy that happens to use a few bits and pieces isn't my idea of preservation. You obviously have a different opinion.

actually it is the Interior Department that has a different opinion...and since they set the national standards on historic structures, I'm going with them

[NthDegree]

"Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) requires Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) reasonable opportunity to comment. The historic preservation review process mandated by Section 106 is outlined in regulations issued by ACHP."  Linked here: http://www.achp.gov/106summary.html

Agreed that ACHP is "advisory" but they were also a consulting agency (as per NEPA) by federal law on the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). They played an active and important role in the process and could not be left out of the acronym-soup-litany-of-involved-agencies.
     
I stand on the acronyms presented.  

Edited to add: Ship of Theseus ... excellent and necessary discussion item!   You're point?