|
St.
Augustine
Record Residents
react
to
bridge
decision For
some,
Thursday’s
announcement
that
the
Florida
Department
of
Transportation
will
recommend
a
rehabilitation
of
the
Bridge
of
Lions
prompted
applause
and
celebration.
They said it brought closure to a decade-long battle over whether or not the historic structure should be rehabilitated or replaced. “We’ve got a long way to go. But it’s a wonderful first step. That’s my personal opinion,” said Janet Ponton Lewis, who sits on the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee. For others, the news brought disappointment and lacked sensibiliity. “I think it shows a lack of fiscal responsibility as well as common sense,” said John Daniels, A Safe New Bridge president. Ramelle Petroglou, A Safe New Bridge Inc. member and former St. Augustine mayor, agreed. She said DOT’s decision is an irresponsible and unfair way to spend taxpayers’ money. Petroglou said rehabilitation costs more money and will prove to not last as long. “They want to take a bridge that’s on crutches and try and make it new,” she said. DOT said rehabilitation Option 1A was its preferred option, which was chosen from several rehabilitation and replacement options listed in the draft environmental impact statement released in December. This alternative maintains the existing two lanes of traffic on the bridge and a 76-foot horizontal clearance for boat traffic. Next, DOT will write the final environmental impact statement. State and federal agencies such as the U.S. Coast Guard and the Federal Highway Administration will review the statement. It will take six to nine months for the impact statement to be finalized. DOT officials said it’s possible that the option will be opposed by the Coast Guard during this process. If approved, the design process would take two years. Therefore, it would be three to four years before any construction begins. Some residents, such as Charles Tingley, Save Our Bridge vice president, question whether or not the Coast Guard needs to review the statement since rehabilitation doesn’t involve a new structure. That may be true depending on the degree on rehabilitation, said Greg Shapley, Coast Guard district bridge administrator. However, he said, it’s too early to comment because he hasn’t seen the final environmental impact statement. “As in all cases, the devil lies in the details,” said Shapley. He said the Coast Guard wants to take all the issues into consideration: bridge traffic, safety, navigation and historical significance. “I’d be surprised if somewhere in this we can’t find a win-win for everyone,” said Shapely. To oppose the preferred DOT option, Tingley said, the Coast Guard would have to conduct the same costly draft environmental impact statement process that the DOT underwent. “We’ll do our job. We are prepared to follow our normal process,” said Shapely. Les Thomas, Save Our Bridge committee member, said the committee is prepared to be DOT’s partner. “Let’s put it this way. We are going to keep an eye on them,” said Thomas, a local architect. Thomas said a group of architects supporting restoration of the bridge has had several meetings with DOT to discuss bridge design. “We want to have a continuing dialogue with them,” said Thomas. He said the local architects are an offshoot of the Save Our Bridge committee. When it comes to hiring a firm to design the bridge, Thomas said he hopes a firm with restoration experience and knowledge of a historic city will be chosen. Tingley added that he was pleased with the announcement. “It’s a great relief that the DOT finally made a decision, and the decision has fallen our way,” he said. “We knew we had logic on our side.” |