St. Augustine Record
July 18, 1999

Editorial
Some things can’t be ‘replaced’
By Jim Sutton

It is not surprising that those on both sides of the issue of the future of the Bridge of Lions are crying ‘‘foul’’ — and that the silent majority caught in the middle is confused.
As visionary and practical as the group advocating a replacement bridge claims to be, some of its members are playing a little loose with their facts.

And as passionate and historically custodial as the group seeking a bridge restoration may be, the same holds true for some of its ilk.

Each camp began with an intended result and researched toward its fruition.

That is neither uncommon nor is it that bad because it worked both ways. Some ‘‘statistical engineering’’ went on, but along the way some assumptions were shown to lack basis; some truths were uncovered as false.

And through this years-long effort to save/replace our famous Bridge of Lions, a massive body of truths — fractional and full — has been chronicled. This will now be compiled into a Final Statement of Environmental Impact and sent to the Federal Highway Administration in Washington D.C., along with a recommendation from Florida’s Department of Transportation for the future of the bridge.

There one of two scenarios is likely.

Should the DOT recommend a replacement bridge, a cursory approval will take place. A legal challenge by the National Trust for Historic Preservation (probably joined by other preservation groups) could then follow, citing and defending the bridge’s protected status.

Should the DOT recommend a restoration — especially Option 1A — one of the highway administration’s divisions, the U.S. Coast Guard, will likely convene an interdepartmental blood-letting of the document and its direction. The Coast Guard has been up-front all along in its demands for a wider channel between the bridge’s drawspan bascules (though considerably less so in its supporting evidence.)

But these courses will be driven by internal political inertia spinning outside local influence. So the issue comes down to the DOT’s recommendation.

We believe that should be Option 1A — a renovation of the Bridge of Lions.

Here’s why.

First and foremost, St. Augustine is a special city known internationally as the oldest in our nation. Make no mistake — our singular sanction both culturally and economically is our unique place in history. As a city, we’ve done a poor job in some respects when it comes to historic preservation and we’ve had some notable successes.

It’s one thing to fail to preserve an historic asset; it’s another altogether to tear one down.

That’s not the cultural character this, of all cities, should portray. The eyes of the nation are upon us.

One of the more controversial issues in the debate has been the question ‘‘Is the bridge historic?’’ — the ‘‘I’ve got undershorts older than that bridge’’ argument.

We think its place in the rich time line of our city gives the bridge, opened in 1927, its historic status.

But above that — and for those who disagree with the bridge’s place in history — we have come to believe one thing through the course of this debate: The bridge does not have to be historic to be important.

Safety is the other key issue in the controversy. Will a restored bridge be safe? Every expert says yes. Will it have all the safety features of a new bridge? No.

Structurally, a restored bridge will lack a set of emergency lanes. That’s a tradeoff we’re glad to live with, much like maneuvering automobiles down narrow, brick streets and idling along behind carriage horses. We do it for St. Augustine. In fact, many of us choose to make our lives here predominantly for these idiosyncratic blessings of our Colonial heritage.

The flip side of the safety issue on top of the bridge is the one under it.

Will an 80-foot channel, rather than the 125 feet recommended by the Coast Guard, be safe? We’ve seen ample evidence that it will be. The DOT could not offer this option otherwise. Will the narrower channel be more difficult for large barges? Yes. But tie-dolphins and new designs in fender protection systems make it more a matter of inconvenience for the tug operators than a hazard.

Traffic flow is a third issue, but it really should not be. There continues to be a perception that a new bridge would ease traffic tie-ups downtown. This is not the case. A two-lane replacement bridge will move cars no more efficiently than a two-lane renovation. Period.

And this leads to a point not made during the bridge debate. That is, no Bridge of Lions alternative will help solve the traffic problems of this city. Some sort of public transportation system and satellite parking plan must be coaxed out of the ‘‘visioning’’ process and into reality. As we rid the downtown of cars, we open up a pedestrian-based historic area and lessen the impact on the bridge.

A new span, traversing the Intracoastal at another site is not in the longest-range plans of the DOT.

There are dozens of other issues being debated here: cost, evacuation, effect on tourism, stewardship of our cultural assets, on and on. Both sides have lists of ‘‘facts’’ as they see them.

But we believe that the two groups represent a small percentage of those with a stake in the bridge, polarized to either side. The majority of those who travel the Bridge of Lions want to know that it is safe. If it can be that, and retain its historic grace with a youthful new face, so much the better.

We know it can.

The DOT knows it can.

We challenge its officials to take that message to Washington in terms certain.