The condition of South Bristol’s swing bridge has once again caught the eye of the Maine Department of Transportation (DOT). On Aug. 26, over 50 people headed to South Bristol Elementary School to hear a DOT presentation on recommendations for bridge replacement.
The current swing bridge, or “gut” bridge was built in 1933, and connects Rutherford Island to the mainland. It is rumored to be the busiest swing bridge in New England, and possibly the nation, in part because low clearance levels mean the bridge has to be opened for even small and medium sized recreational boats, as well as for the working vessels that use the gut day and night.
According to DOT spokesmen, planner Duane Scott and consultant Vincent Campisi, the state cannot do anything to increase clearance levels, but they are concerned about the condition of the current bridge. The bridge mechanics sit below extreme high tide levels and have been damaged by water.
In recent years, the bridge has occasionally become stuck open, closed or in between, causing frustration for fishermen who then have to travel around the entire island to reach home port, and also creating potentially dangerous situations for island residents who would have no way off the island in case of emergency.
According to South Bristol Selectman Chester Rice, the current bridge is dangerous, not only because of its recent tendency to become stuck, but because the foundation under the bridge is crumbling.
While South Bristol resident David Andrews suggested that the foundation, or “substructure” issues are separate from the bridge, or “superstructure” issues, and could be addressed separately, with a possible rehabilitation of the current bridge, Rice called the current bridge “a piece of junk” and said that the mood of the town was in favor of replacement, rather than for rehabilitation.
According to Scott, the DOT also favors bridge replacement, and he and Campisi presented seven replacement options, with three emerging as clear state favorites. The first and most favored option is a European style Bascule bridge, which opens vertically. A close second was a Bobtail swing bridge, which is similar to the existing structure.
A third, but less desirable choice, based on both cost and length of construction time, is a second type of vertically opening Bascule bridge.
Scott and Campisi did not present any written information on the costs or benefits of rehabilitating the existing structure, which caused frustration among some members of the audience who cited an earlier report stating that rehabilitation was the most cost effective option. Resident Ken Maguire dismissed that report as having invalid numbers, while Rice pointed out that 500 residents had signed a petition in favor of replacement.
Scott asserted that if the town was going to go through all the effort of removing the current bridge to address foundation issues, they might as well replace the bridge at the same time, saving the cost of repeated future repairs.
Still, there was clearly some concern among certain members of the audience about new bridge construction, with one resident asking if a new bridge could be made to look like the existing bridge, and another expressing concern about the required “siren” alarm a new bridge would entail, stating that if a siren were to go off each and every time the bridge opened, the island would become “uninhabitable.”
On the other hand, those in favor of replacement implied that those in favor of rehabilitation were being overly sentimental and overly focused on aesthetics, and suggested that they were stonewalling the replacement process, jeopardizing possible funding in the process.
There were further suggestions that those in favor of rehabilitation were putting the safety of island residents at risk and that they would not be fully satisfied until there was a return to the time of “horse and buggy.”
In the end, Scott agreed to return with a study of four options, their three original recommendations, and a second look at the pros and cons of rehabilitation.
Toward the end of the meeting, resident John Harris pointed out that two bridge tenders were in the audience, and asked how they felt about rehabilitation versus replacement. They made their pro-replacement feelings known when they replied clearly and almost in unison, “New bridge.”
