INTRODUCTION
	ALTERNATE CORRIDORS     North Corridor     South Corridor		REPLACEMENT ALTERNATIVE     Conventional Design     Ornate Design     Option 2A     Option 2B                West Approach                Bridge Proper                East Approach
	ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT     Two-Lane Versus Four-Lane Alternative     Multimodal Alternatives     Traffic System Management
	ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED     NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE     REHABILITATION ALTERNATIVE               Development of the Rehabilitation Alternative                           Historic Integrity                           Safety Concerns                           Cost Effectiveness               The Rehabilitation Alternative                           West Approach                           Bridge Proper                           East Approach               Maintenance of Traffic via Temporary Bridge               Option 1A               Option 1B		ALTERNATIVE COST COMPARISON      Initial Construction Cost      Long-Term Costs      Cost Summary
			SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES      No-Build Alternative      Rehabilitation Option 1A      Rehabilitation Option 1B      Replacement Option 2A      Replacement Option 2B

INTRODUCTION

In 1974, the St. Augustine City Commission studied the feasibility of providing additional traffic capacity across the Matanzas River/Intracoastal Waterway near the existing Bridge of Lions. However, none of the preliminary improvement concepts were implemented because of insufficient funds. In the 1970's, more than $2.2 million in mechanical and structural repairs were made to the bridge to improve its operational efficiency.

In 1981, because of continued concern over efficiency and structural soundness, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) began new studies on the bridge. FDOT's studies revealed deterioration of underwater pilings and piers, which were subsequently repaired. By 1990, as a result of FDOT's ongoing structural and operational evaluation, a 16.4 metric ton (15 ton) weight restriction was applied to all vehicles crossing the Bridge of Lions. This weight limit does not enable the City to maintain essential services such as solid waste removal for Anastasia Island residents and businesses using the existing bridge. Garbage trucks must use the S.R. 312 bridge located 2.4 kilometers (1.5 miles) to the south.

Due to its present structural condition and continued deterioration, the FDOT believes that an event such as storm surge caused by a major hurricane in the vicinity of St. Augustine, would most likely result in closing the bridge to traffic during the duration of the storm surge. However, the existing bridge could be used for evacuation 48 hours before a storm surge. The Bridge of Lions would in effect, provide limited, if any, service as a hurricane evacuation route or a storm recovery route.

In 1991, FDOT began a Preliminary Engineering Study to identify feasible alternatives for the rehabilitation or replacement of the Bridge of Lions. The feasibility of rehabilitating the existing bridge was rigorously explored. This effort included an extensive inspection of all attributes of the bridge. In addition, a variety of replacement alternatives were investigated, including the feasibility of providing a four lane crossing. Due to the bridge’s unique aesthetic appeal, architectural design would be an important element of any replacement proposal.

In considering the rehabilitation or replacement of the bridge, several phases of alternative analyses were performed. Prior to the development of alternatives, an initial corridor screening analysis was completed.

ALTERNATE CORRIDORS

As part of the Preliminary Engineering Study, alternate corridors were identified and evaluated for feasibility. In this initial screening, three (3) corridors were examined as candidates for the Bridge of Lions. Each corridor was analyzed as to how it would function on a regional transportation basis between historic St. Augustine and Anastasia Island. S.R. A1A and the Bridge of Lions form a critical link between these two areas. The three (3) candidate corridors, graphically illustrated on Figure 2-1, are located as follows:

North Corridor

The north corridor, running west-east from an area immediately south of the Castillo de San Marcos to the east end of the existing Bridge of Lions, was eliminated for the following reasons:

South Corridor

The south corridor near Bridge Street, crossing the Matanzas River and terminating at the east end of the Bridge of Lions, was eliminated for the following reasons:

Figure 2-1: Alternative Corridors - (Click to view)

The results of the corridor screening process determined that the north and south corridors would present numerous and widespread adverse impacts to the community. In addition, if an alternate corridor was selected, it is likely the existing bridge would still have to meet the navigational requirements of the Intracoastal Waterway. Therefore, retaining the bridge would not be prudent if an alternate corridor were selected. Consequently, the historic nature of the bridge would be diminished.

When presented to the public, the north and south corridors were rejected. As a result, the north and south corridors were eliminated from further consideration. The existing corridor offers the greatest opportunity for traffic service at the lowest cost; therefore, alternative concepts within the existing corridor were developed.

ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT

In 1992, several preliminary concepts were developed, evaluated, and documented in the project’s Draft Preliminary Engineering Report (DPER). The two most viable concepts were to rehabilitate the existing bridge or replace the existing bridge with a new two-lane structure. These two concepts were retained for further study as build alternatives. The other concepts involved construction of a four -lane bridge; they were eliminated from further consideration. It was determined that, at this time, a four-lane structure was not in the best interest of the Department or the community. This decision was based on several factors as presented in the following discussion.

Two Lane Versus Four Lane Alternative

The advantages of a four lane and two lane bridge were compared during the early stages of alternative concept development. As previously mentioned in Section I of this FEIS, traffic analysis and projections indicate that a four lane bridge would provide the necessary capacity improvements, and meet minimum level-of-service requirements by improving access to both historic St. Augustine and Anastasia Island. Despite the four lane bridge concept being supported by future traffic projections, it would only provide marginal traffic operational improvements until the adjoining street system within the Historic District is modified. Implementation therefore, would lead to persistent congestion on the major downtown St. Augustine streets connecting with the Bridge of Lions, unless these streets were widened from their current configuration. Street widening would change the historic nature of the colonial grid system, an integral part of the historic district, and is not included in the City’s Comprehensive Plan Traffic Circulation Element.

The four lane concepts received little community support at the project’s public workshop meetings and public hearing. Moreover, the City of St. Augustine and the City of St. Augustine Beach both voted to approve only a two lane concept (See Exhibit A in the Appendix). Therefore, although a two lane bridge would not provide desirable traffic service, it would be compatible with the existing street system in the historic district. In addition, the Downtown Master Plan and the City’s Traffic Circulation Element provide for enhancement and preservation of the existing multimodal transportation system currently in place in St. Augustine that includes bicycle and pedestrian facilities. A two lane bridge would be consistent with this Plan, would support the State of Florida's stated goals of downtown redevelopment, and would support the desire to promote rehabilitation and reuse of existing facilities and structures before new construction.

The FDOT dismissed the four lane bridge concepts from further evaluation for the reasons just cited. However, recognizing that a four lane facility may be requested by the community at a later date, a future two lane bridge could be constructed parallel to a new or rehabilitated two lane bridge.

Multimodal Alternatives

No multimodal alternative would adequately address the needs of a bridge rehabilitation/ replacement being considered with the project. Therefore, none were carried forward to the environmental impact documentation phase. However, note that the Replacement Alternative provides a more bicycle and pedestrian-friendly facility, discussed in more detail later in this section, which may serve as a catalyst for multimodal uses throughout the city. If in the future, the City of St. Augustine decides to add a shuttle service from the historic city to Anastasia Island, via the Bridge of Lions, the FDOT will collaborate on the system.

Traffic System Management

Over the past 70 years, the Bridge of Lions has undergone numerous maintenance and traffic operational improvements to maintain operation of the facility. Increasing maintenance costs due to the progressive deterioration of the bridge necessitate the four major rehabilitation/replacement options considered within this FEIS. With minor modifications to the approaches, the options under consideration do not impact the surrounding traffic operations in historic downtown St. Augustine or on Anastasia Island. Traffic operations will be addressed in more detail as part of the project’s final design phase.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

In March 1996, the Rehabilitation and Replacement Alternatives were defined as the two build alternatives. Within each of these two build alternatives, two distinct options were considered viable, bringing the total build options being studied to four (two Rehabilitation Alternative options and two Replacement Alternative options). This environmental impact phase considered these four options and the No-Build Alternative in its evaluation. The following is a brief description of each.

NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE

The No-Build Alternative serves as a baseline of comparison for all alternatives. This alternative would provide no rehabilitation, capacity, structural, safety or aesthetic improvements except routine maintenance and repair (Figure 2-2). The existing or No-Build typical section is illustrated on Figure 1-4.

Retaining the existing bridge would have a short term beneficial effect of preserving the bridge’s aesthetic contribution to the downtown area. In addition, there would be neither construction-related impacts nor other impacts to the adjacent Bridge of Lions Park, the Castillo de San Marcos, and the Historic District. Nevertheless, the No-Build Alternative would not bring the bridge up to current navigation guide clearances for the Intracoastal Waterway since the charted horizontal navigational clearance beneath the bridge would remain at a substandard 76 feet (23.2 meters). Standard minimum horizontal clearance for a new structure crossing of a navigational channel is 125 feet (38.1 meters). The U.S. Coast Guard has indicated that the No-Build Alternative is not desirable because of the insufficient existing charted clearance (refer to Appendix J).

The bridge, in its existing condition, cannot function as a viable transportation facility indefinitely. Frequent temporary closures of the bridge would be required to facilitate maintenance repairs and minimize traffic disruptions. Such closures, while disruptive to motorists, would avoid long term closure of the bridge. Additional weight restrictions can be expected until the repairs are completed. This alternative would become more costly over time, given the expectation that deterioration will continue at a faster rate than affordable maintenance and repair. Ultimately, if the No-Build Alternative were put into effect, the Bridge of Lions would eventually be closed to vehicular traffic and the crossing would be lost.

Figure 2-2: No-Build Alternative - (Click to view)

The expected traffic volumes and continued deterioration of the bridge make the No-Build the least desirable of all alternatives. This alternative, while not serving the historic, marine, or business interests of the St. Augustine community, was considered throughout the environmental impact phase, as required by the NEPA process.

REHABILITATION ALTERNATIVE

The Department considered the following as important factors in developing the Rehabilitation Alternative: 1) historic integrity; 2) safety; and 3) cost-effectiveness. The Rehabilitation Alternative described in this EIS is the culmination of a rigorous examination of numerous rehabilitation concepts, varying in degrees of rehabilitation from enhanced maintenance, to restoration, to extensive rehabilitation.

The following discussion will first provide a general description of the overall Rehabilitation Alternative carried forward to the environmental impact analysis phase, and then describe each of the two options (Option 1A [preferred] and Option 1B). The description of the overall Rehabilitation Alternative begins at the west approach to the bridge, proceeds onto the bridge itself (bridge proper), and concludes at the east approach. A discussion of how traffic will be maintained during construction is also included.

Development of the Rehabilitation Alternative

Historic Integrity  The goal of the study was to develop an alternative that would enable the existing bridge to remain on the National Register of Historic Places, and rehabilitate some elements of the original bridge that have been lost through the years. The Department believed that a total restoration (i.e., returning the bridge to its original status) was not feasible due to safety and cost effectiveness concerns.

Safety Concerns  The existing Bridge of Lions does not meet current safety standards for lane widths or for crash-tested barriers. Because of the high traffic volume on the bridge, these deficiencies are considered serious.

Cost Effectiveness  The Preferred Rehabilitation Option 1A will provide a long-term solution to the structural problems identified with the bridge. A less extensive rehabilitation scheme would result in higher maintenance costs for the structure. Conversely, Option 1A will result in a bridge with lower maintenance costs and a longer useful life. The Department believes that because of the overall costs associated with constructing a temporary bridge, all immediate and expected problems on the Bridge of Lions should be addressed.

The Rehabilitation Alternative

West Approach  The west approach under the Rehabilitation Alternative will remain virtually unchanged. Minor sidewalk and traffic signal modifications will be accomplished to meet current design criteria. The proposed alignment maintains the existing S.R. A1A alignment as it proceeds west of the Bridge of Lions to a signalized intersection with Cathedral Street. Figure 2-3 is an illustration of the traffic patterns on the west approach to the Bridge of Lions.

Figure 2-3: West Approach Traffic - (Click to view)

At the western terminus of the bridge lies the passive Bridge of Lions Park, home to the two lion sculptures that characterize the bridge. The park is divided by the western approach to the Bridge of Lions. It is bounded to the east by the Matanzas River sea wall, and to the west by S.R. AIA/San Marco Boulevard/Avenida Menendez, Cathedral Street and King Street. The Rehabilitation Alternative will maintain the existing alignment described earlier, and the park setting with only minor modifications to curb and sidewalk approaches.

As shown on Figure 2-4, the new approach roadway will be constructed with concrete curb and gutter including a 5 foot (1.5 meter) sidewalk on both sides, and a northbound exit lane to S.R. A1A and a southbound entrance lane from Avenida Menendez, both of varying width. The roadway will also incorporate two 12 foot (3.6 meter) westbound travel lanes and one 12 foot (3.6 meter) eastbound travel lane.

Figure 2-4: Rehabilitation Alternative - Roadway Typical Section - (Click to view)

Bridge Proper  Figure 2-5 provides the typical bridge section that will be utilized for the Rehabilitation Alternative. The original/existing typical section is not considered a reasonable course of action due to inadequate safety features. Historical integrity of the structure is not defined by overall width of the structure, but by aesthetic features of the bridge as seen in elevation including the observation towers and the arched steel plate girder spans. Retention of the existing typical section and width will not measurably enhance the bridge’s historical integrity. The rehabilitated bridge’s typical section is 40 feet 5 inches wide (12.3 meters) and is characterized by 5 foot-2 inch (1.5 meters) northern and southern sidewalks, two 11-foot (3.3-meter) travel lanes, two 1.6- foot (0.5-meter) curb offsets, a 1 foot-2.5 inch (0.2 meter) traffic railing barrier at each curbline, and a 1 foot-4 inch (0.39-meter) width of concrete deck to support the pedestrian railing at each bridge fascia. The proposed curb to curb width is 25 feet (7.6 meters).

Figure 2-5: Rehabilitation Alternative - Bridge Typical Section - (Click to view)

In compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) minimum 5 foot (1.5 meter) requirement, sidewalks would be wide enough to accommodate two wheelchairs passing in opposite directions along the bridge approach spans. However, on the bridge's bascule span, sidewalks would only be 3 feet (0.9 meters) wide to accommodate one wheelchair. ADA guidelines require a 5 foot (1.5 meter) turn around area spaced every 200 feet (60.9 meters) for travel ways with widths less than 5 feet (1.5 meters). The length of the bascule span and observation towers is 135 feet (41.1 meters). The sidewalks on the approach spans adjoining the bascule span will provide the required turn around areas at less than the maximum 200 feet (60.9 meter) spacing.

As documented in the inspection study described in Section 1 of this FEIS, the condition of the existing bridge warrants an extensive bridge rehabilitation. The rehabilitation efforts will blend with the ornate architecture of the existing bridge while maintaining current bridge design requirements.

Superstructure elements including the bridge deck, interior steel framing elements, and bridge railing will be replaced. Rehabilitation efforts will focus on repairing the existing arched steel plate girders for use in the rehabilitated structure. Introduction of interior steel stringers, installed parallel to the arched steel plate girders, will lessen the design loadings carried by the rehabilitated arched steel plate girders. Current load limits will be removed due to the increase load carrying capacity of the rehabilitated structure. As part of the Rehabilitation Alternative, the reinforced concrete piers, abutments and associated foundations will be removed in their entirety due to advanced deterioration and overall poor quality of concrete.

The following is a brief summary of the major work elements that will be accomplished on the bridge under both options of the Rehabilitation Alternative.

After further evaluation and coordination with the SHPO, the preferred alternative, Rehabilitation Option 1A, will no longer include the waterline footings previously depicted in the 1998 Draft Environmental Impact Statement. By eliminating these footings, the aesthetic attributes of the bridge, as seen in elevation, will be similar to the existing bridge elevation. Modern construction methods and materials will be utilized. The new deck, approach spans and safety barriers will meet current design standards. Figure 2-6 gives another view of the rehabilitated structure. This figure shows both the existing bridge and the rehabilitated bridge with its increased travel lane widths and sidewalk widths (except the bascule span), and concrete barrier separation between the sidewalks and travel lanes. Reconstruction of the approach piers to support the widened superstructure is also depicted in this figure.

Figure 2-6: Rehabilitation Alternative - (Click to view)

East Approach  As S.R. A1A (Anastasia Boulevard) approaches the Bridge of Lions from the east, the four lane divided highway transitions to a two lane roadway at the bridge. Four local streets converge within the immediate vicinity of this east approach. Dolphin Drive is a local two-way road on the south side of Anastasia Boulevard approximately 350 feet (106 meters) east of the bridge. On the north side of Anastasia Boulevard, three of the local streets converge immediately at the bridge. These streets are St. Augustine Boulevard, Oglethorpe Boulevard and Flagler Boulevard. Figure 2-7 illustrates the traffic pattern for the east approach.

Figure 2-7: East Approach Traffic - (Click to view)

The proposed typical section for the east approach is illustrated on the previous Figure 2-4. The new approach roadway will be constructed with two 12 foot (3.6 meter) travel lanes and 8 foot (2.4 meter) parking, where practical, with concrete curb and gutter including a 5 foot (1.5 meter) sidewalk. The Rehabilitation options will incorporate a northerly horizontal alignment shift of Anastasia Boulevard to improve the existing alignment. This alignment is deficient under current standards in that the curve is too sharp, thus increasing the potential for traffic crashes. Proposed alignment modifications will make the roadway curve approaching the bridge less sharp and thus safer for vehicular traffic. The intersection reconfiguration would involve creating intersections at St. Augustine Boulevard and Anastasia Boulevard, at St. Augustine Boulevard and Oglethorpe Boulevard, and closing access from Flagler Boulevard to Anastasia Boulevard. These modifications, illustrated on Figure 2-8, will increase safety, simplify traffic operations, and reduce motorist delay. Exact details of the modification will be determined in the final design phase.

Figure 2-8: Rehabilitation Alternative - East Alignment Modification - (Click to view)

Maintenance of Traffic via Temporary Bridge

The rehabilitation effort is accomplished by closing the existing bridge to traffic during construction and rerouting traffic over a temporary bridge, proposed for construction immediately north of the existing Bridge of Lions structure. The alternative to a temporary bridge would be closing the Matanzas River crossing at the Bridge of Lions during construction and rerouting traffic onto the S.R. 312 bridge, located 1.5 miles (2.4 kilometers) to the south. It is the opinion of the St. Johns County Department of Emergency Services that rerouting traffic onto S.R. 312 would negatively impact their ability to provide for the health, safety, and welfare of the community (refer to Exhibit L in the Appendix). The County Fire Chief indicated that travel times of emergency vehicles (fire/rescue) would significantly increase because of the resultant congestion to S.R. 312, U.S. 1, and in the general town area. A large percentage of the area’s ambulance trips travel these corridors on route to Flagler Hospital.

Additionally, a temporary river crossing in this location is essential to maintaining the economic viability of businesses along Anastasia Boulevard during the project’s estimated two-year construction phase. The Bridge of Lions Matanzas River crossing is integral to the movement of tourists to and from Anastasia Island. Rerouting tourists 1.5 miles (2.4 kilometers) to the south would negatively impact the northern-most businesses along Anastasia Boulevard. Consequently, rerouting traffic to the S.R. 312 bridge was not considered a viable alternative to maintaining the crossing with a temporary bridge.

The proposed location for the temporary bridge is also shown on the figures illustrating the two rehabilitation options (Figures 2-9 and 2-10). At the western end of the project, the temporary bridge and associated temporary roadway alignment will tie into the existing intersection of Cathedral Street and S.R. AIA/San Marco Boulevard, thus limiting traffic operational problems. At the eastern end of the project, the temporary bridge and associated roadway alignment will merge with the existing eastern approach roadway alignment.

The temporary bridge will include two 11 foot (3.35 meter) travel lanes for vehicles, and a 6 foot (1.8 meter) sidewalk for pedestrians and bicyclists, separated from traffic by a concrete barrier. The speed limit on the temporary bridge will be posted at 25 mph (40 km/h). Marine traffic will navigate the existing channel of the Matanzas River via a temporary bridge movable span. The centerline of the temporary bridge movable span and temporary fender system will be located along the centerline of the existing fender system. The temporary bridge bascule span will have a maximum horizontal clearance of approximately 120 feet (36.6 meters) measured between the face of the east and west temporary fender systems at the north face of the temporary bridge. This will produce a marine travel way symmetrical about the centerline of the existing bascule span fender system that flares out at the temporary bascule span in both the easterly and westerly directions. The temporary and existing fender systems will be integrated to result in a continuous fendered navigable channel through both the existing and temporary bridges throughout construction. Configuration of the fender systems are conceptually shown in Figures 2-9 and 2-10 and will be further investigated during the design phase.

The storage capacity of the ramp directing westbound bridge traffic to northbound S.R. A1A at the western project limits will be reduced. Final design will maximize the storage capacity of this temporary ramp. The temporary bridge's east approach may require temporary closure of access to St. Augustine Boulevard, Oglethorpe Boulevard, and Flagler Boulevard due to the tight horizontal alignment in relation to the existing streets. The exact details of the temporary bridge will be determined during the final design phase.

The temporary bridge and approach roadways will not require relocation of residential or business properties. The Edgewater Inn private pier will be impacted by the temporary bridge construction and will likely require partial removal. Temporary construction easements will likely be required during construction for properties along the eastern bridge approach. The temporary bridge will have impacts during construction to the Bridge of Lions Park at the west approach. Further discussion of right-of-way impacts is provided in Section 4 of this report.

Option 1A (Preferred)

The two options to the Rehabilitation Alternative vary only in the horizontal clearance over the navigation channel and in the treatment of the bascule piers. Option 1A maintains the existing charted horizontal clearance of 76 feet (23.2 meters) for the navigation channel along the Matanzas River. This guide clearance is below the U.S. Coast Guard’s desired navigational clearance of 125 feet (38.1 meters). Figure 2-9 depicts what will remain and what will be replaced in a typical section of the bridge under this option.

Figure 2-9: Option 1A 11x17 - (Click to view)

Option 1B

In contrast to Option 1A (Preferred), Option 1B improves the horizontal clearance width of the channel to 151 feet (46.0 meters), which exceeds the U.S. Coast Guard desired guide clearance for the Intracoastal Waterway by 26.0 feet (7.9 meters). This is accomplished by constructing new bascule piers behind the existing bascule piers, which will be demolished.

The existing historical towers could be cut (via diamond saw) in sections and relocated onto the new bascule piers or new towers constructed. Figure 2-10 illustrates what will remain and what will be replaced under Option 1B.

Figure 2-10: Option 1B 11x17 - (Click to view)

REPLACEMENT ALTERNATIVE

Unlike the Rehabilitation Alternative, the two options for the Replacement Alternative are distinct in character being on different alignments. In general, the Replacement Alternative consists of a new concrete two lane bridge with steel bascule spans. The new bridge, as shown on Figure 2-11, would provide two 12 foot (3.6 meter) travel lanes with a 10 foot (3.0 meter) shoulder on each side. The shoulders could accommodate bicyclists as designated or undesignated bicycle lanes. Sidewalks of 5 feet 2 inches (1.6 meters) would accommodate pedestrian traffic, separated from vehicular traffic by a concrete safety barrier. With respect to safety improvements, the Replacement Alternative would meet all American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), FDOT, and Americans with Disabilities Act design and safety requirements, in a manner superior to the Rehabilitation Alternative and its two options. Two types of architecture were evaluated for a replacement bridge: conventional and ornate. These design concepts are presented below.

Figure 2-11: Replacement Alternative - Bridge Typical Sections - (Click to view)

Conventional Design

A conventional design for the replacement bridge has less demanding aesthetic requirements than an ornate design. Consequently, it is not subject to conformance with historic architectural elements. For instance, under a conventional design, a high-rise bridge could be constructed. This type of structure would provide sufficient vertical clearance to allow uninhibited passage of all marine vessels. However, the right-of-way required to accommodate the approach roadway grades would severely impact the historic downtown area and the local street system on Anastasia Island. Consequently, the adverse impacts associated with this design caused it to be dropped from further consideration.

Another conventional design could provide a bascule span of 168 feet (51.2 meters) to meet current horizontal clearance guidelines for marine traffic. Three variations were considered for the type of FDOT standard girders used for the stringers of the approach spans. One variation uses Type IV girders and 13 spans of 98 feet (29.8 meters). Another uses Bulb Tees and 10 spans of 120 feet (36.5 meters). The final variation uses Continuous Bulb Tees and 8 spans of 149 feet (45.4 meters). None of these three options resembles the current architectural style of the Bridge of Lions. As such, the conventional design option was dropped from further consideration because of aesthetic and community concerns. After extensive public involvement, the FDOT determined that a bridge replacement would be consistent with the aesthetic qualities of the historic community.

Ornate Design

A replacement bridge using an ornate design would be styled consistent with the community setting, with strict attention paid to contextual appearance. Exterior concrete girders could have an arch profile reminiscent of the original structure. To achieve this architectural compatibility, lighting fixtures and railings could be replicated, if desired, using designs from the original 1926 Bridge of Lions plans. These rails would meet all current design standards. With respect to ship navigation clearances, an ornate design would have a horizontal clearance of 125 feet (38.1 meters) and a mean high water (MHW) vertical clearance of 32 feet (9.7 meters) at mid span. There are two variations to the ornate design with respect to the type of FDOT standard girders that would be used for interior stringers, and the length of the approach spans. One variation is to use Type III stringers with 13 approach spans of 84 feet (25.6 meters). The other is to use Type IV stringers with 10 approach spans of 98.4 feet (30.0 meters). Figures 2-12 and 2-14 show a replacement bridge with 13 approach spans.

Option 2A

Option 2A is shown in Figure 2-12. This option would provide construction of a new two lane, ornately designed bridge, parallel to and south of the existing bridge. The existing bridge would be used to maintain traffic operations while the new bridge is under construction. However, because of the new bridge movable span’s proximity to the existing bridge, traffic operations would cease during construction of the new movable span. Similar to the rehabilitation alternatives, two options exist for routing traffic during this construction phase: 1) construction of a temporary bridge; and 2) rerouting traffic to S.R. 312. As discussed in the rehabilitation options, a temporary bridge is a better alternative than a S.R. 312 detour. The length of Option 2A’s temporary bridge may be shorter than the temporary bridge alternatives for the rehabilitation options.

This shorter length may be feasible if portions of the existing structure approach spans can be utilized in conjunction with a temporary bridge for the temporary alignment during construction of the new movable span.

Figure 2-12: Replacement Option 2A (11x17) - (Click to view)

Option 2B

Option 2B, as shown on Figure 2-14, requires a temporary bridge to maintain traffic during construction. Under Option 2B the existing bridge is demolished and a new bridge is constructed in the same location. Similar to Option 2A, Option 2B would be constructed to resemble the ornate architectural qualities of the original bridge.

West Approach  The proposed alignment under Option 2B would maintain the original geometry on the western approach similar to the Rehabilitation Alternative. Slight modifications to the pavement widths, sidewalks and traffic signals would be required in order to bring the facility up to current design criteria. The temporary bridge would be constructed to the north to maintain traffic during construction. This would have temporary impacts to the Bridge of Lions Park and traffic operations particularly to the southbound-to-eastbound left-turn storage lane reduced from 400 feet (121.9 meters) to 200 feet (60.9 meters).

Bridge Proper  Option 2B provides the same considerations as Option 2A for the bridge itself. Refer to the earlier discussion and Figure 2-11 for details.

East Approach  As the new bridge approaches Anastasia Island, the bridge section is widened in order to accommodate the island’s wider four lane section of S.R. A1A. The alignment modification of Anastasia Boulevard is identical to that proposed under the Rehabilitation Alternative; refer to Figure 2-8 for this illustration.

Figure 2-13: Replacement Option 2A East Approach Modification - (Click to view)

Figure 2-14: Replacement Option 2B (11x17) - (Click to view)

ALTERNATIVE COST COMPARISON

This section provides a discussion of construction costs for each alternative under consideration, including the No-Build. These costs are broken into three categories: bridge construction, roadway construction, and right-of-way acquisition. The cost comparison takes into account initial construction costs and long-term maintenance and operating costs.

Initial Construction Cost

Initial construction cost is the 2002 capital cost to implement the proposed improvements for a specified alternative. As shown on Table 2-1, Replacement Option 2B is the most costly of the alternatives with the No-Build Alternative being the least.

Long-Term Costs

Long term costs used for this project are estimated for a 50-year horizon. Historically, the 50-year horizon has been used by FDOT in determining bridge life expectancy. It is expected that if the Replacement Alternative were selected, it would be constructed to a 60-year design life. This provides expected equal cost over an equal time frame for all the alternatives under consideration.

Cost Summary

When comparing the No-Build and the Build Alternatives, initial costs will obviously be lower for the No-Build Alternative (estimated at $1.4 million). The Build Alternatives range from $30.34 million (Preferred Rehabilitation Option 1A) to$ 36.57 million (Replacement Option 2B).

SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES

Table 2-2 is an evaluation matrix that compares the four options (Rehabilitation Options 1A (Preferred) and 1B and Replacement Options 2A and 2B) and the No-Build Alternative.

NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE

The No-Build Alternative would not change the aesthetic compatibility of the historic bridge and the surrounding city. Other advantages include no required relocations and no impacts to the Bridge of Lions Park. Conversely, because this alternative is a “do-nothing” approach, the bridge’s inadequate safety components would remain unchanged. The 10.2 foot (3.1 meter) travel lanes would not be widened nor would bike lanes be provided. There would be no concrete safety railing. Moreover, additional weight restrictions can be expected in the future. Because the charted horizontal navigation channel clearance would not be improved, the No-Build Alternative does not meet the navigational guide clearance of the U.S. Coast Guard (see Appendix J). Consequently, a “do-nothing” approach may in the future, result in closing the bridge to vehicular traffic completely.

REHABILITATION OPTION 1A

With the Preferred Option 1A, the bridge will be brought up to current safety standards through replacement of corroded portions of the superstructure, improvements to the fender system, and the replacement of the mechanical and electrical systems, Design deficiencies such as the substandard horizontal alignment at the eastern end of the bridge on Anastasia Boulevard will be remedied, as will the substandard travel lane widths and safety railings on the bridge. The main advantage of this option is that while safety upgrades are made to the bridge, the overall historic character of the bridge will be retained because the bascule section will remain. This allows the bridge to remain on the National Register of Historic Places. A full length, full-time temporary bridge will be required to maintain traffic, resulting in temporary impacts to the Bridge of Lions Park.

REHABILITATION OPTION 1B

Like the Preferred Option 1A, the main advantages of Option 1B are the increased travel lane widths and the addition of a concrete safety railing. In addition, this option would provide a wider bascule span that increases the horizontal navigational clearance to an acceptable clearance. Moreover, since little of the existing bridge would be retained, the bridge would no longer be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. This option would result in the loss of an historic resource. In terms of aesthetics, the public deemed this option less desirable due to the wider bascule span that may cause the bridge to look out of scale with the surrounding historic city. In terms of cost, Option 1B is similar to the Replacement Options but is an inferior product in that it does not meet design and safety requirements as well as a new structure. Like Preferred Option 1A, a full length, full-time temporary bridge would be required to maintain traffic, resulting in temporary impacts to the Bridge of Lions Park.

REPLACEMENT OPTION 2A

Substantial safety upgrades would be made as part of Option 2A. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities would be greatly improved and the travel lanes would be increased to 12 feet (3.6 meters). The addition of shoulders provide needed emergency refuge in case of vehicle breakdowns. There would be more relocations needed, as compared with the Rehabilitation Options and Option 2B. A shorter temporary bridge would be needed to maintain traffic on the existing crossing while the new movable spans were constructed. No impacts to the Bridge of Lions Park will result from temporary bridge.

The new bridge would be consistent with the U.S. Coast Guard navigational guideline, and because of the safety and design features, the Option 2A Bridge of Lions would be an improved hurricane evacuation facility. Conversely, this option would result in the loss of an historic resource.

REPLACEMENT OPTION 2B

Option 2B has many of the same advantages and disadvantages as Option 2A. The main difference between this option and Option 2A is the maintenance of traffic. Option 2B would require a full length, full-time temporary bridge. This option would result in the loss of an historic resource.

After receiving and evaluating comments from the public, the FDOT has selected Rehabilitation Option 1A as the Preferred Alternative.

Copyright© 2000 FDOT - Site design by Compel Studios