Concerns about Campobello bridge safety surface at meeting

Over 50 people attended the June 24 preliminary public meeting on the FDR Memorial Bridge Improvement Project at the Campobello Island Consolidated School. The reason for the jointly held meeting by Maine Department of Transportation (MDOT) and New Brunswick Department of Transportation and Infrastructure (NBDTI) was to get public feedback and kick‑off the development of alternatives for the 64‑year‑old bridge that connects Lubec to Campobello Island.

The project title let attendees know that a new bridge is not a done deal as many had expected. The project is currently on step two of a routine 10‑step MDOT schedule. Next steps are development and assessment of alternatives, followed by another formal public meeting in fall 2028. Organizers requested feedback on project concerns such as traffic, visual or site impacts, historic information or ways to improve the bridge. The final design, advertisement and construction are scheduled no earlier than 2032, six years from now.

Leading the presentation portion of the meeting, HNTB Corporation Senior Project Manager Josh Olund said, "Right now, we're pretty early in the process. We're here for a public meeting because we want to know what's wrong with the bridge, what are your interests, what are your concerns, and we want to take that into account as we start with these alternatives." Among the alternatives are whether to replace or to rehab the bridge.

Given that the historic but aging bridge is near the end of its life, the timeline seemed to catch some islanders off‑guard. Calling the bridge a lifeline, Campobello Island Mayor Harvey Matthews said, "I'm kind of disappointed in this whole thing considering that we've already been told, the council and the mayor, that we were going to have a bridge replacement, that our government even said that we were going to be the next in line and now we're talking rehabilitation. I don't like that idea myself."

While viewing the presentation materials of the existing bridge, many echoed their disappointment that plans are not further along. "We are back to where we were 10 years ago," said one resident. Dawn Knudson, who moved to the island five years ago, said the accessibility provided by the bridge was a big reason she chose to live on Campobello.

She also questioned the structural integrity of the bridge, pointing out that Olund had said new bridges are built to a 75‑to‑100‑year lifespan, adding, "If new bridges are built to 75 years and this bridge was not built to last that long, is it going to be safe in 10 years?" Mayor Matthews was more direct, saying, "It's not going to make it to 75. There's no way." Another resident said, "The bridge needs to be replaced, not rehabbed."

One of the biggest concerns expressed by those in attendance was getting to medical treatment and obtaining supplies, especially for nursing home residents. As a first responder this is a big concern of Mayor Matthews, who called the bridge a matter of life and death. "Whatever they do, they need to be concerned about our mutual aid situation with Lubec."

MDOT says bridge is safe

In a follow-up interview, MDOT Senior Project Manager Gerald Dostie couldn't speak directly to the lifespan of the existing bridge, saying the calculation is based on multiple variables like material quality and maintenance. But he did say was that "the bridge is inspected routinely, and we do routine maintenance to make sure it continues to serve the residents." He added, "It's nearing the end of its life, but it's safe." He also pointed out that a design life of 75 years doesn't mean they only last 75 years. "We have many structures that are well over 100 years. It all comes down to the materials and how well it's maintained." He said that the question now is: "Are we talking a little bit of repair work to make it last until we get to this bigger project of building a new structure? Or do we put a lot of money into the existing structure? That's what we're trying to determine."

The key considerations for developing the alternatives include existing bridge conditions and constraints, maintenance needs, traffic alternatives and construction costs.

Alternatives weighed

The 64‑year‑old bridge is an 874‑foot long, eight‑span, steel girder bridge with a composite concrete deck or roadway. Five parallel steel girders run the length of the bridge directly beneath the concrete deck. The two‑lane bridge is 24 feet wide with 1.7‑foot wide sidewalks on each side. There are a total of seven piers, the vertical concrete structures that support the steel girders and roadway.

The bridge is "humped up in the air" to a height of 47 feet above high water to allow for marine navigation within the 107‑foot wide navigation window, the channel between the two central piers with fenders. The bridge accommodates between 700 and 1,133 vehicles per day.

Some constraints include the port‑of‑entry facilities on either side of the bridge, the south breakwater on the U.S. side and most importantly the large tidal range.

Olund presented the structural integrity of bridge components, based on an MDOT one to nine scale, "with one being, you might as well close the bridge, to nine being, it's a brand‑new structure." "These conditions," he said, "will help to determine whether to rehabilitate or replace the bridge and how much life does it have." The concrete deck is ranked four or in poor condition. The superstructure, the topmost part of the bridge above the concrete pier cap, like the girders and railings, is ranked five or in fair condition, and the substructure, meaning all of the components from the pier cap to the bedrock, is ranked six or in satisfactory condition. There are no weight restrictions on the bridge. Therefore, Olund concluded, "It has enough structural capacity." However, he said that the steel girders, concrete deck, railings, expansion joints and pier fenders need attention.

Past maintenance on the bridge has included girder repainting in 1986, girder repairs in 2004, concrete deck repairs with chip seal surface by MDOT in 2006 and pier cap rehabilitation in 2013 by NBDTI.

Both Dostie and Jim Doyle, director of the Strategic Partnership and Trade Corridors Branch with NBDTI, confirmed the bridge is safe and that there will be an action plan to address the roadway condition issues prior to undertaking the project.

Other considerations for alternatives, whether it be to build a new bridge or to increase the life of the existing one, are improving roadway alignment and mobility by increasing the length and width or reducing the arch. Those attending expressed an interest in better alignment, increasing road and sidewalk width to make it safer for pedestrians and cyclists and adding a third lane or a shoulder for car breakdowns or emergencies. Structure safety, traffic and property impacts, environmental and utility impacts, construction cost and duration, hydraulics and tidal fluctuation and navigation channel clearance will all be considered in the alternatives analysis.

Another significant consideration, given the bridge is the only road access to the island, is maintaining traffic during construction. Alternatives include: alternating one‑way traffic; an on‑site temporary bridge; bridge closure with off-site detour, which is unlikely given no viable routes exist; maintaining traffic on existing bridge and building one next to it; or a temporary ferry service. All are under consideration as alternatives get worked out.

Concerns were expressed about the use of a temporary ferry service, with one attendee saying, "This will not work. Residents have work, doctor appointments, banking, etc., that require them to sometimes travel at odd hours, and [they] cannot rely on a ferry which would not be running to meet their schedules. Emergency responders need access, as services in both communities cover for and help each other when needed."

Another islander asked about a year-round ferry service for the island. Doyle confirmed this is being discussed in Ottawa and that they are "pushing hard for this."

In a follow-up interview, Mayor Matthews emphasizes, "We're going to continue working and pressing for a new bridge, and hopefully sooner than that [2032] timeline."

Concerns raised in Lubec

During the meeting in Lubec that was held on the same day, residents expressed concern about having input and final say on the design and what will be done to the bridge. They noted that relocation of the bridge would interrupt the flow of current traffic and the lives of residents. They perceived that Lubec residents would be hurt more than those of Campobello by any relocation.

Some concerns were expressed about possible land appropriation by the government, with organizers noting that the federal process will be followed to acquire any property or right-of-way, if needed for the project. The organizers also said the Canadian and U.S. Coast Guards will be involved with design and navigation of the waterways.

The organizers said the U.S. Customs and Border Protection and post office buildings are both classified as historic, so the placement of a new building would have to be carefully looked at.

One lifelong Lubec resident said the bridge is also a lifeline for Lubec. "People have family and friends on both sides of the bridge." Businesses in both communities rely on the residents of both Campobello and Lubec to survive. "Whether a repair or a replacement of the bridge, either will have huge impacts on both communities."

The bridge improvement project will be a 50/50 cost share between Maine and New Brunswick.

For more information contact MDOT Project Manager Gerald Dostie at Gerald.P.Dostie@maine.gov or NBDTI Project Manager Tracey Germon at Tracey.Germon@gnb.ca. The public comment period closed July 8, and the presentation can be found on the MDOT archive site.

(Quoddy Tides reporter Dorinda Davis contributed to this article.)