
The Federal Highway Administration and the Maine Department of Transportation announced Tuesday that replacing the Frank J. Wood “Green” Bridge is their “preferred alternative.”
Several alternatives to replacement were considered, including rehabilitating the bridge.
A community group, the Friends of the Frank J. Wood Bridge, has been fighting to preserve the bridge. They argue the iconic bridge can be rehabilitated and its life extended upward of 75 years for a cost comparable to replacement estimates.

“MDOT has never seriously considered the rehabilitation option for this bridge and continues to use unverified assumptions on rehabilitation cost and future maintenance to skew the service life costs in favor of their ‘chosen’ alternative,” the group states.
The “preferred alternative” designation is a big step in an ongoing process to ultimately determine the bridge’s future, and comes after a months-long rigorous federal review process.
The final decision as to whether the bridge is rehabilitated or replaced may be forthcoming within a few months, once an environmental assessment is completed. An additional public meeting will be held prior to the conclusion of the environmental decision process.
According to MDOT, future studies will focus on the design and environmental impacts of replacement.
Key factors in the decision, according to a statement from MDOT, were the costs associated with servicing a rehabilitated bridge — which are more than double the replacement option costs — and the improved safety and accommodation of bicycle and pedestrian travel that comes with a new bridge.
According to MDOT, rehabilitating the 85-year-old bridge would cost an estimated $15 million — $17 million if adding a sidewalk, and prolong its life by another 75 years.
A replacement, to be built adjacent to and upstream of the existing bridge’s location, would cost an estimated $13 million and have a 100-year lifespan.
An MDOT work plan released in January has the replacement project slated to occur in 2018 or 2019 with $14.9 million in funding attached to the project.
The current bridge carries Route 201 over the Androscoggin River between Brunswick’s downtown and Topsham. Built in 1931, the 815-foot-long “Green” bridge had carried an average of 19,256 vehicles a day over the Androscoggin River, of which approximately 5 percent was heavy commercial trucks. In August 2016, the bridge was closed to large commercial trucks weighing more than 25 tons out of safety concerns.
The Maine Department of Transportation “looks forward to working with both communities to provide a bridge connection that not only meets the transportation needs, but is also befitting of this setting and environment,” its release states.
The Brunswick-Topsham Bridge Design Advisory Committee has some design suggestions, but did not finalize its recommendations pending the preferred alternative announcement, according to chairman Bruce Van Note.
Van Note said that “it would make sense to reach out to the Friends of the Frank J. Wood Bridge.” There maybe common ground, he said, regarding use of the public places near the site as well as memorializing the history of the bridge.
As MDOT produces more designs for the replacement bridge, Van Note predicted that “this can be a wicked cool bridge and I think it’s going to be something that people love.”
Go to maine.gov/mdot/env/frankj wood/ for more information.
dmoore@timesrecord.com
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less