For years, the fate of the Frank J. Wood Bridge has been debated. I have spoken publicly in support of rehabilitation since the first public forum in April of 2016. It saddens me to hear community members speak with such disregard and disgrace for this well-known and beloved landmark. As a community, we must step up as the stewards of this bridge since MaineDOT has proven that they are not — the proof is in plain sight to anyone who sees the worsening corrosion, a result of not having been painted since the 1980s. The good news is that corrosion is repairable and any faltering steel can be replaced. Ultimately, the rehabilitated bridge will be a beautiful piece of infrastructure once more.

Different circumstances call for different courses of action. As a design professional, I do not take a blanket stance in support of rehabilitation. In the case of this bridge, however, the arguments for “replacement” (a new bridge designed with blatant disregard for a historic context) simply fall short of actionable credibility because existing infrastructure and the rehabilitation plans themselves respond directly and reasonably to the criticisms promoting replacement, primarily: pedestrian and bike lanes, traffic congestion, and posted weight limitations.

In the case of a pedestrian corridor, let us not forget the existing, unique and, I argue, safest location for a pedestrian way: that which is outside of the bridge’s truss superstructure, physically separating pedestrians from vehicular traffic through structural members and guardrails. An identical pedestrian corridor could be built on the downstream side of the bridge.

In the case of bike lanes, the rehabilitated bridge will have two 4-foot bike lanes adjacent to the roadway. Five-foot bike lanes could be provided if the travel lanes were reduced to 10 feet each, as is now recommended for downtown areas aiming to slow traffic. It is important to know that Maine law does not require cyclists to ride in shoulders or bike lanes. Cyclists may take a larger share of the travel lane if they need to.

On a similar note, the existing bridge, through its unique design, already has a naturally calming affect on drivers, thereby slowing traffic. The new bridge simply does not have this. It has been documented as an expansive, wide-open deck (identical to any number of nondescript bridges along I-95 or I-295) that will likely have the opposite affect on traffic. That is, traffic will speed up. We have probably all experienced similar road characteristics and their affects on our own driving.

In the case of traffic congestion, I argue that a new bridge will make no difference. For those who wish to avoid the traffic, there is a bypass bridge just downstream that was intended for such purposes. I also argue that rerouting unnecessary truck traffic is a benefit to our pedestrian-friendly downtown.

In the case of the posted weight limit, MaineDOT has clearly stated that the rehabilitated bridge will meet the purposes and needs of the project just as a new bridge, and can remain in use for another 75-100 years. Therefore, a rehabilitated bridge will be just as safe as a new bridge. Let us not forget that the current weight limit is the result of insufficient maintenance on the part of MaineDOT but it can be remedied.

Previous letters to the editor and guest columns lay out the many additional and sound reasons why rehabilitation is the better option. An important aspect of this debate that has been almost entirely overlooked, however, is the global environmental impact of our local decision.

At the Environmental Assessment meeting in March of 2018, MaineDOT failed to exhibit or even acknowledge the embodied energy ramifications for any of their bridge options. Embodied energy is defined as “the sum of all the energy required to produce any goods or services, considered as if that energy was incorporated or ’embodied’ in the product itself.” In recent years, it has become increasingly well documented that the production of both steel and concrete are major contributors to global carbon emissions.

As such, design professionals worldwide are looking for alternatives to these materials. Beyond alternative materials, reuse is unequivocally the most environmentally conscious solution to our growing waste and carbon footprint problems. The embodied energy required for construction of a new bridge utilizing steel and concrete overwhelmingly exceeds that of rehabilitation. Therefore, the only responsible choice in the matter is for rehabilitation—the most sustainable thing we can do.

As a community, we should be honored to have such a bridge. As stewards of our community, we must celebrate and protect the resources that make our downtown the successful destination that it is.

There are countless bridges like the new one MaineDOT has proposed for replacement. Aesthetically, they are slapdash and forgettable. Conversely, there is only one Frank J. Wood Bridge and it is undeniably a celebrated historic landmark. Let us join together to rehabilitate and save our bridge!

Gavin Engler lives in Brunswick.