Comments on: Highway 97 Temporary Bridge Nears Completion

By: Kyle

Kyle — Thu, 16 Jul 2015 04:16:23 +0000

The land on the side where the temporary bridge is located is on a temporary use easement – the new bridge has to go where the old bridge is now. Buying property on either side would require new easements, setbacks, everything. Better to grant a temporary bridge easement.

Asphalt is the single most recycled construction material – other than dirt. When you consider that “temporary” is another word for “recyclable” – then the temporary bridge is recyclable, as well, and will be used in another bridge upgrade project when this one is over.

When you also consider that North Escambia also has a lot more people than it used to, and Highway 97 is now also the major traffic artery connecting the Poarch Casino to the wallets in Pensacola… the bridge needed to be replaced and quickly.

And quickly isn’t going to happen when you have so many test points in the process to meet, and the work is being done by men who are contracted to do just this one bridge, and are paid by the hour.

By: chris in Molino

chris in Molino — Wed, 15 Jul 2015 09:52:01 +0000

Why is it that when they pave a road, it tears up within a few years ? Yet when they pave the interstate road (with much more travel) it lasts until they do it again. Any answers ?

By: Walnut Hill Roy

Walnut Hill Roy — Tue, 14 Jul 2015 21:16:22 +0000

I live off of Wiggins Lake Road and I have wondered lately why they drove the amount of pilings that they did for the temporary bridge only to have to remove them in the end. The temporary bridge is far stronger than the original, why not use it forever. I guess that the powers that be in this state had a better idea?????? (the land that they used in building the “temporary” bridge can’t cost the state as much as the new “real” bridge does)

By: CW

CW — Tue, 14 Jul 2015 02:24:09 +0000

Seems like a waste of asphalt to lay it down then rip it back up.

By: M in Bratt

M in Bratt — Mon, 13 Jul 2015 15:19:05 +0000

Well William; You are very correct in that it is a state road, but the fact remains that they are going to a lot of expense building and tearing down extra bridges at the taxpayers expense. The state did the same thing on a much larger scale at the US Hwy 90 bridge in Milton. If anybody in State DOT were thinking, they could have built a new bridge, while at the same time straightening the curve out on the approach to the bridge without all the duplication. But after all, you have to ask yourself who benefits from such waste? Hmmmm, that’s a tough one

By: William

William — Mon, 13 Jul 2015 14:58:47 +0000

“M” it’s the state on this one, not the county.

By: M in Bratt

M in Bratt — Mon, 13 Jul 2015 14:47:33 +0000

Just Wondering; Why is it that the county builds two bridges, a temp one, then a replacement one. Then tears the temp one down, all at the expense of the taxpayers. Why don’t we just move the road over a little bit and build the replacement bridge to start with. Seems like a little bit of right of way purchased would be a lot cheaper than all this duplicated effort and expense.

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 13 Jul 2015 11:41:38 +0000

Glad to see that bridge replaced. Hope they didn’t find any submerged automobiles in that creek like they did years ago. God rest her soul.