View Information About HSR Ratings
This bridge as originally designed consisted of deck plate girder spans both for the very long approaches at each end of the bridge and for the double-leaf bascule main span. The bascule span was a traditionally composed riveted deck plate girder double-leaf bascule with arched girders. Structurally, it is actually the approach spans that presented the more unusual and most noteworthy design. Most of the approach spans, closest to the bascule span, were arched deck plate girders. These girders were designed as cantilevered girder systems. This means that every other approach span consists of either a system of two cantilever arms (identified by the gap in the girder at the middle of the span) or a span consisting of anchor arms (which do not have the gap). Toward the ends of the bridge, a special deck plate girder span visually transitions from an arch to a straight girder design. The remaining end spans after this span all have straight girders. The bascule span was designed with four bridge tender houses. This indicates a focus on aesthetics and symmetry because bascule bridges in historical times only ever needed two bridge tender houses, and today only one bridge tender house is needed to operate bascule spans. The design of the bridge tender houses includes substantial architectural details that are in harmony with the distinctive architecture of St. Augustine.
Decorative lion statues at the western end of the bridge have given rise to the bridge's name, Bridge of Lions.
This bridge received a heavy rehabilitation in 2010. The massive project received a lot of attention because of its scale. Its heavy focus on the visual appearance of the bridge and the function of the bridge, at the expense of original bridge design and original bridge materials, is reminiscent of historic bascule rehabilitation projects in Chicago, such as the Kinzie Street Bridge. The rehabilitation of the Bridge of Lions included the complete replacement of the bascule span with a new span that closely simulates the original design and appearance of the historic span with the exception that bolts were used instead of rivets. The interior portions of the approach girder spans were replaced, and the bridge was even widened. However, most of the original fascia girders on the approach spans were shipped to a shop for rehabilitation (many, but not all rivets were replaced with bolts) and then returned to the bridge site. The rehabilitated girders support themselves and part of the sidewalk, but not the roadway. The roadway today is supported by modern stringers. The key alteration to the approach fascia girders is that they appear to have been converted to continuous design by bolting plates on at the center cantilever spans to join the two cantilever arms together in a rigid fashion. Visually, especially when viewed from a distance, the bridge retains its original appearance despite alteration. At the same time, some original elements that were missing on the bridge prior to rehabilitation were replicated and placed back on the bridge. These include light standards, paint color, and pedestrian railing (although the replica railing is slightly different than the original to meet safety code).
The bridge tender houses for the bridge are original and were not replaced.
To someone who has visited many historic movable bridges, one of the most interesting items on the bridge is the retention of fully functional historical style swing gates. The predecessors to the modern automatic gates found on bascule bridges, swing gates are rarely found on surviving historic bascule bridges, and those that do survive rarely operate. In the case of this bridge, the swing gates are fully operational and close when the bridge is raised, and include a bell that rings. Modern gates are also present further back which also operate during a bridge left and meet modern safety codes.
During rehabilitation, an enormous temporary Bailey truss vertical lift bridge was erected to carry traffic on this important roadway. In its own way, this interesting adaptation of the infinitely adaptable Bailey truss is an interesting engineering feat in itself.
Overall, the rehabilitation of this bridge is a good example of compromise. Its not a perfect example of historic bridge preservation and restoration, but it does retain a historic appearance, some of the original material, and given how busy this bridge is, the need for a compromise solution like this is somewhat apparant.
The roadway east of the bridge has been realigned at some point. It is somewhat obvious in visiting the bridge that the roadway carried by the Bridge of Lions once continued directly east onto Alcazar Street, but today curves to the south slightly.
Coordinates (Latitude, Longitude):
Search For Additional Bridge Listings:
Bridgehunter.com: View listed bridges within 0.5 miles (0.8 kilometers) of this bridge.
Bridgehunter.com: View listed bridges within 10 miles (16 kilometers) of this bridge.
Additional Maps:
Google Streetview (If Available)
GeoHack (Additional Links and Coordinates)
Apple Maps (Via DuckDuckGo Search)
Apple Maps (Apple devices only)
Android: Open Location In Your Map or GPS App
Flickr Gallery (Find Nearby Photos)
Wikimedia Commons (Find Nearby Photos)
Directions Via Sygic For Android
Directions Via Sygic For iOS and Android Dolphin Browser
USGS National Map (United States Only)
Historical USGS Topo Maps (United States Only)
Historic Aerials (United States Only)
CalTopo Maps (United States Only)
© Copyright 2003-2024, HistoricBridges.org. All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer: HistoricBridges.org is a volunteer group of private citizens. HistoricBridges.org is NOT a government agency, does not represent or work with any governmental agencies, nor is it in any way associated with any government agency or any non-profit organization. While we strive for accuracy in our factual content, HistoricBridges.org offers no guarantee of accuracy. Information is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. Information could include technical inaccuracies or errors of omission. Opinions and commentary are the opinions of the respective HistoricBridges.org member who made them and do not necessarily represent the views of anyone else, including any outside photographers whose images may appear on the page in which the commentary appears. HistoricBridges.org does not bear any responsibility for any consequences resulting from the use of this or any other HistoricBridges.org information. Owners and users of bridges have the responsibility of correctly following all applicable laws, rules, and regulations, regardless of any HistoricBridges.org information.
