Bull River Bridge

A Tale of Two Bridges

A vital decision affecting area residents.

The Bull River Bridge is a vital link connecting Savannah and Tybee Island, Georgia. Since the early 1900s, the Bull River Bridge has been the only way to travel between the two cities unless traveling by air or sea. Since at least 2010, the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) has been working on a much-needed project to renovate/replace the entire section of Highway 80 East from the eastern shore of the Bull River to the west bank of Lazaretto Creek at Tybee Island.

The proposed solution, supported by GDOT’s own studies, was to replace the entire section of the US 80 (East) roadway, and bridges, to the north of the current road and bridges. This was and is the most logical and economical solution which will also result in less impact on the surrounding environment and businesses as well as cost less than other alternatives studied.

Inexplicably, in 2017, with no formal opportunity for public input, GDOT unilaterally decided to move the Bull River Bridge to the south of the current bridge, a decision that will cost taxpayers millions if not tens of millions to execute. The Lazaretto Creek Bridge replacement, however, will still be to the north.

History

Savannah and Tybee Island, Georgia, have been intertwined for centuries. In the 1800s, after the Civil War, Tybee Island became well-known as a popular destination for Savannah residents escaping from the city’s summer heat. Initially, steamships carried visitors to Tybee. By 1887, both visitors and residents of Tybee could also travel by rail after the Central of Georgia Railroad’s rail line to Tybee opened. It wasn’t until the 1930s that Savannah and Tybee would be connected by a United States (US) Highway.

According to the Federal Highway Administration, “The Automobile Club of Savannah conceived the Dixie Overland Highway in July 1914 (and) made a path-finding tour across the State of Georgia…As a result of the investigation to determine the location of the highway, a practical route was found, connecting the cities from Savannah…to San Diego…(and) the Dixie Overland Highway when constructed will be the shortest, straightest, and only year-round, ocean to ocean highway, in the United States.”

The Automobile Club’s vision and efforts would years later lead to the United States’ more detailed plans for an ocean-to-ocean highway.

View Timeline

Original Bridge

The First Highway Bridge to Tybee

In October 1925, the Joint Board on Interstate Highways announced plans for a new marking system. Within the proposed grid of the United State’s routes, the board identified US 80….

historic photograph of Bull River Bridge

Current Bridge

The Only Way on & off Tybee island

What’s currently known as the Bull River Bridge was actually dedicated as the Frederick Hahn Bridge when it opened to traffic in 1967. While a Second Lieutenant during World War…

aerial image of marshland with a marina and bridge

Proposed Bridge Replacement

Making the right choice

Local and state officials, residents, and others have expressed concerns regarding the current Bull River Bridge for decades. Although they may not always agree on how to best address these concerns, they do agree on several key priorities:

Traffic Safety
Evacuations
Flooding
Environmental Concerns
Construction Process
Costs

In 2012, after more than two years of studies by professional engineers, as well as review and input by local and state officials and the general public, the decision was clear. A new bridge would be built to the north of the current Bull River Bridge and the Coastal Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (CORE MPO) included this project in its 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan.

GDOT’s plan includes widening the bridges and roadway to allow accommodations for wider road shoulders as well as pedestrians and bicycles. All of these are necessary improvements to remediate safety and traffic congestion concerns.

Transportation Studies & Other Analysis

Numerous Evaluations

In the early 2000s, CORE initiated the US 80 Bridges Replacement Study (a Georgia Department of Transportation project). The study was to identify the best ways to improve the safety…

Labeled Aerial image of DOT right of way

Environmental Impacts

Designated Wetlands & Protected Species

At the time of the bridge replacement study, the area to the north of the current Bull River Bridge presented the best option for many reasons, including the least amount…

Rights Of Way & Infrastructure

Building to the North Mitigates Concerns

For years, the best option for the Bull River Bridge replacement has been to the north of the bridge, not only for less negative impacts on the environment but also…

aerial image of bridge and marina with annotations

Rights Of Way & Infrastructure

Building to the North Mitigates Concerns

During CORE’s extensive study period, the areas north of the current Bull River Bridge would see less impact than those to the south. The Williams Seafood Restaurant along the route of the previous Bull River Bridge had long been destroyed by fire, and the nearest residences were further north of that property. To the south of the current bridge were the established Bull River Marina and several residential communities.

At a Concept Meeting on December 6, 2016 (which was not a public meeting), there were discussions regarding construction issues potentially affecting constructability and the construction schedule. These issues included obstructing power lines to the north – which identified the south as the ideal alternative construction plan, despite it having more effects on the neighboring marsh and wetlands.

In 2017, GDOT’s Approved Revised Concept Report discussed eight alternative design options in the Practicable Alternatives Review Report section. Two options that GDOT selected for further consideration were the new bridge option to the north and the new bridge option to the south. At that time, there were concerns about the new bridge option to the north due to transmission lines in that area that were viewed as a constraint. However, since that time, Georgia Power has moved those transmission lines. Meanwhile, GDOT’s 2017 report noted that the new bridge to the south option may cause constructability issues for the movement of construction barges due to the existing Bull River Marina. In comparison, the old bridge pilings to the north may actually help maneuver and secure the construction barges. There is also the issue of fuel storage. Currently, the Bull River Marina’s fuel tanks are located in the proposed construction area and easements for the new bridge option to the south. Movement of those fuel tanks would present environmental challenges, cost issues, and more.

Traffic

Reducing Traffic and Costly Construction Delays

bridge construction with pylons in the foreground

Costs

Taxpayers Will Benefit from a Smarter Plan

Choosing a smarter plan for the new bridges, including returning the placement of the Bull River bridge to the north, will be less costly. That means that taxpayers will benefit…

Public Comments

Over the years, the public has provided substantial input to the Bull River Bridge replacement plans. In addition to the 2010 and 2011 public meetings, there were also public meetings held in 2014, 2015, and 2016. All through that process and related studies, the best alternative determined for the Bull River Bridge replacement was to the north of the current bridge.

So, why is GDOT indicating that a replacement bridge built to the south of the current bridge is better?

Traffic Safety & Congestion

During the additional public meetings held over the years, traffic safety and congestion have remained key concerns. If the new Bull River Bridge is to be placed to the south instead of the previously preferred north, there are new traffic safety and congestion concerns. For one, the original 2012 concept study recommended a bridge to the north without phased construction, meaning that the new bridge could be completely built before crews would have to demolish the old bridge–and would not require additional construction delays.

Compare the 2012 recommendation to the more recent consideration of building the new bridge to the south. Building to the south will require a two-stage construction phase because there is not enough room to build the entire project in one phase. That means that Phase One would focus on constructing enough bridge to handle the traffic, while Phase Two would be to open Phase One to traffic and demolish the current bridge. Construction crews would then have to build the remainder of the bridge and perform the necessary modifications, similar to what has been happening for years on the Islands Expressway Bridge project.

bridge construction with road closed sign

Marshlands Protection

The area required by the north bridge placement falls outside of the recognized Chatham County Marsh Conservation Zoning region, while a south placement puts the impact region largely within this conservation region. As for undisturbed wetlands, the south placement of a bridge would significantly impact more wetlands than a north placement. The north placement would run entirely through the spoilage area between the current road and the old road bed of the original Highway 80.

Impacts on Area Businesses & Residents

If the new Bull River Bridge is placed to the south instead of to the north, there will be prolonged impacts on area businesses and residents. Placing the bridge to the south would include a staged construction that would add 18 months to the project. The Islands Expressway Bridge replacement, for example, included staged construction and there have been continued project completion delays.

Additional Costs

Additional costs would also be incurred by the taxpayers due to any land condemnation and right-of-way acquisition.

FAQS

There has been a lot of discussion and feedback regarding the Bull River Bridge replacement.

Despite more than two decades of studies and meetings, many people still aren’t aware of the original recommended plan for the bridge and the current status of the proposed bridge replacement.

In the early 2000s, the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) said that it was working to relieve congestion, improve traffic conditions, and encourage safe transportation on the US 80 bridges and roadway between Tybee Island and the mainland. GDOT also noted that the Bull River and Lazaretto Creek Bridges were part of a designated hurricane evacuation route on the Georgia Hurricane Plan, and a future bikeway in the Metropolitan Planning Organization’s Long-Range Plan. The project would replace both bridges with two-lane bridges, including bike and pedestrian improvements, and widen the roadway from Johnny Mercer Boulevard to Old US 80 on Tybee Island for multimodal improvements and enhanced (paved) shoulders.

Below are some responses to FAQs (frequently asked questions) regarding the Bull River Bridge replacement.

The current Bull River Bridge was built in 1967.

Concerns about traffic safety (vehicular, pedestrian, and cyclist), congestion, flooding, and hurricane evacuation continue to be among the top reasons that the current bridge needs to be replaced. The bridge is the only roadway linking Tybee Island and the Savannah area.

In the early 2000s, the Coastal Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (CORE MPO) initiated the US 80 Bridges Replacement Study. The study commenced to help identify the best ways to improve the safety of the Bull River and Lazaretto Creek Bridges and roadway for multiple modes, as well as to address flooding and other concerns.

After evaluations of the six bridge replacement alternatives and reviewing public input from several meetings, it was clear that “Alternative 3” would replace the current Bull River Bridge by going north of the current bridge. “Alternative 3” obtained higher scores than the other alternatives when considering the top priorities such as traffic maintenance, environmental impacts, bicycle and pedestrian access, benefit-cost ratio, life-cycle costs, and constructability. CORE MPO issued its final report with the best alternative in December 2012. The organization included the US 80 Bridges and Road Improvements in the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan as a result of the US 80 Bridges Replacement Study.

In 2016, during a project meeting, CORE MPO made the decision to move the bridge replacement to the south instead of the north because existing power lines at that time would make it difficult to construct. However, building the bridge to the south would potentially affect the marsh and wetlands more than building to the north. It’s important to note that those power lines were moved several years ago.

The difficulty of working in the tight constraints of the south placement with heavy equipment and the multiplicity of tasks happening at one time will add significant time and expense to the project. Additional costs would also be incurred with any land condemnation and right-of-way acquisition.

There are new traffic safety and congestion concerns with the more recent plan to place the bridge to the south rather than the original plan placing the new bridge to the north. If the new Bull River Bridge is placed to the south instead of the previously preferred north, there are new traffic safety and congestion concerns. For one, the original 2012 concept study recommended a bridge to the north without phased construction. That means that the new bridge could be completely built before crews would have to demolish the old bridge.

If the new Bull River Bridge is placed to the south instead of to the north, there will be prolonged impacts on area businesses and residents such as more traffic congestion, road safety, access to and from Tybee, disturbing ecosystems, and more. Placing the bridge to the south would include a staged construction that would add 18 months to the project, while placing the bridge to the north would NOT require a staged construction that would add so much time to the project.

During the extensive study period from 2010-2016, the area to the north of the current Bull River Bridge presented the best option for many reasons, including having the least amount of environmental impacts. When looking at marsh conservation areas, it’s clear that the areas south of the current bridge (towards Wilmington Island and the Bull River Marina) would be more at risk if the replacement bridge were built to the south rather than to the north. For example, the marsh on the west side of the Bull River Bridge between the bridge and the marina walkway is a designated Department of Natural Resources wetland. It’s important to note that this designation does not extend to the north of the current bridge.

The area required by the north placement falls outside the recognized Chatham County Marsh Conservation Zoning region, while a south placement puts the impact region largely within this same region. As for undisturbed wetlands, the south placement of a bridge would impact significantly more than a north placement. The north placement would run entirely through the spoilage area between the current road and the old road bed of the original Highway 80. In addition to marshlands, the 2012 CORE MPO study’s final report noted that “several federally protected species may be affected by any impacts” to the surrounding marsh. Diamondback terrapins, a “species of management of concern,” live in the surrounding marsh. As a result of all of these issues, the best option for the bridge replacement is to the NORTH, which was the originally approved plan.

According to GDOT, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the department to evaluate the bridge replacement project “in context with state and federal laws, which include consideration of more than 20 potential categories of impacts. Among those impacts are displacements to residences and businesses, as well as cultural and natural resources.”

No. The original Bull River Bridge (the predecessor to the current bridge) was partially demolished by removing 40 percent of the original roadway after the construction of the current bridge.

In 1994, the remainder of the original roadway was removed, at least 15 years after that roadway was eligible for historic designation.

For years, the best option for the Bull River Bridge replacement has been to the north of the bridge, not only for less negative impacts on the environment but also for minimal rights of way and infrastructure concerns. During CORE MPO’s extensive study period, the areas north of the current Bull River Bridge would see less impact than those to the south. The Williams Seafood Restaurant along the route of the previous Bull River Bridge had long been destroyed by fire, and the nearest residences were further north of that property. To the south of the current bridge were the established Bull River Marina and several residential communities.

At a 2016 concept meeting regarding the bridge replacement, there was a comment regarding the constructability of the bridge and how going to the north would make it difficult to construct due to the existing power lines next to the river. This comment distinguished the final preferred alternative as south at Bull River, north along the causeway, and then north at Lazaretto Creek. In 2017, GDOT’s Approved Revised Concept Report discussed eight alternative design options in the Practicable Alternatives Review Report section. Two options that GDOT selected for further consideration were the new bridge option to the north and the new bridge option to the south. At that time, there were concerns about the new bridge option to the north due to transmission lines in that area that were viewed as a constraint.

However, Georgia Power moved those transmission lines. That said, since Georgia Power has moved the transmission lines, the Bull River Bridge replacement should be placed to the north, as originally planned after extensive study and public comment. Georgia Power has moved these transmission lines, which removes the constraint cited by GDOT as a reason to change the placement of the bridge from the north to the south.

GDOT’s 2017 report noted that the new bridge to the south option may cause constructability issues for the movement of construction barges due to the existing Bull River Marina. In comparison, the old bridge pilings to the north may actually help maneuver and secure the construction barges. There is also the issue of fuel storage. Currently, the Bull River Marina’s fuel tanks are located in the proposed construction area and easements for the new bridge option to the south. As a result, there would be numerous environmental and cost issues to consider if the fuel tanks must be moved.

Regardless of when the new bridge is built, there will be some temporary traffic disruptions during the construction process. That’s generally the case with any construction project. Just look at what’s happened with the Islands Expressway Bridge project. Planning for that bridge began in the early 2000s. According to reports, construction of phase one took four years beginning in 2018 with delays. The construction of Bridge Two was supposed to wrap in the summer of 2023, but work was still continuing into the summer of 2024.

Choosing a smarter plan for the new bridge, including the Bull River Bridge, will be less costly.

By its own accounts, GDOT’s current plans to deviate from the originally approved plan to construct a new bridge north of the existing Bull River Bridge—while still choosing to build the new Lazaretto Creek Bridge to the north of that existing bridge—will be more costly.