Residents urge Cape Coral to repair or replace Sands Boulevard bridge; council awaits FDOT funding guidance

Scores of residents from neighborhoods served by Sands Boulevard told Cape Coral's committee-of-the-whole on May 28 that removing the Sands Boulevard bridge would increase evacuation times, slow emergency responders and push traffic onto local residential streets.

"Safety is the key reason," said Tim (William) Kerrigan, who identified Sands Boulevard as a city arterial and said the bridge serves hundreds of homes in the southwest Cape. Many speakers said hurricane Ian showed how loss of bridge access can isolate neighborhoods and lengthen ambulance response.

Resident testimony detailed multiple concerns: longer bus rides for students, more traffic on narrow residential streets, flooding at nearby intersections and uncertainty about how sewer and water utilities would be rerouted if the bridge were removed. "What are you gonna do with water and sewer?" asked Lois Bridal, pointing to pipes attached to the bridge approaches. Residents also raised recreational and community concerns, noting the bridge provides pedestrian access to the marina and local events.

Staff presentation: City transportation staff and consultants presented updated engineering and cost estimates after a March inspection showed further erosion at a seawall and loss of fill around the north abutment. The report laid out three options with preliminary cost ranges and funding implications: 1) permanent removal (approx. $1.47 million construction estimate before contingency and utility relocation costs), 2) repair (federal cost-share program could cover up to 80% of eligible costs under the existing FHWA agreement; city's 20% share estimated around $341,000 for the revised repair scope), and 3) replacement (higher total cost; staff noted FDOT/FHWA could apply eligible repair funding toward a replacement only up to the repair-eligible portion).

Staff said temporary emergency mitigation work was already underway to stabilize the seawall and slow further erosion while the city awaits definitive guidance from FDOT and the Federal Highway Administration about whether federal funds could be applied to removal or replacement. "We are continuing the emergency work to protect the structure," a staff representative said.

Advisory recommendation and council direction: The city's Transportation Advisory Commission had recommended removal at its earlier meeting; council members and staff stressed that the commission vote was advisory and that more technical and funding information was required before the council could make a final decision.

Council members voiced divided views. Some prioritised replacement as a longer-term investment if federal funds could be applied; others said the city should not throw good money after bad on repeated repairs to an aging structure. Several council members said they needed FDOT/FHWA's funding determination before committing to any option. "If the money's not there, we've answered our own question," said one councilmember.

Next steps: Staff will provide further technical details (including a breakdown of the cost estimates, geotechnical/boring needs for utility relocation, and a bridge-master-plan context) and report back after FDOT/FHWA clarifies funding eligibility. In the meantime the city will implement temporary seawall stabilization measures to reduce immediate risk.

Ending: Residents asked the council to prioritise safe, long-term access. Council members said they would consider the full technical, fiscal and public-safety picture once the outstanding federal-funding questions and detailed cost breakdowns are available.