Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bridge Closure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge alternatives as Page County moves to close D19 bridge; board delays final action
Summary
Residents who live near the D19 bridge asked supervisors to avoid removing bridge planks, suggesting signage or barricades to limit vehicles while preserving pedestrian access. Page County Engineer JD King said a consultant recommended closure because of failing substructure; the board agreed to inspect the site and defer final action until the June 9 meeting.
Becky Jacobson Wright, a longtime Page County resident, told the board she walks the dirt roads near Montgomery Page Street daily and asked supervisors not to remove several planks from the D19 bridge, saying a posted weight limit or signs would protect the county from liability while keeping the structure usable for pedestrians and small recreational vehicles.
“This rural area is very important to us,” Jacobson Wright said, and she described meeting a county worker who told her crews would close the bridge. She said she had asked AI whether posting weight limits shields a county from liability and quoted an answer saying that proper signage places responsibility on drivers. She asked the board to consider replacing a half‑dozen damaged planks or installing weight‑limit signage rather than removing planks on both ends.
Her husband, Brent Wright, echoed the request and said he spoke with a bridge consultant who recommended closure; he urged the board to consider chains or barricades to bar heavy traffic while allowing residents to walk or ride ATVs across the structure.
Page County Engineer JD King reported that crews have started closing the D19 bridge and that a consultant recommended closure because of poor substructure and rotten pilings. King said options for making the bridge unusable to traffic include removing planks at the ends and erecting barricades; fully removing the iron span would be more involved and require heavy equipment. “It’s not feasible to repair…not for traffic,” King said, citing consultant findings.
Board members acknowledged residents’ sentimental attachments but emphasized safety. Several supervisors said they agreed the bridge likely needed removal from traffic but questioned whether narrow pedestrian access could be retained safely. Because of those concerns, the board agreed to visit the site, inspect conditions, and delay definitive action until the June 9 meeting; temporary barricades and plank removal were noted as the current plan to keep vehicles off the bridge in the interim.
The board gave residents an opportunity to speak and said they would follow up with a site visit and additional discussion at the next meeting.
