To the editor:

The recent letter casting aspersions on the Rhode Island Turnpike and Bridge Authority's stewardship of the Mount Hope Bridge is long on alarming rhetoric and misinformation but short on facts. The authors have no expertise in bridge engineering or maintenance, and their letter reflects that.

The facts are straightforward and documented in the 2024 routine inspection report: the Mount Hope Bridge is safe. It is in “fair” condition and “continuing to function as designed.”

The purpose of routine inspections is to identify issues before they become a safety issue so repairs can be prioritized, funded, and completed in an orderly and cost-effective manner. Corrosion, steel deterioration, and maintenance recommendations are precisely what bridge inspections are intended to identify. If inspectors found nothing to repair, they would not be doing their jobs. There is a significant difference between identifying a maintenance need and identifying a safety concern. The authors repeatedly—and incorrectly—conflate the two.

Attempting to portray routine inspection findings on a nearly 100-year-old steel suspension bridge as evidence of impending failure is irresponsible, and the suggestion that the Mount Hope Bridge is "one inspection away" from an emergency closure is patently false. Raising nightmare scenarios may be useful for idle chatter and Facebook likes, but it does not inform the public or reflect the conclusions of the engineers who inspect the bridge.

The authors also say there is a “serious unresolved issue” with the condition of the bridge's suspension cables. The information they cite is well-documented. It was shared and highlighted by RITBA in a federal grant application. To compete for federal infrastructure funding, agencies must clearly identify the work that needs to be performed and explain why it is necessary. RITBA did exactly that: we documented the bridge's preservation needs to secure federal funding. That grant application and the advocacy of our Congressional delegation allowed us to secure $27M to extend the life of the bridge with the dehumidification project that is underway. In other words, the major project taking place on the bridge at this moment resolves the very issue the authors infer is being ignored.

The Mount Hope Bridge connects with two-lane roads in Bristol and Portsmouth and serves its purpose: providing a convenient connection between Bristol and Aquidneck Island. The island is also served by two larger and more modern bridges, providing redundancy. The Mount Hope Bridge remains an important transportation asset, but it is inaccurate to suggest that its width justifies a multi-billion-dollar replacement.

Calls for immediate replacement also ignore practical and financial realities. Replacing the Mount Hope Bridge would likely cost well more than $2 billion in today's dollars before accounting for inflation during a decades-long process. It would also require replacing one of Rhode Island's most recognizable landmarks—a bridge listed on the National Register of Historic Places that continues to safely serve the traveling public.

Professional assessments indicate that with appropriate maintenance and rehabilitation the Mount Hope Bridge can remain in service for another 50 to 75 years. The experts are clear: the bridge is safe, the maintenance program is working as intended, and the responsible course is to continue preserving this historic asset—not to manufacture a crisis where none exists.

Lori Caron Silveira, Executive Director
Eric Seabury, Director of Engineering
Rhode Island Turnpike and Bridge Authority