Maintain the Bridge. Build the Future.

Pelican Island is one of Galveston's greatest opportunities, but that promise depends on reliable access. This bridge is too important for vague assurances. Galveston deserves clear facts, steady judgment, and public accountability.

Pelican Island has one roadway connection to Galveston. It serves Texas A&M Galveston, port-related industries, workers, and emergency services. TxDOT says the existing bridge was built in 1960, has met its structural design life, and could face sudden closure if deterioration continues.

Galveston voters created the Navigation District in 1954 and authorized it to issue bonds. The District owns and operates the Pelican Island Bridge. That makes responsible stewardship and clear public reporting local obligations, even as TxDOT leads planning for a replacement.

An April 27, 2026 National Transportation Safety Board report documents two vessel contacts with the bridge in less than a year: July 13, 2023, and May 15, 2024. After the May 2024 contact, the report says TxDOT originally estimated $306,250 for permanent bridge repairs and that the District had not provided final repair costs by the time the report was published.

That public record warrants questions, not speculation. Galvestonians deserve a current accounting of what was damaged, what repairs qualified engineers required, what work was completed, which costs were recovered, and whether anything remains unresolved.

A bridge in a saltwater environment demands disciplined upkeep. I support a written preventive-maintenance program based on current engineer-led inspections, corrosion control, painting, monitoring, documented repair planning, emergency readiness, and continuity. Specific repairs should be determined by qualified engineers and supported by verified public records—not by campaign claims or photographs.

A replacement bridge is essential, but it does not erase today's duty. TxDOT's current schedule anticipates final environmental permits in fall 2028. That is a planning milestone, not a date when a new bridge will open. Until a replacement is operating, students, workers, emergency crews, and island businesses still depend on the crossing we have.

The most expensive thing we can do is nothing.

Responsible maintenance is not a blank check. The public should be able to see inspection schedules, engineer-led priorities, responsible parties, funding, deadlines, and progress. When another party damages public infrastructure, the District should pursue every lawful recovery rather than leave the public with the cost.

One commissioner cannot act alone, and the Navigation District does not control TxDOT's replacement project. I will not pretend otherwise. But the office is not ceremonial. A commissioner can vote on matters before the board, ask hard questions in public, advocate for engineer-led priorities, keep the responsible parties at the table, and insist on clear reporting.

This is not about questioning anyone's motives or dismissing past service. It is about setting a higher, measurable standard: disciplined maintenance, transparent decisions, fiscal care, and coordinated replacement planning.

The choice is not maintenance or replacement. Galveston needs both. We must care for the bridge carrying people today while planning responsibly for the crossing that will serve tomorrow. I am running to press for both and report plainly on the work.