When’s a bridge not a bridge?
Until recently, the answer would have been when it’s under 20 feet long, according to the federal definition.
But a new program, in which the state Department of Transportation has begun inspecting bridges between 10 and 20 feet in length, is leaving some towns concerned that they may be held liable for repair or replacement of smaller bridges.
The program, which would provide $50 million over five years for state reimbursement of repair or replacement to those bridges too small for federal bridge funds, was unanimously approved by the House last week as part of an $800 million transportation package.
The state has already begun inspecting the 1,262 small bridges, 44 percent of which are in the state’s four western counties, and has begun providing a list of those bridges to the towns, many of which have never had an accurate tally of how many of the structures are within their borders, or where they are.
Charlemont is grappling with closure of two small bridges on Maxwell Road, as well as bridges on Tower Road, Burington Road and West Oxbow Road, where a temporary bridge has been on loan from the state.
While the new program is seen by the Baker administration and the Legislature as providing for critical improvements to repair bridges that are often overlooked, the initiative was seen as a mixed blessing by some town officials attending a Franklin Regional Planning Board meeting where it was discussed last week.
“When I look at something like this, it scares the hell out of me,” said Leyden Planning Board member Peter Tusinski. “If you have the state come in and declare it unsafe, those folks can’t get from there to there, period. There’s no alternate route. So how do we deal with that in a small community?”
The $10 million per year that would be available for repairs will help small towns address deteriorating bridges, Franklin Regional Council of Governments Transportation Manager Maureen Mullaney made clear, and yet the proposed maximum of $500,000 per municipality per year, “which if you know anything about bridges, it’s not very much money, unless you have a small culvert,” she said. “Most bridges are going to be more than that. … It’s a real problem.”
What’s more, for those towns that own the bridges that are closed by the state, they’re responsible for design and construction, with application to the program for reimbursement. The good news, added Franklin Regional Planning Director Margaret Sloan, is that the towns can use their Chapter 90 highway money to pay for the engineering work.
But Conway Town Administrator Thomas Hutcheson, who estimated that a typical small-bridge engineering would cost about $100,000, said replacement of the structure could be $1 million or more. And if it’s done over several years to get around the $500,000 limitation, there’s only a three-to-five-year period when those engineering plans remain valid.
Chapter 90 funding, which was finally approved at $200 million, after years of lobbying by the Massachusetts Municipal Association, is only about one-third of what’s needed by towns to help maintain their roads, said Hutcheson.
“Yeah, you can use Chapter 90 for design of bridges that are falling down, and you’re going to lower the quality of your pavement in the process,” he told board members. “This is a much bigger problem, and we’re going to see it again and again. … The need is so much greater than the funding that’s available.”
Board member Edwin “Ted” Cady of Warwick, said towns may get caught off-guard by a state inspection of a bridge that then has to be shut down and is the state’s responsibility to repair or replace — with a long waiting list for possible funding.
But he added, “I don’t know if any town has money in its budget for bridge inspections. The way they find anything is wrong with it is if something falls through it,” so the state taking the initiative may be a good thing.
And yet he questioned how that state has the resources to inspect every 10-foot bridge in the state.
“We’ll probably see situations like that arising in our rural county as these inspections go forward,” said Mullaney, acknowledging that the key concern needs to be safety, yet there are serious implications where residents become isolated from delivery of propane, emergency vehicles and school buses. “It could be expensive beyond the abilities of our towns to deal with.”
The bridge program would be compete with an array of planned capital projects for limited state bond funds, State House New Service has reported. Authorized projects far exceed the amount available and the state is also nearing its debt ceiling, prompting state officials to mull ways to pay for projects outside that cap while maintaining a fiscally responsible approach to debt.
State Highway Administrator Thomas Tinlin told the News Service the state began inspecting the state’s small bridges a couple of years ago and that an email from a Charlemont woman last August helped transportation officials to conclude the small bridge problem was “a much larger one.”
Tinlin said a small bridge can be fully replaced for less than $150,000 and preservation work can be accomplished for less than that.
Amy Coates of Charlemont outlined for Tinlin the impacts of closing the West Oxbow Bridge on her family, friends and neighbors, and concerns about the safety and inconvenience of a planned alternative route for the local oil company, the postal service and the school district.
Under the most recent proposal, eligible bridges must have an average daily traffic count of not more than 5,000 vehicles, the news service reported.
Design and construction of bridge projects would be handled locally, Tinlin said, and municipal projects would be evaluated and prioritized based on several factors.
Tinlin said that while the state inspects small municipal bridges, decisions about closing bridges or restricting vehicle traffic and weights are made by local officials.
You can reach Richie Davis at: rdavis@recorder.com
or 413-772-0261, ext. 269