To: Town of Amherst Community Preservation Act Committee From: Vincent O'Connor, Precinct #1 Town Meeting Member (1977- present}; CPA Committee, 2004-2010 (Vice- Chair, 2006-2010); Public Works Committee, 2003-2009; Committee on Bicycling, 1988-1994/all as Chai Re: Fall 2015 Proposal ~ Repair of Historic Features of Mill Street Bridge (Open Space/Historic Preservation) ‘Overview. The Mill Street Bridge was closed to vehicular traffic by order of the Commonwealth's bridge Inspectors in the summer of 2011. The town employed an engineering firm to design a bridge replacement, various public meetings were held, and the town’s Public Works Committee recommended complete replacement of the Bridge, for an amount which has grown to about $2 million. That recommendation was accepted by the Select Board. The proposed bridge replacement process would involve repairing or removing the existing abutments, constructing new abutments to support a span of yet to be determined length - since new abutments are required to be 1.5 times the width of the stream at the bridge’s crossing point —a width that has yet to be determined. Also involved are the placement of support beams, decking, railings, etc. for @ span that is likely to be at least twice the existing span, or 60 feet or more. Genesis of this Proposal. This Spring during the debate on an article requesting the Select Board to petition the ‘Commonwealth to reopen the Bridge to one-lane, two-way unsignalized limited-load motor vehicle traffic, ‘Amberst’s Representative Town Meeting was told by the town’s Public Works Superintendent that work on the bridge is due to begin in 1-2 years and that, given the scope of the proposed replacement bridge, a new bridge would take more than one construction season to be completed. The DPW Superintendent then said that the way to speed up bridge replacement was for the town to replace the Bridge itself. Such action could only be justified if a replacement bridge or acceptable bridge reconstruction could be accomplished for far less than the current estimated cost of $2 million and achieve better results. Existing Historic Features. The Mill Street Bridge spans the Mill River in front of the Puffers Pond Dam and consists of a corrugated steel deck with asphalt paving resting on five steel I-beams that are supported by massive stone abutments set on bedrock and having concrete facings. The abutments’ structural foundations, composed of ‘multi-ton granite blocks, date to the late 19th Century. The bridge decking and span beams were last replaced in 11983 for approximately $50,000 in accordance with plans prepared and work supervised by then Town Engineer James A. Smith. The abutments are approximately 24 feet wide at streamside, flare out to perhaps 30 feet in width, and extend at least 20 feet from the stream on each side. The bridge span is approximately 9 meters and the existing deck is 20 feet wide, though it appears the existing abutments might support a 22-foot deck plus or minus a foot. The nature of the abutments’ construction can best be seen from stream level on the upstream side of the bridge, especially at the upstream north side bridge abutment, which, for the most part, is not faced with concrete. Program of Work for the Replacement of the Mill Street Bridge. The concrete facings and the stone rubble at the feet of both the north and south abutments at stream level have been scoured and undercut by the Mill River. If these historic abutments are to remain in place for any purpose, their stream level feet must be repaired by coffer-damming each abutment in turn to provide usable work space; repairing the foot of each abutment in turn; restoring, repairing, or, in one location, installing the abutments’ concrete facings; and installing protective riprapping for each abutment. Better Results. The Better Results component of this proposal consists of adding two features to the presently- approved proposal. First, provide two travel lanes designed to accommodate both motor vehicles and bicycles entirely separate from pedestrians to allow for two-way motor vehicle travel. Attached would be a 4-foot, pedestrian-only sidewalk on the downstream side of the bridge. Second, add a separate upstream fully-accessible conservation viewing bridge, built on conservation land, not connected to the public works/motor vehicle bridgeThis Better Results bridge would replace the proposed two-lane replacement bridge of which one lane would accommodate one-way (southbound?) motor vehicle traffic and the other lane, which ! do not recall as being on the upstream or downstream side, would ill-advisedly try to accommodate both pedestrians and bicyclists, a combination later wisely rejected by the Select Board for the Pine Street sidewalk now under construction. ‘Work Proposed to be CPA Funded and its Estimated Costs. CPA-funded work on the public works bridge should be confined to the repair and restoration of the historic features of the Mill Street Bridge — its abutments — although repair and full reuse of those abutments will also preserve the quality and ambience of the surrounding. heavily-used conservation area by facilitating the reuse of the abutments as the sole supports for a replacement bridge. The best estimate of the cost of such work, $100,000 to $150,000 per abutment, was set forth in the first of five proposed bridge solutions presented to the town’s Public Works Committee. Removal of the existing decking and I-beams, and replacement of the bridge decking and I-beams and prep work on the existing abutments to accept new support beams, decking and railings, etc., are public works activities that that could, and should, be funded through the town’s capital budget at a likely cost of $300,000 to $500,000 by 10-to-20-year bonding. A cost estimate for the proposed separate conservation area/Puffer’s Pond Dam fully- accessible upstream viewing bridge, which | believe would be eligible for CPA funding, would depend on design, method of construction, etc. Argument. Its one thing for the town to turn over to the state the design and construction of bridges on Meadow ‘Street west of Route #116 and East Leverett Road, which are located near sensitive, but little-visited conservation areas. Itis entirely another to propose to replace the Mill Street Bridge with an overly-long, expensive, vulgar, state cookie-cutter span completely out-of-scale with its residential and environmentally-sensitive surroundings. This Better Results proposal would: 1) facilitate a more expeditious schedule for replacing the Mill Street Bridge; 2) improve the traffic safety features of a replacement bridge, including diverting traffic from the North Amherst intersections and UMass; 3) vindicate the majority opinion in favor of two-way motor vehicle traffic expressed at the first Public Works hearing regarding replacement of this bridge; 4) accomplish two important additional programmatic goals related to bridge replacement; and, 5) cost significantly less taxpayers’ money than the proposal previously approved by the Select Board.