Page 13 - Flathead Beacon // 12.7.16

NEWS
May your
holiday season be filled with warmth and joy.
Final Options and Cost Estimates Emerge for
The single-lane bridge over the Swan River in Bigfork. BEACON FILE PHOTO
co
Replacement of Historic Bigfork Bridge
Future for Swan River Bridge could cost up to $2.4 million, will not maintain historic designation
BY CLARE MENZEL OF THE BEACON
BIGFORK – Community members gathered on Dec. 1 at the Bigfork Ele- mentary School cafeteria faced two uncomfortable realities for the Swan River Bridge’s future: The bridge will lose its historical designation, and con- struction funds might not be available until long after the deteriorating bridge is deemed structurally de cient.
At the informational meeting, Kathy Harris, with the construction rm KLJ, presented the results of a feasibil- ity study and highlighted the two best options for replacing the 100-year-old bridge. After months spent identifying seven preliminary choices and review- ing community feedback, the steering committee has endorsed two options.
Both options involve one-lane bridges with a through truss, would ensure safe passage for vehicles and pedestrians, preserve the historic appearance to some degree, and be fundable by the Montana Department of Transporta- tion and maintainable by the Flathead County, which owns the bridge.
Option Three would entail the con- struction of a new steel girder bridge on top of which the existing historic trusses would be placed in order to preserve some historic materials. This would cost between $1.5 million and $2.2 million, according to Harris.
Option Seven would involve a com- plete rebuild, and while it would feature visual elements of modern construc- tion, it would maintain the architec- tural look. This option would likely cost between $1.6 million and $2.4 million.
With a county budget for bridge
maintenance totaling $800,000, the only source for funds is the MDT, according to Kalispell Public Works Director Dave Prunty. However, those construction funds are currently com- mitted through 2024, a troubling time- line, considering the state of the bridge.
At an August meeting, MDT o cials said the bridge would most likely be deemed structurally de cient within ve years. On Dec. 1, Harris backed away from that claim, saying that estimating the lifespan is di cult.
“We don’t know right now. Between MDT and the county, there is regular inspection to look at the bridge. It could deteriorate very quickly,” she said. “It could surprise us all and last for eight years. I wish I could give you a number.”
“I have huge concerns for this bridge to last for eight years,” Prunty added. “Eight more years scares me.”
Harris noted that some exceptions, including projects being removed from the MDT’s list, could free up funds before 2024.
“Past history has seen that a lot,” she said. “But no promises.”
Timelines aside, funding has plagued this project, in large part because the bridge’s historical signi cance has ruled out the most cost-e ective option of replacement of a standard concrete girder with no overhead feature.
Complete rehabilitation has received “a lot of interest” according to Harris, because it would retain the bridge’s spot on the National Register of His- toric Places. Seventy- ve percent of the bridge would need to be replaced, a proj- ect larger in scale than any other MDT bridge project, according to o cials.
Harris said that the steering commit- tee“spentafairamountoftime”tryingto budget this option, but ultimately, there was a “big risk” that the cost would make the project unrealistic and put the project in danger of not receiving funding at all.
Paul Mutascio, president of the Com- munity Foundation for a Better Bigfork, spoke at the meeting, endorsing the option to replace the bridge entirely.
“I think it would be wonderful if we could keep (the historical designation),” he said. “But I think where we’re at is a win-win situation. Our concern was not necessarily the historical designation, but the cultural aspect and the look that it brings to Bigfork ... Rehabilita- tion really wasn’t feasible.”
“We’re going to lose the designation no matter what,” he continued, noting that the option would “keep the iconic look” and give the community “a brand new bridge that’s going to last for 74 years.”
The steering committee’s next move is to submit a report to county o cials by late January, Harris estimated. The county will then make a decision on the project. The following design and per- mitting stage could take approximately two years.
State o cials continue to seek com- munity input, and will accept comments until Jan. 3, 2017. Community members can submit comments online at http:// www.mdt.mt.gov/mdt/comment_form. shtml (indicate that comments are for project UPN 9020-SWAN-RIVER- BRIDGE-STUDY). They may also con- tact MDT District Administrator Ed Toavs at PO Box 7039, Missoula, Mon- tana 5907-7039.
clare@ atheadbeacon.com
www.T
www.ThreeRiversBankMontana.com
DECEMBER 7, 2016 // FLATHEADBEACON.COM
13
b p
A
h