January 8, 2011

We hope you had an enjoyable Christmas.  As we march forward to meet the challenges of the new year I will continue to report the developments regarding the Maclay Bridge.

As I reported in early December, the county had assembled the documents pertaining to Maclay Bridge and its planned replacement.  We scheduled a meeting to review those documents on December 8th.  The review was attended by Willis Curdy, Peggie Morrison, Helen Orendain, Don Loftsgaarden, and me.  In order to save time, we flagged certain documents to be copied so that we could study them later at our leisure.  Unfortunately, the total reproduction bill would have come to over $200.  But Peggie was able to locate a portable scanner that we can use to copy pertinent material.  We are arranging a time as I write this report.

At the December 8 review, the Director of Public Works, Greg Robertson provided us with a copy of the Draft MOU that he had prepared.  In its present form it defines responsibilities for each agency during construction.

In the mean time, Helen Orendain was able to secure bridge inspection reports from Jim Lynch, Director of Montana Department of Transportation from 2002 to present.  Helen subsequently copied those reports for the committee.

Bridge inspection reports are dated January 8, 2002; September 11, 2003; December 6, 2005; February 19, 2008, and February 9, 2010.  The inspections appear to be timed to review maintenance as well as update critical information.  For example, the deck was replaced at one point because the wood deck had begun to show significant signs of deterioration.  On October 13, 2010, the truss tension members (critical supporting structures for the bridge) were reported to show minor paint loss and rusting on floorbeams and stringers.  It says some stringers were replaced in 2003.  Most importantly, the report says “No serious problems noted.” 

It should be noted that the 2010 report indicates 2774 vehicles per day and the 2002 report indicates 2700 vehicles per day based on a 1997 study.  Reports between 2002 and 2010 indicated the average daily usage dropped.

In our first meeting since the holidays on January 7, 2011, we have taken the name “Maclay Bridge Alliance” (MBA).  It was decided that we will press county commissioners for a FEASIBILITY STUDY to address the cost and need for the project including impacts to:

  1. South Avenue
  2. Intersection  at South Ave. & Reserve
  3. Missoula College of Technology's west campus
  4. Target Range School
  5. Big Sky High School
  6. Missoula Community Hospital
  7. Fort Missoula recreational facilities
  8. Clements St. pedestrian, bicycle, motor vehicle traffic
  9. North Avenue pedestrian, bicycle, motor vehicle traffic
  10. Blue Mountain Road pedestrian, bicycle, motor vehicle traffic
  11. Big Flat Road pedestrian, bicycle, motor vehicle traffic
  12. O’Brien Creek Road pedestrian, bicycle, motor vehicle traffic
  13. River Pines Road pedestrian, bicycle, motor vehicle traffic
  14. Bitterroot River
  15. River habitat for bull trout, cutthroat, and water fowl
  16. Upland habitat for moose, deer, turkey

 

We are requesting the feasibility study before a Memorandum of Understanding between the County and state is signed because it can be conducted for considerably less cost than the full blown environmental impact statement which may very well be required for this project to move forward.  The feasibility study will answer once and for all whether it should be built or not.  Director Lynch at MDT has agreed that a feasibility study at this time would be appropriate and welcome.  MBA is requesting an agenda item for a coming weekly Board of County Commissioners Meeting to discuss this issue in a public setting before more money is spent.  As the new BCC Chairman, Commissioner Curtiss has already indicated that Missoula County is faced with budget cuts or tax increases this year. (Missoulian, January 7, 2011)

To summarize the facts discovered as of this date:

  1. Missoula County has designated the Maclay Bridge Replacement as the number one priority for “Off -System” bridges in 2004.
  2. This same project was considered and rejected in 1993.
  3. Maclay Bridge is functionally obsolete (one lane with limited weight capacity)
  4. Maclay Bridge is structurally sound and safe for present uses including school buses and emergency vehicles as of October, 2010.
  5. Alternate bridges exist for residents west of the river at Buckhouse and Kona Ranch Road.
  6. Traffic count on the bridge is nearly the same as it was in 1997 according to bridge inspection reports.
  7. Cost for a Maclay Bridge replacement in 1993 was pegged at $13 million.  This cost has never been updated.
  8. A 1993 Environmental Assessment for Maclay Bridge Replacement indicated the preferred location at the western extension of South Avenue.  That assessment did not address any of the other impacts listed above including need.

 

We expect to have a web site up and running soon to help keep everyone informed.  www.MaclayBridge.org

Bob Schweitzer
544-9066