NORTH ADAMS, Mass. — The state Department of Transportation is moving ahead with plans for repairs to the Veterans Memorial Bridge.

 

But this does not preclude the concurrent planning to remove the structure completely.

 

The disconnect had attendees who filled City Council Chambers on Tuesday for a public hearing confused as to why the state was going to spend nearly $19 million to preserve the 62-year-old span.

 

Project manager Joseph Breen said it was because the 171-foot span was in dire condition. He highlighted the corroded bolsters on the No. 6 pier, the deterioration of the concrete piers, and the deck joint separations.

 

MassDOT recently shored up the span with steelwork to reopen the two partially closed lanes, but Breen noted that this is only temporary.

 

"Without further repairs, the bridge may be subject to an unscheduled permanent closure in the near future," he said. "The bridge preservation project does not invalidate the city study, nor should it be seen in conflict with the study recommendations."

 

Breen said the state has a responsibility to keep the bridge open and usable "until the city reaches a comfort level that the closure of the bridge will not adversely affect operations on the local street network."

 

A feasibility study on options for the structure is expected next month through the federal Reconnecting Communities Pilot Program. The city has partnered with Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art on a $750,000 grant on ways to connect the downtown to the museum, which will involved removing the overpass.

 

The most recent public meeting on that study, held earlier this month, pointed to the removal of the bridge completely.

 

"There's a little bit of cognitive dissonance," said resident Ben Svenson, adding that the "public imagination" has been ignited by the idea of the bridge coming down. "This seems to be something which is not realistic, that this is going to give us a decision and will basically enforce a decision."

 

The MassDOT representatives said the goal was the preservation of the city-owned bridge for the next 10 to 25 years — and there was no guarantee that the state would come in and fix it again. 

 

"The last preservation that was done on this bridge was the 1990s, to give you a sense, this is a second preservation," said Breen. "We're not going to get quite the same duration."

 

The bridge was deemed structurally deficient in late 2023. The lanes had been partially closed at the midpoint and then opened back up when steel framing was installed to shore it up a couple weeks ago. 

 

Several people asked if a cheaper option at a shorter lifespan would be possible but were told that the bridge had to meet federal standards to get the money to fix it. The funding is coming out of the state's Transportation Improvement Program for bridge preservation and cannot be used for anything but bridge preservation. 

 

Mark Devylder, bridge engineer with District 1, pointed out the recent shoring up cost $400,000, funds that had come out of his budget. If the city wanted a short-term fix, the city would have to come up with the funds for further repairs.

 

"This bridge is not going to last in its current condition. It's not going to stay open," he said. "You're lucky it's open now."

 

Breen said the city would not be on the hook to keep the bridge up for the next 25 years — but it will last until the city embarks on a downtown reconfiguration.

 

"We do this for a living. A lot of these projects, they take a long time," he said. "It's infrastructure, design, permitting, funding. We're just trying to have this project to make the bridge safe and travelable, give the city enough time to do their due diligence on this study, go through what is best for the city."

 

State Rep. John Barrett III cautioned residents not to reject plans already in place.

 

"What you don't want to mix up here is the state DOT has been very good. I went to them and asked them to shore up the bridge so you could keep it in use and keep it going," he said. "What is here tonight is if we keep this bridge in use for the next five years, four years, three years, whatever it may be, so our economy isn't disrupted, so the trucks can move through and plans can move ahead. That's all it is. Don't confuse what's going on here."

 

He added, "if this city wants to decide to rip this bridge down in 10 years, they can do it because it's your bridge."

 

There also were questions about traffic, rights of way and pedestrian access. The bridge will be done similar to the Hadley Overpass — one lane at a time — and traffic will be detoured over West Main Street as the work progresses. 

 

Mass MoCA Director Kristy Edmunds raised alarm over the "yellow flags" showing the rights of way in the Marshall Street parking lot near the bridge and the back entrance to the museum. This could mean removing outdoor artworks for preservation, disrupting exhibitions and artists contracts, and would "utterly imperil your museum."

 

MassDOT representatives said the rights of way were for access only to get under the bridge and that no equipment would be stored there. The contractor and MassDOT would work with the museum to ensure it was able to use its West Main entrance, though it could be limited. 

 

The plans are currently at 75 percent design with the expectation they will be completed in the winter, followed by bidding and construction next summer. Bridge preservation engineer Alyson Bedard said the funds are in the 2026 TIP and must be used by next September. 

 

Construction is expected to last two years. 

 

Resident Virginia Riehl felt the whole project showed a serious gap in communication with residents finding out now about a project that's been on the state's list for four years. She urged MassDOT to hold more meetings to keep residents informed. 

 

"You're working with a lot of information that could be useful to you," she said of the feedback being offered. "It's setting up a situation where people feel like they things are going on and, you know, people are just going, well, you can take the $19 million or you could, or we walk. That's not a good, healthy dialogue."

 

Her concern was that by investing much into the bridge "it will become a barrier even if it's not a legal barrier."

 

The bridge's construction destroyed neighborhoods, said another attendee, and it was disheartening "to even apprehend the possibility that this monstrosity is going to last for 25 more years."