Replacing the North Brooksvale Road bridge over Roaring Brook
The NHRs Luther Turmelle reports:
The replacement of the Route 42 bridge over Roaring Brook is scheduled to begin today, with work on the $650,000 project scheduled to last through the end of the year.
The state Department of Transportation decided to expedite replacement of the 47-year-old bridge after a routine inspection this spring found “a rapid deterioration of the bridge that was indicative of repeated usage by oversize, overweight trucks,” said Kevin Nursick, a DOT spokesman. The bridge is located between Whispering Hollow Court and Mountain Road.
Tim White
16 comments:
"...The replacement of the Route 42 bridge over Roaring Brook is scheduled to begin today, with work on the $650,000 project scheduled to last through the end of the year..."
Interesting. RT 42 is a state highway. It probably is built to a different, more significant standard then a local street like Country Club Rd. One would only imagine that if a state highway bridge went for $650k then a much smaller bridge on a local street would not be going for even $600k but isn't the local referendum item for the CCR bridge set at over $600k?
The country club rd bridge has to carry the weight of fire trucks, etc. Its no different than the bridge the state is replacing. If you look at the two the country club and Rt 42 are very similar in size. I now feel better about the referendum number. Love to see it cost less but its a bridge...gota last a long time.
So let's see, fire trucks are red and that must make them heavy? An 18 wheeler which normally can use a state highway must be lighter than a red fire truck. And of course since the new Country Club Rd bridge will be as expensive/strong as the new RT 42 bridge shortly those folks living near Country Club will begin to see 18 wheelers traveling down Country Club and maybe even Wolf Hill.
Yeh, I for one feel better already about the inflated referendum value knowing it was for those massive fire trucks.
All town fire trucks and any vehicle over 10 tons cannot go over the rt 42 bridge now. What standard should the Country Club Rd bridge have Mr. town engineer.
That is about the dumbest explanation Ive heard yet. Its not about the color idiot. Its load bearing and the fact that it is crossing a watercourse which requires very specific and rigorous standards. The town can't throw a few planks over it but I'd say you elible to walk off a few planks cheapskate. You would probably be the first crank to sue the town if your car fell through the bridge.
Amazing how this site attracts child-like behavior in some. Clearly the bridge being referred to has been adequate for many decades. It is not a bridge on a state secondary road, it is a bridge on a town side street. It is a road through residential neighborhoods. Do a job upgrading it to the same standards as a state route and the next thing everyone in that residential neighborhood will be facing is massive traffic which currently is on other existing routes, like route 10 for instance.
Clearly it does not need to be built to the same standards as a state road bridge needs to be built to. Clearly a couple of rectangular concrete pipe sections, a retaining wall, and some fill and asphalt would do the job. It is hard to believe that is worth anything like 600k but hay, this is Cheshire and Connecticut where the concept of overspending has not yet been recognized by our local over eager Gang of 5 and the state Democrat super majority.
As for heavy fire trucks, just how has our fire department handled the bridge you speak of which can't take trucks over your claimed 10 tons until now? Clearly everything has worked out okay for the past 50 or 100 years to begin with.
600k as a referendum ideal seems a bit pricey. Maybe those designing the bridge should explain in detail to the public what they would get for 600k. Until they do, vote NO.
I think making West Main St more beautiful and pedestrian friendly is so much more important than these dumb bridges.
8:11 AM
The CFD has redirected trucks around the RT 42 bridge which may result in slight delays in response times and school buses don't go over the bridge. 10 ton trucks are prohibited.
Rt 42 is not a truck road but it is a state road that is used by many cars and plenty of trucks. Country club Rd carries more cars than trucks but most homes there are heated with oil delivered in trucks. Most get ordinary grabage pickup. Trucks go over the same bridges cars do. You may may think the price is too high but these bridges have to be fixed. Public safety trumps West main Streetscaping.
11:06 public safety trumps West main street scapes. What an interesting concept.
String a couple of factoids together and poof, back to the here are the fire trucks, oh the important fire trucks. You won't ever be safe if the fire trucks use the roads they used for the past 50 or 100 years. Yep, maybe you just existed through those past 50 or 100 years, but you know, you just were never really safe even though you exist today.
OBTW, the sky is falling and maybe if we got a massive helicopter we could fly in the fire trucks faster - - -
Here's a brilliant view for you. Public safety in Cheshire and in Connecticut is going to be totally obliterated if local and state politicians keep spending and corruption on the front burner. At some point people run out of money. Could it be just after 1,000 high paying jobs head south next year? Could it be just after the government officially announces unemployment tops the 10 % mark? Could it be after a couple of more renditions of oh we just gotta spend a few hundred more thousand on that pool?
There is only so much money available from taxes. When we really run out we turn into a California with all the significant public safety issues they now suffer from because there is no longer enough money to pay for all the useless bloat.
Paying as much for a residential street bridge as the state is paying for a state highway bridge just makes no sense. Paying $600,000 is a great sum. If a 2 man construction crew with a small dozer ran $1,000 per day the money for the bridge would buy 6oo days of labor by 2 men and a dozer. That's almost 2 full years and we are talking a very small bridge and a not so big roadway.
Until the town provides detailed information on its estimate for the Country Club Rd bridge, VOTE NO.
There is a huge difference between the 2 bridges. Most residents never realized they were on a bridge on Rt.42. This bridge covers a short span. The bridge on Country Club Rd is atleast 15 feet long. There is running water under it. I would want to see a better estimate of cost because it appears the C.C. Rd. bridge would cost more to repair than Rt. 42. Asking for $600,000 seems a little low and I do not want to hear that the contractor is looking for more money in the future to finish the job (POOL)
State engineers put a legal load limit of 10 tons on the Rt. 42 bridge. They did this to limit the states responsability if it were to collapse due to a truck driving over it.
Single axle trucks, like our town fire trucks weigh upto 18 tons (36,000 lbs). This is almost twice what the state says can safely cross this bridge while in it's current state. It is comparable to walking on ice. It may seem sturdy enough the first time, but the more times you stress it, the more likely you are to fall in.
The fire dept is not using the Rt. 42 bridge for any reason. If there is a MVA on Bethany Mt. Rd (3 since the bridge was restricted) the trucks respond to South Brooksvale Rd and double back to Bethany Mt. This adds about 7-10 minutes to the response. If a house were to burn just past the bridge, we would still respond by way of So. Brooksvale Rd. No driver is going to take the risk.
"...Asking for $600,000 seems a little low and I do not want to hear that the contractor is looking for more money in the future to finish the job (POOL)..."
Here it comes again from one of the drivers of needless town spending which unfortunately sometimes is our local fire department. They do a really wonderful job at fire fighting but when it comes to the strategy of spending taxpayer money they are sometimes out of their element.
Stating the Country Club bridge is probably 15 ft or less provides interesting insight into this issue. By any standard that makes it incredibly small. Replacing that bridge for a referendum cost of $600k translates to something like $3,333.00 per INCH!
Anyone who feels 3 grand per inch for a repair to a tiny bridge on a residential street isn't enough, i.e. one of our fire department officers, should intermediately consider a move to someplace like Sacramento where that kind of government excess is already well established.
Keep up the good work at fighting fires and spend more time understanding the value of other peoples money as well as what things really cost.
Vote NO for the $3,333/inch bridge repair until the town provides stellar details of just why it wants 3 grand per inch for a repair to a town street.
7:31 AM
The town wants 3,333 per inch so boneheads like you can whine yourself to sleep. Why else?
You know, if the town really, honestly believes that spending $3,333 per inch to replace a residential street bridge is the way to go then maybe some of the employees responsible should try to find even higher paying jobs in municipal government in California. On the other hand if they can't really justify such a preposterous estimate maybe voters should demand that the basis of the estimate receive very close public scrutiny.
As for anyone else I suspect if the town makes a habit of estimating simple bridge repairs at a cost equal to over $3,000 per inch they'll all want to find some place else to pay property taxes to. It won't be Cheshire.
And it is hoped the bonehead writer is able to understand the math concepts presented here - - -
"Stating the Country Club bridge is probably 15 ft or less provides interesting insight into this issue. By any standard that makes it incredibly small. Replacing that bridge for a referendum cost of $600k translates to something like $3,333.00 per INCH!"
First, I said the bridge is about 15 feet, not less. Since it is longer than it is wide, and a road is 20 feet wide, I would say I was being conservative on my estimate of length.
"And it is hoped the bonehead writer is able to understand the math concepts presented here - - -"
I could if you were right. Your estimate of $3,333 per inch is WAY off. Lets go back to elementery school geometry. We need to find the area first. 15'X20'= 300sq'. 300sq'X12"=3600sq" $600,000/3600sq"= $166.66 per square inch. That is a little bit better than your wrong report of $3,333 per inch.
Lets look at the work involved. They have to remove the existing bridge. Asphault removed, concrete removed, steel span removed, concrete piers removed. Then they will have to rebuild the entire structure. The waterway will need to be protected. Traffic will need to be rerouted.
I hope you learned something about grade school math and understand the bridge rebuild is not as easy as replacing a few lego's.
"Here it comes again from one of the drivers of needless town spending which unfortunately sometimes is our local fire department. They do a really wonderful job at fire fighting but when it comes to the strategy of spending taxpayer money they are sometimes out of their element."
Please explain this one. How do you consider our volunteer fire dept. carelessly spends taxpayer money?
This should be interesting.
I am only getting $13.88 per square inch.
15 feet is 180 inches
20 feet is 240 inches
that means we have 43,200 square inches.
600,000 divided by 43,200 is $13.88
The other poster was saying is was $3K per linear inch.
$600,000/15ft = $40,000/ft
($40,000/ft)x1ft/12in = 40,000/12
or $3,333.33/in
Any way you cut it a 600k bridge which is 15 ft long costs an incredible 3.3k per running foot.
And just think, you could cover every square inch of your estimated equivalent area with 44 cent first class stamps for a total of only
$19,008, the cost for mailing a total of 43,200 first class letters. Enough to mail over 1 ton.
on the other hand $5 bills are approximately 2.5 in x 6 in. or 15 square inches each.
180in x 240in = 43,200 inches square.
(43,200 sq in/15sq in) = 2,880 Bills
Using $5 bills it would cost only
2,880 x $5 = $14,400 to entirely cover the surface area of the new, improved bridge with $5 bills.
Until those responsible for the details of the $600k estimate fully explain it to the public voting NO seems like a wise move.
And if you moved up to covering with $100 bills the total cost for the bills to cover the area go up by a factor of 20 which would only get to about $288,000. Like, there would still be $312,000 left out of the original referendum request which could still be used to build the bridge with.
Post a Comment