To the Editor:
I was pleased to sit in (via Zoom) on the Sudbury Historical Commission meeting on Dec. 9, when the most recent plans for the renovation of Sherman’s Bridge were discussed. Tina Rivard, Sudbury Director of Public Works, led discussants (commissioners and interested citizens) through a series of drawings and specifications, allowing all present to raise concerns regarding several issues not yet resolved.
Among those issues still to be resolved is a glaring safety concern along the south “non-walkway” side of the bridge, as shown on sheet 8 of the plan set dated Dec. 5. The issue is a continuous gap of over 16 inches between the bottom of the glulam guardrail and the decking of the bridge.
Two things, then:
1. This is only called the “non-walkway” side of the bridge because the current plans do not propose a pedestrian walkway on this side. The consensus of bridge users is that a walkway should in fact be placed on this side and the structural solution to do so is pretty simple and inexpensive. If you have spent any time around the bridge at all, you will understand that pedestrians regularly stand/walk on this side of the bridge. Post-renovation, they should be able to do so safely and be protected from traffic by a pedestrian walkway and a glulam crash barrier at ankle height.
2. The concern is that a child or pet could easily slip through the gap shown in the current design and fall directly into the river. And it is the case that children and pets do use this side of the bridge as it is configured now. If this were a building rather than a bridge, of course, the Massachusetts state building code (780CMR 1021) requires a gap of no more than four inches in railings like this.
We thank you for your good work so far and for considering this safety issue for the renovated Sherman’s Bridge.
Jeff Stein
Sherman’s Bridge Road
