A Rhode Island Department of Transportation (DOT) spokesman confirmed late Wednesday the unthinkable for Bristol residents, business owners and commuters: To reconstruct the Silver Creek Bridge that carries all vehicles into and out of downtown Bristol along the Route 114 corridor, they must close the entire bridge for up to two months.

This confirmation follows weeks of confusion and rumors about whether there would be a partial-closure of the bridge, reducing it to one lane of travel, or a full closure of the bridge. In official DOT statements and releases, the bridge would be partially closed, with travel alternating in one lane, while construction took place in July and August of 2020.

Unofficially, residents and business owners said DOT and town officials were telling them it would require a full closure of the entire Route 114 passageway.

On Wednesday, after repeated calls for clarity, DOT spokesman Charles St. Martin wrote in an email: “No closures until after the Fourth of July in 2020. A closure will then be needed for approximately two months.” Pressed for more information on the term “closure,” he wrote: “It will be a full closure with a detour using Metacom Avenue.”

Business owners and residents have been signing a petition and lobbying town officials to keep them informed of the project and its timeline. Some say a total closure of Route 114 would be devastating to businesses downtown.

The only routes into and out of downtown Bristol from or traveling north would be through the heavily traveled Metacom Avenue, or perhaps Sherry Avenue by way of Chestnut Street.

Confusion at council meeting

Details surrounding the impending bridge reconstruction project became even murkier during a Bristol Town Council meeting last Wednesday, April 17.

Since the summer of 2017, the town has been in contact with the Rhode Island Department of Transportation about the state-owned bridge’s future, ultimately in need of replacement after being deemed “structurally deficient.” Yet the exact details surrounding its reconstruction remained a mystery to councilors and Town Administrator Steven Contente, with timelines continuously shifting and impact studies virtually nonexistent. After recently discovering that the project — originally not even open for discussion until 2022 — was suddenly up for bid this month in order to begin utility work this year, council members were reaching their breaking point.

“Why is this on the agenda? Quite honestly, we’re frustrated,” said Chairman Nathan Calouro.

They were not the only ones. Though councilors had only put the item on the agenda in order to hopefully instigate a public hearing with DOT and get more information, business owners and community members alike lined up last week to share their thoughts about the issue, unleashing their frustration about everything from the project’s reported timeline to the miscommunication coming from the town itself.

After hearing for the first time at recent Bristol Merchants Association and Bristol Harbor Commission meetings from Community Development Director Diane Williamson and Economic Development Coordinator Chris Vitale that utility work on the bridge was slated to begin this year, followed by its full reconstruction in 2020 — both times during the weeks following the Fourth of July Celebration, the Beehive’s Jen Cavallari —s peaking on behalf of several other businesses in town — shared her concern about how that timeframe would impact shop owners.

“I don’t know if I could make it through the next winter if I don’t have the summer income,” Ms. Cavallaro said.

Meanwhile, Marianthy Barakos said that three members of DOT had already approached the Beach House about leasing part of their private parking lot for over a year starting this summer — and that the town had apparently provided the recommendation. In both instances, they were led to believe a full closure of Route 114 during the bridge’s reconstruction period was already a done deal. Much of this was news to Mr. Calouro, while Mr. Contente contested that some of the information shared at prior discussions with DOT was now being misconstrued and that, in reality, all options for phase two were still being explored as they awaited reports on safety, economic and other studies.

“We don’t make the ultimate call for DOT, but we certainly have a lot of input on this and we know this town intimately,” assured Mr. Calouro.

Other shop owners, however, disagreed with the chairman’s sentiment, feeling as if some elected officials have long been out of touch with their businesses’ economic viability. 

“For 23 years, I have never had anybody know anything about what the business picture is in this town, nevermind just 114,” said Linda Arruda, owner of Paper, Packaging & Panache.

After taking in all of the audience’s feedback, Mr. Calouro vowed to relay all of the information they had shared — including a list Keith Maloney put together of 11 different businesses’ monthly percentage of annual sales revenues, provided anonymously — in a letter to DOT requesting a public hearing. Additionally, Mr. Contente met with DOT on Tuesday of this week in hopes of getting updated information. After the meeting, he said DOT would be releasing information shortly and would be scheduling a public hearing. He did not release details of their discussions.

Moving forward, longtime business owner Joe Caron had just one request for council members and Mr. Contente, a request that Mr. Calouro accepted fervently:

“Just please be as transparent as you can with us going forward.”