Mapleton Township unlikely to upgrade rural road anytime soon

After hearing a report from its public works director, council here indicated on April 10 it is unlikely to favour paving a rural road in the immediate future.

Residents on Sideroad 6 of old Maryborough Township came to council on March 27 with a request for paving and road improvements. Trevor Misch gave council a petition from 22 residents living on Sideroad 6 between Concession 8 and County Road 8 – a stretch of about 1.5 miles.

He said the road is getting worse and, lately, it was dangerous. He noted he had lost control of his vehicle on that road this spring.

Public works director Larry Lynch told council on April 10 he travelled the road immediately upon his return from vacation.

“In the big picture, I don’t see Sideroad 6 performing unlike any other gravel road. I would not recommend doing any more,” he said.

Lynch’s report spelled out the problems the township has with a deteriorating road system.

Mapleton roads are given one of three classifications:

– urban: includes curbs and/or gutters and storm sewers (about 2.04 per cent of the township’s entire road system);

– semi-urban: road design includes open ditches or swales and not curbs and gutters or storm sewers (5.54% of the township’s roads); and

– rural: roads that abut farm and residential development or open space (92.4% of the township’s road system).

Lynch said Sideroad 6 between County Road 8 and Mapleton Concession 8 is a rural roadside environment, 2.6km long, with a gravel surface drainage through roadside ditches and an average annual traffic volume of 50 to 199 vehicles a day.

His report noted, “A minimum level of service for rural roads is generally based on traffic usage; both the overall traffic volume using the road and the type of traffic.” He noted the maintenance system takes into account roads heavily used by trucks and farm machinery.

“For example, to minimize maintenance concerns it is suggested that roads that have traffic volumes exceeding 200 vehicles per day be considered for a hard top surface,” his report said.

It added, “For those roads where the traffic volume exceeds 500 vehicles per day or where there is a high percentage of truck traffic, the preferred surface is asphalt, to maximize road life. Roads that provide access and have an average annual daily traffic of less than 200 vehicles per day are normally a gravel surface.”

Further, his report said a 2009-10 road management plan, prepared for the township by R.J. Burnside and Associates engineering firm, identifies about 52km of gravel roads that need immediate attention, including the road where the petitioners want upgrades.

Lynch said 52km represents about one third of the entire township gravel road system.

He said the engineering report indicates the work needed now on those roads encompasses:

– building of existing base with 150mm of granular A gravel;

– 150mm of earth excavation for 30% of the road length;

– ditching for 30% of the road length;

– topsoil and seeding for 30% of the road length; and

– miscellaneous minor work.

Lynch concluded, “The estimated cost of this upgrade is $234,000 and would not include asphalt.”

Preparatory work would have to be done first if the township plans to pave the road.

Lynch told council he does not believe that section of road, with 37 residences on it, should have an upgrade to hard surface. He said this winter was particularly hard on all gravel roads right across the province, and neighbouring Centre Wellington Township has faced similar road conditions and complaints.

He explained the problem was this winter. It was so unseasonably warm there was very little frost going into the ground, and what frost went in at night came out during the day. But, he said, with freezing nights, township crews had to lay down salt because of ice.

He said salt on gravel roads is not necessarily a good thing even though it provides traction. During the warm days, melts caused the roads to be covered in water and slush. He cited Misch’s complaint about people being unable to walk on the roads because of the slop.

Lynch said today people living there and on other gravel roads might be complaining about dust. He said he expects the first layers of dust suppressant will be laid down by the end of the month unless it rains soon.

Mayor Bruce Whale asked if 1km near those houses could have something done.

But councillor Mike Downey said he got the impression “they want it all” (the entire section) paved.

Councillor Neil Driscoll agreed. “They way I read it, they want the whole concession.”

Whale asked if some spots are worse than others. Lynch said those sections could change any day with changes in the weather.

Of Misch losing control of his vehicle on the road, he said it is possible a grader had gone over the road earlier that day, pulling gravel into the centre, and that would be unseen under the slop.

Lynch said Driscoll lives on a gravel road and can attest “it was a tough winter.” Driscoll said one problem is some gravel roads have more clay in them than gravel.

Lynch agreed, but said it is too expensive to dig it all up, and the township is trying to lay down more gravel on rural roads to improve them that way. He estimated to do the entire stretch the petitioners are seeking would cost the township $500,000.

Driscoll said there are “some traditional soft spots” on that road.

Lynch agreed, and said, “And everybody knows that.”

He said the township had the same problems with a road near Woolwich Township and placed six inches of gravel on it a few years ago, and it is now “much improved.”

He concluded, “If we pave one road, we’ve got another 52km. We’ll have a lot of people here asking for the same thing.”

He said the township can dig out some of the worst soft spots, and he asked staff to identify those before he went on holidays. They could not find them at that time because frost was back in the roads. He agreed frost is now gone.

Whale concluded staff should inform the residents council will continue to try to build the road up with gravel but as for paving, “it is not on our five-year list.”

Lynch added, “Nor on Burnside’s ten-year list.”

Council then accepted Lynch’s report.

Comments