There is no quick fix nor a cheap solution to remove, repair or replace Stroy’s Bridge in Puslinch.
Nearly 50 people were at a June 16 public information meeting at the Puslinch community centre to communicate information on a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment for Stroy’s Bridge.
The study was in response to public safety concerns and the township’s liability due to the deteriorated condition of the bridge. The engineering firm of Gamsby and Mannerow was hired to undertake the study, with council and staff providing direction.
The single span, steel truss bridge over the Speed River, was built in 1908 and located on a now-closed section of Sideroad 10 North between Laird and Niska Roads. Because of it’s poor condition, the bridge was closed to vehicular traffic in 1995. A walkway was constructed to permit pedestrian traffic, but because of further deterioration discovered in recent inspections, that use has also been stopped.
A floodplain and culvert are located immediately north of the bridge to permit seasonal flood waters to pass underneath Sideroad 10. That, too, is showing an advanced degree of deterioration.
Hans Groh, of Gamsby and Mannerow, said the intent was for an informal meeting with a brief presentation.
Amanda Pepping, also of Gamsby and Mannerow, provided an outline of the Class Environmental procedure. She said projects are classified based on potential environmental impact. In that process, four potential solutions were identified for the bridge.
Do nothing
If the bridge and overflow culvert are left in their current conditions, they will eventually collapse. That timing cannot be predicted and the safety of the public could be jeopardized.
Remove bridge, culvert
Both would be taken out and the embankments restored to a natural condition. Although the pedestrian trail access across the river would be lost, access to the Speed River Hiking Trail on the north side of the Speed River would still be available via Niska Road. The Capital cost estimate is $145,000.
Rehabilitate for pedestrians
The bridge abutments could be stabilized and repaired, damaged structural trusses removed and a new pedestrian walkway constructed. The culvert would be replaced. That work is considered only as a temporary measure and not a permanent solution due to the age and condition of the existing structure. The capital cost estimate is $199,000.
Removal, replacement
The bridge and culvert would be taken out, a new pedestrian crossing constructed and the culvert replaced. The capital cost estimate is $550,000.
“Following this meeting, we’ll go through all the comments submitted and discuss them with the township,” Pepping said. “At that time, a final solution to the problem would be determined.”
Groh said the original idea was to remove the bridge – and how to do that in an environmentally safe way. But concerns over that were voiced by residents.
“Hence, there are the options of a temporary remedy versus replacement included in a preliminary investigation, because we were asked to do that by council,” Groh said.
Typically, that would not be part of the process, he added.
Groh said if council chooses to move in a different direction, the information gathered to date may still be relevant, but the class of environmental assessment might shift.
One of the first questions was if adjacent landowners were included in the process since they are located next to walking paths. Groh said the assessment would not address the use of adjacent lands to any great degree.
However, the trail can still be reached via Niska Road, which many people do now. The review, Groh said, would consider if the trail access is maintained. He added that issue was not examined in greater depth because the degree of involvement was not required under the parameters of the environmental assessment.
“We’ve tried to put together approximate estimates to be used for budgeting purposes.”
He said those figures were not established by a contract process, and do not include all the details. Estimates considered the bigger picture, not just focussing on one portion of it.
He said the total costs to remove the bridge would include removing the abutments, creating new slopes of the banks to provide better water flow, and safe access for those wishing to reach the river from that location.
Questions from the audience sought more of a definition of the term “temporary repairs.”
Groh’s estimate is temporary repairs would last from five to ten years. He said when that was considered, the idea was to use as much of the existing material as possible, but using different means to secure the structure in a way to reduce the risk of it collapsing.
“These would only be a Band-Aid solution for a period of time,” he said.
When asked why a pedestrian bridge could not be placed on the existing abutments, Groh said the current structure is roughly 20 metres long.
A new pedestrian bridge will still require removal of the existing one and the abutments and the banks would be sloped back, he said. By cutting the banks back, the span of any new bridge would be significantly wider. And instead of abutments for the pedestrian bridge, Groh’s suggestion is for a piers well back from the influence of the river.
But if a bridge is put in, the overflow structure currently intended to be demolished would have to be replaced, because it would be an access point to reach the bridge. In addition, the road would need to be upgraded to provide safe vehicle access to maintain the structure, and for emergency vehicle access, he said.
“There are a lot of things that go with that process.”
Some at the meeting also wanted to know if the cost to install a new pedestrian bridge also includes opening the road from the hill, where it is currently closed off, to the bridge.
People were also curious where emergency vehicles would come from, especially if the access road remains at the north end – not the south
Groh said he would not recommend a long dead-end road because of the potential of blockage. He said while councillors were in attendance, the meeting’s intent is to get community opinions and thoughts.
Those comments will be included in a report to council that would then be debated. He said residents could put forward whatever opinions they felt to be appropriate or viable.
“We will look at them, try to assess them, and advise council what would be the best solution.”
Groh was asked why a bridge that has lasted 100 years could only be repaired to last another five to ten years. He said even new bridges are anticipated to last 80 years.
“At this point in time, we know that this structure is pretty close to the end of its life,” and getting another 20 to 30 years out of the structure would be “really lucky.”
One of the reasons the bridge was closed in the first place was an accident where a vehicle hit some of the structural elements and made it unsafe.
“Other things are starting to go wrong – things that support the bridge itself,” Groh said.
The problems are not limited to the bridge itself, but the abutments supporting the structure. The concrete is cracked, pushing out and there is evidence of severe scouring of the concrete abutments below the waterline.
“There is a risk of them being lost,” Groh said.
Others wondered if a pedestrian bridge could simply be constructed without the emergency access, and being signed for people to “use at own risk” to save money.
Groh said most of the cost would be for the bridge itself. He added the meeting is about a general direction to take, not an analysis of cost estimates of each portion.
One member of the audience contended even if the bridge is removed, a construction road will still be needed to get that work done.
Groh explained that is part of the contractor’s price of demolition, but depending on council’s decision, part or all of it may also need to be removed.
“A construction road is not necessarily a permanent road.”
He said the final decision would be with council. Comments on the proposal will be received by the township until June 30.
It seemed clear many of the residents wanted to keep a bridge in one form or another. But not all of those at the meeting were residents; some simply use the trail as it exists.
There were comments that the bridge is not actually closed because people continue to cross it. It is clearly posted with “Bridge Closed”, “No Entry”, and “No Trespassing” signs.
There is also a steel guardrail blocking the path to the pedestrian walkway.
Groh agreed anyone who really wants to can cross it, but he asked people to respect the signs that are in place.
“It’s for your own safety. We don’t encourage people to go across it. Everyone is asked to use common sense once in a while. The signs are put there for a reason.”
