Simcoe County is set to release a final report on the Environmental Assessment of the Collingwood Street Bridge today (Friday, February 3), and while the Echo was not able to see the document before press time, we were able to confirm that the EA points to the same preferred solution as the first EA done on the subject, in December 2010.
That solution will come as a disappointment – though perhaps not a surprise – to the citizens’ committee that’s dedicated itself to saving the steel truss bridge that’s crossed that section of the Mad River since 1913. In no uncertain terms, County engineer and project overseer Julie Scruton told us, the report concludes that the option that best deals with all of the bridge’s “noted deficiencies” – its deteriorated condition, its low load capacity, the fact that it’s one lane only with no sidewalk, the fact that the approach grades to the bridge no longer fit MTO regulations, among others – is to replace it with a two-lane concrete span, similar to the one on Caroline Street West.
What might be surprising, considering Barry Burton, who has led the effort to save the bridge, told us his group has never been told this flat out, is that the conclusion of the EA will not have to pass through County Council again before the bridge replacement enters the design phase.
“Schedule ‘B’ EAs do not need to go back to County Council for direction,” said Scruton. “The Collingwood Street Bridge is following the Schedule ‘B’ EA. Only Schedule ‘C’ EAs [the next level up] go to Council prior to the notice of completion.”
Clearview Mayor Ken Ferguson, who sits on County Council and chairs the County’s Corporate Services Committee, which has jurisdiction over bridges and roads, agreed with Scruton’s statement.
“The decision has been made,” he said. “It’s been brought forward, it’s in the budget, and it’s gone through due process.”
The County originally estimated the cost of replacing the bridge at $2.5 million, but in recent budget talks that number came down to $1.75 million, said Scruton. Burton’s committee, which includes local residents John Hillier, a landscape architect who has worked on the architectural design of several historical bridges, John Boote, an architectural engineer who oversaw the construction of the Bluewater Bridge in Sarnia, and Jack Mesley, a steel bridge construction expert, has made a proposal to the Corporate Services Committee detailing a plan to rehabilitate the bridge for about $900,000.
According to Ferguson, however, the money slated to replace the bridge is to come from County Development Charges, which cover only bridge replacements. If rehabilitation were the option, funds would have to come from general taxation.
But Ferguson’s real issue is a different one. “This is all about the safety aspect,” he said. “County staff, which I have to trust, has spent the time and the money to study this thing, and the bridge is not safe – not just because its in deteriorated condition but because of the angles of approach and because it’s one lane.”
Another fear, he said, is that if the County doesn’t bring it up to standard, responsibility for the bridge might be downloaded to Clearview. “It would be a liability that I don’t want,” he said.
Burton’s group is arguing not just on cost but on heritage value as well, and last year they collected a petition of 182 names asking for it to be saved because it’s an important visual reminder of Creemore’s history. That petition was sent to the County in early 2011 along with a request to “bump up” the original EA to a Schedule ‘C’ version. The Ministry of Environment at that point decided that Schedule ‘B’ was sufficient, but that the County should go into more detail on several fronts. That report, the second one, is what is being released today.
While the new report apparently includes more detail as required, Scruton said its conclusions on heritage value remain the same. In the 2010 report, the bridge was measured using two assessment tools, the Ontario Heritage Bridge Guidelines for Provincially Owned Bridges (OHBG) and the Ontario Heritage Bridge Program (OHBP). Both rubrics measured the bridge on such things as structural integrity, functional design, visual appeal, landmark value, reputation of designer/builder and historical association. The Collingwood Street Bridge scored 44/100 on the OHBG with a required passing score of 60, and 58/100 on the OHBP with an assumed passing score of 60. Both of these rubrics can be found in detail on www.simcoe.ca; a link to the EA report is also posted on thecreemoreecho.com.
“Those numbers come from the County’s consultants,” was Burton’s response to the scores. “In our view, that bridge is important, and worth saving.”
There will now be a 30-day review period on the EA report, although the only comment that would matter at this point would be another request for a “bump-up,” something Burton said he is prepared to do.
The County will also hold a “public information night” in Creemore at some point during the 30 days, although a place and date has not yet been set. Comments received would not go into the EA, said Scruton. The night is planned more for explanation purposes. Burton said he’s hoping to see as many people out as possible, and he’ll be encouraging people to make official comments as well.
While the design of the bridge is included in the County’s 2012 budget, the build cost is technically not, although Scruton and Ferguson both said the direction to complete an EA was in essence a nod from County Council.
The EA predicts a project completion date in the fall of 2013, so the actual build cost would be included in next year’s budget. That will have to be passed by Council in the fall, although County Council does not tend to debate line items as thoroughly as municipal-level Councils.