It’s not a question of if Stroy’s Bridge needs to be removed – but how it is going to be done.
Roads superintendent Don Creed is still looking for that decision. But council is still looking for estimates for various options.
The single span, steel, turn-of-the-century bridge was closed to traffic in the mid 1990s and more recently to pedestrian traffic because of liability concerns.
In his Feb. 1 report to council, Creed said the GRCA “is pretty much okay with what has been presented in the original plan” to remove Stroy’s Bridge on Sideroad 10.
Creed said with that done, there are no issues except of the potential of a gravel trail and a canoe trail. He said on one side of the road there is the potential of wetland issues.
Creed had spoken with project engineer Hans Groh Gamsby and Mannerow about the design and is trying to put a cost to different elements of the project.
He said council asked Gamsby and Mannerow to come back with some prices.
“They have not done that to this point because they wanted to deal with the GRCA issue as to what would be allowed and what would not.”
Now the company can proceed with the estimates.
Creed said, “At the end of the day, regardless of what the area looks like aesthetically, afterwards, the bridge needs to come out.”
He said the bridge could simply be removed with concrete abutments left there.
The concern with that is a need to go back to the GRCA because the current plan includes sloping the banks to open up the flood plain. Without that work, there is an issue of how a box culvert up the road would be replaced.
Opening the flood plain would allow the culvert to be replaced with a smaller pipe, but leaving the abutments in place would require the box culvert to be replaced.
Each approach has costs.
Creed said there was discussion if footings should be installed for future uses such as a pedestrian walking bridge.
“How do you put in footings for a structure when you don’t even know what it is yet?”
He said years down the road, those footing might not even work.
“It’s like buying tires without a bicycle on them.”
He said council would need to decide if it really wants to have a canoe trail built to the river.
“The bottom line is that the bridge has to come out this year, in 2012.”
Creed asked for direction on how to proceed.
Councillor Ken Roth understood the box culvert is too expensive to replace.
Creed said if the bridge is removed without altering the abutment slopes, the culvert would need replaced.
If the slopes are altered to open up the flood plain water floor, then the culvert could be replaced with something much smaller.
Roth said his choice would be to find out which option is cheapest.
Councillor Jerry Schmidt agreed. “Removing the bridge, in my opinion, is a no-brainer; it’s got to come out.”
He added, “We need to know the costs either way to make an intelligent decision.”
As for a canoe path, Schmidt believes that can be dealt with later.
As for installing footings “for a something, something, down the line, council needs to look at why it is needed, or abandon the concept,” he said.
He believes a decision is needed soon.
Councillor Susan Fielding said during a public meeting, much was said about the need of providing emergency access – which would also incur costs.
She suggested simply removing the bridge was different than what she recalled.
Her understanding was if people are using the trail, then there would need to be provision to allow emergency vehicle access. “And there was quite a cost in making it accessible. And I thought we were obligated to do that,” she said.
Creed said, “An emergency vehicle could get down there now … if it had to.”
He said he has driven down that road before.
Creed agreed to bring the issue up with Groh.
Clerk Brenda Law said she does not believe having the road accessible is expensive, but it would need to be maintained.
Councillor Wayne Stokley agreed the bridge needs to be removed, but he did not think that removal and culvert replacement could be considered as separate projects.
“Our future plans … depend on the abutment,” he said.
While he agrees to removing the bridge, he is not so sure about removing the abutments.
He asked if they can be used in the future.
Mayor Dennis Lever understood the current abutments cannot be used for anything.
“They are, in fact, starting to collapse.”
He said those promoting a pedestrian bridge were suggesting new abutments be created.
“But the current abutments cannot be used.”
Lever believes council needs to see costs and then choose the cheapest option.
He said instructions left previously with Groh were a number of options are available, and council wants to see those costs before making its decision. “Removing the bridge is the paramount thing. It is a liability.”
