ABERFOYLE – Though the question appeared off the cuff, Puslinch councillors have asked staff to investigate the potential of selling its portion of Niska Road to the City of Guelph.
The matter came up on Jan. 22 following an update on the Niska Road reconstruction and bridge replacement from Guelph’s engineering and transportation services project engineer Ken VanderWal.
He noted the Niska Road reconstruction on the Guelph city side is completed and work on the bridge, expected to be completed by June, is now underway. Once completed work will commence on the Puslinch portion of the road.
VanderWal explained plans for the project now include a multi-use path and wildlife tunnel crossings.
“We’d like to make sure that Puslinch is happy with what you are getting within this project which will hopefully open in August of this year,” he said.
Councillor Matthew Bulmer noted there has been concern about moving from a one-lane to a two-lane bridge, and the potential of increased traffic on this route.
“I don’t recall if we ever came into an agreement regarding cost sharing – related to additional impacts which might occur due to the increased traffic flow,” said Bulmer.
VanderWal, who said he is not aware of any cost-sharing agreement, called traffic concerns “the biggest red herring on this project.”
He said the bridge itself was not considered as traffic calming mitigation for Niska Road and contended any traffic increase is based on growth of both municipalities, though he acknowledged most growth is from the city.
VanderWal said subject to proper agreements, the city “is willing to clear the multi-use path to the existing snowplow turnaround.”
Snow removal on the replaced bridge can be discussed, he added, and the wildlife crossing and tunnel fencing will become the township’s) property.
VanderWal said the wildlife crossings make sense, “but it’s up to the township’s discretion whether they are installed.”
Councillor Jessica Goyda said “this bridge was put in a long time ago and was only really meant to be there for one year – and it’s been there for over 40 years before it was taken down.”
She added “I am certain things have changed quite a bit in 40 years – including the traffic and the neighbourhood in the area.”
Goyda said prior to bridge being removed, the traffic count was about 4,000 cars per day and, “It would seem likely that once it becomes a two-lane bridge, that traffic count would increase.”
VanderWal said that was the traffic count in 2013 and projections indicate the volume could increase from 510 to 730 vehicles per hour by 2031.
Goyda noted the road on the Puslinch side is a 60mm asphalt surface not designed “to handle a ton of cars.”
She said the Puslinch section may need to be upgraded if traffic increases much more than what it is now.
VanderWal said the type of use which generally deteriorates roads is truck traffic and Niska Road will be a truck exclusion zone extending to the city limit. Previously, trucks could not cross the bridge because of load restrictions, he said.
Councillor John Sepulis said he is pleased the city appears to be open to covering long-term maintenance costs. He then asked staff if they had a position on potentially handing over the township’s section of Niska Road to the city.
“We’d definitely be open for discussion, but we have to be cognizant we only own a portion of the road,” said works superintendent Don Creed, noting part of the roadway is a boundary road with Guelph-Eramosa.
Sepulis then asked if the new bridge will have a barrier to restrict the height of traffic or trucks.
VanderWal responded , “On the city of Guelph side – no.” He added Guelph-Eramosa “did not want it on their side.”
He said if the bridge has a barrier it would create another safety issue if a truck is required to back up a considerable stretch of road.
Councillor Ken Roth said Puslinch “can’t afford to pay for some of these luxuries on this particular road” and added, “after doing all this work, [Guelph] might as well own the road.”
VanderWal asked which components are luxuries.
Roth said, “I’m looking at the critter tunnel, the fencing and the multi-use trail” and added, “It’s the city of Guelph which is going to benefit.”
Mayor James Seeley agreed it would be good to have these discussions regarding the cost impact.
Sepulis asked staff to review the possibility of negotiations to see if Guelph would accept the road under certain conditions.
Bulmer said “considering how few residents we have on the road, it only makes sense.”
VanderWal commented, “I did not come here to go shopping, I came here to try to build a road.”
