Here is more of what we have learned: We knew that the bridge’s north-end absolutely needed repair because it had suffered from years of salt being spread along King Street and the bridge apron. However, when we pointed this out, one of the councillors said, “it could have been acid rain” and another opined that we have climate change doing strange things these days as evidenced by the spinning ice circles on the River.
Fact: A 2016 study indicates that the motion of ice discs is spurred by changing water temperatures. A vortex is formed where less dense warm water rises to the surface and interacts with the cold ice above. The convection created helps to keep the disc spinning. Click on image above to see a short video.
Despite trying to find answers, we could not find conclusive numbers on the value of the bridge or what it would cost to rehabilitate.
In the document below, from 2020, the bridge REPLACEMENT COST was listed at $4.15 million in List 1.
In 2022, document ‘Table 2-2’, it is listed at $2.5 million for replacement.
That’s a $1.65 million cost drop in replacement cost over 2 years.
A few things to think about:
• Why is there such a discrepancy in costs? Who provided these?
• In either case, how were these values arrived at?
• Did anyone ask for a transitionary process to go from train bridge to pedestrian bridge?
• It appears that the concept that a pedestrian bridge would need less heavy-duty engineering than a train bridge, was not considered.
These are critical questions because as Councillor Osmond, points out in a recent FB post, QUOTE: “…Mandatory funding of the bridge as per the now required by the province Asset Management Plan over 40 years. If we don’t fund our assets, the province can hold back around $2 million of much-needed funding every year. If removing it has a one-time cost of $2million and saving it costs $2million plus $120,000 per year for 40 years, that adds another $4.8 million to the “save” option. I’m not interested in the snow or salt debate”. (end quote from Councillor Osmond)
However if Council had voted to allow SOTB engineers on the top of the bridge, they would have been able to inspect it as required by the Ontario Structural Inspection Manual which is what Councillor Osmond references about 40-year funding.
This ONTARIO STRUCTURAL INSPECTION MANUAL can be found online
Section 1.3 INSPECTIONS OF STRUCTURES To achieve the goal and objectives of structural inspections, detailed visual inspections of bridges should be performed regularly. A detailed visual inspection is an element-by-element “close-up” visual assessment of material defects, performance deficiencies and maintenance needs of a structure. “Close-up” is defined as “a distance close enough to determine the condition of the element”. The inspection should be conducted within arm’s length of the element, possibly involving tapping with a hammer or making measurements by hand.
That is precisely what we were attempting to do, with engineer calipers, sounding hammers, etc.,while within arm’s length. However, council had specifically voted at the Special Council Meeting on January 9th to deny access, and to inspect it ‘just using a drone’. Please note; this was a free inspection service SOTB was offering the town.
Perhaps the issue is the $120,000 per year for 40 years, Councillor Osmond says the town will have to place in a ‘decommissioning’ fund, in order to remove the bridge after 40 years. Again, this raises many questions.