CENTRE WELLINGTON - After a 4-2 vote by township council to reconsider the fate of the Middlebrook Place Bridge back in November, township staff is still reaffirming the option to remove the bridge without replacement.
In a staff report for next week's committee of the whole meeting, township staff is still recommending alternative three, which is removing the bridge without replacement, to council.
They're also recommending council to direct staff to work with the Township of Woolwich to facilitate the removal of the bridge's superstructure while maintaining the existing abutments and centre pier in place for possible reuse at a later time.
“I am very disheartened at this recommendation because clearly township officials are looking for ways to push for alternative three,” said Mark Walker, a member of the Save Middlebrook Bridge advocate group, in a phone interview.
“Instead of pushing for ways to look at options and ideas for something the community clearly wants, alternative four is really what we’re looking for, there’s no effort being put into that. The easy way out is to remove the bridge.”
A report prepared by Adam Gilmore, the township’s manager of engineering, explains that after the council's vote to reconsider, township staff met with Woolwich staff to discuss plans related to the bridge.
During their meeting, staff from both townships agreed it would be helpful to request that the engineering consultant who completed the 2020 Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA) study update both capital and life cycle cost estimates for each alternative.
GM Blueplan, which is the engineering consultant, updated the total cost for all the alternatives considered including the removal of the bridge without replacement, which is alternative three, and alternative four, which is rehabilitate bridge for pedestrian or cyclist use.
Alternative three’s 2018 MCEA capital cost and 2018 MCEA life cycle cost was $550,000. The 2021 updated capital cost and 2021 life cycle cost for alternative three is $720,000.
Gilmore explained in his report that “the increase in capital and life cycle costs are mainly due to removal of the abutments and pier being included in the updated cost. It was considered more appropriate to include removal of the abutments and pier in this scope since they could become a future safety hazard if left in place permanently.”
Meanwhile, alternative four’s 2018 capital cost was $900,000 and its 2018 life cycle cost was $1,600,000. The updated capital cost is $1,100,000, and the updated life cycle cost is $2,200,000.
The increase in capital and life cycle cost is attributed mainly to inflation and recent comparable tender submissions, the report stated.
“I was incredibly surprised at the increase in cost projections. They do speak of issues in inflation and comparable tender submissions, but to see that kind of increase is mind boggling,” said Walker.
He noted that if council approved the recommendation, the Save Middlebrook Bridge advocacy group will try and speak as delegates once again to council and try convincing them to give them more time to come up with the funds needed.
“If money is the problem, we'll try to spearhead ideas on how we can help the township get the funding they need. We’ve reached out to Ted Arnott and Michael Chong to see if we can get any provincial funding for this because we really want to save the bridge. Arnott got back to us and told us he’ll see if he can get any provincial funding, but we haven’t heard anything back,” said Walker.
“We’re not giving up. If we don't get provincial funding, we're also thinking of setting up a community fundraising event so we can allocate enough money in order to rehabilitate this bridge. Removing it is not an option for us.”
Council is set to deliberate the township staff’s continued recommendation of alternative three for the bridge at next Tuesday’s committee of the whole meeting.
