CENTRE WELLINGTON - Council unanimously approved the replacement of the deteriorating bridge 16-WG.
Bridge 16-WG is located within the former Township of West Garafraxa on the Fifth Line between Wellington Road 19 and Sideroad 15, in the rural area to the north of Belwood Lake.
It was constructed circa 1910 with a deck width of 5.3m and a span of approximately 14.3m. Bridge 16-WG was closed to the public in March due to structural deterioration and public safety concerns.
At Monday’s council meeting, many councillors agreed with some of the recommendations set forth by Adam Gilmore, manager of engineering, during his presentation:
- Installation of a commemorative plaque of the history and culture of Centre Wellington at the site
- Dual lane rather than a single lane
- the existing spandrel arch structure should be commemorated through full recording and documentation of the structure
Gilmore did note that the bridge replacement project is still at its early stages and does not have any final nor official design plans.
However, what was on the minds of some of the councillors was the maintenance work staff had done to the bridge prior to the replacement project.
Coun. Stephen Kitras asked, “the bridge is 111 years old. I’m just wondering how often in the last 15 years the township did maintenance work?”
Colin Baker, managing director of infrastructure services, answered Kitras with a maintenance report:
“We do have a structural engineering firm that inspects bridges that are over 100 years old annually, and they give us recommendations on whether it needs repairs or replaced,” said Baker.
“We’ve been watching it fairly closely because the two arches aren’t connected together with any sort of cross support that we’re aware of. With the structure that has splayed outwards that was a sign for us that it’s nearing its life cycle, so we’ve been doing a six-month cycle starting in 2013 and we just kept an eye on those side walls.”
Coun. Bob Foster echoed Kitras concerns on whether the township has been doing maintenance work, as he felt that Baker did not answer the councillor’s question.
“I just don’t think you answered councillor Kitras’ question, so I’ll ask it again: how much and how often did we maintain the bridge over the years?”
Baker responded that bridge 16-WG has not been on any rehabilitation programs because the signs of the bridge ending its service life were predominant, noting that “it wouldn’t have been feasible to put it on any programs to do minor repair work when its service life was ending sooner rather than later.”
The next steps for the bridge replacement project is to finalize the project file report, have the project team publish the notice of study completion, and place the project on the public record for a 45 day review and commenting period.
Upon completion of the study, the team will proceed to completing a detailed engineering design in 2022.
