Walkerton businesses concerned about impact of bridge replacement

Walkerton businesses are raising concerns about how an upcoming bridge replacement project will impact the residents and businesses of the community.

Local businesses have formed an action committee called Keep Walkerton Connected to inform Bruce County and local citizens about the detrimental impact the planned Durham Street Bridge construction will have on the community, and are calling for a temporary bridge to get people across the river during the work.

"It doesn't just affect our residents, but it affects other residents as well that have to commute," Nicole Thomas, owner of Marlin Travel Walkerton, said Tuesday. "For our residents, no matter what side of town they are on, it is going to make things difficult for everybody moving around.

"We wanted to get the word out to our businesses, our residents and other municipalities as well."

A Keep Walkerton Connected page has been created on Facebook. On Tuesday evening, business owners were to be at Brockton council to present a petition, which Thomas expected to have more than 100 signatures from local businesspeople. It states that businesses are "very concerned" about the impact the work will have on "local businesses, resident, emergency services, visitors/tourists, volunteer groups, Brockton taxpayers and the environment." The petition, which is to also be presented at a Bruce County council meeting, asks for pedestrians and vehicles to continue to be able to cross the river during the bridge replacement, with a temporary bridge seen as the solution.

The Durham Street Bridge, constructed in 1937, is located east of downtown Walkerton on Bruce Rd. 4 and spans the Saugeen River. The current bridge code puts the service life of a bridge in Canada at 75 years, making the 85-year-old structure overdue for replacement. Some structural components of the 67-metre-long five-span concrete t-beam girder bridge have deteriorated, the county says.

The Environmental Assessment work for the bridge commenced in 2021 and is continuing. The county is planning to move forward with the replacement, with work expected to begin in the spring of 2025.

While the bridge is out for an anticipated 18 months, traffic will have to detour around the site. The county has identified a preferred option that would include a six-kilometre detour with a proposed bus service for residents to get from one side of the river to the other.

Thomas said the bridge replacement would essentially divide the town into two side and shut down direct access to businesses by shifting the county's busiest traffic route along Bruce Rd. 4 between Hanover and Walkerton by several kilometres. It would also put substantial additional costs on those residents who would now have to travel so much further to get to local businesses, she said.

"When I first caught wind of this it wasn't my business that I was thinking of, it was my neighbours and the people that live over here," said Thomas, who lives east of the bridge, but works to the west of it. "There are senior condo buildings right across the bridge and countless people walk across the bridge every day. We have Bruce County housing over here and a lot of those people don't necessarily have access to vehicles."

A public meeting was held last October to present project details, but Thomas said the concern in the community grew when area businesses were invited to an information session on the bridge on May 11. Thomas said business owners were presented with the option the county was considering and invited to "brainstorm ideas" to lessen the blow while the bridge was out.

"It was a little bit of a slap in the face, because to us it meant this is what they had put forward already and we were just there to figure out how to make the best of a bad situation," Thomas said. "When we found out they didn't have any definite answers or definite timelines in place we figured we had time to get the word out that this is what is happening."

The businesses have also raised safety concerns about people crossing the river and about emergency vehicles getting from one side of the river to the other while the bridge is out.

"Without a way across, everybody has to do that detour," Thomas said. "I can almost see the fire hall from my home, but they would have to go all the way around to get here, and ambulance as well."

Thomas feels the county has failed to do enough research in finding another solution to the one put forward. They want a temporary bridge installed, much like one currently in place in Paisley during the replacement of the bridge there over the Teeswater River. The $2.5-million cost to rent and install that temporary bridge is part of the overall $10-million cost of the Paisley bridge project.

Thomas said most of Walkerton was under the impression that a temporary bridge would be built.

"They have seen it in Paisley most recently, they see it everywhere, so why wouldn't it happen here," Thomas said. "Even a few people I spoke to legitimately thought we were just going to get Paisley's bridge when they were finished with it."

But Brockton Mayor and Bruce County Warden Chris Peabody said Tuesday that the cost to place a temporary bridge over the river in Walkerton is expected to be $6.7 million. The much higher cost than the Paisley temporary bridge is because it is approximately 25 metres wider and would require a centre support pier.

Peabody said he is also concerned about the impact on Brockton residents and businesses and would like everything costed out so that county council can make an informed decision, including the cost to run bus service around the detour.

"It is difficult for council to say the Bailey bridge option is too expensive when we don't know what the true cost is of the preferred option," said Peabody.

He would also like to explore construction options for the bridge. He is aware of a company in New Brunswick that builds wood bridges, reusing the existing concrete abutments if they are still in good condition. On Tuesday, he planned to present a notice of motion at Brockton council asking the county to explore that idea. A presentation on the bridge EA by county staff and engineers B.M. Ross and Associates was also on Tuesday's council agenda.

"I am going to ask county council to authorize looking at if those abutments could be used for a wood bridge," said Peabody. "If you can reuse the abutments, it is a six-month timeline instead of 18 months."

Another option he mentioned included building a new bridge beside the current one to allow for it to remain open during construction.

"I just want all the options examined," he said. "I didn't feel comfortable at all with announcing the preferred option so early on."

Peabody said they have an amazing downtown in Walkerton, created by the hard work and financial investment by the business community, and he doesn't want to see that threatened.

"It takes a lot of effort to build up a nice downtown, but a downtown can reverse pretty quickly and go into decline," Peabody said. "It is something we have to look at very carefully and that concern of a declining downtown and the associated economic cost to Brockton wasn't factored in."

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notifications—you will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.

To contribute to the conversation, you need to be logged in. If you are not yet registered, create your account now - it's FREE.