Next steps for Durham Street bridge project outlined at meeting

“Replacement” has been removed from the Durham Street bridge project, as the county proceeds with its plan to conduct emergency repairs on the venerable and well-used structure. The stated intention of the county is to follow up with phase two – not replacement, but rehabilitation.

Members of the public attended a special meeting at the Knights of Columbus hall between Mildmay and Walkerton on May 1.

The meeting began with an open house at 7 p.m. Various photos and information cards were posted around the room, and county officials were on hand to answer questions.

The formal presentation began at 7:30 p.m., providing information about the emergency repair project that is about to begin. Details on the work, along with timing and traffic concerns, were discussed.

Following a question-and-answer session and short break, information on the Class EA that’s currently underway were presented, along with a timetable. That, too, was followed by a Q-and-A.

MC of the meeting was Ryan Errington, Bruce County engineering manager. He introduced the meeting’s speakers – Matt Hickey from Pullman Services, Chris Clark from Triton, and Kelly Vader from BM Ross.

Clark provided background information about the project, especially the additional investigation work that resulted in the county’s decision to conduct immediate repairs to the half-joints. Pullman was retained to do the design/build.

Hickey introduced the Pullman team, most of whom were present for the meeting, and provided information about the company that is an international leader in this sort of repair and restoration project.

In outlining the immediate repair project, he said the company would be staging its vehicles in a parking lot to the north of the Tim Hortons. The work will be done one side at a time, meaning one lane will remain open to traffic. Also remaining open will be the River Trail. Hickey stressed there will be full access to the trail at all times.

The work will focus on the middle section of the bridge, referred to as the “drop-in section” where the state of the joints is the main concern. Scaffolding will be erected under the bridge.

Hickey explained the nature of the repair as “splinting” over the joints. He stressed that “a lot of redundancy” is being used in the repair plan. Additional details of the work are available on the Bruce County website.

There’ll also be work done on the deck, where there is some corrosion. The damaged areas and cracks will be repaired.

The timeline begins this month, as equipment is brought in and the worksite prepared. The actual work will require about 15 weeks on the first (westbound) side, and 12 weeks on the second side (eastbound), finishing in December.

Hickey also addressed the community impact of the project, saying efforts will be made to “make the traffic (signage) as simple as possible” and keep the impact minimal. There will be traffic signal lights at each end of the bridge.

Local labour will be used wherever possible, he said, adding that work will take place Monday to Saturday, 6 a.m. to 7 p.m., depending on weather.

Among the questions was one on the emergency services that utilize the bridge.

Another concern was about the trail, in particular, the safety of the pedestrians who cross the road.

In response to a question, the crowd was told the repairs, followed by rehabilitation, should provide an additional 20-40 years to the life of the bridge.

In response to a query from the Herald-Times about risks associated with repair rather than replacement, Hickey spoke of repair as “an amazing solution.”

Vader provided some of the history of the bridge, saying it was constructed in 1937, as a five-span bridge with a centre drop-in section. Repairs including repaving were done in 1966. The deck condition was investigated in 1993 (Trow Report) and structural repairs were done two years later. The half-joint span review done in 2019 recommended replacement within five years. However, more recently, HAL Group re-evaluated the section and determined repair was possible.

According to Vader, the EA process for replacing the bridge began in 2021, and a series of studies was done. An initial public meeting in 2022 was attended by about 50 people. A subsequent business meeting drew a huge crowd; members stated a number of concerns, most of which centred on the lengthy (2-3 year) closure of the bridge and the need for a detour. The county went ahead with a third-party review, the results of which put repair back on the table as a viable possibility.

The county implemented a load limit and alternate truck route in February, to prevent further damage to the half-joints. That limit and ATR will remain in effect until the immediate repairs are completed.

Vader said the EA included three alternatives for the bridge – replacement (at the same location), rehabilitation, or – always an alternative – do nothing.

Replacement has become the preferred alternative, she said. “Residents identified significant concerns – the detour, cost and length of time.”

She noted that rehabilitation was identified as a viable option because of those concerns, and the fact “other components” of the bridge were in “better condition than anticipated.”

Since option three is “not possible,” rehabilitation, after the immediate repairs are done, would address deficiencies while minimizing the impact on residents. The cost will be less (approximately $5 million compared to $15-plus million for replacement) and time required will be less.

Vader said public comments will be received until May 19 as part of the EA, and emergency repairs will commence.

“In June, county council will be presented with the preferred option – repair,” she said. In August, the second phase, rehabilitation, will be put to tender, and the additional work will be done in the winter of 2025.

There were a number of questions and comments.

Doug Evans provided some additional historical information, saying the bridge was a depression era project done using local labour and materials. He said the bridge, once very common in the province, is one of only two or three left in Ontario. He said the repairs taking place will actually overcome the deficiencies of a historical repair job that failed.

Evans noted the EA process provided the opportunity to “learn and comment.” He said he’s worried there’s not going to be the opportunity to do that for the next bridge.

Among the questions was one about the condition about the piers (the concrete supports in the river). The answer was, the piers are in good condition.

There was a question about cost. Immediate repairs will be $3.7 million, funded through rescheduling of other county work, and an additional $2 million for rehabilitation.

Pauline Kerr, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, The Walkerton Herald Times