Editor,
Regarding Meaford’s 7-Year, 2-Bridge Dilemma – possibly a better, cheaper way,
actually two new simple proposals, which should be carefully considered before a final decision is made.
It was a lovely, sunny day and I thought I would try and make some sense of the ongoing 7-year saga of the closure of bridges 20 and 21 on the Chatsworth/Meaford Town Line, that runs east west off Grey Rd 49 just north of Walters Falls. I felt a personal visit was in order to get the whole picture. I found the road and the bridges. It was easy.
First of all, the road and the bridges are not closed. There is lots of room to drive around the 3 large concrete blocks located at each end of the two bridges, which are just 40 ft apart. I would say that people have been driving across these “closed” bridges for the 7 years. They are not suitable for large trucks or farm tractors with tons of hay, but OK for ordinary vehicles. The East bridge is the bigger of the two, measuring 40 ft in length, 13 ft wide. The West bridge is smaller, just 26 ft long and the same width. There’s lots of room for my van to pass over them.
Let me describe the wonderful woodland scene on the south, up-stream side of the road, with the gurgle of rushing water, the sun streaming through the cedar trees offering easy open access into the woods. There are two rivers (shallow streams) flowing south to north with each making its way under its own bridge through the road. About a foot to 15 inches of clear water is flowing swiftly in the East River, which is about 20 feet wide with a rocky bottom. The West River flows less vigorously and is maybe 6 to 10 inches deep, also with a rocky bottom. Not being a surveyor, I would estimate the elevation of the East River to be 4 or 5 feet above the West River, so the water would easily flow east to west. I measured the distance between the rivers to be 80 ft apart, measured 75 ft into the woods from the road. There is a grove of cedar trees but almost no underbrush and no major rock formations.
The first way to cut the huge cost of replacing both bridges, which are just 40 feet apart, would be to re-route the water from the East River across the 80 feet between them to the lower West River and only build one new bridge over the combined water flows. This would require cutting down a dozen or so cedar trees, excavating a channel, maybe 4 ft deep and 20 ft wide. The material excavated between the rivers, plus the rock and concrete debris from the two bridges to be demolished, could be used to create a water-tight barrier across the East River to ensure that the water would be safely diverted into the West River.
This plan may cause some minor environmental damage which should be assessed against the huge saving of just building ONE new bridge over the combined flow of water.
Then, I examined the north side of the road and lo and behold, Nature has already organized what could be an even easier solution to the two-bridge problem. Roughly 30 feet from the north side of the road, the two rivers flow together into one single river. This offers an even more interesting and cost-effective solution.
A slice of land along the north side of the road, currently covered by waste brush-land, could be purchased, probably at little cost, from the owner. Then a single new bridge could be built across the combined rivers. The approaches to the new bridge could be back-filled with gravel from the current roadway plus the debris from the dismantled bridges. The new road could be designed as a gentle curve and even the new bridge could also be in the form of a gentle curve. As the existing side road already has several curves, the slight curved detour to cross the new single bridge should not be a problem.
The cost and environmental impact of these simple, elegant solutions to the 7-year, 2-bridge boondoggle should be investigated before a final decision is made by Council on August 28, 2023. We have already waited 7 years for a solution and an extra month or so to explore one or both these unique cost-saving solutions is an excellent investment for the Municipality.
Respectfully, John Hethrington, long-time Meaford resident and taxpayer
