Petition Packing Pensioner Wins New Look To Save Coteau Street East Bridge
By Robert Thomas
A retired bible college president carrying a neighbourhood petition may have thrown the third and long Hail Mary pass to set up the potential final scoring drive to save the Coteau Street Bridge just as demolition seemed an almost certainty. In a 4 - 3 vote Council decided to look at the bridge as something to save, instead of demolishing, and ask CN if they will cost share saving and not the demolition of the structure.
On Monday evening, Phil Siggelkow (who was president of the former International Bible College for 17 years), presented a 258 signature petition asking Council to re-consider their demolition decision and look at saving the 108 year old bridge.
Speaking before Council the over 80 year old Siggelkow gave a list of reasons why Council should re-consider their final decision for demolition of the Coteau Street Bridge.
Phil Siggelkow addresses Council on Monday evening - MJ Independent photo
Siggelkow spoke to Council in what was considered by many a long shot to save the bridge from demolition after Council had turned down a previous neighbourhood request to save the bridge. At their September 27th meeting Council had voted 4 - 2 in favour of demolition.
At that time Councillors Crystal Froese and Doug Blanc were opposed to the demolition which had been approved during the 2021 Budget deliberations.
But this time around Siggelkow won a review of the demolition decision largely because efforts had not been concentrated to potentially save the bridge but rather to demolish the structure. The demolition cost is estimated at $150,000 with the City able to negotiate with CN Railway to share the cost.
The Coteau Street East Bridge - MJ Independent file photo
THE PETITION PRESENTATION
“The bridge is important to Moose Jaw,” Siggelkow said as he listed off the variety of people who use the Coteau Street East Bridge on a regular basis. He said during the Summer about 150 people use the bridge on a daily basis to access the college as well as to safely access the trail system to the Wakamow Valley.
A City traffic count in 2017 found on an annual basis 54 vehicles used he bridge daily. The count did not include pedestrians and bicylces.
“The majority of the people who signed this petition use the bridge on a regular basis,” he said, adding later “the only other option for these people is to use Home Street (East). That part of Home Street is gravel and it is really rough most of the time. It crosses two railway tracks which have multiple trains everyday shuttling oil tank cars. It is not a very safe option.”
The bridge though is not just use for accessing Wakamow Valley’s trail system but is also used many times daily to access the Church of God campus, he said. Other users of the bridge also include people who live on Trinity Lane - including Siggelkow and his wife.
Removal of the bridge would raise safety concerns “because there would be limited access to Trinity Lane,” Siggelkow said. “If Home Street (East) or Home Street access to Trinity Lane is blocked for any reason there is no possibility of emergency vehicles to residents, participants in the events at Church of God campus.”
“We feel viable options need to be explored to keep the bridge. ”
Siggelkow said there are Federal Acts which stipulate responsibility when it comes to safety around railway lines.
“CN (Rail) may have a responsibility to maintain the bridge. Demolition would eliminate that responsibility. I am wondering if this is why they are willing to share this demolition costs.”
He said the people wanting to save the bridge are aware the City only has finite funds but seems to also come up with money for other initiatives.
“City Council often finds ways to (do things). Like the recent appropriation for Mosaic Place and the repairs to the Seventh Avenue (SW) Bridge.”
Siggelkow asked Council to take a drive over the bridge and then look at the view the bridge affords.
“Many people stop by here to view the valley and walk along the edge of the hill,” he said adding the response to the petition demonstrated the people of Moose Jaw use the bridge and do not want it to face demolition.
“The bridge is important to the people of Moose Jaw.”
COUNCIL ASKS QUESTIONS
Councillor Crystal Froese - who had voted in favour of the bridge’s demolition during the 2021 Budget deliberations - asked about how the petition’s signatures were collected.
Siggelkow said he personally had placed the petition on the bridge so users of the bridge could sign as well as inside the Church of God campus.
Later in Council discussion she would say “I don’t take it lightly when a citizen comes forward with a petition…this was done in person, some petitions are done on-line and attract way more attention…Have we done enough here to explore the possibilities of keeping this open and available as a pedestrian bridge.
Councillor Heather Eby asked if Sigglekow was wanting the bridge to be open for vehicles and pedestrians or just for pedestrians.
“Preferably for both as there are a lot of people wanting to use the bridge drive across. I guess pedestrians would be better than nothing but certainly it is important to be able to drive across,” Siggelkow replied.
Councillor Kim Robinson - who was previously in favour of demolition - said it was nice to see citizens come out to speak.
“Certainly it made some valid points and made me think that there isn’t another option here,” Councillor Robinson said.
CITY ENGINEER EXPLAINS CONDITION OF THE BRIDGE
City Engineer Bevan Harlton was asked for his professional opinion on the condition of the bridge and presented an overview of the 2020 inspection and an overview of what had gone into recommending demolition.
Harleton stated the cost of repairing the bridge equalled the cost of constructing a new pedestrian only bridge. The reason was the standards a repaired bridge would be the same as a new bridge.
“I thought there would be intermediary or smaller step to do upgrades to get something to serve as a pedestrian bridge but that is not the case. All the code and requirements that the repairs that are needed for a vehicle bridge are also required for this structure for a pedestrian bridge.
City engineer Bevan Harlton answers questions about the bridge - MJ Independent photo
“When you are looking at an existing bridge the fact is the costs are the same whether it is pedestrian or vehicles,” Harlton said.
He went on to describe the condition of the bridge according to the 2020 inspection report.
The bridge’s concrete was “completely shot” requiring re-grouting, replacement and steel reinforcement and the “girders or the lamination are wearing on it to the point there are holes in the structure”. The wooden decking was deteriorated to the point there was deformation in the asphalt, Council was told.
Lead paint was also a concern as it needed to be removed because of environmental regulations. He estimated the cost of the removal of the lead paint to be between $400,000 to $500,000.
Harlton said the required repairs to rehab the bridge to bring it up to regulatory code explained the $1,500,000 estimated cost.
“That is why that cost is so high,” he said. “Significant rehabilitation would cost as much as a new (vehicle) structure and cost more than building a new pedestrian bridge.”
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
Councillor Froese asked if the proper questions were being asked from the right engineer in light of how a new engineer and fresh set of eyes came up with a solution the 7th Avenue SW bridge completely different from what the City had initially been told.
“I really want to make sure we are proceeding with as much, you know, information and what is possible,” she said.
Councillor Dawn Luhning however had no kind words to say about saving the bridge.
“The problem I have there isn’t any further information for the demolition of this bridge that we had a week ago or we had on September 27th or we had a year ago,” Councillor Luhning said, adding “my decision on voting on demolition has not changed.”
“The return on investment to refurbish this bridge just does not outweigh the benefit…it becoming a pedestrian bridge isn’t viable either. That was in the report, we have all had the report, so those are my comments,” she said.
Councillor Eby said despite people wanting to save the bridge they nevertheless had to be built to applicable code.
“We can’t just put a band-aid on it or a couple of hundred thousand dollars on it if we wanted to…I guess we could keep asking the engineers over and over again for more reports and more information until we get what we wanted…but the fact is we have information now,” she said.
Councillor Doug Blanc waded into the debate questioning the accuracy of the information as it may be outdated and not applicable to today.
Councillor Robinson wondered if the City had asked the right questions but only looked at demolition.
“Has CN ever been approached to share the cost of refurb?” he asked. “I would like to see some of those questions asked like from the CN cost share and perhaps they even have a duty to some of that cost,. I am not certain if that was ever asked of them,” he said.
Harlton said CN had not been asked about cost sharing re-furbishing or replacing the bridge.
“When we received the report we did provide it to CN and had a discussion with them. We didn’t press the potential of rehabilitation given the five year or the 15 year life cycle of the work. That is not something we pressed with CN because that wasn’t the intent,” he replied. “We didn’t discuss building a new bridge either.”
“How can we approach this on how we can be demolishing the bridge instead of how can we save the bridge,” Councillor Robinson said.
Councillor Jamey Logan speaks during the debate - MJ Independent photo
Councillor Jamey Logan said he had initially thought about supporting reconsidering demolition but had changed his mind as no new information had been brought forward.
“The report says this is unsafe. In fact a new bridge is cheaper. A new pedestrian bridge would be cheaper solution and it is going to be a multi-year thing instead of hundreds of thousand of dollars on this and just having a short term solution,” Councillor Logan said.
VOTE TO RECEIVE AND FILE FAILS
In a 3 - 4 vote to receive and file the report Council voted to defeat receiving and filing the request.
Mayor Clive Tolley and Councillors Blanc, Froese and Robinson all voted against the motion. If the receive and filed motion had been approved nothing more would have been done to potentially stop any reconsideration of the demolition.
COUNCIL DEBATE CONTINUES
Council’s discussion on the issue then had some very strong willed statements made which showed a great divide on the issue.
“It seems to me that we haven’t explored enough with CN,” Mayor Tolley said. “CN was consulted about demolition and I don’t think CN was consulted in terms of rebuilding and repairing the bridge. And also I think CN will have a safety problem if the bridge is removed.”
“Before we make a final decision on this I don’t see there is any urgency currently as the bridge is still in use. So I would like to see if there is a consultation to be had with more options explored specifically because they will have a safety interest,” he said.
Councillor Luhning did not agree with the Mayor’s assessment.
“I guess there is a conflicting comment from Mayor Tolley in the comments there that CN might have issues if the bridge is removed. Well CN has agreed to be involved in the demolition,” Councillor Luhning said, adding “we have gone around this track since 2010 and the issue I have with the bridge is it is not safe.”
She pointed out that when funds for the demolition were initially approved no member of Council expressed opposition.
“Nobody said a word about this when it was approved in the 2020 Budget…nobody said a word about it including Councillor Froese sitting around this table. And I find it interesting that this is urgent that this must be saved when nothing was said about it over a year ago,” Councillor Luhning said. “It is not getting any safer.”
“I think it should be demolished. I will reiterate again the return on investment does not outweigh the benefits of this bridge”
Councillor Luhning felt the tough decisions had to be made as Council had prioritized the infrastructure that needed to be repaired or replaced and saving the bridge, and other citizen appeals, changed well established capital priorities.
“We can’t always go off course with our budgets because somebody or someone is upset they are going to lose something that just viable to be saved. I am sorry but we have to be realistic….we have the information to make a decision…but everyone is afraid to make a hard decision.”
“My sense is the Coteau Street Bridge should be demolished. It is too expensive to fix for pedestrian or vehicular,” she said.
Councillor Luhning felt barricades should be immediately erected and the bridge closed for vehicular as well as pedestrian traffic as it was unsafe and opened up the City to liability of the bridge failed.
“In my opinion as a minimum close it…nobody can be on it as it is unsafe.”
City engineer Harlton said he could not give an informed opinion if the bridge should be closed as it needed to be included in 2022 inspections to determine if the bridge is safe as the 2020 inspection stated the bridge was safe but with reduced loads.
Councillor Froese said that CN needed to be approached to see if they would get on board with saving the bridge before closing or proceeding to demolition.
In a 4 - 3 vote Council agreed to put off demolition for now to allow approaching CN about cost sharing saving the bridge instead of demolishing it.
Mayor Clive Tolley and Councillors Blanc, Froese and Robinson all voted in favour of the motion.