Pre-emptive Upgrade at West End of King Street

The community at the West end of King Street (including Pebble Beach) has only one entrance/exit; if it were to be blocked – for example by a collapsed culvert – it would be an emergency and a million or so would need to be spent to quickly restore access plus the damage would need to be fixed for another million or so.  It makes sense therefore to spend the money now and make sure the access is reliable and not likely to collapse.  This logic appealed to the Provincial Government when they looked at applications for infrastructure funds so they approved spending $1.5M of which $1.24M will come from the Province and $250K from the Town.  As Mayor John Henderson said:  “A good deal”.

Mayor john Henderson, MPP David Piccini and Minister Laurie Scott
Mayor John Henderson, MPP David Piccini and Minister Laurie Scott

Most people would not have noticed the culvert at the West End of King Street, past Burnham but before Tracey Road (see photos below).  There are 106 residential properties accessed via this route – at one time, there was an alternative emergency route over the rail lines but that was closed so the only access now is via King Street.

MPP Piccini and Minister of Infrastructure Laurie Scott were at Victoria Hall today to announce the grant and the project (photo above right).  Also at the announcement were Mayor John Henderson, Deputy Mayor Suzanne Séguin plus councillors Nicole Beatty, Brian Darling and Adam Bureau.  The project is intended to “renew the life cycle of the structure and ensure the safety of 106 residential properties for another 75 years”.

It’s expected that the replacement for the culvert will look more like a small bridge.

Below are some photos of the road where the culvert is used for the small creek. Anybody know the creek’s name?

Print Article: 

 

35 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jason Beatty
10 September 2019 11:52 am

I live on Glen Watford and I’m quite happy having only one access to our subdivision. We rarely have to worry about speeding cars as there is no thoroughfare. I also was a resident that voted against installing sewers. I debate even talking about it here because all it will end up turning into is a pissing match (no pun intended). I think I will leave this conversation with the old adage, if you have nothing to good to say, say nothing at all.

The only thing I will say is the town was not very forthright, thankfully a wonderful gentlemen who lived in our neighborhood (whose name escapes me) shone a light on this situation having dealt with a similar issue in his prior town.

cornbread
Reply to  Jason Beatty
10 September 2019 1:16 pm

One more advantage of ” one way in – one way out” is that house thieves stay away from this type of ” trap”… same goes for Tremaine Terrace.

Walter Luedtke
Reply to  Jason Beatty
11 September 2019 9:45 am

Being opposed to having sewers at a time where overland flooding is becoming more frequent seems a tad unwise.
But probably your ditches can handle a ‘water bomb’. You will find out sooner or later.
Btw, Kingston just got $20 million from the Feds for storm/sanitary sewers and shoreline protection.

Jason Beatty
Reply to  Walter Luedtke
11 September 2019 11:35 am

So far so good Walter. 5 years on going strong…

Miriam Mutton
Reply to  Jason Beatty
11 September 2019 11:54 am

There can be a tipping point where there is no choice by property owners. Delaying the change only means more cost. In the Pebble Beach area the streets were being dug up for needed replacement of water service lines so it seemed sensible to lay in a sewer line at the same time. When sewers were mandated in the east end in the 1980s my parents had recently built a new house complete with new septic tile field with regard to building code at the time. Because the sewer project was mandated for the whole area a few years later, they had to abandon the perfectly usable tile field and pay to get hooked up to the new municipal sewer. A tile field should work for many years but conditions, like Walter points out, can change outside our control. Some changes like water usage are personal choices.

Jason Beatty
Reply to  Miriam Mutton
11 September 2019 1:05 pm

I believe the point where the sewer discussion went sour was when the town attempted to have the residents split the costs for all lots (including two town owned lots that would have been covered unknowingly by the residents).

Walter Luedtke
Reply to  Jason Beatty
12 September 2019 6:53 am

If, God forbid, there is overland flooding at Pebble Beach, maybe only the properties of those who voted against storm sewers will suffer.

Ken Strauss
Reply to  Walter Luedtke
12 September 2019 8:16 am

Storm sewers? The petition six years ago that Miriam mentioned opposed mandatory connection to sanitary sewers; storm sewers were not part of the plan. By the way, if I recall correctly, less than a dozen of the 100+ property owners favoured the project.

Walter Luedtke
Reply to  Ken Strauss
12 September 2019 9:52 am

Yep!
Buy cheap lots on wells and septic tanks in Hamilton Twp., and then expect Cobourg taxpayers to pay to provide water and sewer lines.
Clever!

Jason Beatty
Reply to  Walter Luedtke
12 September 2019 10:21 am

That’s the exact line the real estate agent used to convince me to buy there. Worked like a charm.

Walter Luedtke
Reply to  Jason Beatty
12 September 2019 10:45 am

Haha!
Good on you, Jason.

Frenchy
Reply to  Walter Luedtke
12 September 2019 8:26 am

“If, God forbid, there is overland flooding at Pebble Beach, maybe only the properties of those who voted against storm sewers will suffer.”
I hope you live long enough to smugly say “I told you so” if that happens Walter. It will give you great satisfaction.

cornbread
Reply to  Walter Luedtke
11 September 2019 4:32 pm

Liberals buying votes…the dishonorable Trudeau at work for you.

John Draper
Reply to  cornbread
11 September 2019 4:49 pm

Except it came from the Province – unrelated to the Federal Government.

Durka
Reply to  John Draper
11 September 2019 6:29 pm

LOL

Canuck Patriot
Reply to  John Draper
11 September 2019 6:58 pm

So why was Kim Rudd at the announcement if the Province is the main funder?

Walter Luedtke
Reply to  John Draper
12 September 2019 6:54 am

Duh!

Ken
Reply to  Jason Beatty
12 September 2019 5:25 am

Jason, the demographics, over the last few years has changed, in that there are now, many more children in our area. We think that this is a wonderful thing, but we are concerned about the many drivers in our area, that have forgotten how to drive correctly! A lot have forgotten what a ‘speedometer’ is and how to monitor it, as they drive! Also, what the ‘maximum’ speed limit is!
I do not want to get away from the main topic, here, nor do I want to belittle poor drivers, but on Pebble Beach Drive, it is an issue!
Cheers!

Jason Beatty
Reply to  Ken
12 September 2019 8:33 am

I agree Ken. It’s very few and far between but there has been a couple times myself and the late great Tom MacMillan had to yell at a speeding motorist to slow down (with 100% effectiveness thanks to Tom’s bellow). Why not take a poll of the residents who actually live in this subdivision and ask if they’d like a throughfare? You know who wants it? Developers…

Miriam Mutton
10 September 2019 9:31 am

If I have my facts straight, the Pebble Beach area was mostly developed before it was part of the Town, it was part of the adjacent Township and later annexed by the Town. Also, what appears to be a small creek is part of a larger drainage system upstream, a restrictive throat or overflow mechanism to watershed management. And, it also impacts the adjacent railways. And, IMO, the sewers in the streets should have been installed at the time the water lines were replaced a few years ago with possible interim exception for the few larger properties that would have had to install pumps to move waste uphill. The area residents petitioned Council against the idea. Also, when the west end gets fully developed there will likely be a connection to the west (WestPark/New Amherst) where a new bridge or underpass will be needed to cross the rail lines. The landlocked subdivision (Clutterbuck) lots were put on sale some years ago and mostly purchased privately. I believe the Town owns the ‘street’ lands.
Was there more information provided on this culvert project at the Town Council meeting last evening?

John Draper
Reply to  Miriam Mutton
10 September 2019 10:07 am

John Henderson mentioned it in his Coordinator report but I did not hear any additional details.

Ken Strauss
Reply to  John Draper
10 September 2019 12:54 pm

Mayor Henderson provided no further details but many words regarding the value of funding from the the Province and how fortunate it is that Cobourg’s taxpayers will only have to directly pay $250K of the $1.6M cost for the project. There were no answers to: Why will this project make the west end residents safer? Why is this project more important than other water management projects? Why repair now other than that “free” money is available? Why is replacing a small drainage culvert so expensive? Will residents be asked for their input? How will the project impact the adjacent property owners? Will an environmental assessment be required? Etc, etc.

You can watch and listen to Mayor Henderson’s comments at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPf5ofNUxDQ&t=7989

John Draper
Reply to  Ken Strauss
10 September 2019 2:01 pm

A couple of clarifications – the project is $1.492M (estimated) with the Province contributing $1.244M and Town paying the balance. The rationale was as described in the article – fix the culvert before it becomes an emergency. And why this project? Because it’s infrastructure and the province asked for suggestions for funding of infrastructure projects. It was either this infrastructure project or another one – but this one had the compelling argument about avoiding an emergency. All this was said by John at the announcement.

Ken Strauss
Reply to  John Draper
10 September 2019 3:08 pm

It was either this infrastructure project or another one – but this one had the compelling argument about avoiding an emergency.

Yes but… It is easy to justify silly projects using free money by mentioning “possible emergencies” but is this actually the best use of the money? What other infrastructure projects were considered? What is the expected life of the current culvert? Why the huge cost for what, to a non-expert, seems like a simple repair? Were more cost-effective repairs to the culvert considered? What will be the impact on adjacent properties? Etc, etc.

cornbread
Reply to  Ken Strauss
10 September 2019 3:57 pm

You have to realize the mayor was a school teacher and he probably has a high opinion of his own thoughts. Every one else is a student. Ken, you have the analytical mind…stick with it. Our mayor has not thought this one thru properly…he only wants the headline…provincial tax dollars for Cobourg.

Durka
Reply to  cornbread
10 September 2019 7:21 pm

In fairness to the Mayor, 250k for a $1.6 million project is a pretty sweet deal. I think it could be spent better elsewhere but perhaps a different project wouldn’t have recieved the funding.

sandpiper
10 September 2019 8:19 am

You are all Correct when the Pebble Beach Clutterbuck development was halted 40 yrs ago it was due to the fact there was no alternative emergency exit route thats one reason the waterfront development was not completed and yes it was to be serviced by the developer or any new development with Sanitary sewer and yes there was to have been a exit road over the rail tracks . a piece of History

Jojo
Reply to  sandpiper
10 September 2019 9:04 am

The neighborhood never should have been built the way it was. Realistically King St should have just carried along the lakeshore as a proper collector road and met up somewhere with a north/south road. The situation now it just kind of ends at this awkwardly placed subdivision that will be hard to extend.

Eva Nichols
10 September 2019 8:15 am

I would worry that some railway problem would block the access route. Should the town consider a second entry/exit? After all, the town allowed this area to be built.

ben
Reply to  Eva Nichols
11 September 2019 9:07 am

Not correct Eva, this was a Hamilton Twp approved development. Hamilton loved to ‘piggyback’ on Cobourg’s borders sixty years ago. Cobourg has already ‘rescued’ the East End in the 80s with sewers.

Durka
9 September 2019 8:03 pm

Should this money not be going to a proper alternate route? The train tracks run directly along King St, not hard to imagine a train derailment blocking this neighbourhood in. That would be a huge disaster. A train derailed, not too far from here, at the Burnham St crossing a decade ago or so.

ken strauss
9 September 2019 5:31 pm

I live in the neighbourhood and am confused by this project. If I understand the location correctly it will do nothing to provide an alternate exit from Glen Watford/ Pebble Beach or Ravensdale which together have approximately the 106 residences mentioned. The “creek” is tiny and more accurately called a drainage ditch. It is only about 6-10 feet wide and seldom has more than a foot of water. Why the huge cost? Is this really the most important drainage project in Cobourg? What about the area around Fitzhugh Lane / Wilmott Street and King Street East?

Just Wondering
Reply to  ken strauss
10 September 2019 12:14 am

I think it’s more the culvert that they are worried about, not the creek. Assuming a culvert is needed to drain the creek to the lake, if it fails the road will be blocked and no one will be able to drive in or out.

ben
9 September 2019 3:34 pm

Now the townshould finish the access and put Ina sewer line