Cleaver Road Bridge

Scroll down to see the news feed for updates and information, discover ways to share your feedback, view FAQs, and more.

The Cleaver Road Bridge, located over Whitemans Creek between Colborne Street West and Robinson Road, was closed in July 2023 after a structural inspection, as part of the County’s Bridge Inspection Program, found it was no longer safe for vehicles. After further study, the County of Brant is now exploring options for the future of the bridge - and we want your feedback.

Why this is happening

The bridge was closed for safety reasons after it failed a required inspection. As part of the County’s Transportation Master Plan, Cleaver Road Bridge was also identified as a structure that may need to be closed, repaired, or changed.

Options being considered

We are studying six possible options:

Options	Details
Vehicular Rehabilitation- rehabilitate the existing bridge for vehicular traffic	Estimated construction cost of $2.8M Estimated lifespan of 15 years (+/-5)
Vehicular Replacement - build a new bridge for vehicles	Estimated $3.5M - $4.0M to remove and replace bridge with no load limit with a contemporary or replica structure. Estimated lifespan of about 75 years (+/-25)
Pedestrian Conversion - convert the existing structure for walking and cycling only	Estimated $500k - $900k to rehabilitate bridge for adaptive pedestrian use depending on level of service desired Estimated lifespan of about 10 years (+/-5)
Pedestrian Replacement - build a new pedestrian bridge	Estimated construction cost of $650k (maintain span and elevation) Estimated lifespan of about 50 years (+/- 15)
Permanent Retirement and Removal - remove the bridge permanently	Bridge would be fully documented in accordance with HIA prior to removal Road would be permanently closed at the site, with creek embankments would be restored to pre-existing natural condition Estimated construction cost of $250k Lifespan comparison: permanent
Do Nothing	The bridge remains closed

Your feedback matters

By completing the survey, available May 12, or by attending the in-person Public Information Meeting, you can share your input to help us better understand what solution residents would like to see. Your input is valuable and will be carefully considered. At the same time, it’s important to remember that decisions must balance public feedback with other important factors like long-term impacts, environmental needs, legal requirements, financial considerations, and the needs of the entire community.

The County’s goal is always to make the most informed and responsible decisions by looking at all of these aspects together. We are committed to creating the greatest benefits, minimizing negative impacts, promoting equity, and addressing the many needs of our growing community.

Next steps

After gathering feedback, County staff will review all comments and prepare a recommendation based on study findings and community feedback for Council’s consideration.

FAQs

We have included a list of frequently asked questions to help answer some questions you may have.

Stay Informed

Subscribe for updates and be the first to learn more information about this project. Add your email to the Stay Informed box on this page and click.

Scroll down to see the news feed for updates and information, discover ways to share your feedback, view FAQs, and more.

Why this is happening

Options being considered

We are studying six possible options:

Options	Details
Vehicular Rehabilitation- rehabilitate the existing bridge for vehicular traffic	Estimated construction cost of $2.8M Estimated lifespan of 15 years (+/-5)
Vehicular Replacement - build a new bridge for vehicles	Estimated $3.5M - $4.0M to remove and replace bridge with no load limit with a contemporary or replica structure. Estimated lifespan of about 75 years (+/-25)
Pedestrian Conversion - convert the existing structure for walking and cycling only	Estimated $500k - $900k to rehabilitate bridge for adaptive pedestrian use depending on level of service desired Estimated lifespan of about 10 years (+/-5)
Pedestrian Replacement - build a new pedestrian bridge	Estimated construction cost of $650k (maintain span and elevation) Estimated lifespan of about 50 years (+/- 15)
Permanent Retirement and Removal - remove the bridge permanently	Bridge would be fully documented in accordance with HIA prior to removal Road would be permanently closed at the site, with creek embankments would be restored to pre-existing natural condition Estimated construction cost of $250k Lifespan comparison: permanent
Do Nothing	The bridge remains closed

Your feedback matters

Next steps

After gathering feedback, County staff will review all comments and prepare a recommendation based on study findings and community feedback for Council’s consideration.

FAQs

We have included a list of frequently asked questions to help answer some questions you may have.

Stay Informed

Subscribe for updates and be the first to learn more information about this project. Add your email to the Stay Informed box on this page and click.

Questions and comments

County of Brant Staff aim to maintain a respectful and constructive dialogue with the public through all forms of communication. We understand and appreciate that people will have differing opinions and concerns, and welcome all feedback, questions, and comments in a respectful and constructive manner.

Please ask your question or leave your comment below. We will do our best to respond within 3 business days. You may also find answers to some of your questions on our FAQs page.

Share If the Cleaver bridge is still "good enough" for vehicles with minor repairs, but NOT trucks, then repair what is necessary and install an overhead barrier from each direction... Walmart Ancaster put up barriers like I'm suggesting, as an easy fix to deter/stop commercial transports from entering their parking lot. If you need a photo, reach out to me and I will provide... This could be the most simple and cost effective solution to simply re-open the Cleaver Rd bridge to vehicles... on Facebook Share If the Cleaver bridge is still "good enough" for vehicles with minor repairs, but NOT trucks, then repair what is necessary and install an overhead barrier from each direction... Walmart Ancaster put up barriers like I'm suggesting, as an easy fix to deter/stop commercial transports from entering their parking lot. If you need a photo, reach out to me and I will provide... This could be the most simple and cost effective solution to simply re-open the Cleaver Rd bridge to vehicles... on Twitter Share If the Cleaver bridge is still "good enough" for vehicles with minor repairs, but NOT trucks, then repair what is necessary and install an overhead barrier from each direction... Walmart Ancaster put up barriers like I'm suggesting, as an easy fix to deter/stop commercial transports from entering their parking lot. If you need a photo, reach out to me and I will provide... This could be the most simple and cost effective solution to simply re-open the Cleaver Rd bridge to vehicles... on Linkedin Email If the Cleaver bridge is still "good enough" for vehicles with minor repairs, but NOT trucks, then repair what is necessary and install an overhead barrier from each direction... Walmart Ancaster put up barriers like I'm suggesting, as an easy fix to deter/stop commercial transports from entering their parking lot. If you need a photo, reach out to me and I will provide... This could be the most simple and cost effective solution to simply re-open the Cleaver Rd bridge to vehicles... link

If the Cleaver bridge is still "good enough" for vehicles with minor repairs, but NOT trucks, then repair what is necessary and install an overhead barrier from each direction... Walmart Ancaster put up barriers like I'm suggesting, as an easy fix to deter/stop commercial transports from entering their parking lot. If you need a photo, reach out to me and I will provide... This could be the most simple and cost effective solution to simply re-open the Cleaver Rd bridge to vehicles...

ABowden asked 11 days ago

Thank you for your feedback. The project team will compile all input gathered for consideration and review.
Mark Eby, P.Eng.
Director of Infrastructure and Asset Management - Operations
Share In response to your answer, "When the bridge was open, the load posting prevented the fire department from utilizing the bridge. They were already driving around it on an alternate route. Also, the area is mid-point between the Airport Firehall and the Burford Firehall and can be serviced by either location. OPP is located at the corner of Bethel Road and Highway 24 north of the bridge and officers are also mobile. Ambulance services are typically mobile and could be attending a call from anywhere within the County, City or outside of the area. Depending on the nature of the call and availability. Closure of the bridge has not impacted EMS response times." My response to your response is... Emergency Access & Cleaver Rd. Bridge – It’s Time for real Answers, load postings are the same for Cleaver and Mill St bridges, I have photos...18 tonnes... Almost 2 years after my 1st inquiry, 3rd inquirty took an additional 17 days for the County of Brant / Fire Department to collaborate on an emailed response—one that conveniently aligns with County of Brant's long-standing narrative: that the Cleaver Road Bridge was never used by emergency vehicles, and therefore its closure presents no threat to public safety. But our neighborhood remembers differently. Multiple credible eyewitnesses—retired OPP officers, volunteer firefighters, and long-time residents—recall emergency responses via Cleaver Rd. in two critical incidents: June 1, 2019 – at 384 Robinson Rd. November 20, 2020 – at 398 Robinson Rd. Despite these accounts, the County maintains that due to weight restrictions and bridge conditions, Cleaver was never a viable route. Yet that same logic doesn’t apply to the Mill St. Bridge ?, which was rebuilt and remains open with an 18 tonne weight restriction ! So, the exact same posted weight limit of 18 tonnes for the past 2 fire incidences, with 2 almost exact replicas of one lane deteriorating bridges (supposedly in worse condition than Cleaver bridge, as it was rebuilt 1st). But still the narrative remains that Cleaver Bridge was never used and Mill St. bridge was... Further inconsistent messaging about how emergency vehicles navigate closures continue... Paramedics confirm they use GPS tracking, while the firetrucks don’t? So how would crews know Cleaver Rd. was closed —by a County email sent in 2023, years after those emergencies? That’s not a communications plan. That’s a breakdown in emergency coordination. And, according to the "new" statement by "the County" that had to be deferred by the heads of staff, if firetrucks were dispatched from the Airport #2 station, then Hwy 24 to Robinson Rd hill is impossible to believe as a registered, faster, safer emergency route for firetrucks. Obviously on paper it shows as a great route, but show us the routing that proves alternative access was safer or faster. Because as residents, we know: the most direct path and safest in those situations was via Colborne St. W. and Cleaver Rd. Under Ontario’s Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, municipalities are legally obligated to ensure safe, documented, and reliable emergency access. If Cleaver is no longer part of that plan, where’s the replacement? Where’s the map? Where’s the record? The County’s delayed response and request that I file an FOI, only reinforces what many in the community already fear: that answers are being shaped to support a predetermined outcome. That’s not transparency—it’s narrative management. This is no longer just about a bridge. This is about public trust, accountability and the integrity of emergency services. on Facebook Share In response to your answer, "When the bridge was open, the load posting prevented the fire department from utilizing the bridge. They were already driving around it on an alternate route. Also, the area is mid-point between the Airport Firehall and the Burford Firehall and can be serviced by either location. OPP is located at the corner of Bethel Road and Highway 24 north of the bridge and officers are also mobile. Ambulance services are typically mobile and could be attending a call from anywhere within the County, City or outside of the area. Depending on the nature of the call and availability. Closure of the bridge has not impacted EMS response times." My response to your response is... Emergency Access & Cleaver Rd. Bridge – It’s Time for real Answers, load postings are the same for Cleaver and Mill St bridges, I have photos...18 tonnes... Almost 2 years after my 1st inquiry, 3rd inquirty took an additional 17 days for the County of Brant / Fire Department to collaborate on an emailed response—one that conveniently aligns with County of Brant's long-standing narrative: that the Cleaver Road Bridge was never used by emergency vehicles, and therefore its closure presents no threat to public safety. But our neighborhood remembers differently. Multiple credible eyewitnesses—retired OPP officers, volunteer firefighters, and long-time residents—recall emergency responses via Cleaver Rd. in two critical incidents: June 1, 2019 – at 384 Robinson Rd. November 20, 2020 – at 398 Robinson Rd. Despite these accounts, the County maintains that due to weight restrictions and bridge conditions, Cleaver was never a viable route. Yet that same logic doesn’t apply to the Mill St. Bridge ?, which was rebuilt and remains open with an 18 tonne weight restriction ! So, the exact same posted weight limit of 18 tonnes for the past 2 fire incidences, with 2 almost exact replicas of one lane deteriorating bridges (supposedly in worse condition than Cleaver bridge, as it was rebuilt 1st). But still the narrative remains that Cleaver Bridge was never used and Mill St. bridge was... Further inconsistent messaging about how emergency vehicles navigate closures continue... Paramedics confirm they use GPS tracking, while the firetrucks don’t? So how would crews know Cleaver Rd. was closed —by a County email sent in 2023, years after those emergencies? That’s not a communications plan. That’s a breakdown in emergency coordination. And, according to the "new" statement by "the County" that had to be deferred by the heads of staff, if firetrucks were dispatched from the Airport #2 station, then Hwy 24 to Robinson Rd hill is impossible to believe as a registered, faster, safer emergency route for firetrucks. Obviously on paper it shows as a great route, but show us the routing that proves alternative access was safer or faster. Because as residents, we know: the most direct path and safest in those situations was via Colborne St. W. and Cleaver Rd. Under Ontario’s Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, municipalities are legally obligated to ensure safe, documented, and reliable emergency access. If Cleaver is no longer part of that plan, where’s the replacement? Where’s the map? Where’s the record? The County’s delayed response and request that I file an FOI, only reinforces what many in the community already fear: that answers are being shaped to support a predetermined outcome. That’s not transparency—it’s narrative management. This is no longer just about a bridge. This is about public trust, accountability and the integrity of emergency services. on Twitter Share In response to your answer, "When the bridge was open, the load posting prevented the fire department from utilizing the bridge. They were already driving around it on an alternate route. Also, the area is mid-point between the Airport Firehall and the Burford Firehall and can be serviced by either location. OPP is located at the corner of Bethel Road and Highway 24 north of the bridge and officers are also mobile. Ambulance services are typically mobile and could be attending a call from anywhere within the County, City or outside of the area. Depending on the nature of the call and availability. Closure of the bridge has not impacted EMS response times." My response to your response is... Emergency Access & Cleaver Rd. Bridge – It’s Time for real Answers, load postings are the same for Cleaver and Mill St bridges, I have photos...18 tonnes... Almost 2 years after my 1st inquiry, 3rd inquirty took an additional 17 days for the County of Brant / Fire Department to collaborate on an emailed response—one that conveniently aligns with County of Brant's long-standing narrative: that the Cleaver Road Bridge was never used by emergency vehicles, and therefore its closure presents no threat to public safety. But our neighborhood remembers differently. Multiple credible eyewitnesses—retired OPP officers, volunteer firefighters, and long-time residents—recall emergency responses via Cleaver Rd. in two critical incidents: June 1, 2019 – at 384 Robinson Rd. November 20, 2020 – at 398 Robinson Rd. Despite these accounts, the County maintains that due to weight restrictions and bridge conditions, Cleaver was never a viable route. Yet that same logic doesn’t apply to the Mill St. Bridge ?, which was rebuilt and remains open with an 18 tonne weight restriction ! So, the exact same posted weight limit of 18 tonnes for the past 2 fire incidences, with 2 almost exact replicas of one lane deteriorating bridges (supposedly in worse condition than Cleaver bridge, as it was rebuilt 1st). But still the narrative remains that Cleaver Bridge was never used and Mill St. bridge was... Further inconsistent messaging about how emergency vehicles navigate closures continue... Paramedics confirm they use GPS tracking, while the firetrucks don’t? So how would crews know Cleaver Rd. was closed —by a County email sent in 2023, years after those emergencies? That’s not a communications plan. That’s a breakdown in emergency coordination. And, according to the "new" statement by "the County" that had to be deferred by the heads of staff, if firetrucks were dispatched from the Airport #2 station, then Hwy 24 to Robinson Rd hill is impossible to believe as a registered, faster, safer emergency route for firetrucks. Obviously on paper it shows as a great route, but show us the routing that proves alternative access was safer or faster. Because as residents, we know: the most direct path and safest in those situations was via Colborne St. W. and Cleaver Rd. Under Ontario’s Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, municipalities are legally obligated to ensure safe, documented, and reliable emergency access. If Cleaver is no longer part of that plan, where’s the replacement? Where’s the map? Where’s the record? The County’s delayed response and request that I file an FOI, only reinforces what many in the community already fear: that answers are being shaped to support a predetermined outcome. That’s not transparency—it’s narrative management. This is no longer just about a bridge. This is about public trust, accountability and the integrity of emergency services. on Linkedin Email In response to your answer, "When the bridge was open, the load posting prevented the fire department from utilizing the bridge. They were already driving around it on an alternate route. Also, the area is mid-point between the Airport Firehall and the Burford Firehall and can be serviced by either location. OPP is located at the corner of Bethel Road and Highway 24 north of the bridge and officers are also mobile. Ambulance services are typically mobile and could be attending a call from anywhere within the County, City or outside of the area. Depending on the nature of the call and availability. Closure of the bridge has not impacted EMS response times." My response to your response is... Emergency Access & Cleaver Rd. Bridge – It’s Time for real Answers, load postings are the same for Cleaver and Mill St bridges, I have photos...18 tonnes... Almost 2 years after my 1st inquiry, 3rd inquirty took an additional 17 days for the County of Brant / Fire Department to collaborate on an emailed response—one that conveniently aligns with County of Brant's long-standing narrative: that the Cleaver Road Bridge was never used by emergency vehicles, and therefore its closure presents no threat to public safety. But our neighborhood remembers differently. Multiple credible eyewitnesses—retired OPP officers, volunteer firefighters, and long-time residents—recall emergency responses via Cleaver Rd. in two critical incidents: June 1, 2019 – at 384 Robinson Rd. November 20, 2020 – at 398 Robinson Rd. Despite these accounts, the County maintains that due to weight restrictions and bridge conditions, Cleaver was never a viable route. Yet that same logic doesn’t apply to the Mill St. Bridge ?, which was rebuilt and remains open with an 18 tonne weight restriction ! So, the exact same posted weight limit of 18 tonnes for the past 2 fire incidences, with 2 almost exact replicas of one lane deteriorating bridges (supposedly in worse condition than Cleaver bridge, as it was rebuilt 1st). But still the narrative remains that Cleaver Bridge was never used and Mill St. bridge was... Further inconsistent messaging about how emergency vehicles navigate closures continue... Paramedics confirm they use GPS tracking, while the firetrucks don’t? So how would crews know Cleaver Rd. was closed —by a County email sent in 2023, years after those emergencies? That’s not a communications plan. That’s a breakdown in emergency coordination. And, according to the "new" statement by "the County" that had to be deferred by the heads of staff, if firetrucks were dispatched from the Airport #2 station, then Hwy 24 to Robinson Rd hill is impossible to believe as a registered, faster, safer emergency route for firetrucks. Obviously on paper it shows as a great route, but show us the routing that proves alternative access was safer or faster. Because as residents, we know: the most direct path and safest in those situations was via Colborne St. W. and Cleaver Rd. Under Ontario’s Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, municipalities are legally obligated to ensure safe, documented, and reliable emergency access. If Cleaver is no longer part of that plan, where’s the replacement? Where’s the map? Where’s the record? The County’s delayed response and request that I file an FOI, only reinforces what many in the community already fear: that answers are being shaped to support a predetermined outcome. That’s not transparency—it’s narrative management. This is no longer just about a bridge. This is about public trust, accountability and the integrity of emergency services. link

In response to your answer, "When the bridge was open, the load posting prevented the fire department from utilizing the bridge. They were already driving around it on an alternate route. Also, the area is mid-point between the Airport Firehall and the Burford Firehall and can be serviced by either location. OPP is located at the corner of Bethel Road and Highway 24 north of the bridge and officers are also mobile. Ambulance services are typically mobile and could be attending a call from anywhere within the County, City or outside of the area. Depending on the nature of the call and availability. Closure of the bridge has not impacted EMS response times." My response to your response is... Emergency Access & Cleaver Rd. Bridge – It’s Time for real Answers, load postings are the same for Cleaver and Mill St bridges, I have photos...18 tonnes... Almost 2 years after my 1st inquiry, 3rd inquirty took an additional 17 days for the County of Brant / Fire Department to collaborate on an emailed response—one that conveniently aligns with County of Brant's long-standing narrative: that the Cleaver Road Bridge was never used by emergency vehicles, and therefore its closure presents no threat to public safety. But our neighborhood remembers differently. Multiple credible eyewitnesses—retired OPP officers, volunteer firefighters, and long-time residents—recall emergency responses via Cleaver Rd. in two critical incidents: June 1, 2019 – at 384 Robinson Rd. November 20, 2020 – at 398 Robinson Rd. Despite these accounts, the County maintains that due to weight restrictions and bridge conditions, Cleaver was never a viable route. Yet that same logic doesn’t apply to the Mill St. Bridge ?, which was rebuilt and remains open with an 18 tonne weight restriction ! So, the exact same posted weight limit of 18 tonnes for the past 2 fire incidences, with 2 almost exact replicas of one lane deteriorating bridges (supposedly in worse condition than Cleaver bridge, as it was rebuilt 1st). But still the narrative remains that Cleaver Bridge was never used and Mill St. bridge was... Further inconsistent messaging about how emergency vehicles navigate closures continue... Paramedics confirm they use GPS tracking, while the firetrucks don’t? So how would crews know Cleaver Rd. was closed —by a County email sent in 2023, years after those emergencies? That’s not a communications plan. That’s a breakdown in emergency coordination. And, according to the "new" statement by "the County" that had to be deferred by the heads of staff, if firetrucks were dispatched from the Airport #2 station, then Hwy 24 to Robinson Rd hill is impossible to believe as a registered, faster, safer emergency route for firetrucks. Obviously on paper it shows as a great route, but show us the routing that proves alternative access was safer or faster. Because as residents, we know: the most direct path and safest in those situations was via Colborne St. W. and Cleaver Rd. Under Ontario’s Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, municipalities are legally obligated to ensure safe, documented, and reliable emergency access. If Cleaver is no longer part of that plan, where’s the replacement? Where’s the map? Where’s the record? The County’s delayed response and request that I file an FOI, only reinforces what many in the community already fear: that answers are being shaped to support a predetermined outcome. That’s not transparency—it’s narrative management. This is no longer just about a bridge. This is about public trust, accountability and the integrity of emergency services.

ABowden asked 11 days ago

Thank you for your feedback. The project team will compile all input gathered for consideration and review.
Mark Eby, P.Eng.
Director of Infrastructure and Asset Management - Operations
Share The absence of a Community-driven demand for the 2 Brant County options for a ‘cycling bridge’ raises serious concerns about the priorities shaping Brant County’s infrastructure... Is Federal Funding dictating local development at the expense of community consensus, established norms, and vehicle accessibility impacts ?? ..... If so, this undermines the democratic process and responsible planning.....Is Brant County truly building for its residents, or for external agendas? Local residents have voiced strong objections and concerns about keeping the Cleaver Bridge closed indefinitely to vehicles or changing it's original use from vehicles to cyclists and pedestrians only... Residents have repeatedly expressed frustration over the misallocation of resources, questioning why essential projects—such as urgent bridge and road repairs, improved or added lighting in our residential neighbourhood, safe detour routes/alternate routes (such as Robinson Rd/Rest Acres intersection) or moving posted speed signage (Bethel Rd.)—are neglected in favor of County of Brant staff options and the low use cycling only bridge ?? This isn’t an isolated case. Across Canada, federally funded projects have faced scrutiny for prioritizing political agendas over local realities. In Brant County’s case, the cycling bridge could become yet another example of infrastructure that serves external interests rather than the people it is meant to support. When decision-making ignores community voices, it undermines democratic governance and erodes public trust. Is Brant County truly building for its residents, or is it simply following federal funding directives at the cost of local well-being? Citations: Canada’s Active Transportation Strategy & Fund: Implemented from 2021-2026. Government of Canada - $3 Billion annually on average for 2026/2027 to Municipalities to build cycling lanes, routes (that follow the initiative)... Announcement March 12/21 – Catherine McKenna (Minister of Infrastructure & Communities) - Additional $400 Million over 5 years as part of a federal fund for cycling paths & trails...to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. Brant County TMP summary report Dec.2022, 7.6.5 "Recommended that residential parcels be accessible from 2 directions to facilitate continuity, pedestrian cyclist mobility and emergency access...(Yet, STAFF argues in direct contravention to this and OUR COMMUNITY's concerns over accessibility and direct emergency access routes) April 8/2022 - Brant County TMP Update - Stakeholders - "Mark Eby (County), County's current 10 year plan DOES NOT consider improvements to Hwy 24 or Colborne St." Same meeting... Eby, "Rest Acres - Bike paths/pedestrians ... TMP to take an advocacy role..., through an EA previously undertaken... DISCUSS OFFLINE" - WHY ??- MTO, "Hwy 24 has high levels of traffic, do not want to encourage cyclist to use..." - Brant County (Mark Eby), "possibility to perform a road diet on County Rd.2/53 to accommodate bike lanes since traffic volume NO LONGER REQUIRES THE ROAD SPACE" ?? - December 2022 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY Prepared for the County of Brant - TMP (IBI survey) total of 83 respondents, only 4 listed in Burford area... - TMP (IBI survey), for Group of Questions ....2. Active Transportation: − It is important to provide safe and connected routes for walking and cycling. (7 people responded) − Active transportation infrastructure is needed for people now working from home (e.g. for health/fitness, shopping local, enjoying small-town life). (4 people responded) − Expand active transportation networks both within and connecting between settlement areas. (2 responses) − Develop walking and cycling trails through nature areas for health and enjoyment. (ONLY 1 PERSON RESPONDED) − The biggest barrier to cycling is safety concerns on roads with shared traffic. (1 response) − A connected bike lane or bike path network is needed to encourage cycling, provide cyclist safety, and to support the TMP Goals. (1 person responded) Dec.2022 - From these responses, the Transportation Master Plan Update was summarized and presented to Brant Council for a vote ...and 15 Bridges, including Cleaver Rd. Bridge were slated for closure or conversion ! ***** Dec.2023 - As opposed to my Petition to re-open the Cleaver Rd bridge to vehicles **** 196 residents in SUPPORT, 2 residents opposed, 1 wanted cycling/pedestrian bridge only, 20 did not respond or did not wish to participate ! Plus an additional 22 direct emails to Brant County in support of repairing or rebuilding the Cleaver Rd. Bridge to vehicles. on Facebook Share The absence of a Community-driven demand for the 2 Brant County options for a ‘cycling bridge’ raises serious concerns about the priorities shaping Brant County’s infrastructure... Is Federal Funding dictating local development at the expense of community consensus, established norms, and vehicle accessibility impacts ?? ..... If so, this undermines the democratic process and responsible planning.....Is Brant County truly building for its residents, or for external agendas? Local residents have voiced strong objections and concerns about keeping the Cleaver Bridge closed indefinitely to vehicles or changing it's original use from vehicles to cyclists and pedestrians only... Residents have repeatedly expressed frustration over the misallocation of resources, questioning why essential projects—such as urgent bridge and road repairs, improved or added lighting in our residential neighbourhood, safe detour routes/alternate routes (such as Robinson Rd/Rest Acres intersection) or moving posted speed signage (Bethel Rd.)—are neglected in favor of County of Brant staff options and the low use cycling only bridge ?? This isn’t an isolated case. Across Canada, federally funded projects have faced scrutiny for prioritizing political agendas over local realities. In Brant County’s case, the cycling bridge could become yet another example of infrastructure that serves external interests rather than the people it is meant to support. When decision-making ignores community voices, it undermines democratic governance and erodes public trust. Is Brant County truly building for its residents, or is it simply following federal funding directives at the cost of local well-being? Citations: Canada’s Active Transportation Strategy & Fund: Implemented from 2021-2026. Government of Canada - $3 Billion annually on average for 2026/2027 to Municipalities to build cycling lanes, routes (that follow the initiative)... Announcement March 12/21 – Catherine McKenna (Minister of Infrastructure & Communities) - Additional $400 Million over 5 years as part of a federal fund for cycling paths & trails...to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. Brant County TMP summary report Dec.2022, 7.6.5 "Recommended that residential parcels be accessible from 2 directions to facilitate continuity, pedestrian cyclist mobility and emergency access...(Yet, STAFF argues in direct contravention to this and OUR COMMUNITY's concerns over accessibility and direct emergency access routes) April 8/2022 - Brant County TMP Update - Stakeholders - "Mark Eby (County), County's current 10 year plan DOES NOT consider improvements to Hwy 24 or Colborne St." Same meeting... Eby, "Rest Acres - Bike paths/pedestrians ... TMP to take an advocacy role..., through an EA previously undertaken... DISCUSS OFFLINE" - WHY ??- MTO, "Hwy 24 has high levels of traffic, do not want to encourage cyclist to use..." - Brant County (Mark Eby), "possibility to perform a road diet on County Rd.2/53 to accommodate bike lanes since traffic volume NO LONGER REQUIRES THE ROAD SPACE" ?? - December 2022 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY Prepared for the County of Brant - TMP (IBI survey) total of 83 respondents, only 4 listed in Burford area... - TMP (IBI survey), for Group of Questions ....2. Active Transportation: − It is important to provide safe and connected routes for walking and cycling. (7 people responded) − Active transportation infrastructure is needed for people now working from home (e.g. for health/fitness, shopping local, enjoying small-town life). (4 people responded) − Expand active transportation networks both within and connecting between settlement areas. (2 responses) − Develop walking and cycling trails through nature areas for health and enjoyment. (ONLY 1 PERSON RESPONDED) − The biggest barrier to cycling is safety concerns on roads with shared traffic. (1 response) − A connected bike lane or bike path network is needed to encourage cycling, provide cyclist safety, and to support the TMP Goals. (1 person responded) Dec.2022 - From these responses, the Transportation Master Plan Update was summarized and presented to Brant Council for a vote ...and 15 Bridges, including Cleaver Rd. Bridge were slated for closure or conversion ! ***** Dec.2023 - As opposed to my Petition to re-open the Cleaver Rd bridge to vehicles **** 196 residents in SUPPORT, 2 residents opposed, 1 wanted cycling/pedestrian bridge only, 20 did not respond or did not wish to participate ! Plus an additional 22 direct emails to Brant County in support of repairing or rebuilding the Cleaver Rd. Bridge to vehicles. on Twitter Share The absence of a Community-driven demand for the 2 Brant County options for a ‘cycling bridge’ raises serious concerns about the priorities shaping Brant County’s infrastructure... Is Federal Funding dictating local development at the expense of community consensus, established norms, and vehicle accessibility impacts ?? ..... If so, this undermines the democratic process and responsible planning.....Is Brant County truly building for its residents, or for external agendas? Local residents have voiced strong objections and concerns about keeping the Cleaver Bridge closed indefinitely to vehicles or changing it's original use from vehicles to cyclists and pedestrians only... Residents have repeatedly expressed frustration over the misallocation of resources, questioning why essential projects—such as urgent bridge and road repairs, improved or added lighting in our residential neighbourhood, safe detour routes/alternate routes (such as Robinson Rd/Rest Acres intersection) or moving posted speed signage (Bethel Rd.)—are neglected in favor of County of Brant staff options and the low use cycling only bridge ?? This isn’t an isolated case. Across Canada, federally funded projects have faced scrutiny for prioritizing political agendas over local realities. In Brant County’s case, the cycling bridge could become yet another example of infrastructure that serves external interests rather than the people it is meant to support. When decision-making ignores community voices, it undermines democratic governance and erodes public trust. Is Brant County truly building for its residents, or is it simply following federal funding directives at the cost of local well-being? Citations: Canada’s Active Transportation Strategy & Fund: Implemented from 2021-2026. Government of Canada - $3 Billion annually on average for 2026/2027 to Municipalities to build cycling lanes, routes (that follow the initiative)... Announcement March 12/21 – Catherine McKenna (Minister of Infrastructure & Communities) - Additional $400 Million over 5 years as part of a federal fund for cycling paths & trails...to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. Brant County TMP summary report Dec.2022, 7.6.5 "Recommended that residential parcels be accessible from 2 directions to facilitate continuity, pedestrian cyclist mobility and emergency access...(Yet, STAFF argues in direct contravention to this and OUR COMMUNITY's concerns over accessibility and direct emergency access routes) April 8/2022 - Brant County TMP Update - Stakeholders - "Mark Eby (County), County's current 10 year plan DOES NOT consider improvements to Hwy 24 or Colborne St." Same meeting... Eby, "Rest Acres - Bike paths/pedestrians ... TMP to take an advocacy role..., through an EA previously undertaken... DISCUSS OFFLINE" - WHY ??- MTO, "Hwy 24 has high levels of traffic, do not want to encourage cyclist to use..." - Brant County (Mark Eby), "possibility to perform a road diet on County Rd.2/53 to accommodate bike lanes since traffic volume NO LONGER REQUIRES THE ROAD SPACE" ?? - December 2022 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY Prepared for the County of Brant - TMP (IBI survey) total of 83 respondents, only 4 listed in Burford area... - TMP (IBI survey), for Group of Questions ....2. Active Transportation: − It is important to provide safe and connected routes for walking and cycling. (7 people responded) − Active transportation infrastructure is needed for people now working from home (e.g. for health/fitness, shopping local, enjoying small-town life). (4 people responded) − Expand active transportation networks both within and connecting between settlement areas. (2 responses) − Develop walking and cycling trails through nature areas for health and enjoyment. (ONLY 1 PERSON RESPONDED) − The biggest barrier to cycling is safety concerns on roads with shared traffic. (1 response) − A connected bike lane or bike path network is needed to encourage cycling, provide cyclist safety, and to support the TMP Goals. (1 person responded) Dec.2022 - From these responses, the Transportation Master Plan Update was summarized and presented to Brant Council for a vote ...and 15 Bridges, including Cleaver Rd. Bridge were slated for closure or conversion ! ***** Dec.2023 - As opposed to my Petition to re-open the Cleaver Rd bridge to vehicles **** 196 residents in SUPPORT, 2 residents opposed, 1 wanted cycling/pedestrian bridge only, 20 did not respond or did not wish to participate ! Plus an additional 22 direct emails to Brant County in support of repairing or rebuilding the Cleaver Rd. Bridge to vehicles. on Linkedin Email The absence of a Community-driven demand for the 2 Brant County options for a ‘cycling bridge’ raises serious concerns about the priorities shaping Brant County’s infrastructure... Is Federal Funding dictating local development at the expense of community consensus, established norms, and vehicle accessibility impacts ?? ..... If so, this undermines the democratic process and responsible planning.....Is Brant County truly building for its residents, or for external agendas? Local residents have voiced strong objections and concerns about keeping the Cleaver Bridge closed indefinitely to vehicles or changing it's original use from vehicles to cyclists and pedestrians only... Residents have repeatedly expressed frustration over the misallocation of resources, questioning why essential projects—such as urgent bridge and road repairs, improved or added lighting in our residential neighbourhood, safe detour routes/alternate routes (such as Robinson Rd/Rest Acres intersection) or moving posted speed signage (Bethel Rd.)—are neglected in favor of County of Brant staff options and the low use cycling only bridge ?? This isn’t an isolated case. Across Canada, federally funded projects have faced scrutiny for prioritizing political agendas over local realities. In Brant County’s case, the cycling bridge could become yet another example of infrastructure that serves external interests rather than the people it is meant to support. When decision-making ignores community voices, it undermines democratic governance and erodes public trust. Is Brant County truly building for its residents, or is it simply following federal funding directives at the cost of local well-being? Citations: Canada’s Active Transportation Strategy & Fund: Implemented from 2021-2026. Government of Canada - $3 Billion annually on average for 2026/2027 to Municipalities to build cycling lanes, routes (that follow the initiative)... Announcement March 12/21 – Catherine McKenna (Minister of Infrastructure & Communities) - Additional $400 Million over 5 years as part of a federal fund for cycling paths & trails...to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. Brant County TMP summary report Dec.2022, 7.6.5 "Recommended that residential parcels be accessible from 2 directions to facilitate continuity, pedestrian cyclist mobility and emergency access...(Yet, STAFF argues in direct contravention to this and OUR COMMUNITY's concerns over accessibility and direct emergency access routes) April 8/2022 - Brant County TMP Update - Stakeholders - "Mark Eby (County), County's current 10 year plan DOES NOT consider improvements to Hwy 24 or Colborne St." Same meeting... Eby, "Rest Acres - Bike paths/pedestrians ... TMP to take an advocacy role..., through an EA previously undertaken... DISCUSS OFFLINE" - WHY ??- MTO, "Hwy 24 has high levels of traffic, do not want to encourage cyclist to use..." - Brant County (Mark Eby), "possibility to perform a road diet on County Rd.2/53 to accommodate bike lanes since traffic volume NO LONGER REQUIRES THE ROAD SPACE" ?? - December 2022 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY Prepared for the County of Brant - TMP (IBI survey) total of 83 respondents, only 4 listed in Burford area... - TMP (IBI survey), for Group of Questions ....2. Active Transportation: − It is important to provide safe and connected routes for walking and cycling. (7 people responded) − Active transportation infrastructure is needed for people now working from home (e.g. for health/fitness, shopping local, enjoying small-town life). (4 people responded) − Expand active transportation networks both within and connecting between settlement areas. (2 responses) − Develop walking and cycling trails through nature areas for health and enjoyment. (ONLY 1 PERSON RESPONDED) − The biggest barrier to cycling is safety concerns on roads with shared traffic. (1 response) − A connected bike lane or bike path network is needed to encourage cycling, provide cyclist safety, and to support the TMP Goals. (1 person responded) Dec.2022 - From these responses, the Transportation Master Plan Update was summarized and presented to Brant Council for a vote ...and 15 Bridges, including Cleaver Rd. Bridge were slated for closure or conversion ! ***** Dec.2023 - As opposed to my Petition to re-open the Cleaver Rd bridge to vehicles **** 196 residents in SUPPORT, 2 residents opposed, 1 wanted cycling/pedestrian bridge only, 20 did not respond or did not wish to participate ! Plus an additional 22 direct emails to Brant County in support of repairing or rebuilding the Cleaver Rd. Bridge to vehicles. link

The absence of a Community-driven demand for the 2 Brant County options for a ‘cycling bridge’ raises serious concerns about the priorities shaping Brant County’s infrastructure... Is Federal Funding dictating local development at the expense of community consensus, established norms, and vehicle accessibility impacts ?? ..... If so, this undermines the democratic process and responsible planning.....Is Brant County truly building for its residents, or for external agendas? Local residents have voiced strong objections and concerns about keeping the Cleaver Bridge closed indefinitely to vehicles or changing it's original use from vehicles to cyclists and pedestrians only... Residents have repeatedly expressed frustration over the misallocation of resources, questioning why essential projects—such as urgent bridge and road repairs, improved or added lighting in our residential neighbourhood, safe detour routes/alternate routes (such as Robinson Rd/Rest Acres intersection) or moving posted speed signage (Bethel Rd.)—are neglected in favor of County of Brant staff options and the low use cycling only bridge ?? This isn’t an isolated case. Across Canada, federally funded projects have faced scrutiny for prioritizing political agendas over local realities. In Brant County’s case, the cycling bridge could become yet another example of infrastructure that serves external interests rather than the people it is meant to support. When decision-making ignores community voices, it undermines democratic governance and erodes public trust. Is Brant County truly building for its residents, or is it simply following federal funding directives at the cost of local well-being? Citations: Canada’s Active Transportation Strategy & Fund: Implemented from 2021-2026. Government of Canada - $3 Billion annually on average for 2026/2027 to Municipalities to build cycling lanes, routes (that follow the initiative)... Announcement March 12/21 – Catherine McKenna (Minister of Infrastructure & Communities) - Additional $400 Million over 5 years as part of a federal fund for cycling paths & trails...to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. Brant County TMP summary report Dec.2022, 7.6.5 "Recommended that residential parcels be accessible from 2 directions to facilitate continuity, pedestrian cyclist mobility and emergency access...(Yet, STAFF argues in direct contravention to this and OUR COMMUNITY's concerns over accessibility and direct emergency access routes) April 8/2022 - Brant County TMP Update - Stakeholders - "Mark Eby (County), County's current 10 year plan DOES NOT consider improvements to Hwy 24 or Colborne St." Same meeting... Eby, "Rest Acres - Bike paths/pedestrians ... TMP to take an advocacy role..., through an EA previously undertaken... DISCUSS OFFLINE" - WHY ??- MTO, "Hwy 24 has high levels of traffic, do not want to encourage cyclist to use..." - Brant County (Mark Eby), "possibility to perform a road diet on County Rd.2/53 to accommodate bike lanes since traffic volume NO LONGER REQUIRES THE ROAD SPACE" ?? - December 2022 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY Prepared for the County of Brant - TMP (IBI survey) total of 83 respondents, only 4 listed in Burford area... - TMP (IBI survey), for Group of Questions ....2. Active Transportation: − It is important to provide safe and connected routes for walking and cycling. (7 people responded) − Active transportation infrastructure is needed for people now working from home (e.g. for health/fitness, shopping local, enjoying small-town life). (4 people responded) − Expand active transportation networks both within and connecting between settlement areas. (2 responses) − Develop walking and cycling trails through nature areas for health and enjoyment. (ONLY 1 PERSON RESPONDED) − The biggest barrier to cycling is safety concerns on roads with shared traffic. (1 response) − A connected bike lane or bike path network is needed to encourage cycling, provide cyclist safety, and to support the TMP Goals. (1 person responded) Dec.2022 - From these responses, the Transportation Master Plan Update was summarized and presented to Brant Council for a vote ...and 15 Bridges, including Cleaver Rd. Bridge were slated for closure or conversion ! ***** Dec.2023 - As opposed to my Petition to re-open the Cleaver Rd bridge to vehicles **** 196 residents in SUPPORT, 2 residents opposed, 1 wanted cycling/pedestrian bridge only, 20 did not respond or did not wish to participate ! Plus an additional 22 direct emails to Brant County in support of repairing or rebuilding the Cleaver Rd. Bridge to vehicles.

ABowden asked about 2 months ago

Thank you for your feedback. The project team will compile all input gathered for consideration and review.
Mark Eby, P.Eng.
Director of Infrastructure and Asset Management - Operations
Share The Cleaver Road Bridge closure is a major concern for our neighborhood, yet at the Public Consultation on May 12, 2025, County Staff failed to anticipate the level of community interest, printing an insufficient number of surveys. While residents are now required to register on www.engagebrant.ca to complete the survey, registration on the site has not been functioning for days. This prevents our neighbourhood from participating again. When will this issue be resolved? (I have called Brant County to voice my concerns and left voicemails and created tickets for technical support, with no reply) on Facebook Share The Cleaver Road Bridge closure is a major concern for our neighborhood, yet at the Public Consultation on May 12, 2025, County Staff failed to anticipate the level of community interest, printing an insufficient number of surveys. While residents are now required to register on www.engagebrant.ca to complete the survey, registration on the site has not been functioning for days. This prevents our neighbourhood from participating again. When will this issue be resolved? (I have called Brant County to voice my concerns and left voicemails and created tickets for technical support, with no reply) on Twitter Share The Cleaver Road Bridge closure is a major concern for our neighborhood, yet at the Public Consultation on May 12, 2025, County Staff failed to anticipate the level of community interest, printing an insufficient number of surveys. While residents are now required to register on www.engagebrant.ca to complete the survey, registration on the site has not been functioning for days. This prevents our neighbourhood from participating again. When will this issue be resolved? (I have called Brant County to voice my concerns and left voicemails and created tickets for technical support, with no reply) on Linkedin Email The Cleaver Road Bridge closure is a major concern for our neighborhood, yet at the Public Consultation on May 12, 2025, County Staff failed to anticipate the level of community interest, printing an insufficient number of surveys. While residents are now required to register on www.engagebrant.ca to complete the survey, registration on the site has not been functioning for days. This prevents our neighbourhood from participating again. When will this issue be resolved? (I have called Brant County to voice my concerns and left voicemails and created tickets for technical support, with no reply) link

The Cleaver Road Bridge closure is a major concern for our neighborhood, yet at the Public Consultation on May 12, 2025, County Staff failed to anticipate the level of community interest, printing an insufficient number of surveys. While residents are now required to register on www.engagebrant.ca to complete the survey, registration on the site has not been functioning for days. This prevents our neighbourhood from participating again. When will this issue be resolved? (I have called Brant County to voice my concerns and left voicemails and created tickets for technical support, with no reply)

ABowden asked about 2 months ago

Thank you for your feedback. The project team will compile all input gathered for consideration and review.
Mark Eby, P.Eng.
Director of Infrastructure and Asset Management - Operations
Share Direct quote, "Municipalities are required to maintain highways and bridges Under the Municipal Act 2001, the municipality that has jurisdiction over a “highway or bridge” is required to keep it in a state of repair that is reasonable in the circumstances. " I had requested copies and received the Inspection reports submitted to Brant County since 2006, that document the suggested maintenance to the Cleaver Road Bridge in order to comply to Ontario "standards". So, who at the County of Brant decides if these Ontario Regulations "standards" for bridges, were reasonable to abide to since 2006 and even prior ?? (The Cleaver Rd Bridge did NOT simply become "unsafe to vehicles" overnight in July 2023. This was neglect to Municipal infrastructure over the course of many, many years...) on Facebook Share Direct quote, "Municipalities are required to maintain highways and bridges Under the Municipal Act 2001, the municipality that has jurisdiction over a “highway or bridge” is required to keep it in a state of repair that is reasonable in the circumstances. " I had requested copies and received the Inspection reports submitted to Brant County since 2006, that document the suggested maintenance to the Cleaver Road Bridge in order to comply to Ontario "standards". So, who at the County of Brant decides if these Ontario Regulations "standards" for bridges, were reasonable to abide to since 2006 and even prior ?? (The Cleaver Rd Bridge did NOT simply become "unsafe to vehicles" overnight in July 2023. This was neglect to Municipal infrastructure over the course of many, many years...) on Twitter Share Direct quote, "Municipalities are required to maintain highways and bridges Under the Municipal Act 2001, the municipality that has jurisdiction over a “highway or bridge” is required to keep it in a state of repair that is reasonable in the circumstances. " I had requested copies and received the Inspection reports submitted to Brant County since 2006, that document the suggested maintenance to the Cleaver Road Bridge in order to comply to Ontario "standards". So, who at the County of Brant decides if these Ontario Regulations "standards" for bridges, were reasonable to abide to since 2006 and even prior ?? (The Cleaver Rd Bridge did NOT simply become "unsafe to vehicles" overnight in July 2023. This was neglect to Municipal infrastructure over the course of many, many years...) on Linkedin Email Direct quote, "Municipalities are required to maintain highways and bridges Under the Municipal Act 2001, the municipality that has jurisdiction over a “highway or bridge” is required to keep it in a state of repair that is reasonable in the circumstances. " I had requested copies and received the Inspection reports submitted to Brant County since 2006, that document the suggested maintenance to the Cleaver Road Bridge in order to comply to Ontario "standards". So, who at the County of Brant decides if these Ontario Regulations "standards" for bridges, were reasonable to abide to since 2006 and even prior ?? (The Cleaver Rd Bridge did NOT simply become "unsafe to vehicles" overnight in July 2023. This was neglect to Municipal infrastructure over the course of many, many years...) link

Direct quote, "Municipalities are required to maintain highways and bridges Under the Municipal Act 2001, the municipality that has jurisdiction over a “highway or bridge” is required to keep it in a state of repair that is reasonable in the circumstances. " I had requested copies and received the Inspection reports submitted to Brant County since 2006, that document the suggested maintenance to the Cleaver Road Bridge in order to comply to Ontario "standards". So, who at the County of Brant decides if these Ontario Regulations "standards" for bridges, were reasonable to abide to since 2006 and even prior ?? (The Cleaver Rd Bridge did NOT simply become "unsafe to vehicles" overnight in July 2023. This was neglect to Municipal infrastructure over the course of many, many years...)

ABowden asked about 2 months ago

Thank you for your feedback. The project team will compile all input gathered for consideration and review.
Mark Eby, P.Eng.
Director of Infrastructure and Asset Management - Operations
Share Also at the May 12/2025, I took notes of my many conversations... Did anyone at Brant County take notes in order to "report back to Council with your recommendations ..." based on public consultation questions and comments ? - Mark, you and I and many others in the Community spoke about the dangers of using Robinson Rd hill as an alterative route to the Cleaver Bridge... That conversation snowballed into me asking why the County is looking at a rehab of Robinson Road bridge project (1-0084-00), if that is not considered as an alternate route, that you denied. Not awarded yet, BUT, (For reference, Bid OPS-RFP-25-02 opened April 1/2025 and closed May 2/2025 labelled Robinson Road bridge project Rehab.) AND on March 25, 2025 OPS-RTP-25-01 for Bridge Repairs closed on April 15/2025 - Robinson Road (1-0084-00) for years 2026, 2027, 2028 ... I still extend a ride a long to you OR anyone else at the County to view our concerns / safety issues firsthand ... on Facebook Share Also at the May 12/2025, I took notes of my many conversations... Did anyone at Brant County take notes in order to "report back to Council with your recommendations ..." based on public consultation questions and comments ? - Mark, you and I and many others in the Community spoke about the dangers of using Robinson Rd hill as an alterative route to the Cleaver Bridge... That conversation snowballed into me asking why the County is looking at a rehab of Robinson Road bridge project (1-0084-00), if that is not considered as an alternate route, that you denied. Not awarded yet, BUT, (For reference, Bid OPS-RFP-25-02 opened April 1/2025 and closed May 2/2025 labelled Robinson Road bridge project Rehab.) AND on March 25, 2025 OPS-RTP-25-01 for Bridge Repairs closed on April 15/2025 - Robinson Road (1-0084-00) for years 2026, 2027, 2028 ... I still extend a ride a long to you OR anyone else at the County to view our concerns / safety issues firsthand ... on Twitter Share Also at the May 12/2025, I took notes of my many conversations... Did anyone at Brant County take notes in order to "report back to Council with your recommendations ..." based on public consultation questions and comments ? - Mark, you and I and many others in the Community spoke about the dangers of using Robinson Rd hill as an alterative route to the Cleaver Bridge... That conversation snowballed into me asking why the County is looking at a rehab of Robinson Road bridge project (1-0084-00), if that is not considered as an alternate route, that you denied. Not awarded yet, BUT, (For reference, Bid OPS-RFP-25-02 opened April 1/2025 and closed May 2/2025 labelled Robinson Road bridge project Rehab.) AND on March 25, 2025 OPS-RTP-25-01 for Bridge Repairs closed on April 15/2025 - Robinson Road (1-0084-00) for years 2026, 2027, 2028 ... I still extend a ride a long to you OR anyone else at the County to view our concerns / safety issues firsthand ... on Linkedin Email Also at the May 12/2025, I took notes of my many conversations... Did anyone at Brant County take notes in order to "report back to Council with your recommendations ..." based on public consultation questions and comments ? - Mark, you and I and many others in the Community spoke about the dangers of using Robinson Rd hill as an alterative route to the Cleaver Bridge... That conversation snowballed into me asking why the County is looking at a rehab of Robinson Road bridge project (1-0084-00), if that is not considered as an alternate route, that you denied. Not awarded yet, BUT, (For reference, Bid OPS-RFP-25-02 opened April 1/2025 and closed May 2/2025 labelled Robinson Road bridge project Rehab.) AND on March 25, 2025 OPS-RTP-25-01 for Bridge Repairs closed on April 15/2025 - Robinson Road (1-0084-00) for years 2026, 2027, 2028 ... I still extend a ride a long to you OR anyone else at the County to view our concerns / safety issues firsthand ... link

Also at the May 12/2025, I took notes of my many conversations... Did anyone at Brant County take notes in order to "report back to Council with your recommendations ..." based on public consultation questions and comments ? - Mark, you and I and many others in the Community spoke about the dangers of using Robinson Rd hill as an alterative route to the Cleaver Bridge... That conversation snowballed into me asking why the County is looking at a rehab of Robinson Road bridge project (1-0084-00), if that is not considered as an alternate route, that you denied. Not awarded yet, BUT, (For reference, Bid OPS-RFP-25-02 opened April 1/2025 and closed May 2/2025 labelled Robinson Road bridge project Rehab.) AND on March 25, 2025 OPS-RTP-25-01 for Bridge Repairs closed on April 15/2025 - Robinson Road (1-0084-00) for years 2026, 2027, 2028 ... I still extend a ride a long to you OR anyone else at the County to view our concerns / safety issues firsthand ...

ABowden asked about 2 months ago

Thank you for your feedback. The project team will compile all input gathered for consideration and review.
Mark Eby, P.Eng.
Director of Infrastructure and Asset Management - Operations
Share Submitted previously 10 days ago and concerned about the answer to ensure public trust and accountability as not following approved procedures) - The Cleaver Bridge has been closed since July 17, 2023, the notice for Consultation notification was on April 28/2025 ...... Brant County did not have time to put up a notice of public consultation as required by approved County procedures ?? Brant County's approved Consultation Process RPT-0380-23 *****#6 --- 6. Install signs at the structure to ensure that all interested parties that travel over the structure receive notice of the proposed conversion consultation; **** Brant County answered, "Due to the bridge being closed ahead of the approved consultation process being implemented, there was not an opportunity to place signs on either side of the structure to advise the traveling public." The notice of the public meeting was hand delivered to houses in the area of the bridge " (Also, not every house received a notice, it was more like, 1, 2, skip a few... !) on Facebook Share Submitted previously 10 days ago and concerned about the answer to ensure public trust and accountability as not following approved procedures) - The Cleaver Bridge has been closed since July 17, 2023, the notice for Consultation notification was on April 28/2025 ...... Brant County did not have time to put up a notice of public consultation as required by approved County procedures ?? Brant County's approved Consultation Process RPT-0380-23 *****#6 --- 6. Install signs at the structure to ensure that all interested parties that travel over the structure receive notice of the proposed conversion consultation; **** Brant County answered, "Due to the bridge being closed ahead of the approved consultation process being implemented, there was not an opportunity to place signs on either side of the structure to advise the traveling public." The notice of the public meeting was hand delivered to houses in the area of the bridge " (Also, not every house received a notice, it was more like, 1, 2, skip a few... !) on Twitter Share Submitted previously 10 days ago and concerned about the answer to ensure public trust and accountability as not following approved procedures) - The Cleaver Bridge has been closed since July 17, 2023, the notice for Consultation notification was on April 28/2025 ...... Brant County did not have time to put up a notice of public consultation as required by approved County procedures ?? Brant County's approved Consultation Process RPT-0380-23 *****#6 --- 6. Install signs at the structure to ensure that all interested parties that travel over the structure receive notice of the proposed conversion consultation; **** Brant County answered, "Due to the bridge being closed ahead of the approved consultation process being implemented, there was not an opportunity to place signs on either side of the structure to advise the traveling public." The notice of the public meeting was hand delivered to houses in the area of the bridge " (Also, not every house received a notice, it was more like, 1, 2, skip a few... !) on Linkedin Email Submitted previously 10 days ago and concerned about the answer to ensure public trust and accountability as not following approved procedures) - The Cleaver Bridge has been closed since July 17, 2023, the notice for Consultation notification was on April 28/2025 ...... Brant County did not have time to put up a notice of public consultation as required by approved County procedures ?? Brant County's approved Consultation Process RPT-0380-23 *****#6 --- 6. Install signs at the structure to ensure that all interested parties that travel over the structure receive notice of the proposed conversion consultation; **** Brant County answered, "Due to the bridge being closed ahead of the approved consultation process being implemented, there was not an opportunity to place signs on either side of the structure to advise the traveling public." The notice of the public meeting was hand delivered to houses in the area of the bridge " (Also, not every house received a notice, it was more like, 1, 2, skip a few... !) link

Submitted previously 10 days ago and concerned about the answer to ensure public trust and accountability as not following approved procedures) - The Cleaver Bridge has been closed since July 17, 2023, the notice for Consultation notification was on April 28/2025 ...... Brant County did not have time to put up a notice of public consultation as required by approved County procedures ?? Brant County's approved Consultation Process RPT-0380-23 *****#6 --- 6. Install signs at the structure to ensure that all interested parties that travel over the structure receive notice of the proposed conversion consultation; **** Brant County answered, "Due to the bridge being closed ahead of the approved consultation process being implemented, there was not an opportunity to place signs on either side of the structure to advise the traveling public." The notice of the public meeting was hand delivered to houses in the area of the bridge " (Also, not every house received a notice, it was more like, 1, 2, skip a few... !)

ABowden asked about 2 months ago

Thank you for your feedback. The project team will compile all input gathered for consideration and review.
Mark Eby, P.Eng.
Director of Infrastructure and Asset Management - Operations
Share Included As part of my question 8 days ago... As part of Brant County's approved Consultation Process RPT-0380-23 #5. states, "The EngageBrant channel will include a Public Information Engagement component. Public input / feedback will be garnered through EngageBrant and any direct submissions to the County." ....... So, again, Were my previous Petitions and emails directly to Council members tracked and acknowledged as part of this Consultation Process? Tracking & Acknowledgment: Is there a system that confirms receipt of public input ? (Examples: My 2 Petitions from Dec.2023 already submitted to Brant County by way of a designation - 140 + 56 = 196 residents in support of a vehicular bridge + an additional 22 direct emails to Brant County Mayor and Councillors from residents in support of reopening a vehicular Cleaver Bridge) on Facebook Share Included As part of my question 8 days ago... As part of Brant County's approved Consultation Process RPT-0380-23 #5. states, "The EngageBrant channel will include a Public Information Engagement component. Public input / feedback will be garnered through EngageBrant and any direct submissions to the County." ....... So, again, Were my previous Petitions and emails directly to Council members tracked and acknowledged as part of this Consultation Process? Tracking & Acknowledgment: Is there a system that confirms receipt of public input ? (Examples: My 2 Petitions from Dec.2023 already submitted to Brant County by way of a designation - 140 + 56 = 196 residents in support of a vehicular bridge + an additional 22 direct emails to Brant County Mayor and Councillors from residents in support of reopening a vehicular Cleaver Bridge) on Twitter Share Included As part of my question 8 days ago... As part of Brant County's approved Consultation Process RPT-0380-23 #5. states, "The EngageBrant channel will include a Public Information Engagement component. Public input / feedback will be garnered through EngageBrant and any direct submissions to the County." ....... So, again, Were my previous Petitions and emails directly to Council members tracked and acknowledged as part of this Consultation Process? Tracking & Acknowledgment: Is there a system that confirms receipt of public input ? (Examples: My 2 Petitions from Dec.2023 already submitted to Brant County by way of a designation - 140 + 56 = 196 residents in support of a vehicular bridge + an additional 22 direct emails to Brant County Mayor and Councillors from residents in support of reopening a vehicular Cleaver Bridge) on Linkedin Email Included As part of my question 8 days ago... As part of Brant County's approved Consultation Process RPT-0380-23 #5. states, "The EngageBrant channel will include a Public Information Engagement component. Public input / feedback will be garnered through EngageBrant and any direct submissions to the County." ....... So, again, Were my previous Petitions and emails directly to Council members tracked and acknowledged as part of this Consultation Process? Tracking & Acknowledgment: Is there a system that confirms receipt of public input ? (Examples: My 2 Petitions from Dec.2023 already submitted to Brant County by way of a designation - 140 + 56 = 196 residents in support of a vehicular bridge + an additional 22 direct emails to Brant County Mayor and Councillors from residents in support of reopening a vehicular Cleaver Bridge) link

Included As part of my question 8 days ago... As part of Brant County's approved Consultation Process RPT-0380-23 #5. states, "The EngageBrant channel will include a Public Information Engagement component. Public input / feedback will be garnered through EngageBrant and any direct submissions to the County." ....... So, again, Were my previous Petitions and emails directly to Council members tracked and acknowledged as part of this Consultation Process? Tracking & Acknowledgment: Is there a system that confirms receipt of public input ? (Examples: My 2 Petitions from Dec.2023 already submitted to Brant County by way of a designation - 140 + 56 = 196 residents in support of a vehicular bridge + an additional 22 direct emails to Brant County Mayor and Councillors from residents in support of reopening a vehicular Cleaver Bridge)

ABowden asked about 2 months ago

Thank you for your feedback. The project team will compile all input gathered for consideration and review.
Mark Eby, P.Eng.
Director of Infrastructure and Asset Management - Operations
Share Cleaver Road Bridge was an 18 tonne posted, heritage, single lane bridge... WE, the Majority of the Community never had any input on the very expensive super highway Mill St. Bridge (other than a letter mailed to us, stating that, "there would be an inspection of both bridges, and then, there would be a decision on WHICH bridge would be completed 1st, and the other bridge rehabilitation would follow"... nor on this Project Survey, are we, the Community asked for input on any choice of bridge for this survey ! We have 2 choices only for vehicles - of Rehabilitation of $2.8 Million or New at $3.5-$4 Million .... Despite Brant County NOT awarding tender OPS-RFP-22-03 Bid Name: Consultant Services for the Engineering, Design, Tendering and Contract Administration of Bridge Projects Bid Status: Closed Published Date: Tue Jul 12, 2022 10:45 AM (EDT) Bid Closing Date: Thu Aug 4, 2022 2:00 PM (EDT) So, has Brant County estimated building a new bridge for vehicles at $3.5 - $4 MILLION (with No load posting ? Another duplicate of Mill St. Bridge which was complete overkill for the existing infrastructure and narrow road !)... I had submitted documentation for a "low cost" bridge, single lane for vehicles and dedicated pedestrian/cycling lane in a Brant Council Meeting Jan.2024..... ...... We, the Majority of the Community want to continue our right to safe passage/travel by vehicles over the Cleaver Rd. bridge.... ** At the meeting, May 12/2025, the County's "consultant/engineer" had never seen my documentation that was included in Council and passed as "information". ***** Please look into this cost effective solution for the Cleaver Bridge, delivered to Brant County, at a previous price of $100,000 + concrete + (asphalt, etc...) + Brant County internal jobs and local crews and equipment for construction. Please review websites www.infrasteel.com (low profile steel arch liner) and www.ail.ca (A Canadian Company - buried metal bridges and tunnels) for more ideas. These Companies have provided bridge solutions all over the world including Ontario, Canada... (Casselman, Ontario, Essex, Ontario, Caledon, Ontario, Town of Plympton-Wyoming, Ontario, Finch Ave, Toronto, Ontario ! ..... Surely there is a more cost effective solution for Cleaver Bridge for vehicles, rather than $3.5-$4 Million ?? on Facebook Share Cleaver Road Bridge was an 18 tonne posted, heritage, single lane bridge... WE, the Majority of the Community never had any input on the very expensive super highway Mill St. Bridge (other than a letter mailed to us, stating that, "there would be an inspection of both bridges, and then, there would be a decision on WHICH bridge would be completed 1st, and the other bridge rehabilitation would follow"... nor on this Project Survey, are we, the Community asked for input on any choice of bridge for this survey ! We have 2 choices only for vehicles - of Rehabilitation of $2.8 Million or New at $3.5-$4 Million .... Despite Brant County NOT awarding tender OPS-RFP-22-03 Bid Name: Consultant Services for the Engineering, Design, Tendering and Contract Administration of Bridge Projects Bid Status: Closed Published Date: Tue Jul 12, 2022 10:45 AM (EDT) Bid Closing Date: Thu Aug 4, 2022 2:00 PM (EDT) So, has Brant County estimated building a new bridge for vehicles at $3.5 - $4 MILLION (with No load posting ? Another duplicate of Mill St. Bridge which was complete overkill for the existing infrastructure and narrow road !)... I had submitted documentation for a "low cost" bridge, single lane for vehicles and dedicated pedestrian/cycling lane in a Brant Council Meeting Jan.2024..... ...... We, the Majority of the Community want to continue our right to safe passage/travel by vehicles over the Cleaver Rd. bridge.... ** At the meeting, May 12/2025, the County's "consultant/engineer" had never seen my documentation that was included in Council and passed as "information". ***** Please look into this cost effective solution for the Cleaver Bridge, delivered to Brant County, at a previous price of $100,000 + concrete + (asphalt, etc...) + Brant County internal jobs and local crews and equipment for construction. Please review websites www.infrasteel.com (low profile steel arch liner) and www.ail.ca (A Canadian Company - buried metal bridges and tunnels) for more ideas. These Companies have provided bridge solutions all over the world including Ontario, Canada... (Casselman, Ontario, Essex, Ontario, Caledon, Ontario, Town of Plympton-Wyoming, Ontario, Finch Ave, Toronto, Ontario ! ..... Surely there is a more cost effective solution for Cleaver Bridge for vehicles, rather than $3.5-$4 Million ?? on Twitter Share Cleaver Road Bridge was an 18 tonne posted, heritage, single lane bridge... WE, the Majority of the Community never had any input on the very expensive super highway Mill St. Bridge (other than a letter mailed to us, stating that, "there would be an inspection of both bridges, and then, there would be a decision on WHICH bridge would be completed 1st, and the other bridge rehabilitation would follow"... nor on this Project Survey, are we, the Community asked for input on any choice of bridge for this survey ! We have 2 choices only for vehicles - of Rehabilitation of $2.8 Million or New at $3.5-$4 Million .... Despite Brant County NOT awarding tender OPS-RFP-22-03 Bid Name: Consultant Services for the Engineering, Design, Tendering and Contract Administration of Bridge Projects Bid Status: Closed Published Date: Tue Jul 12, 2022 10:45 AM (EDT) Bid Closing Date: Thu Aug 4, 2022 2:00 PM (EDT) So, has Brant County estimated building a new bridge for vehicles at $3.5 - $4 MILLION (with No load posting ? Another duplicate of Mill St. Bridge which was complete overkill for the existing infrastructure and narrow road !)... I had submitted documentation for a "low cost" bridge, single lane for vehicles and dedicated pedestrian/cycling lane in a Brant Council Meeting Jan.2024..... ...... We, the Majority of the Community want to continue our right to safe passage/travel by vehicles over the Cleaver Rd. bridge.... ** At the meeting, May 12/2025, the County's "consultant/engineer" had never seen my documentation that was included in Council and passed as "information". ***** Please look into this cost effective solution for the Cleaver Bridge, delivered to Brant County, at a previous price of $100,000 + concrete + (asphalt, etc...) + Brant County internal jobs and local crews and equipment for construction. Please review websites www.infrasteel.com (low profile steel arch liner) and www.ail.ca (A Canadian Company - buried metal bridges and tunnels) for more ideas. These Companies have provided bridge solutions all over the world including Ontario, Canada... (Casselman, Ontario, Essex, Ontario, Caledon, Ontario, Town of Plympton-Wyoming, Ontario, Finch Ave, Toronto, Ontario ! ..... Surely there is a more cost effective solution for Cleaver Bridge for vehicles, rather than $3.5-$4 Million ?? on Linkedin Email Cleaver Road Bridge was an 18 tonne posted, heritage, single lane bridge... WE, the Majority of the Community never had any input on the very expensive super highway Mill St. Bridge (other than a letter mailed to us, stating that, "there would be an inspection of both bridges, and then, there would be a decision on WHICH bridge would be completed 1st, and the other bridge rehabilitation would follow"... nor on this Project Survey, are we, the Community asked for input on any choice of bridge for this survey ! We have 2 choices only for vehicles - of Rehabilitation of $2.8 Million or New at $3.5-$4 Million .... Despite Brant County NOT awarding tender OPS-RFP-22-03 Bid Name: Consultant Services for the Engineering, Design, Tendering and Contract Administration of Bridge Projects Bid Status: Closed Published Date: Tue Jul 12, 2022 10:45 AM (EDT) Bid Closing Date: Thu Aug 4, 2022 2:00 PM (EDT) So, has Brant County estimated building a new bridge for vehicles at $3.5 - $4 MILLION (with No load posting ? Another duplicate of Mill St. Bridge which was complete overkill for the existing infrastructure and narrow road !)... I had submitted documentation for a "low cost" bridge, single lane for vehicles and dedicated pedestrian/cycling lane in a Brant Council Meeting Jan.2024..... ...... We, the Majority of the Community want to continue our right to safe passage/travel by vehicles over the Cleaver Rd. bridge.... ** At the meeting, May 12/2025, the County's "consultant/engineer" had never seen my documentation that was included in Council and passed as "information". ***** Please look into this cost effective solution for the Cleaver Bridge, delivered to Brant County, at a previous price of $100,000 + concrete + (asphalt, etc...) + Brant County internal jobs and local crews and equipment for construction. Please review websites www.infrasteel.com (low profile steel arch liner) and www.ail.ca (A Canadian Company - buried metal bridges and tunnels) for more ideas. These Companies have provided bridge solutions all over the world including Ontario, Canada... (Casselman, Ontario, Essex, Ontario, Caledon, Ontario, Town of Plympton-Wyoming, Ontario, Finch Ave, Toronto, Ontario ! ..... Surely there is a more cost effective solution for Cleaver Bridge for vehicles, rather than $3.5-$4 Million ?? link

Cleaver Road Bridge was an 18 tonne posted, heritage, single lane bridge... WE, the Majority of the Community never had any input on the very expensive super highway Mill St. Bridge (other than a letter mailed to us, stating that, "there would be an inspection of both bridges, and then, there would be a decision on WHICH bridge would be completed 1st, and the other bridge rehabilitation would follow"... nor on this Project Survey, are we, the Community asked for input on any choice of bridge for this survey ! We have 2 choices only for vehicles - of Rehabilitation of $2.8 Million or New at $3.5-$4 Million .... Despite Brant County NOT awarding tender OPS-RFP-22-03 Bid Name: Consultant Services for the Engineering, Design, Tendering and Contract Administration of Bridge Projects Bid Status: Closed Published Date: Tue Jul 12, 2022 10:45 AM (EDT) Bid Closing Date: Thu Aug 4, 2022 2:00 PM (EDT) So, has Brant County estimated building a new bridge for vehicles at $3.5 - $4 MILLION (with No load posting ? Another duplicate of Mill St. Bridge which was complete overkill for the existing infrastructure and narrow road !)... I had submitted documentation for a "low cost" bridge, single lane for vehicles and dedicated pedestrian/cycling lane in a Brant Council Meeting Jan.2024..... ...... We, the Majority of the Community want to continue our right to safe passage/travel by vehicles over the Cleaver Rd. bridge.... ** At the meeting, May 12/2025, the County's "consultant/engineer" had never seen my documentation that was included in Council and passed as "information". ***** Please look into this cost effective solution for the Cleaver Bridge, delivered to Brant County, at a previous price of $100,000 + concrete + (asphalt, etc...) + Brant County internal jobs and local crews and equipment for construction. Please review websites www.infrasteel.com (low profile steel arch liner) and www.ail.ca (A Canadian Company - buried metal bridges and tunnels) for more ideas. These Companies have provided bridge solutions all over the world including Ontario, Canada... (Casselman, Ontario, Essex, Ontario, Caledon, Ontario, Town of Plympton-Wyoming, Ontario, Finch Ave, Toronto, Ontario ! ..... Surely there is a more cost effective solution for Cleaver Bridge for vehicles, rather than $3.5-$4 Million ??

ABowden asked about 2 months ago

Thank you for your feedback. The project team will compile all input gathered for consideration and review.
Mark Eby, P.Eng.
Director of Infrastructure and Asset Management - Operations
Share It was a shame that the County of Brant underestimated the interest and impact of this project by OUR Community... the attendance last night was the proof ! Despite not following County procedures and not posting the meeting notice at the closed bridge and despite not sending out communications to all affected and despite not advertising anywhere other than the County Facebook Page and website ! (no newspapers, no Community Centre event postings, etc...) ...............This is the 2nd Public meeting that I have attended, that there was an inadequate supply of surveys printed (Stormwater and now Cleaver Bridge survey). ...... Yesterday's meeting style was also inadequate as a form of communication... 1 on 1 style was not constructive... Brant County staff should have been more welcoming / instead of dismissive of OUR Community's many concerns and questions...Staff should have been more prepared (at least read the previous inspection reports like I did as part of the freedom of info act), perhaps prepared a short presentation and a GROUP question & answer period at the least... Now, people that attended have to find an alternative way to fill out the survey, when that was the reason for attending in the 1st place. (some people don't have computers, email, etc...couldn't Staff have printed more off at the attached Firestation ?) More thought should have gone into the survey (not a last minute, last day draft) It should have been more to the point - here are your options, what is your choice or what do you want to see happen ? By having a ranking system, for questions #7 and #8, it looks like a vote is cast in support of all of your options ... I've seen it in the Brant County results and recommendations for the Transportation Master Plan (2 surveys) ... Check mark, public consultation completed ! on Facebook Share It was a shame that the County of Brant underestimated the interest and impact of this project by OUR Community... the attendance last night was the proof ! Despite not following County procedures and not posting the meeting notice at the closed bridge and despite not sending out communications to all affected and despite not advertising anywhere other than the County Facebook Page and website ! (no newspapers, no Community Centre event postings, etc...) ...............This is the 2nd Public meeting that I have attended, that there was an inadequate supply of surveys printed (Stormwater and now Cleaver Bridge survey). ...... Yesterday's meeting style was also inadequate as a form of communication... 1 on 1 style was not constructive... Brant County staff should have been more welcoming / instead of dismissive of OUR Community's many concerns and questions...Staff should have been more prepared (at least read the previous inspection reports like I did as part of the freedom of info act), perhaps prepared a short presentation and a GROUP question & answer period at the least... Now, people that attended have to find an alternative way to fill out the survey, when that was the reason for attending in the 1st place. (some people don't have computers, email, etc...couldn't Staff have printed more off at the attached Firestation ?) More thought should have gone into the survey (not a last minute, last day draft) It should have been more to the point - here are your options, what is your choice or what do you want to see happen ? By having a ranking system, for questions #7 and #8, it looks like a vote is cast in support of all of your options ... I've seen it in the Brant County results and recommendations for the Transportation Master Plan (2 surveys) ... Check mark, public consultation completed ! on Twitter Share It was a shame that the County of Brant underestimated the interest and impact of this project by OUR Community... the attendance last night was the proof ! Despite not following County procedures and not posting the meeting notice at the closed bridge and despite not sending out communications to all affected and despite not advertising anywhere other than the County Facebook Page and website ! (no newspapers, no Community Centre event postings, etc...) ...............This is the 2nd Public meeting that I have attended, that there was an inadequate supply of surveys printed (Stormwater and now Cleaver Bridge survey). ...... Yesterday's meeting style was also inadequate as a form of communication... 1 on 1 style was not constructive... Brant County staff should have been more welcoming / instead of dismissive of OUR Community's many concerns and questions...Staff should have been more prepared (at least read the previous inspection reports like I did as part of the freedom of info act), perhaps prepared a short presentation and a GROUP question & answer period at the least... Now, people that attended have to find an alternative way to fill out the survey, when that was the reason for attending in the 1st place. (some people don't have computers, email, etc...couldn't Staff have printed more off at the attached Firestation ?) More thought should have gone into the survey (not a last minute, last day draft) It should have been more to the point - here are your options, what is your choice or what do you want to see happen ? By having a ranking system, for questions #7 and #8, it looks like a vote is cast in support of all of your options ... I've seen it in the Brant County results and recommendations for the Transportation Master Plan (2 surveys) ... Check mark, public consultation completed ! on Linkedin Email It was a shame that the County of Brant underestimated the interest and impact of this project by OUR Community... the attendance last night was the proof ! Despite not following County procedures and not posting the meeting notice at the closed bridge and despite not sending out communications to all affected and despite not advertising anywhere other than the County Facebook Page and website ! (no newspapers, no Community Centre event postings, etc...) ...............This is the 2nd Public meeting that I have attended, that there was an inadequate supply of surveys printed (Stormwater and now Cleaver Bridge survey). ...... Yesterday's meeting style was also inadequate as a form of communication... 1 on 1 style was not constructive... Brant County staff should have been more welcoming / instead of dismissive of OUR Community's many concerns and questions...Staff should have been more prepared (at least read the previous inspection reports like I did as part of the freedom of info act), perhaps prepared a short presentation and a GROUP question & answer period at the least... Now, people that attended have to find an alternative way to fill out the survey, when that was the reason for attending in the 1st place. (some people don't have computers, email, etc...couldn't Staff have printed more off at the attached Firestation ?) More thought should have gone into the survey (not a last minute, last day draft) It should have been more to the point - here are your options, what is your choice or what do you want to see happen ? By having a ranking system, for questions #7 and #8, it looks like a vote is cast in support of all of your options ... I've seen it in the Brant County results and recommendations for the Transportation Master Plan (2 surveys) ... Check mark, public consultation completed ! link

It was a shame that the County of Brant underestimated the interest and impact of this project by OUR Community... the attendance last night was the proof ! Despite not following County procedures and not posting the meeting notice at the closed bridge and despite not sending out communications to all affected and despite not advertising anywhere other than the County Facebook Page and website ! (no newspapers, no Community Centre event postings, etc...) ...............This is the 2nd Public meeting that I have attended, that there was an inadequate supply of surveys printed (Stormwater and now Cleaver Bridge survey). ...... Yesterday's meeting style was also inadequate as a form of communication... 1 on 1 style was not constructive... Brant County staff should have been more welcoming / instead of dismissive of OUR Community's many concerns and questions...Staff should have been more prepared (at least read the previous inspection reports like I did as part of the freedom of info act), perhaps prepared a short presentation and a GROUP question & answer period at the least... Now, people that attended have to find an alternative way to fill out the survey, when that was the reason for attending in the 1st place. (some people don't have computers, email, etc...couldn't Staff have printed more off at the attached Firestation ?) More thought should have gone into the survey (not a last minute, last day draft) It should have been more to the point - here are your options, what is your choice or what do you want to see happen ? By having a ranking system, for questions #7 and #8, it looks like a vote is cast in support of all of your options ... I've seen it in the Brant County results and recommendations for the Transportation Master Plan (2 surveys) ... Check mark, public consultation completed !

ABowden asked about 2 months ago

Thank you for your feedback. The project team will compile all input gathered for consideration and review.
Mark Eby, P.Eng.
Director of Infrastructure and Asset Management - Operations

Page last updated: 01 Jul 2025, 04:20 PM

Cleaver Road Bridge

Why this is happening

Options being considered

Your feedback matters

Next steps

FAQs

Stay Informed

Why this is happening

Options being considered

Your feedback matters

Next steps

FAQs

Stay Informed

Questions and comments

Follow Project

Timeline

Engage with us May 12 to June 30, 2025

June 30 - Engagement is closed. Thank you for participating.

Fall 2025: Recommendations presented to Council

FAQs

Documents

Who's Listening

Signup Banner