No to gravel

Council won’t return any of its roads to gravel

Last week, Council decided that it is not interested in turning any of its deteriorating roads back to gravel.

During the 2024 budget deliberations, Council directed staff to prepare a report on candidate roads for returning to gravel and what the operating budget, capital budget and asset management implications would be on the 2025 budget.

Roads that were on the list to return to gravel until funds were available to resurface included Salem Road, Weese Road and a portion of Carnrike Road in Ameliasburgh Ward. Roads that were selected to be returned to gravel permanently were Carnrike Road (Salem Road to Link Road), Wild Oak Lane, Brewers Road, Lighthall Road, Morgan Road, Station Road and George’s Road.

The report noted the pros of returning to gravel would be cost savings, staff efficiency and more flexibility as gravel roads are suitable for low-traffic areas and can accommodate heavy loads without significant damage.

The cons were increased maintenance due to frequent grading, dust concerns and an overall reduced road quality as gravel roads tend to provide a less comfortable and smooth driving experience.

George’s Road was well represented at the meeting, with many residents voicing their displeasure of the plan. Dave Haney led Council through a video of him driving the road, and pointed out the road is currently in very good condition.

“We are very happy with the current conditions on George’s Road. Our local operations staff do a very good job,” said Haney.

Haney is a retired mortgage broker. He said lenders are wary of lending to houses that are on gravel roads.

“We did not give as high of a loan to value ratio on those loans, as we did for those on paved roads. The first thing we asked for was a copy of the listing to see if it was on a gravel road,” said Haney.

Salem Road resident Dan Baldwin said he had an issue with the definition of temporary.

“Temporary in the private sector means something along the lines of weeks or months. I am not sure that temporary means the same thing with respect to municipal government here in Prince Edward County,” he said.

Baldwin told Council he had done some quick math based on the cost savings noted in the report, and he came up with a temporary return to gravel of 13 years.

“That’s pathetic and unacceptable,” added Baldwin.

Baldwin, who also practises as a lawyer, also noted that Council could put itself in the position for a class action lawsuit due to property value decreases.

“When people are unable to renew their mortgages, who is liable for that? When I hear dust pollution, fair market value and pollution to water wells, all I could think of is what a great class action lawsuit across the board.”

Councillor Chris Braney said he couldn’t support a return to gravel.

“I represent a farming community and I have talked to my neighbours on this. Number one concern for people is definitely road infrastructure. It just feels to me that a plan like this is not giving the hope that we are advancing. It is giving the feeling of regressing. I feel it is important to maintain an improvement,” said Braney.

“We have to listen to the people, and to real experience. Thirteen years is hardly temporary. If that is what the time frame is, this is not an option,” said Hirsch.

Hirsch shared that he had real experience over the last year of this experiment, when two kilometres of Royal Road were converted back into gravel while it awaited surface treatment.

“The residents were all in favour. The work was done, it was great. The dust was bad until the dust suppressant went down, and then of course it gets bad again because one application in a year isn’t enough. But then fall and winter and early spring comes, and the way our climate works, it just ruts and potholes and we can’t grade in the winter when it is wet. As far as the residents were concerned, that road wasn’t in much better shape than it was before we embarked on the project,” said Hirsch.

Councillor Brad Nieman was the one who asked for the report during the 2024 budget.

“This is a plan that we can move forward to get to a place where we can start to afford what we have. If we don’t do something, we are going to have the whole public here because we are going to have to raise taxes so high to be able to fix everything,” he said. “We don’t like change, and we don’t like not having things. That is the reality.”

Sensing the motion was going to fail, Councillor St-Jean made his point.

“We are basically going nowhere. We have come to a dead stop. What a waste of time.”

The pilot project failed as the County’s roads continue to deteriorate.