Salmon River Bridge Plan Draws Heritage Society’s Attention
Image courtesy Ministry of Transportation
Prince George, B.C.- The planned new $24 million dollar bridge to cross the Salmon River may be a boon for transporting goods and improving safety, but the Salmon River Heritage Society has some concerns.
At a public open house session in Salmon Valley last evening, 
Pockett says the Society and the community understand the current bridge has to be replaced to improve safety, but he would like to see if some elements from the old bridge could be incorporated into the design of the new crossing so the community’s identity is kept intact.
The new bridge will have a longer span, be wider, have a sidewalk for pedestrians, and a pedestrian underpass at either end to accommodate those who like to recreate on the river during the summer.
Ministry of Transportation District Manager of Transportation, Ron Marshall, is not sure how the Society’s request can be incorporated into the design That’s something we would have to talk to stakeholders about to see what that would look like. Obviously the bridge placed somewhere else wouldn’t work but there have been other instances, where we’ve had some sort of memorial or monument for certain things. It’s not off the table, but it’s something we certainly would look at.”
Pockett says his group would like to talk to the bridge designers “To see if we can get something blue put on the new bridge, possibly a memorial plaque to show what the old bridge used to look like, and possibly signage in the recreational areas showing what the old bridge used to look like and some history on the bridge.”
The project will require some property acquisition, but that matter is still being negotiated says Marshall “This is still a conceptual design, so until that design is finalized, they haven’t moved forward with final acquisition, but they have been in contact with folks and have been talking about what potentially may need to happen.”
Throughout the project, there would still need to be a temporary two lane crossing and that would be the first step in the preparation for construction .
The project is expected to start this fall, with completion in the fall of 2017.
Comments
yes protect your identity. take a picture of the bridge. now spend the money to build it right the first time. make it four lane and move on.
The Blue Bridge? It wasn’t that many years ago when we had the wooden bridge there – oh yes, and the circular dance hall to the immediate west or upriver from the bridge. THAT was a heritage bridge! Only wide enough for two lumber trucks to pass each other, but just barely.
I don`t understand why go with only 2 lanes. And if you do make it expandable to four lanes for future.
Those big trucks come down that hill at top speed, as well as at the bottom heading North.
The traffic counts didn’t give reason for a 4 lane, with the bridge they are putting in it will be easy enough to twin it on the west side. They would also have to 4 lane the railway overpass just north and the wright creek bridge
It’s a bridge, no need to be so attached to it.
Yes it should be four lanes there, traffic pulls out from salmon valley in front of trucks coming down the hill and it is twin passing lane just past the bridge…do it right the first time. Make it safe.
Ahhh boo hoo hoo, you want the bridge, take it down an take it to your ranch.
Todd Stone and his crew are out to screw the people of the north again. Whats with the completion date? This project was announced last year and your telling us now the completion date will be 2017. This bridge is maybe 100-200 ft and you can’t get the job completed this year. It would not surprise me if they even start construction this year.
It was announced last year and the engineering was awarded last year. Timeline actually hasn’t changed. This meeting was to provide input to the design team.
So do they have a contractor to do this project yet? The thing that bugs me is why will it take so long to complete this project? This is not a large project. When you look at the picture it looks like the bridge is crossing a canyon 1000 ft deep. If they hire a contractor with some decent equipment this project would not take very long to complete but maybe they are thinking they will hire a contractor with one gravel truck,a backhoe and a bobcat.
probably taking in to account union wages and skill set………..
Four lane it, put off-highway parking areas both sides and be done with it.
This bridge is old, been there since the 50’s as I recall, and if anyone thinks to the future, it will need 4 laning in the next 5-20 years. It’s cost effective to do it right the first time.
I’m concerned that the approaches they build for any bridge are going to remove any off highway parking.
No, the current bridge was not there in the 50’s, it was replaced somewhere back in the late 60’s or early 70’s.
I’ve got pics of me standing in front of that there same bridge in
56.
I think it will be four lanes eventually or a double bridge, but it will be a few years away. Its all about how much it costs now.
Where they missed the mark is the Cottonwood bridge down south. With it going to go four lanes, now they have too build another bridge. Notice they did not make that mistake in Hixon, when they did that bridge.
cost some now, cost way more later!
Double lane, 4 lanes in total, with pedestrian access.
if the designers and other stake holders do not, then that is a strong indication of the value of the electorates opinion.
They know all, we no jack all? Is that what they think, so far, based on the drawing, this is what “they” thought “we” wanted and needed. It is not enough to replace like with like. Build for what will be, not what is.
nuffsnuff1—The current bridge was opened in 1954.
Lots of people who go swimming out there and park off the sides of the highway in the summer. It is just luck that no one has been killed out there.
X-lit, I agree, but it’s the same thing on the north end of Foothills Bridge, no parking off road for a very popular area.
Seems Highway, Regional District and the City don’t seem to care til
someones in a coffin.
Why is the government forever building two lane bridges. We have had many fatalities on our roads. If this was in the south all new bridges and roads are four lanes. This bridge will be the same for 50 years . All resources or 80% come from the north. We should demand four lane highways so that the north are just as safe as the south. Maybe the next election will help. This is why they are holding off on getting this project started. When the election is called they are going to announce that Salmon valley bridge will begin. Look at the University Way. Four lanes then a two lane bridge. Easier and less costly when building. Like I say everything has to last us 50 years before expansion.
The Hart is a two lane highway from Chief Lake north except for the occasional passing lane . It serves no purpose to build a 4 lane bridge. If and when the road is widened then the bridge can be twinned as was done with the Simon and hart bridges. As for timeline once design is finalized might see approaches to and temp bridge in place before next winter and in the spring the old one demolished and new one built.
Donny– have to agree with you. The thing here is we are not talking about a one KM span. Our local MLAs do not seem to have any input in the north. Don’t want to upset Christy.
It seems so very obvious to me that now is the time to do it right.
Yes, a 4 laner will cost more than a bridge with 2 lanes, but adding 2 more lanes later how ever you do it is guaranteed to cost much more.
So what if the highway is 2 lanes (3 lanes from within a km. of Wright Creek bridge all the way to Johnson’s straight) And so what if Wright Creek bridge is only 2 lanes?
Those sections of the highway are not part of the discussion.
The topic for discussion is the replacement of the Salmon River bridge.
Easy as pie to tie a new 4 lane bridge into the 3 lane wide approach to the hill.
Those who argue against a 4 lane bridge are suffering from a lack of foresight.
metalman.
Four lanes would be great.. Only matter of time before its needed.
Would also be great if they left the old bridge where it is and make it into a day recreational area..where people could picnic and fish off the bridge
I have been traveling this highway on an almost weekly basis to MacKenzie since 1989. While I agree that a four lane bridge would be the best solution long-term, I think that a two lane bridge is the viable way to go. I think the Gov’t should also replace the old bridge just south of MacKenzie Junction with an identical two-lane bridge to the one being proposed for the Salmon River crossing. These two bridges are “Scary” when meeting oncoming Semis on them. I also would like to see three or four more passing lanes put in between Salmon River and MacKenzie Junction.
There..That is my wish list.
Comments for this article are closed.