There go all the promises of candidates to keep the existing bridge as a heritage bridge .....

What appears to be left unsaid is that the bridge cannot be fixed ....

The quickest and cheapest way to do this is to build a new bridge mid way down towards cottonwood island .... it is the $9million option recommended by the original engineering report ... cheap and quick to build .....

but who would be interested in something as expedient as that .....

Still no answer to my question --- where did the old cottonwood bridge go ?? Why can't that bridge be used on the original abbutments ?? It was a two lane bridge, should be quite inexpensive compared to a new one, and should have had lots of years left in it yet. Someone told me it was stored up on the Hart somewhere.
Anyone know where, or what kind of shape it was in when it was dismantled?

I think the bridge could be used but, and it is a big but, I think it should be limited to size and weight.(I have seen some very over weight and over size loads cross the bridge on numerous occaisons and I am sure there were many more.) I know that is going to get the ire of truckers up in arms and those effected by the trucks having to go down 5th ave but the bridge could be repared for use by smaller vehicles, say up to 5 tons and limit the height so no further damage that way is done, and at the same time it could still possibly be preserved as heritage. And this still leaves it open for a new bridge where ever to handle the heavier traffic.

Palomino

Even if the bridge you speak of had exactly the same span from pier to pier, it would likely not be able to be used since the piers may not support the traffic.

With a different span, the chords and webs would be different lengths and angles thus requiring new connectors, bolting configurations, etc.

On top of that, the steel may not meet today's specifications so could not be used. In addtion, the steel has had several decades of service life, so may "suffer" from "fatigue".

Ask a structural engineer and he/she will be able to give you a much more detailed reason why the bridge could not be used in that fashion. The steel has junk value for use in a reduction mill, that is probably all as far as commercial use goes.

>Still, the completion of a new bridge could be a few years away.<

That is ok, but only if the present Cameron Street Bridge is immediately equipped with a new superstructure while the new bridge is under construction.

Stopped at 5th and Bypass I observed (again) a fully loaded northbound logging truck going through the intersection while the light had changed totally to red in his direction!

Unable to stop in time, I asssume. Only a psychic can predict when a green lights will suddenly turn to amber and within four seconds to red!

Now some trucks are pulling trailers and the drivers know that those huge loads behind them cannot be stopped on a dime by slamming on the brakes!

When are yellow flashing warning lights going to be installed to warn drivers of heavy trucks that the intersection lights are about to change to amber once they reach the intersection itself???

I am talking about the kind of lights as can be found in many locations, i.e. bottom of Peden Hill, intersection of Foothills and North Nechako road etc. Will it take a multiple fatality in one of the intersections of the Bypass with the other avenues before the City, ICBC and the Department of Highways will finally do the right thing?

I made some phonecalls, but......shouldn't the people who are in charge be already aware of this?

Diplomat I couldn't agree with you more on the warning light and it could be as simple as having the green start to blink prior to the change.As for the bridge I am sticking to my original feelings and that is we do not need another bridge over the Nechako we all ready have two.Can't these guys make these bridge work or what? The left turning light when coming from the north on 97 is a lot longer now and just that alone has made a big improvement.

Fedup: >"as having the green start to blink prior to the change."<

I mentioned this to Ben Meissner a few short years ago on his radio call-in show. A gentleman from ICBC was there as well and I was given an email address to send this idea to. I did, but NOTHING resulted from it, even though they all agreed it was an excellent idea.

The programming in the microprocessor based controller for the lights needs to be reprogrammed, that's all. The pulsing green light idea does not require any additional wiring, cables or such.

In some ICBC or RCMP office someone probably found a regulation that won't allow it to happen.

That is why we need the advance boards with the yellow flashing lights that people are already familiar with.

Well I see that fixing the bridge as it is, was not listed as an option, nor was the cost, nor was there any mention of the magnitude, of the rot in the timbers. No clear explanation of the Engineers report, that supposedly condemned the bridge. Surprise, Surprise.

As I said earlier this year the rumour was out there before the election that the solution would be a steel structure on the existing piers. Cost somewhere in the area of 4/6 million. I still say that we could have repaired the bridge and had it up and running for the same amount of money that they will now spend for studies of items 2 and 3.

In addition. If this new structure is going to take two years, then I suggest that more money will be spent on the junction of 5th and bypass, and 5th and Carney. If we can go for two and a half years without this bridge do we really need it. Keep in mind that the population is declining and we have no reason to beleive at this time that it will increase.

The people on the North Nechako and Hart Hiway will be so used to using the John Hart they wont be able to go back to using the **so called** new bridge when and if it is built.

This has been a major snow job and the amazing thing is that very few people in Prince George are even aware that it took place. This type of BS goes on all the time and these local politicians take no responsibility whatsoever for their actions. Wake up Prince George, your so far in debt your great grand children will never bail you out. This is all about letting contracts and spending taxpayers money,it has absolutly nothing to do with actual need.

Diplomat ....

Your suggestion is impossible given that they want to consider using the existing piers.

Also, building a "high enough" bridge means substantial changes to the approaches on both sides. That is why the cost is so high for this option. Build a bridge further down stream and the approaches become much simpler.

Finally, while improvements can and should be made at 5th and the now missnamed "by-pass", that will mean a full year of more of interruption in traffic there. So they will first have to reinforce the foothills bridge to the tune of about $2 million so that trucks can "temporarily" use that as an alternate route if the Cameron Street Bridge is out of service .....

Does anyone want to play Dominos .... :-)

Perhaps Council is putting the cart before the horse. It would be good commonsense to delineate where the hazardous goods route should go first. It cannot stay permanently on Carney, Fifth and the By-Pass. So isn't the City wasting our tax dollars on replacing the Cameron Street Bridge? IMO the bridge should be kept as a pedestrian bridge which retains its' value as a heritage bridge.

Even if it is only kept as a pedestrian bridge it would need repairs to the rotten section(s)! Imagine if a bicycle rider or some pedestrian ends up in the river because of some old wooden planks finally caving in!

I personally do not see how this unattractive looking old run-of-the-mill structure can have even the slightest value as a "heritage" object!

Perhaps people who have an interest in its preservation for the next generations should form a society and approach the city with ideas and the money to buy it and maintain it safely.

Its time to put your brain in gear before you engage your mouths. The City Transportation Manager advises that the Cameron St. Bridge can be repaired for $750,000.00 this amount would include resurfacing.

The other options would be to build a new bridge for 22.4 million dollars, or to build a superstructure on the old piers. He didnt give a cost for this superstructure but the study alone would be $190,000.00. The superstructure would probably cost 5/6 million. We would not have a bridge for about 2 years.

NOW ((WAKE UP)) No bridge for 2 to 2 1/2 years. If it is gone for that long do we really need it????. People will be totally used to using the John Hart Bridge and we would have to retrain them to use the New Nechako Bridge.

The Nechako Bridge could be repaired and open for traffic by June of this year at the latest if they got off their butts and started to get the work done.

This City if far enough in debt, and we do not need anymore hairbrained ideas on how to waste taxpayers money.'

This bridge is about moving traffic and avoiding some congestion which can be done at a reasonable cost. The other options are about letting contracts, and spending taxpayers money needlessly.

City council is counting on us to keep our heads in the sand and not disturb them while they blow our money. It seems a number of citizens are fully prepared to do this. **WAKE UP**

Dont give me any BS about $750,000.00 being to much money to put into an old bridge. Firstly I think they inflated the number, and secondly look what we spend our money on now.
CN Centre $300,000.00 per year to operate.
Study of Par 3 Golf Course $200,000.00
Art Centre Bail out $ 325,000.00. Overrun of John Hart Bridge $13 Million. Road to the University $18 Million. CN building on first avenue for IPG 2/3 Million. The list goes on. $750,000.00 to get this bridge back up and running to service business on River Road, and 1st Ave is much better than the other options.

Palopu: >"Its time to put your brain in gear before you engage your mouths. <"

Strong stuff, but your comments are very good! There is only one problem, and a big one: It appears that the mayor has already decided that fixing the old Cammy bridge is a NO-GO! He wants a NEW one in a different location, or failing that, a new superstructure on the old piers.

And, judging by past issues he will not budge from his position.

Just repairing it, like you suggest seems to be unbefitting a city which still has a some borrowing power left.

I can't understand why anyone would want to keep the old bridge for walking across. Where are you going to walk to? The Cottonwood trail goes to the south side of the bridge but there is nothing on the north side. I guess we could walk to the pulp mills. Or maybe over to the brewery. It's the same as the old KGV school. In another 25 years no one is going to remember either the bridge or the school.

Diplomat. I agree with you insofar as the Mayor is concerned. If the people in Nth Nechako and Hart Hiway knew that they would be without a bridge for 2 years, and that the present bridge could have been repaired and up and running mid 2006 I suggest that Colin would not be the Mayor at this time. Rogers is as much at fault as anyone because of his fuzzy approach to this issue.

This bridge was never seriously out of commission and the closing of it was as much for political purposes as it was for safety. The timing was perfect. You will notice that the City Engineers now state the there was some rot in a few beams in the centre of the Bridge, and that it can be repaired. This information was not forthcoming until recently, however Im sure that it was available before the elections. I was watching this bridge pretty closely in November and December, and have yet to see anyone looking at it, or working on it. Also as I mentioned before, when they did their inspection in January 2005 there was no mention of rot.

I still maintain that Council in addition to the Mayor have a responsibility for spending taxpayers money wisely, and they have a responsibility to look at the option of repairing the bridge, or give us a good reason why they should not. If we can get another 10 years out of this bridge for 1 or 2 million dollars, then we should do so. By then we may not need a new one.

Palopou ....

As far as I am concerned you are bang on.

The information was known to City Hall during the election without a doubt. Even now the $750,000 repair option is not getting any "air" time.

The plan to demolish the existing bridge and build a new bridge in its place has been the plan for the last year. Those who knew that and were on Council avoided the issue during the election. In my mind, they were either not being honest with the electorate or they did not understand what the $22.3 million dollar option was. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure that one cannot have an existing bridge up and running while building a new bridge in direct line with it and that it takes a couple of years around here to build such a bridge, at least for those who keep on forgetting that one can actually span the river without building piers in the middle of it.

hint:
http://www.michaeltaylorauthor.com/images/kolnbridge_lg.jpg

In either case we need more qualified people than that on Council. But it seems the people of this City did not realize that, so we have to learn to live with it or leave.

They made the wrong choice and they are keeping on with making wrong choices. I will blame every single accident that will occur after May of 2007 up to the time a new bridge is in place. Repairs could easily have been completed by May and even sooner had they acted on the information when it became available. Besides, why does an emergency expenditure of $750,000 which will likely save lives, have to be approved by Council in the first place?

No dangerous goods route, lousy air quality, poor snow clearing (when we get any), no sense of urgency when infrastructure is out of commission, no evacuation plan, high crime rate, just to name a few. One has to wonder whether this City really cares about the safety of its inhabitants?

O K Dip and Pal---throw that "common sense" out the window, 'cause it just is not going to wash at Prince George City Hall.
We do not have a "brilliant" Mayor and Council, but we did not have any brilliants to choose from.
The capable would be candidates just do not apply, and their names never hit a ballot.
They are too busy feathering their own nests by initiating plans and working hard to make them materialize.
They do not have to live off the system, and that includes holidays.
Also, the voters get tunnel vision, and you know that bridge was a BIG issue, and Rogers just did not step up to the plate over the issue, so Kinsley worked his magic with insinuations, and the Hart voters fell into line.
Mission accomplished. Now holiday times are on the venue.
Time to "lay low" and by the time it could become an issue again- the grass will be green and it will be time to put out the hummingbird feeders and plan barbecues.
Who needs to worry about dangerous goods routes and an old bridge?
Once one understands the general public it becomes easy to be forgiving of them.
They are just too darn busy earning a living and trying to experience some happiness in this troubled old world.
So be it!!!!

Hey Duffer: If you keep the old bridge you are keep part of Prince George's history. That old bridge happens to go to McMillan Creek Park which incidentally is the only spawning creek on the river within City confines. It also leads to a trail that climbs the cutbanks. Ask any oldtimer and they will tell you why the bridge should be preserved.