Here we go again, another STUDY. I don't know of any other place that spends so much money on studies. With the money spent so far i am sure they could have fixed the darn bridge.

I agree with gofaster, pay pay pay. Consultants get rich studying while tax payers go broke. I'm sure someone local could do the same job for a quarter of the cost.

WHY IS IT THAT ALL GOVERNMENTS HIRE SO CALLED EXPERIENCED PEOPLE ONLY TO FIND THEY CAN'T MAKE DECISIONS WITHOUT THE HELP OF A CONSULTANTS REPORT. MAYBEE WE SHOULD HIRE THE CONSULTANTS TO RUN THE GOVERNMENT AND DO AWAY WITH BUREAUCRATS AND POLITITIONS. HMMM! A LOT OF MONEY WOULD BE SAVED.

Git:"WHY IS IT THAT ALL GOVERNMENTS HIRE SO CALLED EXPERIENCED PEOPLE ONLY TO FIND THEY CAN'T MAKE DECISIONS WITHOUT THE HELP OF A CONSULTANTS REPORT."

Answer: The one who makes the final decision can't pass the buck (blame) to anyone else if it turns out to have been a bad move!

But, when you hire someone you can pass the buck, the blame and sue if necessary!

And, of course, if everything works out o.k.
you can take ALL the credit and run for re-election!

Isn't it wonderful???

And the taxpayer is allowed to pay for it all!

You ask: "WHY IS IT THAT ALL GOVERNMENTS HIRE SO CALLED EXPERIENCED PEOPLE ONLY TO FIND THEY CAN'T MAKE DECISIONS WITHOUT THE HELP OF A CONSULTANTS REPORT"

The answer is quite simple and rather obvious and this case is an excellent example of where one would not want to do less.

There is no one on Ciy staff who has the experience. Anyone, whether public or private corporation, would follow this path.

That being said, the probelm I have is the situation where there is report after report about the same thing. In those situation I would first look at the decision makers, which inludes senior administrators and Council, and suspect they either do not have sufficeint information, which means they have not asked counsultants the right questions, or they simply cannot make up their mind.

Owl has a good point that the bridge issue requires a consultant.

But Git's question was one that asked why ALL goverments follow that same routine, having expensive experts on staff who can't to a thing without further contracting out to get the opinions of others.

Case in point: a study in PG to determine how many sidewalks we have and how many we actually need!

There is nobody at city hall on the payroll already who could figure that out?

If the Cement Piers are found to be adequate to hold a steel superstructure (2 lanes) which I suspect has been the **Plan** all along, then we can expect this bridge to be out of commission for at least another 1 1/2 years.

If the Piers are ok to hold a Steel Superstructure then by default they would be ok to hold the present wooden structure and we could have this bridge repaired and up and running (Single lane) by this fall. Cost $724,000.00 or less which would include resurfacing. We would probably not have to do anymore major repairs again for 5 years and then at the most another $724,000.00. After 10 years it would become obvious as to wether or not a bridge is even required. ((Pine Beetle)) etc.
In addition to providing service to River Road, 1st Avenue and the downtown, this bridge could be maintained as a Heritage Bridge.

Im betting the City by which I mean (The Mayor) will opt for the Superstructure (8/10 Million) and if the Piers are not strong enough for a Steel Superstructure, then he will try to get funding for a new bridge (22 Million) which would mean no bridge for at least 2 years.

At this point common sense and fiscal responsibility say **Fix the present bridge**

Common sense and fiscal responsibility being in short supply at City Hall means that we will be without a bridge for 1 1/2 to 2 years.

I fully agree with palopu that the wrong decision was made in the first place which led to the study now required.

The other thing which keeps being forgotten in all of this is that the original study of 2001 or so recommended a bridge halfway down the river or even one at Cottonwood Island. Either would have been considerably cheaper.

Instead they went with the most expensive (twice as much) location, asked another sutdy to look at that option more closely, discovered that the new birdge there would have to replace the existing bridge as far as alignement goes. If I recall correctly (and I may be wrong in this) there was not mention in that study of the 2 or so years of downtime of the bridge and the "cost" of that.

We only found out about that due to the unforseen closure of the bridge.

Engineering studies are rarely perfect and often miss a key ingredient. That is why it is important for as many eyes as possible to see the various draft stages of a report and have input.

I think the bridge could be saved if only as a Heritage item,and used too, BUT, The bridge has to be limited as to how much weight passes over it...say 5 tons. Oh sorry loggers that means you go around and can no longer take your over loaded trucks across it. Let the general publi use it and it will probably last a long time to come. But that makes sense and in my opinion the leaders of our fair city don't seem to know what that is. They prefer studies and wasting money.

I have never known why they chose the Old Nechako Bridge instead of the Victoria Street or Cottonwood Island. Does anyone on this site know why? If not, is it possible to find out their reasoning. After all we pay the bill.

I tried to find out both from elected officials and those in engineering. The silence was deafening.

The best Colin could do was state that the so called Victoria Street option was the most expensive since he figured the railway overpass was part of the proposal. Well, that is not the way the engineering report was written. So we have an "interpretation" which was in error as far as I am concerned.

As I have said before, and there are others much closer to the situation than I am who have the same opinion, industry located in that part of the City will likely not last much longer than the present beetle cut, which puts it 7 to 10 years down the road.

Result? Build the cheapest possible bridge, or build the bridge in a location which would be part of a future "trucking bypass" from East to North.

Heritage is not a consideration here, although many say it is.

Owl: The secrecy is interesting. I have just come across an e-mail from Cliff Dezell dated May 10th, 2000 in which he states "Part of our long range plan is to reclaim and reconnect the water front lands, mostly CN and industrial, to the City." If one uses logic it is obvious that the land will be reclaimed and citizens will be able to enjoy the rivers. It poses the question "Is not a bridge in the present location (Old Nechako Bridge) obsolete before it is even built?"

As you suggest and I concur, a trucking route around the city would better serve the truckers, industry and the safety of the citizens of Prince George.

To expend money on this proposed crossing is a waste of money and not a solution to trucking routes and the opening up of the river.

I ponder if there is anything we can do as citizens to publicly protest the decision of Council to waste money on this bridge. Also, Council, administration and engineering must be open to enquiries as we pay the bill. Does anyone on this site, if they agree, have any ideas how we can best do that?