Bridge Study Coming Along

Wednesday, June 21, 2006 04:00 AM

Cameron Street Bridge, the day it was closed (Opinion250 file photo)

The four stage study on the possibility of using the existing piers of the Cameron Street bridge for a new Nechako river crossing is progressing, and the results so far have been "Positive" says Frank Blues, the City’s Transportation Manager.

The City has set aside $190 thousand dollars for the study, which was to be done in stages. If one stage failed to pass the test, the study would be stopped.

That hasn’t happened.

Stage one took a little longer than anticipated as it was a report on the river and ice jams. The next stage was an evaluation of the foundation and involved core samples of the piers and the riverbed. Then came an evaluation of the condition of the concrete. The study is into the fourth and final stage now as the structure’s capacity and capability are evaluated along with the costs involved.

Blues says the draft report is likely to be ready by the end of July. It will be given to City staff for review, and the completed document with recommendations will be presented to City Council around the end of the summer.

Council has already approved the site for the development of a new bridge with two lanes for traffic, bicycle lanes, pedestrian facilities and lighting. The price tag for that crossing is $22.4 million, money the City hopes to share on a three way split with the provincial and federal government. There has been no indication the province or the Federal government will carry a share of the cost.

The construction of the bridge is listed as part of the City’s capital plan for 2008.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 04:00 AM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: kimbo on June 21 2006 10:26 AM

The City of bridges. Or is it all about votes for 2008.

Like Jack webbster used to say,"stupid, stupid, stupid".

Posted by: diplomat on June 21 2006 3:18 PM

If the report is true that the Council has already approved the site "for the development of a NEW bridge with two lanes of traffic...." and "it is listed as part of the City's capital plan for 2008" why are we spending money drilling holes into the existing OLD piers and calculating ice jams???

Like Ben Meisner used to say,"stupid, stupid, stupid."

It sure looks as if a NEW bridge and a sound repaired OLD bridge cannot be had in that location at the same time.

But, wait and see...one of these days we may be able to drive across at least one of them by the time the 2010 Winter Olympics are being officially opened.

Posted by: Palopu on June 21 2006 7:48 PM

kb. Why would anyone in their right mind build a brand new bridge for 22 Million dollars to service 8000 vehicles per day. These 8000 vehicles are presently using the John Hart bridge and have been for the last 10 months. It will be another 2 years before either a steel superstructure bridge is built on the existing cement piers for a cost of 7 to 10 million, or a new bridge is built with Federal and Provincial funding for a cost of 22 Million.

If we can get by without this bridge for 2 1/2 years, then common sense says that we should repair the old bridge, so that it can handle the measly 8000 vehicles per day that use it, and save us millions of dollars. Plus we can get the old bridge up and running this summer.

I dont think the City really beleives that they will get the Fed/Prov funding and the plan all along is for the steel Superstructure for a cost of 7 to 10 Million. In any event the present bridge could be repaired for a cost of $724,000.00 and service us well into the future, however this option requires common sense, and fiscal responsibility, both of which are sadly lacking at City Hall and also lacking among a large portion of the local population, who wouldnt know bridge beam from a mallard duck, but who have no qualms about spending millions of dollars foolishly.

If you follow the string from the ring in your nose it will lead you directly to City Hall. They are the guys who are leading you around by the nose.

This whole new bridge fiasco is about spending money, and letting contracts, it has nothing to do with moving traffic. If it was the old bridge would already be repaired.

Posted by: trusted on June 21 2006 9:08 PM

Well, I'll be "Palopu," and on the off chance we will be called negative-I have to tell you I could not have said it better myself.
Mind you, there is a touch of exasperation in your comments-but just a touch!!!!!!
Have to mind you do not tick off all those city hall supporters while you state what should be common sense to the masses!!!!!!
Could be it is a bit far fetched to say a large portion of the local population would not know a bridge beam from a mallard duck.
On the other hand........!!!!!!??

Posted by: thereasonableman on June 21 2006 10:50 PM

I have to agree wholeheartedly with the previous few responses, in that, in a time of strict fiscal responsibility paired with a number of financial challenges, the smart answer would be to repair the existing bridge to it's previous state. It was serving it's purpose in it's previous state and nothing any more extravagant was required for the job. The money saved in the act of not replacing it with something fancy, can then go further to get several other projects done. For Instance: If you can only afford to buy a new truck, but you'd like to have several toys, you should think about using the same amount of money to buy a used truck, used quad, used sled, and used boat instead. No more cost, but lots more results for the money spent. I must say that I also smell an alternate agenda, I wonder if anybody in town has already ordered the machinery they'll need to service their portion of the contract to build a new bridge ?

Posted by: Marty on June 22 2006 8:07 AM

The smart thing to do IMHO is reopen the bridge ( actually it never should have been closed) to vehicle traffic, with a weight limit imposed.
So no vehicles with a GVW of over 10,000 kgs.
Then the majority of traffic could still utilize the bridge, and it would keep the crushing big trucks off of it.
The wood deck has been smashed to pieces year after year, and constantly repaired.
And it was a small percentage of the traffic, doing a majority of the damage.....it was not your F150 or honda civiv busting the bridge up....but the loaded rigs IMHO.

Then while it is still open to most traffic, they can take their time and decide what is best and cheapest to do with the problem.

Posted by: kimbo on June 22 2006 9:44 AM

"Eight thousand vehicles per day over the Cameron street Bridge".
The traffic flow studies done in 2002 showed that the maximum traffic per day was about 3500 vehicles. Most of that was light traffie such as cars and small trucks. The 8000 figure is often used by the Mayor or Council members.
Like they say go figure.

Posted by: Palopu on June 23 2006 9:04 PM

If the number is 3500 then that is all the more reason to stop this madness, however I doubt if it can be stopped.
**We are being gripped by a self fulfilling prophecy**

We need a new bridge, therefore we will build a new bridge.

So much for taxpayers concerns.

Posted by: ontwin on June 24 2006 10:25 AM

After spending copious amts of $$ on this study the could have redecked the bloody thing,reopened and then had it fall into the river
because they are too bloody cheap to spend $$ on anything,Studies and committees thats all this town knows!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!