another stall...what another study needed???

Speaking of studies, what about the LARGE and comprehensive study (finished in 2003) that recommends the best overall location for a new Nechako River crossing?

Why in the world is the City still toying with the unbelievably crappy Cameron Street alignment???

I think the reason for holding-off making a quick decision is to allow for studies of matters not inlcuded in the study being released. The study being released had a very specific focus... can the existing bridge be refurbished.

What council needs to consider is if the refurbished option meets ongoing needs or is cost effective over say, 10 to 20 years. The scopeof the original request / report needs to be expanded to include forecasts of use and available funding sources.

Jeezuz .... this is now really getting ridiculous .....

has anyone ever heard of non-sequential planning?????? There are many things that can go on at the same time in such a process. For instance, coming to the realization at this time that funding may not be available if the existing piers are used, or that the bridge may not last as long as one built on new piers, these are all things that could have been assessed concurrently and the answers sitting right there with this report.

The effect of a container port is the same. If one is built, then look at the most likely scenario of one being built to the south, and then look at others, the probabilities for each and the impact of traffic across the Nechako of each reasonable location. That study could also have been done over the past 6 months.

Life cycle costing of bridges should be for more like a 50 year period. We typically do not remove bridges once they are built. The norm is to increase their capacity, not to tear them down.

Studies of this bridge started in 2000 or 2001 ....... the socio economic landscape changes over time. At some point one has to say enough is enough and make a decision.

Toss a coin, for God's sake!!!

I agree with the assessment we should wait until they decide where a container terminal will go and how this will impact traffic.

What if CN built the container port at the old Shelly saw mill site where CN has been busy in recent weeks repairing spur lines and fixing up crossings ect? How would this effect traffic and the linkage between the airport, downtown, the pulp mills, a container port, and a dangerous goods route from Salmon Valley through to the old Cariboo Highway.

I think the best location is downstream from the Cottenwood Island Park utilizing the existing Fraser River bridge into the dangerous good route conecting to the Hart through Northwood Pulpmill Road.

The option that they are not talking about is that we can repair the present bridge to handle both heavy and light traffic, utilizing the one way option as we have in the past and get it repaired and running this winter. Cost $750,0000.00. This gets us a bridge back in service and with some maintenence over the next 5 10 years say $500,000.00 we are in business. If during that period it is found that a more expensive double lane bridge is required. (Highly unlikey) then we can build it. At present we are talking about building a 8/9 Million dollar bridge to service 8000 vehicles per day. This is total madness.

We have nothing concrete to indicate that a Container Terminal will be built north of Prince George and even if is was the key is where will they load the containers onto the Rail Cars. If they loaded them North of Prince George then there would be no Container trucks using this bridge at all. If they loaded them at the old BC Rail Yard, there would be no Container trucks using this Bridge. If they loaded them on CN Trackage on first avenue, then Container trucks from Mackenzie, Bear Lake, and the 3 pulp mills would probably use this bridge.

I continue to beat my head against the wall to get people to understand that the Containers that are loaded in Prince Rupert in the first phase of this port are destined to Memphis Tenn. Chicago Ill. and Toronto Ont. Is this concept to hard to grasp. It has been stated publicly by the Terminal Operator Mayer Terminals, and by the Prince Rupert Port Authority. This means that 90% of the Containers loaded in Prince Rupert will go to these destinations and will pass through Prince George on 3 100 to 120 rail car trains per day with no economic impact on Prince George except the hiring of perhaps 12 additional Railway personel to run the trains.

If loading Containers in Prince George can be shown to be competitive with loading them in Vancouver (Which is being done at Present) then this will generate Container loading and truckings jobs in the Prince George area for shipment to Prince Rupert, however one should keep in mind that this traffic presenlty moves to Vancouver via Rail 90% and truck 10% and if this traffic was to move to Prince Rupert in Containers then we would lose the Rail and Truck business to Vancouver and the accompanying jobs.

The first phase (I doubt if there will be a second phase) will have little more effect on Prince George than when we were running 2 or 3 Coals Trains per day through Prince George to Prince Rupert from Tumbler Ridge.

With all the Sawmills/Planers, Pulp Mills, operating at capacity, there will be no additional business from these industries to load in Containers, therefore the majority of containers loaded from the Greater Prince George area that go to Prince Rupert will have to come from the tonnage that is presenlty being shipped South and loaded in Vancouver.

**Same tonnage different loading Port no net gain**

Thats it.

The obvious option of fixing the darn thing for now for the measly sum of $750,000 isn't even mentioned by anyone at all.

Now we know that the piers are in fine shape, probably good for another 40-50 years.

It seems to be beneath the gentlemen's dignity (lady councillors' too) to entertain such a low cost option.

If it doesn't cost a few millions it just can't be any good.

Is the prestige of the Transportation Department at stake here?

We would just have the bridge as it was before the closure: One way, used quite a bit and familiar to cars and truck drivers.

With all this dithering and diddling going one one wonders if one should not call on the expertise of the Lebanese highway and bridge engineers: They will have their 70 (seventy!) major freeway bridges (recently destroyed by smart bombs) repaired and in use while we here are still waiting for someone to TAKE CHARGE and get this embarrassing Cameron Street Bridge matter taken care of right away!

'TAKE CHARGE and get this embarrassing Cameron Street Bridge matter taken care of right away!'

I agree Dippy - the issue has become a considerable embarrassment.

If the Mayor had not made it a so called **issue** during the election, it would have been repaired and up and running now. At best we are looking at being without a bridge for at least 3 years. Just the cost in extra gas, and lost time for truck drivers, and other vehicles that use the bridge, plus additional costs to industries that use this bridge, would be in excess of $1,000,000.00 for detouring for 3 years.

Now that we have a clear view of the Major mishandling of this file, and numerous others in the last year, please tell me that when (if) Kinsley runs for Mayor again so that he can be a big part of the 2010 Olympics and the host Mayor of the World Winter Cities Association for Mayors conference for 2010, that nobody will vote for him.

Will people remember????

Do we need another bridge? If the answer is yes, then, can we use the existing bridge? If the answer is yes, can we afford to fix this bridge? If the answer is yes, will it meet the needs of our community for the next 50 years? If the answer is yes, get on with the job.

If the answer is no, then decide where the other bridge should be and get on with building it. Chester

Chester.

Do we need another bridge---No. We can repair the present bridge to handle the present traffic 8000 vehicles per day. Can we afford to fix it. Yes. We are rolling in dough, dont forget that the Mayor wants to pay $500,000.00 for a replay board at the CN Centre, maybe we could divert this money to repair the bridge. We also have Gambling Money, Gas money from the Federal Government, Terasen Gas Money, etc; so yes we can afford it.
Frank Blues the City Transportation Manager has stated previously that the present Cameron St. Bridge can be repaired for $750,000.00 this is a matter of record.

The present Cameron St. Bridge should be utilized for the next 10 years to determine if a bridge is needed at all. If after 10 years we no longer need this bridge (That would be my guess) then it could be maintained as part of the Cottonwood Park complex.
In the next 10 years I suspect that a lot of the Industry on 1st avenue will have moved. Probably one pulp mill will dissapear. The CN Rail is in the process of moving to the BC Rail Industrial Park. The Dangerous Goods Route is a red herring as we have a dangerous goods route which we have been using for the past 40 years. We could have less traffic using this bridge in the next 10 years.

There is no case for a new bridge, and it shouldnt be built.