Council to Cross That Bridge When They Come to It

Monday, September 11, 2006 11:22 PM

Prince George City Council has decided to wait a while longer before making a decision on what to do about the Cameron Street Bridge.

The Capital Plan discussions will come up in November, but Councilor Don Zurowski says the funding issues should be addressed no later than November, as waiting could lose another year.

The Mayor says he would like to look at some other options because of the impacts the loss of the Cameron Street Bridge has had on safety and First Avenue.

Transportation Manager Frank Blues says his report on the use of the existing piers of the Cameron Street Bridge shows the existing piers could be used and the costs would be a fraction of the estimates for the thirst phase of a new super structure.

Here are the highlights of the report:

Good news:

Using the existing piers means the price tag for a river crossing would drop from the projected $18.5 million (in 2004 dollars) to $9.5 million. Using the existing piers means construction time woud be reduced, with the possibility it could be completed by the time the full replacement was scheduled to start (2008).

Bad News:

Using old piers means the height of the bridge could make it vulnerable to ice jams, and as the piers are already 75 years old, the bridge would have a shorter life span.

The real problem is source of funding. Here are the scenarios as presented by the Transportation Manager:

Blues also says there is a real concern on the possibility of an inland container port and the increased traffic that would create. Councilors agree, but would like to address the issue sooner rather than later.

Councilor Brian Skakun says there is a need to look at a one lane metal deck bridge. Transportation Manager Frank Blues says a single lane metal deck could be done for about $8.4 million.

Mayor Kinsley says there will be some discussions with the UBCM to get details on funding he will also try to get some answers from CN on the container port.

Blues says if all the cards fall into place, there’s roughly six months planning, the construction process would take about a year but at the end of the day, it would likely be two years from now before there is an actual bridge.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Monday, September 11, 2006 11:22 PM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: diplomat on September 12 2006 7:23 AM

Opinion250: "Blues says if all the cards fall into place, there�s roughly six months planning, the construction process would take about a year but at the end of the day, it would likely be two years from now before there is an actual bridge."

Let's all hope that this winter a mother of all ice jams solves this problem that seems to have all the ditherers and diddlers in an endless spin.

That way demolition will be the work of Nature which always seems to step in anyways when humans are at a complete loss as how to solve a simple problem.

Posted by: Gofaster on September 12 2006 7:48 AM

I honestly believe that they are snowing us, and they have no intention of doing anything with the bridge....except ignore it...talk is cheap...
And my vote goes to.........

Posted by: giterdun on September 12 2006 8:04 AM

RE BRIDGE :

REPORT SAYS NEW BRIDGE WILL HAVE A LIFE SPAN OF 75 YEARS AND OLD ONE REBUILT WILL HAVE SOMEWHAT LESS THAN THAT. THE OLD ONE IS ALREADY 75 YEARS OLD. HOW MUCH TIME IS LEFT. MAYBEE WE SHOULD BE BUDGETING FOR A REPLACEMENT TO THE NEW/OLD REBUILT BRIDGE SOMETIME IN 2010. THANKS VIC FOR WAISTING $190,000.00 AND DELAYING THE NEW BRIDGE FOR ANOTHER YEAR. DO WE HAVE ANY COUNCELLORS WITH ANY COMMON SENSE? FIRST AVE.IS SUFFERING AND FIFTH AND IS A DISASTER WAITING TO HAPPEN.

Posted by: Palopu on September 12 2006 5:48 PM

Once again the Transportation Manager, the City Councillars, and most people who read these posts, completly ignore the fact that the present bridge can be repaired and up and running in short order for a mere $750,000.00. Dont think that it cant. I talked with Frank Blues the Manager and he confirmed his original quote of $750,000.00. to repair this bridge.

There would be some money spent over the next 10 years on maintenance, however if anyone in this town had a memory that lasted longer than the lifspan of a fruit fly, they would know that when the Provincial Government turned this bridge over to the City for $1.00 that part of the agreement was for the City to maintain the bridge at their cost.

So whats the problem. I am absolutley amazed at the inability of some people to grasp simple solutions, for simple problems. For crying out loud all we are trying to do is move 8000 vehicles per day across this bridge. Thats 333 vehicles per hour in a 24 hour period, or 166 per hour in each direction. Let asumme that the 8000 vehicles all moved in an 12hour period. This would be 666 vehicles or 333 in each direction per hour. Or 11 vehicles in each direction per minute.

This can hardle be construed as a traffic problem, and the fact that this traffic can be handled by the old wooden bridge (Repaired) makes the solution to this problem quite simple.

So whats the problem. Burn the names and faces of those presently at City Hall into your memory and solve this problem at the next election. Politicians only understand votes.

Posted by: owl on September 12 2006 10:11 PM

Palopu ....... the more options there are, the more people will have problems with making decisions.

This kind of problem is far too difficult for many people to make. I they wish to be objective about it, I wonder if anyone has ever given them a decision matrix tool which would provide them with an "objective" decision.

If they do not believe in that, then give them a coin to toss ..... I bet you that both Council and Admin would look at the outcome of the toss, not like it, then go best out of three ... then best out of 5 ... and so on until they decide the coin toss is also not a way to decide.

Of course, according to Ghiai, construction cost have skyrocketed from 90 to 170 $ per square foot for his type of building .... so that means the $750,000 will have gone to about $1,400,000 or so for the bridge based on similar percent change.

Put that into the equation and even you may change your mind ... *smile*

As far as the new bridge deck being built at the same level as the old one, I am sure we were told that the DoF and possibly others will not allow the bridge to be rebuilt at the same level. As far as I know, that is the main reason why building in the same location would be more expensive, the bridge deck has to be raised and the approaches on both sides changed, which is where the extra money would go to.

So, again, there are people here who understand a bit more and are thus left with as many questions as were answered. The use of existing piers is actually not what would save the full $9 or so million. More of it comes from accepting the existing alignment, existing bridge deck level and existing approaches. It was my impression that was never an option before, otherwise building new piers in line with the existing ones could have been a viable option before. In fact, it might be possible to build one with a single pier and a cable stayed structure; or even no piers in the river.

http://www.bardaglea.org.uk/bridges/bridge-types/images/cable-coalbrookdalenew2.jpg

http://www.dormanlongtechnology.com/images/Boyne_02.jpg

http://www.bridgemeister.com/imgdda/ddfrvarades3.jpg

http://www.alps-uk.com/bas.ht1.jpg

While I was searching for a few more realistic examples, I came upon this one. Makes people like me drool.
[/url]http://www.archipedia.org/structures/sunniberg/detail_1[/url]

finally, for those who think we have too many bridges
http://66.230.220.70/images/post/beautiful-city/18.jpg

;-)

Posted by: owl on September 12 2006 10:11 PM

[/url]http://www.archipedia.org/structures/sunniberg/detail_1[/url]

Posted by: owl on September 12 2006 10:12 PM

http://www.archipedia.org/structures/sunniberg/detail_1

eventually one gets it right .... takes some of us a bit longer some times .... *smile*

Posted by: kimbo on September 13 2006 10:11 AM

"For those who think we have to many bridges........

I think we have to many bridges and when I checked the url it gives a much different picture then what we could ever dream of. Traffic lights are are not the way to move traffic. For instance we have to many on the Bypass and one could use the John Hart while sitting and waiting for the light at the Cameron Street bridge.

The other problem is that the figure of 8000 vehicles a day is a mith. The traffic count studies done in 2002 showed the the maximum number of vehicles crossing the bridge was 3500. Is it possible that the traffic flow could have increased by 5000 vehicles from 2002 to a year ago when the bridge was closed ? You be the judge.

As Palopu has said we need to remember those faces at the next election as each one of them promised a bridge across the Nechako before the last election. I would guess they are now waiting for the next election.

Cheers

Posted by: Harbinger on September 13 2006 8:58 PM

Would anyone settle for one of them rope bridges they use in Indiana Jones's movies? It would sure save a whole lotta money. Jest wunderin'.