Actually there were four Options. The Fourth which should have been the first was to repair the bridge in its present locations for a cost of $750,000.00 and it would have been up and running now. This repaired bridge with some maintenance over the next 10 years would have been more than sufficient to handle any traffic destined to and from 1st Ave, River Road, and North East End of the City.

There is a veil of silence over the option of repairing this bridge which makes me think that this issue is much bigger, than it appears on the surface. Otherwise why not repair it and get on with it.

Why is no one pushing the City for a clear answer as to why they will not repair this bridge???

I think the answer is partly in the notion that it would not be "forward looking" .... that goes with the thinking that "bigger is better"....

Another simplistic view expressed above is the statement of the obvious that a single lane bridge would have reduced the traffic to one half. Actually that should read that a two lane bridge would double the capacity since there was only a single lane bridge there to begin with.

The way anything should be designed is based on projected need. We know that there were no big lineups to access the single lane bridge. Typically one could make it accross on a single light, at most a two light wait. This is a city, and that should be no big deal.

Were the demands greater than the capacity of the bridge before? Are the demands expected to increase in future? If so, what are the drivers for those demands to rise? Are they beetle based short term demands or longer term demands?

Switching from a single to a double lane bridge means approaches, especially the one on the south side, would have to be extensively altered, thus adding costs. Therefore, I do not believe the notion that a two lane bridge over the exsiting piers will cost less than double the single lane bridge.

Besides all that, one of the design requirements which was spelled out initially is that ANY new bridge (an this would be a new bridge) would have to be higher than the existing one in order to deal with potential ice jams.

So, that one puts us back into the "repairing is not an option" argument, since I would think that would be one of the reasons not to repair. It is a substandard approach since the bridge remains vulnerable due to ice, even though it has been there for a very long time and nothing has happened, and becasue no one seems to be willing to put their name on a peice of paper stating that in their opinion the structure that is there will not deteriorate to any greater degree than it has if anual maintenance is done properly and the structure monitored several times a year.

Finally I notice the words: "City Manager George Paul says the idea was not put forth because he UNDERSTOOD Council only wanted to look at two lane options."

Why does it not state that "Council directed me to only look at two lane options"?

Owl. Potential ice jams are a red herring. There has never been a problem with ice jams with this bridge other that when the ice starts to jam at the CN Rail bridge further East it backs up to the Nechako Bridge. In any event since the Kenny Dam was built Ice Jams are not really a problem any more.

There is nothing on the books that I am aware of to indicate that traffic will increase on this bridge., and in fact it might very well be reduced, as the CN moves out., and other business downtown relocate to other areas of the City.

There is probably a good reason from the City Managers and Councils view why they do not want the single lane steel superstructure bridge, and I suspect it is the same reason that they do not want to repair the wooden bridge, however I have to do some investigating before I get into what I suspect is their reasons.

Palopu ....

Ask the planning and engineerng department how long they think the mills on river road are likely to last. If you get an honest answer, you may have the answer you are looking for.

I realize that ice jamming has not been a major probelm at that bridge. As I stated, it still exists after 75 or so years. However, you are not quite correct about ice jammng not being a problem after the Kenny dam was bult. Much of the industrial area on the north shore to the east of the Hart Bridge was flooded just prior to the bridge being twinned and river road was raised as a result in that area.

There is, however, no levee in place to protect the buildings between river road and the Nechako if a similar jam should occur.

Speaking about protecting low lying properties, there are no levees in place along the Fraser as well to protect some of the low lying areas in South Fort George.

Also, I think the entire Cottonwood Island are should have a serious review of how to protect that a bit more from high water every spring. It could be a long term project which sees improvements each year or so.

I have to agree with a lot of what Owl said. A single lane bridge would do fine. That was working fine and will far into the future. Twinning the old bridge will cause traffic nightmares as people play "bridge bingo" trying to determine which route is faster on any particular day, not to mention the vast overhaul required for the approaches. Not only that, but with increased capacity, comes increased speed. I predict a lot of head-on collisions on a two-lane Cameron St. bridge.

I laughed when I saw this by Owl:

Finally I notice the words: "City Manager George Paul says the idea was not put forth because he UNDERSTOOD Council only wanted to look at two lane options."

Why does it not state that "Council directed me to only look at two lane options"?

Owl, if you asked the question, then you already suspect the answer !

Fine choice of words; directly translated it means "I kept it from City Council because I thought they wanted me to do that, and if I get criticized for not presenting it, I maintain that I was still acting with due diligence in my position, even though it really looks like I'm pulling a fast one.

My only question is who does he owe it to, to create a mega-project out of this as opposed to a simple case of a public works repair project.

I think 4 mill for a 50 year bridge is a good investment, but then I look at it like it was MY money. Oh ya, that's right...it IS my money.

*** In other news,

City council members each spent $150,000 of their own money on an industrial size snowblower for their homes because the experts predict that with the wild climate changes, we could be subject to freak huge snowstorms infrequently or never.

Council members were quoted as commenting that it would not be very forward thinking to buy a regular snowblower and just cope with the odd day that it doesn't do the job, it wouldn't be a very wise investment of their own damn hard-earned money.

Lets just talk about this bridge for the next few years. Oh yeah, don't ferget the fishys and potential icebergs. What a joke this city council is. Whoever said, "Talk is cheap?" Not in this 'búrg.