"Part of the delay is a result of "windows of construction opportunity" that do not conflict with the life cycles of salmon.

Should not really be that much of a problem if they are using the existing piers as long as the Johny-on-the-Spots on the bank do not leak.

;-)

Another example of why we need to employ people who actually know what they are doing instead of playing with people who (hopefully) learn as they go along... sort of like bringing a product to market for consumer testing so that you don't have to spend money to do your own in-house testing.

HOPE THEY GOT A GUARANTEE FROM THE CONSULTING ENGINEERS THAT THE PIERS WILL LAST FOR ANOTHER 40 TO 50 YEARS. KIND OF LIKE FITTING A BRAND NEW TRUCK WITH AN OLD SET OF BALD TIRES. HOPE WE CAN MAKE A FEW TRIPS BEFORE A FAILURE.

giterdun... don't be silly... consulting engineers, or any engineer for that matter, don't actually give guarantees. Ever see an engineer get tagged for anything after it fails ?? :-)

Rrabbitt.... YOU ARE RIGHT. THEY WILL PROBABLY BLAME THE GUY THAT POURED THE CONCRETE 75 YEARS AGO. WONDER WHAT LIFE SPAN REMAINS ON THOSE OLD PIERS?? GUESS WE HAVE TO GET THAT ANSWER FROM AN ENGINEER.

The City developed a plan and a study back in 2001. Now another engineering firm will get a contract for $250,000.00. And that price probably is not firm either. They are also staying with the 9.5 million cost. It will probably be twice that amount when they finaly start to build.(ie; the twining of the Fraser River bridge).

What is it that Jack Webster used to say,stupid, stupid, stupid,

Cheers

I hope Kevin Falcon will reminn the Mayor of the millions of dollars that the City gets in home owner grants.

Cheers

"Ever see an engineer get tagged for anything after it fails ?? :-)"

yup ... many times ... including in this city.

That is why they have Errors and Omission Insurance and it is fairly costly. In addition, they can get thier license to practice suspended for rather lengthy time periods.

The most recent major collapse in BC was the Save-on-foods collapse in Burnaby in 1987. It resulted in a whole new set of regulations for engineers who work as structural engineers. They have to pass additional courses now in order to practice that sector of engineering and they have to continue to be evaluated on a regular basis.

http://www.acecok.org/realityofbidding.html

A similar result came out of the "leaky condo" situation. There are now building envelope "experts".

"WONDER WHAT LIFE SPAN REMAINS ON THOSE OLD PIERS?? GUESS WE HAVE TO GET THAT ANSWER FROM AN ENGINEER."

It has been received. That is what took so long to get to this point. The report was presented to Council at their September 11, 2006 meeting. The report suggests that a life span of less than 75 years should be considered, which translated into lay terms means that occasional maintenance may be required to ensure that any erosion at the base and chipping on upper surfaces does not impact the structural capacity of the piers. Remember, there are Roman structures over which vehicular traffic occurs to this day. Concrete, if constructed well, is comparatively forever, especially mass structures like bridge piers.

"The City developed a plan and a study back in 2001. Now another engineering firm will get a contract for $250,000.00"

The two are completely different. The first was a feasibility study which looked at several alternatives with about three sub alterntives in the existing bridge location.

We are now talking about actually designing a bridge and likely alterations to the approaches to the bridge, preparing tender documents and overseeing quality control.

On a 10 million dollar piece of real estate, that is 2.5%. A realtor would get more than that if she were selling the bridge. And she would not be responsible if it collapsed. The engineer is.

Now that I defended engineers and got realtors upset at me, I just watn to state once more that I think all this money is thrown away for nothing.

The mayor and several councillors deplored the length of time it will take to get an operational bridge in place. They asked if it could be done more quickly.

Not a single member of council, nor staff, turned on their mike and said: "fix the existing bridge and set up a larger repair fund for future repairs."

As Kimbo points out, it has taken some 5 years to get this far, with the bridge being put out of commission with the stroke of a pen in the interim and we still do not have a resolution to this since we are still waiting for some money from the feds and the province.

At present it looks like the City will be stuck for $6.5 Million for this new bridge. In addition the $3 Million from the Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund states that their will be $1Million from the Feds. 1M from the Provs,., and 1M from the Municipality. Does this meant that the Citys portion is actually $7.5 Million, in addition to the $90,000.00 we have already spent.

How about the Cameron St., overpass. Will it be usable for this new bridge, or will it have to be removed, and replaced. Has it even been paid for yet. As I recall the money for the overpass was borrowed, probably over 20 years so it probably has not been paid for yet.. Now we can tear it down and redo it. Is there a cost attached to this. Would City Hall even admit that it might still be paying for this structure as they tear it down??

This whole bridge thing has been a complete fiasco. We still do not know if we will get the money from the MRIF., and if we dont then thats when we will hear the City say that we will build a one lane steel superstructure on the existing piers for a cost of $6.5M or less which we have already budgeted for and they will commence with the project.

This bridge will still remain a Municipal Bridge and the City will still be responsible for the maintenance etc., the same as it is now for the old bridge.

It appears that we will be without a bridge for 4 years, along with all the rerouted traffic, lost business, and additional cost to industry, repairs to 5th avenue., and of course the safety issue.

This of course could have all been avoided, and still could be avoided if the City would just repair the Camerson St., bridge for $750,000.00 including resurfacing, and get on with it, we could revisit this issue 10 years from now.

If this new bridge is built hopefully no groveling Council Member or Citizen of Prince George will suggest that it be called the Colin Kinsley Bridge. Better it be called Kinsleys Folly.

Does the City have to go to a referendum if it borrows this amount of money, or have they already crossed that (tongue in cheek) bridge.

We don't need a bridge in that location. We need one further downstream to service the poor old Hart Highway residents who have to spend an extra three minutes travelling into town.
Consider the "green" aspect. It is not just a colour. It is the reality that there will be two lanes of traffic emitting CO2 fumes into the air adding to pollution in the bowl.
What about the residents who will be breathing this air? Is this so different to the asphalt plants?
When is Council going to take responsibility for our airshed and stop making this short-sighted decisions? Not to mention adding to our tax dollars. We have another two years of short sighted decisions.