Bridge information remains deficient

Again I find myself needing to respond to an “information” article in Thursday’s paper (City Eyes Old Bridge Fix).

In reference to the survey results, don’t we think there should have been an option in there to vote for a repaired bridge to be used for waking and cycle use only? The cost of those repairs and the life after.

And, according the city administrator David Perehudoff, the general response to the survey was “all,” meaning support for a new vehicular bridge or nothing, the story said. What does that mean .  . where are the numbers?

In my own survey, and I’m not Ipsos Reid, I had 30-plus people say “no” to any bridge replacement, two want to have it refurbished or look at the cost to have it refurbished and use it as a walking bridge, and one desires a tourist attraction type suspension walking bridge.

The other thing that bothers me is that the new information to compare a short-term fix verses the long-term goal of a new bridge, fully laying out the costs associated. Why aren’t these costs made available via the media? I am sure the Times will publish them. I doubt council chambers will hold all of Trail.

I still don’t feel  the people are seeing the financial impact to them, for example your average $185,000 house in Trail is going to pay a minimum of $5,500 in extra taxes over the next 30 years.

Now just around the corner the city has mentioned infrastructure upgrades needed but there is no breakdown of these upgrades nor is there indication of future additional tax increases to do these upgrades.

Just my two cents and food for thought.

Dale Evans