I ‘d like to thank city administrator David Perahudoff for his semi-informative letter in the Times on Tuesday (City Outlines Bridge Details) but there are a lot of things still left glossed over or prettied up for public presentation.
One option that seems to fallen through the cracks altogether is to leave the old bridge as is as a service trestle for the mentioned Terasen and RDKB current use. Have we even had the bridge consultants tell us the life of the bridge if used for that function only? Then let the existing users do the necessary upkeep.
Kudos to Lana Rodlie and her My Turn column in the same paper (Stop Studying and Just Fix the Old Bridge); damn that woman makes sense. Where is “Option C?”
If anything, I might be in favour of making it a tourist-attraction type walking bridge as she mentioned. Keeping in mind that’s what we do and not make it a project that gets rejected because of the scope . . . like maybe the new city hall that grew into storefronts that would be empty, another restaurant to compete with the 40 other struggling ones and luxury condos in a downtown core that no one wants to live in.
Another option would be to install lights above the lanes on the existing double bridge we have and if we do have a reason to shut one side down, the police/fire department could – with the flip of a switch – shut down one side and turn the other side into two-lanes opposing.
By the way, we do have two bridges .. they are just joined at the hip.
If no new bridge is built, what is the time frame that the old bridge “has” to be removed. I bet it is years down the road, if ever.
It doesn’t matter how you manipulate the wording on the financing, etc.; in the end its still $42 million.
What I am a little confused on is the statement referring to the “growth in the assessment base.” If my memory serves me, we are a city that’s decreasing in population. We used to be 12,000-plus and now are in the area of 7,000.
Maybe it’s the forward-thinking that if we can amalgamate with Warfield and some other local areas, they too could pay for the bridge.
Another thing that doesn’t pop to the surface – is Teck is going to get hit with an additional $700,000 per year tax bill without really a say in the matter? If so, that’s another $700,000 that could have gone to future wage increases or local improvements.
Teck does a great job today of supporting local charities; take that $700,000 per year out of the equation and that could change. How would you like that for a tax hit and you don’t even get a say in it nor do you walk the bridges.