No extras needed for Craigflower bridge

Re: Craigflower bridge design considered, News, Dec. 9, 2011

Re: Craigflower bridge design considered, News, Dec. 9, 2011.

I went to the open house regarding the Craigflower bridge replacement. The bridge should not be about option one, two, or three.

A $10 million budget (still taxpayers money) should be sufficient to do this project with no extra costs.

This is not about how beautiful the bridge and access to the bridge can be, it’s about replacing a structure with vehicle, bike and pedestrian lanes. A little added width to the downstream side of the pedestrian path is all that is needed for fishing. Fishing is not a 365 day usage with a large crowd of people.

Using wood from the old bridge for walkway, fishing platform or benches is wrong. I’ll play the devil’s advocate here: wood becomes very slippery when water freezes to it, it is high maintenance (taxes) and is also a target for vandals.

Just look at the benches on the Gorge walkway between Admirals and Tillicum roads, the finish on a lot of them needs replacing, some wood is beginning to discolour.

When are municipal councils going to realize that infrastructure comes first and beautification is secondary.

Beautification has a maintenance budget attached to it that happens every year, and it usually goes up in cost and not down. I’m sure that most people would prefer their tax dollars are spent on things they can use rather than things they can look at.

Let’s start thinking about what is needed, not what we wish we could have. Build and provide within a budget not a wish list. Not all taxpayers have the funds for increased taxes.

Bob Bisson

View Royal