LETTER – Why mass timber is a feasible alternative for a new Red Bridge

Re: EDITORIAL – There’s a faster, cheaper, better way to replace the Red Bridge

The mass timber option proposed by Timber Restoration Services (and BC firms like Structurlam) is a feasible alternative to traditional steel and concrete. Mass timber, engineered wood products like cross-laminated timber (CLT) and glulam, has been successfully used in bridges worldwide, including fire-resistant designs that meet modern seismic and load standards. For the Red Bridge it could replicate the heritage aesthetic while expanding width and strength for Highway 5 traffic.

Key evidence:

• The world’s first mass timber highway bridge opened in Oregon in 2021 (a 120-foot span using glulam), and B.C.’s own Harbour Crossing Footbridge (2018) demonstrates CLT’s durability in wet, seismic zones. A 2023 UBC study confirms mass timber bridges can handle heavy loads (e.g., 50-ton trucks) with lifespans of 75+ years, comparable to steel.
•  Unlike untreated wood, mass timber chars slowly, self-extinguishing fires (per NFPA 703 standards). The original Red Bridge burned in 2023 due to outdated timber; a modern version would use treated, laminated beams exceeding fire codes.
•  B.C.’s Building Code (updated 2024) explicitly allows mass timber up to 18 stories high and for bridges, with the province’s Mass Timber Action Plan (2022) subsidizing demos. No major barriers for a provincial highway project like this.

Challenges exist

Initial design approvals might add 3-6 months, but it’s not “experimental.” With proper bidding, it’s viable and aligns with B.C.’s forestry goals (sourcing local spruce-fir reduces carbon footprint by 45% vs. steel, per NRCan data).

Presently mass timber approach is the best and the strongest overall option for Kamloops’ Red Bridge site, balancing speed, cost, aesthetics, and sustainability.

The location spanning the Thompson River in a seismic zone with Tk’emlúps te Secwe̓pemc cultural ties favors lightweight, modular materials over heavy steel pours, which disrupt river ecosystems and require lengthy environmental reviews.

Here’s a comparison of key options based on current engineering data and B.C. project benchmarks:

Option	Estimated Cost (for $200m span)	Build Time	Pros	Cons
Mass Timber(e.g., CLT/Glulam)	$15-20M (20-25% cheaper than steel)	12-18 months	Faster prefab/offsite assembly; heritage look; low emissions; fire/earthquake resilient; local jobs (B.C. mills).	Needs education for officials; slightly higher maintenance if untreated.
Steel & Concrete(Traditional)	$20-25M	24-36 months	Familiar to contractors; proven longevity.	Slower due to fabrication delays; higher carbon (2x timber); disrupts salmon habitat during pours.
Hiring Chinese Firms(Modular Steel/Concrete)	$12-18M (potentially 30% cheaper via scale)	9-15 months	Ultra-fast (e.g., China’s 2020 record: 1km bridge in 14 days); cost-competitive due to state subsidies.	Geopolitical risks (U.S./Canada trade tensions, IP concerns); quality variability (e.g., 2021 Wuhan bridge collapse);shipping/logistics add 10-20% cost; limited local input.

I don’t agree with many things this editor puts on his blog but this time I do, as mass timber hits the editorial’s “cheaper, faster, better” trifecta without outsourcing. B.C. data from the 2024 FPInnovations report shows mass timber bridges average 30% shorter timelines than steel, with Urban Systems’ ongoing design phase (due spring 2025) ideally positioned to incorporate it.

SEE ALSO: ROTHENBURGER – Red Bridge could rise from the ashes, literally – here’s how

This approach also would respect Indigenous input. Tk’emlúps Secwepemc and province wide inspired carvings could be used to showcase the indigenous heritage in the timber and could be a beautiful heritage addition to the downtown location in the Tournament Capital of Canada in central BC unlike the useless overpass on 3^rd Avenue. This could be a great tourist attraction near Riverside Park like Pont Alexandre III on the Seine River in Paris France. Secwepemc-inspired carvings might be an indigenous and provincial buy-in for such a project and it would meet costs and add a new dimension to the heritage that we speak about.

If we really want an international flare, cheaper and quicker construction we might hire a Chinese firm to build it with a caveat that they add a carving or two in memory of the Chinese Rail workers as well as Chinese heritage in Kamloops and Brocklehurst. Just dreaming?

China excels at rapid infrastructure (e.g., their 2023 high-speed rail bridges built in weeks via prefab tech), so it’s a logical pitch for urgency.

However, it’s not the best fit here due to B.C.’s priorities due to local sourcing mandates (via the 2023 Provincial Procurement Policy) favor Canadian firms to boost economy and Indigenous partnerships.

Past attempts (e.g., Vancouver’s 2019 LRT overruns with foreign bids) highlight delays from customs and standards alignment. If speed trumps all, a hybrid, Chinese prefab shipped to B.C. for local assembly, could work, but mass timber achieves similar timelines domestically without the hassle. Federal, and Provincial government, as well as Kamloops and Tk’emlúps Secwepemc Council needs to pilot it;  where precedents like the 2022 Alberta timber bridge prove it’s ready.

WALTER TRKLA