LETTER – One important word to keep in mind about the Red Bridge – ‘Why’?
(Image: Mel Rothenburger)
Re: EDITORIAL – Two important words to keep in mind about the Red Bridge
I have one important word to keep in mind about the Red Bridge.
I’ll take your two words to remember and trump them with one word to remember about the Red Bridge and that word is WHY! WHY as in WHY must the Red Bridge be replaced?
I have yet to hear a cogent economic or any other reasonable explanation for that matter to replace this bridge for the second time as compared to the overwhelming need for a second crossing to the North Shore. And no, in this era of belt tightening, symbolism at the tune of $500 million aught not to be considered a reasonable explanation when the province has a $13 billion deficit.
What our politicians seem to be ignoring is the fact that this second replacement bridge will cost the citizens of Kamloops $25 million plus. That’s not what T’kemlups or the province will be chipping in for the upgrades to Lorne Street but rather, that’s what the city of Kamloops will have to pay all by ourselves.
The immediate outcry from City Hall after the fire was that the bridge saw 6,000 vehicle crossings daily and was a vital transportation link, hence it was paramount to be replaced. Days later the vehicle crossings were said to be 7,000 daily. Weeks later it was 8,000 daily vehicles, followed months later by 10,000 daily crossings and a year later 12,000 crossings as touted by Coun. Hall in April.
Think about that, the daily traffic has doubled since the bridge burnt down. No, I don’t take these numbers seriously, hell I don’t take anything this council says seriously and I’m quite certain Victoria doesn’t either.
Is this a case of The Boy Who Cried Wolf or being too clever by half? The City’s argument that the link is essential both economically and culturally along with Hall’s pitch that only two lanes are required for the 12,000 daily vehicles seem to be incongruent. Who’s doing the messaging?
Bridges are built for 100 yr life spans, with that in mind they are built for the future and not the present. If this bridge had 12,000 crossings daily then soon it will have 20,000 then 30,000 and so on, meaning it will require 4 lanes, hence a much more expensive, much more expansive bridge is needed. A 4 lane bridge also means 4 lanes along the Lorne Street which means widening Lorne Street which will require the City to appropriate land all along the route and I don’t think we’ll be getting this land from CP Rail. This means a slew of homes will have to be bought out, this ain’t going to be cheap and the $25 million number may indeed be a very conservative number.
So again I ask, WHY is it imperative that we spend $25 million plus on a second crossing to 4,000 residents of another community before we have a second crossing to 40,000 residents of our own community?
MAC GORDON
ArmchairMayor.ca 
Does it matter who owns the industrial park? The businesses there have lost a lot and the highway traffic borders on suicide by the res school.Just build the damn thing before the coming new mayor gets his overpass to his new industial park.
LikeLike
Mac, I fully agree with your core question: Why?
In critical thinking, the most impactful questions begin with “W”: Why, Who, When, Where, and specifically, who benefits? Throughout my career in education, I challenged systems that prioritized self-preservation and leadership over the students they were meant to serve. Unfortunately, natural curiosity and critical inquiry have often been replaced by political correctness, dogma, and corporate agendas. We are now seeing this same pattern emerge in local government and urban planning.
Kamloops has inherited a centralized model from Victoria and Vancouver, concentrating essential services, such as schools, hospitals, courts, and banks, within a historic core originally designed for a much smaller population. The best example for our city is the location of the hospital. As the city expands, this centralized approach has directly resulted in the traffic congestion and parking challenges we currently face. Despite this, there is continued pressure to invest in downtown infrastructure rather than supporting a logical dispersal of services to the residential areas where people actually live.
Infrastructure, such as bridges, should be designed for 100-year lifespans and future growth. We must stop using limited tax dollars to repeat the mistakes of the past to divide communities. Investing in expensive projects driven by political agendas rather than sound, long-term planning is counterproductive.
Hindsight is 20-20, but I am sure, with present needs, the location of the existing infrastructure would have been built elsewhere.
We should be planning for how Kamloops will function decades from now, rather than a usual political agenda to build “bridges where there is no river to cross just to get elected. Why, indeed.
LikeLike
The more river crossings, the better. This bridge will likely get replaced sooner rather than later. A second North Shore crossing, meanwhile, is probably still “later rather than sooner” no matter how hard people push for it
As for those old eyesore pillars from the former North Kamloops bridge, they should either finally be removed or retrofitted into a bike and pedestrian path capable of carrying utility lines and even serving as an emergency vehicle crossing if needed. Throw in some solar and wind features to appease the green crowd, and you’d probably make most people happy.
LikeLike