Responsibility for channel crossing contested
Email
Print
Letter to Editor
Share
A new bridge at Main Street may be the cheapest solution for a new channel crossing, but Coun. Fred Busch calls it a cheap and dirty solution that places financial responsibility on the district instead of the province where he says it belongs.
“This intersection was inadequate when the Trans-Canada Highway was being built in the late 1950s and has only gotten worse,” said Busch in response to an overview by district administrator Alan Harris of a recently completed transportation network review final report.
“Planners who were working for the Ministry of Transportation at that time certainly had no vision of what this intersection would become in the very near future,” Busch continued. “And so I place the blame entirely on the MOT for creating it, and they should be responsible for repairing it.”
Harris explained there have been lot of studies related to a channel crossing over the last two decades. The need for this latest study was made clear by the province after the district approached the Ministry of Transportation seeking funding for three major upgrades: the Highway 97A/Trans-Canada Highway intersection, a replacement of the Solsqua-Sicamous Bridge, and a crossing over Sicamous Narrows.
The transportation review recommends a number of changes, one of the more significant changes being the relocation of Solsqua-Sicamous bridge so that it aligns with the Trans-Canada/Hwy. 97 A intersection. What stirred up the greatest debate among council, however, was a recommendation to rebuild a bridge from the end of Main Street over the channel.
Harris explained a new bridge would assist with development outside of the district – in particular, development proposed for Hyde Mountain in the Columbia Shuswap Regional District. He said it’s unlikely the regional district would provide funding and that, unless the developers are willing to help cover costs, Sicamous would be responsible for the bridge.
“Basically, you can say no to the bridge and that will shut down any development on the west side of the channel,” said Harris.
Harris provided a few options for a channel crossing, with a bridge at the end of Main Street being one of them. Another is a bridge at Finlayson. A third solution, and the one preferred by district staff, involves upgrading the existing Bruhn Bridge. Harris said possibilities may open up for this option with CP Rail looking to dispose of the Armstrong to Sicamous line. The Main Street option, though the least expensive, would result in a loss of park land and, in terms of engineering, would be challenging. It would also require the completion of a Town Centre Revitalization Plan which would address new traffic issues related to the bridge and its impact on Main Street.
Busch was the first on council to comment on the report, and was relentless in his criticism. He said the document is full of errors and sloppy editing. But the issue he stressed the most was how the report assumes the District of Sicamous would be paying for part of the bridge construction.
“Not only will the municipality have to pay for construction, the district will also become the owner of the bridge, which will require ongoing maintenance and eventual replacement, as is the case with the bridge over the Eagle River on the Cambie Solsqua Road, and we all know what a struggle that is,” said Busch.
Coun. Lynn Miller said she’s sat in on many meetings over the same subject, and the conclusion is always the same: a bridge at the end of Main Street. Coun. Ken Thomson noted the bridge is just part of a bigger picture that council has to deal with, and he encouraged council to accept the report so that the district could take the next step in working out Sicamous’ transportation issues with Ministry of Transportation.
“I think right now we could use a little more traffic on Main Street… I feel it would be a benefit to our downtown,” commented Mayor Malcolm MacLeod. “The idea of the maintenance and what have you, I think we should be looking at alternatives there. Possibly all of the west side coming into the boundaries of Sicamous. I don’t know all the implications of that… But it would only make sense they should also be responsible.”
All of council but Busch agreed to adopt the report, which recommends the district now move to complete an active transportation plan and consult with the province to investigate implementation of a second crossing.
v2
