Top stories of 2013: Major push from city council for second bridge

It stated the Diefenbaker Bridge was built to last 75 years, and with constant rehabilitation, the bridge would continue to be able to handle the constant use until 2040 and possibly beyond.

SUB: But did they inspect the whole bridge?

That wasn’t the end of it; in March at the city budget meeting it was realized that an underwater bridge inspection was never completed as part of the Stantec study.

According to the city’s 2013 budget report, “Other structures of this type have experienced river scour at their bridge piers, which may expose or undercut the pier footings, with potential structural instability ensuing.”

To complete this inspection the department of public works requested $45,000, but was rejected because the committee felt the province should pay the amount—and so it did.

In October the underwater inspections of the Diefenbaker Bridge received its final thumbs up. ISL Engineering and Land Services conducted the inspections in the fall using sonar equipment and other advanced technologies to scan the underwater piers for irregularities. Divers were also sent down to assess those areas of concern.

The inspection came at a cost of $65,887 paid for by provincial government’s Urban Connector Program.

Only weeks after the inspection was approved, it began.

“They had started doing some fieldwork here in the last week of October, so they had the sonar scan team out there with the boats,” said Scott Golding, manager of capital planning and strategic services with the public works department on Nov. 14.

Since November the information gathered has been under review to determine the status of the piers.

If some of the images taken weren’t clear a verification dive might have been necessary in the spring.

“One thing they have to do determine [is] the proposal did include the possibility of verification dive for calibration purposes or to check if there was anything within the image quality that kind of needed to be checked on manually,” Golding said Nov. 14.

SUB: Council sends off bridge resolution to SUMA

Also in November council sent a second bridge resolution to Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association’s (SUMA) 2014 convention, hoping they would be endorse “the immediate need to plan and construct a second river crossing at Prince Albert and that the need be prioritized as immediate and forwarded to the provincial minister of highways and infrastructure and the federal minister of trade and infrastructure.”

But a month later they pulled out of their resolution because the board tried to change the wording in the document.

SUMA president Debra Button said the resolution probably would have passed through SUMA’s board had it not had mentioned an “immediate priority.”

“Because truly, what does immediate priority [mean] compared to what? And that was what personally what I was struggling with, ‘compared to what?’ And I think that really challenged our board, the immediate priority,” she said on Dec. 12.

“We are trying to work with PA to say ‘let’s just re-jig this resolution, let’s just get some word-smithing done and let’s look at it again, but they have pulled it. Truly what SUMA’s role is to support good public policy and protect all of the interests of our cities, towns and villages across the Province of Saskatchewan.”

Instead of allowing SUMA to reword the document, council has decided to do it themselves and place it before the 2015 convention.

Throughout 2013 council and Dionne have fought to find a way to get a second bridge in Prince Albert, despite the many hurdles and Dionne said they will continue to push for what he feels the city, and the North, needs.

“At the end of the day I believe the only way that bridge is going to get built is political will,” said Dionne.

sstone@panow.com

On Twitter: @sarahstone84

by Sarah Stone

Top stories of 2013: Major push from city council for second bridge

What's Trending