A Bridge Over the River Yukon: Some Thoughts, Questions and Facts

by Stephen Johnson

March 20, 2004

As a new ratepayer and member of my community, I am starting to take an interest in the affairs of Dawson City. I am attending as many meetings (Town Council and others) as I can in order to learn about various views being held by people in Dawson and recent events surrounding the financial state the town finds itself in.

Recently, the “Bridge to No Where” Committee held a meeting in the Town Council chambers to discuss the concept of a bridge over the Yukon River and perceived impending announcement. Unfortunately, I was a bit late as I was attending another meeting, but I came out of the bridge meeting with more questions than answers. As a professional engineer, albeit mining, I am keenly interested in any large engineering project not only because I am curious by nature, but also due to being fairly experienced in that end of things.

The kinds of questions I had (and have) are:

1. Was there ever an official government survey taken of the population in the Dawson area (including West Dawson, Bear Creek, Rock Creek, Henderson’s Corner and the Dempster Corner)? Was there any type of exit survey taken regarding tourist’s concerns about ease of access across the Yukon River at Dawson?

2. Was there a cost-benefit study done to indicate if a project of this size should go forward to the next step of full environmental and feasibility studies?

3. How would the business community be affected? Would there be scope for an extended tourist season? What would be the additional costs to the Highways Department in extending the season with respect to the Top of the World Highway? Would the border customs stations stay open? Would the American side (Taylor Highway) stay open as well? How would they regard the additional cost? If the road were kept open year round, would there be any more “Trek Over the Top” events?

4. Where are the reports that describe the project and cost?

5. How old are the reports? Should the numbers be “re-crunched”?

6. Where are the proposed bridge abutments located? What do the approaches look like?

7. How would a bridge “look” in terms of the town’s historical perspective?

8. What types of bridge designs were being investigated?

9. What about a tunnel? After all, I am a mining engineer.

10. What about flooding? The dyke was constructed in order to save the town from the effects of the type of flood in 1979 that covered about 2/3 of the town. That flood was caused by natural elements and there was no bridge at that time to act as an additional barrier. Could a bridge of the design proposed exacerbate the problem? I should think that another flood of the magnitude of 1979 would devastate the business community as well as people, their residences and belongings in the flood plain.

11. What type of dyke was constructed? Is it permeable or impermeable (much like a dam)? What flood event was it designed to protect Dawson from (1 in 100, 1 in 200)? What are the elevations along the dyke? What about the opening in the dyke at the tail end of the sternwheeler “Keno”? What are the contingency plans for covering in that hole should Dawson be threatened by another flood? I am absolutely certain that another similar event is “planned by nature”. After all, nature believes in “Murphy’s Law”.

In order to get the answers I was looking for, I finally spoke with Eric Gibson, Manager of Bridges, Transportation Engineering, Department of Highways & Public Works, Government of Yukon on February 20, 2004. He emailed Robin Walsh, P.Eng., Director, Transportation Engineering, Department of Highways & Public Works, Government of Yukon indicating my interest in any documentation on the proposed bridge at Dawson City. Mr. Walsh emailed me and said that they were in the process of putting all the documentation into electronic format and would be available to the public by the end of March 2004. I then emailed Mr. Walsh asking if a copy of the documents could be sent to the Dawson Highways Maintenance Facility (DHMF) just outside of Dawson. He arranged to have copies produced and sent to the DHMF on Thursday, March 4, 2004. The following documents (1 through 9) were sent:

Here is a summary of what I have learned to date with additional questions:

1. Proposed Design

a. 365 metre, 4 span, 3 pier, 3 plate superstructure. Is this “plain Jane” design suitable in terms of the heritage nature of the town? Should we have, perhaps, a timber frame (hammer-beam truss) covered bridge design that might fit in better? I should think that it would be the longest covered bridge in the world and certainly the farthest north and, quite likely, a considerable benefit as a tourist attraction. Would that or any other design cause difficulties for floatplane traffic? I understand that a fuelling station is planned for the waterfront near the location of the dock used by the Yukon Queen II. Would those plans be affected?

b. Clearance of 10.13m to accommodate the M.V. Anna Maria, not the higher M.V. Yukon Queen II.

c. 321.0m high water design level (just above the 1 in 200 event as determined by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants in Report 2, p. 2-11). The survey station opposite Queen Street on the dyke has an elevation of 320.85m.

2. Costs

a. $25,000,000 construction and engineering costs including contingencies based on the estimate by N.D. Lea in Report 2 and increased to reflect inflation since 1995.

b. I can only assume that contractor’s profit has been taken into account in Report 2. Contractor’s profit is a function of risk. The higher the risk, the higher the overall cost. How would a contractor view the conditions here? Report 2 did take into account conditions at Fort St. John, B.C. in preparing their estimate, but did say that conditions were not as harsh. Also, in Report 2, p. 2-16 it states "the construction costs for the Alyeska oil-pipeline and highway bridge, constructed on the Yukon River in 1975, were studied and considered for relevance to this project. Subsequent discussions with the Alaska DOT revealed that the astonishingly high costs for that bridge were largely due to lack of competition among contractors already heavily involved in the construction of the multi-billion Dollar pipe line, and to previously unidentified problems with pier foundations." My understanding is the pier foundation material is solid rock with tight joint sets. What is the outlook for the construction industry in the next few years?

c. The clearance, as determined by the Canadian Coast Guard, is too low for the Yukon Queen II and therefore the bridge design will likely change quite dramatically at the approaches. This will mean, for this particular design, greater pier sizes and fills at abutments and approaches and consequently greater cost.

d. The cost of steel has risen dramatically since 1995 when the cost estimate was completed.

3. Other

a. What are the contingency plans for the hole in the dyke at the tail end of the “Keno” should we be threatened by flood conditions. As anyone who has followed the history of floods in Dawson knows, there were significant events in 1898, 1925, 1944, 1957 and 1979. Are we due in the next couple of years? Would the bridge as proposed create an artificial barrier that could place us in jeopardy? The following shows the costs of a flood in terms of 1986 and projected 2006 dollars:

The Table showing flood damage costs are calculated by compounding the 1986 Dollar values by 3% annually. The 2006 Dollars may not be completely accurate, however should be somewhere in the “ballpark”.

Klohn Leonoff determined the elevations in the tables for the different events shown. For instance the 1 in 100 event has a 1% chance of happening in any year and the river will peak at an elevation of 321.7m.

b. A cable stayed or suspension bridge would take away the aspect of artificial barriers in the river course. The Lions Gate Bridge in Vancouver is a magnificent structure that is not hard to look at. Its main span is 462m with an overall length of some 1,517 m including the approaches on both ends. I think the main span for a suspension bridge here would be in the order of 450m. A bridge of this sort could be a tourist attraction. What are the costs of cable stayed or suspension bridge?

c. What are the costs for a tunnel?

d. Report 3, Section 3.2.3.1 Operation of the George Black Ferry p. 109 states, “The remaining service life of the George Black ferry is considered to be twenty years”. That would effectively beach the vessel permanently at the end of the normal 2015-operating season. However Jim Kenyon, acting Minister of Highways and Public Works states in the Yukon Government news release of March 3, 2004, “We need a bridge in place before the scheduled replacement of the George Black ferry, due in six years.” That would indicate the vessel would be retired at the end of the 2009-operating season and not as indicated by SHM Marine above. The six year discrepancy begs the question, “Which is correct?”

e. The shortness of the open water construction season effectively sets the timetable to complete the most important aspects of the project, those being the initial “homework” to complete the job correctly such that the bridge can be constructed safely, on time and on budget. An extra year of preparation is cheap insurance to fulfill those ends. This engineer believes that fourteen months gives little enough time to examine alternatives for bridge design, additional environmental studies that may be required, cost analysis, construction tender preparation, awarding of contracts and mobilization of the crews and equipment.

Some may say that my questions and information above are meant to show I am against the construction of bridge over the Yukon River at Dawson City. Not so. As mentioned, I have a natural sense of curiosity about all sorts of things and in particular “engineering things”. But make no mistake about it, I prefer to have solid information in making decisions about the “engineering things”, the protection of my community and the people here. I am gathering what information I can to be better informed and I am asking questions. I hope that others will do the same.

Bridge Debates in the Blues - an extract from Hansard, the official record of the Yukon Government’s Legislative Debates

March 31, 2004

Question re: Dawson City bridge

Mr. McRobb: The benchmark for this government's accountability is its own platform document. In it, the Yukon Party makes a commitment to the people of our territory to plan — that's "plan", not "build" — the construction of a bridge at Dawson City to replace the current ferry system when it is economical to do so. So this government's recent announcement to build the bridge has raised a number of red flags. One flag is the complete lack of a business case to justify this bridge and to justify to Yukoners that the time for it has now arrived. In typical fashion, this government prefers to leave Yukoners in the dark while it forges ahead with whatever goes at the budget table.

Mr. Speaker, it's time to pry open the back door and shed some light on what's going on in there. Will the minister give us the number he used to argue for this project at the Cabinet table? And can he tell us what makes this project economical now?

Hon. Mr. Hart: For the member opposite, we have been announcing this bridge ever since we were campaigning to be elected. It is no secret; it has been in our platform, and we indicated that it was part of the issue we were going to get elected on.

Mr. McRobb: I wish the minister would listen to the question. I clearly was referring to the government's platform document and not whatever took place between the candidates and people at the door, of which we have no record. This government has not presented a sound business case. It would have been reasonable to expect the government to bring forward its case in this Legislature for debate before proceeding with a project of such magnitude and such implication to all Yukon communities. There is a void of information and perhaps logic here. The government's silence and lack of leadership has forced people to draw their own conclusions.

We need to get a firm figure from this minister on what he expects this bridge to cost. For the record, will this be a $30-million bridge, a $40-million bridge, or will this minister just write a blank cheque as he will in the case of the multiplex?

Hon. Mr. Hart: The member opposite is doing very well in his tirade. I would like to indicate that we have an estimate to build this bridge of between $25 million and $30 million. That's what we estimate the bridge will cost. Part of the aspect of dealing with the bridge is we'll have to go to design. Part of that design is consultation with the community on what that bridge will look like.

Mr. McRobb: It would be nice to get some of these bits and pieces on the table where we can look at the big picture. Of course, any business case must consider other factors, aside from the cost of the bridge; for example, it must consider the local impact from losing 16 ferry workers who will no longer be employed and spending their wages in Dawson's economy; workers who build and maintain the ice bridge will lose their contracts and ability to contribute; tourists will have no reason to shop or buy meals while waiting for the ferry. These are only some of the factors that must be considered in a business case.

When will this minister be tabling his business case in this House for discussion, and what dollar figure will he put on the loss to the local economy?

Hon. Mr. Hart: There will be no jobs lost, as he indicated, in the process. These jobs will be assumed in the rest of the department where they go along. That is how it is going to take place. Nobody is going to lose their job on the ferry; it will be assumed in that process. Part of the issue we are dealing with is the replacement of that ferry. It is going to be a substantial cost. That is scheduled to take place in 2007 or 2008, and we will be dealing with that when we get there.

April 1, 2004

Question re:? Dawson City bridge

Mr. McRobb: When does the Highways minister plan to table his business case for the Dawson bridge?

Hon. Mr. Hart: We are in the process of developing our process for the Yukon bridge. As I mentioned yesterday, we have a request for proposals out for the design of the bridge, which will include consultation with the citizens of Dawson.

Mr. McRobb: He failed to answer the question; he did not say when he would table his business case for the bridge.

Will this minister halt spending any more taxpayer dollars on this expensive pet project until we've all had the opportunity to discuss his business case in this Legislature? Will he do that?

Hon. Mr. Hart: For the member opposite, the bridge has been a commitment of this party since the start of the last election, and that's where we're going to go. We have this in our process and we're going to deal with it.

Mr. McRobb: That's not what they promised Yukoners, Mr. Speaker, and we have reviewed that already in this Legislature. The minister is failing to provide what he expects all other Yukoners in all other municipalities to provide, and that is a business case for major projects.

Why did the minister insist on prioritizing this bridge above the needs of other communities, and especially the need for sewage treatment facilities in Dawson?

Hon. Mr. Hart: Both of these facilities are separate and distinct issues, and this government is taking and addressing both of those specific issues.