Making a case for restoration of Brilliant Bridge

"Factors are favorable for the project to proceed again now." This was the main thrust of the message which was delivered to city council early in November by Lawrence Makortoff of the Brilliant Bridge Restoration Committee. Built in 1913 by communal Doukhobors with little more than picks, shovels and wheelbarrows, the Brilliant Bridge for many years thereafter was a vital transportation link between communities on either side of the Columbia River. Restored to a functional state, it could once again figure in the economic growth of the Castlegar area.

The city would especially benefit from a successful restoration. Currently it derives over 40% of its budgetary revenue from Celgar. Should circumstances beyond the city’s direct control negatively alter this arrangement, council would be hard-pressed to make up any resulting shortfalls. Clearly, there is a need for diversification to mitigate this vulnerability. Many are looking to retool their economic strategies to take advantage of the province’s burgeoning tourist industry. Castlegar finds itself favorably positioned to become a major tourist destination of choice, offering breathtaking scenery, richness in historic/cultural attraction, and abundant outdoor recreational activities. Adding a restored suspension bridge into the mix would create a unique attraction which would undoubtedly generate extra tourist dollars, for how many other communities can boast of having a national heritage site among their list of credits?

However, before we can claim bragging rights, there is work to be done. According to the Bridge Restoration Committee, much of the capital required to complete the project has been assembled and it is confident that through creative fundraising the balance will materialize. The city is being asked "... to contribute what they can." The biggest hurdle, and one that can scuttle the restoration as it has in the past, is the issue of ownership. The Highways Department, the current owner, is seeking to divest itself of this role and consequently, its participation in the project will be limited to providing a portion of the restoration funding and other forms of support. Regional Districts I and J are ready to stand in the breach, but Castlegar is reluctant to participate, citing a perceiving inequity in the existing approximately 70/30 cost sharing formula between it and the Regional Districts. With funding for restoration committed from other sources, the only other financial obligation which remains to be considered is the cost attached to the maintenance of the restored structure and adjoining park-to-be. Even by most generous estimates, this would likely be minimal and more than amply offset by a share in the resulting tourist dollars.

Awareness of the opportunities which will be made available to communities over the next three years should provide incentive for local governments to resolve their differences and commit to restoration. The provincial government will soon be gearing up its province-wide beautification program in preparation for the 2010 Olympics. A buoyant economy actualizes funding, making it readily available for projects which will show the province’s best face to the world. All such projects should be completed by 2008 in time for unveiling an aggressive advertising campaign.

After the hoopla of 2010 has faded and the Olympics have come another chapter in British Columbia’s history, the provincial treasury may be less generous.

We urge the city and regional districts to continue discussions in a genuine effort to resolve this long-running debate over cost sharing - a source of continual friction - and in so doing, clear the way for restoration of this priceless monument from the past.

Fred Arishenkoff, Castlegar