Dear editor,I read with great interest the letter written by Mr. Brian Woodason with respect to the proposed pedestrian and cycling bridge at Sixth Street (Record, April 11).I find it interesting that he uses the reason that a wood bridge would have high maintenance costs and, “A large section of the riverbank/floodplain would be impacted” as detractors to building it. Amazingly, in the same letter he purports that a crossing at 29th Street is a better idea. Unfortunately, the impact of a crossing at 29th would be many times more excessive than any type of crossing at Sixth, let alone a wood bridge. Furthermore, as repairs to a wood bridge could be made with locally sourced materials (wood) with local labour, maintenance costs would in fact be equal to or less than any other type of structure. He also assumes that “extremely toxic” preservatives would be required.This is absolutely false. There are many natural wood preservative products to choose from, and given the nature of this project and its intent, these are the types of preservatives that would be used.Now, to address the existing traffic studies. Mr. Woodason is quite correct in that they do not recommend a pedestrian crossing at 26th Street. The reason for this is simple: Assessing or considering these types of options was not included in the terms of reference for the studies — I know this as my company submitted a bid for the third crossing study to the City of Courtenay.What Mr. Woodason’s letter goes on to imply is that a crossing at 29th Street is recommended by existing studies.This is most definitely not a recommendation of any studies, and as far as spending taxpayer money unwisely, such a crossing would cost $140 million or more (this is per the Third Crossing Study prepared by McElhanney Consulting Services and available at the City of Courtenay website).The recommended third crossing is at 11th Street with an estimated cost of $14.6 million in capital and a total lifetime cost, including maintenance, in excess of $30 million. In comparison, $2 million for a pedestrian bridge is quite reasonable. Especially if building a pedestrian and cycling bridge could help avoid the need for a third vehicle crossing altogether.It only takes a small percent increase in the number of vehicles on any given road to completely stop the flow of traffic. That’s why even a small increase in non-vehicular traffic can make a significant difference in the flow of vehicle traffic. i.e. it takes only a small increase in people riding bikes, walking and taking the bus to dramatically increase the efficiency of travel for everyone who chooses to stay in their cars.It is due to this principle that the construction of cycling and pedestrian infrastructure such as this proposed bridge, bike lanes, and better sidewalks is a benefit for everyone — not just cyclists and pedestrians.And non-vehicular infrastructure costs significantly less than the equivalent vehicle infrastructure that would be required, so the cost savings begin to add up. Furthermore, removing vehicles from the road in favour of alternate modes of transportation will also decrease wear and tear on existing infrastructure, extending the life of roads we have already built and again, saving everyone money.Andrew Gower, P.Eng., PE,Courtenay