City staff and all but one delegate at Tuesday’s council meeting agreed: the Rotary Centennial Bridge should not be open to motorized traffic.

Before staff brought forward a recommendation that the bridge remain closed to snowmobiles, ATVs and dirt bikes, nearly 20 people addressed council in separate presentations calling for its non-motorized status to remain in place.

Council heard about the bridge’s 10-year history with the funding and vision for a crossing that could be enjoyed by many taking a stroll, bike ride or using their wheelchairs on the Millennium Trail.

It has become a landmark piece of the trail: a place for bird-watching, to stop and take in the large expanse of the Yukon River, watch paddlers tackle the river’s legendary current, run or wander with the kids on an afternoon stroll.

That the possibility of changing its status to allow motorized use is being considered by council just before its 10th anniversary is celebrated is ironic, noted Rick Griffiths, the first delegate to address council.

“The Millennium Trail and Rotary Centennial Bridge are highly valued for active transportation and recreation,” said Griffiths.

He cited the history of the bridge and the vision of the late Father Jean-Marie Mouchet for a trail all could use actively regardless of physical ability.

“City council, having supported Father’s original concept, used the opportunity afforded by the Urban Transportation Showcase Project, with its aim of reducing greenhouse gases, to complete an urban loop trail by building the centennial bridge, a safe route to downtown.”

Sponsorships to build the bridge from groups like Rotary clubs and others came in support of active living.

Rotary has since been among the many to voice their support for the bridge to remain non-motorized for the estimated 315,000 that have walked it in the last decade.

Griffiths also countered the view of motorized users.

“An argument used by those who would change the status of bridge and trail is that of fairness,” he said.

“Would it be fair to disavow the raison d’etre of bridge and trail? Having encouraged and promoted the use of the pedestrian corridor for more than 10 years, would it now be fair to deprive thousands of non-motorized users their right to recreate in safety without fear of being struck by a vehicle on the bridge or the two 90 degree turns on the trail?

“Allowing motorization would also detract from the intangible qualities of peace and serenity in an urban setting, free from traffic fumes and the snarl of engines.”

While motorized vehicles are not allowed on the bridge, that hasn’t stopped some from driving their machines across it.

Cameron Eckert of the Yukon Bird Club said he probably walks the bridge more than 100 times in a year, with the area serving as a good bird-watching site, especially in the winter months. About once or twice a year, he’ll see a snow machine or some other motorized vehicle on the crossing, the driver giving a bit of a “sheepish look” as they go by.

It’s not a lot of traffic, he said, but also “it’s not without its impact.”

John Quinsey of the Yukon Canoe and Kayak Club described everything coming to a halt while a machine goes by on the bridge.

He compared the situation to an obnoxious drunk who shows up to a party everybody had been enjoying.

“It changes the whole mood of the place,” he said of the moment a motorized vehicle passes.

Only one person in the standing-room only gallery admitted to riding a motorized bike across the bridge about a couple of times a year, noting the low chance for an accident if drivers are paying attention.

He said he keeps his speed low – to about seven kilometres per hour – in an effort not to disturb others on the bridge.

Questioned by Coun. Mike Gladish for his thoughts on possible regulations, such as the bridge being clear before a motorized vehicle could proceed, the driver said he would not have a problem with that.

Still a long list of others argued against allowing motorized vehicles on the bridge for a variety of reasons.

They ranged from the heightened safety risks, including more impaired drivers taking their machines across the bridge, to the disturbance it could cost users.

As one Riverdale resident who often uses the bridge said: “My dog doesn’t like motorized vehicles.”

The trail provides a more accessible route to an increasing aging population who may have trouble walking the more challenging trails in the city, it was pointed out.

And then there are those in wheelchairs who have more limited options to enjoy the outdoors.

As Eva von Flotow told council, she doesn’t get out a lot in the winter, but in the summer she enjoys being out on the trail and making her way across the bridge.

She joined the call to keep the bridge as a non-motorized route.

The input at last night’s meeting came in addition to “unsolicited” feedback the city received since 2014 on the possibility.

As explained by Doug Hnatiuk, the city’s supervisor of outreach and events, the city has heard from 210 people supporting the non-motorized status with another 59 wanting to see motorized vehicles permitted on the bridge.

The Klondike Snowmobile Association and Contagious Mountain Bike Club have also stated support for motorized use.

However, one bike club member told council last night that she hadn’t been asked by the club for input and was unsure how it had reached its position without polling members.

In his report, Hnatiuk said the issue had come up in 2013. after a number of complaints about motorized vehicles on the bridge.

A gate was installed, but not found to be successful in deterring recreational vehicles.

“The city consulted with motorized use groups to identify a solution to the conflict and were advised that the best solution would be to re-designate the bridge for motorized multiple use to allow off-road vehicles to cross the river and access trails on the west side of the Yukon River,” Hnatiuk said in his report to council.

He noted the issue was then forwarded to the city’s trails and greenways committee as well as the persons with disabilities committee, to look at.

While the persons with disabilities group brought forward a recommendation there not be any gating on the bridge and supported motorized multi-use of the bridge, the greenways committee never reached consensus on the matter.

At the same time, opinions on the matter have been continuing to come in from the general public, with Hnatiuk describing it as a divisive issue.

“At each end are the extreme users who are either completely against motorized use or who find it unfair that this bridge has been non-motorized for so long,” he noted.

“In the middle, there seem to be many who would be able to live with a shared use. Based on the principles in the 2007 Trail Plan and administration’s professional perspective is that shared use is always the most cost-effective and inclusive way forward.

“However, at this time, it does not appear that there is a strong enough community support to consider changing the bridge designation to accommodate motorized multi-use and public education is considered an effective tool in broadening the community’s perspective.”

Hnatiuk went on to note the need to also consider the support of those who originally sponsored construction of the bridge.

“At the time of development, the task force working on the bridge project were all in favour of pedestrian designation to coincide with the designation of the previously established Millennium Trail,” Hnatiuk said.

He then brought forward the recommendation the bridge remain closed to motorized traffic and that public education be improved on proper trail use in the area.

Council won’t vote on the bridge’s status until next week. Discussion among members last night appeared to mirror the divisive arguments on the bridge as well as around the procedure council is to follow.

Coun. Dave Stockdale made it clear he “never, would never” vote to allow motorized vehicles on the bridge.

His comment prompted a lengthy discussion around council procedure and whether members could express their opinion at a standing committee meeting, as last night’s meeting was.

As Coun. Betty Irwin commented, she would wait until council’s next regular meeting (where members vote) to state her views, adding that standing committee (where matters are considered but not voted on) is not the time for debate. Rather that comes at the vote for second and third reading.

Mayor Dan Curtis was quick to agree with Irwin, arguing that Stockdale stating his opinion on the issue wasn’t appropriate.

“What’s appropriate,” the mayor continued, is to hear all the information and follow process and procedures in place before voting.

Coun. John Streicker, meanwhile, suggested council members should keep an open mind before voting next week.