New Bridge

Well, looks like we’re going to get a new bridge.

Check out the Vibrant Victoria coverage. They have a link to the “Technical Review of the Rehabilitation and Replacement Options” presentation made to council, which has also been put up at the city’s JohnsonStreetBridge.com site.

JohnsonStreetBridge.org also has good coverage.

Update: Victoria Vision coverage.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Blogs, Downtown, Esquimalt, Historic Sites, Infrastructure, Newspaper Coverage, Vic West, Victoria. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to New Bridge

  1. John Luton says:

    New bridge? I don’t think it is yet a done deal. Technical and costing reports pretty clearly point to the advantages of a new bridge, but there are still those who would derail any effort to move in that direction.

    The city has done what the counter petition process asked for – a detailed analysis and costing of a refurbishment project to compare with the new bridge option. The city and a technical advisory committee (do you want good advice or political advice?) made sure that both options were designed and costed to compare apples with apples so Victorians can weigh in on the choices before us.

    A full picture has been presented by our engineers and multiple teams of consultants – professional engineers with both the experience and expertise, and whose reputation for providing sound and unbiased advice is on the line (and the code of ethics governing engineers require that they provide only objective and unbiased information and recommendations).

    Both the new bridge and refurbishment options will cost multiples of the figures estimated in the original condition assessment commissioned in 2007. One critic likes to use one number only from that report – the $23 to $25 million estimated for a very basic refurbishment, but conveniently ignores most of the other numbers and recommendations presented by the Delcan team.

    The same report said a new bridge would cost around $35 million, which, like the orginal refurbishment assessments, provided a solid foundation for further work but, like any complex engineering project, subject to detailed costing and the budgetary shifts associated with changes in scope for both options.

    There will be a campaign to save the old bridge – and that’s the only agenda, and however stubborn the facts, expect an effort to question the credibility of both the engineers and council, and new roadblocks thrown in the way of making a timely and responsible decision.

    That latest effort, conveniently revolving around accommodations for cyclists and pedestrians, (the top two issues for citizens who will own and use the bridge in the future).

    The “newly” proposed 2 to 1 lane road diet won’t work. My analysis can be found at my blog and on my website. I keep asking the engineers if the analysis is sound and have always been supported in their responses.

    It’s just another stall.

    Costs have about tripled for a new bridge, and are about 4 times for the refurbishment option. That’s easily enough understood – some big ticket items have been added to the scope of that project to meet some practical objectives.

    A new bridge to connect the Galloping Goose and the E&N trail (in progress) is the only practical and effective way to provide what cyclists and pedestrians will need. The old bridge can’t accommodate the weight and doesn’t have the space to provide what was designed into the new bridge at the Class “C” stage of development last year. For that project the cost was estimated at $63 million. Road approaches work added about $11 million to the package on that one too, then a more limited scope change than those elements now woven into a refurbishment concept.

    Complete replacement of the electrical and mechancial systems have been added to refurbishment estimates to extend the potential life of the old bridge to another 100 years, again making it comparable to the advantages of a new bridge, but, just as predictably, adding some cost escalation to the project.

    Comparable levels of seismic protection and some detailing meant to preserve the heritage features of the bridge are also costly elements never anticipated in the original refurbishment works envisioned in the condition assessment.

    The suspicions cast around costs and the rate of inflation are a bit simplistic, if not disingenous. Apart from the many scope variables, the assurances that, when council first chose a new bridge, costs were at historic lows have proven prescient. The delays mean painful if predictable increases in material prices and other costs. The Financial Times reports that steel prices are set to jump by a third in 2010 alone and elsewhere in the construction industry media, analysts are observing some significant upward pressure on concrete prices as well.

    The things you and I buy follow the rate of inflation, but large scale municipal infrastructure projects have their own set of financial dynamics and our input costs are quite different from your grocery bill.

    Watch for the bridge campaign to push for a couple of “cheap” fixes. Cut out the rail, drop the bike bridge and leave the seismic work out of the project are emerging as the latest do nothing strategies. Paint the house while the foundation is crumbling and save the bridge for cars and trucks for another 50 or 100 years. Now that’s sustainable!!??

    How and with what we move forward with will still be debated around Victoria. Those that are losing the techical arguments will fall back again on process, but this really still is about the bridge.

    What we need is a new one, something that echoes the old and fits into our cityscape, but something too that is purpose built to meet the transportation needs of the future, not the past. The safest and most durable investment and the best value for money has always been the new bridge.

    The old bridge is not just a steadily deteriorating liability as is, but perhaps most surprisingly, not a very sound or effective design for the purposes for which it was built.

    The bridge engineer who did the peer review (and who has experience in heritage work, bridge design and decades of direct experience with the Blue Bridge), said as much during his presentation. He concluded that, even with a reasonable and prudent project proposed for the refurbishment, he could not be certain that it would work as intended.

    The best we can do might still uncover suprises (and costly ones), because there are structural elements that have not been examined or maintained since the bridge was built. Those same features might preclude any effective maintenance or protection against the pack rust steadily eroding the superstructure -rusting out beams and stressing rivets.

    How ironic that many of the “charms” of the old structure are hastening its demise. Rust never sleeps.

    By August we’ll have a decision and November’s events will include a by-election and referendum on the choices we make. It’s not an easy task but I hope people can see more clearly what must be done. I’m working to help get us there.

  2. Francesca says:

    Now that the provincial government has said that they won’t fund rail upgrades along the E&N (which is, to say the least, disappointing) it would make sense for the rail portion to be eliminated from both designs. There is no point in Victorians paying millions of dollars to maintain a rail bridge when it looks like there is little chance it will be turned into commuter rail, and if the reports in the TC are accurate, it seems the dayliner has a limited life as well.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s