[Johnson Street Bridge] General discussion

[mat]

Originally Posted by Nparker

Desite the emotion expressed here, I am pretty certain the city has made the decision to replace the JSB, assuming the necessary funds are forthcoming from the feds. If that is the case, everyone's energy is best spent on ensuring we get the best new bridge possible with the money that is available.

Well - in that is the big issue: and not to discount anyone who wishes a reversal of the JSB decision, and re-consideration for 'Blue Bridge' preservation on historical grounds. The involvement of all opinions is paramount.

Yule Heibel - who has written an article in Focus Magazine, and blogged about the JSB has raised a number of interesting points on the process. Yule has been very pro-active, and has been kind enough to email me, and provide this quote.

Not sure my word choice of "jurisdiction" in subject line is quite right, but here's a fact about who's responsible for JSB: the City of Victoria, and the City of Victoria only.

I was at the April 23 meeting at CotW, and that issue came up. The bridge is in Victoria, and only Victoria has any say about how roads & infrastructure are/is handled within its municipal boundaries.

Believe me, I was thunderstruck hearing that - I thought that since bridges are so integral to flow and access across the CRD, there would be supra-regional responsibility. But there isn't. Even if Victoria gets Federal funds, Greater Victoria is essentially out of the picture as far as making decisions around replace/ restore, including design issues. It's all entirely in Victoria's court. Anyone in Saanich or OB or Esquimalt or West Comms or wherever can just stfu, as far as the law is concerned.

I find that appalling, but there you have it. Another "benefit" of separate municipal fiefdoms, I guess. And I think that'll affect any decisions on design or competition for design.

She and I agree the decision making process by council is fraught with problems - and does not herald well for any future design. However, no matter the level of cynicism we all may feel at any point on City of Victoria (and other local council) decision processes, we (WE - ALL OF US) can have a say, should have a say, and be proactive. Even to reverse the decision for new build, for restoration.

It is also 'appalling', as Yule stated, that decisional jurisdiction is solely within the confines of the City of Victoria. Much of the bridge funding, if it goes through under the infrastructure investment plan, will be from Provincial and Federal funds; and most of the 30 000 vehicle users (quoted from the City of Victoria website) will be from residents and companies outside of the City. Why are all those bridge users discounted? Ironic - as I live in Saanich, and generally support the goal of a new, iconic bridge.

Outside of VV there are 2 active Facebook groups for Blue Bridge preservation - which despite VV link placement, blog links and maybe some personal activism by people who care, still have fewer than 200 'fans'. Keep the Blue Bridge with 161 members and Save the Blue Bridge with 36 members - neither group has gained many more 'fans' in the last week. One wonders about written letters to the Mayor and Council members, and what effect they may have. There simply is not the online and off activism, in terms of actual numbers, to make the City of Victoria either reconsider the decision, or make a new design a priority communication protocol.

[phx]

You should be encouraging the municipal government where you reside to contribute several million to the project.

[mat]

Originally Posted by phx

You should be encouraging the municipal government where you reside to contribute several million to the project.

Why? By default, anyone who lives outside of the City of Victoria is already contributing through Federal and Provincial infrastructure funds.

[G-Man]

But so are those in New Brunswick and Fort Nelson, shouldn't frequent users be charged more?

[Phil McAvity]

^Geeze, what the hell's gotten into you G-Man? By encouraging those that actually use the bridge to pay for it, you're starting to sound a little right-wing! Now if we could just apply that same principle to CBC radio we would get along wonderfully!

Aastra, I liked your impassioned speech even though I didn't completely agree with it. I noticed you made no mention of the traffic mess on the both sides of the bridge that is long overdue to be fixed, nor was there any mention of an issue you brought up to me ironically of the city reclaiming and selling some of the land around the bridge once a replacement is found.

[G-Man]

He didn't mention a traffic mess because there isn't one to mention.

[Phil McAvity]

Instead of just driving straight on and off the bridge (like almost every other bridge on earth) you have to drive over/under an uneccessary bridge and zig-zag around hairpin turns which slows down traffic to a crawl. As well, the entire bridge is almost never used due to the ridiculousness of having part of it dedicated to the train. That part of the bridge could have/should have been used for vehicular traffic a long time ago. All the prime real estate that this takes up (especially on the downtown side) is shameful as well.

You don't consider that a mess?

I do.

[Jill]

I used to live in Vic West and crossed the bridge at least twice a day almost seven days a week, usually by foot but occasionally by car or bike. I agree with G-Man about the non-existence of the bridge traffic problem. Slow to a crawl? It would be nice if more vehicles did the speed limit on the bridge, but most blast through, and the concrete divider on the Vic West side has the knocks to prove that the turn doesn't slow them down a bit.

[Nparker]

Originally Posted by mat

By default, anyone who lives outside of the City of Victoria is already contributing through Federal and Provincial infrastructure funds.

So then taxpayers in Victoria should not be billed any additional cost for any bridge repairs/replacement, since we pay both provincial and federal taxes as well.

[aastra]

As it is now, the traffic situation is not ideal, but it's also nowhere near flawed enough to justify replacing the bridge.

If the bridge is replaced and the traffic situation afterward isn't absolutely textbook perfect -- functionally and esthetically -- on both sides and for all modes, including pedestrians, then I'll probably pop a vein.

[Baro]

Yeah I have a feeling we'll get the "worst of both worlds" solution. Something expensive that ends up costing more than just fixing the existing bridge costs, ugly, and doesn't solve any use issues. But by god it will be LOWER and probably involve pointless open space. A true victoria city-hall solution, just make sure it's low and has a lot of open space!

Also I read the last bit of your post as "poop in a van"

[UrbanRail]

I also dont see a major traffic problem on the bridge. What I would like to see are improvements/additions to make it easier for cyclists and pedestrians to get across and a direct rail connection to the downtown core. Plus improve transit amenities as well.

The curve only increases travel time by like what 5-10 seconds? If the extra 5 seconds is too much for certain drivers, then that is too bad.

Hopefully any replacement isnt a piece of crap.

[Ms. B. Havin]

Originally Posted by Baro

Yeah I have a feeling we'll get the "worst of both worlds" solution. Something expensive that ends up costing more than just fixing the existing bridge costs, ugly, and doesn't solve any use issues. But by god it will be LOWER and probably involve pointless open space. A true victoria city-hall solution, just make sure it's low and has a lot of open space!

That's my worry, too.

Originally Posted by UrbanRail

I was talking with John Lutton, I was told that there will be open houses for the public. He didnt say when.

I'm not sure that John Luton should be promising things like this - it's not like he's in control of the process, he's a newbie on council, I'll bet you anything the process will get away from him and any other well-meaning politician fast enough and there will not be any public consultation on design or whatever.

How can he promise open houses for the public, given the time constraints this thing is under? It'll be a juggernaut before anyone has a chance to catch their breath.

He's either naive or disingenuous.

[Holden West]

I sadly suspect any "open house" will merely be the public's opportunity to vote for colour schemes and OK the placement of any landscaping.

[mat]

Gail Stephens started work this week as the new City of Victoria manager. Frankly, I feel pity for her - there is so much on the City plate, not the least of which is the future of the Johnson Street Bridge. I am, as we all should, reserving judgement until we see the design/building plans and consultation process (if there are any forthcoming), or even a reconsideration of the original decision.

as quoted by Cfax "PROBABLY THE BIGGEST CHALLENGE IS THERE ARE AN AWFUL LOT OF PROJECTS ON THE GO, AND YOU KNOW, LIMITED RESOURCES. SO IT WILL BE, TO DELIVER HIGH QUALITY WORK AND MEET DEADLINES."

(reads like a Sarah Palin interview)

A previous CFAX news story quoted Mayor Fortin as heralding Gail Stephens for one noted to 'build bridges' in her previous work - with a possible aside to the JSB issue.

Like many on this thread I have a natural cynicism to City of Victoria council based decisions on previous history, but maybe we can all advocate for our positions (plug Gail's email inbox!!!) and turn a likely negative, into something positive.

[AnonAnnie]

Originally Posted by mat

Like many on this thread I have a natural cynicism to City of Victoria council based on previous history, but maybe we can all advocate for our positions (plug Gail's email inbox!!!) and turn a likely negative, into something positive.

I do? a 'natural' cynicism? sorta like a happy period?
Ok I can relate to THAT.
But advocate for our positions? I'm 3 years new to Victoria, somebody please tell me what my position is!

[Lover Fighter]

Originally Posted by Phil McAvity

Instead of just driving straight on and off the bridge (like almost every other bridge on earth) you have to drive over/under an uneccessary bridge and zig-zag around hairpin turns which slows down traffic to a crawl. As well, the entire bridge is almost never used due to the ridiculousness of having part of it dedicated to the train. That part of the bridge could have/should have been used for vehicular traffic a long time ago. All the prime real estate that this takes up (especially on the downtown side) is shameful as well.

You don't consider that a mess?

I do.

I've never seen traffic 'crawl' because of the corner where Johnson turns into Esquimalt Road. There are signs that advise traffic to slow down to 30 km/hr but I don't know if I've ever seen anyone go less than 40.

I can't tell if you're serious about having half the bridge 'wasted' on the train and pedestrian traffic. But if you are serious, then I can tell there is no reasoning with as you are living in the past (and that is coming from someone who advocates heritage!).

[UrbanRail]

I can assure you, that the train will stay on this side of the bridge, perhaps (as was mentioned before) even extended to Douglas St.

Adding more traffic lanes on the new JSB is moronic, as Esquimalt Rd is only 2 lanes anyway, so you will be causing more traffic headaches. This project cant ignore alternative transportation; transit, rail, pedestrian and cycling, to do so would be fool hardy.

[CharlieFoxtrot]

Actually, according to the City of Victoria, Esquimalt road will (one day soon) be going down to single lane traffic each way with bike lanes a la the recent work done on Bay.

I'm not making this up - I'm trying to find some sort of web link to the info that was contained on the blurry photocopy of the plan the city engineering dept. taped to the front window of our condo to notify us of the open house presenting all this info, but darn it if the City of Victoria website don't suck arse.

Anyone else out there able to back this up?

[mat]

Originally Posted by SusanJones

I do? a 'natural' cynicism? sorta like a happy period?
Ok I can relate to THAT.
But advocate for our positions? I'm 3 years new to Victoria, somebody please tell me what my position is!

I can relate to that - having only been a real 'Victorian' from 1984 to '90 as a student living with family in Fairfield (Vancouver transplant), then away in Europe from then until 2005. In terms of the JSB apparently no one outside of Victoria proper will have a say. As we live in Saanich...

My question to you is why do you need a position? You can research all you like, seek educated opinions, and at the end come up with no resolute conclusion, and that is totally fine.

[mat]

Originally Posted by CharlieFoxtrot

Actually, according to the City of Victoria, Esquimalt road will (one day soon) be going down to single lane traffic each way with bike lanes a la the recent work done on Bay.

I'm not making this up - I'm trying to find some sort of web link to the info that was contained on the blurry photocopy of the plan the city engineering dept. taped to the front window of our condo to notify us of the open house presenting all this info, but darn it if the City of Victoria website don't suck arse.

Anyone else out there able to back this up?

Thanks Charlie - heard the rumours myself. You are so correct the City of Vic website does not match to commitment of the current administration to 'ensure clear, timely communication' ( quote from Mayor Fortin on campaign). If you can, why not scan the copy you have and post it!

[Mike K.]

I recall something similar that was presented at a Vic West transportation planning session held several years ago.

When asked about the reduction in lanes, etc, planners said the City has no intention of increasing capacity for through-traffic to other municipalities. The goal is to slow down or reduce traffic going through the western part of the City-proper to the western communities.

[aastra]

So that pretty much kills the argument that a new bridge will resolve the unbearably hellish traffic situation around the existing bridge, right? The multi-hour delays, the countless fatal accidents, and so forth?

[North Shore]

Actually, according to the City of Victoria, Esquimalt road will (one day soon) be going down to single lane traffic each way with bike lanes a la the recent work done on Bay.

...So? Buy a bike then.

[mat]

I am not sure whether to laugh out loud - enough shaking, rolling and hopefully contagious laughter to even get Oak Bay residents out of their funk over urban deer eating the gardenias - or to shake my head at political action gone slightly mad.

Dear old Gregory Hartnell, the President of the Concerned Citizens Coalition (remember them from the last municipal election?) has actually submitted a request to get pro bono legal assistance to sue to City of Victoria over the JSB decision, and seek a reversal.

LETTER FROM PRESTIGIOUS VANCOUVER LAW FIRM

TO CCC PRESIDENT GREGORY HARTNELL



Hi Gregory:

Our Pro Bono Committee is in the process of reviewing and considering this matter and five other requests for Pro Bono Service that have come in over the last week.

We should have a decision in the next few days and someone will respond to the inquiry once that process is complete.

Thank you and best.

info@mccarthy.ca

McCarthy Tetrault Info LLP/ S.E.N.C.R.L., s.r.l.

www.mccarthy.ca

In defense of Mr Hartnell's blog, and consideration of both sides of the issue - he did post letters from Geoff Young and John Luton: the former more considered towards heritage, the latter justifying a new vision, both however fairly eloquently offering supporting reasons for a new bridge. What each clearly pointed to was a complete lack of community input; few letters for or against the decision, no mention of angry or supportive phone calls or emails.

From John Luton: Thanks for your letter, Gregory,

Like [Victoria City Councillor] Geoff [Young], I have not had a lot of correspondence suggesting that we must save the Johnson Street Bridge, indeed many to the contrary and lots of support for a new bridge.

I appreciate and support preserving the City’s essential heritage, but faced with the challenges posed by the [Johnson Street] Bridge, I have opted to support replacement.

I don’t believe that refurbishing the [Johnson Street] Bridge is a sound investment.

From Geoff Young: Greg,

Thanks for copying me on your note to Denise [Savoie].

A while ago I wrote an opinion article on the subject of the bridge, in which I said: “I have an interest in our industrial and transportation heritage, and had assumed that we would elect to go on repairing the bridge as long as it remained remotely salvageable.

“However, I must admit that some of the designs for a brand new bridge, costing very little more than repairs to the old bridge, open up new view corridors as well as allowing a redesign of the hashed-up eastern approaches to the bridge (designed when the convenience of the automobile dominated civic planning).

“Please let me and your other Councillors know whether we should save the old bridge or opt for a new one.”

I have been surprised at the lack of public input in favour of saving the bridge(s), since I assumed that others would share my interest.

However, I must say that yours is one of only a very few letters I have received suggesting that these are important heritage assets that should be preserved.

Thanks for taking the time to write.

Geoff

Firstly - I sincerely doubt any serious law firm will take on, pro bono, suing the City of Victoria over the JSB. There is quite obviously absolutely no wide public interest, no public marches, no save the bridge blockades or signs posted in protest. There have been some suggestions of possible impropriety in the decision process (employing an engineering firm that builds rather than restores bridges), but unless the City has failed completely in due diligence, that is not likely to be a suitable reason for the courts.

Secondly - while whatever happens to the Johnson Street Bridge is important, the issue does not, and should not, supersede more important human rights complaints (housing, homeless, 1st nations, access to information, child welfare to name a few) where legal firm pro bono time could be better utilized.

My own feeling is that any lawsuit will result in part public apathy (as we have already seen), and a potential backlash against the proponents. Even those who sympathise with the historical considerations, and have been quiet on the sidelines, would raise a voice against a lawsuit as a frivolous waste of public tax payer money and time - branding all those who support a heritage restoration with the same tarred brush.