[Johnson Street Bridge] General discussion

[aastra]

Here's some change I'd like to see: I'd like to see Victorians stop paying political lip service to their city's history/heritage and actually start showing some genuine informed respect for it.

Re: emotions, the pro-replacement camp is playing the fear card like nobody's business. Downtown will die if the bridge is repaired instead of replaced? Catastrophe will ensue if the bridge is damaged in an earthquake?

[LJ]

Originally Posted by aastra

Re: emotions, the pro-replacement camp is playing the fear card like nobody's business. Downtown will die if the bridge is repaired instead of replaced? Catastrophe will ensue if the bridge is damaged in an earthquake?

Just who are you talking about here. I am in favour of replacement, not out of fear or some catastrophic event, but because the present bridge, IMO, looks like a pile of junk pieced together, similar to what you would find a little further up the waterway at the steelyards.

When I lived here briefly years ago I thought the bridge looked crappy then, particularly uninviting and cheap looking. Like the lowest bidder got the job and then did a bad job. It looks the same to me today or worse than it did then. Certainly a bad portal to downtown if you are trying to encourage pedestrians and cyclists, and it scares me every time I drive a motorcycle over it.

[Ms. B. Havin]

Originally Posted by LJ

...and it scares me every time I drive a motorcycle over it.

Well, LJ, you have to admit that your opinion of the bridge is infused with emotion, namely a visceral dislike prompted by something akin to fear.

My dream would be to find a way of taking that edge off the bridge - the edge that makes quite a few people fearful of it - and finding a way to celebrate its heritage value, integrate it effectively into a cultural tourism economy (one that includes historical tours of Victoria's industrial past, of which the bridge is clearly a relic).

In addition, by not replacing the bridge (for what to my eye look like all the wrong reasons: namely, aesthetics and emotional responses such as visceral dislike/ fear of the bridge) we'd save a big chunk of money.

Furthermore, by refurbishing the beast and embarking on a dedicated maintenance program, we'd be creating possibly dozens of local jobs - versus the throw-away economic bubble of creating a bunch of temporary jobs for distant specialized bridge builders in far-off cities. (The new bridge's alleged job-creation program is a bit like the job-creation program of the new BC ferries: not exactly local and of questionable benefit to Victorians.)

With the money saved by not replacing the JSB and instead refurbishing it, we could furthermore completely rehab and improve the Bay Street Bridge, and make that bridge the venue of choice for those who will never reconcile themselves to the JSB's brutish, all-guts-and-gears exposed aesthetic.

The JSB could be our steam-punk bridge, the Bay Street Bridge could be our shiny-shiny iPod bridge: two very different aesthetics, to show visitors (and locals) just how wonderfully diverse our city can be.

If, on the other hand, we tear the JSB down and replace it with shiny-shiny, then the Bay Street Bridge will just look even more like the tired, boring old piece of crap it is. That's a lose-lose situation, as far as I'm concerned.

Instead, fix the JSB up, make its weirdness its asset, its advantage, and focus on making the Bay Street Bridge the Next New Shiny-Shiny.

Then we'd have some real contrast, some "wow!" factor that shows off our past and our feeling for the future right now.

[Caramia]

The JSB could be our steam-punk bridge, the Bay Street Bridge could be our shiny-shiny iPod bridge: two very different aesthetics, to show visitors (and locals) just how wonderfully diverse our city can be.

One of the best sentences ever.

Backtracking to early October -(pages and pages ago,) when City Council met after finding out it would not get stimulus money, they passed a motion to ask their consultants more detailed questions about the case and costing for repair. At the same meeting, they also voted to select the rolling bascule so that they could proceed with refining the estimate of the replacement option. Details of that council meeting can be found at JSB.org: City of Victoria Council to ask more questions, consider options for the the Blue Bridge

At the CAC, quite a few other questions were posed, many of them the same as what has been asked on these threads, as well as by council.

• Various people had referred to the "dangerous S curve. We wanted to know exactly how many accidents do happen on that S curve, and how many injuries?
  
• We also had questions about the borrowing - trying to understand exactly what borrowing options are open to the City and what the interest rate schedule would be?
  
• We wanted to confirm if the Federal money could be used for the repair option. Unfortunately, the answer is no, t is not available to the repair option. If we vote for repair we will have to look for funding from scratch.

The consultants and staff have just provided us with a lot of these details. They've given us the repair/replace comparison in table format. This will all be posted online at jsb.com within the next couple of days. This should clear up some questions that have been dangling for awhile. Finally, we have a better level estimate of the cost breakdown of a new bridge. The new numbers are at a 30% - 40% design level.

Watch the City's jsb website for a bunch of new material to go up soon.

Other CAC notes to do with funding...

• David Cubberly and I asked for independent oversight of the petition, which seemed like it might be doable. We also did confirm that the process is confidential. Only Rob Woodland would see the names on the petition. Staff and Council would not.
  
• I did express on behalf of the vocal community the sentiment that although this is technically a "borrowing" referendum that might be triggered by APP, the referendum that people want is a "repair or replace" referendum.
  
• The City will continue to look for opportunities to move the old bridge to somewhere it can be used as a pedestrian/trail bridge.
  
• The planned approaches are also ready to present for public feedback. We were trying to incorporate Vic West community input and so it took awhile to get them straight. There should be a meeting at Vic West Community Association within the next couple of weeks about the approaches specifically. I'll talk about that more on the design thread for anyone interested.

[spanky123]

Cara,

I don't know how you come to the conclusion that people want a "repair or replace referendum". I would rather see this as a borrowing referendum and leave it at that.

[Caramia]

I appreciate your pointing that out, spanky. Point taken.

[VicHockeyFan]

There is a big article by Jason Youmans about all things Blue Bridge in today's MondayMag.

Crockford and Kozakowski are quoted, among others.

EDIT, oh, it's on line now.

[martini]

Originally Posted by VicHockeyFan

There is a big article by Jason Youmans about all things Blue Bridge in today's MondayMag.

Crockford and Kozakowski are quoted, among others.

Thank you!

A Bridge Too Far
Posted By: Jason Youmans
11/25/2009 8:00 AM

Pressing for public participation in one-sided bridge debate

http://www.mondaymag.com/articles/en...-too-far/news/

One day soon, citizens of Victoria may answer a knock at the door to find someone seeking their signature on a form titled “Alternative Approval Process for Loan Authorization Bylaw No. 09-057.” This work of bureaucratese is the counter-petition to the City of Victoria’s October 29 decision to borrow $42 million to replace the Johnson Street Bridge. [...]

[martini]

Breaking ranks with her longtime political ally, Dean Fortin, Victoria councillor Pam Madoff voted against going to the alternative approval process for the loan bylaw.

“What I was hoping to do was capture the attention of mayor and council to say ‘Our work is not done. We may feel that we’ve made the right decision, but the public deserves ongoing information, and not just in defence of our decision, but really substantive responses to any questions that come up or further understandings they want about what brought us to this conclusion.’”

Yay Pam!

Fortin replied, “Council would go back and take a look at it—but again, you’d be left in a situation where you have to do something, and so it’s a difficult position in which to be placed.

Fortin has said that referenda are reserved for luxury items, not “need-to-do” infrastructure projects like bridges.

Is this in the 'How to run a city' manual?

[martini]

I'm having another moment. I'm trying to figure out exactly how MMM Group was given this contract. Going back to the birth of this I suppose.

[sailor]

I haven't found the answer to this, granted though, I haven't looked through all the pages on this topic. Have any of the property owners on either side of the bridge come forward with their preferences? How would a refurbishment plan impact their businesses as opposed to a new bridge? I was asked this by a friend of mine and immediately thought of this site.

Sailor

[R0ark]

Originally Posted by sailor

I haven't found the answer to this, granted though, I haven't looked through all the pages on this topic. Have any of the property owners on either side of the bridge come forward with their preferences? How would a refurbishment plan impact their businesses as opposed to a new bridge? I was asked this by a friend of mine and immediately thought of this site.

Sailor

Just like the the residential electorate, you have a division of opinion in the business community.

In the above quoted Monday Magazine article there is this passage:

Now, prominent citizens are choosing sides, with business owners like Munro’s Books’ Jim Munro and Victoria Harbour Ferries’ boss Barry Hobbis calling for a referendum. Meanwhile, Vic West developers Joe van Belleghem and Ken Mariash have told Monday that a new bridge seems the better choice given what they know about the inevitable cost-escalations associated with repair jobs.

Ken Mariash is the developer of the Bayview and will be developing the Roundhouse property. No doubt he wants a new bridge because he wants something that will match his buildings.

He is also a significant financial backer for the Federal Conservative party. He also bought all the wine at a "Friends of Dean Fortin" NDP love in event at Don Mee not so long ago. But I digress....

Other than that, there is also a "much mentioned but sort of secret and soon to be made public" Vic-West community association plan that will have a lot of ideas and opinions on the bridge. We will have to wait and see on that one.

Ultimately, no one, including council (as eloquently stated by Councilor Young) , really knows what effect there will be on businesses and residents because they have done little or no work on getting hard numbers on expected closures, costs, or anything else that can be put into time or dollar amounts. Heck, the cost of the new bridge is still nothing better than a class C estimate. The council and city staff spent most of their time chasing funds from the 2 higher levels of government from April to October instead of engaging engineers to gather empirical data on the bridge that was already there.

I think if you want a definitive answer on the feelings of the community, business or otherwise, you should sign a counter petition form so that we can have a referendum and hopefully a proper all-encompassing debate on the merits and flaws of both refurbishment and replacement.

Right now all we have are emotional imperatives and fear mongering from our Mayor and the majority of the council.

[aastra]

No doubt he wants a new bridge because he wants something that will match his buildings.

But what does this mean? He just doesn't like the idea of an old bridge occupying the same neighbourhood as new condominium buildings? Or maybe he thinks his condominium units won't sell if there's an old bridge nearby? I don't understand either angle.

[R0ark]

Originally Posted by aastra

But what does this mean? He just doesn't like the idea of an old bridge occupying the same neighbourhood as new condominium buildings? Or maybe he thinks his condominium units won't sell if there's an old bridge nearby? I don't understand either angle.

Although I don't know his exact reasoning (I don't buy his angle about "inevitable cost-escalations associated with repair jobs" )What I meant was that I think he all wants to look at a shiny new bridge from top of his shiny new Bayview towers. He doesn't care what it costs the average taxpayer just so long as he gets a modern looking bridge in the harbour as an accessory to his 3 towers and roundhouse complex.

Here's a link to a story in the TC about his plans.

The next two towers on the Bayview site are currently being redrawn and designed after the city approved a new approach -- increasing them to more slender towers with 17 and 21 storeys as opposed to the originally planned 11- and 13-storey structures. Mariash expects that to take a year and for construction to start in late 2010.
This year, the remediation is expected to start on the Roundhouse project, where Mariash has paid to clean up and repair the 4.25-hectare former Canadian Pacific Railway site.
There are tentative plans to transform the neglected brick buildings, which have heritage designation from the city, into shops, pubs, restaurants, offices, community space and a rail-line maintenance facility. Also part of the $250 million Roundhouse project are a hotel and more than 400 condominiums.

Now don't get me wrong. I like growth and worthwhile architecture projects, but I don't like the idea of super high-rise high-end condo towers everywhere filling up the songhees and as densely as he wants to do it.

As for the roundhouse project, I'll wait and see.

[G-Man]

Just so you know I am for keeping the bridge but to say that the Round house plan is high density is bizarre. It is like 3:1 density. It should be 5:1 or 6:1 or higher to make up for the lack of density in the older parts of the Songhees.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by martini

I'm having another moment. I'm trying to figure out exactly how MMM Group was given this contract. Going back to the birth of this I suppose.

The engineering firm MMM Group Ltd was hired by the City of Victoria for $3.2 million dollars according to a story in the July 25th edition of the Times Colonist.

As a comparison...

The historic 110 year old Alexandra Bridge in Ottawa is being handled by McCormick Rankin Corp. for a $1.5 million dollar contract. Their infrastructure project is for a much longer steel bridge that is being rehabilitated for $35.2 million dollars.

[martini]

Originally Posted by Bingo

The engineering firm MMM Group Ltd was hired by the City of Victoria for $3.2 million dollars according to a story in the July 25th edition of the Times Colonist.

As a comparison...

The historic 110 year old Alexandra Bridge in Ottawa is being handled by McCormick Rankin Corp. for a $1.5 million dollar contract. Their infrastructure project is for a much longer steel bridge that is being rehabilitated for $35.2 million dollars.

Thank you.
http://www.victoria.ca/contentmanage...090724_cnc.pdf

So who is the Evaluation Committee that unanimously selected MMM Group?

I also find it interesting that this was a special afternoon meeting too, and three councillors absent in voting on quite a chunk of change.

[R0ark]

Originally Posted by G-Man

Just so you know I am for keeping the bridge but to say that the Round house plan is high density is bizarre. It is like 3:1 density. It should be 5:1 or 6:1 or higher to make up for the lack of density in the older parts of the Songhees.

I didn't mean the roundhouse when I was talking about density. I was talking about the planned second and third Bayview towers that are going to be 17 and 21 floors.

It would be a shame if the Songhees turned into a skyscraper jungle like some parts of Vancouver.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by martini

Thank you.
http://www.victoria.ca/contentmanage...090724_cnc.pdf

So who is the Evaluation Committee that unanimously selected MMM Group?

I also find it interesting that this was a special afternoon meeting too, and three councillors absent in voting on quite a chunk of change.

It is amazing that the hiring of MMM was done months ago before anyone realized the City of Victoria was going for a new bridge Talk about jumping the gun. When that happened many Victorians must have wondered what they missed while they were asleep.

I hope the MMM Group has experience with refurbishing bridges, and that we can recoup some of the taxpayers 3.2 million towards that cause.

[R0ark]

Indeed Bingo. The city's hiring of MMM before they even had proper approval, public support or secured the funds has always struck me as being something akin to this:


I certainly would be interested in seeing the city's contract with MMM. I wonder if it is FOI-able...

[VicHockeyFan]

Originally Posted by R0ark

I certainly would be interested in seeing the city's contract with MMM. I wonder if it is FOI-able...

I believe JSB.org asked for it. Not sure if they got it.

[martini]

Ok I'm sure this has been covered, but I need to go back to the beginning.

http://www.victoria.ca/contentmanage...090716_cnc.pdf
Page 10:

NEW BUSINESS
1. Authorize the Borrowing through the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the
Replacement of the Johnson Street Bridge
The City’s Five-year Financial Plan Bylaw includes funding for the replacement of the Johnson Street
Bridge. The City can obtain funding through the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) at
a favourable interest rate. In order for the City to apply for a loan from the CMHC, Council has to pass a
motion to authorize the borrowing.

So July 10th the bridge becomes new business, and July 24th MMM was awarded the contract worth over $3 million. hhhmmm

ROark...we're going to need a bigger cart.

[R0ark]

Originally Posted by martini

NEW BUSINESS
1. Authorize the Borrowing through the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the
Replacement of the Johnson Street Bridge
The City’s Five-year Financial Plan Bylaw includes funding for the replacement of the Johnson Street
Bridge. The City can obtain funding through the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) at
a favourable interest rate. In order for the City to apply for a loan from the CMHC, Council has to pass a
motion to authorize the borrowing.

Wait...what? The City is borrowing the money from CMHC? Can they even do that?

The Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation only lends money to projects directly related to housing...or so I thought.

Take a look at this from their web-site:

Our government, combined with our provincial and municipal partners, is delivering $62 billion in stimulus, among the largest of the Group of Seven (G7) economies.
And we are delivering on our Economic Action Plan today, when it is needed most. It will provide a boost to employment and is an investment in our future.
Housing investments are central to our Action Plan which provides $7.8 billion to build quality housing, stimulate construction, encourage home ownership and enhance home energy efficiency.
This includes the Municipal Infrastructure Lending Program (MILP). This new program, administered by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), offers municipalities across the country up to $2 billion in direct, low-cost loans for housing-related infrastructure projects.
The Municipal Infrastructure Lending Program is up and running and CMHC is accepting applications for projects that are shovel-ready.
Municipal leaders have told us that they would benefit from access to low-cost financing to support housing-related infrastructure such as sewer and water lines, power generation, residential roads, sidewalks and green space.

Water lines, power generation, residential roads, sidewalks and green space I get... but a bridge over a federal waterway? If they can connect a bridge to housing...then what isn't housing related?

Curiouser and curiouser.

[R0ark]

On another note, there is a ConeTec drilling barge parked just North of the bridge. I wonder what sort of testing they are going to be doing. Soil-sampling? Or perhaps it is just a co-incidence and it is just parked there for a job elsewhere.



I took a photo with my phone but I can't download it till I get home.

[martini]

Originally Posted by R0ark

Wait...what? The City is borrowing the money from CMHC? Can they even do that?

The Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation only lends money to projects directly related to housing...or so I thought.

Take a look at this from their web-site:

Water lines, power generation, residential roads, sidewalks and green space I get... but a bridge over a federal waterway? If they can connect a bridge to housing...then what isn't housing related?

Curiouser and curiouser.

I can guess the Mayor has told them people live under the bridge?

Seriously, this is the first I'd seen of this until I went digging. So it is a fair question how this applies.