The Johnson Street Bridge by night. Photo © by VibrantVictoria.ca.

Victoria’s Johnson Street Bridge replacement project warrants a second look after an information-packed presentation by Frank Nelson, a Seattle-based engineer who once managed Oregon’s team of engineers tasked with the state’s bridge preservation program.  During a two-hour presentation organized by JohnsonStreetBridge.org, a citizen-operated website with a goal of making the City accountable for its decisions over the Johnson Street Bridge’s future, Nelson made what amounted to a formidable case for refurbishment over replacement of the historic structure.

A number of VibrantVictoria.ca forum members attended Tuesday’s presentation at the Ambrosia Centre on Fisgard Street and later debated the merits of Nelson’s ideas on the forum.  Attendees described the meeting as a compelling informational session that urged for a serious reconsideration of the City’s charge for replacement over refurbishment.  Forum member “mat,” who was one of the organizers of the event and is one of the administrators of JohnsonStreetBridge.org, provided a summary of Nelson’s presentation.  In short, Nelson made the obvious case that in terms of sustainability, refurbishment over replacement was the clear environmentally conscious choice by preserving what is already built and not requiring significant amounts of new materials.  Nelson also debunked the City’s claim that refurbishment would only yield a 40-year extension to the bridge’s life, by suggesting that the data the City used was arbitrary and didn’t take into account continued refurbishment prolonging the bridges lifespan by more than double the current estimate.  As for bridge closures and traffic delays throughout the refurbishment process, Nelson said the City’s estimate of six to eighteen months of closures were overly high and not experienced during similar refurbishment projects.  He also added that night time closures would decrease the impact on motorists and through coordinated efforts motorists and maritime operations could continue traveling over and under the bridge, respectively, throughout the day.  As for cost, a key issue on the minds of taxpayers, Nelson said immediate work could be done over a short period of time at a considerably smaller expense, with phased future maintenance that takes into account minimum disruptions for motorists.

With respect to labour and the City’s desire to promote job creation throughout the duration of the $63-million replacement project, Nelson claimed that the budget for replacement would be spent largely on capital costs (materials) and not labour costs, effectively negating the job creation benefits to the community. Forum member “Bob Fugger” said Nelson likened the replacement project to trucking in pre-built pieces of the bridge and connecting them together on-site, thus requiring little labour.  On the contrary, jobs would be generated through refurbishment of the bridge.

On the topic of safety, member “Jacques Cade,” who was also one of the individuals responsible for organizing Tuesday’s presentation and is one of the administrators of JohnsonStreetBridge.org, responding to a comment by member “oakbay” who described the Johnson Street Bridge as unquestionably dangerous,  said “Nelson’s argument, based on years of experience, is that the current bridge can be fixed and made seismically safer at far less cost than building a new one. The city has failed to consider that argument, and therefore failed me as a taxpayer.”  As for an earthquake damaging the bridge, member “aastra” wrote “I’m glad Mr. Nelson questioned the wisdom of blowing a bundle on earthquake-proofing downtown Victoria’s bridge when downtown Victoria itself would be trashed in a catastrophic earthquake.”

Of course the question of financing a refurbishment still looms.  The recently announced $21-million federal grant for the project did not appear to be earmarked for refurbishment and may be rescinded should the City decide to refurbish the bridge.  Federal Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, John Baird, avoided questions inquiring about refurbishment during his visit to Victoria to announce the federal funding, and Victoria Mayor Dean Fortin shed no light on alternative plans for the money should  replacement of the bridge lose out to refurbishment.

The Johnson Street Bridge replacement/refurbishment project is one of the most pressing issues facing taxpayers and with no referendum planned for borrowing $42-million of the $63-million replacement cost (coincidentally the largest loan the City has ever planned to secure), and some residents are growing more and more bewildered by the push to replace, and quickly, one of Victoria’s most prominent icons.  As one forum member wrote, “when the public policy, the process and the rationale all point one way, but the decision-makers are hellbent on a completely different course of action, alarm bells should be ringing.”

For the latest on the Johnson Street Bridge replacement/refurbishment project including groundbreaking news and community discussions, refer to the forum’s Infrastructure sub-forum Johnson Street Bridge threads here.  To read about the community reaction to Frank Nelson’s discussion on the Johnson Street Bridge, click here.

Copyright © 2009 by VibrantVictoria.ca.  All rights reserved.