Jump to content

      












Photo

[Old Johnson Street Bridge] General discussion


  • Please log in to reply
3516 replies to this topic

#41 Rex250

Rex250
  • Member
  • 21 posts

Posted 03 April 2009 - 03:47 PM

alright, i was initially in favour of getting a new bridge, but after seeing those renderings i change my mind. 30-40 more years of big blue is worth the 30 million.

#42 concorde

concorde
  • Banned
  • 1,980 posts

Posted 03 April 2009 - 04:03 PM

Really? Why were all the newspapers quoting 30 million?


Actually, the Spencer Rd bridge was $4,035,355. Add in design, administration, contingencies and it should be around $6.5 million when done.

The difference with this one is its a lot more technical and likely need new approaches, new piled foundations and don't forget, the new bridge moves.

I would suspect they would build the new bridge beside the existing one with new approaches on either side, complete it, and then demolish the old bridge and any old infrastruture.

Based on the pics I've seen, construction of the bridge itself is around $18-$20 million + soft costs. $30 million with new approaches, demolishing the old one and contingencies is about right.

#43 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 03 April 2009 - 04:08 PM

you mean from Esquimalt? ;) What if Yates, Johnson & Pandora were 2-way again?


Oh yeah - however a one-way trip to Esquimalt sounded more dire so I subconsciously reversed them.

I would not be a fan of these streets becoming two-way.

If you can build a utilitarian bridge for $18 million, I'm guessing you can build a really nice one for only a few million more. All the engineering has to be in the water and the mechanicals.

#44 UrbanRail

UrbanRail
  • Member
  • 2,114 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 03 April 2009 - 05:14 PM

Somehow I doubt those were the final designs. I think they were more to compare the type of bridges that could be used.

#45 Newlywednotnearlydead

Newlywednotnearlydead
  • Member
  • 187 posts

Posted 03 April 2009 - 05:45 PM

Somehow I doubt those were the final designs. I think they were more to compare the type of bridges that could be used.


That was my impression as well, I think people may be taking those too literally.

#46 victorian fan

victorian fan
  • Member
  • 1,923 posts

Posted 03 April 2009 - 05:51 PM

If it is replaced, I'd like to see another bascule bridge.

#47 mat

mat
  • Member
  • 2,070 posts

Posted 03 April 2009 - 06:52 PM

If it is replaced, I'd like to see another bascule bridge.


Personally I am not sure about that - a swing bridge with a better design for the cable support, could be an iconic image of the inner harbour. (Maybe a big 'V' ?)

Have to agree with NWNND and Urban Rail - the designs posted in the TC are in no way approved, or even being taken as design potentials yet. They are simply to show possibilities. People tend to jump to conclusions without reading the articles, or doing simple research.

One argument that might appear in the near future as this debate deepens - bridge open/close time. There is NO difference in time between a swing/balustrade bridge - it all depends on the engineering and bridge size. In Holland most old balustrade bridges over longer spans (more than an average canal width) are being replaced with swing type bridges as they apparently have a longer potential shelf life.

#48 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 17,293 posts

Posted 03 April 2009 - 07:37 PM

It's safe to say that whatever they come up with, it will be disappointing in just about every aspect. I'm willing to bet a donut on it.*

I'd love to be proven wrong so that I have to pay out a donut on this one, but I doubt it will happen.

Just one time I'd like to see a city official jump to a conclusion and say something along the lines of, "If we replace it, the replacement must be an icon worthy of representing Victoria for the next 100 years, etc."

 

*edit looking back in 2018: I owe everyone a donut because it ended up being pretty good. Not the amazing landmark that some people were hoping for, but a genuinely interesting and attractive bridge all the same.


Edited by aastra, 26 June 2018 - 01:42 PM.


#49 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 17,293 posts

Posted 03 April 2009 - 07:39 PM

Although I give Mr. Luton credit for several of the comments he's made on the matter.

#50 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,316 posts

Posted 03 April 2009 - 09:14 PM

Yep it will suck mightily if they tear it down. And there is no way they will bring in a world class icon for 30 million Concorde.

#51 Ms. B. Havin

Ms. B. Havin
  • Member
  • 5,052 posts

Posted 03 April 2009 - 09:56 PM

I realize people have been screaming about the tangle of approaches to the bridge from both its sides, but - aside from the fact that the published renderings look the sh*ts and aren't worthy of consideration, so let's assume those of you who say they're but beta-beta-preliminary are correct - but aside from those crapola renderings of the suggested replacement(s), I'm just as worried by the idea that we're going to straighten out the approaches, "rationalize" them, and make everything handy-dandy for (primarily) car traffic.

There is nothing wrong with a big curve that forces traffic to slow down. There is something very wrong with a straight road that lets traffic rush across the bridge at 50 klicks, right into Old Town.

One of the comments in the T-C article pointed out that the traffic should come across the Bay St. Bridge, and get sluiced to Douglas & Blanshard. I think that makes a lot of sense, especially as an alternative to straightening the approaches to the Blue Bridge (or - shudder - its replacement). Old Town should not have a highway-type approach, and for that matter, neither should Vic West be cut in half by a "rationalized" arterial.

Just my two cents.

(PS: I don't hate cars as such. I drive one myself occasionally. I just don't think we should design cities around their needs. I don't think we should "rationalize" roads in Old Town so that cars can zip through more quickly and efficiently. I think a couple of curves are a good thing.)

(PPS: By all means figure out how to make the bridge safer for cyclists.)

(PPPS: For the record, I think tearing down the Blue Bridge is a bad idea, and I'd prefer to see it retained & repaired. I also think that comparing fixing it to throwing money at an "old beater" is just about the stupidest thing I've ever heard.) (Edit: Ok, strike "the stupidest thing I've ever heard," since I've heard stupider. But it ranks pretty high...)
When you buy a game, you buy the rules. Play happens in the space between the rules.

#52 UrbanRail

UrbanRail
  • Member
  • 2,114 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 03 April 2009 - 10:10 PM

Ms. B. Havin you make a lot of good points.

My feeling would be to keep the curve on the VicWest side (you are right, it does force drivers to slow down), replace the bridge or repair it, but redo the approaches on the downtown side. I mean, do we really that many lanes? I think its time to really redesign the approaches with a little more thought to giving cyclists and pedestrians more priority. Also its an opportunity to reduce the amount of lanes on Pandora and Johnson st west of Douglas St.

#53 mat

mat
  • Member
  • 2,070 posts

Posted 03 April 2009 - 10:28 PM

(PPS: By all means figure out how to make the bridge safer for cyclists.)

(PPPS: For the record, I think tearing down the Blue Bridge is a bad idea, and I'd prefer to see it retained & repaired. I also think that comparing fixing it to throwing money at an "old beater" is just about the stupidest thing I've ever heard.) (Edit: Ok, strike "the stupidest thing I've ever heard," since I've heard stupider. But it ranks pretty high...)


The bridge, as it stands (or not) needs extensive engineering work, mostly on the foundations. Then there is the consideration of the driving mechanisms, which may need a complete refit. That is where the cost benefit of new vs retainment becomes closer.

My own feeling, following along with this debate, is that current bridge does not serve public needs well, it is too narrow. Getting rid of a bridge altogether is not possible - it is required simply as a public safety issue and general transport link across the inner harbour. Obviously this bridge cannot be widened, so to safely and comfortably accommodate cars, buses, cyclists and pedestrians the only option is a new bridge - and to be that wide, a swing bridge appears to be the best option.

#54 phx

phx
  • Member
  • 1,547 posts

Posted 03 April 2009 - 11:18 PM

We should build a new bridge, something like the old London Bridge, but with condos lining both sides.

Somebody do a rendering!

#55 concorde

concorde
  • Banned
  • 1,980 posts

Posted 04 April 2009 - 12:25 AM

And there is no way they will bring in a world class icon for 30 million Concorde.


and your reasoning for that is???? Oh, and last I heard we are looking for a bridge not a world class icon. What are you expecting, the Golden Gate bridge to Esquimalt? Build it cheap and lets get moving.

#56 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 04 April 2009 - 06:58 AM

^Now that's not the attitude that built this city in the early days. *tisk tisk* We're talking about a very high profile part of downtown. We need something that has visual impact.
Not that I think we should be tearing down what we have at the moment. I just couldn't picture the inner harbour without this landmark.

#57 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 04 April 2009 - 07:04 AM

I also think that comparing fixing it to throwing money at an "old beater" is just about the stupidest thing I've ever heard.


Hmmm, I hope "old beater" wasn't in response to my Dodge Dart analogy. I didn't use the term "old beater": I'd far rather restore an old Dart than buy a new Neon as the Dart has some classic lines and I think is cool. However, that's as far as I'd take the analogy - I don't think the Johnson St Bridge is so wonderful one could compare it to a fancy old Mercedes. As I said above, compare the JSB to the ship canal bridges in Seattle and you'll see what I mean.

#58 amor de cosmos

amor de cosmos

    BUILD

  • Member
  • 6,027 posts

Posted 04 April 2009 - 07:42 AM

Ms. B. Havin you make a lot of good points.

My feeling would be to keep the curve on the VicWest side (you are right, it does force drivers to slow down), replace the bridge or repair it, but redo the approaches on the downtown side. I mean, do we really that many lanes? I think its time to really redesign the approaches with a little more thought to giving cyclists and pedestrians more priority. Also its an opportunity to reduce the amount of lanes on Pandora and Johnson st west of Douglas St.


making pandora & johnson 2-way again could do that, and deal with the speed issue over the bridge also. people won't drive as fast if there are other cars coming towards them.

#59 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,316 posts

Posted 04 April 2009 - 08:30 AM

and your reasoning for that is???? Oh, and last I heard we are looking for a bridge not a world class icon. What are you expecting, the Golden Gate bridge to Esquimalt? Build it cheap and lets get moving.


^ Your joking right? This is one of the symbols of the city. If we are going to replace it which I am opposed to in the first place the structure must be at least equal in drawing the eye as the current bridge. Building it cheap is exactly what I am afraid of. As a property tax paying citizen of Victoria I am willing to pay more for a better bridge.

As for Johnson and Pandora going back to two way this would be great. It would really encourage the shops that have already sprung along there, as traffic would be slowed/discouraged.

#60 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 04 April 2009 - 09:01 AM

^ I find one-way streets to be more pedestrian friendly...

You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
 



1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users