[Old Johnson Street Bridge] General discussion
#81
Posted 04 April 2009 - 06:57 PM
#83
Posted 04 April 2009 - 08:00 PM
An assessment by consultants Delcan Corp. of the 85-year-old steel bridge found it would fail in a significant earthquake, because of its timber piles and aged laced steel beams. The bridge deck could also unlock and open in a quake and the counterweight would collapse.
This hardly seems like a compelling case for replacement to me. If there were an earthquake large enough to damage the bridge we could deal with it then. I'd vote for asking for $30 million for something else like aastra's extending the causeway further north or improving Ogden Point. You could probably build a few subsidized housing units too..
#84
Posted 04 April 2009 - 08:37 PM
The chances of making it worse are too great.
#85
Posted 04 April 2009 - 09:14 PM
This hardly seems like a compelling case for replacement to me. If there were an earthquake large enough to damage the bridge we could deal with it then.
Is the aftermath of a major earthquake really the best time to rebuild a bridge? I would think there would be enough rubble to deal with without having to rebuild a major piece of infrastructure. In an emergency situation, you're definitely going to end up with a boring, utilitarian structure that's the easiest thing to throw up. At least now, there's time to plan a new bridge properly.
#86
Posted 04 April 2009 - 10:12 PM
Is the aftermath of a major earthquake really the best time to rebuild a bridge?
No, but that's a chance I'd be willing to take. I don't think that it makes sense to rebuild a working and beautiful bridge just on the off-chance that there is an earthquake, particularly if the chance of anyone being hurt is minimal. We aren't talking about something with hundreds of cars on it like the Cypress Viaduct in Oakland or the Alaska Viaduct in Seattle. However, perhaps I'm being too cavalier in my risk assessment.
#87
Posted 05 April 2009 - 12:34 AM
The problem w/ the bridge that impacts traffic, so far as I can see, is that the E&N comes across it. If it stopped west of the bridge the underpass etc could all be removed. I kind of like the east side, except a pedestrian walkway under the bridge would be nice if it was part of an improved harbour-length walkway.
He's absolutely right.
I'd like to kick the dipshits in the nuts that designed that E & N Station. If they had simply built that little station on the other side of the bridge, we would never have needed that stupid overpass, bridge and dangerously sharp turn. The train tracks and little station also sit on prime real estate that could have been used for something much better. The bridge also could have accommodated a lot more traffic without the need for the train to cross it and traffic would have moved a lot faster without that ridiculous hairpin turn. We're talking about a difference of 500 yards that has completely ****ed up the western entrance/exit to downtown for decades. It's amazing something wasn't done about this a long time ago.
Oh, but I forgot, this is Victoria.
Now that i'm old, the nostalgia bone has firmly found it's way into my body, but when it comes to this rusty old clunker of a bridge, I say we do away with it but let the replacement be just as wide, only without that ridiculous train. John Luton is right about the Bay St. bridge too. Hopefully his ideas aren't just to improve them for cyclists either. We need to expand and improve the Bay St. bridge before we do anything to the blue bridge. Where is the funding to come from you ask? Well how about the city stop wasting taxpayer's money on converting four lane streets into two and then putting in a bunch of plants in the middle of the road. Save up the money that would have gone to ridiculously stupid, wasteful things like that and start spending it on useful things, like expansion and improvements to our two main bridges.
#88
Posted 05 April 2009 - 01:42 AM
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.
You're right, that's exactly what should be done.
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.
There is plenty wrong with a sharp turn actually starting with the fact they are very dangerous. I can't tell you how many accidents i've known about at that turn. Unecessarily slowing drivers down also wastes people's time, gas and money. I would also hardly consider 50 km/h "rushing" in almost any context either, I'd say 50k is a nice leisurely pace.....unfortunately.
So you don't think being rational is a good thing? Cars are the way most people get around and slowing drivers down just results in more air pollution, wasted gas, time and money. Brilliant. Speaking of "quickly and efficiently" have you ever noticed how virtually everyone drives at the absolute maximum allowable speed? Many people (like me) even go faster. Now why do you think that is? Could it be that most people actually want to get places quickly and efficiently? Yet another reason we should let people drive faster-because they obviously want to.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.
By all means figure out how to make the bridge safer for cyclists.
I never thought the blue bridge was unsafe for cyclists and i've cycled across it countless times.
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...)
What's "stupid" about the fact you can see rust stains all over that old bridge and the pilings are eroding? The bridge clearly needs replacing. Also, if the bridge is such a great local landmark and icon, why do I never see it on any tourist pictures or brochures?
Just my two cents.
You can keep your two pennies. Just because you drive sometimes doesn't make you rational Ms. B.
Holden, if people find inspiration from a little, old, rusty bridge, i'd say those people are probably ready for scientology.
Aastra, I agree that anyone that wants to keep the Blue Bridge are just, "crazy people defending an iconic bridge that's really just a piece of junk".
#89
Posted 05 April 2009 - 10:51 AM
Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900), The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891
#90
Posted 05 April 2009 - 11:08 AM
I can't tell you how many accidents i've known about at that turn. Unecessarily slowing drivers down also wastes people's time, gas and money.
Anyone who has trouble with the existing turn should not be operating a motor vehicle, period. Anywhere, at any time.
Is the average driver really so unskilled? If so, then reconfiguring the route so that unskilled drivers are tempted to go faster would seem to be the last thing we should want to do.
#91
Posted 05 April 2009 - 11:39 AM
#92
Posted 05 April 2009 - 01:56 PM
I think that the curve should stay. I mean is it that important to go faster to shave just 2 minutes off the journey.
Not even 2 mins. in most cases.
How many times have you arrived at the traffic signal right behind or just one car behind the lane-swerving moron?
L-SMs seem to be especially common heading down Pandora into town.
#93
Posted 05 April 2009 - 03:52 PM
As for the curve and underpass I think it is a waste of some very nice space.
#94
Posted 05 April 2009 - 07:57 PM
Is it a requirement to have a swing/raised bridge?
How often is the bridge raised?
Would it be feasible to have a fixed link and restrict traffic passing beneath?
Would it be possible to build an arched bridge in that short of a distance to accommodate present traffic?
Would it be possible to leave the "Blue Bridge" in place and let waterway users who need the bridge raised have a 10 year period to relocate then go to a fixed link?
#95
Posted 05 April 2009 - 08:07 PM
Decades from now after the industrial uses have moved out a fixed bridge could be built and we could still have an upper harbour marina; they would simply limit it to sailboats with movable masts and other craft small enough to fit under.
-City of Victoria website, 2009
#96
Posted 05 April 2009 - 08:20 PM
What is the largest ship to pass through the area?
Is it a requirement to have a swing/raised bridge?
How often is the bridge raised?
Would it be feasible to have a fixed link and restrict traffic passing beneath?
Would it be possible to build an arched bridge in that short of a distance to accommodate present traffic?
Would it be possible to leave the "Blue Bridge" in place and let waterway users who need the bridge raised have a 10 year period to relocate then go to a fixed link?
That concept would completely destroy the dual use of upper harbor and potential nix approx 3000 (can't remember where I heard this number, but I'm pretty sure its somewhere in that neighborhood...) direct and indirect jobs in the region. The bridge is needed to swing/raise for all shipyard work at Point Hope as well barges in and out of Ralmax/Lafarge yard as well as SALTS. I really don't think that it is even an option to consider. A working harbor is vital to both the charm and economic offshoots of Victoria
#97
Posted 05 April 2009 - 08:32 PM
From what I heard and read, city council supports a multi use bridge that has room for autos, cycling, walking, transit and rail (to the naysayers, the rail station is not leaving the downtown core)
#98
Posted 05 April 2009 - 08:39 PM
As far as I know, a fixed bridge isnt even being considered.
I've heard this too, that it's not even on the table.
#99
Posted 05 April 2009 - 09:13 PM
#100
Posted 05 April 2009 - 10:03 PM
As far as I know, a fixed bridge isnt even being considered. It would be foolish to suggest that would be the way to go. If we want a working harbour, a swing or lift bridge is the way to go.
From what I heard and read, city council supports a multi use bridge that has room for autos, cycling, walking, transit and rail (to the naysayers, the rail station is not leaving the downtown core)
If that is the case - one truly hopes it is, then all alternative arguments should be set aside, and the debate should be on design. Forget a tunnel, forget no bridge at all, or refurbishment of existing (which I believe is a non-starter)
Let's build a new bridge (my preference is swing - but open to alternatives), and why not build both functional and iconic. The bridge, as it stands now, is a major feature - a new bridge will occupy the same space, same eyeline; so should be something that everyone can point to and say "that bridge - that's Victoria BC"
Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users