903 replies to this topic

[Rob Randall]

^Thank you for noting that. I took the Ipsos Reid poll and at the time I didn't catch what you point out. There are a lot of complex questions and they come at you very fast. I'm sure what I basically heard was, "both options include blah blah blah...a rail bridge."

[North Shore]

I had a brief exchange with an individual yesterday about the job creation opportunities a new bridge will present. The conversation made me realize that there are a lot of unknowns about the actual location of construction (i.e. where the paid labour will be located).

Anyone care to comment?

I guess it might depend on how the contract is written. There's a fairly large fabrication company on the Airport (Ramsay Machine works?) that not so long ago made a huge industrial crane(?), and then barged it over to the mainland. I'm sure that a new bridge would be within their capability. The steel itself would be another matter...

[Rob Randall]

^I'm sure there are a number of companies around here that are capable but someone from the City said to me being preferential to local product is difficult because of Canada's Free Trade rules.

[Baro]

http://www.youtube.c...player_embedded

Someone might have a better video, but this lady is my hero.

[Holden West]

^Nice girders.

Were there any revelations at tonight's meeting that weren't already mentioned here or in Focus magazine?

[Mike K.]

As we progress from discussing the old Johnson Street Bridge to the new replacement bridge, a dedicated thread merging the general, technical and design discussion has been created at http://www.vibrantvi...read.php?t=4987

The funding discussion will remain as a thread for the funding of the project throughout construction.

[Mike K.]

R0ark posted the following in a different thread but I thought it would be interesting to have this recorded here as well.

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=ig1NdOlLs3I


In this video Hector Furtado, the Manager of Streets Public Works for the City of Victoria, answers the question as to why, starting after the last major work in 2004, The City of Victoria stopped painting for the purpose of rust prevention of the Johnson Street Bridge.

He answers that because there was a fire on the Bay St Bridge in 2004 that required the budget allocated to the painting maintenance of the Johnson Street to be shifted to its repair. Thereafter the Johnson Street bridge's paint was never maintained to prevent corrosion, just occasionally to remove graffiti.

City of Victoria Engineering Department's record of painting maintenance on Johnson Street Bridge 1999-2009 (as compiled through FOI requests and published by Focus Magazine (http://www.focusonli....0-04_April.pdf)

1999.....177.5 hours
2000.....824.75 hours
2001.....336.5 hours
2002.....171 hours
2003.....590.5 hours
2004.....282 hours
2005*..14.5 hours
2006.........0 hours
2007*.....13 hours
2008*....1.5 hours
2009.........0 hours

[martini]

Thank you for reposting that. Astonishing.

[Bingo]

Another shortcoming of this wheel design was that the motors and electricals were in a room that was below the high waterline.
That location would have been at risk in a major earthquake.
The electrical room was shown in some of the past drawings, but I cannot find it now.
Notice the large exposed gear racks, just waiting to grab something.

I suspect that there is a completely new bridge other than this design, and it has in the works for some time.

Here is a rendering of the new bridge.

There are more renderings on this page - http://www.johnsonst.../image-gallery/

See image: http://www.johnsonst...9/08/cam2.jpg?a

[sam]

^ Bingo, the rendering you've posted is the same as was in the $92.8 million March 15 report delivered to council. But it's also the same rendering as was being passed around back in early 2010, and possibly before that. I guess $92.8 million doesn't include upgrading renderings as the design evolves. Or else there's some deception going on here. (Fraud = intentional deception)

The rendering shown is for a bridge that would span 47 metres of channel and has rail on it. They have since taken rail off, dropped the channel clearance to 41 metres and completely changed the lifting system. I discuss the changes to the mechanical system here: http://focusonline.ca/?q=node/357

The ring gears on the outside of the wheel are gone. They may have decided to change the design when they realized that a kid with a bar magnet and an accurate throwing arm could have ruined a ring gear. As you mentioned elsewhere, a well-placed bicycle or shopping cart will accomplish the trick with the new design.

The scale of the "pier room" in the new mechanical design is awesome, although no one will ever see it (other than the operator). It's a giant 4,000 square-foot watertight concrete box as high as a 6-storey building, with the bottom 25 feet or so sitting under water for the next 100 years. The mechanical design drawings suggest the big box is sitting on steel pipes filled with steel reinforcement and concrete. The necessity for this giant box goes directly back to the big rings that nobody is going to ever walk through. To stabilize the rings, they have extended the bridge deck right across them with a tail protruding out the east side. The drive motors and gears are attached to this tail and walk the tail down two gear racks attached to the pier structure.

You can see the details of the new mechanical design that have been released here: http://focusonline.c... 15, 2012_0.jpg

You can compare that with the old design here: http://focusonline.c... Nov 2010_1.jpg

[Bingo]

Thanks, Sam. That new design for the gear rack looks a bit flimsy, and the drawing shows the rack with the bridge in the up position.

When the bridge is down, that rack on the right side must extend well above ground level in some kind of protective sheath. Oh my!

View image: http://focusonline.c... 15, 2012_0.jpg

[sam]

^ Bingo, thanks for posting that. It would be good to have their first mechanical concept posted here as well.

By the way, the drawing you've posted shows the driving mechanism in both the "bridge down" position (motor at upper right) and the "bridge up" position (motor in lower position). They are super-imposed on this drawing.

The driving mechanism is attached to the underside of the bridge deck. With this new design, when the bridge is raised, the bridge deck crosses the area in the wheel where that floating "walkway-through-the-wheels" used to be. In order for the walkway to not be clobbered by the bridge deck as it lowers, they will have to attach the walkway to the movable part of the structure so it rotates up and out of the way when the bridge is lifted.

Interpreting what the project engineers have said about having to "brace" the wheels, the bridge deck is now bracing the wheels. (They're actually "rings". Wheels have a central axle, but for $92.8 M you don't get carefully worked out terminology. That will cost us $100 M)

Other drawings released suggest there's also going to be a massive curved metal plate that joins the two rings. This plate appears to connect the rings through about 135 degrees from the bridge deck down. That's what the strut extending from below the motor drives (which is located along the centreline of the bridge) is attached to. When the bridge is raised, that metal plate will rotate up and cut off any view of the harbour except through the open ends of the rings. Tunnel vision. I can't imagine this would be such a thrill. Except it would make a terrific place for graffiti artists to paint because it would be very accessible to them. So that walkway will probably disappear completely in the next iteration...if they stick with the rings.

[Mike K.]

I'd just like to remind everyone to please refrain from posting large images to the forum. They can cause display issues for readers. The best alternative is to just provide the URL of the image that can then be clicked and viewed off the forum.

Thank you

[Bingo]

I'd just like to remind everyone to please refrain from posting large images to the forum. They can cause display issues for readers. The best alternative is to just provide the URL of the image that can then be clicked and viewed off the forum.

Thank you

Thanks Mike. My previous post of a photo of the new bridge used the "quote this post" option. I agree that it was too large, but I don't know how to make it smaller. I will use the URL next time, but I don't find it as interesting as having the picture appear on its own.

[sebberry]

There's a VB forum plugin that resizes images, could be something to investigate?

[Mike K.]

No problem, Bingo!

Seb, we'll have to check that out!

[Nparker]

...as I work in the Engineering field the bridge is very interesting though. Have they actually shut the road down and started removing it?

Only the rail portion has been removed.

[VicHockeyFan]

Banner on Caledonia St. What's with that?

[VicHockeyFan]

Doug Clement Photography on FACEBOOK.

[VicHockeyFan]

Doug Clement.