Jump to content

      



























Photo
- - - - -

Paul Brown [Open Victoria] | Victoria Mayor


  • Please log in to reply
93 replies to this topic

#81 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 4,317 posts

Posted 21 November 2011 - 06:36 AM

Many people seem to think Bay St. Bridge needs work ahead of JSB with it carrying the water main and all. Bridges!
"beats greezy have baked donut-dough"

#82 Phil McAvity

Phil McAvity
  • Member
  • 1,238 posts

Posted 21 November 2011 - 07:18 AM

^Not to mention it was designed over 50 years ago when traffic volumes were a tiny fraction of what they are today. The fact it is one lane in each direction is pathetic in this day and age.

And the whole bridge/referendum fiasco. I bet Lowe is laughing at how the maintenance negligence that began under his watch blew up after Fortin took over and fumbled it.


How do you know that was Lowe's fault?
In chains by Keynes

#83 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 16,310 posts

Posted 21 November 2011 - 08:44 AM

How do you know that was Lowe's fault?


We now know the decision to stop maintaining the bridge was made during that time.

I forgot about the Bay Street Bridge's need for upgrades.

Paul Brown:

•City Council will devote itself to creating realistic targets and monitoring results instead of micro-managing every issue that comes up. This will free professional staff at City Hall to do their work more effectively and greatly reduce the costly delays experienced by the public in dealing with City Hall.


Another interesting and cryptic comment.

I take this as meaning some of the decision making that comes before council will instead be delegated to non-elected City staff. Brown doesn't elaborate but a minor building or parking variance might be a typical scenario.

In some cases this could work--let the proponent and the City's professional planners work it out without delay from a meddling Council. But this could also backfire, as quite often City staff (who are directed to go by the book) are often over-ruled by a Council majority willing to bend the rules in certain cases just because it makes common sense.

Having an issue come before Council also gives the proponent and neighbours the opportunity to make a persuasive case in public for or against an initiative.

Transferring minor decision making from Council chambers to the inner offices of the Planning Department may speed up the process but it doesn't sound to me much like the open, transparent and accountable government Brown is talking about.

#84 Phil McAvity

Phil McAvity
  • Member
  • 1,238 posts

Posted 23 November 2011 - 10:38 PM

We now know the decision to stop maintaining the bridge was made during that time.


Rob, just basically repeating what you said doesn't prove Alan Lowe was in any way at fault. Got a link or any proof of any kind?
In chains by Keynes

#85 R0ark

R0ark
  • Member
  • 319 posts

Posted 24 November 2011 - 10:21 AM

Rob, just basically repeating what you said doesn't prove Alan Lowe was in any way at fault. Got a link or any proof of any kind?


It may not be the former mayor himself speaking, but the Mayor, council and engineering department did make a conscious decision in 2004 to stop maintaining the bridge.

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...10-04_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

#86 Hotel Mike

Hotel Mike

    Hotel Mike

  • Member
  • 2,234 posts

Posted 24 November 2011 - 12:02 PM

Look. Whether the bridge was painted regularly or not really doesn't take into account that it is a rusting dinosaur that would continue sucking millions of dollars to maintain, after it sucked millions to fix it up. Clearly the majority of Victorians want it replaced.

Victoria is framed by the parliament buildings on one side of the harbour and the JSB on the other. Here's a chance to improve the whole nature of the city with a dynamic bridge, designed by one of the world's leading architecture firms. Let's be vigilant to make sure the project is done as promised. But let's embrace this major improvement to our city!

#87 Bob Fugger

Bob Fugger

    Chief Factor

  • Member
  • 3,190 posts
  • LocationSouth Central CSV

Posted 24 November 2011 - 01:21 PM

Look. Whether the bridge was painted regularly or not really doesn't take into account that it is a rusting dinosaur that would continue sucking millions of dollars to maintain, after it sucked millions to fix it up. Clearly the majority of Victorians want it replaced.


Suggesting that 10,000 residents as "clearly the majority" is a bit spurious, don't you think?

#88 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,404 posts

Posted 24 November 2011 - 01:23 PM

Suggesting that 10,000 residents as "clearly the majority" is a bit spurious, don't you think?


Well it was the majority of those who took the time to vote on the referendum.

#89 Bob Fugger

Bob Fugger

    Chief Factor

  • Member
  • 3,190 posts
  • LocationSouth Central CSV

Posted 24 November 2011 - 01:57 PM

Well it was the majority of those who took the time to vote on the referendum.


Yes, but that is kind of my point. If 6,000 voted to save it and 10,000 voted to scrap it, the "clear majority" of 70,000 some odd didn't give a damn which way it went. So how can you extrapolate that into the statement that "[c]learly the majority of Victorians want it replaced?" You can't, the logic is fallicious.

#90 J Douglas

J Douglas
  • Member
  • 150 posts

Posted 24 November 2011 - 02:23 PM

Those that don't vote give up their civic rights, and for a particular event in question, cannot be counted or included in the decision making process, as it is impossible to know exactly what their opinion may have been. Many don't care, but some just forgot the vote, where too busy, too sick, or whatever, even though having feelings about the issue. Only those that vote can be counted. In the case of the bridge, a majority of those motivated enough to make it mark their X were in favor of a new bridge.

My own feelings were a little mixed. I was not totally against it, but I thought it was a big mistake to not include a rail crossing. At some point, we are going to need a number of such rail right of ways, and excluding it now will just mean more expense and headaches in the future. I thought, here we go again, lots of rhetoric about sustainability, but for now, traffic will take complete precedence- and of course, the funding.

#91 Bingo

Bingo
  • Member
  • 16,666 posts

Posted 24 November 2011 - 10:38 PM

Victoria is framed by the parliament buildings on one side of the harbour and the JSB on the other. Here's a chance to improve the whole nature of the city with a dynamic bridge, designed by one of the world's leading architecture firms. Let's be vigilant to make sure the project is done as promised. But let's embrace this major improvement to our city!


Once the "dynamic" bridge is in place and aligned with Esquimalt Road, the first thing you will see heading west is a car lot. Not much thought went in to making that approach attractive.

Time will soon tell if a bridge without provision for rail is a "major improvement", or the biggest blunder in recent years.

#92 Hotel Mike

Hotel Mike

    Hotel Mike

  • Member
  • 2,234 posts

Posted 25 November 2011 - 11:10 AM

Time will soon tell if a bridge without provision for rail is a "major improvement", or the biggest blunder in recent years.


Yes. You are right Bingo. Time will tell. I'm really hoping it's the former, though from your posts methinks you are actually hoping for the latter.

#93 Bob Fugger

Bob Fugger

    Chief Factor

  • Member
  • 3,190 posts
  • LocationSouth Central CSV

Posted 25 November 2011 - 11:19 AM

Yes. You are right Bingo. Time will tell. I'm really hoping it's the former, though from your posts methinks you are actually hoping for the latter.


The only thing you accomplish by stating that we are somehow secretly rooting for Victoria to fail is revealing that your argument is thin and ill-conceived. This isn't like hockey, where you play the man instead of the puck: try arguing the issue.

#94 Bingo

Bingo
  • Member
  • 16,666 posts

Posted 25 November 2011 - 12:20 PM

I think I am part of why this has been off topic. It would be appropriate for a mod to move the last 10 or so posts over to the JSB thread.

 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users