……………………
Councillor Geoff Young Questions City Blue Bridge Numbers
In a Christmas Eve email Geoff Young responded to the many letters he has received over the City of Victoria’s comparison of Johnson Street Bridge repair vs replacement numbers. The document “Johnson Street Bridge: By the Numbers” was published by the City of Victoria just prior to the December 10th Council meeting – Article and Videos – during which Councillor Young introduced a motion to seek independent consultation on the current plans to replace the bridge. The motion was defeated by the Mayor and a majority of council.
It only takes a quick look at Geoff Young’s biography to understand why his insight and continual criticism of this, the largest borrowing bylaw in the history of the City of Victoria, is critical for all residents to consider.
Biography: Geoff Young. City of Victoria Councillor and Chair of the Capital Regional District
Councillors Geoff Young
“Committee/Regional Appointments: (Bio quoted from City of Victoria Website)
CRD Chair – Board of Directors / Committee of the Whole
CRD Core Area Liquid Waste Management Committee
CRD Environment Committee (ex-officio)
CRD Finance Corporate and Protective Services (ex-officio)
CRD Hospital District Board
CRD Planning and Transportation Committee (ex-officio)
CRD Water Supply Commission- 1st Alternate
Municipal Finance Authority
Biography:
Geoff Young earned a B.A. in Economics at UBC and a Ph.D. in economics at Harvard. He has lectured in economics at the University of Victoria and the University of Alberta, and has worked for the British Columbia Ministry of Finance, where he provided budget evaluation and monitoring for the economic development ministries, advised and made recommendations on existing and proposed expenditure programs including capital projects, and carried out research in various areas, including Provincial and local taxation and financial effects of proposed legislation. Prior to being re-elected to Council in 2005, Geoff served on City Council from 1983 to 1999. He is currently serving as Chair of the Capital Regional District (CRD) Board of Directors, and has served on several local boards and commissions including the Greater Victoria Water District Board, the Greater Victoria Library Board, the CRD Parks and Environment Committees. Within City government he has been at various times Chair of the Finance, Engineering and Public Works, Traffic and Parking, Parks and Recreation, Fire Safety and Personnel committees of council. He has also served on the British Columbia Financial Institutions Commission and on the Victoria Airport Authority board. For many years Dr. Young has been a partner in Discovery Economic Consulting. He has appeared many times in B.C. courts as an expert witness in economics. He lives in Fairfield with his wife and children”
Letter from Councillor Geoff Young
“Thank you for your recent e-mail on the subject of the Johnson Street bridge. I have received quite a number of letters on the subject and am therefore sending a common reply.
For many months I have been suggesting it would be worthwhile to spend money and effort to examine the option of refurbishing the existing bridge. The Mayor and majority of the City Council feel that the decision has already been made to replace the bridge, and that there is no particular point in examining new ideas that have been brought forward since we made a decision to proceed last April (at that time, of course, the availability of federal grants gave a need for haste).
The “Alternative Approval Process” for the bridge borrowing has left it up to citizens to oppose the borrowing bylaw. Not only has the City not proceeded with examining the options for refurbishing the bridge, the City is not choosing to make real efforts to provide more information about all of the possible options. I am disappointed that the City has focussed on presenting only one side of the issue, and thus I find the information that has come from the City to be incomplete and somewhat misleading. For example, the City has distributed a fact sheet entitled “Johnson Street Bridge by the Numbers”, comparing the “Replace” and “Refurbish” options in 13 ways – I don’t find that most of the statements represent a full explanation of the facts (see below).
Unfortunately the decision about the Johnson Street Bridge has now sadly reached the stage of an unequal debate between those who want a new bridge and those who want to preserve the existing bridge, or consider it more economical to do so. If the counter- petition process succeeds, I hope the majority of the Council will decide to take a real look at the options. As I have pointed out before, there are many questions that we should be asking about refurbishment, such as:
1. Are there alternate approaches to repair that could be cheaper?
2. What is the cost of refurbishing the bridge to maintain life safety in an earthquake, versus maintaining bridge operability?
3. Can the lattice beams be strengthened (if this is actually required) in a way that does not lose the aesthetic effect of the riveted beams?
4. Are there options available for revising the approaches to the existing bridge to achieve traffic improvements?
5. How much would vehicle traffic be slowed if we dedicated the third vehicle lane for bike trail traffic?
Thanks for taking the time to write.
Geoff Young”
Criticism of City of Victoria: Johnson Street Bridge: By The Numbers
Documents related to the comments by Geoff Young: City of Victoria: Johnson Street Bridge By the Numbers and Focus Magazine: Sam Wiliam’s Article
“Comments on the City’s “Johnson Street Bridge by the Numbers”
1. Cost of Bridge: As Sam Williams points out in the current Focus magazine, this compares the cost of the new bridge WITHOUT the rail bridge against the cost of refurbishing BOTH existing spans, vehicle and rail. The road approach work is not an “extra”, it is required for the new bridge if it is not going to be sited where the old one now is and closures are to be avoided. As far as I am aware no plans, drawings or detailed costings have been done for the suggested $29 million option for the new bridge without the approaches, rail bridge or pedestrian crossings.
2. Cost of amenities: The same unequal comparison – here the rail bridge is added back into the new span as an extra, where it is already included in the refurbishing cost in #1. A fair comparison would treat refurbishing of the existing rail span as an “added amenity” if it is treated that way for the new span, and vice versa.
3. Funding Approval: The federal minister made a public statement to the effect that money was granted for the new bridge because that is what the City asked for. The bald statement that “$0″ is available for refurbishment is (to say the least) incomplete.
4. Further Potential Funding: Similarly, no request was made to the CRD board for support for refurbishing the existing rail bridge or augmenting the trial component.
5. Cost of Bridge to City: The cost of the new bridge net of the federal grant is compared with the gross cost of refurbishment, before any grant applications.
6. Cost of Borrowing: The lower cost of borrowing for the “replace” option (using CMHC funds) assumes the refurbishing will be stretched out to avoid full road closures. The Delcan “Condition Assessment Report” (available on the City web site) gives preliminary costs but does not give a detailed schedule of time required or discuss how work can be done (e.g. shrouding, removal of span, etc.) so it is not clear whether the costs shown in 1 and 5 above for refurbishing are based on a tight time deadline (in which case the borrowing rate is the same for the two options) or the longer deadline (in which case full road closures may be minimized).
7 and 8. Cost per resident and per household: These cost comparisons (showing a 5 to 6 percent cost penalty for the new bridge) must include the borrowing cost differential, since #5 above shows a 20 percent cost penalty for the new bridge. See comments under 6 and 11.
9. Tax increases: There will be no tax increase provided only that the City elects to spend less on other projects than we otherwise would have.
10. Cost of referendum: The public desire for a referendum would be far less if the City had adopted the course of spending the minimum amount necessary to maintain and preserve the bridge and ensure life safety.
11. Road Closures: To the statement “approximately 10 months of FULL road closures would be required to refurbish the bridge in two years” should be added “although in this case the City would qualify for the low CMHC borrowing rate noted in 6 above, so the cost comparisons we showed under 7 and 8 above should be disregarded”.
12. Jobs Created: The implication is that all jobs created are local (the “FAQ” on the City web site says “760 jobs are expected to be created in the local construction industry”). The FCM Infrastructure Calculator (it is on the FCM website and is open for public use) is clear – it calculates the impact on the NATIONAL economy, not the local economy. While either project will require materials and equipment from elsewhere in Canada and abroad, a greater percentage of the smaller number of jobs created by the less-expensive refurbishment option may well be located closer to home.
13. Safety: The existing accident statistics are presented, but no estimate of the number of accidents that are due to existing conditions that will be changed by the new bridge, nor any estimate of the expected reduction in the number of accidents. It does not seem possible that the new bridge and approaches can eliminate accidents.”
____________________________________________
It is apparent only Councillor Geoff Young, among all the other City of Victoria Councillors, is willing to question the numbers presented to the public, and call for independent consultation.
Your comments are welcome….
Bang on! Say it loud.
Thank you Councillor Geoff Young.
Thank you Mat Wright, Ross Crockford, Yule Heibel and all at http://johnsonstreetbridge.org
Please, Mr. Dean Fortin and Victoria Council. Please stop, refresh, listen, explain, do it with us.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Mat Wright, Lisa Fife. Lisa Fife said: Councillor Geoff Young Questions “Johnson Street Bridge By the Numbers” http://bit.ly/6sBLdK #yyj #victoriabc #bc [...]
Thank you Eric,
From comments received over the past few days the community is relieved to see at least one Councillor willing to stand up, and make contrary views public.
One person. That’s tough to do. Yet representing many.
If a new bridge can have a decking that is safer for cyclists, then that same decking such as fibre re-inforced polymer, can be used in the refurbishment of the present bridge. The present rail bridge is already a dedicated cycling/pedestrian path that only sees the train go over it twice a day. The video of the new design show cyclists heading east in close proximity to the vehicle lane. This does not appear to be an improvement.
Cathodic protection and zinc coatings can protect steel and concrete piers and counterweights indefinitely, as evidenced by many historic bridges that are older than ours and are still being refurbished, and for less cost than a new bridge.
As both spans were originally built to carry streetcars and freight trains over them, they are still capable of handling the loads of todays vehicles.
The present “S” curve actually helps to slow traffic down to a sensible speed. Any new approaches that eliminate this feature could turn the bridge into a raceway. The “S” curve can be viewed as two halves of a roundabout.
In almost all cases, bridges that have been refurbished have been kept open during the process. This work can be scheduled at a slower pace, and at times convenient to the public.
This rush to replace has not allowed for enough input, and the city could be stuck with a huge lemon, for the next 100 years
Dennis Robinson nails it when he writes: comes along and suggests a completely new thing, but the result is worse than what you started with. In this case: you get a so-called “dedicated” bike lane that has all the problems of non-separated bike lanes on arterial roads already in existence.
QUOTE
If a new bridge can have a decking that is safer for cyclists, then that same decking such as fibre re-inforced polymer, can be used in the refurbishment of the present bridge. The present rail bridge is already a dedicated cycling/pedestrian path that only sees the train go over it twice a day. The video of the new design show cyclists heading east in close proximity to the vehicle lane. This does not appear to be an improvement.
UNQUOTE
This is key to understanding one of the ways that the replacement project is going wrong. We’ve all seen this happen in so many other situations: you ask for an improvement, and instead of working with what’s available, someone bright
If any cyclist thinks that his/her lot in traffic will be approved by the mingy allotment afforded by this new design, please take another look. You (cyclists) will be much better off if the current rail span is re-purposed into a multi-modal trail (recall what Dennis pointed out: the train travels on this bridge but twice (2 times!!!) a day: what could be easier than to dedicate this span to multi-modal use?). You will not be happy as an after-thought next to car-traffic, which is what you will get with this new design.
Yes, there are many factual questions about numbers being misrepresented and these are important, but we also have to contend with emotional red herrings such as the following comment on referenda which I received from Lynn Hunter, and which she repeated in a CBC talkback slot.
“I consider such a tool as an affront to
representative democracy with much larger consequences to our political system than just our decision on this particular project. The question
we should ask ourselves is where does the use of referenda stop?”
In my reply to her much longer letter, I included a response to this, that I would think the people who opposed extending the franchise during the past two centuries probably asked the same question in terms of voting power after each addition of a group to the electoral rolls. I wonder, as a woman seeking voting privileges, whether she would have recommended the same question.
Has the “Shock Doctrine” turned Left?
Naomi Klein’s book outlined how radical governments routinely exploit a crisis to abuse and undermine the democratic process.
It works like this: During a perceived ‘emergency’ pretend that ‘rules’ hinder speedy resolution. Pretending that it’s more efficient to abandon safeguards, follows. Crisis resolution always is a “must do” therefore wouldn’t it be irresponsible to invite something awful by not resorting to unprecedented measures?
During the last NDP provincial government a colleague surveyed the elected. He couldn’t imagine any of them attaining similar levels of financial responsibility under any other circumstance. If not for politics, he saw no way they’d be decision makers over millions of dollars of expenditure. To him, none ever demonstrated administrative competence. Nor did they have to – once elected.
On seeing Geoff Young’s credentials – no wonder he’s been isolated and vilified by Council. Seeing the ad hominem attacks against him is like watching a high school dance committee mangling a supercomputer to show ‘teacher’ how smart they are.
Shock Doctrine works. By the time voters recognize that a boondoggle is under way, it’s too late. Like it or not, by the time the electorate crushed the last NDP administration – despite massive prior public disapproval – the Fast Ferries boondoggle cost hundreds of millions, with the debt made our encumbrance.
Some gift!
Is it surprising that this “must-do” bridge replacement was never spoken of before election; that the public remains shut out; that every opportunity to upgrade the bridge was blocked; that a simple bridge upgrade mushroomed into a grandiose and reckless fantasy of spin; that more than $20 million is to be spent on a bike path to Esquimalt at a net cost to Esquimalt and all other connected regions of nothing? That no other region supports this scheme?
And the Provincial NDP? They might as well be on the dark side of the moon: Like Neville Chamberlain they see no evil in their own.
For those who read the book, how is this fake crisis not an example of Shock Doctrine? Please advise.
In a way, one does have to give the City Credit for jumping on the opportunity for the Federal funding so fast in order to help address this capital bridge issue which ultimately needs a soluion one way or the other.
But, I believe, it is highly shortsighted that the City’s decision on the best route was made without the direct tax payer’s input, especially since it is not a small issue, and needs more than a “condition assessment” to address it.
It’s still highly unclear why the funding is specific and solely contingent on the replacement option only, when the intent of the Stimulus fund is not to just “replace” our problem infrastructure, but to make it stonger, as seen from an Excerpt From:(QUOTE:)Infrastructure Stimulus Fund in British
Columbia (http://www.buildingcanada-chantierscanada.gc.ca/regions/bc/isf-fsi-bc-eng.html)
“About the Program:
The Infrastructure Stimulus Fund will provide $4 billion for the construction of infrastructure projects to be built over the next two years (2009-10 and 2010-11). To provide short-term stimulus to the economy, construction readiness will be a key project selection criteria; for example, the rehabilitation and retrofit of existing assets to improve safety or extend their useful life. Eligible projects include water, wastewater, transit, roads, culture, parks, trails and community services infrastructure (see Program Guide for eligibility).” (UNQUOTE).
It is my belief that the Stimulus money would have been a golden opportunity to not only enable for a well-funded and well-thought-out Reabilitation project with less onus on the people of Victoria (and more money for schools and other crumbling infrastructure), but would have allowed for a more holistic and respectable public process on what to do if that one was not enough after the appropriate studies had been furnished.
Granted however, the intent of the Building Canada Stimulus money is to “cut red tape and stream line the approval process” and “get things done” and make the government look good, but are we as a Canadian Society going to be left scratching our head in 20 years as we learn that “quick-built stimulus projects” may not have been as well built as we had ben led to believe and will need premature re-replacements?
Utilizing this money for a contentious and complex project that is more that just a ‘blue bridge’ seems very underhanded, and I believe that the City thought that this would help them circumnavigate the normal processes that would accompany a bridge project of this nature.
Thankfully, JSB.org has called them on it, and through this process has really instigated an opportunity to consider the weight and implications of their seemingly unilateral decisions, and the effects that it will have not only on the city, but also on their future political careers and the way that City’s are accountable to the people.
With what’s at stake, both as a local’s daily commuter bridge and a historic international structural icon, I cannot understand why this is simply a City of Victoria’s Resident’s decision, when the money is to a large extent, federal money, to which I and others around Canada have contributed (or will) to. Surely the Federal Government is aware that the recipients of the funding money are using it for the greater good, and not just “make work” projects that have a total disregard for our historic icons? In a normal circumstance, we may be sacrificing quality, but in the case of JSB, we are also at risk of sacrificing a 85-year old historic and cultural icon that is definately difficult to replace by March 2011!
For More Thought on this, please see:
http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Governments+rush+spend+infrastructure+puts+billions+risk+report/2366702/story.html
Michael,
Excellent comment. The point that the primary focus of Federal Infrastructure Stimulus funds was for rehabilitation and retrofit of existing structures has been lost in the rhetoric and events of the past few months. Had the City of Victoria applied for all or part of a JSB repair, within the 2011 timeframe, workers would already be onsite.
It should also be noted that the now $35 Million price tag for repair put out by the City of Victoria would likely be offset through funding applications to the Federal Government, Province of BC, and regional authority. The Federal Govt. especially would appear spiteful if citizens chose to rehabilitate the Blue Bridge, and it withdrew 1/3rd funding.
Thank you again,
Mat Wright
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by matvic: Councillor Geoff Young Questions “Johnson Street Bridge By the Numbers” http://is.gd/5CVIH...
800 petition forms rejected? [VicNews, today, page A3]
By City Hall? Unilaterally, without presenting the evidence?
What’s wrong with this picture?
It is wide open to cooking the books, that’s what.
Let’s request a full accounting, including each
rejected form and a full explanation why it was rejected.
An Open Letter to Councillor Lynn Hunter
Dear Councillor Hunter
I read your recent remark [Vicnews,1 Jan,p A3] that the Blue Bridge petition is an insult to Representative democracy.
Representative Government was adopted in Upper Canada 150 years ago, where there was an uninformed, mostly illiterate population which had almost no communication with the Capital at Muddy York. So, a dictatorship with a chance to choose new dictators every few years was a reasonable choice, way back then.
Well, that was then and this is now.
We now have one of the most-educated populations in the world, and communication with the capital is fast and cheap. Citizens may actually be better-informed and qualified on occasion to judge complex issues – like bridges and sewage treatment – than their politicians.
Democracy is based on the sound belief that we citizens, given **complete and accurate** facts, will collectively make good decisions. And Council’s hasty, wasteful, pig-headed and misguided stand on the Blue Bridge issue shows exactly why we, the citizens, must take a hand in our government from time to time. It is too important to be left entirely to politicians.
Eric Manning
Victoria
@Eric Manning.
“800 petition forms rejected?”
But Eric, you’ve missed the larger infamy. Petition examiners weren’t supposed to start until 4 January, right? So why would ANY petitions be rejected before the date when they were supposed to be examined for the first time?
Have you never heard of “hanging chads”? Has this sort of calamity never struck before?
No one ever imagined that the possession of $63 million in spending authority, to distribute among friends and backers, might influence how a political gang might ignore ‘optics’ and arbitrarily skew a vote on their own behalf?
Why are we being so modest?
The people to contact with this complaint aren’t found on this page – it’s the RCMP. If what is going on is half as corrupt as so many think, this has become a matter of criminal Law.
And yes, those “rejected” petitions would be “evidence.” As such they must not be destroyed. Any bets they will be destroyed?
@Mat,
Can’t recall where I read it, but MP Lunn apparently went on record somewhere recently to declare that bridge funding is NOT dependent on bridge replacement. MP Baird did stipulate that it must be a replacement, however.
Has anyone seen the actual language used in the offer?
Otherwise, what can you say? Ottawa, Bureaucracies. Cross-purposes. Typical.
As you noted above, enforcing such a stipulation, especially after a counter-petition in effect rejected demolition, would not only be spiteful, it would be politically masochistic. That monopoly is controlled locally by Council and a cadre of on-line cheerleaders convinced that your finding 10,000 people opposed to loan-seeking the loan, must mean the other 90% just can’t wait to approve demolition.
Given the expected regional blowback against the Conservative’s HST; the unilateral decision to prorogue Parliament; the anticipated anti-climactic post-Olympic crash (and other political traumas) to expect the Tories to push too hard here? Dubious.
Not until the economic numbers improve and the federal Liberals tank. The latter being more probable than the former.
[...] a Christmas Eve reply to emails Geoff Young made an unprecedented local media moment by allowing jsb .ORG to publish his [...]