Johnson Street Bridge Victoria BC

This website is one step on an awareness campaign. We are a growing group of concerned Victoria and CRD residents who feel Victoria's Johnson Street Bridge or "Blue Bridge" is an issue of vital importance for the city and region.The goal is to provide a central information platform - information from City Hall, media, articles, blogs and opinions so everyone can make an informed decision.

We welcome your comments and feedback

Blue Bridge News!

Your email:

 

Archives
«  
  »

6 comments to Easy New Year Resolution – Sign the Blue Bridge Petition

  • Twitted by matvic
    December 31, 2009 at 2:06 PM

    [...] This post was Twitted by matvic [...]

  • Yule Heibel
    December 31, 2009 at 2:55 PM

    I just left a comment on the Vic News “Newsmaker of the Year” article you link to, above (and earlier today I posted a comment to Bill Cleverley’s Times-Colonist article, which you point to as well – the comment is now up).

    My comment to Vic News is awaiting moderation, but since it’s posted through Disqus.com, you can already see it on my profile there. In case it fails to appear on the Vic News site for some reason, here it is in full. My starting point was that I take issue with the numeracy around throwing out the “35% chance over 50 years” info:
    QUOTE
    A 35% chance of collapse during an earthquake “over the next 50 years” does not add up to an imminent danger. What this calculation suggests is that the probability of collapse is lower in the immediate short-term, and then grows higher in the long-term. Thus, there might be a 1% chance in 2010, or a 4% chance in 2011, and the probability percentage increases as time goes by.

    Adding up the percentages over a 50 year span, one arrives at a 35% chance.

    This does not suggest to me that we should be hitting the panic button with immediate plans to replace the bridge.

    It seems to me that the Engineering staff saw its chance when the Federal Infrastructure Stimulus Funding program was announced. Tired of fixing the old bridge on a budget of chewing gum and duct tape, they saw an opportunity to corral millions of dollars for a replacement. However, those funds did not materialize.

    Therefore, it makes sense to take a closer (and more impartial) look at the generally excellent Delcan Report, and proceed with a program of repair.

    There are options for seismic upgrading that do not entail making the bridge safe to Canadian Highway Bridge Design Codes (CHBDC). As Ed Wortman (Portland bridge engineering expert) pointed out in an email to Councilor Chris Coleman (published on our website with permission of the Wortmans):

    Pg. E-1 in Dalcan’s [sic] Executive Summary says that one objective of the study was to: “Develop conceptual seismic retrofit solutions to allow the bridge to function in a seismic event in accordance with Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code.” Pg. E-2 then goes on to say: “Therefore, the bridge requires a seismic retrofit to meet all the requirements of the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC).” This conclusion probably is valid from a strictly technical point of view. However, the conclusion is based on an inherent assumption that the City of Victoria’s policy is to provide a crossing that meets the CHBDC requirements for new bridges regardless of the cost. It may be that the City is required by law to meet this very high standard — i.e., that older bridges must be upgraded to meet all current design provisions for new bridges. However, if the City is NOT required by law to meet this high standard, then I think Delcan’s wording is misleading. It might be more appropriate for Delcan to point out that a full seismic upgrade to meet CHBDC is one policy option available to the City, but not the only option. Other options could include partial seismic upgrades with scope of the upgrades designed to fit within the limits of available funding.

    Wortman then goes on to point to several U.S. jurisdictions (in the same earthquake zone as we are), which do not upgrade their urban bridges to that standard. Given that there are much higher priorities for seismic safety (all of Chinatown – a World Heritage Site – and Old Town will fall down in a major event, and there would certainly be more people killed by those buildings than there would by a bridge collapse), it seems wise to question the CHBDC standard and why it (a highway standard) should apply to an urban bridge in the center of the city.

    UNQUOTE

  • Tweets that mention Easy New Year Resolution - Sign the Blue Bridge Petition -- Topsy.com
    December 31, 2009 at 2:58 PM

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Yule Heibel, Mat Wright. Mat Wright said: Easy New Year Resolution – Sign the Blue Bridge Petition http://is.gd/5I506 [...]

  • uberVU - social comments
    December 31, 2009 at 6:46 PM

    Social comments and analytics for this post…

    This post was mentioned on Twitter by matvic: Easy New Year Resolution – Sign the Blue Bridge Petition http://is.gd/5I506...

  • Twitted by CJStephenson
    December 31, 2009 at 9:12 PM

    [...] This post was Twitted by CJStephenson [...]

  • Mike
    January 2, 2010 at 9:46 PM

    Good suggestion Yule, however, regarding the CHBDC, it’s really the only design code for bridges that engineers use in Canada (Except for Provincial addendums, railway bridge codes, or Forestry Bridge Codes).

    The Canadian code may be a few years behind the leading American Version, AASHTO LRFD, which essentially forms the back bone of the Canadian Code and everything that’s eventually adopted by it, except for a few exceptions.

    Other questions that I feel need to be asked so others can make the best decision based upon their most clear understanding (Scientists, like engineers, generally report the “worst Case scenario for the basis of the design”) are:

    1) Does the CHBDC (aka. CAN/CSA S6-06) apply to this bridge specifically, or can the City Of Victoria specifiy another (I.e. the buiding code, AASHTO, etc)? If a provincial route jurisdiction, the MoT will enforce the CHBDC.

    2) Who is dictating the Seismic Saftey Level that the exisiting bridge needs to attain: the client, the code, or the engineer? In the US, the client specifes it.

    3) Can the existing historic structure be “grandfathered in”? This is generally the case with buidlings built before more stringent building codes: in this case, it doesn’t neccessarily need to be brought up to code.

    4) Is the CHBDC (2006 Edition) the most current standard we can utilize, based upon the latest in earthquake research, rehabilitation strategies of existing bridges, etc? Especially if the American counterpart (AASHTO) is further ahead and possibly, more “up-to-date”.

    5) Is the client’s risk assessment and level of seismic saftey requirement for the rehabilitation of a historic structure practical, well understood, and warrantied here? Can more risk of a lessor seismic requirement upgrade be accepted, and what are those risks? Loss of life or loss of route use? What is deemed acceptable and is it realistic?

    6) Should a historic structure be compared with the assumed level of saftey of a new structure and it’s applicable code?

    7) What are the failure mechanisms of the JSB during various levels of seismic events, including the failure that the Delcan report warns of? Instantaneous crumbling and no ability for the public to flee versus progressive collapse that gives time to clear the public from the structure are very different effects that the City needs to understand before assuming that upgrade means “the works”? This can be determined and could form a portion of the risk assessmnet that the City could grasp and understand.

    8) As quoted by the Condition Assessment: “Therefore, the bridge requires a seismic retrofit to meet all the requirements of the CHBDC..” (pg4): Is it required by the code, or recommended? Does the Client require this in their overall objective for the upgrade work? What’s really required?

    9) Why did the Historic Assessment Report not form a part of the engineering report and decision? Why fund it in the first place and not utilize the professional’s conclusions and reccomendations?

    10) Can the councellors and the city guaruntee on their personal careers and reputations to the people of Victoria that the new bridge will be on budget, on time, of the utmost quality, and at the same time, a future landmark? Surely a first if even two are met!

    Good luck with the Petition!
    Sincerely,
    Mike