Victoria's Johnson Street Bridge
It was a long day for the City of Victoria Council, and due credit to them and staff who stuck through what ended up being over two hours debating the merits of the Johnson Street Bridge project. Realizing that this is the largest capital spend and potential borrowing for Victoria, maybe they should have held a special meeting, especially as the final documents for consideration were not released until after 9pm the night before…
Despite a spirited debate on including rail as the base refurbishment or replacement projects for the public to consider over the next six weeks, council has ratified a motion which excludes the rail option from the public engagement consideration – but they reserve the right to re-include a rail path if other funding is forthcoming by August 12th 2010.
Media Roundup
Times Colonist – Bill Cleverley – June 18th 2010: A rail crossing is not in the cards for a new or refurbished Johnson Street bridge unless outside funding can be found or the public demands it. Victoria councillors, facing soaring costs on the bridge project, say they’d like to include rail but can’t afford it alone.If alternate funding can be found by Aug. 12 — the date councillors are scheduled to decide between replacement or refurbishment — they will consider including a rail crossing. If no funding for rail is secured, they will maintain a future rail right-of-way and push ahead to referendum without it.
CFAX NEWS – A COMMITTEE OF VICTORIA CITY COUNCIL WILL CONTEMPLATE OPTIONS FOR THE JOHNSON STREET BRIDGE THURSDAY AFTERNOON. THEY’LL REVIEW AN ENGINEERING REPORT, PRESENTED EARLIER THIS WEEK, ON BOTH REPLACING AND REFURBISHING SPAN, WHICH SUGGESTED REFURBISHING WOULD BE MORE EXPENSIVE THAN REPLACING THE BRIDGE.
Vic News – Roszan Holman – June 17 2010: Given how few people use the rail line, Victoria city council faces a tough decision: whether to pay between $12 million and $23 million to maintain the service to the downtown rather than ending it on the west side of the bridge.
Vibrant Victoria – Robert Randall – June 17th 2010: The debate was sometimes heated during the four-hour meeting as councillors faced off on the topic of rail, who would be paying for it and what the implications would be if rail was left off the November referendum question, with some fearing the prospect of a bridge without rail would trigger a backlash and a certain “no” vote.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by . said: [...]
The amended motion that was finally approved by council was based on an August 12th deadline for alternate funding for the rail, not Dec 31st
Thanks Susanna – the post has been corrected!
Amalgamation advocates and others concerned to see the other municipalities in the Capital Regional District share the costs of repairing or replacing the Johnson Street Bridge might like to read and comment on the Victoria News Editorial by Kevin Laird from June 23, 2010 here:
http://www.bclocalnews.com/vancouver_island_south/victorianews/opinion/97013089.html
Amazingly, there are no comments at this web page yet, but I am sure there are many Victoria residential property taxpayers and commercial property taxpayers who do not want to have only the City of Victoria shoulder all the costs for the JSB, as seems to have happened at the new arena (except for Oak Bay, which is still paying its share)…
I support the idea of a binding referendum in all CRD municipalities on the future of the JSB to be held during the 2011 election.
Let’s resume the most urgent seismic upgrades or other maintenance on Joseph Strauss’ unique bascule bridge in Victoria in the meantime, pending the outcome of that regional referendum.
I remain hopeful that a majority of CRD voters would vote to share the burden of saving the Johnson Street Bridge with the City of Victoria if they were assured that it would then be safe for pedestrians, cyclists and drivers, and that costs were strictly controlled.
So far, with City of Victoria’s JSB costs escalating in a most capricious manner, I am not confident of this last point.
I only became aware this morning that the Federal Government has apparently agreed to extend its 20 million grant to apply to refurbishment rather than a new build. At least they are being accommodating.
I still favor new construction because I have no faith in Victoria’s willingness to maintain the superstructure. The approach seems to be one of do nothing and somebody else will look after it.
In the meantime, there is the usual mobile majority who think only of themselves and their beloved cars. In spite of global warming, in spite of the Gulf of Mexico, the parade of cars continues. We have a great opportunity here to make the hard-fought-for rail corridor rise to the challenge, but not if we cut the terminal location off at the knees, so to speak.
Too bad Ottawa didn’t see fit to tie its grant to the continued rail connection. However, sometimes a little perspective helps. For example, the supposed cost of keeping rails across the water is 12 million. We aren’t talking miles here, either, just a couple of hundred feet. And that 12 million will buy you the services of 2 hockey players for 6 months of hockey.
I take the E&N regularly to the Comox Valley, and I often talk to folks from all over the globe about the history of the rails they are riding over and the untrammeled beauty of the island most who live here have never seen. You are not going to have a successful rail operation if you don’t take people ‘down town’. No rail into Victoria is the death of an underdeveloped tourist attraction and the end of any ideas about the green solution of commuter rail.
George Walsh