Johnson Street Bridge – Citizen Advisory Committee Monday Meeting

The final input phase of the Johnson Street Bridge Citizen Advisory Committee wrapped up Monday.

On the weekend two new members were appointed to the volunteer Citizen Advisory Committee, Cara Segger and Margaret Lucas. Margaret Lucas is defined by the City of Victoria as a business representative, with Cara Segger as a community representative. Congratulations to both, and especially to Cara Segger, who has a special insight to the concerns of this organization as one of the original proponents of this campaign. While her appointment is not directly due to the recognized efforts of our awareness crusade, it is a credit to Mayor Dean Fortin, Council, and city staff, that her position stands after they were made aware of the connections. One of our main concerns, especially in my posts, is communications – Cara Segger is able and willing to share direct information, and opinion, on the plans for the replacement of the Johnson Street Bridge. She has concerns on process, design, and communications – just as we do. In a meeting today, and through subsequent emails and phone conversations, Cara Segger shares the following:

“The CFAX article listed Margaret Lucas (great choice imo) as a business representative, and me as a community representative. But I was appointed, not elected, and I am not pretending to be representing anyone else in the community. It would be futile anyhow. Like herding cats.”

Cara also posted the following on Vibrant Victoria as a summary of the discussions on new Bridge design, at the CAC meeting:

“-> Some type of Bascule bridge is the one option that really works for this spot. A swing bridge takes about 20 minutes to open and close, compared to the bascule which takes only a few minutes. Various lift bridges and tilting bridges create a limited height, where right now there is an unlimited height for boats going through. A retracting bridge takes up a lot of space on both sides which could back traffic up and also you have maintenance issues with grit getting in the tracks.

–> I championed a strong vertical element on the Downtown side at least. Others seemed (with one exception) to agree. The Blue Bridge is a beautiful icon on our skyline, and to replace it with something flat or unobtrusive would be a crime.

–> The Bridge should have transparency and lightness about it. Structural shape is important. (My one concern about this is that it might guide the architects towards the masts as the only real vertical element, as compared to the beautiful latticework of the Blue Bridge which is transparent, and light, but still substantial.)

–> Viewing opportunities on both ends, and also while on the bridge. Places to stop and watch it go up, or to pause and look over the water.

–> Multi-sensory. Big Blue sings as you cross it. We can’t have the open grade because it is not environmentally a good plan to have car detritus going into the water, but when choosing materials for surface think of sound of crossing. We are not looking for a freeway surface. Note – the video included in Yule Heibel’s post on Self Explaining Roads includes the “sound” of the current Johnson Street Bridge, something well worth considering.

–> Asymetrical. If it is a twin bridge, with both sides lifting up then the weakest place for the seam is in the middle. If you have a short span on the west side, and a longer span on the west side it will be stronger, but also give the option to raise only one side, depending on the size of boat coming through. This could save operating cost and energy. If freight rail was to go across it we would want a single bridge, not a twin. Then the seam could rest on a solid bank and be very stable.

–> The bridge is a gateway. For this reason the CAC preferred the double mast designs to the single mast designs (which split the bridge in two). They wanted a gateway/portal that visually allows the compressed space of Old Town to open up to the vista to the west.

—> The space under the new bridge will also be a gateway. While this might be framed beautifully if a wheel bascule is chosen (more on that later) whatever is there should be a pleasant space to pass under, and a portal from the precious tourist area to the working harbour.

—> The bridge should not block the harbour trails or future development when it is open. (There are some problems with the cable stayed bascule there.)

—> We have to consider the queuing space left for cars in the approaches to help manage congestion along the approach.

—> The Theatre, or Event of the bridge opening is critical. When people see Big Blue open, they say “WOW”. People stop and watch.

–> The final three designs that seemed most viable were:

1) An Asymetrical or single Wheel Bascule Bridge

Canary Wharf Bridge London UK

The closest example is on Canary Wharf, London UK
The advantages this bridge has are:
* The bigger the wheel, the smaller the motor (and energy needed to operate) – it could easily go up higher, to produce a vertical element on top of the bridge up to 20 m high ( the height of Big Blue). (i’ll have to wait for the power point slides in order to show you what I mean by this, there’s nothing like it I can find online)
* It would be unique, certainly on the west coast of North America, if not world wide.
* The pedestrian pathways can go through the actual moving mechanism of the bridge, even when it is actively opening. That would create an exciting experience passing under the bridge and draw people up the harbour pathway.
Disadvantages
* Unless they use something like the lacing from Old Blue, or some other strategy to create transparency, the wheels look blockier than the other options. Personally I like that. But I got the sense in the room that lightness was a big part of what they wanted.
* Potential to use a west coast contemporary architectural style, while the others all look very cold – more of that stark simplicity of European modernism.
* Aside from the wheel, not a lot of other vertical features could be included in a way that makes sense functionally. In other words, the wheel would be the focus, anything else added on top would be gingerbread.

Cable Style Bridge

2) Single Cable Stayed Bascule.

Photos added

Cable Supported Bridge

Advantages
* Very light and elegant
* Has more verticality
* Might be able to separate kayak traffic from commercial by making them come around between the pylon and shore.
* possibly more queuing space for cars when bridge is lifting.
* if driving through cables extend the sense of gateway.

Disadvantages
* The mast is part of the ballast, the higher it is, the smaller the motor needs to be – they could extend up as far as 40 feet – potential problem for air traffic.
* Nothing unique or special about it. These are a dime a dozen in the pacific northwest. This is a bridge, not an icon.

3) Double Reverse Bascule

I don’t have any images that resemble even slightly what they showed us. I REALLY wish they had that power-point printed out to hand out to us. Technically, this is supposed to be the closest to what Big Blue is now. But the sketch they showed us with two masts and an overhead counterweight looked nothing like it. Frankly, this option made me feel like sobbing on my binder. Especially as committee members seemed to like it. It was basically two masts and a blob like shape that sort of floated up above them. I don’t have any advantages or disadvantages for you there. I guess if the public chooses this one, the architect could shape it into something nice. Strauss did.”

Share on Facebook