This website is one step on an awareness campaign. We are a growing group of concerned Victoria and CRD residents who feel The Johnson 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.
Denise Savoie, Victoria NDP MP, has confirmation from Federal Minister John Baird that the allocated $21 million originally provided for bridge replacement can be used to offset costs for a bridge repair. The news was provided to NDP staff, volunteers and supporters last week, and reported in the Times Colonist on Saturday Feb. 6th. Bill Cleverley’s article notes that the actual correspondence between Denise Savoie and John Baird’s office has not been released.
Victoria MP Denise Savoie says she has confirmation from federal Transport, Infrastructure and Communities Minister John Baird that the bridge repair would be eligible for at least one-third federal funding.
Previously, that level of funding had only been confirmed for the $63-million replacement option.
In a written response to Savoie, Baird says that “if engineering reports suggest this is feasible and if residents support that option in a referendum,” at least one-third federal funding would be available for refurbishment.
Savoie would not release a copy of the correspondence.
The City of Victoria would have to reapply for the Federal grant if repair becomes the choice of council, and the voters through a referendum, however previous statements from some councillors that funding would be in jeopardy if the choice is not to replace the Blue Bridge, are now irrelevant.
In fact, while the grant under the Build Canada program is pegged at $21 million, or 1/3rd of the $63 million estimate for replacement, a new application to repair the Blue Bridge could result in up to 50% Federal funding. Council could also apply to the Provincial Government, and CRD for repair funding – or at least statements in principle.
Council to Meet February 18th – Johnson Street Bridge Options
On January 7th City of Victoria Council met in special session to discuss the counter-petition numbers. The campaign against borrowing $42 million to replace the bridge received 15.4% support from Victoria voters, well over the 10% requirement. A motion, introduced by Councillor Pam Madoff, and eventually supported by all councillors, called for more information on repair options. Council will meet on February 18th – we assume that is during a regular evening Council meeting – to receive a report from city staff.
From Bill Cleverley – Times Colonist. Since then, city staff have been re-examining the options and are set to make a full report to councillors Feb. 18, project spokesman Howard Markson said yesterday.
The report will take a detailed look at the costs of refurbishment versus a new bridge, he said. “Council ultimately is committed to a referendum so they will probably use this report on the basis of deciding when to hold a referendum and what that should be.”
In advance of that expected report to council a number of questions and concerns need to be raised.
Who is considering repair options and costs? It appears the Citizen’s Advisory Committee, formed last summer to consider replacement options, has a new mandate to look at repair. Yet the Terms of Reference have not been updated.
Engineers- – who is offering professional advice? One top issue learned throughout the jsb . ORG campaign is that repairing historical bridges is a specialized field. Frank Nelson and Ed Wortman, who have the experience and expertise, made pointed references to bridge closures, longevity, sustainability, seismic upgrades, costs and historical significance. Over the previous month they have not been consulted by CoV staff, nor, as far as we know, an engineer or firm with equal expertise. Does that mean MMM group – the engineering form hired at $3.2 million to oversee bridge replacement – is the sole source of repair options and costs?
Process, Transparency, Accountability. While the minutes of the January 7th Special Council Meeting are now available, the minutes, agendas – even times – of the Johnson Street Bridge Citizen Advisory Committee have not been posted. The most recent available minutes of the Governance and Priorities Committee are from December 3rd 2009 – has that body discussed the bridge?
In a common reply to letters and emails, Councillor Geoff Young noted -
Our citizens will have high expectations for the process Council uses to listen to them on this issue. I think the Council should use this project as a practical test of the various public engagement methods we are now studying, so that when we do go to referendum the public will be confident that they have had ample opportunity both to be informed about the options available and to present their own views.
and
Expertise in new bridge design may be found in different firms than expertise in refurbishment. However, cost estimates need to be comparable, and so we may want a single quantity surveyor to make sure that in comparing options the same values are used for the various cost elements (labour, overtime, concrete etc.) as well as for cost escalation, interest during construction, contingency allowances and so forth.
It goes without saying that a firm should not be placed in a conflict of interest – that is, a firm that stands to benefit more from one option than the other (e.g. a firm with particular expertise in only new bridge construction, or only refurbishment, or one already selected to carry out work for one of the options) should not be asked to evaluate a “competing” option.
On Monday January 11th johnsonstreetbridge.ORG Directors asked for an open information meeting with Mayor Dean Fortin and City Manager Gail Stephens. The purpose: to discover the process leading to a report to council, who would be consulted on repair options, and how the public would be informed and engaged. To date, there has not been a reply on when, or if, a meeting will be arranged.
Costs. The City has estimated bridge replacement at $63 million (including new approaches). The Delcan bridge assessment report estimated bridge repair, with full seismic upgrades at $23.6 million – which City Staff recently upped to $35 million (without supporting documentation).
We are doing more work on refurbishment options, which should give more pause to those concerned about the costs of any project. While those who are concerned only with preservation, the costs will be largely irrelevant, but for citizens concerned about the costs, the escalating tab for refurbishment will be instructive. Various approaches are being considered, and different changes to the scope of work assessed to address the very real challenges of fixing a bridge that should be retired. Council will be presented with some of those costs soon.
The Delcan estimate for repair, and City estimate for replacement were produced within months of each other in the spring of 2009. If Councillor Luton is correct that estimated costs for refurbishment are escalating, then is it correct to assume replacement costs are equally rising?
The report to Council on February 18th should be instructive.
The February issue of Victoria’s Focus Magazine has a front cover of Ross Crockford, Yule Heibel and Mat Wright – the founders, instigators, protagonists, activists of johnsonstreetbridge.ORG, or true pains-in-the-ass (depending on your view point).
The article by Sam Williams (page 28) ‘Round One for Big Blue‘ articulates the theme of the entire campaign perfectly – ‘The battle of the bridge is about who has the right to make the decision‘
Focus Magazine editorials, along with articles by Yule Heibel and Sam Williams, have insightfully contributed to the debate on the process, available information and decisions surrounding the Johnson Street Bridge. In fact, it was a spring 2009 Focus article by Yule Heibel which effectively launched the community interest – started the debate on Vibrant Victoria, and after many months, has led to a successful counter-petition campaign.
The story behind johnsonstreetbridge.ORG is about how a small group of dedicated and concerned citizens can derail, up to now, municipal decisions. More importantly, it is how an entire community reacted against a flawed decision and engagement process.
(Quotes from the February Issue of Focus Magazine – Sam William’s article)
You can’t fight City Hall” is good advice if you’re talking about fighting a parking ticket. Forget it. You’ll lose every time. But if City Hall makes a big decision that involves the expenditure of millions of public dollars and the destruction of an iconic landmark without properly consulting its citizens, then that’s a whole different kind of fight. That’s exactly what Victoria City council found out on January 7 when the number of people who signed the counter-petition opposing the City’s plan to borrow $42 million to replace the Johnson Street Bridge was announced.
The article is a concise recap of the Blue Bridge issue from day one, way back in April 2009 when Victoria City council was presented with the Delcan bridge assessment report, but concentrates on the counter-petition campaign (Alternative Approval Process) which began on November 21st 2009. In order to prevent city council from approving a $42 million borrowing bylaw to replace the bridge, 10% (6343) of the voters within the City of Victoria needed to oppose. The result was over 10,700 valid signatures – history was made – and due to the insight and dedication of the volunteers, and the Volunteer Coordinator, Anne Russo.
Wright, Heibel and Crockford had teamed up with Anne Russo who is one of only a few select Victorians with previous fighting experience involving City Hall. Russo had led the unsuccessful AAP against the City’s decision to turn Ellice Street Park into a venue for a proposed Cool-Aid shelter. She knew how difficult it was going to be to gather 6,343 valid signatures in the middle of winter. Nobody had a better idea of just how to start. At that first meeting she displayed the kind of spirit that buoyed volunteers throughout the long, cold campaign: “My God,” she said, “what arrogance. I was spitting mad at them for launching this over the Christmas season. But we will have to view it as a benefit!”
The turning point of the petition campaign was spot on -
Crockford and Wright were beginning to understand that the battle was being waged one signature at a time and at that rate, reaching the threshold of over 6000 signatures was going to be very difficult, if not impossible. No AAP had been successful in Victoria since the threshold was raised from 5 percent of eligible electors to 10 percent with the introduction of BC’s Community Charter in 2004 by the provincial government. Crockford and Wright realized they needed extra help—and not just more boots on the ground. Now they needed people coming to them. “We strategized,” says Crockford. “We wanted to make a presentation at the December 10 council meeting. We actually talked to [City councillor] Geoff Young and said we think you should put forward this motion to try to bring this AAP to an end. He wasn’t sure he could get someone to second it. But we realized we really wanted him to introduce the motion because, to be crass about it, we were also looking for some media heat—we had to keep this thing in the news. So let’s ask the council again, let’s point out the flaws with this process. Not only that, [councillors] Hunter and Coleman were not at the previous meeting where they decided to use a counter-petition, so we thought, ‘Let’s see what they have to say for themselves.’” That council meeting turned out to be the unexpected turning point in the battle. Councillor Young made his “I am indignant…” speech, which was highly critical of the quality of information the City had put out in a “fact” sheet, Johnson Street Bridge By the Numbers. And the hapless Councillor Hunter blundered into no-man’s land with a comment about referenda: “I’m firmly opposed to a referendum,” she said, “because I consider it an affront to representative democracy.” Crockford and Wright agree everything changed after that. “Lynn Hunter,” says Crockford, “made this fantastic statement and B-Channel was there to record it—which was also very important. And it was in the Times-Colonist the next day: ‘Call for Referendum Falls on Deaf Ears.’ That energized people, including the volunteers, because a bunch of them were there at city council. We asked them to make presentations at the meeting. They were saying ‘This is what we’re hearing on the streets, this is our experience. You don’t know what’s going on with the people of Victoria. I am out there every day…’”
Towards the end of the counter-petition campaign, despite 5000 signatures delivered before Christmas, despite a post Boxing Day press release that 5600 valid signatures had been collected, despite blog posts, mainstream media articles and editorials, back channel communications and emails from all around the region – councillors still believed the petition might fail, and if it did pass it must be due to mis-information by the ‘activists’.
The result is known – 15.4% of the electors signed, and the message was clear. Engage the community, provide deep background information and documentation, tell the voters why a decision must be made, and how to participate – and they will respond. It was due to community volunteers, who advocated for their neighbourhoods and their right to have a say, that won the day.
The Johnson Street Bridge petition campaign is over – the oversight and engagement continues. What are the next steps for council and the City of Victoria? Will they seek independent expertise for costs on bridge refurbishment? What is the date for a referendum, and…what is the question to be put to voters?
Media Reports and Editorial Opinion on Victoria’s Blue Bridge
Since the January 4th counter-petition deadline, and the special council meeting on January 7th local, regional and national media have weighed in on what is essentially an historical community action against the plans to replace the Johnson Street Bridge.
Bill Cleverley – Jan. 8th ”A referendum will be held on the future of the Johnson Street Bridge — but just when is up in the air. Faced with an overwhelming number of petitions demanding a vote on borrowing $42 million toward the $63-million bridge-replacement project, Victoria councillors yesterday decided to let the borrowing bylaw die. Under provincial rules, it would have had to proceed with a vote within 80 days. While a packed gallery looked on, council directed city staff to gather additional information on both replacement and refurbishment options and report back on possible timelines and public engagement.”
“…it was council who created the “alternate approval process” that brought us to this point. Usually the city lets its citizens participate in the decision-making process, but this time council took the position that the answer was “yes” unless they heard otherwise by Jan. 4 from at least 10 per cent of eligible city voters. So those with concerns about the need for a $63-million rebuild of the bridge set out to collect enough signatures to make that happen. That they succeeded isn’t a blow to representative democracy, as Hunter portrayed it at the Dec. 10 council meeting (see the B Channel video at bchannelnews.tv). It’s just the only option people had to try to slow the train down.”
Roszan Holmen – Jan. 8th “ “A lot of contention, I believe, has arisen based upon the time constraints that we thought we were under,” added Coun. Sonya Chandler. To avoid the 80-day referendum deadline imposed by the province, council abandoned its plan to borrow $42 million for the project. Instead, it to committed redefining the referendum question.
Council still doesn’t understand what people are unhappy with, said Coun. Lynn Hunter. It’s not clear whether people filled out a petition form because they oppose replacing the bridge, or they oppose borrowing $42 million, or they oppose council’s decision-making process, she explained.
The wording of the referendum question, however, is limited, said Rob Woodland, director of legislative services. The question can’t ask people to choose between two options, Woodland said, adding it must be a yes-or-no question. “I think any project of a significant magnitude for the Johnson Street Bridge will involve borrowing so the heart of the matter will be about borrowing for a purpose,” he said. “What’s left to determine is the purpose.” Council is now tasked with deciding whether that purpose is to replace or refurbish. Many councillors, however, reiterated their ongoing commitment to replacing the bridge.
Roszan Holmen Dec. 31st 2009 ”A rusty beast presenting a seismic liability and a nightmare for cyclists, or a tribute to Victoria’s industrial harbour whose maintenance would preserve a unique heritage structure and save a few million dollars. Without a doubt, Big Blue wins 2009’s award for most significant, expensive and divisive issue of the year.”
Brennan Clarke Jan. 5th ”In an open letter posted on the Johnson Bridge.org website last week, Victoria Councillor Geoff Young criticized the city for failing to look closely at refurbishing the existing bridge, an option that would cost $35-million, staff estimates said.
“I actually think it could be much cheaper than that,” said Mr. Young. “If the counter-petition is successful, I would really like to see us look at the refurbishment option in the same degree of detail as we looked at the replacement option.” ”
Special Meeting: Victoria City Council on Johnson Street Bridge Petition Results
Victoria City Council met in a special meeting at 12pm on January 7th 2010 to receive the results of the Alternative Approval Process (counter-petition) against the majority vote to borrow $42 million to replace the Johnson Street Bridge.
11,736 submitted to City Hall by the January 4th, 4:30pm deadline. 1,864 determined to be invalid, mostly due to the signature address being outside of the City of Victoria. The verified count include forms collected by johnsonstreetbridge.org volunteers, and petitions submitted to Victoria City Hall.
Total: 9872 Valid Elector Response Forms
The petition passed the requirement of 6343, or 10% of the electors, by 3529 signatures. This equates to 15.4% of the potential electors, and well over half the turnout in the 2008 municipal election (27%)
Special Council Meeting on the Johnson Street Bridge
Special Council Meeting
Rob Woodland, manager of Legislative Services for the City of Victoria, presented a report to Council on the final petition count, and the details on a referendum should they choose to go ahead with the $42 million borrowing bylaw – No. 09-057. A referendum must be held by March 20th 2010, and he indicated a possible date of March 6th. Mr Woodland also noted that should council choose to introduce another borrowing bylaw, for either replacement or refurbishment, it will require the approval of the Provincial Inspector of Municipalities and the assent of the electors through a referendum. There is no possibility of using an alternative approval process to gain elector approval again on the same project. The estimated cost for a referendum is $140 000.
Council then received a motion from Councillor Pam Madoff to set aside the current borrowing bylaw and go to a referendum at a future date. Each councillor had time to speak and express their views on the way forward. Most were still certain their previous choice to replace the Blue Bridge was the best option, but realized that placing that directly before the electors without further detailed information would likely result in a defeat. Councillor Geoff Young noted preliminary applications to the CRD, the Province and Federal funding bodies should be prepared by staff for a refurbishment option, and that staff should provide more details on the repair options.
Towards the end of the meeting there was some confusion as to exact the wording of the motion (which is still not entirely clear), however the motion includes: Council rescinds the current borrowing bylaw; a referendum will be held on the future of the Johnson Street Bridge with assistance from staff for timelines; that staff consult experts and residents as to what options for the bridge should be explored and potential costs; and that staff are directed to explore costs and a timelines for a refurbishment of the bridge. A complete text of the motion will be available when council approves the minutes.
City of Victoria Council Meeting – 12 PM Thursday January 7th
Petitions Delivered
Council will meet in a special session to receive the report from city staff (Legislative Services) on the results of the Alternative Approval Process. It is expected the report will conclude the total amount of petitions received against the bylaw to borrow $42 million to replace Victoria’s Johnson Street Bridge, and the number deemed valid under the petition guidelines.
A threshold of 6343, or 10% of the voters within the City of Victoria, is required for council to reconsider the borrowing bylaw, or go to a referendum. On Monday January 4th organizers and volunteers of johnsonstreetbridge.org delivered over 10,700 collected petitions, of which 9105 should be considered valid under the conditions set by City of Victoria Legislative Services. That does not include petitions submitted directly by the community to Victoria City Hall.
“The voters have sent Victoria city council a message on the $63-million plan to replace the Johnson Street Bridge. Councillors and the mayor should heed the concerns.
It appears the petition campaign to deny the city authority to borrow $42 million for the project — the remainder is to come from the federal government — was successful. Proponents claim more than 9,000 signatures from eligible city voters. The threshold to force a referendum on the borrowing was 6,343 or 10 per cent of eligible voters.
Council has mishandled the bridge issue. Replacing or repairing the Blue Bridge was not a priority on any city capital spending list. It was not mentioned by any candidates in the municipal election campaign in November 2008.”
and
“The extent of public dissatisfaction should not be underestimated. Obtaining that many signatures in 45 days is extraordinary. If the count remains near 9,000, then six of eight councillors and Mayor Dean Fortin were elected with less support.
Council is now in a difficult position. Voters don’t support its current plans and public confidence has been lost. A referendum on borrowing for bridge replacement at this point would certainly be defeated.
The appropriate response is to return to the starting point. All options, including repair of the existing bridge, must be examined fully. Councillors will have to convince the public that they have heeded the message from the petition process and demonstrate an open, thorough review of the alternatives.”
johnsonstreetbridge.org Volunteers Deliver over 10 000 Signatures to Victoria City Hall
Petitions Delivered
The residents of Victoria have made history. This is the first time since the Alternative Approval Process thresholds were changed from 5% to 10%, that a counter-petition has passed in the City of Victoria. In order for the community to require city council to reconsider their majority decision on borrowing $42 million to replace the Johnson Street Bridge, more than 6343 valid petitions had to be submitted by the deadline of January 4th, at 4:30 pm.
It is a testament to the volunteers who canvassed for signatures over the Christmas and New Year holiday season, and in all weathers, that the number of signatures far exceeded the requirement. Their dedication, and the response from the Victoria community and region, is a clear signal to the City of Victoria Mayor and Council – that their majority decision to replace the Blue Bridge requires in-depth public consultation, and open information.
Blue Bridge Petition By the Numbers
Total number of petition forms collected as of 12 pm Monday January 4th: 10 712
Number of petitions that should be declared valid under City of Victoria guidelines: 9105
Number of questionable Victoria resident petitions: 256
Number of petitions received from outside the City of Victoria (Capital Regional District): 1351
Saanich, Central and North Saanich, and Sidney: 580
Oak Bay: 189
Esquimalt: 200
View Royal: 38
Colwood, Langford, Metchosin, Sooke and The HIghlands: 96
Outside CRD: 9
The numbers submitted do not include those received directly to Victoria City Hall. Staff of the City of Victoria Legislative Services will deliver a final report to Council.
Deadline for Blue Bridge Petitions is Monday, January 4th, 4:30pm
Blue Bridge Petition Campaign Poster
To register concerns over the planned $42 million borrowing bylaw to replace Victoria’s Johnson Street Bridge, official City of Victoria counter-petition forms must be into City Hall by 4:30 pm on Monday.
johnsonstreetbridge.org Volunteers will be collecting petitions until Noon, then conducting a final count. At 2 pm we will leave the campaign office to deliver to Victoria City Hall at 2:30 pm. A number will be announced to the public and media.
The Blue Bridge Campaign Office ( Unit A – 777 Blanshard St. ) will close at 2pm – we urge everyone who has counter-petition forms to submit, to get them to our office by Noon, or into City Hall by the deadline of 4:30 pm.
Petition Campaign Phone: (available until 2pm) 250 590 4809
Make a resolution for 2010 that is easy. Sign the Johnson Street Bridge petition and make certain it is delivered to City Hall by 4:30 PM on Monday.
Canvassers will be out in force this weekend and for the final day. Saturday, Sunday and Monday look for Blue Bridge Petition volunteers in Cook St. Village, James Bay ‘5 corners’ and on the corner of Blanshard and Fairfield, outside the Petition Campaign Office. Saturday, come down to Cabin 12 (on Pandora, across from City Hall) where you can drop your form or sign, and then enjoy brunch or lunch.
Volunteers are also cycling and driving collecting petitions from people who are unable to get to the office or City Hall.
Call the Blue Bridge Campaign Office – 250 590 4809 or email petition@johnsonstreetbridge.org for information on signing and delivering petitions.
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
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
“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.
Fed Funds for Blue Bridge repair + Council meeting Feb 18th to discuss Bridge options http://ow.ly/14DSz #YYJ #VictoriabcFebruary 6, 2010 9:14
To the jsb.ORG campaign Volunteers from an anon fan "You are all an inspiration. Everyone deserves a medal for community service" #YYJJanuary 25, 2010 6:46
Focus Magazine Covers the Johnson Street Bridge Campaign http://bit.ly/4styj1 #yyj #victoriabcJanuary 23, 2010 8:57
Victoria city hall filling positions BILL CLEVERLEY, TC JANUARY 29, 2010 http://www.timescolonist.com/news/Victoria+city+hall+filling+positions/2498362/story.html […]
I see that former assistant city manager Mike McCliggott is now general manager of corporate services. McCliggott will be remembered in the bridge debate for his comments "It would financially strap the city", referring to replacing the bridge without raising taxes, or obtaining government grants. Director of engineering and public works, Peter Spa […]
Comments