For Bernard

Thanks Bernard,

If you read the Delcan report, you'll find the "imminent danger" is owing to the seismic vulnerability. In any significant event, the bridge is in danger of failure, potentially catastrophic, and almost certainly with loss of life a real threat.

There isn't imminent danger from the condition, only from historic design deficiences, although deterioration of the foundations of the bridge are of accelerating concern.

The report also says, however, that we need to act within three years, and the report is now a year old. Planning for and completing work, whether replacement or refurbishment, is not an overnight project, so there is a great deal of urgency for council to ensure that steps are taken to address deficiencies in a timely fashion.

The more immediate dangers are not likley life threatening, but potentially have greater economic impacts. Electrical and mechanical systems are obsolete and a failure could leave the bridge stuck open, or closed.

I'll put up some links to information on the Ashtabula bridge in Ohio, another Strauss bascule that was closed for two years, killing businesses on one side of the river. While those are not direct financial consequences for the city, the Cambie St. merchants case provides some guidance for us insofar as project managers in that case chose a "cheaper" project to save themselves costs, but created a nuisance according to the judgement found against them - essentially transferring costs and risks to other stakeholders. That liability may be ours also, more certainly if the bridge is locked closed for any length of time and impacts the business of Point Hope Shipyards.

Any judgement against the city for economic dislocation owing to negligence (failing to meet our duty of care to keep critical infrastructure at least operational, if not safe), will likely incur costs greater than the capital costs of any bridge project.

Our engineers, and our consultants, are competent, have been thorough in their analysis, and have been quite forthcoming about the costs of replacement, which is much more predictable than refurbishment, and have repeatedly expressed confidence in estimates provided for that project.

Cost estimates for refurbishment have been repeatedly, and sometimes deliberately, misrepresented.

Delcan provided an estimate that has been treated as a fixed price contract. More detailed assessment of potential cost escalation risks pegs restoration at a signficantly higher figure, particularly with scope changes proposed by critics to address deficiencies of the current bridge.

For example, the current bridge does not provide an adequate level of service for cyclists and pedestrians on the Galloping Goose. A new trail alongside the E&N will likely add some thousands to the 4,000 bike and 3,000 pedestrian trips across the bridge on an average day.
We are parties to, and committed to, our obligations and objectives under the Regional Growth Strategy, which aims to shift travel choices from vehicles to more sustainable modes. Our succes, or lack thereof, will have region wide implications. With 80% of cycling trips in the region in the core, our key pinch point is the bridge is the most signficant barrier in our regional cycling network.

Notwithstanding comments suggesting there are easy fixes to provide a satisfactory level of service to cyclists in particular, and trail users in general, there are not. The bridge has been examined throughly for exactly this purpose, and the addition of cantilever structures to accommodate a trail facility complicates the balance of the bridge on bearings and gears, and overloads mechanical, electrical and motor systems. It would also require additional counterweight mass and create windload problems (when the bridge is raised). For all of these reasons, that solution is not feasible.

Afixing a more suitable surface to the bridge deck creates similar issues, although more feasible because it doesn't create the imbalance of a cantilever. This, however, would be quite expensive owing to the cost of high-tech, lightweight steel and epoxy surfaces to provide a non-skid surface over the current deck.

It would also be very ineffective at addressing the challenges the treatment is proposed to solve. Cyclists need, more than improved surfaces, addtional space and/or separation from traffic. It is a significant barrier to growing additional bike trips, which is again embedded in our regional growth strategy.

It is ironic that critics continue to insist we consult more extensively with bridge engineers with specific experience in rehabilitating heritage structures (although our consultants have this experience), but they refuse to acknowledge the recommendations of those with expertise on the cycling and walking issues that they claim to have a solution for.

None of the bridges in Portland that have been retrofitted with bicycle facilities are practical equivalents to our bridge. The Hawthorne Bridge, for example, provides facilities on both sides of the bridge, eliminating the problems that would be associated with an unbalanced cantilever fixture. It is, in any event, not a bascule drawbridge, but a lift span, which has quite different characteristics.

The only viable solution is a separate structure for trail users. (The many calls to move the train west of the bridge and convert the rail bridge for trail users will almost certainly kill the railway and is not consistent with our official community plan or our commitments to our regional partners and the Island Corridor Foundation that now owns the railway). A separate bridge in current dollars will cost approximately $12 million. With that kind of additional expens refurbishment makes little sense.

The Delcan estimate for replacement, by the way, was $35 million, far below the current price tag of $63 million, but of course that figure includes more detail work on options for a new bridge and roadworks to take advantage of better alignment opportunities and more efficient and attractive land use, particularly on the west side. It is simply not credible for critics to continue to cherry pick the $23 million refurbishment estimate from the same assessment report to undersell the likely real cost of preservation. Our homework on refurbishment estimates pegs the cost, including a separate bridge to support trail traffic, at $57 million. This figure has simply been dismissed by critics who continue to suggest that the $23 million figure is complete, even as scope changes are promised to address issues that are clear deficiences of any refurbishment scheme.

The interest costs of financing (as are building and material costs), most favourable now and will rise in the future. The counter petition success may already have cost us 1% in additional interest liaiblities because of the time limits of various borrowing opportunities.

One of the other problems of of refurbishment is the need for extensive closures, which again have external costs associated with economic dislocation. This was explicity recognized in construction of the Blue Bridge (which of course you will know used to be black, or gun metal gray). The original alignment is what will be used for a new bridge to keep the old one open while a new one is built. The Blue Bridge flipped original alignments to keep the first bridge open during construction for the same reasons informing our decision. Our responsibilities include maintaining a viable and operational transportation system that supports our downtown economy and extensive closures, which, again, notwithstanding claims to the contrary, are unavoidable with refurbishment (more research on bascule rather than other heritgage designs will be more useful in confirming this problem). And again, the Cambie St. merchants case may be a useful precedent in this respect.

Although we can't obviously guarantee that the courts would find against our choice to sacrifice the interest of our businesses downtown in pursuit of a "cheaper fix", but given the case in Vancouver, we can be relatively confident that claims will be made against the city if we choose that path and business does suffer as a consequence.

I have attended some of the events where outside experts have been brought in and have found them to be interesting, but not always relevant. For those whose primary interest is in saving the bridge at any cost (and they are willing to wrap our transportation system to the point of disfunction around the bridge), no amount of information will be sufficient and all of it has been held to be suspect in any event.

We have absolutely nothing to hide and I'd be very happy if people made the effort to dig into the information we have had presented to us at council or to do more research, as I have done. (And despite what some commentators are swallowing from critics, there is no group think here - no one else on council has seen this blog or my website papers as far as I know; I write my own stuff and draw my own conclusions.)

We will have to make our best efforts at informing the public and letting them draw their own conclusions, but those should be based on facts, not fairy tales. Facts tend to be more stubborn.
We have had numerous check-ins along the long road to this point (I just don't buy that 8 or 9 months of consideration is hasty and given the timeframes suggested by the Delcan report, I believe we are being responsible). At any point along the continuum we could have, on the basis of questions raised (and everything presented so far as questions has been answered), rescinded the original decision.

I don't know who else on council regularly talks to our engineers and asks their own questions about some of the issues, but I have been doing so frequently.

We have a disparate group on council, and only one has shifted to opposing the bridge (he was satisfied, I think, when the original decision was made, that it was the right choice).
It should give some pause for thought that our most stalwart defender of the city's heritage has assessed the information and, despite her attachment to the historic values of the old bridge, decided that a new bridge is the right choice, however painful. Others no doubt have common reasons for their decisions, but no doubt have unique perspectives and rationales for making and sticking with the decision.

With respect to other infrastructure that has seismic issues, everything we own, including the Crystal Pool and City Hall, are or will be undergoing some sort of planning for seismic work. The Crystal will likely be replaced in the not too distant future and space allocation needs for city staff are being analyzed to assist in planning logistics for phased seismic upgrading (you can move people and operations around to allow for work in various parts of most buildings. That is what happened, for example, at Monterey School). I don't know what is currently planned for the firehall.

The bridge is not identified as an emergency route simply because our engineers know only too well its deficiencies and vulnerabilities. A 2006 hazard report spelled this out pretty clearly. Why it is important as a top of list priority is because replacing or rebuilding will be an immediate priority after life and health issues are addressed in the aftermath of any earthquake event. Having a functional transportation system with some redunancy will be critical.(Another reason Portland is rolling the dice with seismic upgrades is that they have 8 bridges crossing into downtown from the southeast side - we have two).

We are in the most vulnerable earthquake zone in Canada so we are compelled to meet the most comprehensive and current standards. We have seen what has happened with other earthquakes along the Pacific Coast and various levels of damage have been evident. Cities have nevertheless recovered and got back to work. It is not an option to be cowered by the work we have to do.

We need to get to work, and will, as we have been obliged, review information and seek to answer any more questions that are raised. It is unfortunate that some stories continue to circulate the suggestion that we haven't done our homework, but in many cases I believe that the same questions are being asked repeatedly not in a quest for information, but as a deliberate strategy to stall.

Wish everyone could be as thoughtful as you. Thanks for the comments.

John