Saturday, January 9, 2010

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

4 comments:

  1. Thank you for expressing your take on all this in such detail. It has been clear for to me that you have spent a lot of time and energy thinking about the bridge in making your decision.

    I have some slightly different takes on some of the data you mention, primarily the urgency due to the danger of seismic event problem with the bridge. There still many structures out there that have not been ungraded and strike me as being more of a threat in an earthquake. Some of these are public.

    The relative risk of someone being harmed during an earthquake on the bridge is low when compared to buildings. That said, I do not question that the bridge was not build to withstand a significant earthquake.

    One thing I am not clear about, has the design that council chose been fully designed and costed out? I can not seem to find any information indicating if that has occurred.

    To reiterate, my primary concern is cost certainty. What will council do to ensure the bridge project will not go over budget? Who is responsible if it does go over budget?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Where I think you get it wrong Councillor:

    1.“In any significant event, the bridge is in danger of failure, potentially catastrophic, and almost certainly with loss of life a real threat.” – All structures are in danger of failure during a “significant event”. Your house is in danger of it. Have you seismically upgraded your home? No? Why not? I bet you spend more time there than anywhere else. Why is the Johnson Street Bridge so high up on your priority list? You stated on January 7th that you would never be satisfied with any level of seismic integrity for the simple fact that your wife uses the bridge twice and day and has an irrational fear in doing so. I submit that your “imminent danger” from a seismic event is far less likely than a myriad of many other threats. You are much more likely to die by being hit by a car while riding on your bicycle than dying on the bridge in the far more remote chance that you or your wife will be near the bridge during an earthquake. Is that any reason to not ride your bicycle? If you are so fearful of the loss of life you may as well drive a Hummer and sleep in a cave.

    2.“The Delcan report says it will cost $35M to repair”. Look at section 6.4. Full repair with full seismic retrofit costs $23.6M. How is that cherry-picked?

    3.“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.” – No one has ever said that the bridge needs to be locked up or down for any repairs for the simple fact that no one has come up with a plan to fix it. Since the naval route has primacy over the road & rail links, if the bridge needed to be locked in one of the two positions for any amount of time, it would be in the up position. But really, your example is a bad one because the fault for which damages were given to the plaintiff merchants in court was for “the prolonged open-pit excavation of the street went down to a depth of six storeys, creating dust, noise and a nuisance that drove people away from the commercial area known as Cambie Village, where Heyes shop was located at 16th and Cambie, Ward had told the court during the trial, which took place in March and early April.”

    4.“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.” – Your engineers and consultants may have been thorough and forthcoming to you, but you have yet to pass on those details to the voters who get to say whether or not it all gets paid for. Your estimates for replacement are so vague that each of three vastly different bridge designs cost the exact same sum and although you have released a video rendering of the proposed new bridge the city has yet to release any technical documents or a detailed breakdown of expected costs. As for your statement that the cost estimate of a new bridge with an as yet unfinished design is more predictable versus the cost of refurbishing an existing and well known bridge does not hold water until you provide a significant sample size of bridge projects in which a majority of refurbishment projects go over budget compared to similar replacement projects. Until then, your statement has no merit.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 5.“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.” If you can provide the numbers to back up your claim that the bridge is a pinch point that is preventing 4,000 extra bike trips a day to the core of the city, you would be more than welcome to rip up the rails from the train span of the bridge and completely devote it to cyclists. If not, there is still the option to improve the existing surface, or, failing that, get off your bike and walk it alongside the rail or pedestrian side. It takes all of 1 minute if you walk slowly. For a good example of a bridge that has been fixed up to improve cyclist access I point you towards the Alexandra Bridge in Ottawa. Please note that Minister Baird dropped off a cheque from the feds to help defray the repair costs.
    6. “One of the other problems of of refurbishment is the need for extensive closures, which again have external costs associated with economic dislocation.” Bull. Get a hold of an engineer who doesn’t want to sell you a new bridge and has experience fixing them and you will find an engineer that can offer you a solution that won’t necessarily require closure. I point you back to the Alexandra Bridge in Ottawa again or the Lions Gate in Vancouver.

    7.“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.” – Go on then, publish the contract with MMM Group and show us the MMM Group estimate that pegs the refurbishment at $35M as referred to by “Bridge by the Numbers” and not the Delcan report. Help council be transparent rather than opaque.

    8.“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.” If you really want to find out if you are right, try talking to engineers who don’t share your eagerness for a new bridge. Why not talk to the engineers that Coun. Geoff Young wants to talk to.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Brian,

    I won't comment on the other points, but I will take on 5. Like John, I am a commuter cyclist, although not as much recently. I used to use the Blue Bridge twice a day for the better part of a year, in all weather. It is a truly horrible experience, even for an experienced cyclist. There is no easy way to go from downtown to the Goose/Harbour Rd.

    As for the extra bike trips caused by the E&N rail trail, I refer you to the GVCC's position on the Johnson St. bridge.

    It has some good numbers about the existing bike trips over the bridge, from CRD sources. It is fairly reasonable to assume similar numbers from a similarly built on E&N trail, which might take decades.

    So yes, from a cyclists point of view, we need a new bridge, if only to accommodate the existing cyclists, not to mention those coming with the new trails and developments in Vic West.

    ReplyDelete