The Blue Bridge and the inconvenient truth

Just a couple corrections worth noting as new stories swirl around the media about who said what about the Blue Bridge and what it means.

Only the final report presented to the city by Delcan has any relevance when referencing numbers. Some want to take an impossibly optimistic figure as gospel to the bank and will be convinced that work should have stopped there and a project tendered for that amount.

Some of those same people, of course, argue disingenuously that only new engineering projects have been plagued by runaway cost overruns, deceptive politics and a host of other conspiracies that would never happen on a responsible restoration project.

Old bridges, no less than old houses, will present a range of costly challenges that have, and will, require the kind of detailed analysis ironically forced upon the city by the successful counter-petition campaign that demanded we seek approval for the borrowing we need to undertake to finance the replacement project city council has twice voted to proceed with.

There’s always a cheap fix – if you forget, for a moment, that a bridge still has to function as a bridge. But we can’t simply be curators of a museum or protectors of an artefact. The disconnect was probably best summed up in one survey I read among the several thousand returned to the city last summer. Answering the questions about which project they would prefer, this respondent was emphatic that the city not proceed with a new bridge, that restoring the old bridge was a “great idea”. “Any further comments?”, our survey asked. Yes, said the author, “I never use the bridge.”

I was often asked, when I was a bike mechanic, “how much is a tune-up?”, and I would give a price; but as often would follow up with something like “now let’s look at your bike”.

That’s our bridge, and that’s how our consultants approached the project. Here’s what we think your bridge needs to tune it up and extend its life, and this is how much the sort of project would cost. We’ll give you an estimate for a specific project when we finish our review of your bridge, the work it needs to meet operational, safety and lifecycle requirements, and we answer any questions you have.

The only number of value through that process is the $23.6 million estimated for a particular scope of works associated with refurbishment. Anything before that is incomplete guess work. I’ve lost count of the number of times Focus magazine’s fictional Sam Williams has insisted that I know exactly how many bikes are crossing the bridge every day before I decide on any project. They want to know exactly how much a new bridge will cost, to the penny, not that they would believe the numbers anyway.

When it comes to refurbishment though, they’ll pick a number, any number, and not just those notionally attached to our bridge, but to any bridge fix project that looks too good to be true, and mostly, they are.

Restoration of the 4th St. Bridge in San Francisco, for example, went wildly over budget, and the Ashtabula Bridge in Ohio revealed unforeseen problems that kept the bridge closed for 14 months. Saskatoon’s Traffic Bridge, where a cheap fix meant to extend its life for 20 years, is closed, only 4 years into it’s new lease on life. Here’s the CBC story on that one:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/saskatchewan/story/2010/08/25/sk-closure-bridge-1008.html

Like several other examples, the option of turning the bridge into a bike and pedestrian bridge only has been raised in Saskatoon, something that just won’t serve our transportation needs at the Blue Bridge crossing in Victoria. I’ve seen a couple of examples of some nice work saving old bridges for bikes and peds, but they are always at locations where the rest of the traffic has viable alternatives that we just don’t have available to us.

Here’s Walnut St. in Chattanooga:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/luton/5073858931/

And here’s a nice old bridge in Missoula:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/luton/4938919562/

There’s a good long list of other fibs from the bridge preservation campaign and the seismic issues keep on popping up in one spot or another. The most prominent bridge critic, a journalist and historian with a good body of work to his credit has lately said that Victoria was hit by a major earthquake in 1946 and the bridge didn’t fall down. At only 22 years old the then gun-metal grey bridge enjoyed some of the benefits of a newer concrete foundation somewhat more compromised now by another 65 years of pounding by the traffic above and the wash of seawater below.

What’s galling for a historian however, is that his research will have told him that the quake was centred near Courtenay, more than 200 km north of the bridge. It’s not a minor oversight. It’s deliberate misinformation. Focus insists our exposure is no worse than a 6 and we should plan accordingly, despite the incidence of the 7.3, a 6.9 and a 7.1 along the same fault line going back to that quake of ’46. As a matter of public record, those quakes and the ample information on their impacts should make the Focus proposal impossible to defend, but they continue.

Save the bridge campaigners once pointed to Toronto’s Cherry St. Bridge as a fine example of a cheap and easy fix for our bridge, something they seemed to have dropped since I brought back my own pictures of what they got for their $3.6 million. How would this work for you in a real earthquake zone (Toronto might get a few magnitude 4 or so shakes very now and again, barely enough to wake you up from a deep sleep let alone bring bridges or buildings down around you:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/luton/4686622907/

There are a million stories floating around the bridge and many blurring the line between facts and fairy tales. These are just a couple, and maybe already more than you want to read. I’ll try and add a few more to the blog over the coming days and weeks as we approach referendum day. Just like the critics insist, you need all the facts before you go to vote.

City goes to bridge borrowing referendum

City Council has again endorsed a new bridge as the best option to address the aging Johnson St. Bridge connecting downtown to neighbourhoods to the west.  It's a critical crossing and an important link in an integrated and diverse regional transportation network.

I've written extensively on my blog and at http://www.johnluton.ca/ about the research I've done to inform my vote on this important project.  We need a bridge to the future, not one that preserves the unsustainable design we've had for the last 86 years.  While we work to preserve our heritage, we can't be held hostage to it.

Refurbishing the old bridge would be expensive and disruptive and we'd still have an old bridge that would drain resources for maintenance and operations.  The peer review of both the replacement and refurbishment options confirmed what our engineers and our consultants have been telling us about the condition and the costs we face of either choice.  The new bridge is the most responsible and sustainable choice.

Beyond all of the seismic and structural deficiencies, providing for the many thousands of cyclists and pedestrians who use the bridge daily can't be built into the old bridge. Those numbers are growing fast and will accelerate when a new trail alongside the E&N is completed.  Helping people to make the choice to walk or cycle for many of their transportation needs is critical to the success of many of our regional transportaton objectives and one of our most effective strategies for addressing climate change at the local level.

This is the most critical project in the region, perhaps the most important of any on Vancouver Island.  It is the weak link in a busy cycling transportation network serving many neighbourhoods around Greater Victoria and it is the gateway to a rapidly expanding multi-use trail system that is connecting communities from Victoria to Nanaimo and beyond.  It's a key support for a growing cycling tourism industry that has so much more potential on the Island.

The next step is to make sure all of the funding is in place.  The federal government is kicking in $21 million and the Capital Regional District is endorsing our request for more funding to support the rail and the trail.  (Don't buy the fairy tale that gas tax funds can help pay for refurbishment - only projects that help lower greenhouse gas emissions are eligible and, without improvements to the level of service for cycling in particular, saving the old bridge just won't qualify.)

The city's funding will come from borrowing - it saves our reserves for other capital projects and allows us to finance the project without raising taxes.  A 25 year mortgage on a 100 year asset is a pretty good deal.  The new bridge will serve long after the loan is paid off.

Referendum day is November 20th and I encourage you to get out an vote.  It's important to endorse the borrowing so we can get on with the project.  You can read more at my pages of course, but you can also click on the posting title and connect with the city's bridge page.  There are a numbers of public events where you can find out more about the bridge and the borrowing.  I expect to attend some of them and hope to see  you there.

Low energy housing

Here's a tidbit about "passive housing", a concept in building design that takes advantage of solar, super insulation, appliance generated surplus energy and even body heat to warm and cool a house or a building.

Efforts to reduce our carbon footprint and re-orient our energy consumption to sustainable models are generating innovations in technology and design and this is one of the latest examples.  Click on the title and check out more through the Sightline linked article.

More info on housing, transportation and other urban issues are coming ahead in my blog.  A couple of weeks of conferences in September and a computer meltdown hopefully nearing resolution has put me behind in the news I've been able to share.  There's always lots out there.

And, of course, Victoria's bridge project is in the news with a borrowing referendum pending.  More on the facts and fairy tales coming soon.

Obsessed with recyling

One of my obsessions is recycling.  Can't throw stuff into the garbage if it can be composted, re-used, pitched into the blue box, taken to my local plastics recycling day, hauled over (by bike trailer of course) to the metal recycler.

The CRD's "Recyclopedia" is a good resource to help you identify what you can recycle with them or help you find other services to responsibly dispose of your waste.

Active transportation and public health

Should be no suprise that cycling and walking for transportation has a positive benefit on individual and community health.  People who walk or bicycle have reduced rates of obesity and a host of other health issues that are increasingly prevalent in our overly sedentary populations.

Victoria, with the highest rates of cycling and walking in Canada, is, not coincidentally, a top tier city for public health - lowest rates of obesity, low prevalaence of heart disease, hypertension, Type 2 diabetes etc.

While investments are often the responsibility of local governments, the benefits accrue to the province and federal governments who fund most of our health care services.  With obesity and other impacts of sedentary lifestyles equalling tobacco use as a threat to individual and community health, and a cost burden on our health care system, the value of investments in promoting active transportation are gold.  Those investments earn a high rate of return.

The CBC story linked to this piece focuses on the obesity epidemic, but there are a variety of other health issues related to transportation choices people make every day and the return on investment in infrastructure that supports active transportation is well documented elsewhere.

Prevention is always good medicine, so grab a pair of running shoes or get on your bike.  It's a life sustaining choice.  Listen to your doctor:  http://www.flickr.com/photos/luton/466280003/

Council Chooses New Bridge, Again

Victoria city council cleared another hurdle last Thursday when we voted, again, to replace the Johnson St. Bridge.

I think that those of us who voted in support of the new bridge are mindful of our commitment to heritage in the city, but for me I don't want to be held hostage to it.  As much as we appreciate our history and the unique character of "Big Blue", this is first and foremost, a bridge, not a museum piece to be preserved in perpetuity.

A bridge has to carry traffic, and ours will serve better if it anticipates what traffic will look like in the future.  It won't look like it does today and the old bridge can't adapt.

A consistent theme from our citizens in  Victoria and from users of the bridge, has been the need to make the crossing more sustainable.  It will carry a growing volume of bicycle and pedestrian traffic that the old bridge is ill-equipped to handle.  For many, this is a deal breaker that, given similar costs (at least on the surface), makes the new bridge the only choice.

Critics tried to acknowledge this with a variety of schemes floated in an effort  to respond to deficiencies identified by cyclists and pedestrians.  None of the strategies turned out to be feasible.  In the end, the bridge preservation campaign simply fell back on where they have always been -  it's too expensive to make improvements for cyclists and pedestrians and they should just suck it up and suffer the old bridge for another 20 or 30 years.

To be sure, the starting point for council's decision did not revolve around the traffic design that will now be fixed by a new bridge.  It has always been the deterioration of a bridge that will be almost 90 years old by the time it is decommissioned and, as one engineer commented, "it is more a machine than a bridge", and it has reached the end of its service life.

Electrical and mechanical systems are obsolete and have to be replaced and, despite protestations to the contrary, there are simply no easy solutions to deal with these problems.  The superstructure must be disassembled to get at these systems and the suggestion that half-measures or an easy fix are all that is needed is a convenient myth for those who have no agenda other than to save the old bridge.  That became clear in surveys and polling where some respondents ignored all other issues to emphasize that heritage was the only issue that mattered (costs were irrlevant), and that giving up $21 million in our federal contribution was acceptable if it meant saving the old bridge.

"Barring a major earthquake, this bridge can be saved" is how one of the engineers brought in by the preservation camp to support their campaign put it.  He recognized that the seismic deficiencies of the old bridge were terminal, but spoke to one of the other strategies promoted to hang on to the bridge for another few years.  The Johnson St. Bridge was built to no seismic standard whatsoever, and, as recently as today's Times Colonist,(August 14, 2010) an engineer much more intimately familiar with the structure noted how poorly constructed and badly deteriorated the foundation piers are.  In Canada's most seismically vulnerable city, ditching an earthquake retrofit is not just irresponsible, but potentially an enormous liability for taxpayers that could dwarf the cost of any project.

The preservation camapign shifts from time to time from the "do nothing" strategy to a "cheaper" seismic upgrade that would imperil either a new bridge or a refurbished structure.  Building to a a lower 6.5 magnitude standard would produce some capital savings, but expose the city to tremendous risk.  The 2001 earthquake centered in Washington state was a 6.8 magnitude that could bring ours down, even with some signficant upgrades.  The 6.5 standard would leave the bridge standing (at that magnitude), but make it unusable pending repairs.  With potential economic impacts to downtown amounting to $13 million a year for closures, the insurance premium of the extra protection of an 8.5 standard at $10 million earns a very quick return on investment.

Since day one the bridge preservation folks have ignored function  and jumped from one argument to another, most often in isolation, to try and identify flaws in process (as if that changes the condition of the bridge), or some magical, cheap, silver bullet repair that can save the bridge for pennies.  It just doesn't add up.

We still have our work cut out for us.  A referendum on the borrowing to build the new bridge will go to the voters in November.  A no vote potentially costs a 14% tax increase to pay for the project.  There is no third option.  It's a myth.  None of the various deficiencies or challenges of the old bridge can be viewed in isolation, and no responsible council is going to invest millions in minor repairs and leave the major works alone.  Nevertheless, expect to hear more of the same story over the next couple of months as critics attempt to derail the project.

When the "tough questions" are asked, the critics' case crumbles pretty quickly.  Don't buy the snake oil.  When referendum day comes, get out and vote.  We are going to need our new bridge and this is our best chance now to do it right.

Bridge Decisions Loom

Days from now Council will select the replacement or refrubishment option for the Johnson St. Bridge and proceed from that point to a borrowing bylaw and referendum.

A few of my thoughts on what I've been hearing and some responses to some of the comments I'm seeing out there.

Critics of replacement have always emphasized how unique our bridge is.  True enough, but every time I open the newspaper or check the web commentary, our "unique" bridge is just like all the others when it comes to repair or refrbishment.  That's not credible.

Lately, comparisons to the LaSalle Causeway Bridge in Kingston have been making the rounds, and some voices insist that if they could refurbish theirs for $3 million and change, we must be able to do the same.  It's a nice fairy tale but it doesn't add up.  The same Minister of Transportation, along with his staff, reviewed the details of our project and found them convincing enough to offer $21 million for our replacement bridge.  Maybe, just maybe, the analysis turned on the individual projects and not on the cookie cutter fixes critics are raising again as "proof" that our project is over-priced.

 One of the engineers I spoke to in San Francisco, who managed their bridge rehab projects cautioned me specifically against using their bridges as models for any project.  He said that every bridge is unique and needs to be assessed on its specific condition and the scope of work it needs.  He also said he told the same to the bridge preservation campaign, something they conveniently ignored during the counter petition campaign when they repeatedly used the 3rd St. Bridge as an example of how to do a cheap and effective refurbishment.

A couple of the differences with the bridge in Kingston should be instructive for those interested in the staging of repair works, or indeed, just what might be the relative condition of elements of either their bridge or ours, and how that might be relevant to costs.. 

The LaSalle (just one bridge, not two like ours) doesn't have to lift very often.  In fact, it is closed to marine traffic for the winter of course, when the lakeshore and channel are freezing up and no boats are going anywhere.  This enabled them to "bubble wrap" the bridge to keep stripped paint from dropping into the water without impact on marine traffic.  That's a non-starter in Victoria where the Blue Bridge must open several times a day for ships to pass through, so bubble wrapping in place would be logistical nightmare.  You'd have to raise and disassemble scaffolding several times a day for work to proceed.  It would be very difficult logistically to maintain safety and security of scaffolding on the bridge while it was going up and down.

In all likelihood, the relatively lower demand on the bridge from marine users may have extended the life of mechanical and electrical elements.  Suffice to say that the various engineers that have examined our bridge specifically confirm that mechanical and electrical systems are obsolete, face potential failure and should be signficantly upgraded or replaced.  That expense, by the way, is totally absent from the bridge project costing in Kingston.

Kingston, of course, is also not in what you would call a particularly vulnerable eathquake zone, so seismic upgrading planned for the Johnson St. Bridge was not part of the plan for the LaSalle bridge.  The handful of voices suggesting we dispense with seismic work to save money and preserve their beloved Blue Bridge are, at best, infected by wishful thinking.  In truth, that would be irresponsible at one level, and negligent at another.

Even in a low earthquake hazard zone, a bridge did collapse recently in a 5 plus earthqauke centered on the Ontario/Quebec border.  The town of Vla de Bois will take two years to recover from the impacts.  The condition assessment and subsequent analysis of various scenarios, comparisons with other events in our fault zone and our evaluation of legal precedent recommends a seismic upgrade that will protect life and limb, but also ensure we have emergency services access and the wherewithall to rebuild and restore an economy that would be battered by any earthquake event.  Taking shortcuts could expose the city to civil liabilities that would dwarf the cost of any bridge project.

One of the most predictable fallouts of the various challenges posed by a complex and costly refurbishment estimate is the calls to dispense with the improvements for cyclist and pedestrians integrated into the planning for both options.  This is particularly ironic coming from organizations that want the city to "listen" to the people.  Improved levels of service for cycling and walking topped the list of needs citizens have a for a replacment or refurbishment project in polling and surveys the city conducted in the aftermath of the counter-petition.  Now that it is clear that those improvements are not as cheap as a "can of paint a bucket of cement" those voices have been discarded as irrelevant.

The prospect of 20 or 30 more years of a woeful level of service for cycling and walking is a non-starter for me.  I will not support any project that does not address these needs adequately.  Our decision must be focused first on function, less so on form.  Suggestions that we sacrifice the option of reorienting the bridge function to better support sustainable transporation options, not to mention shortchanging the project on safety, trying to patch up electrical and mechanical systems to squeeze another few years of use from the old bridge, or looking for other shortcuts is a little self serving.  It says that there are no other values other than preserving the bridge as a museum piece.

When decison time comes, I will take also into consideration the comments I have heard from many dozens of Victoria residents I have met at our open houses, neighbourhood meetings or out in the community at events and other venues who, some critics will be suprised to hear, have little attachment to the old bridge and can't wait for us to get started on the new one.  Their voices will also be heard.