Oct
4
By V. Adams
Although James Bay, the oldest neighborhood in Victoria, may be considered by some to be an eccentric enclave, it possesses not only a soul but also a strong sense of community-mindedness, and a desire to contribute their “two-cents” to any “common cents” debate.
So, it’s not surprising that the James Bay Neighborhood Association at its monthly meeting on September 9th welcomed Ross Crockford, a Victoria journalist, editor and author who is leading a citizen-inspired examination of a decision in April 2009 by Victoria’s city council to demolish the 1924 Johnson Street Bridge on the Inner Harbour and to erect a new crossing at a cost of more than $60-million dollars.
While local politicians have been grappling with difficult urban issues such as late night noise and anti-social behavior from bar patrons in the downtown streets, aggressive panhandling and increasing policing costs, or creating affordable housing alternatives for those without a roof over their heads, not to mention the contentious matter of finalizing a regional sewage disposal option, a new mumblety-peg was thrown into the mix.
The dilemma facing the newly elected council this spring was how to cash in on a $4-billion federal government infrastructure fund. The first question was to find a “shovel-ready” project (of which two-thirds of the costs would be covered by the federal government provided it was completed by March 2011). Projects on the city’s books included an $80-million renovation of Centennial Square and a $58-million replacement of Crystal Pool.
What became the clincher in the selection of a quick fix project was a last-minute city engineering report indicating that the “blue bridge” counterweights would collapse during an 8.5 earthquake, (although if this was of concern to councilors then the Bay Street Bridge would also be a serious casualty with not only the loss of this bridge but also its utility services including a water main, plus gas, telephone, and electricity lines).
While bringing the blue bridge up to seismic code would cost $25-million and last 40 years, building a new one that would last 100 years together as well as reconfiguring roads and bicycle trails would likely cost more than $60 million not to mention disrupting traffic to and from the downtown core area resulting on a serious negative impact on downtown merchants during construction.
In 1920, the people of Victoria voted in a referendum giving the city the authority to borrow $1-million to build the existing bridge. Today, the city is asking the Inspector of Municipalities to authorize a loan of $63 million to the City of Victoria to build a new bridge.
Although Mayor Fortin and Councilor Madoff attended the meeting, the mayor did not speak and left early with his official photographer, while Ms. Madoff suggested the posh postcards being handed out to citizens by elected officials are being received in a positive way. It may be true that people are adding them to their favorite collection of trading cards, yet they’re also wondering why the political decision-making process is moving at lightening speed, while citizen remarks about key matters of concern at Council meetings are constrained my a stop-watch or the tendency of politicians to nod off into Neverland.
This quick decision on the part of Council, in the absence of public consultation about what options need to be considered (replacement, renovation or maintenance of the existing structure), financing (loans, special debentures, potential tax increases etc.), as well as net benefits/costs (job creation, awarding of local business contracts, or loss of business income or business failures attributed to the construction phase as happened during the construction of the Canada Line in the Lower Mainland) leaves a lot to be desired.
History will decide whether the "Blue Bridge" will become a boon to the local economy or simply another boondoggle by vested interests to pillage the public treasury.
This issue can best be characterized as the pressure of politics (in this case weak political leadership at the federal, provincial and local levels) that trump sensible planning to meet important needs (in this case safe, affordable and effective transportation infrasture and services) expressed by the electorate.
The author correctly notes that the bridge decision was made hastily and with minimum consultation. That said, I think the numbers argue strongly for replacement. Consider, a $63 million loan at 5% amortized over 30 years (whether through bonds, debentures, loans, etc.) requires an annual payment of approximately $4 million. At the end of that time we own the bridge and it's got approximately 70 more years of useful life.
Repairing it costs about a third as much, entails much higher maintenance costs, and within 40 years we have to replace it anyway. Nor do we benefit from improved access approaches and local construction jobs.
Given the city's annual budget is in the range of $190 million, we should be able to handle the annual $4 million loan amortization (especially if some adjoining municipalities who benefit from this critical transportation link get on board.) And of course, some senior government participation is not entirely out of the question either.
Despite the defects in the decision process, I think not to replace the bridge would be penny wise, pound foolish.
I'm not sure who these "vested interests" are to which Boon or Boondoggle darkly alludes. Unless it's anyone who wants to get safely to the other side, which includes just about everyone in town at one time or another.
It's also obvious only to B or B what the "pressure of politics" or supposedly "weak leadership" has to do with the issue. Whatever the transportation system - be it bikes, cars, buses or rail - we need a bridge to cross the water. I presume B or B's idea of "sensible planning" does not include a quaint little ferry at the foot of Pandora Street sailing under the rusty, useless hulk of the old bridge.