This is part one of two, and interview with Ross Crockford of
johnsonstreetbridge.org on the subject of the Johnson Street Bridge in the context of the city's recently announced infrastructure deficit (the cost to repair and upgrade all of the infrastructure throughout the city). Early next week we'll be posting an interview with the City of Victoria's spokesperson on the same topic.
Explain the Johnson street bridge in the context of the city's existing infrastructure deficit.
The city has an infrastructure deficit of $462 million. The bridge is a crucial piece of infrastructure, I don't argue with that, but if all of the city's manageable debt is consumed by the bridge, then there's nothing left to deal with all of this other stuff.
The maximum borrowing amount that the city can undertake right now without raising taxes is $51.4 million. The referendum is asking for $41.2 million, which means tackling sanitary sewers, seismic upgrades to city buildings, storm drains, street lights, and roads will inevitably require tax increases with all of our debt going into the bridge. I'm not opposed to tax increases, what I am opposed to is the city pushing ahead with the bridge project without having really examined the minimal cost options to make it work.
What sort of minimal cost options are you referring to?
There are lots of options. There may be developers interested in being involved in the project, to build on or around it, have there been any discussions with those people? The repair option was based on the idea that the bridge has to last for 100 yrs, how much would it cost to repair it for 30 yrs? I also understand that the city hasn't contacted other governments to explore rehab of similar bridges in other cities or find out how and why rehab has been done elsewhere.
There's also a question about seismic safety: engineers have been very careful to say this bridge was not designed to any seismic standard, but that doesn't mean that it will automatically fall down in any earthquake. Victoria experienced the biggest recorded earthquake in Canada in 1946, the epicentre of which was in Courtney, and the bridge was fine. Is upgrading the bridge to a maximum seismic standard really the best value for our money?
What about the argument that the bridge would be needed for emergency access?
I would have to ask if the city has explored working with ambulance services based out of Esquimalt or Saanich? There are also a number of other bridges crossing over into Vic West, even the Selkirk Trestle could be used in an emergency. To me, the Bay St. bridge is a far better candidate for seismic upgrade - it carries the water main, electrical cables, telephone cables, and gas lines. There is another water main, but the high pressure water main, which is necessary for firefighting in tall buildings, crosses Bay St. What happens when we spend all of our money on the Johnson Street Bridge, and we get a 7.5 earthquake? Bay St. is built to 6.5 seismic standard, so you've got Johnson St. carrying traffic but you have no water, a massive gas leak, and your phone and electricity systems are heavily damaged.
The big point is the city is not considering this bridge in context. We are spending all of this money to create a one of a kind architecturally intricate tourist attraction to extend the harbour pathway. We are spending money on this rather than other, perhaps more pressing concerns.
The bridge is still an important part of transportation in this city, shouldn't it be taken into account when thinking about infrastructure?
Sure, the bridge is infrastructure. It's important infrastructure. But I don't get the impression that the city has done any real cost-benefit analysis. There's all this other stuff that's been identified that's also going to be a big issue in the very near future, and the attitude seems to be “don't worry about that now, we just want a yes vote so we can do the bridge, and someone else can deal with all that other stuff”.
