[Johnson Street Bridge REPLACEMENT] General, technical and design discussion

[Mike K.]

I had a run-in with a fellow this afternoon whose business depends on the raising and lowering of the Johnson Street Bridge.

He told me that several days ago when the bridge was raised, then lowered, it failed to raise a second time to allow a second barge through. While the bridge was closed to traffic for 40 minutes, a retired operator who had experience operating the secondary lift mechanism (a small motor, I believe) was called in to manually lift the bridge. Repairs were then carried out. Did anyone experience this closure, perhaps?

His concern is that the bridge may only raise to 75% of its full raised height and allegedly lists slightly to one side. Legally/or in terms of safety, this fellow said, marine traffic requires the bridge to rise 100%. What's worse, and this was a shocker, was that he is now under the impression that the Johnson Street Bridge traffic span could be completely removed by the summer due to marine traffic passage concerns.

To recap:

- bridge recently failed to rise; required secondary lift mechanism to be used
- bridge could close within months due to concerns over failing lifting mechanism and the general state of the bridge

[Sparky]

Mike, I think you just described the love life of men over 60.

[G-Man]

Well Johnsonstreetbridge.org and that seems to be about it. I am sure that there is a lot more to dig up.

[Mike K.]

Originally Posted by Sparky

Mike, I think you just described the love life of men over 60.

Hahaha...

[martini]

Originally Posted by G-Man

I think we are almost at the point of some sort of public inquiry rather than just a new plan for the bridge.

This!

This needs to happen!


How things have deteriorated to this level is beyond astonishing.

[VicHockeyFan]

Debate delayed as councillor reined in by mayor

Session on Johnson Street Bridge replacement project moved in camera

By Bill Cleverley, Times Colonist May 4, 2012 3:07 AM

http://www.timescolonist.com/news/to...345/story.html

[martini]

Originally Posted by VicHockeyFan

http://www.timescolonist.com/news/to...345/story.html

Just wow. What a gobbledygook response from Fortin.

At what point will he have to step down?

[Mike K.]

This morning I had the chance to observe the bridge going up not once, not twice, but three times. I was stuck in traffic for two liftings and had the chance to snap some photos -- from both sides.

The recent assertion that the bridge now lifts to 75% of it's height due to mechanical issues (allegedly) could have some validity, but I'll post photos later to let everyone see and decide for themselves.

[martini]

Originally Posted by Mike K.

I had a run-in with a fellow this afternoon whose business depends on the raising and lowering of the Johnson Street Bridge.

He told me that several days ago when the bridge was raised, then lowered, it failed to raise a second time to allow a second barge through. While the bridge was closed to traffic for 40 minutes, a retired operator who had experience operating the secondary lift mechanism (a small motor, I believe) was called in to manually lift the bridge. Repairs were then carried out. Did anyone experience this closure, perhaps?

His concern is that the bridge may only raise to 75% of its full raised height and allegedly lists slightly to one side. Legally/or in terms of safety, this fellow said, marine traffic requires the bridge to rise 100%. What's worse, and this was a shocker, was that he is now under the impression that the Johnson Street Bridge traffic span could be completely removed by the summer due to marine traffic passage concerns.

To recap:

- bridge recently failed to rise; required secondary lift mechanism to be used
- bridge could close within months due to concerns over failing lifting mechanism and the general state of the bridge

Could this be related to the rail portion being removed?

[Mike K.]

Well, that is a possibility. The bridge was designed with a counterweight (the rail span) and now the weight of only one span on the foundation could be causing issues.

If this is a real problem and not just an artifact of speculation then it is difficult to imagine this bridge will last through 2016 when the new bridge is estimated to open. Again, this is just speculation but the lower height of the raised span may be a reason for concern (for my sake, being a resident of Vic West, I truly hope not!).

[martini]

Originally Posted by Mike K.

Well, that is a possibility. The bridge was designed with a counterweight (the rail span) and now the weight of only one span on the foundation could be causing issues.

If this is a real problem and not just an artifact of speculation then it is difficult to imagine this bridge will last through 2016 when the new bridge is estimated to open. Again, this is just speculation but the lower height of the raised span may be a reason for concern (for my sake, being a resident of Vic West, I truly hope not!).

Do we know the weight of the rail portion counterweight?

It would be valuable to be able to prove a list.
No, I cannot see how this will hold out until 2016.

This is such a mess.

[aastra]

They'll probably end up doing millions of dollars worth of work on it to keep it going until they tear it down.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by sam

DO YOU KNOW THE ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS?

"Were deadlines for the project hyped to support SNC Lavalin's and MMM's agenda to build LRT in Victoria?"

read more at: http://focusonline.ca/?q=node/371

Shareholders face SNC-Lavalin execs amid probe

"The management and board of directors of SNC-Lavalin faced tough questions from shareholders Thursday as a probe into unauthorized payments at the company's North African operations widened.
Chair Gwyn Morgan, interim CEO Ian Bourne and others discussed the company's results at SNC-Lavalin's annual general meeting in Toronto. But investors most wanted to probe executives at the Montreal-based engineering giant about a scandal unfolding in Mexico and Libya."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/stor...g.html?cmp=rss

and,

"Instead, Bourne is focused on fixing the problem while ensuring employees can continue to do "what they do best" - winning new mandates and completing existing projects on time and on budget."

http://www.calgaryherald.com/busines...#ixzz1tvOlXuSt

[Mike K.]

Here's the photo I snapped this morning.

Again, this may be the procedural height for the size of vessel coming across (I didn't get a chance to see the vessel). No doubt the bridge lifts to different heights depending on the size of the vessel.

Would anyone know why, if the assertion that it can only lift to 75% has any validity, it would rise to 75% without problems but to raise it fully would expose it to a potential problem(s)?

Do we know the weight of the rail portion counterweight?

My apologies, I didn't mean to imply the actual counterwight of the rail span (the big concrete block) being removed is causing a problem, but the rail span itself together with the counterweight. If the bridge foundation was designed to be shared by both spans, one has to wonder if just having one span without the other to balance it out isn't some cause for concern. Again, just musings on my part.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by martini

Do we know the weight of the rail portion counterweight?

It would be valuable to be able to prove a list.
No, I cannot see how this will hold out until 2016.

This is such a mess.

The rail counterweight was 550 tons.

I wonder if it is an electrical problem, as they would have needed to disconnect the curcuits that raised the rail span? Did they screw something else up in the process?

[UrbanRail]

Not sure if these were posted before. Its the drawings of the bridge. The problem with this project is that the site will still be very auto oriented.

The drawings also show the tracks stopping at Tyee Rd.

http://www.johnsonstreetbridge.com/w...-DWGS_ARCH.pdf

[UrbanRail]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Shareholders face SNC-Lavalin execs amid probe

"The management and board of directors of SNC-Lavalin faced tough questions from shareholders Thursday as a probe into unauthorized payments at the company's North African operations widened.
Chair Gwyn Morgan, interim CEO Ian Bourne and others discussed the company's results at SNC-Lavalin's annual general meeting in Toronto. But investors most wanted to probe executives at the Montreal-based engineering giant about a scandal unfolding in Mexico and Libya."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/stor...g.html?cmp=rss

and,

"Instead, Bourne is focused on fixing the problem while ensuring employees can continue to do "what they do best" - winning new mandates and completing existing projects on time and on budget."

http://www.calgaryherald.com/busines...#ixzz1tvOlXuSt

Many tough questions are needed in light of this and the fact that as MMM recommended taking rail off the bridge and SNC Lavalin recommended LRT. Both are working on similar projects together elsewhere. I support LRT but if the rail connection on the bridge was purposely nixed to make LRT more favourable, then I question this whole project.

[Mike K.]

Thanks for sharing! I hadn't seen this material before.

[martini]

Originally Posted by UrbanRail

Many tough questions are needed in light of this and the fact that as MMM recommended taking rail off the bridge and SNC Lavalin recommended LRT. Both are working on similar projects together elsewhere. I support LRT but if the rail connection on the bridge was purposely nixed to make LRT more favourable, then I question this whole project.

^This

[martini]

Originally Posted by Mike K.

My apologies, I didn't mean to imply the actual counterwight of the rail span (the big concrete block) being removed is causing a problem, but the rail span itself together with the counterweight. If the bridge foundation was designed to be shared by both spans, one has to wonder if just having one span without the other to balance it out isn't some cause for concern. Again, just musings on my part.

This is what I'm wondering too.
550 tonnes being removed overnight could very well cause some shifting?

[Bernard]

Originally Posted by UrbanRail

Many tough questions are needed in light of this and the fact that as MMM recommended taking rail off the bridge and SNC Lavalin recommended LRT. Both are working on similar projects together elsewhere. I support LRT but if the rail connection on the bridge was purposely nixed to make LRT more favourable, then I question this whole project.

I had not thought of that connection before.....

As fas as I can tell, SNC Lavalin the company most likely to built the LRT

[LJ]

Originally Posted by Mike K.

Here's the photo I snapped this morning.

Again, this may be the procedural height for the size of vessel coming across (I didn't get a chance to see the vessel). No doubt the bridge lifts to different heights depending on the size of the vessel.

Would anyone know why, if the assertion that it can only lift to 75% has any validity, it would rise to 75% without problems but to raise it fully would expose it to a potential problem(s)?





My apologies, I didn't mean to imply the actual counterwight of the rail span (the big concrete block) being removed is causing a problem, but the rail span itself together with the counterweight. If the bridge foundation was designed to be shared by both spans, one has to wonder if just having one span without the other to balance it out isn't some cause for concern. Again, just musings on my part.

The bridge looks fully raised to me.

[VicHockeyFan]

Originally Posted by LJ

The bridge looks fully raised to me.

That's what she said!

Seriously though, I'm not sure if that's not 100%. I dunno. There must be other pictures out there.

[UrbanRail]

Its hard to tell from this angle.

[sebberry]

The concrete counterweight looks about as low as it can go. Do the mechanics of the bridge allow for the deck to lift any higher without the block moving more?