Municipal liability & the Johnson Street Bridge

One of the key issues informing our decision on the Johnson St. Bridge is that of municipal liability.  Legislative language and case law indicate that municipalities have a responsibility to regularly inspect their critical infrastructure but also to generally keep it in good repair to protect the safety of their citizens.

Having done our due diligence in conducting an assessment of the bridge condition, we are then faced with the implications of the assessment, which has identified some significant liabilities with the current bridge, the most problematic being the seismic vulnerability of the foundation.  Along with mechanical, electrical and other structural challenges, those liabilities add up to a clear imperative to act, an prescription that none, including bridge preservationists, are disputing.

Those wishing to preserve the old bridge point to the evaluations of outside experts, structural engineers with experience in Portland, to suggest that we don’t have to do the full seismic upgrade and that a lesser standard of care will be satisfactory in Victoria.

Ross Crockford, spokesperson for The Blue Bridge recounted in a recent Times-Colonist editorial that one of those engineers suggested that “barring a major earthquake” the Johnson St. Bridge is safe.  That qualifier is central to the discussion around our bridge decision and more research on municipal liability will show that it is untenable.

Keep in mind also, that there is a significant difference between Portland’s bridges and our own.  Victoria has two bridges.  Bay St. has already been fortified to withstand a major earthquake, but Johnson St. remains to most important connection to our downtown.  It has not been identified as a key route in the event of a disaster because no competent engineer would designate a bridge with the seismic vulnerability and other deficiencies noted as a prime disaster route.

In Portland, by contrast, there are 8 bridges connecting downtown with eastside neighbouhoods.  Some have undergone some seismic work, however, the loss of one bridge will be less problematic for their transportation network than would be the case if we lost the Johnson St. Bridge in Victoria.

Here are more of my random notes on municipal liability and its relationship to our particular challenge.

See language around municipal liability
Risk management & liabilities PDF

Better legal minds than mine can expand on the topic of municipal liability and our duty of care to provide safe infrastructure, particularly those that are clearly our local responsibility like the Johnson Street Bridge.  One can argue that the bridge and the features we plan to incorporate into a new crossing clearly serve regional transportation needs and should be funded in part by citizens from neighbouring municipalities or the CRD.  That appeals to our common sense but our political and fiscal structures don’t easily allow for an easy or appealing cost sharing formula, especially for municipalities or citizens who don’t also get Victoria’s direct help for their expensive infrastructure projects (like the abandoned Spencer Rd overpass or the airport gateway project).

For the time being, most of the cost of a new bridge, (or a refurbished one for that matter), is our responsibility.  It’s our asset (in this case a liability) and our duty to address the hazards and deficiencies our latest condition assessment has revealed.

Read more about municipalities and their legal responsibilities...