EDITORIALS Learn from bridge mistakes

With completion of the Johnson Street Bridge once again delayed, and costs running $43 million over budget, what assurances do we have that lessons have been learned? The manager responsible, Jonathan Huggett, has laid out in sobering detail numerous errors that were made along the way. The project was not fully scoped out at the start, in part because council wanted an “iconic” design rather than purchasing something “off the shelf.”

The contingency fund of four per cent was wholly inadequate. Subcontracting the bridge’s steel deck to a Chinese firm was a major risk. The experts whom council relied on gave poor advice.

In passing, that last point raises questions of its own. Who were these experts? Were any of them staff members, and if so, were any of them fired or disciplined?

In a city with two universities, and keeping in mind that bridge-building is a centuries-old endeavour, why couldn’t council find reliable advisers?

This is more than a case of crying over spilt milk. There are two more large-scale projects coming down the line — the new sewage plant and replacement of the Crystal Pool.

The City of Victoria is responsible for the latter, and the signs to date are not encouraging. Talking about the bridge, Mayor Lisa Helps had this to say: “I’m not going to look backward on this one … I want to look forward.” But how can you avoid a second fiasco if you avert your gaze from the first?

Then there is the mayor’s puzzling stance on the referendum required to finance the Crystal Pool. Most of the funds required — $69.4 million — will have to be borrowed. Residents of the city are to be asked in a referendum if they approve a loan.

But the mayor, who backs the project, doesn’t want to take sides in the referendum. She says: “My feeling is that the referendum should be for and by the public, that the city should not champion any side. It’s overstepping our job to spend money or time promoting one side or the other.”

So you’re for the pool, but you’re not taking sides on the only option for financing it?

The larger question, though, is the sewage plant. Unlike bridge construction, this project by its nature is complex, and it has a much larger budget — $765 million, at latest estimate.

And here, too, the progress has been anything but smooth. Although nearly a decade has passed since the province directed the Capital Regional District to design a new sewage system, disagreements among the region’s municipalities caused repeated delays.

Eventually, under pressure from the province, the CRD settled on a tertiary-treatment plant with facilities at McLoughlin Point and Hartland Landfill. And this time, it appears that lessons have been learned.

A seven-person board has been appointed to oversee the project, with most of the members possessing toplevel industry credentials.

Unlike the bridge design, all of the technologies to be used are well-known and proven. Those include the pipeline system, the plant itself and the tertiary-treatment facility.

Companies bidding on the various contracts have been asked to show they have prior, successful experience.

Financial risks have been shared among contractors, meaning each has some skin in the game. And the management board has set aside a 10 per cent contingency fund of its own to cover any difficulties.

On that basis, there is confidence that both the budget and the completion date, set for the end of 2020, will be met.

It does appear, at least as far as the sewage project is concerned, that the Johnson Street Bridge mistakes will not be repeated.