Victoria Times Colonist

There has been much talk, some of it heated, about the 86-year-old Johnson Street Bridge.

This project is vital to the long-term health of Victoria.

Most economists agree that public infrastructure is a building block of a city.

Public investment is a cost shared by the community to help facilitate private investment.

The merits of investing in a main transportation link are obvious.

The Johnson Street Bridge brings thousands of cars, cyclists and pedestrians into downtown every day -- people coming to work, to shop, to experience Victoria.

As I listen to arguments against a replacement bridge, and the funding option being voted on Saturday, I become more incredulous.

First, the current bridge has antiquated mechanical and electrical systems, major structural issues, eroding concrete, is not seismically sound and is rusting from the inside out. It must be addressed within the next few years or risk closure.

Engineers confirm that the bridge's timber pilings would suffer catastrophic failure in the event of a large earthquake as a result of moving forces placed on the piles, causing them to snap and the bridge to collapse.

Second, a replacement bridge will ensure that modern engineering techniques and materials are used, providing a life of at least 100 years in return for the huge investment being made.

Not building a replacement bridge today makes as little sense as refurbishing an 86-year-old bridge would have made in 1924.

How well would 20th-century Victoria have been served by refurbishing a bridge built with materials and technologies from 1838?

This is the timeline that has to be planned and built for.

A new bridge is an opportunity to be seized, not shunned. It will ensure the structure is as seismically sound as modern technology can secure.

It will ensure the proposed types of transportation have safe access to downtown.

And if possible -- and it seems that it is -- a new bridge can also be architecturally important.

Third, if that isn't enough, a replacement bridge's costs are easier to forecast than refurbishment.

No one can predict what cost surprises will arise when trying to fix a bridge that old. This is why estimates for refurbishment had nearly twice the amount of money set aside for contingencies.

Fourth, a new bridge can be built while the old bridge is still functioning at virtually full capacity, keeping disruption to a minimum.

And finally, from my perspective, the funding option being voted on will pay for it in a responsible and equitable way.

Borrowing is the smart way to ensure that the financial burden is shared over many years in a manageable way, not much different than a mortgage on a house.

This is why borrowing is how many major infrastructure projects are financed.

It is also fair, as the costs and benefits will be carried over many years.

I am not sure that opponents to bridge replacement have really served the public interest given the solid sciences of engineering, economics and finance that the new bridge is based on.

This is a vital decision for our community, a necessary long-term investment to help make sure that our city's 21st century future is made better.