CAMPBELLFORD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY Presentation June 9... · campbellford bridge...

CAMPBELLFORD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

JUNE 2010

June 9, 2010 – Meeting of the Trent River Crossing Steering Committeeg g g

PROJECT TEAM MEMBERSPROJECT TEAM MEMBERSNAME ROLE RESPONSIBILITIES YRS.

EXP. David Harmer, M. Eng., P. Eng. (Principal)

Project Manager • project management • client liaison • coordination of engineering

di i li d b l38

disciplines and subconsultants • internal technical reviews

Jan Podolak, M. Eng., P. Eng. (Principal)

Engineering Manager (Alternate Project Manager)

• day to day supervision of staff • supervision of structural

evaluation and design • seismic analysis specialist

35

Julia Marson, M. Eng, P. Eng

Senior Project Engineer

• direct assistance to project and engineering manager

• project meetings12

• project meetings • structural analysis and design

Luc Monette, Ph.D., P. Eng.

Alternate Senior Project Engineer

• engineering assistance as required 15

Felix Wasiewicz, M. Eng., P. Eng.

Alternate Senior Project Engineer

• engineering assistance as required 30

Steve Taylor, P. Eng. Senior Transportation • traffic and transportation analysis and review y , g(Principal)

pPlanning

a c a d a spo a o a a ys s a d ev ew30

Henry Zygowski, P. Eng. (Principal)

Senior Traffic Engineer • traffic analysis and signal operations 30

Angelo Renon, P. Eng. (Principal)

Senior Transportation Design • roadway design 15

June 9 2010 Meeting of the Trent River Crossing Steering Committee

Steve Ash. P. Eng. P. Geo. (Principal)

Senior Geotechnical Engineer • geotechnical review 10

Jim Turpin Senior Structural Draft Person • CAD drawings • supervision of CAD staff 34

June 9, 2010 – Meeting of the Trent River Crossing Steering CommitteeSlide 2

FEASIBILITY STUDY GOALS

EXAMINE FEASIBILITY OF CONSTRUCTING A NEW BRIDGE AT THE SAME LOCATION AT SOME TIME IN THE FUTURETIME IN THE FUTURE

EXAMINE VARIOUS BRIDGE TYPES THAT:

‐ PROVIDE REQUIRED NAVIGATIONAL CLEARANCEPROVIDE REQUIRED NAVIGATIONAL CLEARANCE

‐MAINTAINS GRADE AT EXISTING SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS AT EACH END OF THE BRIDGE

DEVELOP THE PREFERRED CONCEPT IN SUFFICIENT DETAIL TO:

‐ PROVIDE COUNTY & STEERING COMMITTEE WITH A HIGH LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE & CERTAINTY THAT THE PREFERRED CONCEPT IS PRACTICAL AND CONSTRUCTABLE

‐ UTILIZE GENERAL ARRANGEMENT DRAWING FOR FUTURE DETAIL DESIGN


UTILIZE GENERAL ARRANGEMENT DRAWING FOR FUTURE DETAIL DESIGN


PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES FOR STUDYSTUDY

• ALTERNATIVE 1 ‐ REPLACING THE EXISTING STRUCTURE

• ALTERNATIVE 2 ‐ TWINNING THE EXISTING STRUCTURE

• ALTERNATIVE 3 WIDENING BY STIFFENING THE• ALTERNATIVE 3 ‐WIDENING BY STIFFENING THE EXISTING STRUCTURE

June 9 2010 Meeting of the Trent River Crossing Steering CommitteeJune 9, 2010 – Meeting of the Trent River Crossing Steering CommitteeSlide 4

ALTERNATIVE 1

REPLACE THE EXISTING BRIDGEADVANTAGES:• PERMITS PUTTING OFF CONSTRUCTION OF NEW BRIDGE UNTIL FUNDING IS AVAILABLE AND

PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS ARE MADE

DISADVANTAGES:• DOES NOT RELIEVE CURRENT TRAFFIC CONGESTION• REQUIRES SEPARATE CONTRACT FOR REHABILITATION OF THE EXISTING BRIDGE IN THE INTERIM• REQUIRES SEPARATE DETOUR STRUCTURE

MAY REQUIRE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AND DEMOLITION OF BUILDINGS ON EITHER THE SOUTH OR• MAY REQUIRE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AND DEMOLITION OF BUILDINGS ON EITHER THE SOUTH OR NORTH SIDE OF THE EXISTING BRIDGE

• MAY REQUIRE SHIFTING OF BRIDGE CENTRELINE BY NORTH OR SOUTH RESULTING IN MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO APPROACH ROADWAY AND INTERSECTIONS

• HIGHER INITIAL CONSTRUCTION COST DUE TO PROPERTY, BUILDING DEMOLITION AND APPROACH ROADWAY WORK


ROADWAY WORK


ALTERNATIVE 2

TWIN THE EXISTING BRIDGEADVANTAGES:

• PERMITS EXISTING BRIDGE TO BE USED AS DETOUR DURING CONSTRUCTION OF NEW AND VICE‐VERSA, NEW TO BE USED AS DETOUR DURING REHABILITATION/REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING

• PERMITS PUTTING OFF CONSTRUCTION OF NEW BRIDGE UNTIL FUNDING IS AVAILABLE AND PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS ARE MADEPROPERTY ACQUISITIONS ARE MADE

DISADVANTAGES:• DOES NOT RELIEVE CURRENT TRAFFIC CONGESTION• REQUIRES SEPARATE CONTRACT FOR REHABILITATION OF THE EXISTING BRIDGE IN THE INTERIM• REQUIRES SEPARATE CONTRACT FOR REHABILITATION OF THE EXISTING BRIDGE IN THE INTERIM• REQUIRES PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AND DEMOLITION OF BUILDINGS ON EITHER THE SOUTH OR

NORTH SIDE OF THE EXISTING BRIDGE• REQUIRES SHIFTING OF BRIDGE CENTRELINE BY APPROXIMATELY 6‐7 METRES NORTH OR SOUTH

RESULTING IN MAJOR MODIFICATIONS TO APPROACH ROADWAY AND INTERSECTIONS• HIGHER CONSTRUCTION COST DUE TO PROPERTY BUILDING DEMOLITION AND APPROACH


• HIGHER CONSTRUCTION COST DUE TO PROPERTY, BUILDING DEMOLITION AND APPROACH ROADWAY WORK


ALTERNATIVE 3

WIDEN THE EXISTING BRIDGE ON EACH SIDEADVANTAGES:

• CAN BE IMPLEMENTED NOW TO RELIEVE CURRENT TRAFFIC CONGESTION• STRENGTHENS, STIFFENS & UPGRADES THE EXISTING BRIDGE TO CURRENT CODE THEREBY

MAXIMIZING ITS REMAINING LIFE SPANCENTRE PORTION OF EXISTING BRIDGE CAN BE USED AS TRAFFIC DETOUR DURING CONSTRUCTION• CENTRE PORTION OF EXISTING BRIDGE CAN BE USED AS TRAFFIC DETOUR DURING CONSTRUCTION OF WIDENINGS

• LOWER CONSTRUCTION COST

DISADVANTAGES:• MAY BE MORE DISRUPTIVE TO TEMPORARY TRAFFIC DURING CONSTRUCTION AS A RESULT OF

WIDTH RESTRICTIONS


3 TRAFFIC LANE ALTERNATIVES

• 2 LANES (MAINTAIN EXISTING)

• 3 LANES (ADDITION OF A LEFT TURN LANE AT• 3 LANES (ADDITION OF A LEFT TURN LANE AT EACH END OF BRIDGE

• 4 LANES (ADDITION OF TWO LANES, ONE IN EITHER DIRECTION ON THE BRIDGE


TRAFFIC LANE ALTERNATIVES

2 LANE TRAFFIC•No Improvements•Congestion will continue to occur at the two intersections

2 LANE TRAFFIC OPTION ON STRUCTURE

•The addition of a dedicated left turn lane will result in appreciable capacity improvements.

3 LANE TRAFFIC OPTION ON STRUCTURESTRUCTURE

•The additional lanes will result in appreciable capacity improvements

4 LANE TRAFFIC OPTION ON


improvements•No appreciable difference anticipated when compared to 3 Lane Traffic Option.

OPTION ON STRUCTURE


ALTERNATIVES TO BE REVIEWED

REPLACING THE TWINNING THE WIDENING THEREPLACING THE EXISTING

STRUCTURE

TWINNING THE EXISTING

STRUCTURE

WIDENING THE EXISTING

STRUCTURE

2 LANE STRUCTURE

3 LANE4 LANE

3 LANE STRUCTURE

3 LANE STRUCTURE

4 LANE

CROSSING

(2 NEW) 4 LANE


4 LANE STRUCTURE

STRUCTURE


BRIDGE TYPES

EXAMINE VARIOUSEXAMINE VARIOUS BRIDGE TYPES THAT:

PROVIDE REQUIRED NAVIGATIONAL CLEARANCE

MAINTAINS GRADE AT EXISTING SIGNALIZED

INTERSECTIONS

OPTION A OPTION B OPTION C


CAST‐IN‐PLACE POST‐TENSIONED CONCRETE DECK

WITH HAUNCHES

OPTION BSTEEL SUPERSTRUCTURE

WITH RIGID STAYS

CAST‐IN‐PLACE POST‐TENSIONED CONCRETE DECK WITH INVERTED BEAMS


CAST‐IN‐PLACE POST‐TENSIONED CONCRETE DECKCONCRETE DECK


STEEL SUPERSTRUCTURE WITH RIGID STAYSRIGID STAYS


CAST‐IN‐PLACE CONCRETE DECK WITH INVERTED BEAMSINVERTED BEAMS


ALTERNATIVES TO BE REVIEWEDA – Concrete Deck with Haunches

B – Steel Superstructure with Rigid Stays

C – Concrete Deck with Inverted Beams

g y

1‐ REPLACE EXISTING BRIDGE

2 Lanes A B C

3 Lane A B3 Lane A B

4 Lane A B C

2 ‐ TWINNING EXISTING BRIDGE

2 Lanes – North A B C

2 Lanes – South A B C

3 ‐WIDENING EXISTING BRIDGE


3 Lane A

4 Lane A


TRAFFIC ANALYSIS (1)

BACKGROUND•The intersections at either end of the bridge (Queen Street/Grand Road and Front Street) represent the greatest capacity constraints in this area

•The key issue relates to the lack of dedicated turn lanes at these two locations (i.e.The key issue relates to the lack of dedicated turn lanes at these two locations (i.e. the through, left turn and right turn movements occur from a single, shared lane)

•Left turning vehicles are the most problematic because they are required to wait f d t i i t ffi (i l di d t i )for an adequate gap in opposing traffic (including pedestrians)

• Shared lanes exhibit higher collision rates than dedicated lanes



ANALYSIS PARAMETERS•Operating characteristics are measured in Level of Service (LOS)•LOS rated from LOS “A” (Excellent Operation/Minimal Delays) to LOS “F” (Extremely Poor Operation/Very Lengthy Delays)

(see following slide) indicate periods where volumes exceed capacity(see following slide) indicate periods where volumes exceed capacity•The volumes used in the analysis reflect 2009 (existing) and 2029 (future) conditions•The 2029 volumes assume a growth rate of 1.0%/year (applied to all movements)•The critical periods include:

W kd ft k h (PM)•Weekday afternoon peak hour (PM)•Saturday afternoon peak hour (SAT)

•The current and projected operating characteristics of each alternative were examined using Synchro 7 (traffic modelling software)


g y ( g )•The analysis area extended from Queen Street/Grand Road to Doxsee Street


TRAFFIC ANALYSIS (3)PRELIMINARY RESULTS

Existing 2009 Traffic Volume‐to‐Capacity Level of Service

# IntersectionCritical Ratio Critical Movement Overall Delay/LOS Critical MovementPM Sat PM Sat PM Sat PM Sat

1 Bridge Street / Doxsee Avenue 0.37 0.32 WBT/R EBT/R 12 B 13 B NBL NBL1 Bridge Street / Doxsee Avenue 0.37 0.32 WBT/R EBT/R 12 B 13 B NBL NBL

2 Bridge Street / Front Street 0.77 0.85 EBL/T/R EBL/T/R 18 B 23 C NBL SBL

3 Bridge Street / Grand Road / Queen Street 0.89 0.95 WBL/T/R WBL/T/R 28 C 39 D SBL NBT/R

Alternative 1 ‐ Do Nothing/2029 Volume‐to‐Capacity Level of Service


1 Bridge Street / Doxsee Avenue 0.43 0.39 WBT/R EBT/R 20 B 19 B NBL NBL

2 Bridge Street / Front Street 0.94 0.97 EBL/T/R EBL/T/R 45 D 41 D NBL SBL

3 Bridge Street / Grand Road / Queen Street 1.08 1.13 WBL/T/R WBL/T/R 62 E 86 F SBL SBL

Alternative 2 ‐ Three‐Lanes/2029 Volume‐to‐Capacity Level of Service

# IntersectionCritical Ratio Critical Movement Overall Delay/LOS Critical Movement

# IntersectionPM Sat PM Sat PM Sat PM Sat

1 Bridge Street / Doxsee Avenue 0.41 0.39 SBT/R EBT/R 13 B 17 B NBL NBL

2 Bridge Street / Front Street 0.65 0.63 WBT/R EBT/R 18 B 20 B SBL SBL

3 Bridge Street / Grand Road / Queen Street 0.70 0.81 NBT/R NBT/R 20 B 30 C SBL EBT/R

Alternative 3 ‐ Four‐Lanes/2029 Volume‐to‐Capacity Level of Servicei i l i i i l ll l / i i l



1 Bridge Street / Doxsee Avenue 0.41 0.39 SBT/R EBT/R 13 B 18 B NBL NBL

2 Bridge Street / Front Street 0.64 0.60 SBT/R EBL/T/R 16 B 18 B SBL SBL

3 Bridge Street / Grand Road / Queen Street 0.69 0.76 WBL/T/R WBL/T/R 16 B 26 C SBL NBT/R



PRELIMINARY RESULTS (Contd)•2009 (Existing Configuration):

•Bridge Street/Grand Road/Queen Street at capacity in Saturday•Bridge Street/Front Street near capacity in Saturday•Bridge Street/Grand Road/Queen Street near capacity in weekday afternoonBridge Street/Grand Road/Queen Street near capacity in weekday afternoon

•2029 (Existing Configuration):•Bridge Street/Grand Road/Queen Street and Bridge Street/Front Street well over capacity in weekday afternoon and Saturday periods

2029 (3 d 4 l I t Alt ti )•2029 (3 and 4 lane Improvement Alternatives ):•Bridge Street/Grand Road/Queen Street and Bridge Street/Front Street operate under capacity in weekday afternoon and Saturday periods•Minimal incremental benefits of 4‐lane alternative when compared to 3‐lane


palternative (i.e. 2 to 4 second reduction in average delay at intersections)•Potential reduction in collisions of 20% to 30% when compared to existing conditions (for 3‐Lane option)


POTENTIAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTIONENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIO‐ECONOMICCONSTRUCTION

COSTS

•REPLACEMENT

SCENARIO

CONSTRUCTION STAGING

•CONSTRUCTION

DURATION

TRANSPORTATION

•CAPACITY IMPACTS

•SAFETY IMPACTS

SOCIO ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT

•SOCIAL

ENVIRONMENTSCENARIO

•EXTEND LIFE OF

EXISTING BRIDGE

•STRUCTURAL COSTS

DURATION

•CONSTRUCTION

DETOUR

•SAFETY IMPACTS

•BUSINESS IMPACTS

ENVIRONMENT

• CULTURAL

ENVIRONMENT

•ECONOMIC

•ROADWAY COSTS

•PROPERTY COSTS

•LIFE CYCLE

ENVIRONMENT

•AESTHETICS


STRATEGY

•LIFE CYCLE COSTS


ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION COSTSCONSTRUCTION COSTS

I - Replace Existing Bridge II – Twin Existing Bridge III – Widen/Upgrade Existing B idBridge

A – 2 Lane Bridge

B – 3 Lane Bridge

C – 4 Lane Bridge

A – North Side

B – South Side

A – 3 Lane Bridge

B – 4 Lane Bridge

Replacement Scenario

Replace Existing Bridge with New on Existing Alignment

Construct Twin Structure Immediately Adjacent To Existing

Construct New Structure on Each Side to Widen and Strengthen Existing BridgeExisting Strengthen Existing Bridge

Extend Life of Existing

No, Existing Bridge will be removed. No, Existing Bridge to be maintained and then removed and replaced

Yes, Existing Bridge to be strengthened to extend service life

Life Cycle Strategy

Major Rehab Required on Existing Bridge

Maintain Existing Bridge for Remaining Life (25 years) with Rehabilitations

Construct Twin in Near Future 5-10 years

Maintain Existing Bridge for Remaining Life (25

) ith R h bilit ti

Construct ASAP (3-5 years)

Widened bridge to have 75 year service life


years) with Rehabilitations


LIFE CYCLE STRATEGYI - Replace Existing Bridge II – Twin Existing Bridge III – Widen/Upgrade Existing

BridgeA – 2 Lane B – 3 Lane C – 4 Lane A – North Side B – South Side A – 3 Lane B – 4 Lane

Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge

0 YEARS Major Rehabilitation on Existing Bridge Major Rehabilitation on ExistingBridge (Bridge #1) Widen Existing Bridge

10 YEARS Twin Structure (Bridge #2)

25 YEARS New Bridge Replace Existing Structure (Bridge #1)

40YEARS

50 YEARS Major Rehabilitation on Widened Bridge

60 YEARS Major Rehabilitation Major Rehabilitation to Bridge #2

65 YEARS

75 YEARS Major Rehabilitation to Bridge #1 New Bridge


85 YEARS Replace Bridge #2

100 YEARS New Bridge Replace Bridge #1


ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION COSTSCONSTRUCTION COSTS

I - Replace Existing Bridge II – Twin Existing Bridge III – Widen/Upgrade E i ti B idExisting Bridge

A – 2 Lane Bridge

B – 3 Lane Bridge

C – 4 Lane Bridge

A – North Side

B – South Side

A – 3 Lane Bridge

B – 4 Lane Bridge

Structural Costs(Dependent on Bridge Type) Moderate

Initial CostHigh Initial Cost

High Initial Cost

Low Initial Cost

Low Initial Cost

Low Initial Cost

Low Initial Cost

Roadway Costs Minimal Costs, no change to intersections

Moderate Costs, minor change to intersections

Significant Costs, major change to intersections

Significant Costs, major changes to the intersections

Significant Costs, major changes to the intersections

Moderate Costs, minor change to intersections

Significant Costs, major change to intersections

Property Costs No Costs, no disruption to properties

Minimal Costs, property required but no building removal

Moderate Costs, property and building removal required

Significant Costs, property and building removal required

Significant Costs, property and building removal required

Minimal Costs, property required but no building removal

Moderate Costs, property and building removal required


Life Cycle Costs Low Life Cycle

Low Life Cycle Cost

Moderate Life Cycle Cost

High Life Cycle Cost

High Life Cycle Cost

Low Life Cycle Cost

Moderate Life Cycle Cost


CONSTRUCTION STAGING

I - Replace Existing Bridge II – Twin Existing Bridge III – Widen/Upgrade Existing B idBridge

A – 2 Lane Bridge

B – 3 Lane Bridge

C – 4 Lane Bridge

A – North Side

B – South Side

A – 3 Lane Bridge

B – 4 Lane Bridge

Construction Duration

4 years 2 or 3 years depending on structure type

3 years

Construction Detour

Requires Detour Structure

Eastbound traffic on temporary bridge utilizing piers from railway crossing.

No Detour Structure required

Existing Bridge to serve as Detour Structure

No Detour Structure required

Existing Bridge to serve as Detour Structure. Maintain 2 lanes on bridge with short

Westbound traffic via Trent Driveg

term closures to 1 lane with flagmen


TRANSPORTATIONI - Replace Existing Bridge II – Twin Existing Bridge III – Widen/Upgrade Existing

BridgeA – 2 Lane B – 3 Lane C – 4 Lane A – North B – South A – 3 Lane B – 4 Lane

Bridge Bridge Bridge Side Side Bridge BridgeNo improvements Addition of a

dedicated left turn lane will result in:

The additional lanes will result in:



The addition of a dedicated left turn lane will result in:


Capacity Impacts

Congestion will continue to occur

appreciable capacity





appreciable capacityImpacts continue to occur

at the two intersections

capacity improvements

capacity improvements (not anticipated to be significantly more than 3 lane option)




capacity improvements (not anticipated to be significantly more than 3 lane option)

Safety Impacts Lack of left turn lane results in

improved (reduced) collision

Safety improvements

safety improvements

safety improvements

improved (reduced) collision

safety improvementslane results in

increased collision rates at the two intersections

(reduced) collision rates

improvements anticipated



(reduced) collision rates


Business Impacts

No change, existing roadway operations/on-

No change anticipated, existing roadway

Possible changes may be required.



No change anticipated, existing roadway



pstreet parking remain intact

g yoperations/on-street parking will likely remain intact

Potential loss of some on-street parking (possibly 3 to 5 spaces)



g yoperations/on-street parking will likely remain intact



ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIO‐ECONOMIC AND CULTURALECONOMIC AND CULTURAL

I - Replace Existing Bridge II – Twin Existing Bridge III – Widen/Upgrade Existing Bridgeg

A – 2 Lane Bridge

B – 3 Lane Bridge

C – 4 Lane Bridge

A – North Side

B – South Side

A – 3 Lane Bridge

B – 4 Lane Bridge

Social Environment(Residential Property

No residential property disruption.


Possible residential property disruption




Possible residential property disruption p y

Disruptions)p

beyond intersections

pbeyond intersections



No recreational property impact

Minorrecreational property impact


No recreational property impact

Major recreational property impact



Increased traffic at Detour Site through residential neighbourhood.

Possible traffic intrusion on side streets during construction

Possible traffic intrusion on side streets during construction

Temporary closure of Kennedy Park west of Saskatoon


p y yAvenue during detour use.



I - Replace Existing Bridge II – Twin Existing Bridge III – Widen/Upgrade Existing Bridge

A 2 Lane B 3 Lane C 4 Lane A North B South A 3 Lane B 4 LaneA – 2 Lane Bridge

B – 3 Lane Bridge

C – 4 Lane Bridge

A – North Side

B – South Side

A – 3 Lane Bridge

B – 4 Lane Bridge

Cultural Environment (Disruption of Heritage resources

No disruption of Heritage resources


Identified Cultural Heritage Landscapes and resources within




Identified Cultural Heritage Landscapes and resources withinresources resources within

alignmentresources within alignment

resources within alignment

resources within alignment

Economic Environment(Business Property

No business property disruption

Business property required, no buildings

Business property required and buildings

Business property required and buildings removed.

Business property required, no buildings

Business property required and buildings y

Disruption)g

removedg

removed.g

removedg

removed.

All parking to remain intact following construction


Loss of 3-5 parking spots following construction





Detour during construction will bypass businesses at ends of bridge

Minimal disruption during construction from on-site detour.

Minimal disruption during construction from reduced traffic lanes on the bridge



I - Replace Existing Bridge II – Twin Existing Bridge III – Widen/Upgrade Existing Bridge

A 2 Lane B 3 Lane C 4 Lane A North B South A 3 Lane B 4 LaneA – 2 Lane Bridge

B – 3 Lane Bridge

C – 4 Lane Bridge

A – North Side

B – South Side

A – 3 Lane Bridge

B – 4 Lane Bridge

Natural Environment

Major Impact Major Impact Major Impact Major Impact Major Impact Moderate Impact

Moderate Impact

Piers required in the water for the new bridge Piers required in the water for the new bridge

Extension to existing piers required in the waternew bridge in the water

Pier required in the water for detour structure

Aesthetics Visual Appealing from Waterway and Waterfront Visual Appealing from Waterway and Waterfront

Visual Appealing from Waterway and Waterfront

Visual Appealing from underneath bridge (concrete)

Lower Visual Appeal from underneath bridge (steel)


Lower Visual Appeal from underneath bridge (steel)



SUMMARY AND NEXTSUMMARY AND NEXT STEPS


WORK PLAN

I PROJECT INITIATIONREVIEW EXISTING INFORMATIONREPORTSDRAWINGSPROPERTYSERVICES

SITE INSPECTIONBRIDGEAPPROACH ROADWAYS & SIDEWALKSINTERSECTION SIGNALS & TRAFFIC OPERATION

INITIAL AGENCY CONTACTPARKS CANADA (TRENT SEVERN WATERWAY)NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY


STEERING COMMITTEE CONTACTNOW CONFIRM / MODIFY TERMS OF REFERENCE


WORK PLAN (cont’d)

II OPTION IDENTIFICATION & DEVELOPMENTOPTION DEVELOPMENT

NOW EXAMINE ALL FEASIBLE OPTIONS AND DEVELOP CONCEPT SKETCHESNOW IDENTIFY CONSTRUCTION METHODOLOGY, SCHEDULE, DETOUR & STAGING PLAN, TRAFFIC

MANAGEMENT PLAN, PROPERTY & UTILITY / SERVICES IMPACTS.NOW ASSESS CONSTRUCTABILITY OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCENOW ASSESS CONSTRUCTABILITY, OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCENOW PREPARE CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES

IDENTIFY POTENTIAL EVALUATION CRITERIANOW IDENTIFY POTENTIAL EVALUATION CRITERIA: CONSTRUCTION COST, CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE, BRIDGENOW IDENTIFY POTENTIAL EVALUATION CRITERIA: CONSTRUCTION COST, CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE, BRIDGE

AESTHETICS, IMPROVEMENT IN LONG TERM TRAFFIC CAPACITY, TRAFFIC DISRUPTION AND STAGING REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION, PROPERTY IMPACTS, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, REHABILITATION NEEDS OF EXISTING BRIDGE ETC.

STEERING COMMITTEE BUY‐IN


FOR DISCUSSION REVIEW OPTION CONCEPTS AND POTENTIAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

FOR DISCUSSION COARSE SCREEN OPTIONS TO SELECT SHORT‐LISTFOR DISCUSSION ESTABLISH EVALUATION CRITERIA AND WEIGHTING



III SELECTION OF PREFERRED OPTIONEVALUATION OF SHORT‐LISTED OPTIONS‐ EVALUATE THE SHORT‐LISTED OPTIONS AGAINST THE SELECTED CRITERIA‐ COMPILE A DECISION MATRIX TO TABULATE THE EVALUATION AND SELECT THE PREFERRED OPTION

DRAFT FEASIBILITY REPORTDRAFT FEASIBILITY REPORT‐ PREPARE THE DRAFT FEASIBILITY REPORT DOCUMENTING THE STUDY PROCESS, OPTIONS DEVELOPED, EVALUATION PROCESS AND RECOMMENDED OPTION‐ PREPARE PRELIMINARY STRUCTURE GENERAL ARRANGEMENT DRAWING‐ PREPARE PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE (ITEMIZED BREAKDOWN)

PRESENTATION OF REPORT TO STEERING COMMITTEE‐ SUBMIT DRAFT REPORT FOR REVIEW‐ PRESENT DRAFT REPORT AND ADDRESS COMMITTEE COMMENTS

PUBLIC PRESENTATION


‐ PRESENT DRAFT FEASIBILITY REPORT AND PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE

‐ ADDRESS COMMENTS FORM TRENT HILLS BIA, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE & 2ND ST. RESIDENT ASSOCIATION



IV FINAL REPORT & DRAWINGSIV FINAL REPORT & DRAWINGS

60% DESIGN DRAWINGS

‐ DEVELOP PRELIMINARY STRUCTURAL GENERAL ARRANGEMENT DRAWING TO 95%

‐ DEVELOP PRELIMINARY STRUCTURE DRAWINGS OF MAIN COMPONENTS TO 60%

‐ DEVELOP PRELIMINARY ROADWAY DRAWINGS TO 60%

FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT


‐ FINALIZE FEASIBILITY REPORT INCORPORATING PUBLIC AND STEERING COMMITTEE

COMMENTS

‐ SUBMIT 60% DESIGN DRAWINGS


CAMPBELLFORD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

JUNE 2010

June 9, 2010 – Meeting of the Trent River Crossing Steering Committeeg g g

CAMPBELLFORD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY Presentation June 9... · campbellford bridge...

Documents

Transcript of CAMPBELLFORD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY Presentation June 9... · campbellford bridge...