Click The to edit Master subtitle style · Click The to edit Master subtitle style Victoria Bridge...

Click The to edit Master subtitle style

Victoria BridgeClass Environmental Assessment

WelcomeVictoria Bridge

Schedule ‘C’ MunicipalClass Environmental Assessment

Public Information Centre #1

April 26, 2017

The purpose of this Public Information Centre (PIC) is to:

• Introduce the project including need for bridge replacement or rehabilitation;• Provide an overview of the Class EA process;• Describe work undertaken to date including existing and future conditions;• Present a preliminary evaluation of alternative solutions;• Meet the project team and answer questions.

Please take a comment form and a pen. As you review the information presented today, we encourage you to ask questions and provide feedback.

1



Study Area

2

Victoria Bridge



What are the problems?

The existing bridge is experiencing general structural deterioration and the remaining service life is an issue. The existing bridge is not sufficiently wide enough to accommodate the addition of separated bike lanes. Currently cyclists share the road with vehicles.

What are the opportunities?

Replacement or rehabilitation will lengthen the service life of the bridge, address deterioration issues and provide bike lanes to improve active transportation, including safety and connectivity.

Problems & Opportunities

3

Maintenance/Repair History

The existing bridge has undergone the following repairs:

• Replacement of the south abutment (1956)• Deck replacement (1960)• Exposed concrete overlay (1983)• Substructure repairs (1991)• Structural steel recoating and repairs (1992)• Expansion joint replacement (2011)• Emergency steel repairs (2016)

Severe corrosion (2016)

Problem / Opportunity Statement

Constructed in 1926, Victoria Bridge is located on Ridout Street over the south branch of the Thames River in the City of London. Ridout Street is an important link to downtown and a designated north-south bicycle route. However, Victoria Bridge does not have sufficient width to accommodate dedicated bicycle lanes which is a safety concern. Recent bridge inspections also identified ongoing issues of deterioration which may reduce the structural capacity of the bridge. Given the age of the bridge, existing conditions, functional deck width, structural capacity, potential heritage value and other considerations, the Class EA study should identify a solution to address structural deficiencies and accommodate all users through bridge rehabilitation or replacement.



Bridge Description

• The bridge is a seven panel modified Warren steel-pony truss bridge with an exposed concrete deck.

• The two-span structure was built in 1926 as the fourth crossing of the Thames River.

• The bridge supports Bell cables, a sanitary sewer and watermain.

Structural Assessment – Rehabilitation (2016)

• A Structural Analysis determined there is sufficient load capacity of the existing bridge to accommodate widening of the sidewalk and rehabilitation is a feasible alternative.

• Removal of the existing sidewalk and railing system would be required to accommodate a new 3m wide cantilevered sidewalk.

• Structural deficiencies include the deck, barrier systems, steel components, bottom chords, steel roller bearings, piers and abutments, etc.

Modified Warren Truss

4

What We Know

Hand Railings

Ridout Street

• Important link to downtown and Old South / Wortley Village.• Primary collector that carries 12,000 vehicles daily.• Public transit route.• Bike facilities are on-road shared lanes designated with sharrows (shared lane markings).• Signalized intersections at Horton Street and Grand Avenue.

North View



5

What We Know

Cultural Heritage (2016)

• A Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) identified the Victoria Bridge as having significant cultural heritage value or interest under Ontario Regulation 9/06.

• The bridge is not currently designated or listed on the City’s Inventory of Heritage Resources or other provincial/federal registries or inventories.

• The CHER recommended conserving the cultural heritage of the bridge either by retaining the bridge in situ, rehabilitation with sympathetic modifications or other forms of heritage conservation.

Heritage Impact Assessment (2017)

• Evaluated potential impacts of proposed rehabilitation or replacement alternatives on cultural heritage value of the bridge and area.

• Identified rehabilitation as a preferred option to conserve cultural heritage value.

• If necessary, mitigation strategies will be developed following confirmation of preferred EA alternative.

Bridge Construction - 1925

Archaeology Assessment – Stage 1 (2017)

• Potential recovery of both First Nation and Euro-Canadianresources is high in previously undisturbed areas.

• However, the majority of the study area has been previously disturbed.

• The report recommends a Stage 2 archaeological assessment for any undisturbed areas that will be impacted during construction.

• To be confirmed during the design concept stage.

Historic Map of Middlesex County - 1878

Original Stone Abutment



6

What We Know

Hydrology / Hydraulics

• Severe debris accumulation at the centre pier causing increased risk of flooding.

• Existing bridge does not meet all required design parameters for flood conveyance.

Accumulation of debris

Natural Environment

14 Species at Risk (SAR) have a high probability of occurring in the study area. These species will be considered further throughout the Class EA assessment.

Vegetation along pathway

• Eastern Sand Darter • Little Brown Bat • Eastern Small Footed Bat • Northern (long-earred) Myotis• Tricolored Bat • Wavy-Rayed Mussel • Spiny softshell Turtle

• Queensnake• Barn Swallow • Black Redhorse • Silver Shiner • Rainbow Mussel• Rayed Bean • Round Pigtoe

Active Transportation (pedestrians and cyclists)

• Currently there are shared bike facilities (sharrows) along the bridge as part of the bike lanes running north-south along Ridout Street. Important connection for commuter trips between residential areas and downtown.

• The bridge is a connection between on–road network and the Thames Valley Parkway system.

• The transition from pathway to bridge is narrow.• The vertical clearance between the bridge and the

pathway does not meet acceptable standards.Existing Active Transportation Network



The Project is following a “Schedule C” Municipal Class EA Planning and Design process which requires following the process outlined below.

We Are Here

7

Municipal Class EA Process

Why are we here?

To conduct a Class Environmental Assessment (EA) to determine the preferred solution which may include rehabilitation or replacement alternatives for Victoria Bridge.



Conservation Strategy Options

As part of the Phase 2 requirements for the Class EA, alternatives are to be considered and evaluated to determine a preferred solution. For this undertaking, eight conservation options were examined based on MTO Heritage Bridge Guidelines and screened as per below for Victoria Bridge.

8

What Are the Long-List Alternatives?

CONSERVATION STRATEGY SCREENING RATIONALE

Alternative 1:Retention of existing bridge with no major modifications.

X • Screened out.• Does not meet the problem/opportunity statement.

Alternative 2:Restoration of missing or deteriorated elements

• Carried forward.• Aligns with the problem/opportunity statement by

addressing bridge deterioration and active transportation separation.

• Further evaluated as Alternative A and Alternative BAlternative 3:Retention of existing bridge with sympathetic modifications.



• Further evaluated as Alternative AAlternative 4:Retention of existing bridge for pedestrians/cyclists only. New bridge built close by for vehicles.



• Further evaluated as Alternative BAlternative 5:Retention of existing bridge for pedestrians/cyclists only.



• Further evaluated as Alternative BAlternative 6:Retention of bridge as a heritage monument. No vehicular traffic or pedestrians/cyclists.

X • Screened out.• Does not meet the problem/opportunity statement.

Alternative 7:Relocation of smaller bridge. X • Screened out.

• Does not meet the problem/opportunity statement.

Alternative 8:Bridge removal and replacement with a sympathetically designed structure.



• Further evaluated as Alternative C and Alternative D



9

Short – List Alternatives : Alternative A

Alternative A:Bridge Rehabilitation with Improved Accommodation for Active Transportation

Traffic detour required during construction.

Pathway closed during construction.

Pathway realignment required.

London Hydro entrance closed during construction (emergency access only).

Rehabilitate existing north approach.

Rehabilitate existing bridge with necessary repairs and to increase service life.

Construct widened sidewalks to accommodate pedestrians and bicycles.

Rehabilitate existing south approach.

Maintain access to Thames Park during construction.




10

Short – List Alternatives : Alternative B

Alternative B:Bridge Rehabilitation for Active Transportation & New Bridge Downstream

Realignment of intersection required.Partial traffic detour required during construction.Removal of London Hydro substation required.Pathway closed during construction.Pathway realignment required.A portion of Ridout Street to remain open to accommodate London Hydro entrance and for pedestrians and cyclists.

New pathway alignment.New bridge constructed.

Bridge rehabilitated for active transportation (pedestrians and cyclists) only.

Bridge remains open to vehicles during construction.

New pathway alignment.

Temporary disruption/closure to Thames Park entrance.

Realignment of Ridout Street required.

Partial traffic detour required during construction.



11

Short – List Alternatives : Alternative C

Alternative C:Remove Existing Bridge and Build New Bridge on Existing Alignment


Pathway closed during construction.Pathway realignment required.


Construct new north approach.

Construct new bridge and piers.

Remove existing bridge and centre pier.Construct dedicated bike lanes on bridge.

Construct new south approach.Maintain entrance to Thames Park during construction.




12

Short – List Alternatives : Alternative D

Alternative D:Remove Existing Bridge and Build New Bridge on Existing Alignment

(Widened West Side)

Partial traffic detour required during construction.Pathway realignment required.


Access for pedestrians and cyclists maintained (Stage 2).

Construct dedicated bike lanes on bridge.

Remove existing centre pier.Construct new bridge and piers with widened deck on west side to accommodate pedestrians and cyclists.

Approach work required to accommodate shoulder widening on west side.

Maintain entrance to Thames Park during construction.

Partial traffic detour required during construction.

Stage 1: Widen deck on west side.Stage 2: Remove existing bridge and build new bridge



13

Evaluation Criteria

Choosing the preferred alternative - rehabilitation or replacement

The following criteria was used to evaluate the Short-listed alternatives that were carried forward.

FACTOR CRITERIA DESCRIPTION

SOCIO-ECONOMIC • land use• construction impacts

• Permanent/temporary impacts on private/public lands

• Travel delays/detours• Disturbance to known area contaminants

CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT • archaeological resources• cultural heritage resources

• Disturbance to archaeological sites and cultural heritage resources

NATURAL HERITAGE • aquatic environment• terrestrial environment• Species at Risk

• Impacts/enhancements to aquatic and terrestrial species and habitat.

TECHNICAL • design• constructability• safety

• Service life of the bridge and structural integrity• Hydraulic opening• Utility conflicts

TRANSPORTATION • transportation/traffic • Vehicular and active transportation considerations

COST • capital costs• maintenance costs

• Initial costs and maintenance costs• Total life-cycle costs



14

Evaluating the Short-List Alternatives

CRITERIA

ALTERNATIVES

ALTERNATIVE ARehabilitation

ALTERNATIVE BRehabilitation &

Replacement

ALTERNATIVE CReplacement

ALTERNATIVE DReplacement

SOCIO - ECONOMIC ---Full road closure required

during construction.

XProperty acquisition

required.

---Full road closure required

during construction.

XSome property acquisition

required.

CULTURAL

Maintains heritage value of bridge.

Maintains heritage value of bridge.

XLoss of heritage resource.

XLoss of heritage resource.

NATURAL HERITAGE

Minor impacts to environment.

XHighest impact to

environment with removal of trees/vegetation.

Minor impact to environment.

Minor impact to environment with removal of

trees/vegetation.TECHNICAL X

Rehabilitation would add potentially 50 years to service life of bridge.

XSignificant alignment of

Ridout/Horton intersection required.

New bridge would add 100 years of service life and

meet current bridge code.

New bridge would add 100 years of service life and meet

current bridge code.

TRANSPORATION ---Difficult transition from road

to bike path. Reduced conflicts between vehicles and active

transportation.

Reduced conflicts between vehicles and active

transportation.

Reduced conflicts between vehicles and active

transportation.

COST

Lower initial cost for rehabilitation but higher

ongoing maintenance costs.

XHighest initial cost

alternative due to additional road construction.

Higher initial cost for new construction but lower maintenance costs.

---Higher initial cost for new

construction but lower maintenance costs.

RECOMMENDED X X

LEGEND

Most Preferred/Least Impact

---Neutral

XLeast Preferred/

Most Impact

Choosing the preferred alternative - rehabilitation or replacement

Based on the criteria, the alternatives were evaluated as follows:



15

Preferred Alternative

Preferred Alternative - Alternative C: Bridge Replacement

• No property acquisition required• Improved safety for pedestrians/cyclists• Longer service life of bridge (+100 years)• Favourable life-cycle cost benefit• Improves river function

• Loss of culturally significant bridge• Potential to identify key Sympathetic or Sensitive

design considerations that may be carried forward to the new bridge and surrounding area.

ALTERNATIVES

ALTERNATIVE ABridge Rehabilitation with Improved

Accommodation for Active Transportation

ALTERNATIVE CRemove Existing Bridge and Build New

Bridge on Existing Alignment

PEDESTRIAN ANDBICYCLE

FUNCTIONALITY

• Rehabilitation limits the sidewalk widening to 3 m, improving pedestrian and bicycle functionality.

• However, transition and safety of bicycles on each approach to the bridge is not ideal.

• Replacement would satisfy all geometric and safety design standards for vehicles, pedestrian and bicyclists.

THAMES VALLEY PATHWAY

(NORTH SIDE OF RIVER)

• Rehabilitation may further constrain path width, with limited opportunities of improvement.

• Replacement with a longer span will greatly improve width and public safety. Further, there is opportunity to improve the river function with sloped and vegetated surfaces next to the bridge.

STRUCTURAL CONSIDERATIONS

• Rehabilitation represents some risk associated with structural fatigue, reduced reliability of riveted connections over time and built-up type steel sections which conceal section loss.

• Rehabilitation also involves some high complexity of construction related foundations strengthening and construction of new cantilever detail for sidewalk.

• Replacement would be designed to current material and code standards.

COST • Rehabilitation represents a lower initial cost than replacement.

• Future maintenance and rehabilitation cots are significantly higher and less predictable than Replacement.

• Based on the assumption that rehabilitationcan extend the life of the existing bridge by 50 more years, both alternatives have similar life-cycle costs.

NOT RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED

Choosing the preferred alternative – Alternative A: Rehabilitation or Alternative C: Replacement

Preferred Alternative – Alternative C: Replacement

LEGEND PreferredAlternative



16

Detour Plan

Vehicular Traffic Detour

• Because of the scale of work required to replace the bridge and limited space, it is expected that a full road closure will be required on Ridout Street between Horton Street and Ingleside Place.

• Traffic is required to be rerouted to roads capable of carrying the increased volume of traffic.

• Vehicular traffic will be directed to Wharncliffe Road to the west and Wellington Road to the east for one full construction season.

• Traffic management will be further refined during detailed design. Impacts to adjacent roads may also be monitored and addressed.

Active Transportation Detour

• The impact of construction on active transportation will depend on proposed construction staging.

• Temporary closure of Thames Valley Pathway below the bridge is anticipated.

Vehicular Detour Plan

Potential Active Transportation Detour Plan



17

What Happens Next

Phase 3 – Bridge Design Considerations

The following issues will be considered in the design alternatives:

Class EA - Next Steps

London Hydro access to be maintainedThames Valley Pathway Alignment

Potential construction staging area

Improved river function

Record feedback

Confirm Preferred

Alternative

Develop and Evaluate Design

Solutions to select a

Preferred Design

Host PIC #2 to present Preferred

Design

Fall 2017

Spring 2017

Summer 2017

Prepare Environmental

Study Report for Public Review

Design 2018

Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4

Phase 3 - Preliminary Evaluation Criteria

• Design• Aesthetics• Urban Design / Gateway Design • Heritage• Environmental Impacts• Capital Costs / Maintenance Costs



18

Phase 3 Bridge Alternatives

Phase 3 – Considerations for Bridge Design Concepts

Multi-Span Steel Box Girder Bridge Single-Span Tied Arch Bridge

Multi-Span Post Tensioned Concrete Slab Bridge Multi-Span Concrete Girder Bridge



19

Thank You For Attending

Thank you for Attending

• We appreciate the time you have taken to learn more about the Project.• We value your input to this study and encourage you to stay connected. • Please visit the City’s website:

http://www.london.ca/residents/Environment/EAs/Pages/defult.aspx• Join our mailing list: leave us an email or mailing address so we can keep you up-

to-date as the project progresses.• Contact us with additional comments or questions at any time.

Please remember to drop off your completed comment form before you leave or send it to us before May 10, 2017.

Karl Grabowski, P.EngProject Manager - City of London300 Dufferin AvenueLondon ON, N6A 4L9Phone: 519.661.CITY (2489) ext. 5071Email: [email protected]

John Pucchio, P.EngProject Manager - AECOM250 York Street, Suite 410London ON, N6A 6K2Phone: 519.963.5880Email: [email protected]

Click The to edit Master subtitle style · Click The to edit Master subtitle style Victoria Bridge...

Documents

Transcript of Click The to edit Master subtitle style · Click The to edit Master subtitle style Victoria Bridge...