campbellford bridge replacement feasibility study€¦ · campbellford bridge replacement...
TRANSCRIPT
CAMPBELLFORD BRIDGE
REPLACEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
August 4, 2010 – Meeting of the Trent River Crossing Steering Committee
REPLACEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
AUGUST 2010
FEASIBILITY STUDY GOALS
� EXAMINE FEASIBILITY OF CONSTRUCTING A NEW BRIDGE AT THE SAME LOCATION AT SOME
TIME IN THE FUTURE
� EXAMINE VARIOUS BRIDGE TYPES THAT:
- PROVIDE REQUIRED NAVIGATIONAL CLEARANCE
- MAINTAINS GRADE AT EXISTING SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS AT EACH END OF THE
BRIDGE
August 4, 2010 – Meeting of the Trent River Crossing Steering CommitteeSlide
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
2
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES FOR
STUDY
• ALTERNATIVE 1 - REPLACING THE EXISTING STRUCTURE
• ALTERNATIVE 2 - TWINNING THE EXISTING STRUCTURE
August 4, 2010 – Meeting of the Trent River Crossing Steering CommitteeSlide
• ALTERNATIVE 3 - WIDENING BY STIFFENING THE EXISTING STRUCTURE
3
TRAFFIC LANE ALTERNATIVES
•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 3 LANE TRAFFIC
OPTION ON
August 4, 2010 – Meeting of the Trent River Crossing Steering CommitteeSlide
•The addition of a dedicated left turn lane will result in appreciable capacity improvements.
3 LANE TRAFFIC OPTION ON STRUCTURE
•The additional lanes will result in appreciable capacity improvements
•No appreciable difference anticipated when compared to 3 Lane Traffic Option.
4 LANE TRAFFIC OPTION ON STRUCTURE
4
ALTERNATIVES TO BE REVIEWED
REPLACING THE EXISTING
STRUCTURE
2 LANE STRUCTURE
TWINNING THE EXISTING
STRUCTURE
WIDENING THE EXISTING
STRUCTURE
3 LANE STRUCTURE
August 4, 2010 – Meeting of the Trent River Crossing Steering CommitteeSlide
STRUCTURE
3 LANE STRUCTURE
4 LANE STRUCTURE
4 LANE CROSSING
(2 NEW)
STRUCTURE
4 LANE STRUCTURE
5
BRIDGE TYPES
EXAMINE VARIOUS BRIDGE TYPES THAT:
MAINTAINS GRADE AT
August 4, 2010 – Meeting of the Trent River Crossing Steering CommitteeSlide
OPTION A CAST-IN-PLACE POST-
TENSIONED CONCRETE DECK WITH HAUNCHES
OPTION BSTEEL SUPERSTRUCTURE
WITH RIGID STAYS
OPTION CCAST-IN-PLACE POST-
TENSIONED CONCRETE DECK WITH INVERTED BEAMS
PROVIDE REQUIRED NAVIGATIONAL CLEARANCE
MAINTAINS GRADE AT EXISTING SIGNALIZED
INTERSECTIONS
6
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 through, left turn and right turn movements occur from a single, shared lane)
August 4, 2010 – Meeting of the Trent River Crossing Steering CommitteeSlide
•Left turning vehicles are the most problematic because they are required to wait
for an adequate gap in opposing traffic (including pedestrians)
• Shared lanes exhibit higher collision rates than dedicated lanes
7
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS (2)
ANALYSIS PARAMETERS•Operating characteristics are measured in Level of Service (LOS) and Volume-to-
Capacity ratio (V/C)
•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 are near or above
capacity (V/C > 1)
August 4, 2010 – Meeting of the Trent River Crossing Steering CommitteeSlide
capacity (V/C > 1)
•The volumes used in the analysis reflect 2009 (existing) and 2029 (future) conditions
•The 2029 volumes assume a growth rate of 1.0% per year (applied to all movements)
•The critical periods include:
•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)
•The analysis area extended from Queen Street/Grand Road to Doxsee Street
8
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS (3)PRELIMINARY RESULTS
Existing 2009 Traffic Volume-to-Capacity Level of Service
# IntersectionCritical Ratio Critical Movement Overall Delay/LOS Critical Movement
PM 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 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
# IntersectionCritical Ratio Critical Movement Overall Delay/LOS Critical Movement
PM Sat PM Sat PM Sat PM Sat
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
August 4, 2010 – Meeting of the Trent River Crossing Steering CommitteeSlide
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
PM 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 Service
# IntersectionCritical Ratio Critical Movement Overall Delay/LOS Critical Movement
PM Sat PM Sat PM Sat PM Sat
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
9
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS (4)
PRELIMINARY RESULTS (Contd)•2009 (Existing Configuration):
•Bridge Street/Grand Road/Queen Street near capacity in Saturday
•2029 (Existing Configuration):
•Bridge Street/Grand Road/Queen Street over capacity in both weekday afternoon
and Saturday periods
•Bridge Street/Front Street near capacity in both periods
August 4, 2010 – Meeting of the Trent River Crossing Steering CommitteeSlide
•Bridge Street/Front Street near capacity in both periods
•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
alternative (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)10
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS (5)
TRAFFIC CONSIDERATIONS - LOSLOS A - No congestion/all traffic should be served on the first cycle. Traffic fluctuations, accidents and lane closures
can be handled with minimal congestion. Intersection can accommodate up to 40% more traffic on all movements.
LOS B - Very little congestion/most traffic served on the first cycle. Traffic fluctuations, accidents and lane closures
can be handled with minimal congestion. Intersection can accommodate up to 30% more traffic on all movements
LOS C - No major congestion/most traffic should be served on the first cycle. Traffic fluctuations, accidents, and lane
closures may cause some congestion. Intersection can accommodate up to 20% more traffic on all movements.
LOS D - Normally, no congestion/majority of traffic should be served on the first cycle. Traffic fluctuations, accidents
and lane closures can cause significant congestion. Intersection can accommodate up to 10% more traffic.
August 4, 2010 – Meeting of the Trent River Crossing Steering CommitteeSlide
and lane closures can cause significant congestion. Intersection can accommodate up to 10% more traffic.
LOS E - On the verge of congested conditions/many vehicles not served on the first cycle. Minor traffic fluctuations,
accidents and lane closures cause significant congestion. Intersection has less than 10% reserve capacity available.
LOS F - Over capacity/likely experiences congestion periods of 15 to 60 minutes per day. Residual queues at the end
of green are common. Minor traffic fluctuations, accidents, and lane closures can cause increased congestion.
11
Item Avg. Intersection Delay
LOS A < 10 seconds
LOS B 10 to 20 seconds
LOS C 20 to 35 seconds
LOS D 35 to 55 seconds
LOS E 55 to 80 seconds
LOS F > 80 seconds
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS (6)
TRAFFIC CONSIDERATIONS•What is an appropriate LOS?
•Most jurisdictions in Ontario use LOS “D” as the desirable operational threshold (i.e. LOS “E” or
worse lower requires improvements).
•The LOS calculations are based on the busiest hours of a typical weekday (am and pm peaks)
and Saturday (midday peak). The other hours of the day will function better.
•LOS “D” provides an appropriate balance between traffic mobility and roadway improvement
costs and is considered a suitable threshold for Campbellford
August 4, 2010 – Meeting of the Trent River Crossing Steering CommitteeSlide
costs and is considered a suitable threshold for Campbellford
•What if the growth rates increase beyond the assumed values?
• A growth rate of 1.0%/year was assumed in the development of GENIVAR’s future traffic
volumes (this value was also used in the AECOM report). At this rate, the study area
intersections will function well (i.e. LOS “C” or better) for at least 25 years (i.e. until 2034)
• At a growth rate of 2.0%/year, the study area intersections will function acceptably until
approximately 2029, although minor delays will be evident on Saturday
12
EVALUATION CRITERIA
ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION
COSTS
• REPLACEMENT
SCENARIO
• EXTEND LIFE OF
EXISTING BRIDGE
CONSTRUCTION STAGING
•CONSTRUCTION
DURATION
• CONSTRUCTION
TRANSPORTATION
•CAPACITY IMPACTS
•TIME OF CAPACITY
IMPROVEMENTS
ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIO-ECONOMIC
AND CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT
•SOCIAL
ENVIRONMENT
• CULTURAL
August 4, 2010 – Meeting of the Trent River Crossing Steering CommitteeSlide
EXISTING BRIDGE
• STRUCTURAL COSTS
• ROADWAY COSTS
• PROPERTY COSTS
•TOTAL COSTS
• LIFE CYCLE STRATEGY
•LIFE CYCLE COSTS
DETOUR
•SOCIAL
ENVIRONMNENT
•ECONOMIC
ENVIRONMENT
IMPROVEMENTS
•SAFETY IMPACTS
•BICYCLE AND
PEDESTRIAN
SAFETY
•BUSINESS IMPACTS
ENVIRONMENT
•ECONOMIC
ENVIRONMENT
•NATURAL
ENVIRONMENT
• AESTHETICS
13
ENGINEERING AND
CONSTRUCTION COSTSI - Replace Existing Bridge II – Twin Existing Bridge III – Widen/Upgrade Existing
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
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 Bridge
Extend Life
of Existing
No, Existing Bridge will be removed. No, Existing Bridge to be
maintained and then
Yes, Existing Bridge to be
strengthened to extend
August 4, 2010 – Meeting of the Trent River Crossing Steering CommitteeSlide
of Existing maintained and then
removed and replaced
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
years) with Rehabilitations
Construct ASAP (3-5 years)
Widened bridge to have 75
year service life
14
LIFE CYCLE STRATEGY
I - Replace Existing Bridge II – Twin Existing Bridge III – Widen/Upgrade Existing
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
0 YEARS Major Rehabilitation on Existing BridgeMajor Rehabilitation on Existing
Bridge (Bridge #1)Widen Existing Bridge
10 YEARS Twin Structure (Bridge #2)
25 YEARS New Bridge Replace Existing Structure (Bridge #1)
40YEARS
August 4, 2010 – Meeting of the Trent River Crossing Steering CommitteeSlide
40YEARS
50 YEARSMajor 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
15
ENGINEERING AND
CONSTRUCTION COSTSI - Replace Existing Bridge II – Twin Existing Bridge III – Widen/Upgrade
Existing 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
BridgeStructural Costs
(Dependent on Bridge Type) Moderate
Initial Cost
High Initial
Cost
High Initial
Cost
Low Initial
Cost
Low Initial
Cost
Low Initial
Cost
Moderate
Initial Cost
Roadway Costs Minimal
Costs, no
change to
Moderate
Costs, minor
change to
Significant
Costs, major
change to
Significant
Costs, major
changes to
Significant
Costs, major
changes to
Moderate
Costs, minor
change to
Significant
Costs, major
change to
August 4, 2010 – Meeting of the Trent River Crossing Steering CommitteeSlide
change to
intersections
change to
intersections
change to
intersections
changes to
the
intersections
changes to
the
intersections
change to
intersections
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
Moderate
Life Cycle
Cost
Moderate
Life Cycle
Cost
High Life
Cycle Cost
High Life
Cycle Cost
High Life
Cycle Cost
High Life
Cycle Cost
16
ENGINEERING AND
CONSTRUCTION COSTSI - Replace Existing Bridge II – Twin Existing Bridge III – Widen/Upgrade
Existing 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
TOTAL COSTS
LIFECYCLE COSTS
August 4, 2010 – Meeting of the Trent River Crossing Steering CommitteeSlide
GOO GOOD FAIR POOR
17
CONSTRUCTION STAGING
I - Replace Existing Bridge II – Twin Existing Bridge III – Widen/Upgrade Existing
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
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.
•Westbound traffic via Trent Drive
No Detour Structure required
•Existing Bridge to serve as
Detour Structure
No Detour Structure required
•Existing Bridge - Detour
Structure. Maintain 2 lanes
with short term closures to 1
August 4, 2010 – Meeting of the Trent River Crossing Steering CommitteeSlide
•Westbound traffic via Trent Drive with short term closures to 1
lane with flagmen
Social
Environment(Residential
Property
Disruption)
Increased Traffic through Residential
Neighbourhoods
Temporary Closure of Kennedy Park west of
Saskatoon Drive during Detour Use.
No Direct Increase in Traffic
through Residential Streets
Temporary Closure of North
end of Old Mill Park.
Possible Increase in Traffic
through Residential Streets
Temporary Closure of North
end of Old Mill Park.
Economic
Environment(Residential
Property
Disruption)
Detour will bypass businesses Minimal disruption to
businesses
Possible Disruption with
reduced traffic lanes
18
CONSTRUCTION STAGING
I - Replace Existing Bridge II – Twin Existing Bridge III – Widen/Upgrade
Existing 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
CONSTRUCTION DURATION
SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT
August 4, 2010 – Meeting of the Trent River Crossing Steering CommitteeSlide
GOO GOOD FAIR POOR
ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
19
TRANSPORTATION
I - Replace Existing Bridge II – Twin Existing Bridge III – Widen/Upgrade
Existing 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
BridgeCapacity
Impacts
No improvements.
Congestion will
continue.
Dedicated Left
Turn Lane
2 Additional
Lanes:
2 Additional Lanes
Appreciable Capacity Improvements
Dedicated Left
Turn Lane
2 Additional
Lanes
Appreciable Capacity Improvements Appreciable Capacity Improvements
Time of
Improvements
No Improvements Capacity Increased in 25 years. Capacity Increased in 10 years. Capacity Increased in 3-5 years.
Safety Impacts No Improvements Reduced Collision •Reduced •Reduced Collision Rates Reduced Collision •Reduced
August 4, 2010 – Meeting of the Trent River Crossing Steering CommitteeSlide
Safety Impacts No Improvements Reduced Collision
Rates
•Reduced
Collision Rates
•Safety
Improvements
Anticipated
•Reduced Collision Rates
•Safety Improvements Anticipated
Reduced Collision
Rates
•Reduced
Collision Rates
•Safety
Improvements
Anticipated
Bicycle and
Pedestrian
Safety
Possible Unidirectional Shared Bike Lane
Sidewalk on Either Side
Possible Unidirectional Shared Bike Lane
Sidewalk on Either Side
Possible Unidirectional Shared Bike
Lane
Sidewalk on Either Side
Business
Impacts
No change,
Roadway operations/on-street parking
remain intact
Possible changes
may be required.
Potential loss of
some on-street
parking
Possible changes may be required.
Potential loss of some on-street parking
No change,
Roadway
operations/on-
street parking
remain intact
Possible changes
may be required.
Potential loss of
some on-street
parking
20
TRANSPORTATION
I - Replace Existing Bridge II – Twin Existing Bridge III – Widen/Upgrade
Existing 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
CAPACITY IMPACT
TIME OF CAPACITY
IMPROVEMENTS
SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
August 4, 2010 – Meeting of the Trent River Crossing Steering CommitteeSlide
GOOD FAIR POOR
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN
SAFETY
BUSINESS IMPACT
21
ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIO-
ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL I - Replace Existing Bridge II – Twin Existing Bridge III – Widen/Upgrade Existing
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
BridgeSocial
Environment
(Residential
Property
Disruptions)
No residential
property
disruption.
No residential
property
disruption.
Possible
residential
property
disruption
beyond
intersections
Possible
residential
property
disruption
beyond
intersections
Possible
residential
property
disruption
beyond
intersections
No residential
property
disruption.
Possible
residential
property
disruption
beyond
intersections
No recreational Minor Minor No recreational Major Minor Minor
August 4, 2010 – Meeting of the Trent River Crossing Steering CommitteeSlide
No recreational
property impact
Minor
recreational
property impact
Minor
recreational
property impact
No recreational
property impact
Major
recreational
property impact
Minor
recreational
property impact
Minor
recreational
property impact
Cultural
Environment
(Disruption of
Heritage
resources
No disruption of
Heritage
resources
No disruption of
Heritage
resources
Identified
Cultural
Heritage
Landscapes and
resources within
alignment
Identified
Cultural
Heritage
Landscapes and
resources within
alignment
Identified
Cultural
Heritage
Landscapes and
resources within
alignment
No disruption of
Heritage
resources
Identified
Cultural
Heritage
Landscapes and
resources within
alignment
22
ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIO-
ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL I - Replace Existing Bridge II – Twin Existing Bridge III – Widen/Upgrade Existing
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
BridgeEconomic
Environment
(Business
Property
Disruption)
No business
property
disruption
Business
property
required, no
buildings
removed
Business
property
required and
buildings
removed.
Business property required and
buildings removed.
Business
property
required, no
buildings
removed
Business
property
required and
buildings
removed.
All parking to remain intact Loss of 3-5
parking spots
Loss of 3-5 parking spots following
construction
All parking to
remain intact
Loss of 3-5
parking spots
Natural Major Impact Major Impact Moderate Impact
August 4, 2010 – Meeting of the Trent River Crossing Steering CommitteeSlide
Natural
Environment
Major Impact
• Piers required in the water for the new bridge
• Pier required in the water for detour structure
Major Impact
• Piers required in the water for the
new bridge
Moderate Impact
• Extension to existing piers
required in the water
Aesthetics Visual Appealing from Waterway and Waterfront
Visual Appealing from underneath bridge (concrete)
Lower Visual Appeal from underneath bridge (steel)
23
ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIO-
ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL I - Replace Existing Bridge II – Twin Existing Bridge III – Widen/Upgrade
Existing 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
SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT
CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT
August 4, 2010 – Meeting of the Trent River Crossing Steering CommitteeSlide
GOOD FAIR POOR
ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
24
SUMMARY AND NEXT
STEPS
August 4, 2010 – Meeting of the Trent River Crossing Steering CommitteeSlide
STEPS
25
WORK PLAN
I PROJECT INITIATIONREVIEW EXISTING INFORMATION
� REPORTS
� DRAWINGS
� PROPERTY
� SERVICES
SITE INSPECTION� BRIDGE
August 4, 2010 – Meeting of the Trent River Crossing Steering CommitteeSlide
� BRIDGE
� APPROACH ROADWAYS & SIDEWALKS
� INTERSECTION SIGNALS & TRAFFIC OPERATION
INITIAL AGENCY CONTACT� PARKS CANADA (TRENT SEVERN WATERWAY)
� NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY
STEERING COMMITTEE CONTACT� CONFIRM / MODIFY TERMS OF REFERENCE
26
WORK PLAN (cont’d)
II OPTION IDENTIFICATION & DEVELOPMENT
OPTION DEVELOPMENT
� EXAMINE ALL FEASIBLE OPTIONS AND DEVELOP CONCEPT SKETCHES
� IDENTIFY CONSTRUCTION METHODOLOGY, SCHEDULE, DETOUR & STAGING PLAN, TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN, PROPERTY & UTILITY / SERVICES IMPACTS.
� ASSESS CONSTRUCTABILITY, OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE
� PREPARE CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES
IDENTIFY POTENTIAL EVALUATION CRITERIA
August 4, 2010 – Meeting of the Trent River Crossing Steering CommitteeSlide
IDENTIFY POTENTIAL EVALUATION CRITERIA� 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
NOW REVIEW OPTION CONCEPTS AND POTENTIAL EVALUATION CRITERIA
NOW COARSE SCREEN OPTIONS TO SELECT SHORT-LIST
NOW ESTABLISH EVALUATION CRITERIA AND WEIGHTING
27
WORK PLAN (cont’d)
III SELECTION OF PREFERRED OPTIONEVALUATION OF SHORT-LISTED OPTIONS
NOW EVALUATE THE SHORT-LISTED OPTIONS AGAINST THE SELECTED CRITERIA
NOW COMPILE A DECISION MATRIX TO TABULATE THE EVALUATION AND SELECT THE PREFERRED OPTION
DRAFT FEASIBILITY REPORT
- PREPARE THE DRAFT FEASIBILITY REPORT DOCUMENTING THE STUDY PROCESS, OPTIONS DEVELOPED, EVALUATION PROCESS AND RECOMMENDED OPTION
- PREPARE PRELIMINARY STRUCTURE GENERAL ARRANGEMENT DRAWING
August 4, 2010 – Meeting of the Trent River Crossing Steering CommitteeSlide
- 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
28
WORK PLAN (cont’d)
IV FINAL REPORT & DRAWINGS
60% DESIGN DRAWINGS
- DEVELOP PRELIMINARY STRUCTURAL GENERAL ARRANGEMENT DRAWING TO 95%
August 4, 2010 – Meeting of the Trent River Crossing Steering CommitteeSlide
- 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
29
SCHEDULE
Phase 1 - Project Initiation
• Review Existing Information
• Site Inspection
• Agency Contact
• Client Liaison
May 5, 2010
Phase II - Option Development
• Option Development
• Evaluation Criteria
• Steering Committee
June 4, 2010
August 4, 2010 – Meeting of the Trent River Crossing Steering CommitteeSlide
Phase III -Selection of
Preferred
• Evaluation of Short-List
• Feasibility Report
• Steering Committee Present
• Public Present
September 1, 2010
Phase IV - Final Report & Drawings
• 60% Drawings
• Final Report September 29, 2010
30
CAMPBELLFORD BRIDGE
REPLACEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
August 4, 2010 – Meeting of the Trent River Crossing Steering Committee
REPLACEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRESENTATION #2
AUGUST 2010