County Rd 22 Class EA - PIC 3 · PDF filePre-fabricated steel bridge systems are a cost...

Public Information Centre No. 1 WELCOME

Crowe River Bridge ReplacementCounty Road 504, Township of North Kawartha

Class Environmental Assessment (Schedule B)

Date: August 24, 2017

Crowe River Bridge Replacement

Welcome to the first Public Information Centre (PIC) meeting.

Please record your attendance and obtain a comment sheet at the registration desk.

Please review the various display boards.

Should you have any questions regarding the presentation materials or any aspect of the study, please speak with the County or Consultant study team members in attendance.

We encourage your input and feedback.

Please deposit completed comment sheets in the comment box or mail/fax/email to the address at the bottom of the form within the next two weeks.

There is an opportunity at any time during the Environmental Assessment (EA) process for interested persons to provide written input.

Any comments received will be collected under the Environmental Assessment Act and, with the exception of personal information, will become part of the public record.

Welcome

Class Environmental Assessment (Schedule )B 2


The County of Peterborough has initiated an EA to move forward with the replacement of the Crowe River Bridge.

This Study will complete Phases 1 and 2 of the Municipal Class EA by establishing the need and justification for the project, considering all alternatives and proactively involving the public.

This Study is being completed as a Schedule ‘B’ undertaking, based on the range of anticipated effects and the estimated construction costs.

Introduction



MUNICIPAL CLASS EA PLANNING & DESIGN

PROCESS

We Are Here

• This Study is following the Schedule ‘B’ Class EA Guidelines -Phases 1 and 2.

• Opportunity for public input is provided at today’s PIC and at a second PIC tentatively scheduledfor mid November 2017.

• Following completion of the Class EA, the County may proceedto Phase 5 (Construction)



Crowe River Bridge Background Studies

Load Restriction By-Law – October 15, 2013

Bi-annual Bridge Inspection – September 2016

Detailed Deck Condition Survey – October 2016

Topographic survey – July 2017

Drainage Hydraulic Analysis – On-Going

Cultural Heritage Review – On-Going

Geotechnical Investigation – On-Going



Needs and Justification – Structural Condition The Crowe River Bridge was constructed in 1953.

The steel truss structure (circa 1934) was relocated from another site, and is at the end of its service life.

The bridge currently operates as a single lane crossing with a 21 tonne – 31 tonne and 42 tonne load restriction.

The last time rehabilitation work was completed at the bridge is unknown.

The Municipal Bridge Appraisal completed in September 2016 reported light to severe levels of corrosion.

The Detailed Bridge Deck Condition Survey completed in October 2016 reported light to severe levels of deterioration of the structural steel and corroding deck concrete.

The major safety concerns include the deteriorated structural steel, corroding deck concrete, non complaint roadside protection system and the reduced load carrying capacity and associated single lane traffic restriction.

The results of the structural condition review concluded that major elements are in advanced state of deterioration.

The cost of maintaining the current bridge under a rehabilitation approach for the next 30 years may meet or exceed the cost of replacement options and therefore, the EA Study has been initiated to determine the most appropriate bridge replacement strategy.

Replacement of the Crowe River bridge is justified based on the age of the steel truss structure (estimated to be over 90 years old) and it’s deteriorated condition rendering the crossing not suitable for heavy trucks and 2-way traffic.



Existing Conditions



Purpose of Study

The purpose of this study is to determine the most appropriate replacement strategy for the Crowe River bridge.

Problem or Opportunity Statement

The County of Peterborough has initiated a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment to consider options and to identify a preferred solution to address the deficiencies of the Crowe River bridge as they relate to safety, structural condition, performance and compliance with current design standards.



Alternatives

1. Do Nothing

2. Close the Crowe River Bridge

3. Replace the Steel Truss Structure and Maintain the Existing Concrete Abutments (i.e. Partial Replacement)

4. Replace the Existing Bridge Structure and Foundations (i.e. Full Replacement)



Review of Replacement Alternatives1. The “Do Nothing” alternative is not recommended to be carried forward for this project based on the

age, function and recorded deficiencies associated with the existing structure.

2. The “Closure” of the existing bridge is not recommended to be carried forward for this project based on the strategic transportation link this crossing provides to the local economy, including the logging industry and it’s key function in providing for the safe and efficient movement of goods and services.

3. The “Partial” replacement alternative provides an opportunity to reduce the overall construction costs and minimizes potential impacts to the river by utilizing the existing concrete abutments. However, subject to the outcome of the hydraulic analysis (currently underway), the existing concrete abutments may need to be raised to accommodate safe conveyance of the 100 Year design flood levels. Notwithstanding, the major disadvantage of this alternative is the inability to expose and assess the condition of the existing timber piles. Without proper verification of the structural integrity and capacity of the existing piles, this alternative is not recommended.

4. The “Full” replacement alternative represents the highest cost alternative. However, the new bridge will fully address the Problem Statement and will continue to support the local economy and provide a safe crossing for the travelling public. The life span of a new bridge is approximately 75 years. As such, it provides a more cost effective solution over the course of 75 years compared to rehabilitation life cycle costs.



Bridge Replacement Design Options1. 2-Lane Single Span Pre-Cast Concrete Girder/Deck Bridge on Existing Alignment.

2. 2-Lane Single Span Pre-Cast Concrete Girder/Deck Bridge on New Alignment

3. 2-Lane Single Span Pre-Fabricated Steel Modular Truss Bridge on Existing Alignment.

4. 2-Lane Single Span Pre-Fabricated Steel Modular Truss Bridge on New Alignment

5. 2-Lane Single Span Fibreglass Composite Bridge System on New Alignment

6. 2-Lane Single Span Fibreglass Composite Bridge System on Existing Alignment

NOTE: Construction of the replacement bridge on a new alignment would be considered should it be necessary to manage traffic during construction using the existing bridge. Otherwise, if the road is temporarily closed to facilitate construction, the new bridge may be constructed on the existing alignment.



Traffic Management Traffic Conditions

Average Daily Traffic Volumes on County Road 504 are low (i.e. less than 300 vehicles).

Due to the current single lane and load restrictions, heavy trucks are utilizing alternative travel routes.

Options

Option 1 – Maintain traffic on the existing bridge and construct the new bridge beside the existing.

Option 2 – Construct a temporary bridge beside the existing bridge and construct the new bridge on the existing alignment.

Option 3 – Close the bridge crossing temporarily (3 to 5 months) and detour traffic onto Glen Alda Road.

Recommendation

Recommended Option – Option 3 (based on reduced construction costs, lower construction duration, and improved public and worker safety).

By closing the bridge crossing, the new bridge can be constructed on the existing alignment, resulting in less environmental disturbance and reduced impacts by maintaining the existing road platform.



Traffic Management – Proposed Detour Route



Evaluation Criteria

The Study Team evaluated each alternative design solution within the context of the following criteria. A general determination of the ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ of each option was carried out. The results of which are graphically illustrated in the next display board.

Physical Environment – transportation operations/ function, safety, load carrying capacity, drainage/hydraulics, flood conveyance

Natural Environment – fisheries/aquatic impacts, wildlife / terrestrial impacts, vegetation impacts

Social Environment – property impacts, noise impacts, construction impacts

Cultural Heritage Environment – archaeological & heritage impacts, First Nations impacts

Economic Environment – maintenance costs, construction costs



Preliminary Evaluation Matrix


Criteria Option 1 Pre-Cast Concrete

Option 2 Modular Steel

Option 3Modular Fibreglass

Remarks

Physical Environment Concrete bridge provides longer life span

Natural Environment Each option provides comparable natural environmental benefits and potential impacts are mitigatable

Social Environment Each option provides comparable social environmental benefits and potential impacts are mitigatable

Cultural Heritage Environment

Each option provides comparable cultural environmental benefits (i.e. no anticipated impacts)

Economic Environment Concrete bridge has the highest cost. Modular steel bridge has the lowest cost.

Not Recommended

Recommended Not Recommended

Worst Equal Best


Preliminary Preferred SolutionThe preliminary preferred solutions that best satisfies the Problem / Opportunity Statement is:

2-lane Single Span Pre-Fabricated Modular Steel Bridge System

Benefits

New abutments may be constructed behind existing concrete abutments to avoid work in the water which reduces environmental impacts

New bridge shall be designed to safely convey the 100 Year design storm flows

Reduce construction and road closure duration

New steel bridge to provide 50 to 75 year service life

New bridge to be constructed along existing alignment to avoid impacts to property and utilities

Pre-fabricated steel bridge systems are a cost effective replacement solution



Typical Modular Bridge Installations



NEXT STEPS Review and consider public comments

Finalize Evaluation and Selection of the Preferred Bridge Replacement option Prepare Preliminary Bridge Replacement Drawings

Hold a second PIC to present the design and receive public input and comments

Review and consider Public Comments

Finalize the Design

Prepare an Environmental Project File documenting the planning and consultation process

Publish Notice of Study Completion

Place Environmental Project File on the Public Record for 30 Day Review Period

Subject to a favourable public review period, proceed with detail design and contract package preparation followed by tendering and construction in 2018 (subject to County Council approval)



YOUR COMMENTS ARE IMPORTANT TO USPlease Complete a Comment Sheet or Take One Home With You Before You Leave

Comment Sheets May be Placed in the Comment Box or Returned to the Study Team by Fax, Email or Mail to either:

In order to maintain the project schedule, please provide your comments by September 7, 2017.


Mr. Brad Kalus, LEL, C.E.T.Vice President & Manager, Barrie OfficePlanmac Engineering Inc.92 Caplan Avenue, Suite 115Barrie, ON L4N 9J2(705) 719-7981 C: (647) [email protected]

Ms. Kendra Reid, C.E.T.Senior Engineering TechnologistCounty of Peterborough, Public Works310 Armour RoadPeterborough, Ontario K9H 1Y6(705) 775-2737 ext. [email protected]

County Rd 22 Class EA - PIC 3 · PDF filePre-fabricated steel bridge systems are a cost...

Documents

Transcript of County Rd 22 Class EA - PIC 3 · PDF filePre-fabricated steel bridge systems are a cost...