CAMPBELLFORD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY€¦ · campbellford bridge replacement feasibility study ... widening the existing ... traffic analysis (1)

CAMPBELLFORD BRIDGE

REPLACEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY

August 4, 2010 – Meeting of the Trent River Crossing Steering Committee


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


• 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


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


•The additional lanes will result in appreciable capacity improvements

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


4

ALTERNATIVES TO BE REVIEWED

REPLACING THE EXISTING

STRUCTURE

2 LANE STRUCTURE

TWINNING THE EXISTING

STRUCTURE

WIDENING THE EXISTING

STRUCTURE

3 LANE STRUCTURE


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


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)


•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


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)


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



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


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



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



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


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


•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 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.


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 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


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


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


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


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


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


GOO GOOD FAIR POOR

17


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


•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


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


GOO GOOD FAIR POOR

ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

19

TRANSPORTATION


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


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


Possible Unidirectional Shared Bike

Lane


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


GOOD FAIR POOR

ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

24

SUMMARY AND NEXT

STEPS


STEPS

25

WORK PLAN

I PROJECT INITIATIONREVIEW EXISTING INFORMATION

� REPORTS

� DRAWINGS

� PROPERTY

� SERVICES

SITE INSPECTION� BRIDGE


� 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


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


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


- 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


IV 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

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


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


August 4, 2010 – Meeting of the Trent River Crossing Steering Committee


PRESENTATION #2

AUGUST 2010

Documents

CAMPBELLFORD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY€¦ · campbellford bridge replacement feasibility study ... widening the existing ... traffic analysis (1)