Johnson Street Bridge Condition Assessment

Preliminary Findings – Additional Information

April 23, 2009

1. Review preliminary findings based on April 2nd presentation

2. Clarify assumptions of Condition Assessment Overview

3. Seek approval in-principle for rehabilitation or replacement

4. Other Considerations

5. Moving project towards “Shovel-Ready”

6. Next Steps

Overview

Condition Assessment Overview

• Upgrades required for bridge components:– Structural [excluding seismic]– Mechanical– Electrical

• Bridge is safe!

• Significant condition issues – rehabilitation required immediately otherwise condition will continue to deteriorate

• Rehabilitation in future may not be an option if major work not done soon

Seismic Vulnerability

• Victoria located in most earthquake prone zone in Canada

• Bridge not designed to any seismic standards

• Seismic upgrading necessary for:– Infrastructure investment protection; and– Public safety [post-disaster design of Magnitude

8.6]

Rehabilitation Strategy

• “Order of Magnitude” cost approximately $25M - $30M [not for budget purposes]– Extends bridge life about 40 years– Preliminary estimate only. Not based on detailed

engineering design information• Geotechnical review required• Detail on pier foundation condition to be

confirmed [i.e., submerged timber piles]• May be other unknowns once work commences• Cost may rise significantly [e.g., 4th Street Bridge

experience in San Francisco]

Existing Bridge Cross-Section [m][looking west]

2.5 3.12.59.0

3-lanes

sid

ew

alk

trail rail

~ 22.3 [outside width]

~ 17.1 [deck width]

I I

Note: Not To Scale [NTS]

Requested Information on 4th Street Bridge San Francisco

• 2-lane, single-leaf bascule bridge designed by Joseph Strauss; built in 1917; historic; no rail; carries vehicular, cyclist and pedestrian traffic

• Scope, Schedule and Budget:– Major seismic retrofit, rehabilitation [i.e., mechanical, electrical,

overhead power and control systems] and to add light rail tracks

– Scheduled for 18 months; started 2003, completed in 2006

– Original estimate of $17M; final estimated cost between $34M - $55M [contractor versus city]

• Currently in litigation due to delays and claim of at least $17M budget over-run

4th Street Bridge, San Francisco cont’d

• Challenges Encountered:– Geotechnical / foundation / counterweight issues– High-pressure water line had to be relocated

unexpectedly, but buried under ~5 m of mud

Before After

Note: Photos from City and County of San Francisco website

Replacement Strategy for Comparison Purposes

• “Order of Magnitude” cost about $35M - $40M – 100-year design life– Preliminary estimate only. Not for budget purposes. Not based

on detailed engineering design information

• Includes on-street commuter bike lanes, but not enhanced multi-use trail

• Nominal work on approach roads to tie into bridge• Underground works to be reviewed• Standard engineering designed bridge, not “iconic”• Cost will increase with additional elements or features

[e.g., architecturally-significant bridge; wider cross-section, approach road reconfiguration, etc.]

Replacement Strategy for Comparison Purposes cont’d

• Need geotechnical information in harbour and along shoreline

• Need to investigate soil contamination issues

• Need to consider archaeological issues

• Does not include upgraded approaches to the bridge [i.e., east and west approaches / bridgehead area]

Typical Cross-Section Replacement Bridge [m]

2.5 5.61.89.0

3-lanes

sid

ew

alk trail & rail

~ 20.7

I I

Note: Not To Scale [NTS]

bik

e la

ne

1.8

bik

e la

ne

Heritage Assessment – Existing Bridge

• High social historical value

• High value as an engineering landmark

• High contextual value

• High overall heritage value

• Gateway to Downtown area

Social Historical Value[Bridge Opening Day, January 11, 1924 - Photos courtesy of City of Victoria Archives]

Looking east at Johnson / Wharf intersection

Looking east at Johnson / Wharf intersection

Looking east at Johnson / Wharf intersection

Looking west along Esquimalt Road

Heritage Value After Rehabilitation

• Heritage value impacted by rehabilitation work

• Still deemed to be acceptable by Heritage Consultant [Commonwealth]

View of Existing Structure With Laced

Diagonal Bracing

View of Rehabilitated Structure With

Plated Diagonal Bracing

Rehabilitation – Laced Beams

Embodied Energy and Life Cycle Assessment

• Rehabilitation: 8.4 M megajoules [over 40 years]1

• Replacement: 8.3 M megajoules [prorated over 40 years] 2

• If completed in 24 months, full closures may be required and Embodied Energy for Replacement Option will likely exceed Rehabilitation Option

• Completing rehabilitation work on bridge without closures could add a year, thus increasing Embodied Energy

[1] Does NOT include original bridge. Assumes temporary closures.

[2] Based on staged construction over 48-months to minimize full closures.

Life Cycle Costing [100 years][preliminary estimates]

• Notes: 100 year comparison; does not include Discount Rate to simplify comparison; NOT for budgeting purposes, discusson only; other details required

ScenarioInitial

Cost [$M]Future

Costs [$M] Total [$M]

1

Rehabilitate with Seismic Upgrade and Replacement in Year 40

$30 $56 $86

2Replace and Maintain to Year 100

$40 $20 $60

Other ConsiderationsRehabilitation v. Replacement

• Safety

• Support of Alternative Transportation

• Accessibility

• Environmental

• Approach Road / Bridgehead Reconfiguration

Safety

Rehabilitation• Limited cross-section, some widening

possible but extremely challenging and expensive [added cost]

• Retains s-curve [not desirable]• No on-road bike lanes• Substandard trail width on rail bridge

[no separation to rail]• City owns liability of trail on rail bridge

due to substandard width / separation• Conflict point between E&N Rail and

Galloping Goose Trail [GGRT] users

Replacement• Flexibility in design elements

• Includes on-road bike lanes

• Eliminates conflict point between E&N Rail and trail users

• Can eliminate s-curve [added cost]

• Ability to widen current GGRT to 5 m along bridge [added cost], which will eliminate liability of existing trail on bridge

• Improved safety to accommodate Trail users across bridge into Downtown

Alternative Transportation

• 30,000 vehicles per day across bridge, in addition to pedestrians, cyclists, transit and a commuter train

• CRD Regional Growth Strategy:– TravelChoices Study defined mode-share targets for

Region to be achieved by 2026:• Pedestrian mode share of 15%• Cycling mode share of 5%• Transit mode share of 10%

• Intended to help reduce SOV dependency and improve triple-bottom line [i.e., less GHG, improved quality of life and economic vitality]

Alternative Transportation – Convergence of Regional Multi-Use Trails

Lochside Trail

GallopingGoose Trail

Proposed E&N Trail

Johnson Street Bridge

Alternative Transportation cont’d

Rehabilitation• No on-road commuter bike lanes on

bridge• Retains existing multi-use trail width

of ~2-2.5 m• Linkage to future Harbour Pathway

and E&N Rail Trail• Provides limited pedestrian / cyclist

linkage to Downtown area

Replacement• Provision of on-road bike lanes to

Downtown

• Can accommodate wider multi-use trail [added cost]

• Enhances livable community objectives [e.g., Dockside, Roundhouse, Railyards, etc.]

• Enhances local and regional transportation objectives

• Linkage to future Harbour Pathway and E&N Rail Trail

Accessibility

Rehabilitation• Bridge built in 1924• Not built to today’s

accessibility standards• Surface treatment of trail

should meet ADAAG barrier-free design standards [width, obstacles, maintenance]

Replacement• Will meet current standards

for accessibility [ADAAG] and barrier-free standards

• Could expand sidewalk & Trail to enhance standard [added cost]

Note: ADAAG = American Disability Association Accessibility Guidelines

Environmental[Estimated Embodied Energy over 100 yrs]

Rehabilitation + Replace8.4 M mj [40 yrs]

9.8 M mj [replacement

prorated 60 yrs]

Notes: mj = megajoules1. Existing bridge not included in calculation2. Based on 48-month staged construction

Replacement7.3 M mj [100 yrs]

5.4 M mj [road & rail reconfiguration]

12.7 M mj [100 yrs] 218.2 M mj [100 yrs] 1

Approach Road / Bridgehead

Rehabilitation• Retains existing approach

road configuration• Reconfiguration may be

possible on east side only, but challenging and expensive [added cost]

Replacement• Opportunity to consider

reconfiguration of approaches [added cost] to rationalize road network movements and possibly create surplus lands

• Requires detailed review and traffic modelling work

Working Towards “Shovel-Ready”

• Still awaiting federal Infrastructure Grant announcement. “Shovel-ready” yet to be defined

• City approach to “shovel-ready”:– Create Johnson Street Bridge Project Team [inter-departmental]– Retain Owner’s Representative / Engineer and Communications

Coordinator– Review underground utility [public & private]– Initiate Permitting Process [CEAA, Transport Canada, First

Nations, Archaeological review, DFO, GVHA]– Initiate preliminary geotechnical investigation [foundation and

contamination]– Develop Communication Strategy and Plan

Next Steps

• Receive approval-in-principle of preferred option• Confirm scope of work [e.g., bridge width, length, approach roads]• Engage affected stakeholders• Develop preliminary and detailed design drawings; delivery method• Refine costs, schedule and details• Review Traffic Management Plan• Report back to Council with refined costs and design• Develop Communications Plan• Review funding opportunities• Prepare application for “shovel-ready” project• Prepare Borrowing Bylaw based on preferred option and refined

cost estimates

Project Team

• Project Manager: City of Victoria– Mike Lai, Asst. Director of Engineering

Transportation & Parking Services

• Prime Consultant: Delcan– Mark Mulvihill, Vice President

Infrastructure– Hugh Hawk, Technical Director

Bridge, Structures & Marine Works

• Heritage Consultant: Commonwealth– Harold Kalman, Principal

Commonwealth Historic Resource Management Ltd.

Thank you!

Questions?