Johnson Street Bridge Condition Assessment Preliminary Findings – Additional Information April 23, 2009

1.Review preliminary findings based on April 2 nd 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., 4 th Street Bridge experience in San Francisco]

Existing Bridge Cross-Section [m] [looking west] lanes sidewalk trailrail ~ 22.3 [outside width] ~ 17.1 [deck width] I I Note: Not To Scale [NTS]

Requested Information on 4 th 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

4 th 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] lanes sidewalk trail & rail ~ 20.7 II Note: Not To Scale [NTS] bike lane 1.8 bike lane

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, Photos courtesy of City of Victoria Archives] 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

Other Considerations Rehabilitation 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 Galloping Goose 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 + Replace 8.4 M mj [40 yrs] 9.8 M mj [replacement prorated 60 yrs] Notes:mj = megajoules 1. Existing bridge not included in calculation 2. Based on 48-month staged construction Replacement 7.3 M mj [100 yrs] 5.4 M mj [road & rail reconfiguration] 12.7 M mj [100 yrs] 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?