Johnson Street Bridge Condition Assessment

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

2. Overview • Review preliminary findings based on April 2nd presentation • Clarify assumptions of Condition Assessment Overview • Seek approval in-principle for rehabilitation or replacement • Other Considerations • Moving project towards “Shovel-Ready” • Next Steps

3. 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

4. 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]

5. 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]

6. Existing Bridge Cross-Section [m][looking west] ~ 22.3 [outside width] ~ 17.1 [deck width] 3.1 2.5 9.0 2.5 I I 3-lanes trail rail sidewalk Note: Not To Scale [NTS]

7. 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

8. 4th Street Bridge, San Francisco cont’d After Before • Challenges Encountered: • Geotechnical / foundation / counterweight issues • High-pressure water line had to be relocated unexpectedly, but buried under ~5 m of mud Note: Photos from City and County of San Francisco website

9. 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.]

10. 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]

11. Typical Cross-Section Replacement Bridge [m] ~ 20.7 5.6 1.8 2.5 9.0 1.8 I I 3-lanes trail & rail bike lane sidewalk bike lane Note: Not To Scale [NTS]

12. 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

13. 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

14. Heritage Value After Rehabilitation • Heritage value impacted by rehabilitation work • Still deemed to be acceptable by Heritage Consultant [Commonwealth]

15. Rehabilitation – Laced Beams View of Rehabilitated Structure With Plated Diagonal Bracing View of Existing Structure With Laced Diagonal Bracing

16. 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.

17. 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

18. Other ConsiderationsRehabilitation v. Replacement • Safety • Support of Alternative Transportation • Accessibility • Environmental • Approach Road / Bridgehead Reconfiguration

19. 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 Safety

20. 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]

21. Alternative Transportation – Convergence of Regional Multi-Use Trails Lochside Trail GallopingGoose Trail Proposed E&N Trail Johnson Street Bridge

22. 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 Alternative Transportation cont’d

23. 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] Accessibility Note: ADAAG = American Disability Association Accessibility Guidelines

24. Rehabilitation + Replace 8.4 M mj [40 yrs] 9.8 M mj [replacement prorated 60 yrs] Replacement 7.3 M mj [100 yrs] 5.4 M mj [road & rail reconfiguration] Environmental[Estimated Embodied Energy over 100 yrs] 18.2 M mj [100 yrs] 1 12.7 M mj [100 yrs] 2 Notes: mj = megajoules 1. Existing bridge not included in calculation 2. Based on 48-month staged construction

25. 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 Approach Road / Bridgehead

26. 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

27. 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

28. Project Team • Project Manager: City of Victoria • Mike Lai, Asst. Director of EngineeringTransportation & Parking Services • Prime Consultant: Delcan • Mark Mulvihill, Vice PresidentInfrastructure • Hugh Hawk, Technical DirectorBridge, Structures & Marine Works • Heritage Consultant: Commonwealth • Harold Kalman, PrincipalCommonwealth Historic Resource Management Ltd.

29. Thank you! Questions?