Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutINS-14-074 - Margaret Avenue Bridge Replacement - Update Staff Rport I r rc'.�► t .R Infrastructure Services Department wmkitchener.ca REPORT TO: Community & Infrastructure Services Committee DATE OF MEETING: August 11, 2014 SUBMITTED BY: Steve Allen P.Eng, Manager, Engineering Design and Approvals, (519)741- 2200 x7584 PREPARED BY: Steve Allen P.Eng, Manager, Engineering Design and Approvals, (519)741- 2200 x7584 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 10 DATE OF REPORT: July 31, 2014 REPORT NO.: INS-14-074 SUBJECT: Margaret Avenue Bridge Replacement - Update RECOMMENDATION: That staff be directed to proceed with Alternative 3 as outlined in Infrastructure Services Department report INS-14-066. BACKGROUND: The Margaret Avenue Bridge has been closed since June 2013 following the receipt of a structural engineers' report recommending it be closed immediately. Subsequently, the bridge was removed in the fall of 2013 and a consultant was retained to design a replacement bridge. A staff report to Council on June 30, 2014 (INS-14-066, Appendix A) outlined options for council to consider with respect to the size of the bridge. This reconsideration of the size of the structure was generated by several announcements on the future of passenger rail service between Kitchener and Toronto. These announcements include plans to increase GO Train service between Kitchener and Toronto, and plans for High Speed Rail in the London-Kitchener- Toronto corridor. These plans and announcements have generated discussion regarding the suitability of a bridge spanning the current configuration of only two (2) tracks. At the June 30, 2014 meeting, council passed the following resolution: That staff be directed to proceed to the engineering design stage on Alternative 2 as outlined in Community and Infrastructure Services Department report INS-14-066; and, That staff explore opportunities for funding from the Regional, Provincial and Federal levels of government and report back to the August 11, 2014 Committee meeting; and further, 15 - 1 That the Purchase Order issued to Hatch Mott MacDonald for the design and contract administration of the Margaret Avenue Bridge replacement, be extended by$274,703 (incl. HST)." REPORT: At the June 30, 2014 meeting of Council, staff were directed to proceed with the design of a longer structure (3-track option), and to explore options for additional funding from other levels of government. The following is an update on Council direction given to staff. Design of Longer Bridge As directed by Council, the City's consultant has initiated design activities for the longer bridge and have submitted an updated schedule based on the scenario of building the longer bridge. The impact on the overall schedule is about 3 months of additional design and EA work on the original schedule (see Schedule Update below). Funding Opportunities Update As directed by Council, staff have initiated discussions on funding sources from the Federal, Provincial and Regional levels of government. In terms of Federal funding, the recently announced Building Canada Fund has been identified as a potential source of funding. Unfortunately, the intake and approval process for this grant has not been established, therefore no application can be made at this time. It is anticipated that applications can be submitted in the fall and therefore is still considered a potential source of funding. Provincially, staff have had discussions with senior staff in the Ministry of Transportation office, and with GO Transit/Metrolinx/Infrastructure Ontario. The following is a summary of their comments on the corridor. • GO Transit re-confirmed that the proposed bridge opening (2-track option) is sufficient to meet their needs now and for the expansion to two-way all-day GO train service. This acknowledges the continued use of the corridor for freight and VIA trains. • The width of the proposed bridge opening (2-track) is based on guidelines that govern railways in Canada. This opening will only accommodate two (2) tracks based on these guidelines. However, GO Transit has recently stated that this proposed envelope can be configured for three (3) tracks. This would be accomplished by relaxing standards for horizontal clearances and accepting any related impact to operability of the trains under the bridge. • Although High Speed Rail (HSR) is under consideration, Metrolinx's immediate focus will be updating and expanding GO rail infrastructure and service. Former Transportation Minister Murray indicated in late April 2014 that an Environmental Assessment for High Speed Rail may begin fall 2014. On July 15, 2014 after the provincial election, Premier Wynne reiterated plans for HSR stating that "we're in the process right now of doing the environmental assessment". 15 - 2 • Through discussions with provincial agencies staff have been advised that the provincial investment into the rail corridor between Kitchener and Toronto will be significant (approximately $600M). In addition to this investment, the province is upgrading GO Transit infrastructure across its entire 300 km system and there are a number of projects competing for funding. Corridor improvements for GO Transit mean that less may need to be invested in the corridor to implement HSR. • Two-way all-day GO train service between Kitchener and Toronto is a local and provincial priority and it will take time to prepare the significant amount of high level work required. It is anticipated that there may be more to share with the municipalities early this fall. Staff have also had discussions with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo regarding cost sharing on the longer structure. The Region and the City of Kitchener have shared values that will be furthered by expanded rail service to downtown Kitchener. To this end, the Region has contributed funding towards the Weber Street grade separation for the benefit of two-way all- day GO train expansion. There is currently no further funding available from the Region. High Speed Rail (HSR) Update The best information available indicates that the Province is committed to pursuing a high speed rail line in the London-Kitchener-Toronto corridor. Through recent discussions with senior GO Transit staff it is understood they are not considering HSR in any current work related to the Kitchener-Toronto rail corridor. Planning for HSR would be difficult since the Environmental Assessment has not yet started and the vision for HSR has not yet evolved with sufficient details to provide design parameters for the Margaret Avenue bridge design. The HSR will be a significant undertaking that, in all likelihood, would affect numerous properties, structures and municipal infrastructure. No details for this undertaking are available at this time. Both Metrolinx and the MTO are working independently towards increased passenger rail service between Kitchener and Toronto. Metrolinx through GO Transit is focused on the expansion of GO train service to Kitchener, while the MTO is responsible for the forwarding of the HSR initiative. Schedule Update The following table shows the revised schedules for the shorter (2-track) and longer (3-track) bridge. Milestone 2-Track 3-Track Advertise Tenders August 28, 2014 November 6, 2014 Tender Award September 29, 2014* December 1, 2014 Construction Start October 20, 2014 December 22, 2014 Construction Complete July 2015 August 2015 *assumes Special Council award or council designated CAO award 15 - 3 Considerations for Committee The options for committee going forward are generally the same as outlined in INS-14-066 with the following clarifications based on recent information: • GO Transit's position is that the currently proposed bridge opening (2-track option) is sufficient to meet their needs now and for the expansion to two-way all-day GO train service. A copy of GO Transit's February 18, 2014 correspondence is included in Appendix B. This position was confirmed in correspondence dated April 21, 2014 and June 12, 2014. It was re-confirmed in teleconference with City staff on July 23, 2014. • In recent discussions, GO Transit sees the current opening as having potential for three (3) tracks. This would be accomplished by relaxing standards for horizontal clearances and accepting any related impact to operability of the trains under the bridge. • Construction of a longer bridge (3-track option) will reduce the potential need to rebuild the bridge, to increase rail capacity, before the end of its Iifespan. However, given the early stage of planning for HSR, there is a degree of uncertainty that this configuration will accommodate HSR. • Although staff have initiated funding partnership discussions with other stakeholders, there have been no external commitments for funding for the Margaret Avenue Bridge. At this time it would be prudent to assume that the full cost of the longer bridge would be borne by the City. Cost sharing discussions with stakeholders can continue. As a result of these points, staff have concluded that the most appropriate action would be to construct the 2-track option as outlined in Alternative 3 in the June 30, 2014 report (INS-14- 066). GO Transit has been consistent in their statements that this configuration will not affect the implementation of expanded two-way rail service to/from Toronto. Further, construction of a 3-track span does not eliminate the possibility of the bridge being removed in order to accommodate further, yet unplanned expansions in the corridor, including High Speed Rail. Lastly, given that the City has not received any external commitments for funding on the longer bridge, the additional funding required for a longer bridge would be diverted from other immediate needs such as the Road Resurfacing program. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the council/committee meeting and representatives from the neighbourhood association were advised of the upcoming report. CONSULT - The Margaret Avenue Bridge Design Public Information Centre (PIC) was held on May 8, 2014. Many members of the public representing residents and developers attended and provided comments and concerns. At the June 30th meeting of Council, delegations representing the local neighbourhood attended to speak to the issue of the Margaret Avenue Bridge project. 15 - 4 CONCLUSION: As directed by Council on June 30, 2014, staff have initiated design of a longer Margaret Avenue bridge as defined under Alternative #2 in staff report INS-14-066. Staff have also undertaken efforts to secure additional funding for the incremental cost of a longer structure from other stakeholders, specifically the Federal Government, the Province of Ontario including GO Transit/Metrolinx, and the Region of Waterloo. No commitments for funding the incremental cost for a longer span have been secured. It has been re-confirmed that the 2-track option will accommodate all current and future GO Transit's operations including proposed two-way, all-day and seven day passenger rail service between Kitchener and Toronto. The best information available indicates that the Province is committed to pursuing a high speed rail line in the London-Kitchener-Toronto corridor. However at this point, GO Transit's plan for expanded two-way all-day GO train passenger rail service between Kitchener and Toronto does not include any consideration or provision for high speed rail. The HSR will be a significant undertaking that, in all likelihood, would affect numerous properties, structures and municipal infrastructure. No details for this undertaking are available at this time. Staff are recommending that the City proceed with the construction of the 2-track bridge as outlined in Community and Infrastructure Services report INS-14-066 (Alternative #3). ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Pauline Houston, Deputy CAO Infrastructure Services Department 15 - 5 APPENDIX A INS-14-066 MARGARET AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT 15 - 6 Staff REPO T'T 3: Council CI TE OF MEETING: ,June 30, 2014 SUBMITTED, BY: Steve Allen P.,En , Manager, Engineering ,Design n and Approvals, (' 19)742-2200 x7584 PREPARED Y: Shaileeln Shatz P.En , Design Engineer (619)7'42. 2210 7144 Steve Allen IP.Ein , Manager, Engineering Desi nn and Approvals, (519)x'42.2 00 x7 WARD(S) (INVOLVED: Ward 10 DATE OF REPORT:T: Mane 24, 2114 REPO T' IV ,: INS-14®1 55, SUBJECT:JECT Margaret:ret Avenue Bridge Replacement RECOMMENDATION: That staff be directed to proceed with Alternative 1 as outlined in Community and Infrastructure Services Report INS-14-066. BACKGROUND: The Margaret Avenue Bridge has Ibeein closed since ,Amne 2013 following the receipt of a structural engineers' report recoinmendi rig it be closed immediately. A Peer Review of the in ball recommendation, was undertaken, which supported the original findings. A. consultant was retained to eValluuate short and long ternn alternatives and costs for this bridge and their report was received on August 23, 2013, I'Ns information was presented to, Coaunrncil on September 91, 2013, and staff was as directed to proceed with dem iolitioarn o l'the existing stru cure and oniitiate the design oaf' a replacement bridge as outlined in Clommunity and Infrastructure Services Department report 1 NS. 13-076. Subsequently, the bridge structure was removed ved in fall of 2013 and a consultant was retained to design a replacepnent bridge. Desigin is essentmalhy complete and tendering of the new bridge is anticipated to begin mid Ally 20,14. The current design is to provide a bridge opening sufficient to sari 2 rail tracks as directed by oundl. This opening is co n.rMstent with irmfoar°matmomn received to-date frown the imajor stakeholders, and s0mdar to the previous structm.nre. 15 - 7 Recently, several announcements on the future of passenger rail service between Kitchener and 'Tofointo have prompted,, numerous discusisions regarding the suitability of a bridge spanning 2 tracks,- It is essential to review alternatives that meet the long-term future nelects- REPORT-. The Margaret Aven,ue Bridge currently spans 2 tracks, One is the mainline track andl the other, (north) track is used as a siding., The current proposed new bridge design, accommodates, an Opening sufficient for the 2 existing tracks, based on Transport: Canada and CN Rail Design guidielines- All IRailwway authorities including CN, Genesee & Wyoming (pareiii oorripainy of Goderich Exeter Railway), VIA and SO Transit were contacted in February 2014. As Of June 20,14, all stakeholders have concurred with the City's proposed cross,section accommodating 2 tracks- "ti has also confirmed that the 2-track opening is sufficient to meet allll G01 Transit future plains including those for two-way all-day, seven day service, design and, tendering of the new bridge is currently underway with an anticipated opening in sprang 2011 5 Over the last: several months, various political announcements on future passenger rail service between Kitchener and Toronto, coujpUed with high-level, commentary from senior offidals have led to further review of the suitability of a 2-track opleining. Future plans for GO train expansion considered in COinjUnction with other users of the railway (CN, VIA., G&W) presents a compelling case for a third track in the vicinity of the Margaret Avenue Bridge. There are currently two raill tracks under the SttUlCtUre. The addition of a third track wouid require an increased length -for the new bridge, Notwithstanding GO, Transit's responses to-date confirming that the proposed 2-track envelope meets their requirements, it is in the City's interest to once again review thiiis, issiue whJch is driven by the following, recent deveilopmentsi • 'The Originally tabled provincial budget inClUded, funding for two-way, a'14-day GO train s r ervice between Kitchener and Toronto, Based on the oulcome of the provincial election, 'the same budget may be brought forward, Two-way GO service is an Important regional priority that supports other long term priorities for the City (intensification, innovation district, econornic development strategy, improved multi-modal Options) and is supported by the cities of Waterloo,, Guelph, Townships of Woolwich and 'VVilmot and the Region of Walerloo, The province has Indicated that this would Ibe implemented witli 5 years. • GO Transit's Vice President of Operations was reported as saying that a clooble-Ifack along the Toronto-Kitchener will be required in order to provide efficient service, In the area of the Margaret Avenue Ibridge, there are freight operations that will compromise the ability of the 2 tracks to be used efficientily for passenger rail service. • In May 2014 Oinlario's Transportation Ohinister proposed 2-way all day electrified high speed rail service between London-Kitchiener-Toronto and indicated that it could be completed within 10 years High speed rail would req!LAire a dedicated track that could not be used for freight. Therefore, at least two dedicated tracks would Ibe required to ,accommodate the high-speed rail and the freight lines, under the bridge- 15 - 8 * Metrolinx has an agreement in principle to purchase 5,3k m of the C,N line between 1 � Georgetown and Kitchen ffi'bil Kitchener which Mill provide increased ex. 'lty and efficiency, This V� includes the corridor running undeir the Margaret Avenue bridge. The pro government has also committed to electrifying the entire GO rail system. * More detailed analysis was completed to determine the cost to construct a new 3-track, bridge span Construction of a longer span that is suffident for a 3-track opening will cost approxmately 0%, or$1,2M more, This is considered a moderate increase. If the shorter span is built now and is repliaced in the future with a 3--span bridgle, the future cow wA(Jll lind'Lide demolition of the 2-span bridge, CWIMTLActlon of a 3-span bridge and traffic and pedestrian interruption for approximately I year. The future cost ii�s estimated at S8,.OM (201A do[.,,,,I,ars) There are three alternatives available to the City: ALT,ERNATIVE -1 PAUSE PROJECT UNTIL THERE IS MORE CLARITY ON THE LONG-TERM BRIDGE OPENING REQUIREMENTS-. This alternative Is a short-term option until there Is more clarity on 'the Illoi ng-term bridge opening requirements, To, rri the impacts of the delay, a temporary pedestrian bridge could be, installed- The City 'woulld confinUeto engage the stakeholders in discussions, about the most appropriate bridge opening, which would,,,iiindude c✓ st-sharing discussions on a larger opening. Staff considers this option the best alternative. Pros" Provide temporary pedestrian bridge iiin the short term Provides time,for pro iln`ilal plans to advance Coins" A delay in the curreintschediole and a large uncertainty on when a permanent bridge would be built Cost incurred for a pedestrian crossing wilil be a throw-away cost and will be additional to a new crossing, increasing the overall cost of the replacement The Weber,Street grade separation is ciurrentlyunder construction and will be fully open thus fall. This accommodates 4 lanes of traffic as opposwl to the original 2. The completion of thiS grade separation will alleviate some of the traffic concerns regarding the continued closure of the Margaret Avenue crossing. The initial cost for installing a rentall pedesthan bridge is anticipated, to be $150K for 1-year and $80K per year thereafter,for continuing rental and tnaintenjaince, (Class C estirriate) linstaltation of a pedeStTiian bridge could be completed September-Cictober 2014, 15 - 9 A LTERNATIVE -2 LONGER BRIDGE SINGLE SPAN (23m) ACCOMMODATING 3 TRACKS This alternative sees buflid'Jing a longer single span bridge accommodabing space for 3 tracks This wili be a pfalactive option that wflll meet any future requirements, for track expansion now. within the 75--year iffagplain of the structure. The Weber Street grade separation atso has provisl,on for a 3"" track to be added at a later date- 1"his was funded by Metro[,,inx GO Transit- Staff considersthis, option to be the second-best of''the three options. Pros Cost to builld a Ilon glar single !span not si gnfficanfly irrnore expensive (additional $1 2M) wheincompared to a rebuild later UnfikMy that any i modifi cation to the bridge will,,,, bile required -for the anticipated,fifespan of the bridge Cons * Higher upfiront cost With uncertainty on whether the enlarged' opening will ever be required # Would result it delay in construction by 3 months due to change iin design Risk that the City will have to pay for the incremental cost Selection of this afternative mll' change the scope, of the original project and will result in 3 months delay and cost increase. The current Purchase Order !Issued for the design of the new bridge would need to be extended by Councill resolution. The cost fof building this longer span bridge acoornmodating tnt,°ee tracks is estimated to be Construction would start in Novembef 2014 with oornpletion by July 2015, This alternative will add abOUt: 3 months of additional d sign plus an Env ronrnental Approval process. ALTERNATIVE -3 SINGLE SPAN BRIDGE ACCOMMODATING TWO TRACKS (CURRENT DESIGN) This alternative accommodates an openling sufficient for the 2: exi�,,sting tracks (currently one rn,l arid one siding)- This option reties on 1130 Transit's statements to-date that the proposed 2-track envelope IS SUffiCient for the 'future levels of Transit service including those plans envisioned in recent announcements. In order to aocornmodate GO service expansion, the siding track would be converted to a second mainline track by Metrolilnx/GO Transit when that capacity is requiirod. Staff considers this option to be the least preferred of the three options available. The fi-i of the proposed structure is approxlmately 75 years. "The perceived shortcoming of this option is that iii a third track is requiired' within the of span of the bridge, the structure wiH need to be completely rebuilt with associated loss (A service for approximately one year for construction, 15 - 10 Pros , Gain be cori,'Oeted,withJn the exJstidng budget 0 Timing is consistent with pUbliic expectations to date a Current design;is 90% complete 0 Consistent with C01Jncj[direction Cons # Limits,railway corridor to existing opening. No,room for expalinsion- a FLAture exp,ansion will be expensive. 1,1 would cost the proponent approximately $8,01M (2014 dollars)to rebtAid the bridge with a larger opening and the bridge Willi be out of service for about a year. Total cost to taxpayers would be approximately $143M (2014 dollars), when indkiding the cost of Wilding and' removing the 2-track bridge, The cost for buillding this single span accommodating the existing 2 tacks is estimated as $6,313. Funding for this alternative has been approved throlugh tame ,2014 Budget Issue, Paper Cap,05, report:dated IINS 14-048 Construct,on is anticipated to start,by August 2014 with completion by spring 2015. ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRA T GI I PLAW The Alternative to replace the Margaret Avenue Bridge! will continue to contribute to Quality of Life for, residents i'in the City, by investing in infrastructure that will; suppot,"t our future growth. Expansibn to a 3-track, opening will ensure that the public investment iin. thiis infrastructure is realized over its intended 75-year lif0span. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Through the capital budget process, $6,268,,000 has been approved for the removaIl and replacement of the Margaret Avenue bridge through the 2,014 Budget IIssuue Paper Cap 05 — MargaretAvenuo Bridge Replacement as ouflilned' iin llinfra5truclury Services Department report dated INS 14-048,, The following are ithe financial impacts of each allternative_ Alternative 1 (Pause Project—Install Pedestrian Bridgv) The installation of a pedestrian bridge would Ibe funded from the existing approved funding, The remainder of the funding would remain in the capital account, until such time as a decision is made with respect to the final bridge configuration, It is Ilikely that the budget would ineed to be � h I increased in the future due to cost escal'aboin and' t e use of project funds fdr a pedestrian bridge. Alternative 2(Longer Span) The adoption of Alternative 2 will result in an increase 0 total project cost of approximately $1,2M, The total cost: M[ be rn,ostly funded throuqJh the existing approved funding, The, additional 51,21M would be financed through a Moan from the Economic Development Reserve Fund given the strategic alignment of improved commuter rail service with the City's Economic Development agenda. The loan would be repaid iin the future through Building Canada Fund (BU) grants and an associated City budget contribution for the City's 1/3 share or., should the application be unsuccessful', 'from the increased Federal Gas Tax grant in subsequent budgets, 3. 5 - 3. 3. If Alternative 2 Is preferred then 'the existing purchase order for the current design consultant should be extended by$274,703 (incl. HST) to complete the additional design work required for the larger bridge span, This amount is i ncl Wed in the $1�2M Metrolljinx/GO Transit's official position on the required opening is that the current,, proposed 2- track COnfi gUrafiori i's sufficient to rneet their needs iiin the foraseeabl'e future.. Therefore, any cost sharing, on the enlarged opening is unlikely. Staff would continue to work with Metrollinx/00 Transit on potential cost sharing options. Alternative 3 (Single Span —Current Designr) This afternati've is what was identified during- the 2014 budget process and is fw iVly funded within the approved „268„g IIf a, Ionger span is required in the future, the entire bridge replacement cost woulld be the responsibility of the proponent which would be the owner or a user of the raillway. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: The Margaret,Avenue Bridge Design Public Ilrnformabon Centre (FDIC) was held on May 8, 2014,, Many members of the pUbHc representing residents and developers atteinded' and provided' comments and concerns. To construct longer span bridge the pr Oct will undergo, a Schedule B - EA process., Residents will be notified in advance and be given an opportUnity,to contact City staff"with any questions or concerns. Public Informati;0n Centre wiill be planned in order to allow the public to participate In a public meetings, CONCLUSION: The desiign of the replacement Margaret Avenue bride e is essentially complete arind construction is anticipated to begin in August 20,14. Increased media attention regarding intensified passenger service within the Kitchener-`Torointo corridor including GO Transit expansion aind statements regarding high speed 41 has led to a need to review the sufficiency of the 2-track opening, being able to meet all users' needs,. These users includes G01 Transit„'CIA, and the freight operations that occur within this opening. In addition, the cost to increase the span to accommodate a 3”" rail track is only moderately more than the construction of a 2--track span. Wmile all users have indicated' that the current proposed opening wi]l meet their respective needs for the foreseeable -future, WI options regarding this issue nead to be considered by Council before construction begins on a 2-track option, Staff have concluded that Alternative 1 which wo,u[d see a pause in the project Untill there is more certaii nty regarding the span of the bridge, is the best opti oin to adopt at this time. The second-best afternative its Alternative 2, to build a 3-track span now 'rhe Ileast preferred alternative is A11cinative 3, Wi1ding a 2-tracts span, ACKNOWLEDGED BY. Pauline Houston, Deputy CAO Infrastructure Services IC, epaAment 15 - 12 APPENDIX B CORRESPONDANCE FROM GO TRANSIT 15 - 13 P/jf Z 4Jidr� w'wl}ap°) I brua ary 18,201,4 Ms. :Barbara Robinson,P.Eng. Director of Enginmring City w_al°Kitchener,Ci ty FWJ,P.0 Box 11 l'g 200,King Street West. Kitchener,Ontario Canada,NZG 407 Subject; Margaret:Avenue Bridge Replacement,City n( .idl-beunuer Mile:62,44 Guelgh Subdivision, Dear lbs. obirns Thank you,for foTwarw.linag your recent letter of February 4,, 2014 requesting that GO Trarrsir review and provide,continents on the Margaret Avenue bridge replaceraneunt ptrcject Our review confirms that tine prcaPttscd railway clearance envelop is acceptable and,will Accommodate all current and future 00 Transit operations(including proposed t+,vuta may all Clay and seveun day service). From our perspective,this project will be considered a Third PartyPrgjeet that will requuire t`ttrther review and 000rdinatio n as the project moves forward, For ertanttple bridge pier rail crash wall details and planned brides"and right-of-way drainage winks should be submitted to GO"1"mnsit"s"Tytird Party Projects consultant(AP ) for review and approved prior to tendering out the works,The"M rd Party Process will also provide an opportunity to provide guidance on connstmetiayrn access requirements, temporary construction clearances, define work blocks and rather constraints and impartatntly, confirm, railway corridor access requirements,through a GO'1'rartsit Work P"errnit (inclaudiu.g 1-lag ing;and construction liability insurance coverage cw,) To coordirWe the Third Party Review princess and for any wither matters concerning this project,please contact Mr.-Jeff Batentarn Manager, 1±;W Corridor 1' anaaggive rt,Office at 416- 54-7737 or Jeff',Bateman@ gotraunsit,crt;m We look forward to working with you and your team toward's the completion of this i mportantr iruitiratiVe in the City of l itchenear iuerelyu urannt Bailie Dir ,ter,Rad Corridors C.'e.. Daryl Barnett-Q0,'Transit 5haailesh Shah-City,of iteheuner 20 4f3ay aitroat„Suite drift � aUr B btireanua 0 Tororau nw,%6 ,Camilla Wxt 2M 1 Toronto,Onta.ft,Garwa WJ� 2"N3 15 - 14