HomeMy WebLinkAboutDTS-06-060 - Fairway Rd Extension Bridge Design
)
R
Development &
Technical Services
Report To:
Chair Weylie and Members of the Development and Technical
Services Committee
March 27, 2006
Date of Meeting:
Submitted By:
Prepared By:
Ward Involved:
John McBride
John McBride
Ward 2 -Chicopee Grand River
Date of Report:
Report No.:
Subject:
March 22, 2006
DTS 06-060
FAIRWAY ROAD EXTENSION BRIDGE DESIGN
RECOMMENDATION:
"That Council support Alternative 2, which is the medium to long span girder bridge
design, for the Fairway Road Extension bridge crossing of the Grand River."
BACKGROUND:
In 1999, the Regional Municipality of Waterloo completed its Regional Transportation Master
Plan (RTMP) which identified the need to extend Fairway Road to provide an additional crossing
of the Grand River, midway between the Victoria Street and King Street crossings. The need
for the Fairway Road extension is also supported by the Regional Growth Management Strategy
(RGMS, 2003) which identified substantial employment growth on the East Side of the Grand
River including the vicinity of the Airport.
The Region of Waterloo has completed the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) for
the Fairway Road extension, from Zeller Drive to Fountain Street, including the crossing of the
Grand River. The Project Team investigated ten initial route alternatives, and subsequently
investigated several routes in more detail following consultation with the public. The Project
Team recommended D2 as the preferred alignment, and this alignment was adopted by
Regional Council, on June 22, 2005. A key plan showing the preferred alignment, D2, is
presented in Appendix A.
REPORT:
During the initial stages of the Class EA study, the Project Team identified the aesthetic quality
of the bridge crossing as an issue of public interest. At the Planning and Works Committee
meeting on June 14 2005, a delegation from the Waterloo Region Heritage Planning Advisory
Committee (HPAC) noted that the aesthetic quality of the bridge was a matter of considerable
interest, and that the bridge design should enhance and protect the heritage of the area.
2
Bridge Setting and Environment
The proposed Fairway Road Bridge will carry the Fairway Road extension, linking Cambridge
and Kitchener across the Grand River. The total length of the bridge will be approximately 240
metres.
A residential housing development and elementary school are proposed on the Kitchener side
of the new bridge, close to the river. The bridge will be clearly visible from many of the
residences as a predominant landmark. The Walter Bean Trail will also pass directly under the
bridge. Thus, in addition to motorists, the bridge will provide a key connection across the river
for pedestrians and cyclists.
From the bridge in general, and from the south bank in particular, the bridge will provide
pedestrians, cyclists and motorists with far-ranging views of the Grand River Valley. Based on
the experience of similar bridges in other municipalities, it is anticipated that the bridge will be
regarded by many as a destination in itself, as a result of the views which it will afford. It will be
desirable to design a bridge which provides opportunities for pedestrians, hikers, cyclists and
canoeists to safely pause to enjoy the vista. It will also be desirable to design a bridge which
permits motorists to view the valley, while maintaining safety and without providing any undue
driver distractions. The bridge will also be clearly visible from Fountain Street.
Preliminary Alternative Configurations for the Fairway Road Bridge
The Project Team developed a total of seven preliminary configuration alternatives, based on
accepted fundamental bridge types. The physically feasible types and configurations of bridges
for any given crossing are a function of many criteria, especially the site conditions at that
crossing. Conditions such as river width, water depth, proximity to bedrock, and the like, will
often preclude the construction of certain types of bridges, or make a certain type of bridge
particularly attractive from a constructability standpoint.
The seven preliminary configuration alternatives (including preliminary cost estimates) are
shown in Appendix B and are described as follows:
Alternative 1 - Short-Span Precast Concrete Girder Bridge (5 piers; 6 spans) ($9.7 - $10.5 M)
This bridge would consist of readily available pre-cast concrete girders. While this is the most
common type of structure currently built in Ontario, span lengths are limited to 45-50 m, and this
bridge would require three piers in the river, including one pier where the river is deepest.
Alternative 2 - Medium-to-Long-Span Girder Bridge (3 piers; 4 spans) ($11 - $12 million)
This bridge would consist of either steel or concrete girders designed to accommodate
somewhat longer spans than Alternative 1. This would reduce the number of piers in the river to
a minimum of one and a maximum of two, depending on the final design. An extended
configuration with no piers in the river would be possible, though at a higher cost.
Alternative 3 - Steel Tied-Arch ("Bowstring") Bridge (3 piers; 4 spans) ($18 - $20 million)
This bridge would consist of a single steel arch span over the Grand River, with more common
girder spans flanking the main arch span. This would reduce the number of piers in the river to
a minimum of one and a maximum of two, depending on the final design. An extended
configuration with no piers in the river would be possible, though at a higher cost.
3
Alternative 4 - Steel Truss Bridge (3 piers; 4 spans) ($23 - $25 million)
This bridge would consist of a four-span continuous steel truss. This bridge would require either
one or two piers in the river.
Alternative 5 - Extradosed Cable-Stayed Girder Bridge (3 towers; 4 spans) ($23 - $25 million)
This bridge would consist of steel or concrete girders supplemented by cables attached directly
to two concrete towers. This bridge would require a minimum of one and a maximum of two
piers in the river, depending on the final design. There are currently no such bridges in Canada.
Alternative 6 - Cable-Stayed Bridge (1 tower; 2 spans) ($30 - $33 million)
This bridge would consist of a roadway deck supported by cables attached directly to a single
concrete tower. This bridge would require no piers in the river; however, the massive tower
footing in the north flood plain would significantly impact the adjacent municipal water wells. It is
noted that cable-stayed bridges are best suited to long spans of 300 m to 1000 m. There are
currently fewer than ten such bridges carrying roadway traffic in Canada.
Alternative 7 - Suspension Bridge (2 towers; 3 spans) ($65 - $70 million)
This bridge would consist of a roadway deck supported by suspension hangers attached to
main suspension cables draped over two towersThis bridge would require one pier in the river.
It is noted that suspension bridges are best suited to very long spans of 800 m to 2000 m.
Development of Criteria for Evaluating Alternatives
The Project Team developed a comprehensive set of criteria for the evaluation of bridge type
alternatives for this project.
The criteria adopted are as follows:
1. Aesthetic Potential in the Fairway Road Setting
2. Constructability / Construction Cost and Schedule Risks
3. Number of Piers in the River
4. Environmental Impacts on Flora and Fauna
5. Inspectability and Long-Term Maintenance
6. Future Widening or Twinning / Ultimate Right-of-Way
7. Impact on Municipal Water Wells
8. Impacts on Airport Navigation and Communication
9. Capital Cost
Preliminary Evaluation of Bridge Type Alternatives
The Project Team undertook a preliminary evaluation of the preliminary bridge type alternatives.
The results of this evaluation are summarized in an evaluation matrix presented in Appendix C
of this report.
The Project Team agreed that Alternative 1 (short-span girder bridge) should be carried forward
for further consideration, as it is likely to be the least expensive option. The Project Team
indicated a concern with Alternative 1 regarding the need for three piers in the river, due to the
associated potential for escalation of construction costs, and the associated potential for
construction schedule contingencies. The Project Team also expressed concern with the
increased environmental impacts of this alternative, and noted that this alternative would require
4
the most extensive and costly fish habitat restoration of all the alternatives considered. The
Project Team agreed that this alternative possessed the least inherent aesthetic interest.
The Project Team also agreed that Alternative 2 (medium-to-Iong-span girder bridge) should be
carried forward for further consideration, as it provides improved inherent aesthetic potential
over Alternative 1 and mitigates the cost and schedule risks associated with in-water piers, at a
reasonable cost.
The Project Team had some concerns as to whether Alternative 3 (arch bridge) could be
considered a feasible alternative, as this bridge would be notably more expensive than
Alternative 1 (short-span girder bridge) or Alternative 2 (medium-to-Iong span girder bridge),
and would require an increased project budget. The Project Team agreed, however, that the
arch bridge possesses considerable inherent aesthetic potential, is complementary to the
heritage of existing Grand River crossings, and mitigates the cost and schedule risks associated
with in-water piers. The Project Team agreed that the public might view the additional cost as
justifiable, if the aesthetic potential were to be viewed favourably. The Project Team reached a
consensus that this alternative should be carried forward for further consideration at the PCC.
The Project Team agreed that all of the remaining alternatives (4, 5, 6 and 7) should be
screened out and not considered further for various reasons such as excessive cost; insufficient
aesthetic potential; impacts on air navigation and communication; and impacts on the adjacent
municipal water wells.
Architectural and Aesthetic Design Elements
Regardless of which bridge type is ultimately approved for construction, the Project Team
believes that the incorporation of architectural and aesthetic design elements is warranted for
this scenic crossing of the Grand River. Some examples of these aesthetic elements and
enhancements include the following:
· Unique pier shapes
· Textured concrete finishes
· Open pedestrian railings
· Sidewalk extensions or "bulbs" located at intervals along the bridge to provide for
benches or vista points
· Architecturallighting
· Enhanced landscaping and trail connections
The Project Team recommends that additional input be solicited from the public during the
detailed design process to assist in selecting and refining the architectural and aesthetic
enhancements that will be incorporated into the project. It is noted that such elements would
likely add $0.5 to $1.0 million to the "base" bridge cost, depending on the extent of design
elements considered. This incremental cost is included in the current project cost estimate and
budget.
The Project Team also discussed and supported measures intended to ensure that the final
design consultant (yet to be selected for this project) incorporates substantial provision for
architectural and aesthetic design in their proposed scope of services. It is envisioned that the
consultant will be required to carry an experienced architect as a sub-consultant, and that the
consultant and architect will work collaboratively to develop appropriate architectural details for
the structure. It is also envisioned that the consultant and architect will be required to involve
5
the public and the Heritage Planning Advisory Committee (HPAC) in the detailed design
process involving these architectural and aesthetic design elements.
Public Input
The Region hosted a Public Consultation Centre on Wed February 8, 2006 at the Region of
Waterloo International Airport where the various bridge designs, evaluation criteria and
evaluation results were displayed. The public were encouraged to offer their opinions on the
various designs and a total of 80 comment sheets, letters and emails were submitted. The
summary of those comments indicated support for Alternative 2, as outlined in the following
ch art.
Alternative Cost No. of Responses Percent
1 - Short s an irder $9.7 -10.5 M 9 11.2
2 - Med -Ion s an irder $11 - 12 M 45 56.3
3 - Bowstring arch $18 - 20 M 25 31.3
4 - Other $23 - 33 M 1 1.2
I Total 80 100
It is also clear from this response that 54 or 67.50/0 of the respondents prefer a girder type
bridge (Alternative 1 or 2) compared to those who would prefer a more complex bridge 26 or
32.50/0.
In addition to the Regions public consultation, the Record ran extensive articles on the various
bridge designs and invited readers to pick their favourite bridge over the Grand River. They
received 640 responses of which 539 were online responses and 101 were paper ballots. Most
respondents signed their name and many supported their choice with lengthy comments.
The results of the Record's poll suggests similar support as that received by the Region as
follows:
Alternative 1 - 151 (240/0)
Summary of responses: A bridge is a bridge is a bridge. Cheapest option. Plus, does not
overwhelm the landscape. Can dress it up with features.
Alternative 2 - 284 (440/0)
Summary of Responses: Basic, sleek design, does not overwhelm the landscape, for a good
price. Strong support for keeping piers out of the river. Dress it up with features.
Alternative 3 - 131 (200/0)
Summary of responses: Looks like historic bridges in the region. Makes a bigger statement, for
an affordable extra price. Why does everything have to be so bland? Strong support for keeping
piers out of the river.
6
Bridge 4 - 21 (30/0)
Bridge 5 - 38 (60/0)
Bridge 6 - 12 (20/0)
Bridge 7 - 3
Summary of responses for bridges 4 through 7: Put the region on the map. Build something
different or unique, a statement, a world-class draw.
Both surveys showed clear support for the less expensive girder style of bridge compared to the
more elaborate design options. Between the two girder style bridges there was overwhelming
support for Alternative 2, predominately because of less impact on the Grand River by the
elimination of a pier in the deepest part of the river.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
There will be no direct cost to the City of Kitchener, since the development of this bridge is a
Regional project.
The Region's 2006 Transportation Capital Budget and Ten-Year Capital Forecast includes
$22.8 million for this project, to be funded from the Roads Capital Levy and Development
Charge Reserve Funds.
There are sufficient funds in the budget to allow for the construction of bridge Alternative 2
(medium-to-Iong span girder bridge), based on the current preliminary project cost estimate. An
allowance of $0.5 million to $1.0 million for architectural and aesthetic design elements is
included in the current $22.8 million budget for this project.
John P. McBride Director
Transportation Planning
Anita Leduc
Engineering Technologist
Rob Shamess, P.Eng
Director of Engineering
~~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .
. t... ";
... ::
...
.- .: ~
....... "
00
..~
I.
~ {
'?, -,~
-; .....(
t~ j
. . ..
.r
...
t-...:~
:. ~.
" .~
.. .:
:: ~
~
Wj.~~
.~ ..;
: - ~
...
:.....
~
.....
.;::
-:- .~.r.
."r". .
1(:. .i
i. -:.
.--.:: ~
-;:-.;...
~,
i.:p.....
.:-
i
~
II
'-I
If)
o
o
'"
o
~
+.;
1-<
o
0.-
C,)
~
u:i
w
>
i=
<(
z
a:
w
~.~~.1--
....J
<(
W
a..
~
w
C)
o
~.~~. 0:
OJ
LL
o
Z
o
i=
<(
:J
....J
<(
~.~~.>
W
()
><
o
z
w
a..
a..
~.~~C<(
B.. ~tl
~. ,
L~.
<0
CLl
>
"~
~
<(
It)
,~
~
ii
<(
o::r
CLl
,:::
C6
E
.e
<(
M
~
"~
ii
<(
~
o 0
i ~
~ 0 1
~ 1n
CLl
,:::
C6
E
.e
<(
j
~
Ii
IIi
~t52
~~~
o OJ +-'
Iii
o l! I ('0.
~~~
!~~
~]~
~ ~ i
~~~
."" OJ C
<<l o....!ll
..cE<:l
"> 0 C
> u ro
C
o
l
(/)
<:l
~
en
OJ
:g
o
x
o
Cll
OJ
~ ~
o OJ
O-e
]~
~
::l
~
u
OJ
o
~
~
-El!
~ ~
~i
<(<(
ai
en
OJ
<:l
(3
OJ
OJ
U
C
o
o
~
0::
^
^
OJ
0..
>-
f-
OJ
OJ
<:l
OJ
>-
~
;f
CLl
..c
c
t
c..
u
~ OJ
~ :
f!(/)
CLl"O
C III
CIl 0
~a:
ro
C
Q)
OJ
<:l
U
~~
~~
16-5
Q) (/)
i~
..c u
ii~
Hi
In
<:lC<:l
ffi~~
~~ ~
.g,& 8
iU
~~~
!i
..cQ3
~~
~~
~ ~
!I
Eg-
'- C
E:l 'ill
.~ ~
> ()
.C c
it
OJ 0.. <:l
'f: g ffi
Hi
lil
<:l~o..
~~~
ij.~
~~~
~ :~~
~l~
~
III
o
U
C
o
"I
u
~
fl
~
c:
o
U
C\I
o
i
o
()
.~
Cll
III
~
ir
'0
~ ~
~iE
z C
CO)
H
.g,~
ii
'0<(
~:=:
H
.~~
~1
8-.0
~gj,
+-'<:l
iH
<:l 0 Q)
HI
ro ~ C
.~~ :~
H~
<<lEe
..c~OJ
S 1!i.8
~
>-
~
z
~
>-
~
>-
(/)
LJ.J
>-
C\J
E
E
~
~
>-
---
,...
E
E
'c
~
o
z
o
C
..c ('0.
:~ ~
~ .~
i.~
o OJ
U..c
~ .~
'g Q)
::2: '0..
III
c:
~
"0
c:
III
III
o
ii:
o
III
~
I
'!
I
'~
w
~
~~
U ro
E UJ
2~
E~
i~
rodi
;1
g!~ro
.~ ~.~
ro <( 0-
in
j~i
l!:l 8 8-
~~~
~ c ro
~.! ~
1?E~
-;;; g ~
~ .~~
~o<:l
o>-Q)
IO.!:
ro
()
<:l
Q)
UJ C
Q) Q)
~!
'::'.0
~ ffi
~i
~ ~
~t5
it
j'~~
i~l
~.~ ~
!I.i
=u >+-_ .a
ro 0 ::l
Q)oo.....
~ <e ~
~ ~ ~
~ S .8
Hf
-5~B
::l 0 ::l
~.~ ~
E ::l U
~ ~.2
CIl
U
C
III
c:
CIl
C
'iij
::a:
~
I-
tll
C
o
..J
>-
~
!
II)
o
..22 Qj
Q3 '0..
:~
~~
~.z.
:~ :~
E e
.l~
~--g
~:2
ih
~8~
]~~
ro Q) OJ
~~~
,g ~ ~
::l ..c C
Hi
EE.8
'ill OJ ~
~~~
ro<:l+-'
~~~
s~i5
o
~
~
Q)
~
5
OJ
C
"g
"~
f-
OJ
c:
'~
"0
~
l!:!
~i
(0
~
41
'0
0..
U
III
f
~
~
~
"[
'0
'2
~
r--
Q)
f~
Q) ~
~ ~
.8 r
U C
::l 0
~J
~.Ql
~j
.~ E
~ ~.~
~.~ ~
8~~
.g -5. .gJ
~ro.2
~ ~.~
o
~~
g ~
U UJ
~~
8 ~
i~
o~
s~
iI.i Q)
<:l ::l
~i
C (/)
~!
-0 =
'if.i <:l
8 ~.!
Hi
C U 0
~~~
f!~
19 :g t)
H1
..."C c
ro .0 Q)
~~~
III
U
III
Q,
.5
c:
o
..
<<l
U
'2
~
g
u
~
C
~
tll
.~
Z
~
~
co
I
::2:
o
~ ::2:
o C')
~
::2:
l!)
<D
tf'J-
~
C')
C')
tf'J- ~
o O'l
~
~
o
C')
tf'J-
::2:
l!)
C\J
tf'J- ::2:
C\J
~
.8
::2:
C')
C\I
tf'J-
::2:
l!)
C\J
tf'J- ::2:
<D
g
.8
~
C')
C\J
tf'J-
::2:
o
~ ::2:
o
::2: ~
co
tf'J-
::2:
o ::2:
~ ~
o
::2:
I'-
z;
.8
::2:
o
tf'J-
::2:
Ii)
~ ::2:
o C')
::2:
I'-
g
Q)
::l
S .f:
LL ~
~~
.2 C
~.gJ
c~
Q) 0
I ~~
~ ~o
III
.~
u
I
w
I
z;
~
+
*
f-
III
tll~
~~
>< ><
ww
en
i
::2:
C')
~
o
~ >- ~Q) i
! ! ill i
::2:
C')
~
::2:
O'l
a
o
ro= ic
~ : .~! ~
~ ~+-'~~ ~ ~
; HU~l i
~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~
::2:
O'l
~
::2:
C\J
a
~ >- ~Q)~i
aI EgQ)c
~ 1 i.~ii
~HHn
.....2
.8
::2:
C\J
~
::2:
<D
~
Iii
I tJU
~ uUQj~-S
~~~~~
....2
.8
::2:
<D
~
::2:
~
o
::2:
~
::2:
'<:t
t
.8
::2:
I'-
~
::2:
O'l
tf'J-
.8
::2:
z;
W
...I
aI
~
W
LL.
~
aI
~
~
~
aI
~
W
LL.
I-
Z
W
::a:
(/)
(/)
w
(/)
~
i
z
~
::::i
w
a:
c..
I'-
I'-
O'l
'<:t
C\J
:t:I:
(/)
()
o
o
I