Open house Sept. 29, 2016

Transcription

1 Open house Sept. 29, 2016

2 THIRD CROSSING ROAD MAP ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Approved by City Council 2012 and Province of Ontario 2013 LASALLE CAUSEWAY Traffic Operations Study ACTION PLAN SHOVEL-READY Approved by City Council in 2015 KINGSTON TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN PRELIMINARY DESIGN Currently underway Recommend new bridge crossing linking John Counter Blvd with Gore Rd. Recommend operational improvements to increase capacity of Causeway Components include: KTMP Update Preliminary Design Business Plan Final Design Re-validate need for Third Crossing Future activities Future activities Future activities BUSINESS PLAN Currently underway FINAL REPORT AND COUNCIL DECISION Spring 2017 FINAL DESIGN To be decided 18 months to complete CONTRACTOR SELECTION & CONSTRUCTION To be decided 3 years to complete NEW THIRD CROSSING IN-SERVICE

3 WHY DO WE NEED THE THIRD CROSSING? OPPORTUNITIES: Provides needed/forecast transportation capacity across the Cataraqui River over the next 20 years Decreases travel time and greenhouse gas emissions Decreases traffic congestion along the Lasalle Causeway Provides additional access throughout the city for emergency vehicles Provides an alternative route during Lasalle Causeway and Highway 401 closures Provides an opportunity for active transportation with a multi-use trail Accommodates growth as defined within the Official Plan and urban growth boundary HAVE WE CONSIDERED DIFFERENT SOLUTIONS TO ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR THE THIRD CROSSING? More transit service More trips by walk or cycling Encourage other ways to reduce transportation demand (ride-sharing, telecommute) Tolerate more traffic congestion Allow for more development through infill and intensification RESULT THE THIRD CROSSING IS STILL NEEDED SUPPORTING STUDIES: Kingston Transportation Master Plan (2004) Kingston Transportation Master Plan Update (2009) Traffic Operations Study - Lasalle Causeway Corridor (2011) Third Crossing Environmental Assessment (2012) Kingston Transportation Master Plan Update (2015)

4 PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROCESS GOALS: Provide accurate and timely information Respond to questions Listen and record input received from public Incorporate input into the project work Provide results HOW ARE WE DOING THIS? Third Crossing project website Third Crossing team contact info including project account Public Open House #1 History/timelines of the Third Crossing Provide progress update on work for Preliminary Design & Business Plan Results of the Public Survey and how input is being used Public Open House #2 A brief history of the project to date Provide recap of Open House #1 from September 2016 Provide updates on preliminary design and business plan phases Summary of public feedback received and how it was used On-going stakeholder consultations Parks Canada First Nations Permitting agencies (local, provincial, federal)

5 PUBLIC SURVEY RESULTS Third Crossing public survey was open July 19 to August More than 1,100 people participated in the survey. Results include all responses from completed and partially completed surveys, meaning numbers of respondents per questions vary. More than 100 pages of personalized feedback and opinions include the following themes: Active transportation and accessibility opportunities Urban sprawl and traffic congestion Concerns of tax implications over the years Third Crossing fatigue regarding the need/ justification Do you want/need a third crossing? 914 PEOPLE THAT RESPONDED WERE LOCATED AT: 93.4% GREATER KINGSTON AREA KAB 5.9% OUTSIDE THE GREATER KINGSTON AREA BUT WITHIN ONTARIO 0.5% OUTSIDE ONTARIO BUT WITHIN CANADA 0.1% OUTSIDE OF CANADA THE RESPONDENTS AGE RANGED FROM: 0.1% UNDER % % % THE RESPONDENTS FORM OF TRANSPORTATION: 87.9% CAR/DRIVE 4.3% WALK 3.4% BUS 20.3% % KINGSTON ACCESS SERVICE 11% 65+? 3.3% BIKE 22% % PREFER NOT TO ANSWER 0.2% CARPOOL 0.8% OTHER HOW OFTEN THEY TRAVEL OVER THE CATARAQUI RIVER 8.1% NEVER/RARELY 28.1% A FEW TIMES A MONTH 21.1% A FEW TIMES A WEEK 16.2% DAILY (INCLUDING WEEKENDS) 12.5% DAILY (FIVE TIMES A WEEK) 14% A NUMBER OF TIMES A DAY PRIMARY REASON FOR TRAVEL: 43% WORK 11.9% SHOPPING 28.8% ENTERTAINMENT/RECREATION 1.1% SCHOOL 2.0% OTHER 7.9% ALL OF THE ABOVE?

6 CONCEPTUAL RENDERING OF ARCH WITH V-PIERS FROM 2012

7 PRELIMINARY DESIGN: Scope & Schedule 1. It is building on the conceptual information from the Class EA. 2. WE ARE HERE: The Concept Report assesses design options and construction cost estimates from the Class EA and describes a preferred concept 3. LATE 2016 / EARLY 2017: The Interim Preliminary Design Reports will further refine the preferred concept, construction phasing and scheduling and construction cost estimates. 4. APRIL 30, 2017: The Final Preliminary Design Report will confirm the recommended design, construction phasing and scheduling and construction cost estimates in support of pending future final design and construction

8 PROJECT VISION: Design Quality UNESCO World Heritage Site World-class signature bridge (RFP) Aesthetically pleasing structural solution and High quality design (Parks Canada Aesthetic Guidelines) Focal Arch Span over Rowing Lanes BRIDGE SETTING PROPOSED ALIGNMENT A Gradual Sweeping S-Curve

9 NATURAL HERITAGE FIELDWORK Ecological Land Classifications Breeding Bird / Wildlife Surveys Habitat Assessments Significant Features: Woodlands Wetlands

10 CULTURAL HERITAGE FIELDWORK Rideau Canal Gore Road Library Archaeological Site BbGc-127 Stone Survey Marker

11 GEO-ENVIRONMENTAL FIELDWORK Potential Sites of Concern: 919 / 931 Montreal Street 603 John Counter Boulevard 612 / 630 John Counter Boulevard No sites of concern on east shore

12 TRAFFIC AND LANE CONFIGURATIONS Ascot Ln. WEST APPROACH John Counter Boulevard EAST APPROACH Gore Road Reconfigured Point St. Mark Drive / Library Entrance

13 BRIDGE ELEVATION AND PROFILE HIGH PROFILE 1.00%, 12 V-Piers LOW PROFILE 0.75%, 13 V-Piers COMPARISON (2.8m height difference)

14 BRIDGE DECK CONCEPT DECK CONCEPT Two Vehicle Lanes Generous Shoulders South Side Multi-Use Path Steel I-Beam Girder Structure Low Profile Barriers for View TYPICAL CROSS SECTION

15 BRIDGE ARCH CONCEPT: Plan & Elevation ARCH PLAN VIEW Arch Spans Rowing Lanes and Rideau Boat Channel Slight Outward Tilt Hangars Support Deck Look-out Platform on South Side ARCH ELEVATION VIEW Low Profile Arch Slender Design Adequate Vertical Clearances

16 BRIDGE V-PIER CONCEPT PREFERRED OPTION OPTIONS CONSIDERED

17 BRIDGE ARCH CONCEPT: 3D Modelling (In Progress) VIEW FROM VEHICLE OVERHEAD VIEW ARCH TIE (CONCEPT)

18 PRECEDENTS: Arch and V-Piers Designs

19 PEDESTRIAN & CYCLING EXPERIENCE Corktown Footbridge, Ottawa Nelson St. Cycleway, Auckland Interpretive Panels ARCH LOOK-OUT CONCEPT Accessible Seating Area, Interpretive Panels, Continuous Multi-Use Path

20 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS: 3 Year Timeframe BRIDGE CORRIDOR Limited Land for Laydown (Construction Staging, Equipment & Material Storage) Physical Presence Rideau Canal (Land/Water) EAST SHORE Maintain Library Access Archaeological Site Stone Survey Marker Dog Park Temp. Relocation Noise and Traffic Example: East Shore Construction Access and Staging Areas WEST SHORE Property Acquisition Overhead Utility Relocations Noise and Traffic

21 LANDSCAPE CONCEPT: East Approach LANDSCAPE CONCEPTS: Mitigate Restore - Enhance, Native Plantings, User Experience, Connectivity

22 LANDSCAPE CONCEPT: West Approach LANDSCAPE CONCEPTS: Mitigate Restore - Enhance, Native Plantings, User Experience, Connectivity

23 LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS

24 SUSTAINABILITY & INNOVATION - Sustainability design charrette - Cultural-Natural Heritage Protection - De-icing and anti-icing systems - Energy efficient materials (e.g. LED) - Structural health monitoring - Service life design - Maintain construction flexibility - Sealed components - Hanger and coating systems - Stainless / galvanized steel

25 Interim Noise Assessment Progress Update Interim noise barrier dimensions (assessment and design options on-going): WEST SIDE EAST SIDE BR04 BR05 BR07 BR10 HEIGHT 2.6 m 2.6 m 1.5 m 2.75 m LENGTH 140 m 113 m 340 m 205 m

26 PUBLIC SURVEY RESULTS PRELIMINARY DESIGN Third Crossing public survey was open July 19 to August More than 1,100 people participated in the survey. Results include all responses from completed and partially completed surveys, meaning numbers of respondents per questions vary. More than 100 pages of feedback and opinions included the following themes: Balancing bridge aesthetics and function Minimize impact on ecology and habitat Include features that promote tourism Pay more now if there are practical long-term gains Energy generation. 44.9% YES 40.7% NO 14.4% NOT SURE RESPONDENTS THINK IT IS IMPORTANT THAT CARBON EMISSIONS RELATED TO BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION ARE MINIMIZED. 39.6% YES 44% NO 16.4% NOT SURE SHOULD THE CITY BE PREPARED TO SPEND MORE MONEY TO MINIMIZE/OFFSET CARBON EMISSIONS DURING CONSTRUCTION? WHEN ASKED HOW IMPORTANT IS IT TO YOU THAT THE BRIDGE INCORPORATE SUSTAINABLE AND RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES SUCH AS SOLAR, WIND AND GEOTHERMAL TO GENERATE ENERGY, RESPONDENTS SAID: 24.8% VERY IMPORTANT 39.3% SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT 13.5% SOMEWHAT UNIMPORTANT 22.5% NOT IMPORTANT WOULD YOU BE SUPPORTIVE OF PAYING MORE TODAY TO INCLUDE FEATURE THAT WOULD SAVE MONEY IN THE FUTURE 54.5% STRONGLY SUPPORT 33% SOMEWHAT SUPPORT 4.3% SOMEWHAT OPPOSE 5% STRONGLY OPPOSE 3.2% NOT SURE RESPONDENTS RATED THE IMPORTANCE OF SPENDING EXTRA MONEY ON EACH ITEM TO UPGRADE THEM FROM STANDARD ITEMS TO PREMIUM ITEMS VERY IMPORTANT SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT SOMEWHAT UNIMPORTANT NOT IMPORTANT NOT SURE NOISE REDUCTION BRIDGE LIGHTING 25.6% 38.3% 16.5% 17.4% 2.2% MULTI-USE PATHWAY 30.3% 35.0% 15.1% 14.1% 5.5% ARCH LOOKOUT AMENITIES 9.5% 21.0% 22.1% 44.4% 3.0% COMPLETE STREET AMENITIES 17.6% 29.5% 21.4% 29.0% 2.5% BRIDGE LIGHTING 50.0% 35.1% 7.5% 5.6% 1.8% SIGNAGE AND INTERPRETIVE INFORMATION 16.7% 32.1% 24.4% 24.3% 2.5% BRIDGE AESTHETICS 23.0% 38.1% 20.2% 16.7% 2.0% WEST SHORE LANDSCAPING 22.7% 39.6% 18.0% 17.2% 2.6% EAST SHORE LANDSCAPING 23.8% 40.2% 16.6% 17.0% 2.4% OTHER 27.6% 4.7% 5.0% 14.3% 48.4%? WHEN ASKED IF THEY HAD TO CHOOSE BETWEEN BRIDGE AESTHETICS AND GENERATING ENERGY THROUGH SOLAR PANELS AND/OR MINI-SCALE WIND TURBINES ON THE BRIDGE, RESPONDENTS SAID: 14.8% FOR AESTHETICS 31.4% FOR ENERGY GENERATION 46.4% LOOK OF THE BRIDGE WITH SOME ABILITY TO GENERATE ENERGY 7.5% NOT SURE KNOWING THAT BETTER CONSTRUCTION QUALITY AND ENGINEERING INNOVATIONS TYPICALLY LEADS TO MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION COST SAVINGS IN THE FUTURE, WHICH IS MORE IMPORTANT TO YOU? 83.6% PAY MORE NOW TO SAVE MORE LATER 6.0% PAY MORE LATER BUT SAVE MORE NOW 10.4% I M NOT SURE HOW IMPORTANT IS IT TO YOU THAT THE BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION BE AS ECONOMICAL AND PRACTICAL AS POSSIBLE? 38.3% VERY IMPORTANT 37.1% IMPORTANT 20.1% SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT 4.5% NOT AT ALL IMPORTANT HOW IMPORTANT IS IT TO YOU THAT THE BRIDGE MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION BE AS ECONOMICAL AS POSSIBLE? 51.5% VERY IMPORTANT 35% IMPORTANT 10.8% SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT 2.7% NOT AT ALL IMPORTANT WOULD YOU SUPPORT ADDITIONAL COSTS TO CREATE A BRIDGE THAT HAD A UNIQUE OR SIGNATURE LOOK, DESIGN ELEMENTS OR USE(S) THAT SHOWCASED ITS ENGINEERING AND INNOVATION? 32.6% 43.8% 15.3% 4.7% KEEP IT PLAIN AND PRACTICAL WITH NO EXTRA COSTS. MODERATE ADDITIONAL COSTS TO PROVIDE SOME DISTINGUISHING FEATURE. HIGHER ADDITIONAL COSTS TO GIVE IT UNIQUE AND SIGNATURE FEATURES THAT DISTINGUISH IT FROM OTHER BRIDGES. NOT SURE

27 WHAT IS THE THIRD CROSSING BUSINESS PLAN? PURPOSE: A Third Crossing business plan will provide decision makers with important information on costs, benefits, economic impacts, project delivery models, and funding strategies to help answer the following questions. COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS WILL IT BE A GOOD USE OF TAX DOLLARS? Compares the construction and maintenance costs of the project against the benefits that the project would provide over a 30-year period. ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS WHAT ARE THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF A THIRD CROSSING? Calculates the financial impact that would be generated in Kingston s economy if the Third Crossing would be constructed. BUSINESS PLAN BUSINESS PLAN STATUS: All components of the business plan are underway and will be completed and presented to Council in spring It will contain information to answer the question of whether or not the Third Crossing should be built. PROCUREMENT OPTIONS ANALYSIS HOW DO WE ADMINISTER THE DESIGN/ CONSTRUCTION? Involves a qualitative analysis of traditional project delivery models including: Design/bid/build Design/build Private Public Partnership (P3) PROJECT FINANCING HOW WILL WE PAY FOR THE BRIDGE? Involves an analysis of all available funding sources and uses of funds including municipal tax, development charges, user fees, and grants. REPORT TO COUNCIL 2017

28 WHAT IS COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS? Cost-Benefit Analysis is a process of identifying, calculating and comparing the benefits and costs of a project. Views the benefits and costs of an infrastructure project from society s perspective as a whole. Enables an apples to apples comparison of the impacts of a project by monetizing socioeconomic impacts such as travel time savings, environmental impacts and others. A dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow. Future benefits and costs are discounted to bring all aspects to the present day. Widely used tool for analysis for the appraisal of infrastructure projects. BENEFITS HEALTH AND SAFETY ($) ENVIRONMENTAL ($) TIME SAVINGS ($) OTHERS ($) COSTS ENVIRONMENTAL ($) CONSTRUCTION ($) MAINTENANCE ($) OTHERS ($) COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS IS NOT INTENDED TO SUPPLANT THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS BUT SUPPLEMENT IT.

29 WHAT IS COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS? Changes in travel times and distances (For example, vehicle operating costs, value of travel time) Risk and sensitivity analysis (For example, what if population growth is lower than expected?) Socioeconomic data relevant to Kingston (For example, population growth, average wages) Cost-Benefit Analysis Model (For example, Benefit-Cost Ratio) Construction, development and operating costs (For example, costs to develop and operate Third Crossing) Qualitative and survey data and information Data source Analytical tool Collins Barrow engaged to provide an independent and objective Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Third Crossing. Transparency is foundational to our approach and all of our inputs, methodology and limitations will be clearly documented and form part of the business plan. Cost-Benefit Analysis used extensively by the public sector to in Canada and the USA assess infrastructure projects. Does the development of the Third Crossing generate societal benefits in excess of costs? Is it a good use of taxpayer dollars? Our independent assessment considers multiple scenarios and other qualitative information as well.

30 WHAT IS ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS? Economic Impact Analysis helps assess what a project means for the local economy in terms of number of jobs, GDP, government tax revenues and other measures of economic activity. Takes into consideration local employment, supply chain and economic development impacts. Like Cost-Benefit Analysis, Economic Impact Analysis is a data point that supplements the decision making process. Local employment Increased or decreased economic development due to Third Crossing Local procurement and purchases The Collins Barrow team have extensive experience conducting cost benefit and economic impact analysis Multiplier effects Spending in a region generates additional spending magnifying the initial economic impact Total economic = impact

31 PROCUREMENT OPTIONS ANALYSIS BACKGROUND: The 2012 Environmental Assessment recommended that the City carry out a review of various Third Crossing procurement options as part of the business plan assignment. The Procurement Options Analysis component of the business plan will determine the preferred design and construction administration methods for the Third Crossing. PROJECT DELIVERY MODELS DESIGN BID BUILD PROJECT DELIVERY STRUCTURE DESIGN BID FINANCE PROJECT DELIVERY STRUCTURE P3 P3 DBB CONSIDERATIONS: Most familiar method for owners and contractors; Separate contracts allows decision points for each procurement phase D-B-B; All design components are specified prior to construction; Payments to contractors occur on a monthly basis DBF (P3) CONSIDERATIONS Less familiar method for owners and contractors; Combined contract requires only one decision point for P3; Performance specifications guide the overall design and are less prescriptive allowing flexibility during construction; Payments to contractors are withheld until the project is completed PROJECT RISK MATRIX VALUE FOR MONEY The process of developing and comparing total project costs, measured at the common points in time, as comparators of traditional versus nontraditional models. A value-for-money exists when the risk-adjusted costs of the P3 option are less than the risk-adjusted costs of traditional models. PROBABILITY MEDIUM LOW IMPACT HIGH MEDIUM PROJECT RISKS Project experts identify, assess, and allocate various elements of risk that could occur on a project. This risk information is used to guide future phases of the project and also informs the value-for-money analysis.

32 PUBLIC SURVEY RESULTS BUSINESS PLAN Third Crossing public survey was open July 19 to August More than 1,100 people participated in the survey. Results include all responses from completed and partially completed surveys, meaning numbers of respondents per questions vary. More than 100 pages of personalized feedback and opinions included the following themes: Tax implications Privatization versus public ownership Whole-of-Life Costing Project delivery model preferences Government funding RESPONDENTS FAMILIARITY WITH PROJECT DELIVERY MODELS 11% VERY FAMILIAR 47.1% SOMEWHAT FAMILIAR 41.9% NOT AT ALL FAMILIAR BASED ON THEIR KNOWLEDGE OF PROJECT- DELIVERY MODELS, THEY SELECTED THE MODEL THAT THEY BELIEVE PROVIDES THE BEST VALUE FOR KINGSTON FOR THIS PROJECT. 29.8% DESIGN-BID-BUILD 14.4% DESIGN-BUILD 13.2% PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP (P3) 26.5% NOT SURE 16% IT DOESN T MATTER TO ME IT DOESN T MATTER IF THE CITY OR THE PRIVATE SECTOR MANAGES THE CONSTRUCTION AS LONG AS IT IS FINISHED ON TIME AND ON BUDGET. IT DOESN T MATTER IF THE CITY OR THE PRIVATE SECTOR MANAGES THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE BRIDGE AS LONG AS IT IS WELL-MAINTAINED. 70% AGREE 21% DISAGREE 9% NOT SURE 64.8% AGREE 26.8% DISAGREE 8.4% NOT SURE WHAT ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF A PROJECT DELIVERY MODEL TO YOU? 61.6% DELIVERING THE PROJECT ON BUDGET 41% MINIMIZING CONSTRUCTION TIME 32.8% EFFECTIVELY COORDINATING THE WORK WITH OTHER WORK IN THE AREAS AFFECTED 17.9% MAXIMIZE THE NUMBER OF BIDDERS COMPETING FOR EACH ASPECT OF THE CONSTRUCTION 29% KEEPING COSTS AS LOW AS POSSIBLE 23.5% MAXIMIZING THE OPPORTUNITY FOR CONTRACTORS TO INNOVATE ON EFFICIENT METHODS OF PROJECT DELIVERY 25.9% ENSURING THAT MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS (SNOW PLOWING, POTHOLE REPAIRS) ARE DONE BY CITY EMPLOYEES 19.7% MAXIMIZING THE AMOUNT OF FLEXIBILITY THE CITY HAS TO MODIFY THE PROJECT, IF NEEDED 31.2% ENSURING GOOD MAINTENANCE REGARDLESS OF OTHER CITY PRIORITIES 36.8% ENSURING INFO ABOUT THE PROJECT IS OPEN AND ACCESSIBLE 7.6% MAXIMIZING THE AMOUNT OF CONSTRUCTION WORK THAT IS MANAGED BY THE CITY 10.4% MAXIMIZING THE AMOUNT OF TIME OVER WHICH THE COST OF THE CONSTRUCTION WORK CAN BE SPREAD OUT 19.8% MINIMIZING CARBON EMISSIONS OF CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION PHASE 5.1% OTHER