211214 AAC AGDPage 1 of 2
The Corporation of the Town of Tillsonburg
Accessibility Advisory Committee
December 14, 2021
2:00 p.m.
Electronic
AGENDA
1.Call to Order
2.Adoption of Agenda
Proposed Resolution #1
Moved by:
Seconded by:
THAT the Agenda as prepared for the Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting of
December 14, 2021, be adopted.
3.Minutes of the Previous Meeting (Attached)
4.Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof
5.General Business and Reports
5.1. Review of Existing Patio Encroachment Pilot Project Sites Feedback
(Submission from Member Allen attached)
5.2. Tennis Court pathway concerns (Submission from Member Cerna attached)
5.3. Kinsmen Pedestrian Bridge (Staff report OPD 21-46 attached)
5.4. Oxford County Joint Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting 2021 Update
5.5. PXO located on Broadway at the Trans Canada Trail Update
5.6. T:GO Christmas Bus Update
5.7. 2022 Meeting Dates
6.Next Meeting
Page 2 of 2
March 8, 2022 at 2:00 p.m.
7. Adjournment
Proposed Resolution #2
Moved by:
Seconded by:
THAT the December 14, 2021 Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting be
adjourned at _____ p.m.
Please contact the Staff Liaison listed below to gain access to this electronic
meeting:
Contact
Amelia Jaggard, Deputy Clerk
ajaggard@tillsonburg.ca
The Corporation of the Town of Tillsonburg
Accessibility Advisory Committee
April 6, 2021
2:00 p.m.
Electronic Meeting
MINUTES
Present: Cindy Allen, Jeff Huber, Councillor Pete Luciani, Margaret McCrimmon, Peter
Staley, Mike Cerna and Michael Kadey.
Regrets: Erin Getty and Mark Dickson.
Also Present:
Amelia Jaggard, Deputy Clerk
Emily Xuereb, Deputy Chief Building Official
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 2:01 p.m.
2. Adoption of Agenda
Proposed Resolution #1
Moved by: Margaret McCrimmon
Seconded by: Jeff Huber
THAT the Agenda as prepared for the Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting of
April 6, 2021, be adopted.
Carried.
3. Minutes of the Previous Meeting
Change date to reflect December 1, 2020.
Chair Allen noted that the crossing guard at South Ridge Public School indicated
Town staff placed the stickers at the cross walk near the school.
4. Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof
No disclosures of pecuniary interest were declared.
5. Presentations/Delegations
5.1. Wayfinding Signage
Cephas Panschow, Development Commissioner and Karen Keller, Economic
Development and Marketing Coordinator were present to provide the Committee
an overview of the wayfinding signage project.
Opportunity was provided for comments and questions from Committee
members. The Committee provided feedback and suggestions on the proposed
project.
There was concern noted in regards to a proposed entrance sign and its
proximity to the Broadway/North Street E intersection, as this intersection sees a
lot of pedestrian traffic, including student use.
6. General Business & Reports
6.1. Kinsmen Pedestrian Bridge
Staff will be reporting to Council with additional steps or information to help
advance this project.
The rubber mats have been removed and stored.
6.2. Accessibility Status Update 2020
Staff to share sidewalk connectivity implementation work approved for 2021.
Staff noted that the Customer Service Centre façade update includes automatic
doors and that there will be increased space between sets of doors.
6.3. Transit Update
Chair Allen provided an updated from the Transit Advisory Committee. There
has been discussion regarding concrete platforms at bus stops. A “where’s my
bus” app is in the works. Town will be considering expanding the T:GO route to
the Northeast of Town.
6.4. Optimist Park Playground
Optimist Park Playground is being replaced this month.
6.5. Curb cuts downtown
There was discussion regarding recent car accidents at curb cuts. There was
consensus that this was not due to curb cuts.
6.6. Training opportunities
Staff to share accessibility training resources from AccessForward.ca.
6.7. Oxford County Joint Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting – November 8,
2021
Agenda items can be submitted to Amelia.
7. Next Meeting
Tuesday, June 8, 2021 at 2:00 p.m.
8. Adjournment
Proposed Resolution #2
Moved by: Mike Cerna
Seconded by: Pete Luciani
THAT the April 6, 2021, Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting be adjourned at
3:10 p.m.
Carried.
Flippin Mike’s
Picture #1
1.Width for path and cluttered area
2.Raised edge-trip hazard
3.Grating for plants is trip hazard for
people with canes and walkers
Picture #2
1.Trip hazard and should not have a gap
2.Raised edge
3.Grating is trip hazard
Flippin Mike’s cont’d
Picture #1-expanded view of width and
walkway
Picture #2-ramp unloads unto grating area,
raised edge
Nectar
Picture #1-design of ramp, issues can arise
with trying to make the turn to push
wheelchair up the ramp from an angle
Picture #2-roped off patios
Picture #3-angle and slope of metal edge.
Makes it difficult to get both wheels over
ramp at the same time making it difficult to
enter as need to turn right to enter ramp,
not straight access.
Carriage House-
Winter Patio
Picture #1
View from sidewalk
Picture #2
View from the alley
Picture #3
View trying to turn out of alley
Pictures taken Dec 7, 2021 at 2:15pm.
Alley parking and street parking were full.
Carriage House-
Summer Patio
Picture #1 Pedestrian walkway goes around
the perimeter of the patio
Picture #2-Roped off patio
Copper Mug
-Located at the corner
-Patio changes the direction of pedestrian
traffic as it enters an intersection
-Pedestrian sidewalk is narrow and curved to
go around patio. Path brings pedestrians next
to live traffic lanes
Korner Perk
This picture was prior to the approved patio.
Approved patio has tables to the right
Important to Know
Any establishment that serves alcohol must
have their patio next to the building. Korner
Perk was only business that does not serve
alcohol out of our list.
Other Concerns
1.Path to tennis court-across from
Community Ctr.
2. Downtown Ramp-Told by a community
member that it is difficult to wheel up this
ramp because of the slope.
Page 1 of 4
Subject: Kinsmen Pedestrian Bridge
Report Number: OPD 21-46
Department: Operations and Development Department
Submitted by: Shayne Reitsma, Manager of Engineering
Meeting Type: Council Meeting
Meeting Date: Tuesday, November 23, 2021
RECOMMENDATION
THAT report OPD 21-46 Kinsmen Pedestrian Bridge be received as information;
AND THAT Council direct staff to implement ____:
Option 1 – Do Nothing: Initial costs $25,000 – plus average yearly costs over 10
years $122,000; or
Option 2 - Bridge Rehabilitation: Initial costs $4,220,000 – plus average yearly
costs over 30 years $20,000; or
Option 3 - Bridge Superstructure Reconstruction (Like-for-Like Replacement):
Initial costs $4,820,000 – plus average yearly costs over 60 years $24,666; or
Option 4 - Bridge Replacement (Prefabricated Pedestrian Bridge): Initial costs
$4,500,000 – plus average yearly costs over 80 years $16,250
BACKGROUND
The Kinsmen Bridge is a nine-span wood deck on steel plate girder structure with a
southwest-northeast orientation and a substructure that features cut stone masonry
block piers and abutments. The bridge was constructed in 1888 to carry GWR CAL
railway over Stoney Creek, and was converted to a pedestrian bridge following the
abandonment of the railway in the 1990’s.
As part of the provincially mandated Ontario Structural Inspections (OSIM) the Town
hired GM Blue Plan consulting for the completion of the OSIM’s and they completed
further analysis of the Kinsmen Pedestrian Bridge in conjunction with previous reports
provided by ASI and Vallee which were presented to Council March 22, 2021.
OPD 21-46
Page 2 of 4
The report provided by GM Blue Plan to the Town outlining design/maintenance options
is attached.
DISCUSSION
Option 1 – Do Nothing
If the Town of Tillsonburg were to do nothing to the bridge, lacking the initiation of a
major rehabilitation within the noted time frame of less than five (5) years, it is
anticipated that the structure will require closure or removal for the public’s safety in less
than ten (10) years. Residents would be required to walk down Baldwin or Concession
Street in order to get to the downtown core or use public transportation. An estimated
cost of $25,000 would be required for the closure and removal would cost $1,220,000. A
Pro and Con table has been provided:
PRO CON
- Lowest cost solution of $1,245,000 - Removal of a key pedestrian
access point to the downtown core
- Promotes usage of public
transportation
- Removal of a noticeable feature
within the Town of Tillsonburg
- Promotes active transportation - Does not address need for
updated pedestrian barrier within
remaining 10 year lifespan
- No Schedule EA required
Option 2 – Bridge Rehabilitation
The bridge rehabilitation option consists of rehabilitation of the existing structure to
extend its service life, and ensure the structure is generally compliant with provincial
and federal structural codes. The bridge rehabilitation option includes isolated structural
steel member replacement, steel coating and new bridge deck for the implementation of
an updated pedestrian barrier. A Pro and Con table has been provided:
PRO CON
- Key pedestrian access point to the
downtown core is maintained
- Cost of $4,820,000
- Noticeable feature within the Town
of Tillsonburg is maintained to
current look
- Schedule C Environmental
Assessment required (Depending
on Heritage Impact Assessment,
HIA)
- Addresses need for updated
pedestrian barrier
- Estimated service life of 25-30
years.
- Equating to $160,667.00 per year
(Total cost over service life)
Option 3 - Bridge Superstructure Reconstruction (Like-for-Like Replacement)
Option 3 consists of reconstructing the existing steel superstructure like-for-like. Like-for
–like represents demolishing the existing steel components of the bridge, but then
reconstructing a new steel structure that’s looks almost identical as the current bridge
OPD 21-46
Page 3 of 4
complete with new bridge deck for the implementation of an updated pedestr ian barrier.
To keep cost down the existing concrete piers would be left intact. A Pro and Con table
has been provided:
PRO CON
- Key pedestrian access point to the
downtown core is maintained
- Cost of $6,120,000
- New structure that mimics current
look
- Schedule C Environmental
Assessment required (Depending
on HIA)
- Addresses need for updated
pedestrian barrier
- Estimated service life of 50-60
years if concrete piers left.
- Equating to $102,000 per year
(Total cost over service life)
Option 4 – Bridge Replacement (Prefabricated Pedestrian Bridge)
This option consists of the replacement of the bridge in its entirety including
superstructure, piers, abutments, and existing foundations with a new prefabricated
pedestrian bridge at the same elevation as the existing bridge, complete with reinforced
concrete piers (2) and abutments. This option allows for new designs that has potential
for new park like features. A Pro and Con table has been provided:
PRO CON
- Key pedestrian access point to the
downtown core is maintained
- Cost of $5,800,000
- New Structure designed to current
needs
- Schedule C Environmental
Assessment required (Depending
on HIA)
- Addresses need for updated
pedestrian barrier
- Estimated service life of 75-80
years
- Potential for new park like features - Equating to $72,500 per year
(Total cost over service life)
CONSULTATION
Director of Operations and Development, Manager of Public works and Director of
Finance were consulted.
FINANCIAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
Depending on the option as listed in the table below, a debenture for the upfront capital
cost would be incurred in 2022 or in the year construction would commence. On a 30-
year debenture, the highest amount of option 3 (for illustrative purposes) would result in
annual principal and interest payments of $137K.
OPD 21-46
Page 4 of 4
CORPORATE GOALS
How does this report support the corporate goals identified in the Community Strategic
Plan?
☐ Lifestyle and amenities
☐ Customer service, communication and engagement
☐ Business attraction, retention and expansion
☐ Community growth
☒ Connectivity and transportation
☐ Not Applicable
Does this report relate to a specific strategic direction or project identified in the
Community Strategic Plan? Please indicate section number and/or any priority projects
identified in the plan.
Goal – Tillsonburg residents and businesses will be connected to each other, regional
networks, and the world through effective traditional and digital infrastructure.
Strategic Direction – Provide alternatives to automobile travel through active
transportation and public transit.
Priority Project – Asset Management Plan
ATTACHMENTS
Appendix A – GM BluePlan – Kinsmen Pedestrian Bridge Preliminary Design Report
G UELPH | O WEN S OUND | L ISTOWEL | K ITCHENER | L ONDON | H AMILTON | GTA
235 N ORTH C ENTRE R OAD, S UITE 103 LONDON, ON N5X 4E7 P:519 -672 -9403
F: 519-800 -8301 WWW.GMB LUE P LAN.CA
Prepared By:
Town of Tillsonburg
Kinsmen Pedestrian Bridge Preliminary Design Report
GMBP File: 521015-1
October 2021
T OWN OF T ILLSONBURG
KINSMEN PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT
GMBP FILE: 521015 -1
O CTOBER 2021
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
GM BluePlan Engineering Limited (GM BluePlan) was retained by the Town of Tillsonburg to prepare a preliminary
design report for the Kinsmen Pedestrian Bridge. The purpose of this report is to provide a conceptual review of
rehabilitation and replacement options associated with this structure including estimated rehabilitation costs, estimated
structure replacement costs, and estimated remaining service life of the structure both before and after rehabilitation or
replacement. The scope of this assessment is strictly focused on the conceptual design review of the bridge and does
not include for the inspection and assessment of each individual structural element.
The scope of this report includes a background review of the bridge’s known history and existing conditions, a review of
rehabilitation and replacement options including EA implications, environmental impacts, heritage considerations , and
estimated construction costs, as well preparation of conceptual design drawings.
The Kinsmen Pedestrian Bridge is believed to be constructed prior to 1910, is positioned in an east-west orientation and
is located along the Veterans Memorial Walkway in the Town of Tillsonburg. The nine-span structure consists of a wood
deck wearing surface on top of timber deck ties connected to a steel superstructure consisting of steel girders, cross
bracing, pier columns complete with horizontal and diagonal bracing between columns. The superstructure is supported
by two masonry block abutments and 16 masonry block piers . The structure was originally constructed as a train bridge
and has since been converted for pedestrian use only.
An enhanced structural inspection was completed in 2019 by G. Douglas Vallee Limited that involved a hands-on
inspection and detailed assessment of each bridge element. The results of this enhanced inspection were reviewed and
generally agreed with during GM BluePlan’s 2021 OSIM inspection of the structure. The severe corrosion and section
loss noted throughout the steel superstructure highlights that many elements have reached the end of their service life.
Overall, the structure is in fair to poor condition with multiple elements including the steel girders, piers, diaphragms,
horizontal and diagonal pier bracing, steel bearings and wood bearing seats, masonry block abutments and piers, timber
deck, and chain link fencing, requiring rehabilitation or replacement withing 1-5 years.
As requested by the Town, GM BluePlan reviewed four options and associated capital cost estimates for
rehabilitation/replacement of the Kinsmen Pedestrian Bridge. Capital cost estimates presented within the report are
presented in 2021 dollar values and do not include HST; however, cost estimates do include associated costs such as
engineering design, construction administration and inspection fees, Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
requirements, and contingencies. The four options reviewed within this preliminary design report include:
• Option 1: Do Nothing
• Option 2: Bridge Rehabilitation
• Option 3: Bridge Superstructure Reconstruction (like-for-like replacement)
• Option 4: Bridge Replacement (prefabricated pedestrian bridge)
T OWN OF T ILLSONBURG
KINSMEN PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT
GMBP FILE: 521015 -1
O CTOBER 2021
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................................... 1
2. BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................................................... 1
2.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Utilities .................................................................................................................................................................. 2
2.3 Environmental Considerations ............................................................................................................................. 2
3. REHABILITATION AND REPLACEMENT OPTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION ........................................................ 3
3.1 Deck Wearing Surface ......................................................................................................................................... 3
3.1.1 Timber Deck .................................................................................................................................................... 3
3.1.2 Reinforced Concrete Deck .............................................................................................................................. 4
3.1.3 Steel Grating Deck .......................................................................................................................................... 4
3.2 Pedestrian Barrier ................................................................................................................................................ 5
3.2.1 High Range Pedestrian Barrier ....................................................................................................................... 5
3.2.2 Mid Range Pedestrian Barrier ......................................................................................................................... 6
3.2.3 Low Range Pedestrian Barrier ........................................................................................................................ 6
3.3 Option 1 – Do Nothing .......................................................................................................................................... 6
3.4 Option 2 – Bridge Rehabilitation .......................................................................................................................... 6
3.5 Option 3 – Bridge Superstructure Reconstruction (like-for-like replacement) ...................................................... 7
3.6 Option 4 – Bridge Replacement (Prefabricated Pedestrian Bridge) .................................................................... 8
4. CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT IMPLICATIONS .................................................................................... 9
5. LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................................................................ 11
6. SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................................. 11
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A – CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWINGS
APPENDIX B – COST ESTIMATES
PEOPLE | ENGINEERING | ENVIRONMENTS
P AGE 1 OF 12
1. INTRODUCTION
GM BluePlan Engineering Limited (GM BluePlan) was retained by the Town of Tillsonburg to prepare a preliminary
design report for the Kinsmen Pedestrian Bridge. The purpose of this report is to provide a conceptual review of
rehabilitation and replacement options associated with this structure including estimated rehabilitation costs, estimated
structure replacement costs, and estimated remaining service life of the structure both before and after rehabilitation or
replacement. The scope of this assessment is strictly focused on the conceptual design review of the bridge and does
not include for the inspection and assessment of each individual structural element.
The scope of this report includes a comprehensive background review of the bridge’s known history a nd existing
conditions, a review of rehabilitation and replacement options including EA implications, environmental impacts, heritage
considerations, and estimated construction costs, as well preparation of conceptual design drawings.
The options for capital works are summarized in the sections below, complete with cost estimates attached. Capital costs
have been estimated based on our recent experience with similar bridge construction projects, including recent tender
prices received by GM BluePlan, and discussions with suppliers and contractors. The capital cost estimates are
presented in 2021 dollar values and do not include HST; however, cost estimates do include associated costs such as
engineering design, construction administration and inspection fees, efforts towards satisfying the Municipal Class
Environmental Assessment requirements, and contingencies. The estimated cost s contained in this report should be
considered as preliminary, as no pre-design work has been completed that may influence costs of items such as
environmental considerations, transportation requirements, geotechnical conditions, regulatory authority requirements,
as well as any ancillary work beyond the limits of the bridge.
2. BACKGROUND
The Kinsmen Pedestrian Bridge is believed to be constructed prior to 1910, is positioned in an east-west orientation and
is located along the Veterans Memorial Walkway in the Town of Tillsonburg. The nine -span structure consists of a wood
deck wearing surface on top of timber deck ties connected to a steel superstructure consisting of steel girders, cross
bracing, pier columns complete with horizontal and diagonal bracing between columns. The superstructure is supported
by two masonry block abutments and 16 masonry block piers. The structure was orig inally constructed as a train bridge
and has since been converted for pedestrian use only.
Prior to completing this preliminary design report, GM BluePlan reviewed the background information provided by the
Town including the 2019 Enhanced OSIM Report by G. Douglas Vallee Limited, and the 2017 OSIM report completed
by GM BluePlan Engineering.
The timber deck ties were replaced in 2010 and the existing wood decking was reinstalled on top.
We understand the Town has no drawings or records for the existing structure.
KINSMEN PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT
TOWN OF TILLSONBURG
OCTOBER 2021
GMBP FILE: 521015-1
T OWN OF T ILLSONBURG
KINSMEN PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT
GMBP FILE: 521015 -1
O CTOBER 2021
P AGE 2 OF 12
2.1 Existing Conditions
An enhanced structural inspection was completed in 2019 by G. Douglas Vallee Limited that involved a hands-on
inspection and detailed assessment of each bridge element. The results of this enhanced inspection were reviewed and
generally agreed with during GM BluePlan’s 2021 OSIM inspection of the structure.
The severe corrosion and section loss noted throughout the steel superstructure highlights that many elements have
reached the end of their service life. Overall, the structure is in fair to poor condition with multiple elements including the
steel girders, piers, diaphragms, horizontal and diagonal pier bracing, steel bearings and wood bearing seats, concrete
abutments and piers, timber deck, and chain link fencing, requiring rehabilitation or replacement within 1-5 years.
The existing wood decking has been identified by the Town as a safety concern for pedestrians due to slippery conditions,
therefore, rehabilitation or replacement with a non-slip wearing surface will be included in our review.
The existing chain link fence does not meet today’s loading stand ards for pedestrian barriers as outlined within the
Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC), therefore as part of our preliminary review, replacement of the existing
fencing or the addition of an approved barrier will be considered.
2.2 Utilities
GM BluePlan has consulted with the appropriate utility agencies for all potential existing underground services within and
around the project location. There is an exiting utility service running on the south side of the deck anchored to the top
of the timber deck ties. The status of this utility is unknown and will likely need to be temporarily supported or relocated
during construction.
Tillsonburg Hydro identified an ariel distribution hydro service running along the south side of the bridge between timber
poles on the east and west approaches.
Rogers has provided information indicating they have no existing infrastructure within or around the project location.
Bell has provided information indicating they have no existing infrastructure within or around the p roject location.
Enbridge has not provided any information on their existing services within the area at the time of preparing this
preliminary design report.
2.3 Environmental Considerations
The Kinsmen Pedestrian Bridge is located in the Long Point Conservation Authority (LPCA) spanning a natural woodland
area. As the scope of rehabilitation or replacement work is not known our recommendation is to liaise with the
conservation authority during detailed design to obtain their input and complete any required approvals.
A preliminary screening for species at risk (SAR) within the project area was completed utilizing the “Client’s Guide to
Preliminary Screening for Species at Risk” updated by the MECP in 2019. Our preliminary screening involves an online
records review of the following resources to determine the potential of SAR in the project area.
• MNRF Species at Risk Website
• DFO’s Aquatic Species at Risk Mapping
• Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC)
• Land Information Ontario
• Ontario Reptile and Amphibian Atlas
• Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas
• iNaturalist
• eBird
Our review identified that the following SAR have a potential to habitat within the project location:
T OWN OF T ILLSONBURG
KINSMEN PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT
GMBP FILE: 521015 -1
O CTOBER 2021
P AGE 3 OF 12
• Spiny Softshell Turtle • Bank Swallow
• Eastern Sand Darter • Cerulean Warbler
• Eastern Fox Snake • Acadian Flycatcher
• Chimney Swift • Bobolink
• Barn Swallow • Eastern Meadowlark
The current SAR mitigation process is largely proponent driven and the proponent is responsible for identifying any
potential impacts and mitigating/monitoring to ensure no harm to SAR or destruction / alteration of habitat occurs.
Therefore, based on the number of SAR identified through our preliminary screening, we recommend that the Town
retain the services of a qualified biologist to complete site-specific SAR surveys, and develop a site-specific mitigation
plan to minimize the effects on the identified species. These surveys will more accurately identify the SAR or SAR habitats
that potentially exist within the area and will help define the appropriate mitigation measures to be followed during
construction.
3. REHABILITATION AND REPLACEMENT OPTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION
As part of this preliminary design report, at the request of the Town, GM BluePlan has completed a review of four
rehabilitation/replacement options:
• Do Nothing
• Bridge Rehabilitation
• Bridge Superstructure Reconstruction (like-for-like utilizing the existing piers, abutments and foundations),
• Bridge Replacement (prefabricated pedestrian bridge)
The capital cost estimates associated with each option are presented in 2021 dollar values and do not include HST;
however, cost estimates do include associated costs such as engineering design, construction administration and
inspection, and contingencies. Costs additionally include efforts to satisfy the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
requirements which are discussed further in Table 3 of Section 4.0. The estimated costs contained in this report should
be considered as preliminary, as no pre -design work has been completed that may influence costs of items such as
environmental considerations, geotechnical conditions, regulatory authority requirements, as well as any ancil lary work
beyond the limits of the bridge.
Further to estimates of capital costs related to the noted rehabilitation or replacement options, attempts have been made
to additionally show probable costs of maintenance or minor rehabilitation tasks expected d uring the lifespan of each
option. These tasks are in addition to the capital cost estimates and represent potential costs accrued prior to major
rehabilitation or replacement of the structure. These additional probable costs are also noted in 2021 dollar values.
3.1 Deck Wearing Surface
The existing timber deck has been identified as a safety concern during slippery conditions, therefore alternative decking
materials were considered for both rehabilitation/replacement Options 2 and 3 only. The deck chosen for Option 4 will
be largely dependent on the options available through the selected prefabricated bridge manufacturer.
3.1.1 Timber Deck
The most cost-effective option is replacement of the timber deck boards in a horizontal orientation to improve slip
resistance. The change in deck board orientation would mean they are installed parallel the deck ties below and would
require the installation of an additional timber subfloor. The costs for a timber deck are detailed further in Appendix B.
We understand existing timber deck ties were replaced in 2010 and are still in good to fair condition therefore, further
cost savings could be realized through material supply costs if the Town choses to salvage and reinstall the existing
members.
T OWN OF T ILLSONBURG
KINSMEN PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT
GMBP FILE: 521015 -1
O CTOBER 2021
P AGE 4 OF 12
3.1.2 Reinforced Concrete Deck
A reinforced concrete deck would offer the most conventional bridge deck replacement and would provide the highest
level of protection for the steel elements below. A concrete deck may also provide the Town the opportunity to use a
snow removal machine during the winter, versus hand snow removal. Based on the reduced loading requirements from
railway bridges to pedestrian bridges, the installation of a heavier concrete deck is a feasible consideration for options 2
and 3. However, a detailed structural review of the existing steel members will need to be completed during detailed
design to better understand the appropriate connections, anchorage and concrete reinforcement. The costs for a
concrete deck are similar to the costs of a timber deck and are detailed furth er in Appendix B.
3.1.3 Steel Grating Deck
A second alternative to wood deck, as highlighted in the 2019 Enhanced OSIM report, is the installation of a steel grating
deck. This option would be more costly; however, it would provide a longer service life compared to the wood options
and would potentially remove the requirement for snow removal. Additionally, steel gratings (supplied by ALGRIP or
equivalent) can be manufactured to include surface welded beads to improve traction during slippery conditions. The
costs for a steel grating deck are roughly twice the costs of a timber deck are detailed further in Appendix B.
Table 1: Comparison for Deck Replacement Options
Deck Replacement
Option
Advantages Disadvantages
Timber
• Lowest estimated construction cost
• Allow reuse of the existing timber
deck ties (if preferred)
• Maintains potentially significant
heritage value associated with the
existing timer decking
• Continues to create slippery conditions
during cold and wet weather unless a
non-slip coating is applied
• May require the application of a non-
slip wearing surface
• Does not allow for the use of snow
removal machine
• Least durable compared to steel or
concrete
• Shortest estimated service life
Reinforced concrete
• Provides greatest protection to
steel elements below
• Similar construction costs to wood
deck
• Allows the use of a snow removal
machine
• Eliminates slippery conditions
during cold and wet weather
• Longer estimated service life than
timber
• Increased constructability for
barrier installation
• May require additional steel
reinforcement of diaphragms and
girders below
• Removes potentially significant
heritage value associated with existing
timber decking
• Requires this installation of a drainage
system to prevent ponding water
Steel Grating
• Potentially eliminates the need for
snow removal
• Eliminates slippery conditions
during cold and wet weather
• Most durable compared to wood or
concrete
• Longer estimated service life than
timber
• Highest estimated construction cost
• Provides little protection for steel
elements below
• More difficult to install approved
pedestrian barrier
• Removes potentially significant
heritage value associated with existing
timber decking
T OWN OF T ILLSONBURG
KINSMEN PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT
GMBP FILE: 521015 -1
O CTOBER 2021
P AGE 5 OF 12
3.2 Pedestrian Barrier
Understanding the existing chain-link fencing does not satisfy the loading standards for pedestrian barriers as outlined
within the CHBDC, we have coordinated replacement options with known local pedestrian barrier suppliers to highlight
the options available and their associated estimated construction costs. The pedestrian barriers below are
representations of a high range, mid range and low range replacement options for consideration by the Town. Each
option detailed below is mainly intended for rehabilitation/replacement Options 2 and 3. The pedestrian barrier design
for Option 4 will be largely dependent on the available pedestrian barrier options through the selected prefabricated
bridge manufacturer.
3.2.1 High Range Pedestrian Barrier
The option shown below represents a high range pedestrian barrier that was selected during the design of the Glen Road
Pedestrian Bridge in the City of Toronto. The barrier is designed to reducing climbing/falling hazards and incorporates
lighting to improve visibility and pedestrian safety at night. Due to it’s specific anchorage requirements, this option is
limited to the concrete deck replacement option detailed above. The additional costs for a high range pedestrian barrier
are detailed further in Appendix B.
Figure 1: High Range Pedestrian Barrier (image provided by AMG Metals)
Figure 2: High Range Pedestrian Barrier – Lighting (image provided by AMG Metals)
T OWN OF T ILLSONBURG
KINSMEN PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT
GMBP FILE: 521015 -1
O CTOBER 2021
P AGE 6 OF 12
3.2.2 Mid Range Pedestrian Barrier
The option shown below represents a mid range pedestrian barrier tha t was selected for the Doon valley Pedestrian
Bridge over Highway 401 in the Kitchener Area. The barrier is designed to eliminate climbing/falling hazards, prevent
debris from being thrown on the traffic below and can be retrofitted with lighting to improve visibility and pedestrian safety
at night. This barrier option can be included on each of the deck replacement options detailed above. The additional
costs for a mid range pedestrian barrier are detailed further in Appendix B.
Figure 3 & 4: Mid Range Pedestrian (image provided by AMG Metals)
3.2.3 Low Range Pedestrian Barrier
This option involves replacement of the existing steel chain-link fence with the addition of a steel pedestrian barrier to
support the loading outlined in the CHBDC (see Appendix A for conceptual details). The barrier is designed to eliminate
climbing/falling hazards and can be retrofitted with lighting to improve visibility and pedestrian safety at night. This barrier
option can be included on each of the deck replaceme nt options detailed above. The costs for a low range pedestrian
barrier are detailed further in Appendix B.
3.3 Option 1 – Do Nothing
Option 1 consists of completing no rehabilitation work, with complete removal of the existing bridge within the next ten
(10) years. As this option does not include any major rehabilitations, the 2021 capital costs associated with this option
are minimal and have been provided in Table 2 below, with a more detailed cost estimate presented in Appendix B.
Total costs for this option include efforts to close and block off the existing bridge to the public and future removal costs
to completely remove the existing bridge including abutments and piers.
3.4 Option 2 – Bridge Rehabilitation
Option 2 consists of rehabilitation of the existing structure to extend its service life, and ensure the structure is generally
compliant with the CHBDC. Items which would be included in the scope of rehabilitation to addre ss the deficiencies
include:
Structural Rehabilitation Work:
• Removal and replacement of approach asphalt wearing surface;
• Removal and replacement of timber deck boards;
• Remove and replace timber deck ties;
• Removal and replacement of chain link fencing;
• Supply and install approved pedestrian barrier;
• Temporary bridge jacking to facilitate abutment bearing replacement;
• Abutment bearing replacement;
• Removal and replacement of steel diaphragms;
• Removal and replacement of steel bracing beneath timber deck ties;
• Removal and replacement of steel lattice on horizontal member s between piers;
T OWN OF T ILLSONBURG
KINSMEN PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT
GMBP FILE: 521015 -1
O CTOBER 2021
P AGE 7 OF 12
• Removal and replacement of steel lattice on pier columns;
• Removal and replacement of structural connections(PROVISIONAL);
• Concrete and masonry repairs on abutments and piers, and
• Installation of erosion control measures around the wingwalls and in front of each abutment.
Coating Rehabilitation Work:
• Cleaning and painting of the existing structure’s remaining steel components;
o Steel girders
o Steel pier columns
o Steel bracing between pier columns (horizontal and diagonal);
o Steel pier cap strapping
o Structural connections
• Seal structural steel joints and connections with epoxy sealer .
Under this rehabilitation option it has been assumed to replace the existing timber deck ties with ones of equivalent size
and capacity, however we understand from the 2019 enhanced inspection report that the existing ties are not capable of
supporting a snow removal machine and the bridge will require snow removal by hand. Should the Town pre fer to not
remove snow by hand, an evaluation of the existing ties can be completed to determine the appropriate sizing capable
of supporting a snow removal machine.
In certain rehabilitation projects the actual condition of steel members can be hidden behind layers of pack rust that has
built up over time. Therefore, we have shown the replacement of structural connections as a provisional item should they
require replacement following the completion of sand blasting. It should be noted that the steel members identified to be
coated may also require replacement should their condition be worse than anticipated following the completion of sand
blasting, which could add significant costs.
The existing structure was originally designed for train loading scenar ios and we understand from the Town that the
replacement structure will continue to service pedestrian traffic only. Therefore, based on the reduced loading from train
to pedestrian loading preliminary structural reviews have been completed to review the existing structures capacity to
support additional design considerations such as:
• Installation of a more “conventional” reinforced concrete deck;
• Widening of the walkway from 2.6m to 3.0m;
• More efficiently sized steel girders to suit the reduced loading, an d;
• Installation of an additional pedestrian barrier.
Our review identified that all the above design considerations are technically feasible, however, the specific
implementation of each additional design element beyond an exact replacement of the existing structure will need to be
reviewed further during detailed design. The above listed design considerations are also applicable under Option 3 below.
The estimated remaining service life of the structure for this option is 25 – 30 years. To reach this estimated service life,
it is anticipated that one future minor rehabilitation of the structure will be required. This future rehabilitation is anticipated
to include minor concrete and masonry patch repairs to the abutments, wingwalls, piers, and further coatings repairs.
Following the estimated 25 – 30 year service life, further inspection and evaluation would be required to determine the
condition of the structure and if bridge elements have remaining service life. We foresee the structure requiring another
major rehabilitation at that time, however full replacement is anticipated.
Estimated life span costs for this option are provided in Table 2 below, with a more detailed cost estimate presented in
Appendix B. Life span costs for this option include typical bridge maintenance required between now and the future
rehabilitation or replacement.
3.5 Option 3 – Bridge Superstructure Reconstruction (like-for-like replacement)
Option 3 consists of reconstructing the existing steel superstructure like-for-like. Items which would be included in the
scope of rehabilitation to address the deficiencies include:
T OWN OF T ILLSONBURG
KINSMEN PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT
GMBP FILE: 521015 -1
O CTOBER 2021
P AGE 8 OF 12
• Removal and replacement of approach asphalt wearing surface;
• Removal and replacement of timber deck ties;
• Removal and replacement of timber decking;
• Removal and replacement of existing chain link fence;
• Supply and installation of approved pedestrian barrier;
• Removal and replacement of steel girders, diaphragms, and bracing, complete;
• Removal and replacement of steel pier columns;
• Removal and replacement of horizontal and diagonal bracing between steel pier columns;
• Removal and replacement of all structural connections;
• Removal and replacement of steel strapping on each pier cap;
• Removal and replacement of pier and abutment bearings;
• Concrete and masonry patch repairs of the existing abutment and piers, and;
• Installation of erosion control measures around the wingwalls and in front of each abutment.
The 2019 enhanced OSIM and 2021 OSIM results note the existing masonry and concrete piers, and abutments are
generally still in good condition, requiring partial depth concrete and mortar repairs to extend their overall service life.
Therefore, we recommend consideration be made to salvage and reuse the existing piers and abutments. However, in
order to re-use the existing substructure, post-construction loading must not exceed the loading currently experienced
by these bridge elements. A dead load mass balance comparison between pre-construction and post-construction was
completed to understand the limitations to potentially widen the structure, or to potentially add dead weight.
Although not required, replacement of the existing piers can be considered if pre ferred by the Town. The estimated
construction costs for replacement of the existing piers are provided in Appendix B.
The estimated remaining service life of this structure would be 50 – 60 years depending on the performance of the
existing abutments, piers, and foundation. To reach the estimated service life, it is anticipated that the bridge may require
one minor rehabilitation and one major rehabilitation at the approximate 20-year and 40-year marks respectively.
Following the 50 – 60 year service life the original bridge elements (substructure) will be over 150 years old. Inspection
and evaluation of the structure would be required at that time to determine the feasibility of re -using any of the original
bridge elements, however full structure replacement is anticipated.
The cost estimate for this option including engineering and contingency, is provided in Table 2 below with a more detailed
cost estimate provided in Appendix B. Life span costs for this option include typical bridge maintenance required
between now and the future rehabilitation or replacement.
3.6 Option 4 – Bridge Replacement (Prefabricated Pedestrian Bridge)
Option 4 consists of the replacement of the bridge in its entirety including superstructure, piers, abutments, and existing
foundations with a new prefabricated pedestrian bridge at the same elevation as the existing bridge , complete with
reinforced concrete piers (2) and abutments. For the purposes of cost estimating, a deep pile foundation has been
assumed to support the replacement structure, however, geotechnical investigation is required to determine the feasibility
of using a pile foundation which has not been completed at this time.
Construction of temporary site access roads will be required for a complete bridge replacement to remove both the
existing superstructure and substructure. The large embankments at each end of the existing structure make truck,
machinery and crane access difficult and this mainly contributes to the significant costs associated with site access.
The barrier selected for this replacement option will be dependent on the options available through the selected
prefabricated bridge manufacturer.
Assuming this structure would be constructed of concrete and/or steel elements, as per the CHBDC the estimated service
life for the new structure is 75 – 80 years. To reach this estimated service life, it is anticipated that one minor rehabilitation
and one major rehabilitation will be required for the structure. Assuming a steel truss bridge with a concrete deck, minor
and major rehabilitations are anticipated to be completed at the approximate 25-year and 50-year marks respectively.
T OWN OF T ILLSONBURG
KINSMEN PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT
GMBP FILE: 521015 -1
O CTOBER 2021
P AGE 9 OF 12
Following the 75 – 80 year service life inspection and evaluation would be required , however it is anticipated that the
substructure could be re-used through a major rehabilitation.
The cost estimate for this option including engineering and contingency, is provided in Table 2 below with a more detailed
cost estimate provided in Appendix B. Life span costs for this option include typical bridge maintenance required
between now and the future rehabilitation or replacement.
Table 2: Estimated Capital and Life Span Costs
Option Description
Estimated Costs (2021 Dollars)
Estimated
Service Life 2021 Capital
Costs
Maintenance
and
Rehabilitation
Costs (over
Estimated
Service Life)
Total Costs
(over
Estimated
Service Life)
Option 1 Do Nothing $25,000 $1,220,000 $1,245,000 <10 years
Option 2 Bridge Rehabilitation $4,220,000 $600,000 $4,820,000 25-30 years
Option 3
Bridge Superstructure
Reconstruction (Like-for-Like
Replacement)
$4,820,000 $1,300,000 $6,120,000 50-60 years
Option 4
Bridge Replacement
(Prefabricated Pedestrian
Bridge)
$4,500,000 $1,300,000 $5,800,000 75-80 years
4. CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT IMPLICATIONS
All municipalities in Ontario, including the Town of Tillsonburg, are subject to the provisions of the Environmental
Assessment Act (EAA) and its requirements to prepare an Environmental Assessment for applicable public works
projects. The Ontario Municipal Engineer’s Association (MEA) “Municipal Class Environmental As sessment” document
(2000 as amended in 2007, 2011, and 2015) provides municipalities with a five -phase planning process approved under
the EAA to plan and undertake all municipal infrastructure projects in a manner that protects the environment as defined
in the EAA. The MEA Class EA document provides a framework by which transportation projects including water
crossings are classified as Schedule A, A+, B, or C, based on a variety of factors including cost, the general complexity
of the project, level of investigation required, and the potential impacts on the natural and social environments that may
occur.
Schedule A projects are limited in scale, have minimal adverse impacts on the natural and social environments. These
projects are pre-approved and may be implemented without following the procedures outlined in the Class EA planning
process or undertaking public consultation. Schedule A projects generally include normal or emergency operational and
maintenance activities.
Schedule A+ projects are similarly pre-approved but require that proponents notify potentially affected parties prior to
implementation. The public has a right to comment to a municipal official or their council regarding the project; however,
since these projects are pre-approved, there is no formal appeal process to the Minister of the Environment, Conservation
and Parks.
Schedule B projects have the potential for some adverse environmental and social effects, and do not exceed the cost
threshold of $2.6M. Proponents are thus required t o undertake a screening process involving mandatory contact with
potentially affected members of the public, Indigenous Communities, and relevant review agencies to ensure that they
are aware of the project and that their concerns are addressed. Schedule B projects require the completion of Phases 1
T OWN OF T ILLSONBURG
KINSMEN PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT
GMBP FILE: 521015 -1
O CTOBER 2021
P AGE 10 OF 12
and 2 of the Class EA planning process, which is documented in a Project File that is submitted for a mandatory 30-day
public review period. If concerns are raised that cannot be resolved, any member of the publ ic may appeal to the Minister
of the Environment, Conservation and Parks to issue an order to comply with Part II of the EAA, bumping up the status
of the project. Schedule B projects generally include improvements and minor expansions to existing facilities.
Schedule C projects have the potential for significant environmental impacts, exceed the $2.6M cost threshold and
therefore must follow the full planning process specified in the Class EA document including Phases 1 through 4. The
project is documented in an Environmental Study Report (ESR), which is then file d for review by the Public, review
agencies, and Indigenous communities. If concerns are raised that cannot be resolved, the Part II Order procedure may
be invoked. Schedule C projects generally include the construction of new facilities and major expansions to existing
facilities.
We have utilized a revised cost threshold of $2.6M for schedule B and C projects based on the clarifications provided
MCEA through their online website.
As indicated in Item 30, page 1-6 of the “Municipal Class Environmental Assessment” document, projects involving:
Reconstruction or alteration of a structure or the grading adjacent to it when the structure is over 40 years old
(where the proposed work will alter the basic structural system), which after appropriate evaluation is found to
have cultural heritage value requires a Schedule B Class EA if project costs do not exceed $2.6M and requires
a Schedule C Class EA if project costs exceed $2.6M.
As the Kinsmen Pedestrian Bridge is over 40 years old (constructed prior to 1910) and is anticipated to have cultural
heritage value, any reconstruction or rehabilitation activities will require a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER)
and Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA). The costs for these studies to support an Environmental Assessment are
estimated at $20,000 and have been included in the EA schedule costs outlined in Table 3.
The subsequent EA schedule required will be dependent on the impacts to the existing heritage value determined through
the HIA, proposed rehabilitation/replacement activities and overall project costs. As highlighted in Table 3 below, all
rehabilitation and replacement Options are estimated to exceed the cost threshold of $2.6M and assuming all of the
rehabilitation and replacement Options will have significant impacts to the existing heritage component of the bridge, this
project is anticipated to require a either a Schedule C Class EA.
Table 3: Class EA Implications
Option Description
Estimated Capital
Costs (2021
Dollars)
Class EA Schedule
Required
Class EA
Schedule Costs
Option 1 Do Nothing $25,000 N/A N/A
Option 2 Bridge Rehabilitation $4,220,000
Schedule C
(Dependent on
CHER/HIA)
$95,000+HST
Option 3
Bridge Superstructure
Reconstruction (Like-for-Like
Replacement)
$4,820,000
Schedule C
(Dependent on
CHER/HIA)
$95,000+HST
Option 4
Bridge Replacement
(Prefabricated Pedestrian
Bridge)
$4,500,000 Schedule C $95,000+HST
Although not yet approved, it should be noted that under the proposed 2020 amendments to the Class Environmental
Assessment process, there will be changes to the way in which various road and bridge projects are classified. Our
understanding of the proposed amendments is that many road and bridge projects that are currently schedule B or C will
be reclassified to schedule A or A+ dependent on existing cultural heritage value and scope of reconstruction or
replacement work. At the time of writing this report we have used the existing classificatio n process, however once the
T OWN OF T ILLSONBURG
KINSMEN PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT
GMBP FILE: 521015 -1
O CTOBER 2021
P AGE 11 OF 12
proposed amendments are approved, the Town should review the schedule classification of the Kinsmen Pedestrian
Bridge.
5. LIMITATIONS
This report is intended exclusively for the Client(s) named in the report. The material in it ref lects our best judgment in
light of the information reviewed by GM BluePlan Engineering Limited at the time of preparation. Unless otherwise agreed
in writing by GM BluePlan Engineering Limited, this report shall not be used to imply warranty as to the fit ness of the
structure for a particular purpose. This report is not a certification of compliance with past or present regulations. No
portion of this report may be used as a separate entity, it is written to be read in its entirety.
Only the specific information identified has been reviewed. The Consultant is not obligated to identify mistakes or
insufficiencies in the information obtained from the various sources or to verify the accuracy of the information. The
Consultant may use such specific information obtained in performing its services and is entitled to rely upon the accuracy
and completeness thereof.
This assessment does not wholly eliminate uncertainty regarding the potential for existing or future losses in connection
with the structure. No physical or destructive testing has been performed unless specifically identified. Conditions existing
but not recorded were not apparent given the level of study undertaken. We can perform further investigation on items
of concern if so required.
6. SUMMARY
GM BluePlan completed a review of four rehabilitation/replacement options including associated estimated capital costs
and Class EA implications for the Kinsmen Pedestrian Bridge. The results of the rehabilitation and replacement options,
can be summarized as follows:
• Four rehabilitation/replacement options were reviewed, as described below:
o Option 1 – Bridge Rehabilitation. This option includes removal of the existing bridge completely. The
estimated remaining service life for the structure for this option is less than 10 years, and the associated
estimated 2021 capital cost is $25,000. The total estimated cost over the service life of this option is
1.125M.
o Option 2 – Bridge Rehabilitation. This option includes the replacement of steel bracing beneath the
deck and between pier columns, as well as a full deck replacement including all ancillary components.
The remaining member not replaced will be blast cleaned and coated. The estimated remaining service
life for the structure for this option is 25 – 30 years, and the associated estimated 2021 capital cost is
$4.22M. The total estimated cost over the service life of this option is 4.82M.
o Option 3 – Bridge Superstructure Reconstruction (Like-for-Like Replacement). This option
includes for reuse of the existing foundations, piers, and abutments with a new bridge superstructure
including new pier columns, girders, and deck. As part of this work, concrete and masonry patch repairs
to the abutments would be required as well. The estimated remaining service life for the structure for this
option is 50 – 60 years, and the associated estimated capital cost is $4.82M. The total estimated cost
over the service life of this option is 6.12M.
o Option 4 – Bridge Replacement (Prefabricated Pedestrian Bridge). This option includes for a full
structure replacement including bridge piers, abutments, and foundations in their entirety. The estimated
service life for this new structure is 75 – 80 years, and the associated estimated capital cost is $4.5M.
The total estimated cost over the service life of this option is 5.80M.
We trust our report provides the information that you require at this time. If you have any questions, or if we may be of
further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
GM BLUEPLAN ENGINEERING LIMITED
T OWN OF T ILLSONBURG
KINSMEN PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT
GMBP FILE: 521015 -1
O CTOBER 2021
P AGE 12 OF 12
Per:
Brad Walt, C.E.T. Brandon Clark, E.I.T
Project Manager Project Designer
Appendix A – Conceptual Design Drawings
Appendix B – Cost Estimates
521015-1
ITEM ESTIMATED UNIT OF
NO.QUANTITY MEASURE
ESTIMATED COSTS TO CLOSE THE BRIDGE
Bridge closure, barricades and fencing 100%L.S.25,000.00$ 25,000.00$
2021 CAPITAL COSTS - OPTION 1 25,000.00$
FUTURE ESTIMATED COSTS TO REMOVE THE EXISTING BRIDGE
A.1 Mobilization, demobilization and miscellaneous project costs 100%L.S.40,000.00$ 40,000.00$
A.2 Bonding and insurance 100%L.S.20,000.00$ 20,000.00$
A.4 Environmental protection measures 100%L.S.30,000.00$ 30,000.00$
A.5 Construction site access - temporary road access 100%L.S.200,000.00$ 200,000.00$
A.6 Site restoration 100%L.S.40,000.00$ 40,000.00$
SUB-TOTAL SECTION A 290,000.00$
B REMOVAL WORK
B.1 Removal of approach asphalt, bridge deck, barriers, complete 100%L.S.75,000.00$ 75,000.00$
B.2 Removal of steel superstructure, complete 100%L.S.250,000.00$ 250,000.00$
B.3 Removal of concrete abutments, piers, and pile caps, complete 100%L.S.450,000.00$ 450,000.00$
SUB-TOTAL SECTION B 780,000.00$
SUB-TOTAL SECTION A-B 1,070,000.00$
C PROVISIONAL AND CONTINGENCY ITEMS
C.1 Engineering design, construction administration and inspection
fees 100%L.S.50,000.00$ 50,000.00$
C.2 Contingency allowance (10%)100%L.S.100,000.00$ 100,000.00$
SUB-TOTAL SECTION C 150,000.00$
1,220,000.00$
TOTAL COSTS OVER ESTIMATED SERVICE LIFE - OPTION 1 1,245,000.00$
FUTURE ESTIMATED REMOVAL COSTS
A MOBILIZATION AND PROJECT PREPARATION
KINSMEN PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
TOWN OF TILLSONBURG
PRELIMINARY CONCEPTUAL DESIGN COST ESTIMATES
OPTION 1 - DO NOTHING
DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE TOTAL AMOUNT
521015-1
ITEM ESTIMATED UNIT OF
NO.QUANTITY MEASURE
A MOBILIZATION AND PROJECT PREPARATION
A.1 Mobilization, demobilization and miscellaneous project costs 100%L.S.100,000.00$ 100,000.00$
A.2 Bonding and insurance 100%L.S.75,000.00$ 75,000.00$
A.3 Pedestrian traffic control - full bridge closure 100%L.S.20,000.00$ 20,000.00$
A.4 Environmental protection measures 100%L.S.30,000.00$ 30,000.00$
A.5 Temporary access system 100%L.S.500,000.00$ 500,000.00$
A.6 Supply and install bird netting 100%L.S.20,000.00$ 20,000.00$
A.7 Coordination with utilities 100%L.S.5,000.00$ 5,000.00$
A.8 Contractor Layout 100%L.S.5,000.00$ 5,000.00$
SUB-TOTAL SECTION A 760,000.00$
B REMOVAL WORK
B.1 Removal of approach asphalt, bridge deck, barriers, complete 100%L.S.75,000.00$ 75,000.00$
SUB-TOTAL SECTION B 75,000.00$
C STRUCTURE REHABILITATION WORK
C.1 Supply and install timber deck boards 320.0 m2 500.00$ 160,000.00$
C.2 Supply and install timber deck ties 100%L.S.70,000.00$ 70,000.00$
C.3 Temporary bridge jacking 100%L.S.200,000.00$ 200,000.00$
C.4 Remove and replace abutment bearings 4.0 Ea.15,000.00$ 60,000.00$
C.5 Remove and replace deteriorated steel web stiffeners at on
girders 100%L.S.30,000.00$ 30,000.00$
C.6 Remove and replace steel diaphragms beneath the deck 100%L.S.200,000.00$ 200,000.00$
C.7 Remove and replace steel bracing beneath the deck 100%L.S.150,000.00$ 150,000.00$
C.8 Remove and replace steel lattice on pier columns 100%L.S.50,000.00$ 50,000.00$
C.9 Remove and replace lattice on horizontal bracing between steel
piers 100%L.S.50,000.00$ 50,000.00$
C.10 Replacement of structural connections (provisional)114.0 Ea.1,500.00$ 171,000.00$
KINSMEN PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
TOWN OF TILLSONBURG
PRELIMINARY CONCEPTUAL DESIGN COST ESTIMATES
OPTION 2 - BRIDGE REHABILITATION
DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE TOTAL AMOUNT
521015-1
C.11 Concrete and masonry motar repairs
C.11.1 Abutments 100%L.S.10,000.00$ 10,000.00$
C.11.2 Wingwalls 100%L.S.10,000.00$ 10,000.00$
C.11.3 Piers 100%L.S.50,000.00$ 50,000.00$
C.12 Supply and install chain link fence 225.0 m 75.00$ 16,875.00$
C.13 Supply and install approved pedestrian barrier over bridge deck
and approaches (low range barrier)225.0 m 350.00$ 78,750.00$
SUB-TOTAL SECTION C 1,310,000.00$
D COATING REHABILITATION WORK
D.1 Environmental containment and contaminant removal 100%L.S.400,000.00$ 400,000.00$
D.2 Abrasive blast cleaning and coating on structural steel
D.2.1 Main plate girders (Approx. 750m2)100%L.S.250,000.00$ 250,000.00$
D.2.2 Horizontal bracing between piers (Approx. 400m2)100%L.S.110,000.00$ 110,000.00$
D.2.3 Diagonal bracing between piers (Approx. 350m2)100%L.S.100,000.00$ 100,000.00$
D.2.4 Pier columns (Approx. 340m2)100%L.S.95,000.00$ 95,000.00$
D.2.5 Structural connections (Qty = 114) 100%L.S.90,000.00$ 90,000.00$
D.2.6 Pier Bearings (Qty = 16)100%L.S.30,000.00$ 30,000.00$
D.3 Seal structural steel joints and connections with epoxy sealer 100%L.S.40,000.00$ 40,000.00$
SUB-TOTAL SECTION D 1,120,000.00$
E ROAD WORKS AND SITE RESTORATION
E.1 Remove and replace asphalt approaches 100%L.S.20,000.00$ 20,000.00$
E.2 Earth excavation, backfill and grading 100%L.S.25,000.00$ 25,000.00$
E.3 Supply and install R-50 rip rap on embankments and at abutment
faces 100%L.S.50,000.00$ 50,000.00$
E.4 Site restoration 100%L.S.30,000.00$ 30,000.00$
SUB-TOTAL SECTION E 125,000.00$
SUB-TOTAL SECTION A-E 3,390,000.00$
521015-1
F ENGINEERING AND CONTINGENCY ITEMS
F.1 Engineering design, construction administration and inspection
fees (10%)100%L.S.330,000.00$ 330,000.00$
F.2 Contingency allowance (15%)100%L.S.500,000.00$ 500,000.00$
SUB-TOTAL SECTION F 830,000.00$
2021 CAPITAL COSTS - OPTION 2 4,220,000.00$
600,000.00$
TOTAL COSTS OVER ESTIMATED SERVICE LIFE - OPTION 2 4,820,000.00$
Additional costs for concrete deck 100%L.S.-$ -$
Additional costs for steel grating deck 100%L.S.275,000.00$ 275,000.00$
Additional costs for mid range pedestrian barrier 225.0 m 200.00$ 45,000.00$
Additional costs for high range pedestrian barrier 225.0 m 500.00$ 112,500.00$
Additional costs for decorative lighting 100%L.S.75,000.00$ 75,000.00$
FUTURE MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION COSTS (OVER ESTIMATED SERVICE LIFE)
*Additional costs noted above are above and beyond the costs within the estimate and should be added to the total for
comparison purposes.
521015-1
ITEM ESTIMATED UNIT OF
NO.QUANTITY MEASURE
A MOBILIZATION AND PROJECT PREPARATION
A.1 Mobilization, demobilization and miscellaneous project costs 100%L.S.125,000.00$ 125,000.00$
A.2 Bonding and insurance 100%L.S.100,000.00$ 100,000.00$
A.3 Pedestrian traffic control - full bridge closure 100%L.S.20,000.00$ 20,000.00$
A.4 Environmental protection measures 100%L.S.30,000.00$ 30,000.00$
A.5 Temporary access system 100%L.S.500,000.00$ 500,000.00$
A.6 Coordination with Utilities 100%L.S.5,000.00$ 5,000.00$
A.7 Contractor Layout 100%L.S.5,000.00$ 5,000.00$
SUB-TOTAL SECTION A 790,000.00$
B REMOVAL WORK
B.1 Removal of approach asphalt, bridge deck, barriers, complete 100%L.S.75,000.00$ 75,000.00$
B.2 Removal of steel superstructure, complete 100%L.S.250,000.00$ 250,000.00$
SUB-TOTAL SECTION B 325,000.00$
C STRUCTURE REHABILITATION WORK
C.1 Supply and install timber deck boards 320.0 m2 500.00$ 160,000.00$
C.2 Supply and install timber deck ties 100%L.S.70,000.00$ 70,000.00$
C.3 Supply and install steel girders 18.0 Ea.45,000.00$ 810,000.00$
C.4 Supply and install steel diaphragms beneath the deck 100%L.S.200,000.00$ 200,000.00$
C.5 Supply and install steel bracing beneath the deck 100%L.S.150,000.00$ 150,000.00$
C.6 Supply and install steel pier columns 100%L.S.210,000.00$ 210,000.00$
C.7 Supply and install horizontal bracing between steel piers 100%L.S.150,000.00$ 150,000.00$
C.8 Supply and install diagonal bracing between pier columns 100%L.S.225,000.00$ 225,000.00$
C.9 Supply and install structural connections 114.0 Ea.1,500.00$ 171,000.00$
C.10 Remove and replace steel strapping on pier caps 16.0 Ea.1,000.00$ 16,000.00$
C.11 Supply and install pier and abutment bearings 20.0 Ea.15,000.00$ 300,000.00$
DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE TOTAL AMOUNT
KINSMEN PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
TOWN OF TILLSONBURG
PRELIMINARY CONCEPTUAL DESIGN COST ESTIMATES
OPTION 3 - BRIDGE SUPERSTRUCTURE RECONSTRUCTION (LIKE-FOR-LIKE REPLACEMENT)
521015-1
C.12 Concrete and masonry motar repairs
C.12.1 Abutments 100%L.S.10,000.00$ 10,000.00$
C.12.2 Wingwalls 100%L.S.10,000.00$ 10,000.00$
C.12.3 Piers 100%L.S.50,000.00$ 50,000.00$
C.13 Supply and install chain link fencing 225.0 m 75.00$ 16,875.00$
C.14 Supply and install approved pedestrian barrier over bridge deck
and approaches (low range barrier)225.0 m 350.00$ 78,750.00$
SUB-TOTAL SECTION C 2,630,000.00$
D ROAD WORKS AND SITE RESTORATION
D.1 Remove and replace asphalt approaches 100%L.S.20,000.00$ 20,000.00$
D.2 Earth excavation, backfill and grading 100%L.S.35,000.00$ 35,000.00$
D.3 Supply and install R-50 rip rap on embankments and at abutment
faces 100%L.S.50,000.00$ 50,000.00$
D.4 Site restoration 100%L.S.30,000.00$ 30,000.00$
SUB-TOTAL SECTION D 140,000.00$
SUB-TOTAL SECTION A-D 3,890,000.00$
E PROVISIONAL AND CONTINGENCY ITEMS
E.1 Engineering design, construction administration and inspection
fees (10%)100%L.S.380,000.00$ 380,000.00$
E.2 Contingency allowance (15%)100%L.S.550,000.00$ 550,000.00$
SUB-TOTAL SECTION E 930,000.00$
2021 CAPITAL COSTS - OPTION 3 4,820,000.00$
1,300,000.00$
TOTAL COSTS OVER ESTIMATED SERVICE LIFE - OPTION 3 6,120,000.00$
Additional cost to remove and replace abutments and piers 100%L.S.1,500,000.00$ 1,500,000.00$
Additional costs for pile foundation 100%L.S.500,000.00$ 500,000.00$
Additional costs for concrete deck 100%L.S.-$ -$
Additional costs for steel grating deck 100%L.S.275,000.00$ 275,000.00$
Additional costs for mid range pedestrian barrier 225.0 m 200.00$ 45,000.00$
Additional costs for high range pedestrian barrier 225.0 m 500.00$ 112,500.00$
Additional costs for decorative lighting 100%L.S.75,000.00$ 75,000.00$
*Additional costs noted above are above and beyond the costs within the estimate and should be added to the total for
comparison purposes.
FUTURE MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION COSTS (OVER ESTIMATED SERVICE LIFE)
*Need geotechnical investigation to confirm replacement foundation costs
521015-1
ITEM ESTIMATED UNIT OF
NO.QUANTITY MEASURE
A MOBILIZATION AND PROJECT PREPARATION
A.1 Mobilization, demobilization and miscellaneous project costs 100%L.S.100,000.00$ 100,000.00$
A.2 Bonding and insurance 100%L.S.75,000.00$ 75,000.00$
A.3 Pedestrian traffic control - full bridge closure 100%L.S.20,000.00$ 20,000.00$
A.4 Environmental protection measures 100%L.S.30,000.00$ 30,000.00$
A.5 Construction site access - temporary road access 100%L.S.500,000.00$ 500,000.00$
A.6 Dewatering 100%L.S.50,000.00$ 50,000.00$
A.7 Coordination with utilities 100%L.S.5,000.00$ 5,000.00$
A.8 Contractor Layout 100%L.S.5,000.00$ 5,000.00$
SUB-TOTAL SECTION A 790,000.00$
B REMOVAL WORK
B.1 Removal of approach asphalt, bridge deck, barriers, complete 100%L.S.75,000.00$ 75,000.00$
B.2 Removal of steel superstructure, complete 100%L.S.250,000.00$ 250,000.00$
B.3 Removal of concrete abutments, piers, and pile caps, complete 100%L.S.450,000.00$ 450,000.00$
SUB-TOTAL SECTION B 780,000.00$
C STRUCTURE REPLACEMENT WORK
C.1 Form and pour concrete pile caps, complete 80.0 m3 1,500.00$ 120,000.00$
C.2 Form and pour concrete piers and pier caps including
reinforcement, complete 165.0 m3 1,500.00$ 247,500.00$
C.3 Form and pour concrete abutments including reinforcement,
complete 80.0 m3 1,500.00$ 120,000.00$
C.4 Supply and install abutment and pier bearings 8.0 Ea.15,000.00$ 120,000.00$
C.5 Supply prefabricated pedestrian bridge complete with deck, curbs,
barriers, complete 100%L.S.800,000.00$ 800,000.00$
C.6 Install prefabricated pedestrian bridge complete with deck, curbs,
barriers, complete 100%L.S.300,000.00$ 300,000.00$
C.7 Supply and install cast-in-place concrete endwalls at each
approach 4.0 Ea.5,000.00$ 20,000.00$
SUB-TOTAL SECTION C 1,730,000.00$
UNIT PRICE TOTAL AMOUNT
KINSMEN PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
TOWN OF TILLSONBURG
PRELIMINARY CONCEPTUAL DESIGN COST ESTIMATES
OPTION 4 - BRIDGE REPLACEMENT (PREFABRICATED PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE)
DESCRIPTION
521015-1
D ROAD WORKS AND SITE RESTORATION
D.1 Remove and replace asphalt approaches 100%L.S.50,000.00$ 50,000.00$
D.2 Earth excavation, backfill and grading 100%L.S.150,000.00$ 150,000.00$
D.3 Supply and install R-50 rip rap on embankments and at abutment
faces 100%L.S.50,000.00$ 50,000.00$
D.4 Site restoration 100%L.S.100,000.00$ 100,000.00$
SUB-TOTAL SECTION D 350,000.00$
SUB-TOTAL SECTION A-D 3,650,000.00$
E PROVISIONAL AND CONTINGENCY ITEMS
E.1 Engineering design, construction administration and inspection
fees (10%)100%L.S.350,000.00$ 350,000.00$
E.2 Contingency allowance (15%)100%L.S.500,000.00$ 500,000.00$
SUB-TOTAL SECTION E 850,000.00$
2021 CAPITAL COSTS - OPTION 4 4,500,000.00$
1,300,000.00$
TOTAL COSTS OVER ESTIMATED SERVICE LIFE - OPTION 4 5,800,000.00$
Pile foundation* (PROVISIONAL)100%L.S.500,000.00$ 500,000.00$
Additional costs for decorative lighting 100%L.S.75,000.00$ 75,000.00$
FUTURE MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION COSTS (OVER ESTIMATED SERVICE LIFE)
*Additional costs noted above are above and beyond the costs within the estimate and should be added to the total for
comparison purposes.
*Need geotechnical investigation to confirm replacement foundation costs