TOWN OF NEW TECUMSETH 9 th Line Bridge Improvements Schedule C - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TOWN OF NEW TECUMSETH

9th Line Bridge Improvements Schedule ‘C’ Municipal Class Environmental Assessment

PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE NO. 1A

Date: Tuesday, June 26, 2018. Time: 5:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Location: D.A. Jones Library 42 Main Street West Beeton, ON

Your Input is Appreciated!

• Please review the display material and feel free to discuss any concerns with members
• f the study team in attendance.
• All PIC material will be available on the Town’s website at www.newtecumseth.ca as of

June 26, 2018.

• We invite you to provide any comments, in writing, on the Comment Sheet provided.

CLIENT NAME & SOLICITATION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE 9th Line Bridge Improvements Class EA PROJECT TEAM ORGANIZATION CHART 2

WELCOME PLEASE SIGN IN

This public meeting will present the following information:

• Project background
• Problem / Opportunity
• The Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Process
• PIC No. 1 (April 2011) Update
• Revised Alternative Solutions under consideration
• Evaluation of alternatives
• Next step in process

CLIENT NAME & SOLICITATION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE PROJECT TEAM ORGANIZATION CHART 3

INTRODUCTION

9th Line Bridge Improvements Class EA

EXISTING STRUCTURE:

• The existing structure is a 6 span timber trestle bridge constructed by the

Canadian Pacific Railway in 1906.

• The bridge is currently owned by the Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR).

Designed and constructed by CPR, the bridge is typical of railway crossings constructed in Canada in the 19th and early 20th centuries. The bridge is a single lane structure on a two-lane roadway.

• It is posted with a 15 tonne load limit as well as warning signs for a

reduced speed limit of 20 km/h and single lane traffic. RATIONALE FOR THIS PROJECT:

• This bridge was identified in the Town of New Tecumseth’s Roads Needs

Study (2008 & 2014) as being in need of replacement and is considered a high priority.

• The Beeton Master Servicing Plan has indicated that the amount of traffic

will increase resulting in an increase in the number of conflict (opposing traffic) incidents at the bridge.

CLIENT NAME & SOLICITATION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE PROJECT TEAM ORGANIZATION CHART 4

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

9th Line Bridge Improvements Class EA

OBLIGATIONS OF CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY (CPR):

• CPR is not obligated to address many of the identified deficiencies relating to

this bridge. They are only obligated to maintain the bridge to the 1906 standards to which it was originally built. They are not required to upgrade it to current design standards.

• As CPR currently owns the bridge all options which involve maintaining,

salvaging or reusing the existing bridge would be subject to CPR agreement.

CLIENT NAME & SOLICITATION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE PROJECT TEAM ORGANIZATION CHART 5

PROBLEM / OPPORTUNITY

9th Line Bridge Improvements Class EA

THE EXISTING STRUCTURE HAS THE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCIES:

• REDUCED LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY
• POOR SIGHTLINES OVER BRIDGE
• INADEQUATE BARRIERS
• SUBSTANDARD WIDTH
• REDUCED SPEED OVER BRIDGE
• STRUCTURAL DETERIORATION

POOR SIGHTLINES PAVEMENT DETERIORATION REDUCED SPEED AND LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY

CLIENT NAME & SOLICITATION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE PROJECT TEAM ORGANIZATION CHART 6

MUNICIPAL CLASS EA PROCESS

WE ARE HERE

9th Line Bridge Improvements Class EA CLASS EA PROCESS

• A municipality is required to conduct a Municipal Class

Environmental Assessment before this type of infrastructure improvement project can proceed to construction. A Municipal Class Environmental Assessment follows an approved planning process designed to protect the environment and to ensure compliance with the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act.

• The purpose of the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act (EA

Act) is to provide for “…the betterment of the people of the whole or any part of Ontario by providing for the protection, conservation and wise management in Ontario

• f

the environment.“ The term “environment” is broadly defined and includes the built, natural, socio‐economic and cultural environments.

• The process requires the evaluation of potential solutions and

design concepts so as to select a suitable approach that will address the problem/opportunity, but also keep impacts to a minimum.

• Based on the scope of work proposed, this project is classified

as a Schedule ‘C’ in accordance with the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Oct. 2000, as amended 2007, 2011 & 2015) and requires completion of Phases 1 to 4, with implementation in Phase 5. TONIGHT’S MEETING

• PIC No. 1 was held April 5, 2011 during Phase 2 where the

Municipality presented the alternative solutions under consideration.

• Tonight’s meeting is re‐visiting Phase 2 of the Class EA process

and the Town is presenting additional alternative solutions. The project is therefore currently in Phase 2 of the Class EA process.

CLIENT NAME & SOLICITATION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE PROJECT TEAM ORGANIZATION CHART 7

PROJECT STUDY AREA

• The 9th Line Bridge crosses the Canadian Pacific Railway Tracks approximately 200 m east of Tottenham Road (Simcoe

County Road 10).

• At PIC No. 1 (April 2011) the Project Study Area focused on the area of the crossing as illustrated above; however, the Project

Study Area has since been expanded to reflect the additional alternative solutions under consideration.

9th Line Bridge Improvements Class EA

CLIENT NAME & SOLICITATION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE PROJECT TEAM ORGANIZATION CHART 8

PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE NO. 1 (APRIL 2011)

9th Line Bridge Improvements Class EA

• Public Information Centre No. 1 was held April 5, 2011 as part of Phase 2 of the Class EA process. At that meeting a

number of solutions to address the identified deficiencies were presented to the public.

• Following PIC No. 1 and the completion of additional analysis it was determined that in order to safely transition from the

bridge to the intersection with County Road 10 that County Road 10 would need to be raised by 3 m to 4 m. The road profiles will not permit the reconstruction of the bridge to current design standards and provide the required sight lines without creating extensive property impacts.

• Following PIC No. 1 and the receipt of comments, the Project Team also looked at an underground option with the 9th Line

crossing under the CPR railway corridor; however, it was determined that this would create drainage issues given the high water table in the area and the elevation of the suitable drainage outlet. This option is therefore not being carried forward.

CLIENT NAME & SOLICITATION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE PROJECT TEAM ORGANIZATION CHART 9

ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS

During Phase 2 of the Class EA process, alternative solutions are developed to address the identified deficiencies. Table 1.0 below identifies the alternative solutions presented at PIC No. 1 in April 2011 and Tables 1.1 and 1.2 that follow present the four additional solutions that are being presented for the first time at this meeting.

9th Line Bridge Improvements Class EA

ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION ADDITIONAL DETAILS ALTERNATIVE 1

• DO NOTHING
• Retain existing bridge with no modifications

ALTERNATIVE 2

• REMOVE EXISTING BRIDGE, DO NOT REPLACE AND PROVIDE AT‐GRADE

CROSSING

(Note: Alt. 2 as presented at PIC No. 1 (April 2011) was described as “Remove existing bridge and do not replace.” For PIC 1A this has been revised to note that it will include the provision of an at‐grade crossing).

• Eliminate the through road.

ALTERNATIVE 3

• BRIDGE REHABILITATION
• Bridge would be rehabilitated in an effort to correct structural and safety issues.

ALTERNATIVE 4

• RETAIN EXISTING BRIDGE / CONSTRUCT NEW BRIDGE ADJACENT
• A new bridge would be constructed beside the existing structure.
• The existing bridge could be re‐used as a heritage monument for viewing purposes only or adapted for reuse as

a pedestrian walkway, cycle path, scenic viewing etc. subject to negotiated agreement with Canadian Pacific Railway to allow the existing bridge to remain and for continued maintenance of the existing bridge or for transfer of ownership to the Town. ALTERNATIVE 5A

• DEMOLISH AND REPLACE EXISTING BRIDGE
• Bridge would be completely removed and replaced.

ALTERNATIVE 5B

• DEMOLISH AND REPLACE EXISTING BRIDGE, BUT SALVAGE AND / OR RE‐USE

EXISTING BRIDGE MEMBERS

• Bridge would be completely removed and replaced.
• Elements/members of the existing bridge would be salvaged for incorporation into new structure or for future

conservation work and displays. ALTERNATIVE 5C

• DEMOLISH AND REPLACE EXISTING BRIDGE, BUT

DISMANTLE/RELOCATE/RECONSTRUCT EXISTING BRIDGE ELSEWHERE

• Bridge would be completely removed and replaced.
• Existing bridge would be dismantled/relocated and reconstructed at an appropriate new site for continued use
• r for adaptive re‐use (i.e. pedestrian walkway, cycle path, scenic viewing etc.)

Alternatives 6 to 8 are detailed on the boards that follow. TABLE 1.0

CLIENT NAME & SOLICITATION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE PROJECT TEAM ORGANIZATION CHART 10

ADDITIONAL ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS

9th Line Bridge Improvements Class EA

ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION ADDITIONAL DETAILS ALTERNATIVE 6A CLOSE THE BRIDGE AND PROVIDE A BYPASS LINK FROM THE 9TH LINE TO COUNTY ROAD 10 (TOTTENHAM ROAD)

• Construct a new 20.0 m wide by‐pass corridor approximately 0.8 km in length

from the 9th Line to County Road 10 (Tottenham Road).

• Existing 9th Line Bridge would be completely removed.

(Note: The intersection with County Road 10 (Tottenham Road) as proposed with this alternative was ultimately rejected by the County of Simcoe because of sight line constraints and the County’s need to maintain corridor access control. As such, an alternative version of this option was developed proposing a connection to the 10th Line and is presented as Alternative 6B). ALTERNATIVE 6B CLOSE THE BRIDGE AND PROVIDE A NEW LINK BETWEEN THE 9TH LINE AND 10TH LINE, APPROXIMATELY 300 M EAST OF TOTTENHAM ROAD (COUNTY ROAD 10)

• Construct a new 20.0 m wide corridor approximately 1.5 km in length

between the 9th Line and 10th Line.

• Reconstruct approximately 300 m of 10th Line with base and surface.
• Existing 9th Line Bridge would be completely removed.

TABLE 1.1

CLIENT NAME & SOLICITATION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE PROJECT TEAM ORGANIZATION CHART 11

ADDITIONAL ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS

9th Line Bridge Improvements Class EA

ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION ADDITIONAL DETAILS ALTERNATIVE 7 CLOSE THE BRIDGE AND PROVIDE A NEW LINK BETWEEN THE 9TH LINE AND 10TH LINE APPROXIMATELY 1.2 KM EAST OF COUNTY ROAD 10 (TOTTENHAM ROAD)

• Construct a new 20.0 m wide corridor approximately 1.5 km in length

between the 9th Line and 10th Line.

• Reconstruct approximately 1.5 km of 10th Line with base and surface.
• Existing 9th Line Bridge would be completely removed.

ALTERNATIVE 8 CLOSE THE BRIDGE TO ALL BUT LOCAL TRAFFIC AND RE‐ROUTE TRAFFIC TO 10TH LINE

• Traffic would be re‐routed east on 9th Line, north on Sideroad 10 and west on

10th Line to access County Road 10 (Tottenham Road).

• Reconstruct approximately 3.2 km of 10th Line with base and surface.
• The emphasis on routing future traffic to and from the west produced by

development in the northern portion of Beeton will be to direct it to Sideroad 10 and 10th Line.

• Existing bridge to remain for local traffic only.

TABLE 1.2

CLIENT NAME & SOLICITATION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE PROJECT TEAM ORGANIZATION CHART 12

EXISTING CONDITIONS – Natural, Socio-economic & Cultural

NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

Surface Water/Fisheries/Aquatic:

• There are several drainage features within the study area that provide seasonal, direct and

indirect fish habitat and a warm water thermal regime. Wetlands: While there are no Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSW) in proximity to the areas of impact there are a number of unevaluated wetlands. Areas B & E pass through wetland

• communities. Area C does not directly cross any wetland communities. Wetlands may support

amphibian breeding habitat. Vegetation: None of the vegetation communities observed during the field surveys were considered to be provincially rare and none of the species observed were considered to be provincially endangered, threatened or of special concern. No SAR Butternut Trees were

• bserved. Additional studies will be required to confirm if the forested areas within Areas B, C &

E are considered Significant Woodlands. Wildlife (Including SAR):

• Forested portions within the study area have the potential to provide roosting habitat for

Endangered Bat species.

• Locations within the study area may provide potential habitat for a number of Species at Risk

that include the Eastern Meadowlark (Threatened), Bobolink (Threatened), Blanding’s Turtle (Threatened), the Milksnake (Special Concern) and Monarch Butterfly (Special Concern).

• Potential habitat for the Bank Swallow and Cliff Swallow may exist in the steep slopes near the

existing bridge (i.e. Area A). The existing bridge structure may provide potential nesting habitat; however, no nests were observed during the original field surveys.

CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT

Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes:

• The existing bridge is not listed on a municipal inventory of cultural heritage resources

and it is not designated under the Ontario Heritage Act.

• As part of this Class EA a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report was completed for the

bridge which determined that the structure has cultural heritage value for design, historical, associative and contextual reasons and is worthy of being considered for listing on a municipal heritage register or designation under Part IV of the OHA. Archaeological:

• A Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment completed for the area near the bridge concluded

that the area does not have any archaeological potential due to previous construction disturbance and no further assessment is required.

• Given that Areas B, C, & E are rural in nature and undisturbed there is an increased

potential to encounter archaeological resources. Further analysis will be required to confirm archaeological potential.

SOCIO‐ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT Land Use:

• The Community of Beeton is located in the south east section of the study

area.

• The remainder of the study area is primarily rural and utilized for

agricultural purposes with residences scattered throughout.

9th Line Bridge Improvements Class EA

NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

Groundwater:

• The project is subject to the Nottawasaga Valley Simcoe Source Protection

Plan and is within the Nottawasaga Valley Source Protection Area.

• The study area is not located within a Wellhead Protection Area, an Intake

Protection Zone or Highly Vulnerable Aquifer but is located within a Significant Groundwater Recharge Area. Designated Areas:

• The study area is located in an area regulated by the Nottawasaga Valley

Conservation Area (NVCA).

• There are no Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) or Provincially

Significant Wetlands (PSW), within the study area.

• This project is not within the Greenbelt Area, the Oak Ridges Moraine Area
• r the Niagara Escarpment Plan Area.

Given the large size of the revised study area, the natural heritage review focused on the areas of potential impact. These are identified in the adjacent map as follows:

• Area A: Existing bridge location (Alts. 2, 3, 4 & 5)
• Area B: Alternative 6B
• Area C: Alternative 7
• Area D: 10

th Line Reconstruction (Alts. 6, 7 & 8)

• Area E: Alternative 6A

CLIENT NAME & SOLICITATION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE PROJECT TEAM ORGANIZATION CHART 13

EVALUATION MATRIX PART A

EVALUATION CRITERIA ALT 1 ALT 2 ALT 3 ALT 4 ALT 5A ALT 5B ALT 5C ALT 6A ALT 6B ALT 7 ALT 8 DESCRIPTION OF EFFECTS

PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT Structural

• Alts. 1 & 3 will not eliminate the structural deficiencies affecting the bridge. Alts. 2 & 4‐7 will equally address the structural deficiencies affecting the bridge and are the most preferred alternatives

in this regard. While Alt. 8 does not eliminate the structural deficiencies it does reduce the traffic volume using the bridge. Geometry

• Alts. 1 & 3 will not address the geometry issues affecting the bridge. Alts. 2 & 4‐8 will equally address the geometry deficiencies affecting the bridge and are therefore considered to be the more

preferred solutions. While Alt. 8 does not address the profile/width deficiencies it does reduce the traffic volume using the bridge. Roadside Safety

• Alts. 1 & 3 will not address existing safety issues affecting the bridge. While Alt. 8 proposes that the existing bridge will remain open the volume of traffic will be reduced. Alts. 2 & 4‐7 will equally

address safety issues affecting the bridge. Utilities & Servicing

• Alt. 1 proposes no construction so there will be no impacts. Alt. 3 proposes only rehabilitation so it will have a low potential for impact. Alts. 2, 4, 5, 6 & 7 all propose extensive reconstruction and

have a greater potential to impact area utilities. Alt. 8 proposes base and surface reconstruction within the existing road bed and will have a low potential to impact area utilities and is therefore a more preferred solution. Agency Approvals

• Alt. 1 proposes no construction so there will be no agency approvals required. Alts. 2, 4 & 5 will require extensive CP Rail discussions and approvals. Alts. 6 & 7 will require extensive discussions

with NVCA and MNRF regarding natural heritage impacts. Alt. 8 will require the least amount of agency approvals given that work involves a reconstruction within the existing corridor. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Terrestrial Wildlife (including Species at Risk)

Since no construction is proposed with Alt. 1 it will have no impacts. Since Alt. 3 proposes rehabilitation and Alt. 8 proposes reconstruction within the existing right‐of‐way these will have the lowest potential for impact of the alternatives. The construction associated with Alts. 2, 4 & 5 will create some impacts during construction. Alts. 6 & 7 will have the greatest potential to impact wildlife given the extensive road construction in a rural area. Fisheries / Aquatic

Since no construction is proposed with Alt. 1 it will have no impacts. As Alt. 3 proposes only rehabilitation it will have a low potential for impact. The construction associated with Alts. 2, 4, 5 & 8 will have a moderate potential for impact. Since Alts. 6 & 7 propose extensive road construction in a rural area, crossing wetlands and water features these will have the greatest potential for impact of the alternatives under consideration. As Alt. 8 proposes reconstruction within an existing right‐of‐way it will result in minor vegetation removal. Vegetation (including Species at Risk)

Since no construction is proposed with Alt. 1 it will have no impacts. As Alt. 3 proposes rehabilitation it will have the least potential for impact. The construction associated with Alts. 2, 4 & 5 will require work outside the right‐of‐way and will require increased vegetation removal. Alts. 6 & 7 will have the greatest potential to impact vegetation given the extensive road construction in a rural area that crosses through woodlands. As Alt. 8 proposes reconstruction within an existing right‐of‐way it will result in only minor vegetation removal. Surface Water / Drainage

Since no construction is proposed with Alt. 1 it will have no impacts. As Alt.3 proposes rehabilitation it will have the least potential to impact area drainage. The construction associated with Alts. 2, 4 & 5 will have an increased potential to impact area drainage. However, since Alts. 6 & 7 propose extensive road construction in a rural area, crossing wetlands and water features these have the greatest potential to impact area drainage. Alt. 8 proposes reconstruction within an existing corridor and will have a low potential for impact. Groundwater

Since no construction is proposed with Alt. 1 it will have no impacts. As Alt.3 proposes rehabilitation it will have the least potential to impact groundwater. The construction associated with Alts. 2, 4 & 5 will have a similar moderate potential for impact. Since Alt. 6 & 7 propose extensive road construction in a rural area these will have the greatest potential for impact. As Alt. 8 proposes

• nly base and surface reconstruction there is a low potential to impact groundwater and it is therefore a more preferred solution.

Wetlands

• Alt. 1 proposes no construction and Alt. 3 proposes only rehabilitation so there is no potential to impact wetlands with either of these options. The construction associated with Alts. 2, 4 & 5 have

the potential for moderate impacts. Given that there are several wetland areas in the proximity to the Alt. 6 alignments these have the highest potential for impact of the alternatives. There are no wetlands present in the alignment planned for Alt. 7 so it will have less of an impact. As Alt. 8 proposes reconstruction within an existing corridor it will have the least potential for impact.

The table below provides a simplified, visual comparison of the potential for each alternative under consideration to impact the study area environment (physical, natural, socio‐economic and cultural). A large circle indicates that an alternative will have a more positive impact on a specified criteria.

Least Preferred Most Preferred

No Impact

9th Line Bridge Improvements Class EA

EVALUATION CRITERIA ALT 1 ALT 2 ALT 3 ALT 4 ALT 5A ALT 5B ALT 5C ALT 6A ALT 6B ALT 7 ALT 8 DESCRIPTION OF EFFECTS

SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT Agriculture

Since Alt. 1 proposes no construction there will be no impacts. As Alt. 3 proposes rehabilitation and Alt. 8 proposes reconstruction within the existing right‐of‐way these alternatives will therefore create the least amount of impact to area agriculture. The construction associated with Alts. 4, 5, 6 & 7 will result in property impacts which will create increased impacts to area agriculture. Residential

Since Alt. 1 proposes no construction there will be no impacts. Rehabilitation associated with Alt. 3 will generate the least amount of impact to areas residents. The construction and property impacts associated with Alts. 2, 4, 5, 6 & 7 will generate increased negative impacts to area residents. The impacts generated by the Alt. 8 construction will be minimal and temporary making it a more preferred alternative. Noise and Vibration

As Alt. 1 proposes no construction there will be no potential for noise. As Alt. 3 proposes rehabilitation this will generate the least amount of noise. The construction associated with

• Alts. 2‐5, 6 & 7 has the potential for increased noise. The noise generated from Alt. 8 construction is expected to be minimal in comparison to the other alternatives; however, there is

the potential for increased long term noise as this option proposes to re‐route traffic to an alternate route. Air Quality

As Alt. 1 proposes no construction there is no potential for impact. As Alt. 3 proposes only rehabilitation there will be a low potential for air quality impacts. The construction associated with Alts. 2, 4‐7 has the potential to impact air quality during the construction period; however, impacts are not expected to be significant and can be minimized through

• mitigation. The re‐routing of traffic as proposed with Alt. 8 is not expected to significantly impact air quality over existing conditions.

Climate Change

As Alt. 1 proposes no construction there is no potential for impact. The rehabilitation associated with Alt. 3 will have little potential to negatively impact climate change or vice versa. The construction associated with Alts. 2, 4 & 5 will require some vegetation removal and is expected to have a moderate potential to impact climate change and vice versa. Alts. 6 & 7 propose the construction of a new corridor through a rural, previously undisturbed area which will require extensive vegetation removal and will therefore have the greatest potential for impact. Alt. 8 proposes a reconstruction within an existing corridor and will have a lower potential for impact. CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT Archaeological

As Alt. 1 proposes no construction there is no potential for impact. The rehabilitation associated with Alt. 3 will have little potential for impact. The work required outside the right‐of‐ way as proposed with Alts. 2, 4, 5, 6 & 7 will have an increased potential to impact archaeological resources. Alt. 8 will have a low potential for impact since construction is proposed in an area that has been subject to previous disturbance. Built Heritage & Cultural Heritage Landscapes

• Alts. 1, 4 & 8 propose to retain the existing structure which will have a positive impact on the built heritage component. Alt. 3 proposes to rehabilitate the structure which may affect

the heritage component. Alts. 2 & 5A propose bridge removal which will negatively impact the heritage potential of the structure. Alts. 5B & 5C propose some salvaging or re‐use of the existing structure which will have a positive impact on the built heritage aspect. Alts. 6 & 7 propose the construction of a new right‐of‐way through a rural, previously undisturbed area and has an increased potential to impact Cultural Heritage Landscape resources in comparison to the other alternatives and proposes removal of the bridge which will result in increased impacts. Alt. 8 proposes reconstruction within an existing ROW and will have a low potential for impact. ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT Property Acquisition Costs

• Alts. 1, 3, & 8 can be completed without the need for property acquisition. Alt. 2 will require some property acquisition to accommodate the at‐grade crossing and to transition to

County Road 10. However, Alts. 4, 5, 6 & 7 will require the most extensive amount of property acquisition of the alternatives. Construction Costs

There will be no construction costs associated with Alt. 1. Alts. 3 and 6B will be the cheapest alternatives to implement. Alts. 2, 6A, 7 & 8 will be moderate in cost. Alts. 4 & 5 will be the most costly to implement. Operating & Maintenance Costs

• Alt. 1 is the least preferred because no improvements are made to the bridge and there are no alternate routes provided. Alts. 2, 6 & 7 are the more preferred alternatives because

eliminate bridge maintenance through removal of the bridge. While Alt. 3 proposes rehabilitation it will incur maintenance costs over time. Likewise, Alts. 5 & 8 will also incur maintenance costs over time; however, they provide an alternative route to the bridge.

CLIENT NAME & SOLICITATION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE PROJECT TEAM ORGANIZATION CHART 14

EVALUATION MATRIX PART B

9th Line Bridge Improvements Class EA

The table below provides a simplified, visual comparison of the potential for each alternative under consideration to impact the study area environment (physical, natural, socio‐economic and cultural). A large circle indicates that an alternative will have a more positive impact on a specified criteria.

Least Preferred Most Preferred No Impact

CLIENT NAME & SOLICITATION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE PROJECT TEAM ORGANIZATION CHART 15

SUMMARY OF KEY ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES

9th Line Bridge Improvements Class EA

ALTERNATIVE ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES

ALTERNATIVE 1 DO NOTHING

• Lowest cost of alternatives under consideration.
• Proposes no construction so no potential to impact adjacent properties or natural heritage features.
• As this option proposes no improvements it is one of the less expensive alternatives to implement in the short term.
• Does not resolve any of the design standard shortfalls.
• Bridge will continue to deteriorate and incur increased operation and maintenance costs over time.
• Cost: $0

ALTERNATIVE 2 REMOVE EXISTING BRIDGE, DO NOT REPLACE AND PROVIDE AT‐GRADE CROSSING

• Fully addresses the deficiencies associated with the existing bridge.
• Design standards can be addressed at reasonable cost.
• CP Rail ultimately rejected an at‐grade crossing at this location
• Requires extensive property acquisition to accommodate the construction required to provide sight lines.
• Loss of heritage structure.
• Cost: Approximately $3.1 million

ALTERNATIVE 3 BRIDGE REHABILITATION

• Rehabilitation would create less impacts to adjacent properties and natural heritage features since minimal construction

would be required.

• Rehabilitation would be a cheaper alternative to implement.
• Rehabilitation does not address all structural deficiencies, in particular load capacity due to existing design.
• Rehabilitation does not address geometry issues (i.e. profile and width).
• Only very minor improvements can be made to safety.
• Does not resolve design speed deficiencies, one‐way traffic and severely limited sight lines.
• Cost: Approximately $2 million

ALTERNATIVE 4 RETAIN EXISTING BRIDGE AND CONSTRUCT NEW BRIDGE ADJACENT

• Fully addresses the deficiencies associated with the existing bridge.
• Provides improved safety through construction of new bridge.
• Traffic flow can be maintained using existing bridge while new bridge under construction.
• New bridge will be constructed to current codes and standards with an effective design life of 75 ‐ 100 years, thus
• perating and maintenance cost will be initially quite low.
• No direct impacts to the built heritage significance of the existing bridge structure.
• Potential for impacts during the construction period (i.e. noise, traffic flow, disturbance to area residences).
• There will be costs associated with construction of new bridge and significant road reconstruction, including reconstruction of intersection of 9th Line and long segments of

County Road 10.

• Significant property will be acquired to accommodate the new structure and approaches along both County Road 10 and 9th Line.
• Cost: Approximately $14 million

ALTERNATIVE 5A DEMOLISH AND REPLACE EXISTING BRIDGE

• Fully addresses the deficiencies associated with the existing bridge.
• Provides improved safety through construction of new bridge.
• New bridge will be constructed to current codes and standards with an effective design life of 75 ‐ 100 years, thus
• perating and maintenance cost will be initially quite low.
• Potential for impacts during the construction period (i.e. noise, traffic flow, disturbance to area residences).
• There will be costs associated with construction of new bridge and significant road reconstruction, including reconstruction of intersection of 9th Line and long segments of

County Road 10.

• Significant property will be acquired to accommodate the new structure and approaches along both County Road 10 and 9th Line.
• Cost: Approximately $14 million

ALTERNATIVE 5B DEMOLISH AND REPLACE EXISTING BRIDGE, BUT SALVAGE AND / OR RE‐USE EXISTING BRIDGE MEMBERS

• Same advantages as Alternative 5A, but in addition, it preserves the heritage value of existing bridge.
• Potential for impacts during the construction period (i.e. noise, traffic flow, disturbance to area residences).
• There will be costs associated with construction of new bridge and significant road reconstruction, including reconstruction of intersection of 9th Line and long segments of

County Road 10.

• Significant property will be acquired to accommodate the new structure and approaches along both County Road 10 and 9th Line.
• Cost: Approximately $15 million

ALTERNATIVE 5C DEMOLISH AND REPLACE EXISTING BRIDGE, BUT DISMANTLE/RELOCATE/RECONSTRUCT EXISTING BRIDGE ELSEWHERE

• Same advantages as Alternative 5A, but in addition, it preserves the heritage value of existing bridge.
• Potential for impacts during the construction period (i.e. noise, traffic flow, disturbance to area residences).
• There will be costs associated with construction of new bridge and significant road reconstruction, including reconstruction of intersection of 9th Line and long segments of

County Road 10.

• Significant property will be acquired to accommodate the new structure and approaches along both County Road 10 and 9th Line.
• Property acquisition most likely required at new bridge relocation site.
• Cost: Approximately $16 million

ALTERNATIVE 6A CLOSE THE BRIDGE AND PROVIDE A BYPASS LINK FROM THE 9TH LINE TO COUNTY ROAD 10 (TOTTENHAM ROAD)

• Provides road link to County Road 10 that meets roadway standards.
• Eliminates continued maintenance of a bridge structure and potential future costs associated with the structure.
• The intersection with County Road 10 (Tottenham Road) was rejected by the County because of sight line constraints and the County’s need to maintain corridor access control.
• Cost: Approximately $3.6 million

ALTERNATIVE 6B CLOSE THE BRIDGE AND PROVIDE A NEW LINK BETWEEN THE 9th LINE AND 10TH LINE APPROXIMATELY 300 M EAST OF TOTTENHAM ROAD (COUNTY ROAD 10)

• Provides road link to County Road 10 that meets roadway standards.
• Eliminates continued maintenance of a bridge structure and potential future costs associated with the structure.
• Of all the alternatives under consideration this option has the potential for the most extensive impacts to natural heritage features (i.e. vegetation, Species at Risk, fish and fish

habitat) and will require additional discussions with approval agencies (i.e. NVCA, MNRF, MOECC) in order to address concerns.

• This alternative will have the most extensive property requirements of all the alternatives under consideration.
• Potential to negatively impact the agricultural use of affected properties given that it will split fields.
• Cost: Approximately $2 million

ALTERNATIVE 7 CLOSE THE BRIDGE AND PROVIDE A NEW LINK BETWEEN THE 9TH LINE AND 10TH LINE APPROXIMATELY 1.2 KM EAST OF TOTTENHAM ROAD (COUNTY ROAD 10)

• Same advantages as Alternative 6. While this option proposes construction through a rural, previously undisturbed

area, the siting of the alignment minimizes impacts to natural heritage features.

• This option will have an increased potential to impact natural heritage features (i.e. vegetation, Species at Risk, fish and fish habitat); however, it has been sited to minimize
• impacts. The implementation of mitigation can also assist in reducing impacts. It will require additional discussions with approval agencies (i.e. NVCA, MNRF, MOECC) in order

to address concerns.

• Property requirements similar to Alt. 6.
• Potential to negatively impact the agricultural use of affected properties given that it will split fields.
• Cost: Approximately $4.6 million

ALTERNATIVE 8 CLOSE THE BRIDGE TO ALL BUT LOCAL TRAFFIC AND RE‐ROUTE TRAFFIC TO TENTH LINE

• Utilizes existing municipal corridors to accommodate traffic.
• It preserves the heritage value of the existing bridge.
• Minimal impacts to area residents and natural heritage features since proposed road reconstruction can be completed

within the existing road allowance.

• No property acquisition required.
• Results in an increased travel distance for existing homes on 9th Line wanting to head in a westerly direction.
• Bridge will require some rehabilitation to make it safe for local traffic.
• Cost: Approximately $3.85 million

• The project team will review the comments received following the completion of this Public

Information Centre and a Preferred Solution will be selected.

• The project will then move into Phase 3 of the Class EA process.
• A second Public Information Centre will be scheduled at a future date to identify the Preferred

Solution and to present the alternative design concepts developed to implement the Preferred Solution.

• Advance notification of PIC No. 2 will be provided.

CLIENT NAME & SOLICITATION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE PROJECT TEAM ORGANIZATION CHART 16

WHAT’S NEXT?

9th Line Bridge Improvements Class EA

CLIENT NAME & SOLICITATION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE PROJECT TEAM ORGANIZATION CHART 17

COMMENTS

Rob Greenwood Engineering Coordinator Town of New Tecumseth P.O. Box 910 10 Wellington Street East Alliston, ON, L9R 1A1 Tel: 705-435-3900 Fax: 705-435-0407 E-mail: rgreenwood@newtecumseth.ca

• Mr. Steve Fournier, P.Eng.

Senior Transportation Engineer Ainley Group 550 Welham Road Barrie, Ontario L4N 8Z7 Tel: 705-726-3371 Fax: 705-726-4391 E-mail: fournier@ainleygroup.com

Thank you for your attendance at this meeting! We appreciate your participation.

• All PIC material is currently available on the Town’s website at www.newtecumseth.ca.
• We invite you to provide any comments, in writing, on the Comment Sheet provided.
• All comments are to be submitted by July 10, 2018 to either of the following members of the Project Team:

9th Line Bridge Improvements Class EA