Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEGD-024-07 CJ!l.rpn REPORT ENGINEERING SERVICES Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Report #: EGD-024-07 File #: GPH - oC;fj -0-; By-law #: Date: Monday February 5, 2007 Subject: Mill Street Subway Reconstruction, Newcastle RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report EGD-024-07 be received; 2. THAT Council endorse the Hybrid alternative as the preferred alternative; 3. THAT budget allocations contained in the 2006 Capital Budget, project Mill Street Grade Separation, account #110 32 330 83263 7401 be reduced from a total project cost of $6,500,000 to $2,250,000, funded through the DC reserve in the amount of $2,224,533 and from Developer Recovery in the amount of $25,467. Respectfully by: AfP41t410 d~-~ Submitted by: Anthony Cannella, C.E.T. Reviewed by: Franklin Wu, Director of Engineering Services Chief Administrative Officer ASC/jo January 29, 2007 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L 1C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 F 905-623-9282 REPORT NO.:EGD-024-07 PAGE 2 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 In May of 2006 the Engineering Services Department reported to Council nd through report EGD-32-06 on the 2 public meeting held for the reconstruction of the Mill Street Subway south of Highway 401 in Newcastle. At that public meeting the preferred option for reconstruction of the subway was presented to the public and was generally well received. The preferred option called for the permanent realignment of the existing railway tracks approximately 10 metres to the south of their existing location to allow for the staged reconstruction of the new subway while maintaining high speed rail traffic through the construction zone. 1.2 The preferred alternative was primarily driven by input received from CNR who firmly indicated no acceptance of a construction approach that would involve track speed reduction or significant periods of railway closure (i.e. up to 48 hours), that all railway diversions must be designed for full design speed operation and only short term (12 to 18 hour) single track closures would be permitted during the reconstruction. These more stringent criteria had evolved since 1994 and their inclusion disqualified the option preferred by staff and project consultants TSH, which was to reconstruct the subway with the railway tracks temporarily supported in their current location. 1.3 CNR also indicated that because of the complexity of the project and potential impacts on its infrastructure that certain aspects of the detailed design and construction would have to be completed by CN forces or their designated consultants, UMA Group Ltd. In addition the work would be tendered as a CN contract with purchase orders issued by Clarington to cover the majority of design and construction costs. 1.4 On July 26, 2006 the Municipality received a letter addressed to Mayor Mutton with a petition signed by 50 local residents primarily living south of REPORT NO.:EGD-024-07 PAGE 3 the railway, expressing concern over the project as proposed. Their primary issues of concern were the potential for increased noise and vibration resulting from relocation of the railway tracks closer to their homes and the environmental impacts resulting from having to widen the railway embankment to accommodate the new track alignment. Widening of the railway embankment would result in tree removal and the need to lengthen culverts at the railway crossing of both Foster and Graham Creeks. They also expressed concern over noise, dust and vibration impacts during construction, increased post construction vehicular speeds and decreased property values and public safety resulting from the tracks moving closer to their homes. In essence they expressed support for the “Do Nothing” scenario. 1.5During the fall of 2006 Municipal staff and consultants met with CNR staff to review project issues and confirm criteria for final design and project scheduling. Through these meetings CNR staff reinforced the requirement to maintain high speed train traffic through the construction zone and the need to relocate the railway southerly to facilitate subway reconstruction. They would not commit to a construction schedule because of a severe shortage of flagging personnel and indicated that even if a flag person was available for the project that person would only be able to work 8 hour days, including travel time to and from the work site. 2.0 PROJECT COSTS 2.1 The restricted work day imposed by limited flagging resources will have a significant impact on project costs. Contractors typically work 10 to 12 hour days during the peak summer construction season. Productivity will be severely reduced on this project resulting in a cost premium. REPORT NO.:EGD-024-07 PAGE 4 2.2As CNR forces will be administering the construction contract, the Municipality will have reduced control over the expenditure of funds and will be exposed to considerable financial risk. 2.3The needto extend the stone culverts at the railway crossings at both Foster and Graham Creeks also adds financial liability to the project. Both extensions will require ”in water works” resulting in the need to provide fisheries compensation as well as the use of design and construction methods sensitive to their historic nature. 2.4Based on the above factors it is now estimated that the originally preferred alternative will cost approximately $11 million to construct. The allocation in the 2006 capital budget for this project was $6.5 million. 3.0 COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS 3.1 As a result of projected project cost increases noted above, the concerns raised by residents, and the lack of commitment to the project by CNR, the Director of Engineering Services requested that previous alternatives for improving traffic circulation to and from the growing residential community south of the CNR be re-evaluated. 3.2 Synectics, a subsidiary of TSH specializing in transportation safety, was retained to review previously evaluated alternatives from a traffic safety and cost benefit perspective. They submitted a 60 page report (excluding Appendices) entitled “Operations and Safety Assessment Transportation Network Improvement Alternatives, Mill Street South, Newcastle” on January 29, 2007. The report is available for review through the Engineering Services department. In the report Synectics concludes that when the costs associated with construction, maintenance, operational performance and safety are considered, individually, none of the alternatives considered in the EA process provide a cost effective solution REPORT NO.:EGD-024-07 PAGE 5 to the problem. When, however, the beneficial components of each alternative were combined into a “Hybrid” alternative a cost effective solution was derived. Synectics noted in their report that “These economic benefits are exclusive of the expected, but unquantifiable, reduction in collision risk to vulnerable road users travelling along Mill Street South, in the vicinity of the CN rail underpass.” 3.3 The Hybrid alternative recommended by Synectics is outlined as follows: ? Retain Mill Street South/Port of Newcastle Drive as the primary access to development south of the CNR; ? Make minor improvements to the Mill Street South/CN rail underpass, to improve sightlines and increase vertical clearance; ? Upgrade the Mill Street South roadway cross-section to an urban, two- lane standard, north and south of the CN rail corridor underpass, to provide cycling lanes and sidewalks; ? Construct a dedicated pedestrian/cyclist tunnel adjacent to the existing underpass; ? Upgrade Toronto Street to a rural two-lane standard with improved horizontal and vertical geometry, while retaining the existing road/rail at-grade crossing of the CN rail corridor; and ? As traffic volumes increase Install traffic control signals at the Mill Street South @ Toronto Street/Highway 401 South Ramp Terminal intersection 3.4 The estimated cost to implement the improvements is $2.25 million. While the solution does not address all project objectives completely it does address the majority of concerns raised by the resident petition while reducing overall project costs, collision risk, and limiting the involvement and cost unpredictability of CNR. Their approvals will still be required for construction of the pedestrian/cyclist underpass. 3.5 The pedestrian/cyclist tunnel should be designed and construction to complement the historic nature of the existing Mill Street subway. REPORT NO.:EGD-024-07 PAGE 6 4.0 CONCLUSIONS 4.1 To properly conclude the public contact component of the project it is recommended that a final information centre be scheduled for late February to present the solution noted above. The Environmental Study Report (ESR) for the project will be completed and on display for public review. 4.2 The following schedule is proposed for the completion of the project: Final public contact and completion of the ESR February 28, 2007 Complete construction of Toronto Street improvements September 2007 Tender improvements for Mill Street including sidewalk, September 2007 pedestrian /cyclist underpass and minor grading improvements Complete construction of Mill Street improvements June 2008 Signalization of Mill Street South @ Toronto Future Street/Highway 401 South Ramp Terminal intersection 4.3 Based on the cost estimate for the preferred alternative of $2.25 million and the 2006 Council approved budget allocation of $6.5 million the Director of Finance and the Director of Engineering Services should review expenditures to date and reallocate surplus funds as necessary to reserve accounts. 4.4 This report has been reviewed by the Finance Department and they concur with the recommendations contained herein.