HomeMy WebLinkAboutWD-17-97~'
:.~>
;,~ mph
4 1'f~11
REPORT
Meeting: GENERE3L PURPOSE AND.ADMINISTRATION COhR42TTEE
Date: MARCH 3, .1997
Report#: ~-17-97 File#:
BY-LAW LIMITING VBHICLB WEIGHT ON SRIDGBS
Subject:
File # ~~~ ~ G~
Res. # ~a~~~,~
By-Law #
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration
.Committee recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report WD-17-97 be received;
2. THAT all bridges within the Municipality of Clarington deemed to require
regulatory maximum weight signing according to engineering inspections be
posted and approved by by-law;
3. THAT the by-laws attached to Report WD-17-97 be passed by .Council; and
4. THAT the following be forwarded to the Ministry of Transportation for
their consideration and approval:
• a copy of Report WD-17-97,
• three (3) certified copies of the approved by-laws, and
• a copy of ,the Bridge Inspection Report., which includes the detailed
reports and colour photographs.
REPORT
1.0 ATTACHMENTS
No . 1 : Key Map
No. 2: Single and Multiple Maximum Weight Signs
No. 3: Bridge Appraisals (under separate cover)
No. 4: By-law to Restrict the Weight Over Bridge No . 93003, Mill
Street (M.T.O. 021-182)
No. 5: By-law to Restrict the Weight Over BridgeNO. 94023, Prospect
Street (M.T.O. 021-414)
No. 6: By-law to Restrict the Weight Over Bridge No. 98013, Nichols
Road.(M.T.O. 021-387)
o
- 1 1
E~
~: 4 2
.
E
o.o.a
®a
e
4F.
REPORT NO.: WD-17-97
PAGE 2
No. 7: By-law to Restrict the Weight Over Bridge No. 98011, Nichols
Road (M.T.O. 021-385)
No. 8: By-law to-Restrict the Weight Over Bridge No. 99043, Cedar
Park Road (M.T.O. 021-402)
No. 9: By-law to Restrict the Weight Over Bridge No. 94025, Jackman
Road (M.T.O. 021-91)
No. 10: By-law to Restrict the Weight Over Bridge No. 99023, Old
Scugog Road (M.T.O. 021-92)
No. 11: By-law to Restrict the Weight Over Bridge No. 98003, Lakeshore
Road (M.T.O. 021-183)
No. 12: By-law to Restrict the Weight Over Bridge No. 99045, Holt Road
(M.T.O. 021-41)
No. 13: By-law to Restrict the Weight Over Bridge No. 99015,
Providence Road (M.T.O. 021-384)
2.0 BACKGROIIND
2.1 Due to the obsolescence or weakening of bridges, it is often necessary to
limit the gross weight of vehicles on highways or bridges on a temporary,
seasonal or more permanent basis. Chapter H.8 Subsection 123(2) of the
Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended, provides that:
"The municipal corporation or other authority having
jurisdiction over a bridge may by by-law approved by the
Ministry limit the gross weight of any vehicle or any
class thereof passing over such bridge, and the
requirements of subsection (1) with respect to the
posting of notice apply thereto."
3.0 REVIEW AND COMMENT
3.1 Bridges do not require a posting if the Level 1 load capacity is above 25
tonnes. Levels 2 and 3 do not require posting if the capacities are above
45 and 60 tonnes respectively, as per the Ontario Highway Bridge Design
Code (O.H.B.D.C.) 1991, Clause 11-7.3.1. The municipality passed By-law
94-1'73 on October 24, 1994, to restrict the weight of vehicles over twelve
(12) bridges and the required signs were posted. A number of changes have
occurred since that time and new submissions are required to the Ministry.
The Ministry of Transportation will only approve such by-laws if they are
supported by an Engineering Bridge Appraisal Study. Section 13 of Bill 92
will amend Section 123of the Highway Traffic Act dealing with load limit
by-laws so that future approval of the Ministry of Transportation will no
- 1143
REPORT NO.: WD-17-97
PAGE 3
longer be required. As of the writing of this report, Bill 92 had only
passed the first reading with the second and third readings to be held at
some future date.
3.2 The firm of Totten Sims Hubicki and Associates provided an updated Bridge
Inspection Report dated December of 1996. The engineering recommendations
included the posting of maximum weight signs for ten (10) structures, as
depicted on Attachment No. 1. The bridge appraisals (engineering
documentation, Attachment No. 3) to support the recommendations have been
provided under separate cover and separate by-laws have been prepared for
each structure (Attachment Nos. 4 through 13).
3.3 The previous By-law 94-173 included two (2) structures which no longer
require weight restrictions. The bridge (M.T.O. 021-0324) on Lambs Road,
north of Concession Road 3, was reconstructed during 1995 with no load
limit posting required. Another bridge on Old Kingston Road in Courtice
(M.T.O. 021-0085) posted at two (2) tonnes during 1994 was closed to
vehicular traffic on April 12, 1995, after further deterioration was
observed.
3.4 The Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices illustrates the two (2)
available sign styles (Attachment No. 2). The (Rb-63) signs are used
where the maximum gross weight applies to single and combination vehicles.
The (Rb-63A) signs are used where structural engineers have set individual
load restrictions prescribing the maximum gross vehicle weight for a
single vehicle, a combination of two (2) vehicles, and a combination of
three (3) vehicles permitted on the bridge.
3.5 The bridge (M.T.O. 021-0182) on Mill Street, Newcastle, posted at two (2)
tonnes during 1994 due to weakness on the north side, was converted to a
one (1) lane structure with a weight limit evaluated at 25-44-60 tonnes.
The attached by-law (Attachment No. 13) will recognize the higher weight
limit if the structure is posted as one lane. The bridge is tentatively
scheduled for reconstruction during .1997-96.
3.6 The Ministry generally will not approve any posting limit below five (5)
tonnes. The timber Prospect Street bridge (MTO 021-0414) evaluated at two
(2) tonnes is maintained by Canadian Pacific Railway (rail mileage 164.15
Belleville Subdivision) who wishes to eliminate the bridge and has been
reluctant to make major repairs to the structure. Our Consulting
- 1144
i.. mo-17-97
PAGE 4
Engineers have suggested a number of repairs which would increase the load
limit to 5-10-17 tonnes. The Railway has not made a satisfactory offer to
the municipality to close the structure and has not restored the structure
to its original design to support seven (7) tonnes in accordance with
A.A.S.H.T.O. code. (Proposed By-law Attachment No. 4)
3.7 There are two (2) adjoining timber bridges on Nichols Road (MTO 021-385
and MTO 021-387) which span Canadian Pacific and Canadian National
Railways. Although one has a rating of 16-28-38 tonnes and the other has
a rating of only 7-12-20 tonnes, both must be posted with the lower rating
(Proposed By-laws Attachment Nos. 7 and 8).
3.8 The structure on Cedar Park Road (M.T.O. 021-0402) was reviewed and,
although the steel girders can still adequately support a safe
superimposed live load of about 13-18-24 tonnes, engineers recommend that
it be downgraded to a single posting of five (5) tonnes due to the
deterioration of the bridge substructure and partial loss of support for
exterior girders (Proposed By-law Attachment 11).
3.9 The bailey bridge on Jackman Road (M.T.O. 021-91) has undergone repairs
and, as such, the rating was increased from five (5) tonnes to a rating of
15-24-34 tonnes (Proposed By-law Attachment No. 5).
4.0 CONCLIISIONS
4.1 From the above, it is recommended that Council approve the attached by-
laws and that they be forwarded with the Bridge Inspection Report,
prepared by Totten Sims Hubicki and Associates, to the Ministry of
Transportation for their consideration and approval.
Respectfully submitted, Reviewed by,
7~
Stephe A. Vokes, P.Eng.
Director of Public Works
RDB*SAV*ph
February 25, 1997
Attachments
d~/~U'l/JII~~U ~/ - ,
W. H. Stockwell
Chief Administrative Officer
- 1145
as
~,
~~ ~
1 . °.~
_~ z
it
i
Y w ~ -
_ wrs .Md~ ~~ ~~~~5y".
Po~a a w3. r xs~ J0,-, I-~MC~~I
} I 1 y~~
O a ~Y
~ ~... ~1II, ~; ,
n_~ ~_
~...-~I "~'" ~
~~ ~~
a
,~, jai- u-= , `. -;.
~ ~
a
s ~.
~y~°_
J
~~
Q r
~Po O
._ Z
~ Z
%; g
_ °'
~F
Q
N
~ r
JI f" A
1666: r
x rn
} „ W Q
~ ~
?'o Y
~ .
} .
+m
+z
~,~
{~ .
1146
A2.82.01 "MAXIMUM WEIGHT" Sign
(Singla Positng) (Rb-63, Rb-163)
The Maximum Weight sign (Rb-63, Rb-163) shall be
used on bridges where the same maximum gross weight
applies to single and combination vehicles (Single Post-
ing sign). II shall also be used for emergency situations
until a detailed analysis can be made of the bridge
capacity.
II shall be located in advance of a bridge or other struc-
ture to which the restriction applies. It may also be
mounted on the bridge structure. A supplementary sign
may be necessary on the left side of the roadway.
II the limit applies at an inlerrnediate point where there is
no aliernalive route, a special sign should be provided to
divert heavy vehicles to the nearest intersection where a
suitable detour is available.
The Maximum VJeighi (Rb-63. Rb-163) sign shall only be
enacted under the authority of a Reyuiation of the Hiyh-
way traffic Act, Section 1046 {i)(2) or a municipal bylaw..
~L:J°V~
Hb-163 (60 x 00) crn
Rb-63 (60 x 75) cm
6 8
10 8
,0 6
7 5
25 20
8 6
8 7
9 8
MAXIMUM
WEIGHT
1~
tonnes
x tutcm
x tU)crn
Where no legal authority has been established, but
where it is found desirable to post an advisory notice as
to the load limit, the sign shall have a black painted mes-
sage and border on a yellow rellectorized background.
The minimum standard size Rb-63 sign shall be used on
bridges or structures located on local streets or minor
roadways.
The standard oversize Rb-163 sign shall be used on all
King's Highway and other major roads of equal impor-
tance.
For legal requirements and lurther signing details, see
Regulation 486 cf the Highway Tratfic ,Act.
A 2.02.02 "MAXIMUM WEIGHT" Sign
(Multiple Postiny) (Rb-63A)
The Maximum Weight sign (Rb-63A) shall be used on
bridges where structural engineers have set individual
load restrictions prescribing the maximum gross vehicle
weights in tonnes for a single vehicle, a combination of
two vehicles, and a combination of three vehicles permit-
ted on the bridge (Multiple Posting).
It shall be located in advance o(a bridge or other struc-
ture to which the restriction applies. It may also be
mounted on the bridge structure. A supplementary sign
U l1LJ°~~/r~1
Rb-63A (00 x 150) cm
,o
15
7_5
15
,o
15
15
7.5
15
10
,2-5
,o
MAXIMUM
WEIGHT
~ 00
~^^ 00
~^~ 00',
tonnes
Filank Ho. M.T.C. E337
Support -Wood (15 x 15) cm
may be necessary on the left side of the roadway.lt the
limit applies at an intermediate point where there is no al-
ternative route, a special sign should be provided to
diver) heavy vehicles to the nearest intersection where a
suitable detour is available.
The Maximum Weight (Rb-63A) sign shall only be erec-
ted under the authority of Regulation under the Highway
Trallic Act, Section 1046 (1) (2)) or a municipal bylaw.
ATTACHMENT N0. 2
WD-17-97
1!47
ATTACHMENT N0. 3
to Report WD-17-97
BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT
by Totten Sims Hubicki Associates
AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE CLERK'S DEPT.
1148
TH8 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
BY-LAW 97-
A By-law to Authorize the Restriction of
Weight of Vehicles Passing Over Specific
Bridges within the Municipality of Clarington
WHEREAS Subsection 2 of Section 123 of the Highway Traffic Act,
R.S.O. 1990, c.H.B, as amended, provided that:
The municipal corporation or other authority having
jurisdiction over a bridge may by by-law approved by the
Ministry limit the gross weight of any vehicle or any
class thereof passing over such bridge, and the
requirements of subsection 1 with respect to the posting
of notice apply thereto.
AND WHEREAS if is deemed expedient to limit the weight of vehicles
passing over certain bridges in The Corporation of the Municipality
of Clarington.
NOW THEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of the Municipality of
Clarington enacts as follows:
1. THAT no vehicle or combination of vehicles or any class
thereof, whether empty or loaded, shall be operated over the
posted one (1) lanebridge described in Column 1 on the road
under the jurisdiction of The Corporation of the Municipality
of Clarington, as described in Column 2, with a weight in
excess of the limits set out in Column 3 where:
a) In the case of a single vehicle, or where the same
maximum gross weight applies to single and combination
vehicles, the gross weight exceeds the number of tonnes
set out in Column 3 (a) below,
b) In the case of a combination of two (2) vehicles the
gross weight exceeds the number of tonnes set out in
Column 3 (b) below, and
c) In the case of a combination of three (3) vehicles the
gross weight exceeds the number of tonnes set out in
Column 3 (c) below.
BRIDGE WEIGHT RESTRICTIONS
Column 1 Column 2 Column 3
Gross Weight
Descrio tion Road (Tonnes)
A B C
MTO No. 021-0182 Mill Street 25 44 60
Structure No. (Newcastle)
93003, .4 km
south of Toronto
Street, Lot 27/28,
Concession 1
2. Any person violating the provisions of this By-law shall be
subject to the penalties provided in Section 125 of the
Highway Traffic Act. ATTACHMENT N0. 4
WD-17-97
- 1149
`i
- 2 -
3. This By-law shall not become effective until notice of the
limit of weight permitted in compliance with the regulations
under the Highway Traffic Act has been posted in a conspicuous
place at each end of the bridge, and until approved by the
Ministry of Transportation of Ontario.
BY-LAW read a first and second time this 10th day of March, 1997.
sY-LAW read a third time and finally passed this 10th day of March,
1997.
MAYOR
CLERK
- 1150
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
BY-LAW 97-
A By-law to Authorize the Restriction of
weight of Vehicles Passing Over Specific
Bridges within the Municipality of Clarington
WHEREAS Subsection 2 of Section 123 of the Highway Traffic Act,
R.S.O. 1990, c.x.8, as amended, provided that:
The municipal corporation or other authority having
jurisdiction over a bridge may by by-law approved by the
Ministry limit the gross weight of any vehicle or any
class thereof passing over such bridge, and the
requirements of subsection 1 with respect to the posting
of notice apply thereto.
AND WHEREAS if is deemed expedient to limit the weight of vehicles
passing over certain bridges in The Corporation of the Municipality
of Clarington.
NOW TNEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of the Municipality of
Clarington enacts as follows:
1. THAT no vehicle or combination of vehicles or any class
thereof, whether empty or loaded, shall be operated over the
bridge described in Column 1 on the road under the
jurisdiction of The Corporation of the Municipality of
Clarington, as described in Column 2, with a weight in excess
of the limits set out in Column 3 where:
a) In the case of a single vehicle, or where the same
maximum gross weight applies to single and combination
vehicles, the gross weight exceeds the number of tonnes
set out in Column 3 (a) below,
b) In the case of a combination of two (2) vehicles the
gross weight exceeds the number of to nnes set out in
Column 3 (b) below, and
c) In the case of a combination of three (3) vehicles the
gross weight exceeds the number of to nnes set out in
Column 3 (c) below.
BRIDGE WEIGHT RESTRICTIONS
Column 1 Column 2 Column 3
Grosa Weight
Descrivtion Road (Tonnes)
A B C
MTO No. 021-0414 Prospect Street 2 n/a n/a
Structure No. 94023 (BOwmanville)
.020 km north of
Concession Street,
Lot 12, Concession 2,
C.P.R. Mile 164.15
2. THAT any person violating the provisions of this By-law shall
be subject to the penalties provided in Section 125 of the
Highway Tra£f is Act.
3. THAT this By-law shall not become effective until notice of
the limit of weight permitted in compliance with the
regulations under the Highway Traffic Act has been posted in
a conspicuous place at each end of the bridge, and until
approved by the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario.
ATTACHMENT N0. 5
WD-17-97
1151
<~
- 2 -
4. THAT By-law No. 94-173 is hereby repealed.
BY-LAW read a first and second time this 10th day of March, 1997.
BY-LAW read a third time and finally passed this 10th day of March,
1997.
MAYOR
CLERK
1i52
THE CORPORATION OF THE MQNICZPALITY OF CLARINGTON
HY-LAW 97-
A By-law to Authorize the Restriction of
Weight of Vehicles Passing Over Specific
Bridges within the Municipality of Clarington
WHEREAS Subsection 2 of Section 123 of the Highway Traffic Act,
R.S.O. 1990, c.H.B, as amended, provided that:
The municipal corporation or other authority having
jurisdiction over a bridge may by by-law approved by the
Ministry limit the gross weight of any vehicle or any
class thereof passing over such bridge, and the
requirements of subsection 1 with respect to the posting
of notice apply thereto.
AND WHEREAS if is deemed expedient to limit the weight of vehicles
passing over certain bridges in The Corporation of the Municipality
of Clarington.
NOW THEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of the Municipality of
Clarington enacts as follows:
1. THAT no vehicle or combination of vehicles or any class
thereof, whether empty or loaded, shall be operated over the
bridge described in Column 1 on the road under the
jurisdiction of The Corporation of the Municipality of
Clarington, as described in Column 2, with a weight in excess
of the limits set out in Column 3 where:
a) In the case of a single vehicle, or where the same
maximum gross weight applies to single and combination
vehicles, the gross weight exceeds the number of tonnes
set out in Column 3 (a) below,
b) In the case of a combination of two (2) vehicles the
gross weight exceeds the number of tonnes set out in
Column 3 (b) below, and
c) In the case of a combination of three (3) vehicles the
gross weight exceeds the number of tonnes set out in
Column 3 (c) below.
BRIDGE WEIGHT RESTRICTIONS
Column 1 Column 2 Column 3
Gross Weight
Description Road (Tonnes)
A B C
MTO No. 021-0387 Nichols Road 7 12 20
Structure No. 98013 (Former Township
1.12 km south of of Clarke)
Concession Road 1
Lot 2/3, B.F.C.,
C.N.R. Mile 279.10
2. Any person violating the provisions of this By-law shall be
subject to the penalties provided in Section 125 of the
Highway Traffic Act. ATTACHMENT N0. 6
WD-17-97
1?53
.~
-z-
3. This By-law shall not become effective until notice of the
limit of weight permitted in compliance with the regulations
under the Highway Traffic Act has been posted in a conspicuous
place at each end of the bridge, and until approved by the
Ministry of Transportation of Ontario.
BY-LAW read a first and second time this 10th day of March, 1997.
BY-LAW read a third time and finally passed this 10th day of March,
1997.
MAYOR
CLERK
1154
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
HY-LAW 97-
A By-law to Authorize the Restriction of
Weight of Vehicles Passing Over Specific
Bridges within the Municipality of Clarington
WHEREAS Subsection 2 of Section 123 of the Highway Traffic Act,
R.S.O. 1990, c.H.B, as amended, provided that:
The municipal corporation or other authority having
jurisdiction over a bridge may by by-law approved by the
Ministry limit the gross weight of any vehicle or any
class thereof passing over such bridge, and the
requirements of subsection 1 with respect to the posting
of notice apply thereto.
AND WHEREAS if is deemed expedient to limit the weight of vehicles
passing over certain bridges in The Corporation of the Municipality
of Clarington.
NOW THEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of the Municipality of
Clarington enacts as follows:
1. THAT no vehicle or combination of vehicles or any class
thereof, whether empty or loaded, shall be operated over the
bridge described in Column 1 on the road under the
jurisdiction of The Corporation of the Municipality of
Clarington, as described in Column 2, with a weight in excess
of the limits set out in Column 3 where:
a) In the case of a single vehicle, or where the same
maximum gross weight applies to single and combination
vehicles, the gross weight exceeds the number of tonnes
set out in Column 3 (a) below,
b) In the case of a combination of two (2) vehicles the
gross weight exceeds the number of tonnes set out in
Column 3 (b) below, and
c) In the case of a combination of three (3) vehicles the
gross weight exceeds the number of tonnes set out in
Column 3 (c) below.
BRIDGE WEIGHT RESTRICTIONS
Column 1 Column 2 Column 3
Gross Weight
Description Road (Tonnes)
A B C
MTO No. 021-0385 Nichols Road 7 12 20
Structure No. 98011 (Former Township
1.1 km south of of Clarke
Concession Road 1
Lot 2/3, B.F.C.,
C.P.R. Mile 150.35
2. Any person violating the provisions of this By-law shall be
subject to the penalties provided in Section 125 of the
Highway Traffic Act. ATTACHMENT N0. 7
WD-17-97
1155
~~
- -z-
3. This by-law shall not become effective until notice of the
limit of weight permitted in compliance with the regulations
under the Highway Traffic Act has been posted in a. conspicuous
place at each end of the bridge, and until approved by the
Ministry of Transportation of Ontario.
BY-LAW read a first and second time this 10th day of March, 1997.
BY-LAW read a third time and finally passed this 10th day of March,
1997.
MAYOR
CLERK
1156
.~
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
BY-LAW 97-
A By-law to Authorize the Restriction of
weight of Vehicles Passing Over Specific
Bridges within the Municipality of Clarington
WHEREAS Subsection 2of Section 123 of the Highway Traffic Act,
R.S.O. 1990, c.H.B, as amended, provided that:
The municipal corporation or other authority having
jurisdiction over a bridge may by by-law approved by the
Ministry limit the gross weight of any vehicle or any
class thereof passing over such bridge, and the
requirements of subsection 1 with respect to the posting
of notice apply thereto.
AND WHEREAS if is deemed expedient to limit the weight of vehicles
passing over certain bridges in The Corporation of the Municipality
of Clarington.
NOW THEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of the Municipality-of
Clarington enacts as follows:
1. THAT no vehicle or combination of vehicles or any class
thereof, whether empty or loaded, shall be operated over the
bridge described in Column 1 on the road under the
jurisdiction of The Corporation of the Municipality of
Clarington, as described in Column 2, with a weight in excess
of the limits set out in Column 3 where:
a) In the case of a single vehicle, or where the same
maximum gross weight applies to single and combination
vehicles, the gross weight exceeds the number of tonnes
set out in Column 3 (a) below,
b) In the case of a combination of two (2) vehicles the
gross weight exceeds the number of tonnes set out in
Column 3 (b) below, and
c) In the case of a combination of three (3) vehicles the
gross weight exceeds the number of tonnes set out in
Column 3 (c) below.
BRIDGE WEIGHT RESTRICTIONS
Column 1
Description
Column 2 Column 3
Gross Weight
Road (Tonnes)
A B C
MTO No. 021-0402
Structure No.
99043, .6 km
north of
Concession Road 6,
Lot 14/15,
Concession 6
Cedar Park Road 5 n/a n/a
(Former Darlington
Township)
2. Any person violating the provisions of this By-law shall be
subject to the penalties provided in Section 125 of the
Highway Traffic Act. ATTACHMENT N0. 8
WD-17-97
- 1157
. `i
_ 2 _
3. This By-law shall not become effective until notice of the
limit of weight permitted in compliance with the regulations
under the Highway Traffic Act has been posted in a conspicuous
place at each end of the bridge, and until approved by the
Ministry of Transportation of Ontario.
BY-LAW read a first and second time this 10th day of March, 1997.
BY-LAW read a third time and finally passed this 10th day of March,
1997.
MAYOR
CLERK
1158
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
EY-LAW 97-
A By-law to Authorize the Restriction of
Weight of Vehicles Passing Over Specific
Bridges within the Municipality of Clarington
WHEREAS Subsection 2 of Section 123 of the Highway Traffic Act
R.S.O. 1990, c.H.B, as amended, provided that:
The municipal corporation or other authority having
jurisdiction over a bridge may by by-law approved by the
Ministry limit the gross weight of any vehicle or any
class thereof passing over such bridge, and the
requirements of Subsection 1 with respect to the posting
of notice apply thereto.
AND WHEREAS it is deemed expedient to limit the weight of vehicles
passing over certainbridges in The Corporation of the Municipality
of Clarington.
NOW THEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of the Municipality of
Clarington enacts as follows:
1. THAT no vehicle or combination of vehicles or any class
thereof, whether empty or loaded, shall be operated over the
bridge described in Column 1 on the road under the
jurisdiction of The Corporation of the Municipality of
Clarington, as described in Column 2, with a weight in excess
of the limits set out in Column 3 where:
a) In the case o£ a single vehicle, or where the same
maximum gross weight applies to single and combination
vehicles, the gross weight exceeds the number of tonnes
set out in Column 3 (a) below,
b) In the case of a combination of two (2) vehicles the
gross weight exceeds the number of tonnes set out in
Column 3 (b) below, and
c) In the case of a combination of three (3) vehicles the
gross weight exceeds the number of tonnes set out in
Column 3 (c) below.
BRIDGE WEIGHT RESTRICTIONS
Column 1
Deacrintion
MTO No. 021-0091
Structure No. 94025
.5 km east of Durham
Regional Road 57,
Lot 14, Concession 2
Column 2
Road
Jackman Road
(BOwmanville)
Column 3
Grose Weight
(Tonnes)
A 8 C
15 24 34
2. Any person violating the provisions of this By-law shall be
subject to the penalties provided in Section 125 of the
Highway Traffic Act. ATTACHMENT
WD-17-97
1159
N0. 9
-2-
3. This By-law shall not become effective until notice of the
limit of weight permitted in compliance with the regulations
under the Highway Traffic Act has been posted in a conspicuous
place at each end of the bridge, and until approved by the
Ministry of Transportation of Ontario.
- 8Y-LAW read a first and second time this 1Dth day of March, 1997.
BY-LAw read a third time and finally passed this 10th day of March,
1997.
MAYOR
CLERK
1160
THE CORPORATION OF TH8 MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
BY-LAW 97-
A By-law to Authorize the Restriction of
Weight of Vehicles Passing Over Specific
Bridges within the Municipality of Clarington
WHEREAS Subsection 2 of Section 123 of the Highway Traffic Act,
R.S.O. 1990, c.H.B, as amended, provided that:
The municipal corporation or other authority having
jurisdiction over a bridge may by by-law approved by the
Ministry limit the gross weight of any vehicle or any
class thereof passing over such bridge, and the
requirements of subsection 1 with respect to the posting
of notice apply thereto.
AND WHEREAS if is deemed expedient to limit the weight of vehicles
passing over certain bridges in The Corporation of the Municipality
of Clarington.
NOW THEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of the Municipality of
Clarington enacts as follows:
1. THAT no vehicle or combination of vehicles or any class
thereof, whether empty or loaded, shall be operated over the
bridge described in Column 1 on the road under the
jurisdiction of The Corporation of the Municipality of
Clarington, as described in Column 2, with a weight in excess
of the limits set out in Column 3 where:
a) In the case of a single vehicle, or where the same
maximum gross weight applies to single and combination
vehicles, the gross weight exceeds the number of tonnes
set out in Column 3 (a) below,
b) In the case of a combination of two (2) vehicles the
gross weight exceeds the number of tonnes set out in
Column 3 (b) below, and
c) In the case of a combination of three (3) vehicles the
gross weight exceeds the number of tonnes set out in
Column 3 (c) below.
BRIDGE WEIGHT RESTRICTIONS
Column 1 Column 2 Column 3
Grosa Weight
Description Road {Tonnes)
A 8 C
MTO No. 021-0092 Old Scugog Road 9 16 24
Structure No. (Former Darlington
99023, 1 km Township)
south of Durham
Region Road 4,
Lot 16, Concession
4
2. Any person violating the provisions of this By-law shall be
subject to the penalties provided in Section 125 of the
Highway Traffic Act. ATTACHMENT NO
WD-17-97
- 1161
10
-z-
3. This By-law shall not become effective until notice of the
limit of weight permitted in compliance with the regulations
under the Highway Traffic Act has been posted in a conspicuous
place at each end of the bridge, and until approved by the
Ministry of Transportation of Ontario.
BY-LAW read afirst and second time this 10th day of March, 1997.
BY-LAW read a third time and finally passed this 10th day of March,
1997.
MAYOR
CLERK
1162
t
THE CORPORATION OF THE MDNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
HY-LAW 97-
A By-law to Authorize the Restriction of
Weight of Vehicles Passing Over Specific
Bridges within the Municipality of Clarington
WHEREAS Subsection 2 of Section 123 of the Highway Traffic Act,
R.S.O. 1990, c.H.B, as amended, provided that:
The municipal corporation or other authority having
jurisdiction over a bridge may by by-law approved by the
Ministry limit the gross weight of any vehicle or any
class thereof passing over such bridge, and the
requirements of subsection 1 with respect to the posting
of notice apply thereto.
AND WHEREAS-if is deemed expedient to limit the weight of vehicles
passing over certain bridges in The Corporation of the Municipality
of Clarington.
NOW THEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of the Municipality of
Clarington enacts as follows:
1. THAT no vehicle or combination of vehicles or any class
thereof, whether empty or loaded, shall be operated over the
bridge described in Column 1 on the road under the
jurisdiction of The Corporation of the Municipality of
Clarington, as described in Column 2, with a weight in excess
of the limits set out in Column 3 where:
a) In the case of a single vehicle, or where the same
maximum gross weight applies to single and combination
vehicles, the gross weight exceeds the number of tonnes
set out in Column 3 (a) below,
b) In the case of a combination of two (2) vehicles the
gross weight exceeds the number of tonnes set out in
Column 3 (b) below, and
c) In the case of a combination of three (3) vehicles the
gross weight exceeds the number of tonnes set out in
Column 3 (c) below.
BRIDGE WEIGHT RESTRICTIONS
Column 1 Column 2 Column 3
Gross Weight
Description Road (Tonnes)
A B C
MTO No. 021-0183 Lakeshore Road 5 10 16
Structure No. (Former Township
98003 at o£ Clarke)
Stephenson Road,
Lot 22/23, B.F.C.,
C.N.R. Mile 284.60
2. Any person violating the provisions of this By-law shall be
subject to the penalties provided in Section 125 of the
Highway Traffic Act. ATTACHMENT N0. 11
WD-17-97
?163
3. This By-law shall not become effective until notice of the
limit of weight permitted in compliance with the regulations
under the Highway Traffic Act has been posted in a conspicuous
place at each end of the bridge, and until approved by the
Ministry of Transportation of Ontario.
. SY-LAW read a first and second time this 10th day of March, 1997.
BY-LAW read a third time and finally passed this 10th day of March,
1997.
MAYOR
CLERK
1164
THE CORPORATION OF THE MONICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
BY-LAW 97-
A By-law to Authorize the Restriction of
Weight of Vehicles Passing Over Specific
Bridges within the Municipality of Clarington
WHEREAS Subsection 2 of Section 123 of the Highway Traffic Act,
R.S.O. 1990, c.H.B, as amended, provided that:
The municipal corporation or other authority having
jurisdiction over a bridge may by by-law approved by the
Ministry limit the gross weight of any vehicle or any
class thereof passing over such bridge, and the
requirements of subsection 1 with respect to the posting
of notice apply thereto.
AND WHEREAS if is deemed expedient to limit the weight of vehicles
passing over certain bridges in The Corporation of the Municipality
of Clarington.
NOW THERHFORE the Council of The Corporation of the Municipality of
Clarington enacts as follows:
1. THAT no vehicle or combination of vehicles or any class
thereof, whether empty or loaded, shall be operated over the
bridge described in Column 1 on the road under the
jurisdiction of The Corporation of the Municipality of
Clarington, as described in Column 2, with a weight in excess
of the limits set out in Column 3 where:
a) In the case of a single vehicle, or where the same
maximum gross weight applies to single and combination
vehicles, the gross weight exceeds the number of tonnes
set out in Column 3 (a) below,
b) In the case of a combination of two (2) vehicles the
gross weight exceeds the number of tonnes set out in
Column 3 (b) below, and
c) In the case of a combination of three (3) vehicles the
gross weight exceeds the number of tonnes set out in
Column 3 (c) below.
BRIDGE WEIGHT RESTRICTIONS
Column 1 Column 2 Column 3
Gross Weight
Description Road (Tonnes)
A B C
MTO No. 021-0041 Holt Road 18 31 42
Structure No. (Former Darlington
99045, .7 km Township)
north of
Concession Road 7,
Lot 20/21,
Concession 7
2. Any person violating the provisions of this By-law shall be
subject to the penalties provided in Section 125 of the
Highway Traffic Act. ATTACHMENT N0. 12
WD-17-97
1ib5
-z-
3. This By-law shall not become effective until notice of the
limit of weight permitted in compliance with the regulations
under the Highway Traffic Act has been posted in a conspicuous
place at each end of the bridge, and until approved~by the
Ministry of Transportation of Ontario.
~. SY-LAW read a first and second-time this 10th day of. March, 1997.
BY-LAW read a third time and finally passed this 10th day of March,
1997.
MAYOR
CLERK
1166
~~
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
BY-LAW 97-
A By-law to Authorize the Restriction of
Weight of Vehicles Passing Over Specific
Bridges within the Municipality of Clarington
WHEREAS Subsection 2 of Section 123 of the Highway Traffic Act,
R.S.O. 1990, c.H.B, as amended, provided that:
The municipal corporation or other authority having
jurisdiction over a bridge may by by-law approved by the
Ministry limit the gross weight of any vehicle or any
class thereof passing over such bridge, and the
requirements of subsection 1 with respect to. the posting _
of notice apply thereto.
AND WHEREAS if is deemed expedient to limit the weight of vehicles
passing over certain bridges in The Corporation of the Municipality
of Clarington.
NOW THEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of the Municipality of
Clarington enacts as follows:
1. THAT no vehicle or combination of vehicles or any class
thereof, whether empty or loaded, shall be operated over the
bridge described in Column 1 on the road under the
jurisdiction of The Corporation of the Municipality of
Clarington, as described in Column 2, with a weight in excess
of the limits set out in Column 3 where:
a) In the case of a single vehicle, or where the same
maximum gross weight applies to single and combination
vehicles, the gross weight exceeds the number of tonnes
set out in Column 3 (a) below,
b) In the case of a combination of two (2) vehicles the
gross weight exceeds the number of tonnes set out in
Column 3 (b) below, and
c) In the case of a combination of three (3) vehicles the
gross weight exceeds the number of tonnes set out in
Column 3 (c) below.
BRIDGE WEIGHT RESTRICTIONS
Column 1 Colvmn 2 Column 3
Grose Weight
Deecrintion Road (Tonnes)
A B C
MTO No. 021-0384 Providence Road 12 20 30
Structure No. 99015 (Former Darlington
.8 km north of Township)
Concession Street
East, Lot 4/5,
Concession 2,
C.P.R. Mile 161.84
2. Any person violating the provisions of this By-law shall be
subject to the penalties provided in Section 125 of the
Highway Traffic Act. ATTACHMENT N0. 13
WD-17-97
1167
.,
,.
-2-
3. This By-law shall not become effective until notice of the
limit of weight permitted in compliance with the regulations
under the Highway Traffic Act has been posted in a conspicuous
place at each end of the bridge, and until approved by the
Ministry of Transportation of Ontario.
_ BY-LAW read a first and second time this 10th day of March, 1997.
BY-LAW read a third time and finally passed this 10th day of March,
1997.
MAYOR
CLERK
1168
MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
BRIDGES N0.93003, 94023, 94025, 98003,
98011, 98013, 99015, 99023, 99043 AND 99045
BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT
December 1996
totten aims hubicki BSSOC18teS ATTACHMENT 03
engineers architects and planners wn-i~-9~
(Under Separ-
ate Cover)
MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
BRIDGES N0.93003, 94023, 94025, 98003,
98011, 98013, 99015, 99023, 99043 AND 99045
BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT
December 1996
totten sims hubicki associates
engineers architects planners
1
~ ®~O
' totten sims hubicki associates
' December 23, 1996
Mr. S. A. Vokes, P. Eng.
' Director of Public Works
Municipality of Clarington
40 Temperance Street
' Bowmanville, Ontario
L1C 3A6
' Attention: Mr. D. Patterson, C.E.T.
Manager of Operations, Public Works
' Re: Bridge Inspection Report
Municipality of Clarington
Dear Sir:
513 DIVISION STREET, P.O. BOX 910, COBOURG
ONTARIO, CANADA K9A 4W4
(905) 372-2121 FAX (905) 372-3621
As requested in your letter of December 1, 1995, we are enclosing our Bridge Inspection Report which
outlines the results of our field inspection and preliminary structural evaluation of the following bridges in
the Municipality of Clarington described as follows:
Bridge No. 93003 (Mill Street)
Bridge No. 94023 (Prospect Street)
Bridge No. 94025 (Jackman Road)
Bridge No. 98003 (Lakeshore Road)
Bridge No. 98017 (Nichols Road)
Bridge No. 98013 (Nichols Road)
Bridge No. 99015 (Providence Road)
Bridge No. 99023 (Old Scugog Road)
Bridge No. 99043 (Cedar Park Road)
Bridge No. 99045 (Holt Road)
Bridges No. 92001 and 99025 are not included in this Report. Bridge No. 9200] on Old Kingston Road has
been closed to vehicular traffic. Bridge No. 99025 on Lambs Road has been reconstructed.
The major findings and conclusions of our Bridge Inspection Report are summarized as follows:
• Bridge No. 93003 is in fair condition and is adequate to support a safe superimposed live load of about
L1 = 25 tonnes; L2 = 44 tonnes; L3 = 60 tonnes if vehicular traffic is restricted from the sidewalk. The
bridge is tentatively scheduled for replacement in 1997. If the replacement work is deferred, then it is
recommended that the roadway embankments be stabilized.
• Bridge No. 94023 is in poor to fair condition and is adequate to support a safe superimposed live load
of about Ll = 2 tonnes. To repair Bridge No. 94023, it is recommended that the existing timber
ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS
-~-
handrails be repaired, deteriorated deck planks, curbs, pier and abutment components replaced, north
timber abutment reconstructed, approaches regraded and repaved, and rock protection placed to prevent
further erosion. After completion of the above noted repairs, the bridge will be adequate to support a
safe superimposed live load of about L1 = 5 tonnes: L2 = 10 tonnes; L3 = 17 tonnes.
• Bridge No. 94025 is in generally good condition and is adequate to support a safe superimposed live load
of about Ll = 15 tonnes, L2 = 24 tonnes; L3 = 34 tonnes. No repairs to the structure are required at the
present time.
• Bridge No. 98003 is in fair condition and is adequate to support a safe superimposed live load of about
L 1 = ~ tonnes; L2 = 10 tonnes; L3 = 16 tonnes. To repair Bridge No. 98003, it is recommended that the
existing timber handrails be repaired, missing and pulled out deck spikes replaced, deteriorated timber
abutment sheeting replaced and timber crib wingwalls reconstructed.
• Bridge No. 98011 is in generally good condition and is adequate to support a safe superimposed live load
of about L 1 = 16 tonnes; L2 = 28 tonnes; L3 = 38 tonnes. No repairs to the structure are required at the
present time.
• Bridge No. 98013 is in generally good condition and is adequate to support a safe superimposed live load
of about L1 = 7 tonnes; LZ = 12 tonnes; L3 = 20 tonnes. No repairs to the structure are required at the
present time.
• Bridge No. 99015 is in fair condition and is adequate to support a safe superimposed live load of about
L1 = 12 tonnes; L2 = 20 tonnes; L3 = 30 tonnes. To repair Bridge No. 9901 ~, it is recommended that
the existing timber handrails be repaired and deteriorated timber deck planks and curbs replaced.
• Bridge No. 99023 is in fair condition and is adequate to support a safe superimposed live load of about
Ll = 9 tonnes; L2 = 16 tonnes; L3 = 24 tonnes. To repair Bridge No. 99023, it is recommended that the
existing handrails be replaced with a thrie beam guide rail/ pedestrian rail system, the concrete deck be
repaired, waterproofed and paved. deck expansion joints be installed. structural steel girders cleaned and
painted, concrete deck soffit and abutments restored and wingwalls and abutment footings refaced with
concrete.
' Bridge No. 99043 is in poor condition and is adequate to support a safe superimposed live load of about
L] = 5 tonnes. Because of the age, condition and type of construction of the existing bridge, the repair
of the existing bridge to increase its capacity is not considered to be practical or economical.
' Bridge No. 99045 is in fair condition and is adequate to support a safe superimposed live load of about
L1 = 18 tonnes; L2 = 31 tonnes; L3 = 42 tonnes. To repair Bridge No. 99045, i[ is recommended that
' the existing handrails be replaced with a thrie beam guide rail/ pedestrian rail system, the concrete deck
be repaired, concrete deck soffit and southeast wingwall restored and north abutment footing refaced
with concrete.
The existing structures should be posted with the load limits as summarized above. It is recommended that
Bridges No. 98011 and 98013 both be posted with a load limit of L1 = 7 tonnes; L2 = 12 tonnes, L3 = 20
tonnes because the bridges are located on the same road in close proximity to each other.
I~ totten Sims hubicki associates
-3-
The preliminary estimated costs to repair the existing bridges to extend their life expectance (based on
current 1996 construction prices) are summarized as follows:
Bridge No. 93003 $ 10,000.00
Bridge No. 94023 $ 80,000.00
Bridge No. 98003 $ 55,000.00
Bridge No. 99015 $ 13,000.00
Bridge No. 99023 $170,000.00
Bridge No. 99045 $ 65,000.00
Before implementing the repair works, and because of the expenditure involved for repair of the existin~_
bridges, the deficient roadway widths, load restrictions and limited remaining life expectancy. consideration
should be given to complete replacement of Bridges No. 93003, 94023, 94025, 98003. 99033. 99043 and
99045. The "ball-park" replacement costs (based on current 1996 construction prices) are summarized as
follows:
Bridge No. 93003 $300,000.00
Bridge No. 94023 $150,000.00 (based on replacement with a pedestrian bride)
Bridge No. 94025 $375,000.00
Bridge No. 98003 $900,000.00
Bridge No. 99023 $270,000.00
Bridge No. 99043 $210,000.00
Bridge No. 9904:1 $240,000.00
Should you have any questions with regard to the above and/or the inspection results contained in the
accompanying Report, please do not hesitate to contact our office.
Yours very truly,
totten sims hubicki associates
~~~~~
D. R. Bourne
Project Manager
DRB/dlb
Encl.
totten sims hubicki associates
'
MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT
'
' TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NOS.
' PURPOSE ........................................................................ 1
LOCATION ...................................................................... 1
' BRIDGE N0.93003 ................................................................ 2
' BRIDGE NO.94023 ................................................................ 6
' BRIDGE NO.94025 ............................................................... 12
' BRIDGE NO.98003 ............................................................... 16
' BRIDGE NO.98011 ............................................................... 21
BRIDGE NO. 98013 ............................................................... 25
BRIDGE NO.99015 ............................................................... 29
'
BRIDGE NO.99023 ............................................................... 33
BRIDGE NO. 99043 ............................................................... 38
BRIDGE NO.99045 ............................................................... 43
SUMMARY ..................................................................... 48
APPENDICES
MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT
PURPOSE
The purpose of this Report is to summarize the information obtained in the field inspection and structural
evaluation often (10) bridges in the Municipality of Clarington carried out with the intent of defining the
safe load carrying capacity of the existing structure.
The purpose of this Report is also to provide recommendations with related preliminary cost estimates for
the repair of the structures and to extend their remaining life expectancy.
LOCATION
The location of the ten (10) bridges inspected are as follows:
MTO -.
`Bridge Structure '.
No. Site No.' Name Location
93003 21-182 Mill Street 0.40 km south of Toronto Street, Village of Newcastle.
Municipality of Clarington
94023 2 ]-414 Prospect Street 0.10 km south of O'Dell Street. Town of Bowmanville.
Municipality of Clarington
94025 21-91 Jackman Road 1.50 km east of Regional Road No. 57, Town of Bowmanville,
Municipality of Clarington
98003 21-183 Lakeshore Road Lots 22 and 23, Concession B, Former Township of Clarke.
Municipality of Clarington
98011 21-385 Nichols Road Lots 2 and 3, Concession B. Former Township of Clarke,
Municipality of Clarington
98013 21-387 Nichols Road Lots 2 and 3, Concession B, Former Township of Clarke,
Municipality of Clarington
99015 21-384 Providence Road Lots 4 and 5, Concession l1, Former Township of Darlington,
Municipality of Clarington
99023 21-92 Old Scugog Road Lot 16, Concession IV. Former Township of
Dazlington, Municipality of Clarington
99043 21-402 Cedaz Park Road Lots 14 and I5, Concession VI, Former Township of
Dazlington. Municipality of Clarington
99045 21-4I Holt Road Lots 20 and 21. Concession VII, Former Township of
Darlington. Municipality of Clarington
All bridges are under the jurisdiction of the Municipality of Clarington. The locations of the bridges are
indicated on the Key Plans.
totten sims hubicki associates
°-
,~
~r
f,
o w ~
$ ,+
m ~?
w<
~
t ~~ "~ ,~
g y
U
o ~
~ `~
.~
~ t3
g ~
j
~ ~ ~
L~
ws
. .
I
~ i
t
~ ~
~
,
~
~ ,
~
r
~
!e ~
~ .... + /
~. a +
ea ~ 1 _..
F
s I
/w ~
a t
k
y
• Q
K
~
6
W
:
y i
64
1 W~ ¢
6 -. .:
py _. ~i. y
jN
` w
n
\ I
t
I (~ O j Y
F
li f m _ Z 1
m r
j f
i
-
°< 4
} _. g
W
}
1 '
~
~ _.. {
(a~pnu~wMOg) uoy6ui~o~~ )o /µi~4dioiuny~
r
r ~
,-~
~I ~`--, ,a <~d o
~~
~~ _ (eµsoomeN) uolB~Pol~;o'/ygodlolun~ry
~ - --
r~-, i
f
~( I II ~ ~
~I I~ \ ~_
e ( ~
l~
L__
I i ~~ ~ ~~
~~~~ ,% I~ / ,:A ~
I ~~ e i~
gl ~"'a,,, ~ ~ Ali
s..~. cmeal ~ 7
._
~~ ~
°~.
~ ~__, ~
~ ~ _-
= ~ ~- iro
~I, ~~•»=/r---
~r
i~ ~ i- ~~ ~ ~-~ ~
-~ i
~i. III ~~.~I 1=~2 I~ ~ I
. _y,,,,,
~~
~~ ~~ ~ I~
I ~-
~~
I ,~~~
~""'
~_ w_ s:
Municipality of Clarington
Bridge Inspection Report Z
BRIDGE N0.93003
EXISTING CONDITIONS
EXISTING
CONDITIONS MINIMUM
TOLERABLE (1)
A.A.D.T. 1460(1986)
Highway Class 1000-2000
Safe Loading 25 tonnes lOtonnes
Roadway Width 6.3 mt 7.5 m
Waterway Opening 7.3 mt x 5 mf
(1) In accordance with the `Municipal Bridge Appraisal Manual', published by
the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario, dated February 1992.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
i
' The existing Bridge No. 93003, which was constructed about 1930 on Mill Street over the Graham Creek,
is a 7.3 mt single span concrete bridge, of T-beam and slab construction, with a concrete deck and an asphalt
wearing surface. The concrete T-beams aze supported on reinforced concrete abutments constructed normal
to the street alignment.
The bridge provides a roadway width of 6.8 mt between handrails and accommodates two lanes of vehicular
traffic. The roadway is painted to restrict the structure to a single lane of vehicular traffic. A 1.9 mt wide
' concrete sidewalk and a 0.4 mt wide concrete curb aze located on the north and south sides of the bridge
respectively, but have been paved over with asphalt level with the driving surface. Concrete balustrade
handrails are provided on the exterior edge of the sidewalk and curb. The general layout of the bridge is
illustrated on Sketch No. SK-1, included in Appendix A.
A copy of the current Municipal Bridge Appraisal Sheet for Bridge No. 93003 is contained in Appendix D.
Cotten sims hubicki associates
Municipality of Claringtoo
Bridge Inspection Report 3
OBSERVATIONS
A visual and dimensional inspection of Bridge No. 93003 was carved out in Mazch ] 996. Our observations
and findings aze summarized as follows:
1. The concrete balustrade handrails aze in fair condition with localized spalling and cracking. The east
and west end posts of the north handrail have separated from the sidewalk.
2. The concrete curb and sidewalk are covered with asphalt and could not be inspected.
3. The asphalt wearing surface is in good condition.
4. The concrete deck soffit is in fair condition with localized cracking with efflorescent deposits.
There is a large span near the centre of the structure. The exposed reinforcing steel bars are
corroded. Several delaminations and extensive water staining were also noted.
5. The concrete sidewalk soffit is in generally good condition with localized cracking.
6. The concrete T-beams aze in fair condition with random cracking, localized delaminations and rust
stains. The south exterior concrete T-beam is more extensively deteriorated.
7. The east concrete abutment is diagonally and vertically cracked from the first interior T-beam from
the north and is in fair condition. A gap of about 5 mmf was noted. The abutment is also cracked
and spalled below the north exterior concrete T-beam with a minor loss of support for the concrete
T-beam. The abutment is also delaminated adjacent to the south exterior T-beam. Steel sheet piles
and concrete fill at the footings are in good condition.
8. The concrete wingwalls and west concrete abutment are in fair condition with minor scouring at
about the waterline, localized cracking and delaminations.
9. Concrete rubble installed at the end of the northeast wingwall are severely eroded adjacent to the
wingwall The embankment is very steep.
totten Sims hubicki associates
Municipality of Clarington
Bridge Inspection Report
10. The retaining wall abutting the end of the southeast wingwall is constructed with light steel posts
and timber sheeting. The retaining wall has collapsed. Extensive erosion behind the retaining wall
has weakened the roadway embankment.
11. The asphalt paved approach roads are settled adjacent to the structure and are in fair condition with
stress cracks noted in the northeast, southeast and northwest quadrants.
12. One length of steel beam guide rail with one post, is provided in each quadrant of the bridge, and
is in generally good condition with minor collision damage. Timber guide posts are provided on the
approaches beyond the steel beam guide rail.
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
Insufficient data is available to permit a structural evaluation of the existing concrete T-beams. Because the
structure is not posted with a load limit and has been carrying full legal highway loads without visible signs
of distress, it is concluded that the existing Bridge No. 93003 is in fair condition and is adequate to support
the full Ontario Highway Bridge Rating Loads of LI = 25 tonnes; L2 = 44 tonnes; L3 = 60 tonnes in
accordance with OHBDC Section 1 I-7.1 if vehicular traffic is restricted from the sidewalk.
A review of the structural adequacy of the concrete balustrade handrails indicates that the existing handrails
do not comply structurally with the requirements of OHBDC Sections 2-4.3.5 and 5-4.
CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of our field inspection and observations and a preliminary structural evaluation of Bridge No.
93003, it is concluded that:
The existing structure is in fair condition and is adequate to support the full Ontario Highway Bridge
Rating Load of LI = 25 tonnes; L2 = 44 tonnes; L3 = 60 tonnes if vehicular traffic is restricted from
the sidewalk.
2. The existing handrail system does not meet current OHBDC load requirements. However, if the
rotten Sims hubicki associates
Municipality of Claringtoo
Bridge Inspection Report g
r
Municipality assumes liability for the deficient handrail system, then the existing concrete handrails
may be retained.
3. The bridge is scheduled for replacement in 1997 and therefor no repair works are recommended at
the present time. The embankments should be monitored until such time as the new bridge is
constructed. The estimated "ball-park" cost fora replacement two lane structure with a 50 year
' design life on an improved roadway alignment, based on cun•ent 1996 construction prices, is
$300,000.00.
4. If replacement of the bridge is deferred beyond 1997, interim repairs should be considered for
stabilization of the roadway embankments. The estimated cost to carry out embankment
stabilization works is $10,000.00 (based on current 1996 construction prices).
tOtten sims bubicki associates
i~
i
r
Municipality of Clarington
Bridge Inspection Report 6
BRIDGE N0.94023
REFERENCE DRAWINGS
Drawings for the Overhead Crossing at Prospect Street, Bowmanville, Ontario, prepared by the C.L.O. &
W. Railway, dated March 1914.
EXISTING CONDTTIONS
EXISTING
CONDITIONS MINIMUM
TOLERABLE (1)
A.A.D.T. 280(1975)
Highway Class 2 LN - L/R
Safe Loading 2 tonnes 10 tonnes
Roadway Width 6.6 mt 6.0 m
(1) In accordance with the `Municipal Bridge Appraisal Manual', published by
the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario, dated February 1992.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The existing Bridge No. 94023, which was constructed about 1914 on Prospect Street over the CP Rail
tracks, is a five span (1.2 mt to 7.8 mt, 5.4 mt, 19.2 mt, 5.4 mt, 1.2 mt to 7.8 mf) bridge, consisting of
a structural steel through girder main span and timber girder approach spans with a timber deck and a timber
wearing surface. The 100 mmt deep timber plank deck is supported on eleven (11) lines of 450 mmt deep
sawn timber girders at 750 mmt centres on the approach spans. The timber plank deck is supported on nine
(9) lines of 325 mmt deep longitudinal sawn timber stringers at 800 mmt centres on the main span. The
timber stringers aze supported on 460 mmf deep transverse structural steel floor beams at 4.9 mt centres
which are in tum supported by 1.2 mt deep longitudinal structural steel through girders. The structural steel
and timber girders are supported on timber pier bents constructed normal to the street alignment and timber
abutments constructed at a skew of 28°t to the street alignment.
The bridge provides a minimum roadway width of 6.6 mt between timber curbs and accommodates two
[often sims hubicki associates
Municipality of Clarington
Bridge Inspection Report
7
lanes of vehicular traffic. A 2.4 mt (minimum) wide timber sidewalk is located on both the east and west
sides of the bridge. Timber handrails are provided on the exterior edge of the sidewalks. The bridge is
posted with a 2 tonne load limit. The general layout of the bridge is illustrated on Sketch No. SK-2, included
in Appendix A.
A copy of the current Municipal Bridge Appraisal Sheet for Bridge No. 94023 is contained in Appendix D.
OBSERVATIONS
A visual and dimensional inspection of Bridge No. 94023 was carried out in March 1996. Our observations
and findings aze summarized as follows:
1. The timber plank handrails are in fair condition with checking and splitting. One rail on the west
handrail is broken and several rails have been replaced.
2. The timber curbs on the main span and the timber sidewalks aze in poor to fair condition with
extensive weathering, splitting and checking. Localized rot was also noted.
3. The timber deck is in poor to fair condition with extensive checking and splitting. Several planks
are badly rotted. Minor staining of the underside of the planks was noted.
4. The structural steel through girders and floor beams of the main span are corroded with minor pitting
and aze in fair condition.
5. The sawn timber girders of the approach spans and sawn timber stringers of the main span aze in
generally good condition with minor checking and splitting.
6. The piers consist of timber bents and sills. The timber piers are in fair condition with minor
checking and splitting. Localized severe rot was also noted.
7. The abutments consist of timber posts and sheeting founded on timber sills. The south abutment
is in fair condition with minor checking and splitting and localized severe rot. The north abutment
totten sims hubicki associates
I
Municipality of Clarington
Bridge Inspection Report
8
is in poor condition with loss of support for the timber posts at the west end of the abutment and
forwazd displacement of the timber posts. Minor checking and splitting and localized severe rot
were also noted.
8. The asphalt paved approach roads aze transversely cracked and in fair condition with significant
settlements adjacent to the structure.
9. The embankments in front of the abutments aze of exposed earth construction and are in poor to fair
condition with extensive minor erosion and localized heavy erosion. There is a partial loss of
support for the north abutment sill
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
A preliminary structural evaluation was made of the existing structural steel and timber girders.
The Design Criteria for evaluating the load carrying capacity of Bridge No. 94023 were based on the
following assumptions:
The basic loading is the Ontario Highway Bridge Rating Loads in accordance with the Ontario
Highway Bridge Design Code, 1991.
2. The timber deck planks are Species Group S-P-F, Grade No. 1 with an average 5% reduction in
timber strength due to deterioration of the timbers.
3. The timber girders and stringers are Species Group Fir-L, Grade No. 1 with an average 5% reduction
in timber strength due to deterioration of the timbers.
4. The structural steel girders and floor beams have a minimum yield strength of 210 MPa with an
average 5% reduction in cross-sectional azea due to corrosion of the structural steel.
5. The timber pier and abutment foundations are adequate to support the superimposed dead and live
loads.
totten aims hubicki associates
Municipality of Claringtoo 9
Bridge Inspection Report
r
6. The structure was constructed in conjunction with the detailed drawings of the Overhead Crossing
at Prospect Street, Bowmanville, Ontario.
~J
~1
~J
Based on the results of our visual and dimensional inspection, and a preliminary structural evaluation of the
load carrying capacity of the existing bridge, it is concluded that the existing Bridge No. 94023 is in poor
to fair condition. The structural capacity of the existing bridge components is as follows:
Structural Structural
Timber Steel Floor Steel Timber
Stringers Beams Girders Girders
Level 1 -Single 16 tonnes 5 tonnes 18 tonnes 12 tonnes
Unit Tractor
Level 2 -Tractor 28 tonnes 10 tonnes 26 tonnes 19 tonnes
and One Trailer
Leve13 -Tractor 38 tonnes 17 tonnes 36 tonnes 28 tonnes
and More Than
One Trailer
A review of the structural adequacy of the timber handrails indicates that the existing handrails do not
comply structurally with the requirements of OHBDC Sections 2-4.3.5 and 5-4.
CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of our field inspection and observations, a review of the existing drawings and a preliminary
structural evaluation of Bridge No. 94023, it is concluded that:
The existing bridge is in poor to fair condition and is adequate to support a safe superimposed live
load of about Ll = 5 tonnes; L2 = 10 tonnes; L3 = 17 tonnes based on the capacity of the structural
steel floor beams. However, because of the deterioration of the north timber abutment and the
timber deck, it is recommended that the live load limit posting of 2 tonnes be maintained. The load
limit can be increased afrer the bridge is repaired.
2. The existing handrail system does not meet current OHBDC load requirements. However, if the
Cotten sims hubicki associates
Municipality of Clariogton 10
Bridge Inspection Report
' Municipality assumes liability for the deficient handrail system, then the existing timber handrails
may be retained.
3. The following repairs should be carried out to increase the load carrying capacity of the bridge and
to extend its life expectancy by about 5 yeazs:
• Replace broken railing on handrails.
• Replace deteriorated timber deck planks, curb, pier and south abutment components.
• Reinforce structural steel floor beams.
• Reconstruct north timber abutment.
• Regrade the approaches to minimize impact loads on the structure and repave with asphalt.
• Backfill eroded areas of embankment slopes and place rock protection to prevent continued
erosion.
4. The existing bridge will be adequate to support a safe superimposed live load of about LI = 12
tonnes; L2 = 19 tonnes; L3 = 28 tonnes afer the above noted repairs have been carried out. The
preliminary estimated cost to carry out the above noted repairs to extend the life expectancy of the
structure by about 5 years is $80,000.00 (based on current 1996 construction prices). A breakdown
of the preliminary cost estimate is contained in Appendix C.
5. After completion of the above noted repairs, the existing bridge will still be deficient for load
' carrying capacity.
6. Continued overloading of the existing structure would result in a reduced safe load carrying capacity
and reduced life expectancy of the structure.
7. Because of the age of the structure, it is recommended that a regular inspection and maintenance
1 program be implemented to confirm or revise the safe load carrying capacity of the bridge after
completion of the repair works.
8. Before implementing the repair works, and because of the expenditure involved, restricted load
capacity and limited remaining life expectancy, consideration should be given to complete
totten sins bubicki associates
I Municipality of Clarington
Bridge Inspection Report 11
replacement of the existing structure. It is understood that the proximity of the neazby Elgin Street
Overhead crossing, may permit replacement of the existing bridge with a new pedestrian bridge.
The estimated "ball-park" cost for a new pedestrian bridge with a 50 year design life, based on
current 1996 construction costs, is $150,000.00 including contingencies and engineering.
r
r
r
T
i
i
1
totten sins hubicki associates
r
Municipality of Clarington
Bridge Inspection Report IZ
BRIDGE N0.94025
EXISTING CONDITIONS
EXISTING
CONDITIONS MINIMUM
TOLERABLE (I)
A.A.D.T. 170(1975)
Highway Class 50-200
Safe Loading 15 tonnes lOtonnes
Roadway Width - 3.6 mt 6.0 m
Waterway Opening 15.3 mf x 3.8 mf
(1) In accordance with the `Municipal Bridge Appraisal Manual', published by
the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario, dated February 1992.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The existing Bridge No. 94025, which was constructed about 1920 on Jackman Road over the Bowmanville
Creek, is a 18.3 mt single span double single Bailey bridge with a timber deck and a timber wearing surface
The 140 mmt deep laminated timber deck is supported on eighteen (18) lings of 100 mmf deep longitudinal
structural steel stringers at 267 mmt centres which aze in turn supported by 310 mmt deep transverse
structural steel transoms at 1.5 mt centres located at the panel points of the Bailey trusses. The structural
steel Bailey trusses are supported on concrete abutments constructed normal to the road alignment.
The bridge provides a roadway width of 4.1 mf between rails and accommodates a single lane of vehiculaz
traffic. A 150 mmt timber curb is located on both the north and south sides of the bridge. Steel beam guide
rails aze provided along the inside of the trusses. The bridge is posted with a 5 tonne load limit. The general
layout of the bridge is illustrated on Sketch No. SK-3, included in Appendix A.
A copy of the current Municipal Bridge Appraisal Sheet for Bridge No. 94025 is contained in Appendix D.
totten rims hubicki associates
it
I
Municipality of Clarington
Bridge Inspection Report 13
OBSERVATIONS
A visual and dimensional inspection of Bridge No. 94025 was carried out in March 1996. Our observations
and findings are summarized as follows:
1. The steel beam guide rail over the structure and on the approaches is in generally good condition
with minor collision damage.
2. The timber curbs are in fair condition with extensive weathering, splitting, checking and minor
collision damage.
3. The timber deck is in fair condition with extensive weathering, checking and splitting and localized
minor to medium rot. Extensive wear was noted in the wheel tracks. Minor staining of the
underside of the deck was noted.
4. The structural steel Bailey trusses, transoms and stringers are in generally good condition with minor
localized corrosion, particularly of the top flanges of the structural steel transoms and stringers.
Missing cotter pins from the pin connections of the Bailey trusses, missing transom clamps and top
brace bolt were replaced by theMunicipality in December 1996.
5. The concrete abutments and wingwalls are in fair condition with extensive light scaling and
localized cracking and spalling.
6. The asphalt paved approach roads are in fair condition with minor cracking.
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
A preliminary structural evaluation was made of the existing structural steel Bailey trusses, transoms and
stringers.
The Design Criteria for evaluating the load carrying capacity of Bridge No. 94025 were based on the
following assumptions:
Cotten Sims hubicki associates
Municipality of Clarington
Bridge Inspection Report 14
1. The basic loading is the Ontario Highway Bridge Rating Loads in accordance with the Ontario
Highway Bridge Design Code, 1991.
2. The timber deck is Species Group S-P-F, Grade No. 1 with an average 5% reduction in timber
strength due to deterioration of the timbers.
3. The structural steel Bailey trusses, transoms and stringers have a minimum yield strength of 210
MPa with an average 5% reduction in cross-sectional area due to corrosion of the structural steel.
4. The structural steel connections at the joints are capable of transmitting the design loads.
5. The concrete abutment foundations are adequate to support the superimposed dead and live loads.
Based on the results of our visual and dimensional inspection, and a preliminary structural evaluation of the
load carrying capacity of the existing bridge, it is concluded that the existing Bridge No. 94025 is in
generally good condition. The structural capacity of the existing bridge components is as follows:
Bailey Trusses Transoms Stringers
Level 1 -Single Unit 19 tonnes 15 tonnes 25 tonnes
Tractor
Level 2 -Tractor and 27 tonnes 24 tonnes 44 tonnes
One Trailer
Level 3 -Tractor and 38 tonnes 34 tonnes 60 tonnes
More Than One Trailer
A review of the structural adequacy of the steel beam guide rails on the structure indicates that the existing
rails do not comply structurally with the requirements of OHBDC Sections 2-4.3.5 and 5-4.
CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of our field inspection and observations and a preliminary structural evaluation of Bridge No.
94025, it is concluded that:
totteu sims hubicki associates
Municipality of Claringtom
Bridge Inspection Report 15
1. The existing bridge is in generally good condition and is adequate to support a safe superimposed
live load of about LI = 15 tonnes; L2 = 24 tonnes; L3 = 34 tonnes based on the capacity of the
structural steel transoms.
2. The existing guide rail system on the structure does not meet current OHBDC load requirements.
However, if the Municipality assumes liability for the deficient guide rail system, then the existing
steel beam guide rail may be retained.
3. Afrer completion of the above noted repairs, the existing bridge will still be deficient for load
carrying capacity.
4. Continued overloading of the existing stmcture would result in a reduced safe load carrying capacity
and reduced life expectancy of the structure.
5. Because of the age of the structure, it is recommended that a regular inspection and maintenance
program be implemented to confirm or revise the safe load carrying capacity of the bridge afrer
completion of the repair works.
6. Because of the restricted load capacity, roadway width deficiency and limited remaining life
expectancy, consideration should be given to complete replacement of the existing structure. The
estimated "ball-pazk" cost for a new two lane structure with a 50 year design life on an improved
roadway alignment, based on current 1996 construction costs, is $375,000.00 including
contingencies and engineering.
[often suns hubicki associates
Municipality of Clarington
Bridge Inspection Report 16
BRIDGE N0.98003
EXISTING CONDITIONS
EXISTING
CONDITIONS MINIMUM
TOLERABLE (1)
A.A.D.T. 165(1994)
Highway Class 50-200
Safe Loading 5 tonnes ] 0 tonnes
Roadway Width - 5.7 mf 6.5 m
(I) In accordance with the `Municipal Bridge Appraisal Manual', published by
the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario, dated February 1992.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The existing Bridge No. 98003, which was constructed about 1940 on Lakeshore Road over the CN Rail
tracks, is a nine span bridge, consisting of a 13.2 mt span structural steel through girder main span and
timber girder approach spans (varying from 1.2 mt to 4.7 mt) with a timber deck and a timber weazing
surface. The I50 mmf deep timber plank deck is supported on seven (7) lines of 450 mmt deep sawn timber
girders at 990 mmt centres on the approach spans. The timber plank deck is supported on eight (8) lines of
325 mmt deep longitudinal sawn timber stringers at 500 mmt to 700 mmt centres on the main span. The
timber stringers aze supported on a 450 mmf deep transverse timber floor beams at midspan which is in turn
supported by 515 mmt deep longitudinal structural steel through girders. The structural steel and timber
girders are supported on timber pier bents and north abutment constructed at a maximum skew of 50°f to
the road alignment and south timber abutment constructed normal to the road alignment.
The bridge provides a roadway width of 5.8 mf between timber curbs and accommodates two lanes of
vehicular traffic. A 200 mmf wide timber curb is located on both the east and west sides of the bridge.
Timber handrails are provided on the exterior edges of the bridge. The bridge is posted with a load limit of
Ll = 5 tonnes; L2 = 6 tonnes; L3 = 16 tonnes. The general layout of the bridge is illustrated on Sketch No.
SK-4, included in Appendix A.
[often sims hubieki associates
Municipality of Clarington
Bridge Inspection Report l~
A copy of the current Municipal Bridge Appraisal Sheet for Bridge No. 98003 is contained in Appendix D.
OBSERVATIONS
A visual and dimensional inspection of Bridge No. 98003 was carried out in March 1996. Our observations
and findings are summarized as follows:
The timber plank handrails are in generally good condition with minor checking and splitting. One
handrail post of the west handrail is damaged.
2. The timber curbs are in generally good condition with minor weathering and checking.
3. The timber deck is in fair condition with weathering, checking and splitting. Several planks exhibit
minor rot. Several spikes are protruding and partially pulled out and a few spikes are missing.
Several planks are no longer anchored in position. The underside of the planks is in good condition.
4. The structural steel through girders of the main span are corroded with minor pitting and are in fair
condition.
5. The sawn timber girders of the approach spans and sawn timber stringers and floor beam of the main
span are in generally good condition with minor checking and splitting.
6. The piers consist of timber bents and sills. The timber piers are in generally good condition with
minor checking.
7. The abutments consist of timber posts and sheeting founded on timber sills and the wingwalls
consist of timber cribs. The timber abutment sheeting and timber wingwalls are in poor condition
with extensive rot and minor checking and splitting. Shifring of the wingwalls in the southeast and
northwest quadrants was noted.
8. The surface treated approach roads are in generally good condition with minor rutting and ravelling.
tdtten sims hubicki associates
i~
Municipality of Claringtoo
Bridge Inspection Report
18
9. The embankments in front of the abutments are vegetated and aze in good condition.
' STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS .
A preliminary structural evaluation was made of the existing structural steel and timber girders.
The Design Criteria for evaluating the load carrying capacity of Bridge No. 98003 were based on the
following assumptions:
1. The basic loading is the Ontario Highway Bridge Rating Loads in accordance with the Ontario
Highway Bridge Design Code, 1991.
2. The timber deck planks are Species Group S-P-F, Grade No. I with an average 5% reduction in
timber strength due to deterioration of the timbers.
3. The timber girders, floor beam and stringers aze Species Group Fir-L, Grade No. 1 with an average
5% reduction in timber strength due to deterioration of the timbers.
4. The structural steel girders have a minimum yield strength of 210 MPa with an average 5%
reduction in cross-sectional area due to corrosion of the structural steel.
5. The timber pier and abutment foundations aze adequate to support the superimposed dead and live
loads.
Based on the results of our visual and dimensional inspection, and a preliminary structural evaluation of the
load carrying capacity of the existing bridge, it is concluded that the existing Bridge No. 98003 is in fair
condition. The structural capacity of the existing bridge components is as follows:
totteu rims hubicki associates
Municipality of Clarington
Bridge Inspection Report
19
Structural
Timber Timber Steel Timber
Stringers Floor Beams Girders Girders
Level 1 -Single 5 tonnes 5 tonnes 25 tonnes 25 tonnes
Unit Tractor
Level 2 -Tractor 10 tonnes 10 tonnes 44 tonnes 44 tonnes
and One Trailer
Level 3 -Tractor 16 tonnes 16 tonnes 60 tonnes 60 tonnes
and More Than
One Trailer
A review of the structural adequacy of the timber handrails indicates that the existing handrails do not
comply structurally with the requirements of OHBDC Sections 2-4.3.5 and 5-4.
CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of our field inspection and observations, and a preliminary structural evaluation of Bridge No.
98003, it is concluded that:
I . The existing bridge is in fair condition and is adequate to support a safe superimposed live load of
about Ll = 5 tonnes; L2 = 10 tonnes; L3 = 16 tonnes based on the capacity of the timber stringers
' and timber floor beam.
2. The existing handrail system does not meet current OHBDC load requirements. However, if the
Municipality assumes liability for the deficient handrail system, then the existing timber handrails
may be retained.
3. The following repairs should be carried out to extend the life expectancy of the bridge by about 5
years:
• Replace damaged handrail post.
• Replace pulled out and missing deck spikes.
• Replace deteriorated timber abutment sheeting.
totten sins hubicki associates
Municipality of Clarington
Bridge Inspection Report 20
• Reconstruct timber crib wingwalls.
4. The existing bridge will remain adequate to support a safe superimposed live load of about L 1 = 5
tonnes; L2 = ] 0 tonnes; L3 = 16 tonnes after the above noted repairs have been carried out. The
preliminary estimated cost to carry out the above noted repairs to extend the life expectancy of the
structure by about 5 years is $55,000.00 (based on current 1996 construction prices). A breakdown
of the preliminary cost estimate is contained in Appendix C.
5. Afrer completion of the above noted repairs, the existing bridge will still be deficient for load
carrying capacity.
6. Continued overloading of the existing structure would result in a reduced safe toad carrying capacity
and reduced life expectancy of the structure.
7. Because of the age of the structure, it is recommended that a regular inspection and maintenance
program be implemented to confirm or revise the safe load carrying capacity of the bridge after
completion of the repair works.
8. Before implementing the repair works, and because of the restricted load capacity and roadway
width deficiency, consideration should be given to complete replacement of the existing structure.
The estimated "ball-park" cost for a new two lane structure with a 50 year design life, based on
current 1996 construction costs, is $900,000.00 including contingencies and engineering.
Cotten sims hubicki associates
Municipality of Clarington
Bridge Inspection Report
21
BRIDGE N0.98011
EXISTING CONDTTIONS
EXISTING
CONDITIONS MINIMUM
TOLERABLE (1)
A.A.D.T. 20(1994)
Highway Class < 50
Safe Loading 16 tonnes I O tonnes
Roadway Width - 6.3 mf 6.0 m
(1) In accordance with the `Municipal Bridge Appraisal Manual', published by
the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario, dated February 1992.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The existing Bridge No. 98011, which was constructed about 1940 on Nichols Road over the CP Rail tracks,
is a five span (4.1 mf; 5.2 mf; 6.1 mt; 5.2 mt; 4.5 mt) timber girder bridge with a timber deck and a timber
wearing surface. The 105 mmf deep timber plank deck is supported on fifteen (15) lines of 410 mmt deep
sawn timber girders at 478 mmf centres. The timber girders are supported on timber pier bents and
abutments constructed normal to the road alignment.
The bridge provides a roadway width of 6.7 mf between curbs and accommodates two lanes of vehicular
traffic. A 100 mmt wide timber curb is located on both the east and west sides of the bridge. Timber
handrails are provided on the exterior edges of the bridge. The bridge is posted with a load limit of L] = 7
tonnes; L2 = 8 tonnes; L3 = 21 tonnes. The general layout of the bridge is illustrated on Sketch No. SK-5,
included in Appendix A.
A copy of the current Municipal Bridge Appraisal Sheet for Bridge No. 98011 is contained in Appendix D.
totten suns hubicki associates
Municipality of Clarington
Bridge Inspection Report
22
OBSERVATIONS
A visual and dimensional inspection of Bridge No. 98011 was carried out in March 1996. Our observations
and findings aze summazized as follows:
1. The timber plank handrails are in generally good condition with minor localized checking.
2. The timber curbs are in generally good condition with minor checking.
3. The timber deck is in generally good condition with minor weathering, checking and splitting. The
underside of the planks is in good condition.
4. The sawn timber girders are in generally good condition with minor checking.
5. The piers consist of timber bents and sills. The timber piers are in generally good condition with
minor checking and splitting.
6. The abutments consist of timber posts and sheeting founded on timber sills and are in generally good
condition with minor checking and splitting.
7. The gravel approach roads are in fair condition with localized settlements adjacent to the structure
and rutting.
8. The embankments in front of the abutments are vegetated and are in good condition.
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
A preliminary structural evaluation was made of the existing timber girders.
The Design Criteria for evaluating the load carrying capacity of Bridge No. 98011 were based on the
following assumptions:
Cotten sims hubicki associates
' Municipality of Claringtoo
Bridge Inspection Report 23
' 1. The basic loading is the Ontario Highway Bridge Rating Loads in accordance with the Ontario
Highway Bridge Design Code, 1991.
' 2. The timber deck planks are Species Group S-P-F, Grade No. I with an average 5% reduction in
' timber strength due to deterioration of the timbers.
3. The timber girders are Species Group Fir-L, Grade No. 1 with an average 5% reduction in timber
strength due to deterioration of the timbers.
4. The timber pier and abutment foundations are adequate to support the superimposed dead and live
loads.
Based on the results of our visual and dimensional inspection, and a preliminary structural evaluation of the
load carrying capacity of the existing bridge, it is concluded that the existing Bridge No. 98011 is in
generally good condition. The structural capacity of the existing bridge based on the capacity of the timber
girders is as follows:
Level 1 -Single Unit Tractor 16 tonnes
Level 2 -Tractor and One Trailer 28 tonnes
Level 3 -Tractor and More Than One Trailer 38 tonnes
A review of the structural adequacy of the timber handrails indicates that the existing handrails do not
comply structurally with the requirements of OHBDC Sections 2-4.3.5 and 5-4.
CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of our field inspection and observations, and a preliminary structural evaluation of Bridge No.
98011, it is concluded that:
1. The existing bridge is in generally good condition and is adequate to support a safe superimposed
live load of about LI = 16 tonnes; L2 = 28 tonnes; L3 = 38 tonnes based on the capacity of the
timber girders. It is recommended that Bridge No. 98011 be posted with a load limit of L1 = 7
totten Sims hubicki associates
Municipality of Clarington
Bridge Inspection Report zq
tonnes; L2 = 12 tonnes; L3 = 20 tonnes to match the load limit posting for Bridge No. 98013 because
the bridges are located on the same road in close proximity to each other.
2. The existing handrail system does not meet current OHBDC load requirements. However, if the
Municipality assumes liability For the deficient handrail system, then the existing timber handrails
may be retained.
3. No repairs to the structure are required at the present time.
4. Continued overloading of the existing structure would result in a reduced safe load carrying capacity
and reduced life expectancy of the structure.
5. Because of the age of the structure, it is recommended that a regulaz inspection and maintenance
program be implemented to confirm or revise the safe load carrying capacity of the bridge.
' totten sims hubicki associates
Municipality of Clarington
Bridge Inspection Report
25
BRIDGE N0.98013
EXISTING CONDITIONS
EXISTING
CONDITIONS MINIMUM
TOLERABLE (1)
A.A.D.T. 20(1994)
Highway Class < 50
Safe Loading 7 tonnes 10 tonnes
Roadway Width 5.6 mt 6.0 m
(I) In accordance with the `Municipal Bridge Appraisal Manual', published by
the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario, dated February 1992.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The existing Bridge No. 98013, which was constructed about 1940 on Nichols Road over the CN Rail tracks,
is a five span (6.3 mf; 6.1 mf; 9.9 mf; 5.0 mt; 6.3 mf) timber girder bridge with a timber deck and a timber
wearing surface. The 150 mmt deep timber plank deck is supported on eight to nine (8-9) lines of 400 mmt
deep sawn timber girders at 695 mmf to 830 mmt centres. The timber girders are supported on timber pier
bents and abutments constructed normal to the road alignment.
The bridge provides a roadway width of 5.7 mf between curbs and accommodates two lanes of vehicular
traffic. A 200 mmt wide timber curb is located on both the east and west sides of the bridge. Timber
handrails are provided on the exterior edges of the bridge. The bridge is posted with a load limit of L 1 = 7
tonnes; L2 = 8 tonnes; L3 = 21 tonnes. The general layout of the bridge is illustrated on Sketch No. SK-6,
included in Appendix A.
A copy of the current Municipal Bridge Appraisal Sheet for Bridge No. 98013 is contained in Appendix D.
totted sims hubicki associates
Municipality of Clariogtoo
Bridge Inspection Report
26
OBSERVATIONS
A visual and dimensional inspection of Bridge No. 98013 was carried out in March 1996. Our observations
and findings are summarized as follows:
1. The timber plank handrails are in generally good condition with minor localized checking and
splitting.
2. The timber curbs aze in generally good condition with minor checking and splitting.
3. The timber deck is in generally good condition with minor weathering, checking and splitting.
Localized minor rot was also noted. The underside of the planks is in good condition with minor
water staining.
4. The sawn timber girders are in generally good condition with minor checking and splitting.
5. The piers consist of timber bents and sills. The timber piers are in generally good condition with
minor checking and splitting.
6. The abutments consist oftimber posts and sheeting founded on timber sills and aze in generally good
condition with minor checking, splitting and localized rot.
7. The gravel approach roads aze in fair condition with localized settlements adjacent to the structure
and rutting.
8. The embankments in front of the abutments are vegetated and are in good condition.
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
A preliminary structural evaluation was made of the existing timber girders.
The Design Criteria for evaluating the load carrying capacity of Bridge No. 98013 were based on the
totten Sims hubicki associates
' Municipalityo(Clarington
Bridge Inspection Report Z~
' following assumptions:
1. The basic loading is the Ontazio Highway Bridge Rating Loads in accordance with the Ontario
Highway Bridge Design Code, 1991.
' 2. The timber deck planks are Species Group S-P-F, Grade No. 1 with an average 5% reduction in
~ timber strength due to deterioration of the timbers.
3. The timber girders aze Species Group Fir-L, Grade No. 1 with an average 5% reduction in timber
strength due to deterioration of the timbers.
4. The timber pier and abutment foundations are adequate to support the superimposed dead and live
loads.
Based on the results of our visual and dimensional inspection, and a preliminary structural evaluation of the
load carrying capacity of the existing bridge, it is concluded that the existing Bridge No. 98013 is in
generally good condition. The structural capacity of the existing bridge based on the capacity of the timber
girders is as follows:
Level I -Single Unit Tractor 7 tonnes
Level 2 -Tractor and One Trailer 12 tonnes
Level 3 -Tractor and More Than One Trailer 20 tonnes
A review of the strucmral adequacy of the timber handrails indicates that the existing handrails do not
comply structurally with the requirements of OHBDC Sections 2-4.3.5 and 5-4.
CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of our field inspection and observations, and a preliminary structural evaluation of Bridge No.
98013, it is concluded that:
The existing bridge is in generally good condition and is adequate to support a safe superimposed
totters rims hubicki associates
Municipality of Clarington
Bridge Inspection Report
28
live load of about Ll = 7 tonnes; L2 = 12 tonnes; L3 = 20 tonnes based on the capacity of the timber
girders.
2. The existing handrail system does not meet current OHBDC load requirements. However, if the
Municipality assumes liability for the deficient handrail system, then the existing timber handrails
may be retained.
3. No repairs to the structure are required at the present time.
4. Continued overloading of the existing structure would result in a reduced safe load carrying capacity
and reduced life expectancy of the structure.
5. Because of the age of the structure, it is recommended that a regular inspection and maintenance
program be implemented to confirm or revise the safe load carrying capacity of the bridge.
totten aims hubicki associates
Municipality of Clarington
Bridge Inspection Repor[ 29
BRIDGE N0.99015
EXISTING CONDITIONS
EXISTING
CONDITIONS MINIMUM
TOLERABLE (1)
A.A.D.T. 50(1994)
Highway Class 50-200
Safe Loading 12 tonnes 10 tonnes
Roadway Width ~ 6.5 mf 6.0 m
(1) In accordance with the `Municipal Bridge Appraisal Manual', published by
the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario, dated February 1992.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The existing Bridge No. 99015, which was constructed about 1920 on Providence Road over the CP Rail
tracks, is a five span (5.7 mt; 3.6 mt to 7.2 mf; 6.3 mt; 3.7 mt to 6.9 mt; 5.6 mt) timber girder bridge with
a timber deck and a timber wearing surface. The 100 mmt deep timber plank deck is supported on fifreen
(I S) lines of 400 mmt deep sawn timber girders at 510 mmt centres. The timber girders are supported on
timber pier bents and abutments constructed at a 26 °t skew to the road alignment. The piers on each side
of the railway track aze constructed normal to the road alignment.
The bridge provides a roadway width of 6.5 mf between curbs and accommodates two lanes of vehicular
traffic. A 400 mmf wide timber curb is located on both the east and west sides of the bridge. Timber
handrails are provided on the exterior edges of the bridge. The bridge is posted with a load limit of L 1 = 12
tonnes; L2 = 19 tonnes; L3 = 26 tonnes. The general layout of the bridge is illustrated on Sketch No. SK-7,
included in Appendix A.
A copy of the current Municipal Bridge Appraisal Sheet for Bridge No. 99015 is contained in Appendix D.
tdtten sims hubicki associates
Municipality of Clarington
Bridge Inspection Report 30
OBSERVATIONS
A visual and dimensional inspection of Bridge No. 99015 was carried out in March 1996. Our observations
and findings are summazized as follows;
1. The timber plank handrails are in fair condition with minor checking and splitting. Several rails are
missing from the north end of the west handrail.
2. The timber curbs are in fair condition with extensive checking and splitting. Severe rot was also
noted in several locations.
3. The timber deck is in fair condition with localized weathering, checking, splitting and rot. The
underside of the planks is in good condition with minor water staining.
4. The sawn timber girders are in generally good condition with minor checking and splitting.
5. The piers consist of timber bents and sills. The timber piers are in generally good condition with
minor checking and splitting.
6. The abutments consist of timber posts and sheeting founded on timber sills and are in generally good
condition with minor checking and splitting.
7. The gravel approach roads aze in good condition.
8. The embankments in front of the abutments are vegetated and are in good condition.
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
A preliminary structural evaluation was made of the existing timber girders.
The Design Criteria for evaluating the load carrying capacity of Bridge No. 99015 were based on the
Cotten sins hubicki associates
Municipality of Clarington
Bridge Inspection Report 31
following assumptions:
1. The basic loading is the Ontario Highway Bridge Rating Loads in accordance with the Ontario
Highway Bridge Design Code, 1991.
2. The timber deck planks aze Species Group S-P-F, Grade No. 1 with an average 5% reduction in
timber strength due to deterioration of the timbers.
3. The timber girders are Species Group Fir-L, Grade No. 1 with an average 5% reduction in timber
strength due to deterioration of the timbers.
4. The timber pier and abutment foundations aze adequate to support the superimposed dead and live
loads.
Based on the results of our visual and dimensional inspection, and a preliminary structural evaluation of the
load carrying capacity of the existing bridge, it is concluded that the existing Bridge No. 99015 is in fair
condition. The structural capacity of the existing bridge based on the capacity of the timber girders is as
follows:
Level 1 -Single Unit Tractor 12 tonnes
Leve12 -Tractor and One Trailer 20 tonnes
Level 3 -Tractor and More Than One Trailer 30 tonnes
A review of the structural adequacy of the timber handrails indicates that the existing handrails do not
comply structurally with the requirements of OHBDC Sections 2-4.3.5 and 5-4.
CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of our field inspection and observations, and a preliminary structural evaluation of Bridge No.
99015, it is concluded that:
1. The existing bridge is in fair condition and is adequate to support a safe superimposed live load of
[often sims hubicki associates
Municipality of Clarington
Bridge Inspection Report 32
about LI = 12 tonnes; L2 = 20 tonnes; L3 = 30 tonnes based on the capacity of the timber girders.
2. The existing handrail system does not meet current OHBDC load requirements. However, if the
Municipality assumes liability for the deficient handrail system, then the existing timber handrails
may be retained.
3. The following repairs should be carried out to increase the load carrying capacity of the bridge and
to extend its life expectancy by about 5 years:
• Replace missing railing on handrails.
• Replace deteriorated timber deck planks and curbs members.
4. The existing bridge will remain adequate to support a safe superimposed live load of about L 1 = 12
tonnes; L2 = 20 tonnes; L3 = 30 tonnes afrer the above noted repairs have been carried out. The
preliminary estimated cost to carry out the above noted repairs to extend the life expectancy of the
structure by about 5 years is $15,000.00 (based on current 1996 construction prices). A breakdown
of the preliminary cost estimate is contained in Appendix C.
5. Continued overloading of the existing structure would result in a reduced safe load carrying capacity
and reduced life expectancy of the structure.
6. Because of the age of the structure, it is recommended that a regulaz inspection and maintenance
program be implemented to confirm or revise the safe load carrying capacity of the bridge afrer
completion of the repair works.
Cotten suns hubicki associates
Municipality of Clarington
Bridge Inspection Report 33
BRIDGE N0.99023
EXISTING CONDITIONS
EXISTING
CONDTTIONS MINIMUM
TOLERABLE (1)
A.A.D.T. 1100(1994)
Highway Class 1000-2000
Safe Loading 9tonnes lOtonnes
Roadway Width - 7.0 mt 6.5 m
Waterway Opening 9.2 mf x 3.1 mt
(1) In accordance with the `Municipal Bridge Appraisal Manual', published by
the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario, dated February 1992.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The existing Bridge No. 99023, which was constructed about 1931 on Old Scugog Road over the
Bowmanville Creek, is a 10.4 mt single span structural steel girder bridge with a concrete deck and a surface
treated wearing surface The 150 mmt deep concrete deck is supported on eight (8) lines of 380 mmt deep
structural steel girders at 1.1 mt (maximum) centres. The structural steel girders are supported on concrete
abutments constructed normal to the road alignment.
The bridge provides a roadway width of 7.2 mt between curbs and accommodates two lanes of vehicular
traffic. A 150 mmf wide concrete curb is located on both the east and west sides of the bridge. Steel latticed
handrails are provided outside of the curbs. Overhead Bell and hydro plant are located parallel to and east
and west of the bridge respectively. The bridge is posted with a load limit of Ll = 10 tonnes; L2 = 15 tonnes;
L3 = 25 tonnes. The general layout of the bridge is illustrated on Sketch No. SK-8, included in Appendix
A.
A copy of the current Municipal Bridge Appraisal Sheet for Bridge No. 99023 is contained in Appendix D.
totten Sims hubicki associates
Municipality of Claringtoo
Bridge Inspection Report
34
OBSERVATIONS
A visual and dimensional inspection of Bridge No. 99023 was carried out in March 1996. Our observations
and findings are summarized as follows:
1. The steel latticed handrails aze in generally good condition with minor localized surface corrosion.
2. The concrete curbs are in generally good condition with minor transverse cracking.
3. The surface treated wearing surface is in generally good condition with localized patching.
4. The deck soffit of the original structure is covered with steel formwork and could not be inspected.
The steel formwork exhibits minor corrosion. The concrete deck soffit of the structure widenings
is in fair condition with minor cracking, localized spalling and delaminations.
5. The structural steel girders are in fair condition with overall corrosion and pitting. It is noted that
only the bottom flange of the girders of the original structure is exposed.
6. The original concrete abutments and the northwest and southwest concrete wingwalls are in fair
condition with extensive scaling and narrow random cracks. Localized spalling and scouring were
also noted. The south abutment footing has been refaced with concrete but is undermined.
7. The concrete abutment widenings are in generally good condition with localized narrow cracks.
8. The northeast and southeast concrete wingwalls aze in poor condition with extensive severe scaling
and scouring. Cracking and delamination were also noted along the top of the wingwalls.
9. The surface treated approach roads are in fair condition with settlements adjacent to the structure.
Settled areas have been patched. Timber guide posts on the approaches are in generally good
condition.
9. The roadway embankments are vegetated and are in generally good condition with minor erosion
' totten Sims hubicki associates
Municipality of Clarington
Bridge Inspection Report
35
in the northwest quadrant.
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
A preliminary structural evaluation was made of the existing structural steel girders.
The Design Criteria for evaluating the load carrying capacity of Bridge No. 99023 were based on the
following assumptions:
1. The basic loading is the Ontazio Highway Bridge Rating Loads in accordance with the Ontario
Highway Bridge Design Code, 1991.
2. The concrete in the bridge deck has a minimum compressive strength of 20 MPa.
3. The structural steel girders of the original structure have a minimum yield stress of 210 MPa with
an average 5% reduction in cross-sectional area due to corrosion of the structural steel members.
4. The structural steel girders of the structure widenings have a minimum yield stress of 230 MPa with
a maximum 5% reduction in cross-sectional area due to corrosion of the structural steel members.
5. The concrete abutment foundations are adequate to support the superimposed dead and live loads.
Based on the results of our visual and dimensional inspection, and a preliminary structural evaluation of the
load carrying capacity of the existing bridge, it is concluded that the existing Bridge No. 99023 is in fair
condition. The structural capacity of the existing bridge based on the capacity of the structural steel girders
is as follows:
Level I -Single Unit Tractor 9 tonnes
Leve12 -Tractor and One Trailer 16 tonnes
Level 3 -Tractor and More Than One Trailer 24 tonnes
A review of the structural adequacy of the steel latticed handrails indicates that the existing handrails do not
[often Biros hubicki associates
Municipality of Clarington
Bridge Inspection Report 36
comply structurally with the requirements of OHBDC Sections 2-4.3.5 and 5-4.
CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of our Feld inspection and observations, and a preliminary structural evaluation of Bridge No.
99023, it is concluded that:
1. The existing bridge is in fair condition and is adequate to support a safe superimposed live load of
about LI = 9 tonnes; L2 = 16 tonnes; L3 = 24 tonnes based on the capacity of the structural steel
girders.
2. The existing handrail system does not meet current OHBDC load requirements.
3. The following repairs should be carried out to extend the life expectancy of the bridge by about 10 -
15 years:
• Replace existing steel latticed handrails with a thrie beam guide rail /pedestrian rail system to
meet current OHBDC load requirements.
• Remove the existing bituminous weazing surface and repair, waterproof and pave the bridge
deck.
• Install new sealed deck expansion joint assemblies to match the new deck profile.
• Remove loose and deteriorated concrete to sound concrete and restore the deck soffit and
abutment faces to original dimensions with concrete and/or concrete repair materials.
• Remove loose and deteriorated concrete to sound concrete and reface the wingwalls and
abutment footings with concrete.
• Clean and paint structural steel girders.
• Adjust the approach roads to match the new deck profile and pave with hot mix asphalt.
• Install steel beam guide rail on the bridge approaches to provide adequate traffic protection.
4. The existing bridge will remain adequate to support a safe superimposed live load of about LI = 9
tonnes; L2 = 16 tonnes; L3 = 24 tonnes after the above noted repairs have been carried out. The
preliminary estimated cost to carry out the above noted repairs to extend the life expectancy of the
' totten sins hubicki associates
Municipality of Clarington
Bridge Inspection Report
37
structure by about 10 - IS years is $170,000.00 (based on current 1996 construction prices). A
breakdown of the preliminary cost estimate is contained in Appendix C.
5. After completion of the above noted repairs, the existing bridge will still be deficient for load
carrying capacity.
6. Continued overloading of the existing structure would result in a reduced safe load carrying capacity
and reduced life expectancy of the structure.
7. Because of the age of the structure, it is recommended that a regular inspection and maintenance
program be implemented to confirm or revise the safe load carrying capacity of the bridge.
8. Before implementing the repair works, and because of the expenditure involved and restricted load
capacity, consideration should be given to complete replacement of the existing structure. The
estimated "ball-pazk" cost for a new two lane structure with a 50 year design life, based on current
1996 construction costs, is $270,000.00 including contingencies and engineering.
totten sims hubicki associates
Municipality of Clariugton
Bridge Inspection Report
38
BRIDGE N0.99043
EXISTING CONDITIONS
EXISTING
CONDITIONS MINIMUM
TOLERABLE (1)
A.A.D.T. 80(1975)
Highway Class 50-200
Safe Loading Stonnes lOtonnes
Roadway Width 5.4 mt 6.0 m
Waterway Opening 6.1 mf x 2.1 mt
(1) In accordance with the `Municipal Bridge Appraisal Manual', published by
the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario, dated February 1992.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The existing Bridge No. 99043, which was constructed about 1970 on Cedar Pazk Road, is a 6.1 mt single
span structural steel girder bridge with a concrete deck and an asphalt wearing surface. The 130 mmt deep
concrete deck is supported on seven lines of 310 mmt deep structural steel girders at 955 mmf centres. The
structural steel girders aze supported on concrete abutments constructed at a 5°t skew to the road alignment.
The bridge provides a roadway width of 5.6 mt between curbs and accommodates a single lane of vehicular
traffic. A 150 mmt wide concrete curb is located on both the east and west sides of the bridge. Steel pipe
handrails are provided outside of the curbs. The bridge is posted with a load limit of Ll = 13 tonnes; L2 =
18 tonnes; L3 = 24 tonnes. The general layout of the bridge is illustrated on Sketch No. SK-9, included in
Appendix A.
A copy of the cun•ent Municipal Bridge Appraisal Sheet for Bridge No. 99043 is contained in Appendix D.
totten Sims hubicki associates
Municipality of Clarington
Bridge Inspection Report
39
OBSERVATIONS
A visual and dimensional inspection of Bridge No. 99043 was carried out in March 1996. Our observations
and fmdings are summazized as follows:
1. The steel pipe handrails are in poor condition with extensive collision damage and minor surface
corrosion:
2. The concrete curbs are in poor condition with extensive scaling and cracking of the east curb.
Several sections of the east curb and the entire west curb are missing.
3. The asphalt wearing surface is in fair condition with minor rutting and ravelling, particularly along
the west shoulder.
4. The concrete deck soffit is in fair condition with transverse cracks, rust stains, delaminations and
spans.
5. The structural steel girders are in fair condition with extensive corrosion, pitting and delaminations,
particularly of the exterior girders. The west exterior structural steel girder is rotated outwards due
to collision damage to the west handrail.
6. The concrete abutments are in poor condition with differential settlements, large cracks, localized
scaling and spalling. The north abutment has settled differentially about 25 mmf and has rotated
forward about 100 mmt. A large crack below the east exterior structural steel girder was measured
and had a gap of 30 mmf. The south abutment has settled differentially about ] 0 mmf. Cracking
of the abutments has caused a partial loss of support for the exterior girders.
7. The concrete wingwalls are in poor condition with cracking and separation of the upper portions of
the northwest, southeast and southwest wingwalls. The gap between the northwest wingwall and
the north abutment varied from 140 mmf at the top of the wall to 65 mmf at the base of the wall.
Relative outward displacement of the upper portion of the wingwalls relative to the lower portions
was 75 mmt and 100 mmt at the southwest and southeast wingwalls repectively. The northeast
Cotten sims hubicki associates
Municipality of Clarington
Bridge Inspection Report 40
wingwall exhibits a horizontal sepazation neaz the water level and has separated from the abutment.
8. The asphalt paved approach roads are in fair condition with settlements adjacent to the structure.
Settled azeas have been patched. Minor rutting and ravelling was also noted.
9. The roadway embankments aze vegetated and are in generally good condition with minor erosion
in the northeast and southwest quadrants.
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
A preliminary structural evaluation was made of the existing structural steel girders.
The Design Criteria for evaluating the load carrying capacity of Bridge No. 99043 were based on the
following assumptions:
I. The basic loading is the Ontario Highway Bridge Rating Loads in accordance with the Ontazio
Highway Bridge Design Code, 1991.
2. The concrete in the bridge deck has a minimum compressive strength of 20 MPa.
3. The structural steel girders have a minimum yield stress of 210 MPa with a minimum 5% reduction
in cross-sectional area due to corrosion of the structural steel members.
4. The concrete abutment foundations are adequate to support the superimposed dead and live loads.
' torten suns hubicki associates
Municipality of Clarington
Bridge Inspection Report
41
Based on the results of our visual and dimensional inspection, and a preliminary structural evaluation of the
load carrying capacity of the existing bridge, it is concluded that the existing Bridge No. 99043 is in poor
condition. The structural capacity of the existing bridge based on the capacity of the structural steel girders
is as follows:
Level 1 -Single Unit Tractor 13 tonnes
Level 2 -Tractor and One Trailer 20 tonnes
Level 3 -Tractor and More Than One Trailer 30 tonnes
A review of the structural adequacy of the steel pipe handrails indicates that the existing handrails do not
comply structurally with the requirements of OHBDC Sections 2-4.3.5 and 5-4.
CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of our field inspection and observations, and a preliminary structural evaluation of Bridge No.
99043, it is concluded that:
The existing bridge is in poor condition and is adequate to support a safe superimposed live load of
about Ll = 13 tonnes; L2 = 20 tonnes; L3 = 30 tonnes based on the capacity of the structural steel
girders. However, because of the deterioration of the bridge substructure and partial loss of support
for exterior girders, it is recommended that the load limit posting be reduced to 5 tonnes and the
bridge be monitored for continued useage. Vehicular traffic should be directed towards the centre
line of the roadway to minimize loading of the exterior structural steel girders.
I~
2. The existing handrail system does not meet current OHBDC load requirements. However, if the
Municipality assumes liability for the deficient handrail system, then the existing steel pipe handrails
may be retained.
3. Continued overloading of the existing structure would result in a reduced safe load carrying capacity
and reduced life expectancy of the structure.
4. Because of the age of the structure, it is recommended that a regular inspection and maintenance
totten siros hubicki associates
Municipality of Clarington
Bridge Inspection Report 42
program be implemented to confirm or revise the safe load carrying capacity of the bridge.
5. Because of the age, condition and type of construction of the existing bridge, the repair of the
existing bridge to increase its capacity is not considered to be practical or economical. The
estimated "ball-park" cost for a new two lane structure with a 50 yeaz design life, based on current
1996 construction costs, is $210,000.00 including contingencies and engineering.
totten Sims hubicki associates
Municipality of Clarington
Bridge Inspection Report
43
BRIDGE N0.99045
EXISTING CONDITIONS
EXISTING
CONDTTIONS MINIMUM
TOLERABLE (1)
A.A.D.T. 60(1975)
Highway Class 50-200
Safe Loading 18 tonnes lOtonnes
Roadway Width - 4.3 mt 6.0 m
Waterway Opening 7.3 mt x 2.5 mt
(t) In accordance with the `Municipal Bridge Appraisal Manual', published by
the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario, dated February 1992.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The existing Bridge No. 99045, which was constructed about 1950 on Holt Road over the Bowmanville
Creek, is a 7.8 mt single span structural steel girder bridge with a concrete deck and concrete wearing
surface. The 140 mmt deep concrete deck is supported on six (6) lines of 381 mmt deep structural steel
girders at 933 mmt centres. The structural steel girders are supported by concrete abutments constructed
normal to the roadway alignment.
The bridge provides a roadway width of 4.5 mt between curbs and accommodates a single lane of vehicular
traffic. A 150 mmt wide concrete curb is located on both the east and west sides of the bridge. Steel pipe
handrails are provided outside ofthe curbs. The bridge is not posted with a load limit. Overhead Bell plant
is located south of and parallel to the bridge. The general layout of the bridge is illustrated on Sketch No.
SK-10, included in Appendix A.
A copy of the current Municipal Bridge Appraisal Sheet for Bridge No. 99045 is contained in Appendix D.
torten aims hubicki associates
Municipality of Claringtoo
Bridge Inspection Report 44
OBSERVATIONS
A visual and dimensional inspection of Bridge No. 99045 was carried out in October 1996. Our observations
and findings are summarized as follows:
1. The steel pipe handrails aze in generally good condition with corrosion and minor pitting of the steel
posts. Galvanized coatings on the pipes are in generally good condition with minor corrosion and
pitting of one section of rail noted.
2. The concrete curbs are in fair condition with light scaling and localized transverse cracking. One
section of the west curb is missing.
3. The concrete deck weazing surface is in fair condition with minor scaling and wear, transverse
cracks and localized spalling.
4. The concrete deck soffit is in generally good condition with localized transverse cracks and minor
delaminations. Localized water staining was also noted.
5. The structural steel girders are in generally good condition with minor corrosion and localized
pitting. Localized minor delaminations were noted at the abutments. Remnants of paint coatings
were noted on the exterior face of the exterior girders. The extent of corrosion of the structural steel
girders is not considered to be structurally significant and no repairs to the structural steel girders
aze required at the present time.
6. The concrete abutments and wingwalls are in fair condition with extensive light scaling and minor
cracking, except for the southeast wingwall which exhibits a wide diagonal crack with outward
movement of the top portion of the wall. The north abutment exhibits more extensive scouring at
about the waterline.
' 7. The watercourse is unobstructed with no evidence of scouring of the streambed.
8. The south approach road is surface treated and is in generally good condition with minor rutting.
' [often sims hubicki associates
Municipality of Clarington
Bridge Inspection Report
45
The north approach road is of gavel construction and is in poor condition with extensive pot holes.
No traffic protection is provided on the bridge approaches.
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
A preliminary structural evaluation was made ofthe existing structural steel girders.
The Design Criteria for evaluating the load carrying capacity of Bridge No. 99045 were based on the
following assumptions:
1. The basic loading is the Ontario Highway Bridge Rating Loads in accordance with the Ontario
Highway Bridge Design Code, 1991.
2. The concrete in the bridge deck has a minimum compressive strength of 20 MPa.
3. The structural steel girders have a minimum yield stress of 230 MPa with a minimum 5% reduction
in cross-sectional area due to corrosion of the structural steel members.
4. The concrete abutment foundations are adequate to support the superimposed dead and live loads.
Based on the results of our visual and dimensional inspection, and a preliminary structural evaluation of the
load carrying capacity of the existing bridge, it is concluded that the existing Bridge No. 99045 is in fair
condition. The structural capacity of the existing bridge based on the capacity of the structural steel girders
is as follows:
Level 1 -Single Unit Tractor 18 tonnes
Level 2 -Tractor and One Trailer 31 tonnes
Level 3 -Tractor and More Than One Trailer 42 tonnes
A review of the structural adequacy of the steel pipe handrails indicates that the existing handrails do not
comply structurally with the requirements of OHBDC Sections 2-4.3.5 and 5-4.
totters sims hubicki associates
Municipality of Clarington
Bridge Inspection Report
46
CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of our field inspection and observations, and a preliminary structural evaluation of Bridge No.
99045, it is concluded that:
The existing bridge is in fair condition and is adequate to support a safe superimposed live load of
about L 1 = 18 tonnes; L2 = 31 tonnes; L3 = 42 tonnes based on the capacity of the structural steel
girders.
2. The existing handrail system does not meet current OHBDC load requirements.
3. The following repairs should be carried out to extend the life expectancy of the bridge by about 10 -
15 yeazs:
• Replace existing steel pipe handrails with a thrie beam guide rail /pedestrian rail system to meet
current OHBDC load requirements.
• Reconstruct the missing section of the west curb.
• Remove loose and deteriorated concrete to sound concrete and restore the concrete deck weazing
surface, deck soffit and southeast wingwall to original dimensions with concrete and/or concrete
repair materials.
• Remove loose and deteriorated concrete to sound concrete and reface the north abutment footing
with concrete.
• Install vertical dowel reinforcement across the large crack in the southeast wingwall.
• Install steel beam guide rail on the bridge approaches to provide adequate traffic protection.
3. The existing bridge will remain adequate to support a safe superimposed live load of about Ll = 18
tonnes; L2 = 31 tonnes; L3 = 42 tonnes after the above noted repairs have been carried out. The
preliminary estimated cost to carry out the above noted repairs and to extend the life expectancy of
the structure by about 10 - 15 yeazs is $65,000.00 (based on current 1996 construction prices). A
breakdown of the preliminary cost estimate is attached.
4. Continued overloading of the existing structure would result in a reduced safe load carrying capacity
' totten sims hubicki associates
i~
I
Municipality of Clariogton
Bridge Inspection Report
47
and reduced life expectancy of the structure.
' S.
Because of the age of the structure, it is recommended that a regulaz inspection and maintenance
program be implemented to confirm or revise the safe load carrying capacity of the bridge.
6. Before implementing the repair works, and because of the expenditure involved, deficient roadway
width and restricted load capacity, consideration should be given to complete replacement of the
existing structure. The estimated "ball-park" cost for a new two lane structure with a 50 year design
life, based on current 1996 construction costs, is $240,000.00, including contingencies and
engineering.
totted sims hubiclci associates
Municipality of Clarington
Bridge Inspection Report 48
SUMMARY
The results of our field inspection and preliminary structural evaluation of ten (10) bridges in the
Municipality of Clarington carried out in March 1996, are summarized as follows:
Present Safe Estimated
Bridge Loadipg (tonnes) 'Estimated Replacement
No. Name OHBDC .:Repair Cost Cost
93003 Mill Street Ll =25 $10,000.00 $300,000.00
L2 = 44
L3 = 60
94023 Prospect Street Ll =2 $80,000.00 $15Q,000.00
L2 = N/A
L3 = N/A
94025 Jackman Road Ll = 15 - $375,000.00
L2 = 24
L3 = 34
98003 Lakeshore Road Ll = 5 $55,000.00 $900,000.00
L2=10
L3=16
98011 Nichols Road Ll = 16 - -
L2 = 28
L3 = 38
98013 Nichols Road Ll = 7 - -
L2=12
L3 = 20
99015 Providence Road L1 = 12 $15,000.00 -
L2=20
L3 = 30
99023 Old Scugog Road LI = 9 $170,000.00 $270,000.00
L2 = 16
L3 = 24
99043 Cedar Park Road Ll = 5 - $210,000.00
L2 = N/A
L3 = N/A
99045 Holt Road Ll = 18 $65,000.00 $240,000.00
L2=31
L3 = 42
The foregoing cost estimates assume the bridges will be closed to vehicular traffic during deck repair/
totten sims hubicki associates
Municipality of Clarington
Bridge Inspection Report 49
replacement operations. The replacement cost for Bridge No. 94023 is based on construction of a pedestrian
bridge at the site. Bridge No. 99043 should be monitored until such time as it is replaced.
Continued overloading of the existing structures would result in a reduced safe load carrying capacity of the
bridges, and reduced life expectancy of the structures.
The existing structures should be posted with the load limits as summarized above under the heading
"Present Safe Loading". It is recommended that Bridges No. 98011 and 98013 both be posted with a load
limit of Ll = 7 tonnes; L2 = 12 tonnes; L3 = 20 tonnes because the bridges are located on the same road in
close proximity to each other. It is recommended that revisions to the load postings be completed as soon
as possible.
Because of the age of the structures, it is recommended that a regular inspection and maintenance program
be implemented to confirm or revise the safe load carrying capacity of the bridges, after repair of the existing
bridges has been completed.
Consideration should be given to complete replacement of Bridges No. 93003, 94023, 94025, 98003, 99023,
99043 and 99045 because of the expenditure involved for repair of the existing bridges, the deficient
roadway widths, load restrictions and limited remaining life expectancy of the structures after repair has been
completed.
We would be pleased to elaborate on any aspect of the Report and to assist further in the implementation of
the recommendations, as may be required.
Respectfully submitted,
totten sims hubicki associates
CJ`' 1
~-
G. L. Aleong, P. Eng.
Vice-President, Structural
GLA/dlb
Qaq~es~;nN
e° ~~ F
Q
m z
m
W G. L. ALEOhG "'
a ~
~~~0
O~~pCEVOF ~a~
~,'/!
D. L. Baxter, P. Eng.
Project Engineer
~~
W D. L. BAXTER
C
AO
P
~~~'C6 OF p~(P
' totten sims hubicki associates
1
BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT
MUNICIP~4~5t OF CLARINGTON
'
APRENDICIES
' SK 1 to SK
10
t
N
k
e
o.
-
e
ch
s
Appendix A - S
' Appendu B - Pkotogrs~phs
Appendix C - Brealedawa of Preliminary Cwt Estimates for Repair
of Est Structures
Appendix D - M4nicipal Bridge Appraisal Sleets
r
1
Sketch No. SK-1
Sketch No. SK-2
Sketch No. SK-3
Sketch No. SK-4
Sketch Na SK-5
Sketch No. SK-b
Sketch No. SK-7
Sketch No. SK-8
Sketch No. SK-~
Sketch No. SK-1~
APPENDIX A
- Bridge No. 93003 -General Arrangement
-.Bridge No. 94042 - Genersl Arrangement
- Bridge No. 94025 -.General Arrangement
- Bridge No. 98003 -General Arrangement
Bridge No. 98011 -Geneva! Arrangement
- Brkge No. 98013 -General Arrangement
-Bridge No. 99015 -General. Arrangement
-.Bridge No. 99023 =General Arrangement
-.Bridge No. 99043 -Genera! Arrangement
1-Bridge No. 99045 - General Arrangement
~,
__
N
N
£p ~. N
~ ~
Q 2 N
;
F C
C
p
O
~ ~ Ni
O
~ ~ ~ r
Q N Z z t7 w Z
O
G J
C
V
6
p N
U
Z Z osi
° U
W '^
°z
N
mm
o
'^
~ v
i
. O o J
~ E Y w x o
~ r
~
O W
Y
O N
w
~ p N V p U i u
z ~+ W
O r v
U
~~w
Q3Q
ie£ J
Q
x~~
U ~
aa¢ z
Q3tOn ~ W
K~2
O c
c
N N ~ O G
ILl
Q p W
mQ
VI
v Uj Q
Owa ~
~ ~O
Z~ pt Y Ml 2 Q
N
j~ ~Q
d J
~y
~U Q
NJ O ~~
ZJ
O
to
~
m
~ W z
p~ ~ W
o o C~
U Q
O O
~ ~ ~
~-~
y ~ F-
U ~
O Q z ~
w MO ~~ w O ~
0
z
W
rn
Q
W
n 3
Q O
]
M
' (
Y J r /
w m ~ m
p W N
ev
v
I
H33a0
a
J •
~ /
W
o wvNVa~ 3
~ W
o ~
W !_ '` s
~ - - - -
N
O
~
r y /
z
o c
~
w
~ w ..
.
o~
I w,
O
1- N
~~ -
CGtt 9UL0/00 [00[/CLWI-Lt/
m ¢ .,
~
ou wa
~ ~
°'
~
_
r
~_ ~
N
xW ~
O m W Y
n J J
~ >
~ a z Y
n N
~
WJ O-
NrO~
~ x3 7f
ra of
O a
D
v
N ma
f3
NO Z w w
O NO
7m
r W x
O ~ NU! Q
2
my W
Om -
E ~
(n O K
N W
O
Z (~
f In
r
xY.-. P
U Z ix~ Z
o 0 z0 w Z
z ¢
Z "' ~ ~ ~ ~~ N;W W z
O
fU ¢
W Y
= ~ v N m
~ (n
Q o M a
m
m
.~. U U EN W W O Y ~ `N o
> a oa W f mm o} ~, - wo
x O
Nj F r U Ay F Q Q
O yr FF m r M U
W (n Q N
m 0 O O x Z a u
a N J 0 ~L J O
~ ~ 0 -
n
~ D: x2 Q ~ a ~N K1 N
~ '^ Q
J
z o~ ~ U W w~ O o ~
Q
i ma ~Q ~ ¢_ 1qN
N ~
~' W O
~ ~ m ~ ~ y W ~ ~ Z
y r ~ f^ ~ ~i a_¢ ~ N
O W
N rY 00 N~ ?l7 O
~ G
Nr
O xY rJ ~
O~Z W
r
xN
O r
v).
,
a OJ ~ JW
r ~ ~
Z
.
n
zo~ J
N Ana m aN
J ~ JW ~
f
Q
Wr
Klm r
O J ~^W
r ZU~ ~
W
UV ~a Y m¢
~
r lii
Wog ~
' ¢a O ~
~ yN r N mpa r
~Zr J p
E
-y EU ~'r; Q
w o
Z
m o~ ar m
r2.. aW
J x~
fN~
na m ~
~Jm
~a
is r
OW Ny a
f-a J
m
~-
"' m
X
U v Q
N
`° O ~Z
~
W Nm ~
a~ ~
~~ W
n Q0 ~ Z
W W_ 1 ~~ ~ C7
Y
U d d W
W -
O ¢ ¢ O
W
W _
W Q
o I a a .n
m
w -
Z
~ ~
O
Jy
Z
JY
~ r.+
lO
¢a Q o a ¢a Q O
o ~~- - ~ n ~- - W !O
m
.n ~ "'~
w t~~v J
a a mm W U.
T
~ r ~
w O ~ L
a m w
Y a~ a
~ ui a
~
+~- o Z ciL _ V~ ~
W
O o
N
N
C
p y W ~
Z ¢ y,,.
w W
z > 0
0 .
U W
K
Or
r w
ez ~~ ss/ir/so rzors/czsoi-z~/
o
~ Bb bl
O z
Z O ~-
-° W
r r- J U
V a
a
R 2 fY Ha (n
N ~ ~ QU
Q JW
2 U~
70
Y
N
W U
3W a
~ m
~ ~ N
~2
U
N
¢
f
~ N_-~J++-- OU ya
r ~ u W
W +~ Rl
~ m~m~
N N P~u 0
p O fNO~ W
Km
o~ 'W .i
J
m o~
Q N N~ OWV
M H N Q
`~ `~ ~ U_
O~ ~
v W
~
J N
~~
27
C
N
O ~
2 '"' Q W
00 0' JY
~~ ~n m~a
j2?~ OQ}
Y Q ~
N
2afc~
O V O ~
7
N
m
au
Q
Zm
~ --I -- ~f
I
7
m
a m
m
~
MO I.~ N
m
W
W ii
m
Z °
o I Q rOn
M J ~
N (
~ a
N
J
F
7 W
Z
m I N332i0 a
G 3~~IANVWM08 n
ui ~
W
W
---- m_
acs
4
N R]
~ I
O
U'
7
U U
N Q
00
r~
o ~'
~_
~~
a I;
0
N N i
¢ ~
U ~.~ 2
O ~ r m
I N m
~ o J
~o w o
W ~ Y
u
O N_ _
p U
a
z
Ln 2
o W
~
N
r
~ z W
~¢ ~
~
X
O J~
U ~
~ Q
(Y
a~? ~W
zOr~ ~
~o W~m a
~a J
' D Q
1
__-J U
I I ~~ W
I I m~
z
~J W
C~
Z
_O
I"
Q
m W r+
w J R
.
W ~
0
f- y
y
II (n ~
Q
W Y
V •
_~~ t
I I y
I I ~
I I N •
-_-~ J
~
r
+
m
w
O
¢
D
m
m
Of
i
p V
~ Z o Z °~ N
N Owr u 0 O~ O y u
z
Inmate
u NN - .a
~ a
xm~ ~ Nm ~ ~ o o
o m m voi~wv U o xm
O U Z
v ~ od arm~D W ~ v v
i~ W Q
O o
pc~ Nd
~ ~
Z ~ p w
N p y r ~
~ vi N
r
~
r -
-~ ¢
xW
x U I ~f
Q ~
r
N m
Y
x W
m i
~ ~
Z U
Z
N
z
o
^
d
O~ ON
O- ~
~
(n
~
z
~ Z
Nma
~ W
d (n
~
a w
a
fu
o
N
r m
Nr xw
o
o
~
p
~
f p
o Q
J
Nrd ~d
_O
O = a
o u
~~+ - ~ _- N s~~ -_-_ _ U
N~ N ~N Z O~ N xW l7 ~ Z N~ N m oN
~ Q
o Jr a NH
a m?a
o
~ U -
Q o
m ~
~
o w U D ~ m
m
a ap
and o
Nm v
if
F
arN... J ~ a o
ma m x
om
f o d J ~ N
Wo o
W
x o
m J
W xw
mY o Q wa- xw
mzd pm o
Nr m F Q d W'
ON W
W r f
~ ' ` ~ u _ i
w
~r
N~W
~
r=V N O
0 O N ~
¢_ ~ N N
U _ O
F
m
JW
am 0
~
R m
O~HN Z m
OW z
Z
Er~w m
uo-~
N)z
W
EJmw
'nOrr Ox m
~ww ~o
' NmNN N1. U O(~ W
a
u
um
a ~a Z
00
rm LLW
Y ~
j ~O¢
a
Z}~ ~
~ ~
r Q
via W ~
p (~ a J
m
w w p
~ UOQ QU Q
` a a ~ ° ~~ ~
`~ w ~ nooo m~ Z
~ a a wro W
i ~`
>
f o
w ~
d ~
P
w
Y
N m O
W_ N
e 10
d J
Y
O Q Q
N Z CA ~
~ Y
U 2 m
Ur Q ~ Illiii
•r
~
1n I ~ ` ~ Z J
Y ~- ~
U
v \iiYY Q n ¢a Q O
M z m
r ~ to
a ~ VJ W 9
m
r
m
w
J ~
j
~
I ~', ° W V ~
W N
~~ d~ w o o t
` m O G vro
N
w ~
a e
> H
~ ~ m d e
w ~
d •y ~
m x
J
za ~
d C
01
a~
ao .~„
O
~~
~f ' ...
__
~~
~ , w ~ °oo°o
Q J NrV
>
1 O
r
WMI efIW Y ~-iV
o u li
° ~ a+ o '.
¢ °' ~ N
u
m Z
f
Q w¢
e ~ 3 N
a
~
Z
O H ~ o 0
N
~ Jy ~¢ U
~ ~
~ ~¢O %O W t7 N
u W~0.
m O¢ ~ f ~
N O
Z0 VU'
z 0 Z
w
o ¢M i ~=a Y
u p m~ ¢ U o H
~ -
-
~
~ W
)1- m
N7 F Y w
U 3 W
~
Kl
O OW U °N
z m m
m M~ Wa
LL J N
uO o J
w
O
Y
XZ ~~ ~{
Q W u
pJ FN
a U
-
~
aN 2
u
_
~
O~
O _
a
~
~
m Z
z
O^ z
0 r
o
W
~¢ N -O
7N W ON W
= Z ~
N
-
zu p ^ ~
p ¢
~a
Z
O z U¢
U`, p p m W
¢ J
U Q
~ ~ J O
W
~
za Zoa
x
W~ a
p
o
v ~a J
- Q
O ¢ ¢ ~ U
~z ~
z a a m~ W
W ~~ _ --'----- --------
--- -------- Z
W
U
I o
p
N
~ ~ N
W W
J N a
________ ________
________ ________ a
Z
v
r a¢
~r Z
Q p aa:
~~ ~
Q N
~
u~ -
_ O •~
N
~ ~
J
~ W O
W W
a I a J N
----=--- -_-------
--- ------- W ~
Y ~
V
O ~
N
~ ~ ~ N
W_
a
~ W_
o.
W
U Ci f- ___
------
---- C
V
O
LL
O y
¢^ I l' O
m p ~
d
O ¢ ¢ Jp ~
w ~ ~ ui a ~
+
+
1Ltt 96/lf/SO 11098/fZfOl-Ai
Z S
a U
N
F d a tp
N Z a Y
W d
~' Z ~
"' ~,
a a r i
?
~ a O
- w a
a ~ e
(7 V U H O ~ I
Z Z ~ ~ I
O ~ ° ° (~
r
U a
W N
01 O
M
W
N
N ~'I.
p
K 3 W p m ~ ~ r
~ ~
1 K U
W~ F
a r
s
su Z
w
z m
1 (D Y a a
~pu O f0
~m ~~ N
f N
f U o ~
~yl ~ - HN W W W
O
p Na ~ N 2N m m
m x Y VI N J N o f
a DU N N
Q u0 w D
N~ x x w- ~
O O (~ o N_ w
O O a u
a v ~
o+ m ~
T ~
z
O O }
r I
N O
O ~
W
H ~ W
N
3 m
N
J N Y
Z O~
Z
~ O w a x f- m W
z aQ oo~ ~o ~
o z
U ,,,, _
O
D K
~^ N U U
~' F
Ot7
W
U
a W
m°a ~ z
o~ ~a~
~x =ate
~ Oda Z
_ ¢ is J Q
z --_ x OWx 2
Y
Oa
z
w
o ~ ~
~ a
u ru
W~ Q
w o w ~ a
ao (~a J
_
a O ~ ~ Q
W _ __7 U
~Z
~ O 0] ~ W
O Z
N W W N Jfn W
J ~ Y ~r
aU 2 4 aU
~a - ~
z¢ z~ Z
UI- UI-
O
r ~y Q O JY ~
~U
m
U Q
Q
M a
~ J
m K
a
~
~
~
u ~ u .y
~~ w - ~ - w cam - J l0
a a W
N
N
O ~
N
~ O {{
a
W
Y ~ 'o
W Y
a u a
w - - --~ .G
L
~
o `_ O
~ I
Z ~
aJ
O
O
t ~
W V l a _
'
=___
- ~ y ^
4
N W
~
~ O
N N O
W ~/
Y
a D
J a
O O
~ ¢
r
w o w m d r
O O m z Y
~
a
O~
Z
wQ u
; N
"-'
~ O
<~
a
OW ~ o 0
Z m
°- p~ U
r
~ u ar
W
N
~?
N Y ~ O z U w Z
z z v~
M '~ Y a
f o a a o U o H
cs' o
-o r - ~ W
r r
y a
o -¢a y ~
m OmU O ZN m m
a O~W
rnrp ~
~
J O
w° o J
Y o
W ~
- Q N
O
-u
r
/i
m
U a
a i
Z O
Q ~ ~ N V
r> _ x
° ~
oa w r O~ om ~
.
U., U N O Y Nf
p a w)
3 a Z Nr ~-
3 U p
Q Q 2
JJ r r
Z
Ny ~ ¢ p
¢~ m W
w
wO~aJ Z Z
~O c
c
G
mza za
f
}
~
-
Q ~
W
a
r 2~ ____________
____________] ~? Ur
Y ~a Z
w
p
p
VO
Q
'~ ~ x OWE ~
o
~ ~,~ O ZO: ~
p
w W_
a ~
a~ J
Fa
Q
___ _
__~ QO W _o
C7 a J
¢ v~ O ~ a Q
w
n , Wro
~ pa -~
~z
~
~ a pm
>
~ mf W
z ¢
M Z
a a W
~
_ _ ~ Z ~
JN
Y JY
U
QU
¢Q
I
Z ~
a¢ _
~
'.'~ Q n ur -Q
~o
~
w
~ w
W
~ •
_
a
- a W ~
~ _
U
~
o
w ro y
z O ~ ca
I a °
,
o
`~
w
n U F
~
U
______ 7 ^
z ~ L
w
a 0
, y
I
H
w w
Z
r
O ~
_~ /
p
~
O W
~
r
o
O ~
r ~
m w d
~,,
Z r N Q J w-+
w ~ a r~+
x
r
0
~
N T
=
p m
~
T ~
/ P ~ 2
j .
~r
.'/ W
O ~ N
O
~ l
V
/ W
~ Z
O
~ ~~
111 OC7 W
WWZ ()
QF~ Q N
N
„
°
F..
V,
N
~ "' 7rc7Wa c
F
~ m
N V ~
° ~
Z
2 I ~ N
3N ~ ~ ~
-
} n
- V
~ ~
Y
I ~j
p
r
Q M
N
~ In t
m
m
m Z
' ~
~ w• Y
°
a ', m'.. ~ w
~ ~' .J
Q o N
~ w
vi,
E~ ° ~ a
roI
E~
1 V
~a _ ~
-~ }
i
~ ~ ~ o Z
wI - O LU
m
c
°J
m NZ W
~ O
w
oa
HQQF
°m
M a
~
~UZ Z
Q
N JS... Vf ~F
OO
~ Z
Z~' ~ Q
R
o WJ° Q
W ~
N Qd W
V Q j mz w
~ -
i O ~N
/~ acs
~
~~ z m ~
~ ~- t-
~
a II m
m ~
d
Z
~
I X
i O
W
W
' K
a
.U
' ~.~ J133b9 J ~~ G Z O
377/~NYW/y109 ; I Q N a
M
°
~
~ ~
pNj
~ ~ J
Q w ~
~
J
J O
~ Z
~
W c
~
~ r
v
a N W
~
E
w
w ~y
a~ ~
'~ s
c
_ .._.__ __. ym C O
a
W
~~ 2
/ Y ~ ~ O O
3
= N
\
f~
Z =j
^~
y O
a ~
W
OSI
Z
O W
aJ
~ aQ
V
~ J K .-.
woa
~
N wzr
mar
z U] S ._.
O
~u O
Y~ ~
Vl ~
O
m c7
Z U
a ¢ Z
a p
W V
3
~
EY
w
V
J V O
as MO
SW
a¢
N ~
a to
~~
N
H
O N
~ W
3
zY
o~
r a
F ua
a a
Q
2 N p
a zW
t~ O V
a U ~-
w
O_
~a
E>
J ~
J I
_'I'_ _
I
O;
-- -~ __
I
-"f
4 ~ I
z
J
2
O O
U a
O O
~ ¢
H
m
a~
2 m
Z
Q
J
~y
m-
a~
vi m
x
r-
O
z
0
0
n
S
H
0
N
W O
r
E ~
E ~~
O vi
N] _
K
J W
a0
¢¢
~ O t7
H
.aUJ
OW
OKW
Nf ~- r
N N N
Q
U_
Q.
~ 2 ~
01 Y
~' Vf
Y ~
wa 3
a
a ~ ¢
v 0
N N
~ ti
z V w Z
a
a
z u
O N
M ~ m
2 N m
~ o J
u O w O
W ~ Y
U
O N w
~ - I
z
Wc
~ G
oZ w
~ J Z
Uo Q
pwu ~
Z°~ ~
>a a
Fa
IJ_ J ~
(~ Qa J
Q V Q
-----~-~ ~j ~
I I ~
m W
I I Z
I I L1J
I I
__ I I ~
__ I I
Z J
z
O ~ ~
c ~ ~;
~~ \ Q eo
.
`~ > o
W ~
J y
eo
W
Y
~
--~~ J~
___I I ~
I I -C
I I y
I I ~
I I ~~ ~
I I
__ __1_J ~
N
Wr
•~
X
~
O +
+
K
a~
a
ao
~-
N r
N
~ O
O -
a _ ~ Y
W
Z
V N
~a ;
a
Z a ~
o a
0
OSI Q
Z
o w
aJ ~ ~
~ vi
~
~ dQ ~ V
Y z
~ J¢._ l0 W 3 ~
F wzy v U7 s u
F a « o ~
N
z F
N=_ M Y
o
~U O
°
~ ~
~
U
om
m
~
> 1- m
V ----
W - a W ~ vl o f
N
~ N
~ (~ O w~ Y o
O z
W W V
m
a N ~
a u
W ~
Jw U
a
J O N
~-
a t
3 ~~¢ N Q
O
W U NHU N U
~w E
wU Er xUJ
_~w
d
~a 01U
Uw m~W r
rW
Z07 NO Mhf
NNN
U N
Z
W
F p
W ~
a N W
mm
V•Q
~a Z
uo Q
~
Qwu ~
z
0o 03
Z
~
~a r
Fa Q
V p Z
~~ a ~
WJ
~
~ U' a J
r
m J m Q V Q
O~ a
U ~ lNYZ
.~ Ua
° 7N LL~
m~ W
°
~ ~ a'~
~ Z
zm W
m Ur
-- -- N
I
ti
m
a X332/7
\ 377//I N7WM09 z
w
w I ~ ~ y
Z 3 _
~ ~:
~
m Q m I Q W
•v
J m > O
W W y
m J
a
MO 7j
~
W ~
N ~N Y
~ a c~ V
~ Nm ~
L
zr y
VVV op
o
c
o ~
~~
.-.
O
.r
5
1
APPENDIX B
Photographs
PHOTOGRAPHS-BRIDGE NO. 93003
South Elevation
Looking West at Bridge
PHOTOGRAPHS-BRIDGE N0.93003
~~
`~` -; sw~
~-
. ~':~ .
r~
.~
~.._ =iS._ ..
_. ~ '
r .;..se-°~S;+sr.+~s~~~.
~a+r.~. .-.--
~: --
r i '> 't- ~j~~ :
y~ _ Al ~
~;.~
n
_,,,F.. _ -_ ~
- ors
Looking West at Bridge Soffit
Note Spalling of Concrete Deck Soffit and
Staining of Concrete T-Beam
Broken Post on North Concrete Handrail
PHOTOGRAPHS-BRIDGE ~'O. 93003
East Abutment
Note Cracking and Scaling
Cracking at North End of East Concrete Abutment
PHOTOGRAPHS-BRIDGE NO. 93003
. ~
Delamination on West Concrete Abutment Face
Timber Retaining Wa^ in Southeast Quadrant
Note Collapse of Retaining
PHOTOGRAPHS-BRIDGE NO. 94023
West Elevation
Looking South at Bridge
r
1 PHOTOGRAPHS-BRIDGE N0.94023
Typical Deterioration of Timber Curb
Typical Rot of Timber Plank Deck
PHOTO(~IZ:~PI~S-i3dg113[~1~:'~~(_3. ~J-~f}'93
,a_ . ~ ~ ~ ~
~~., .. ail
':~ r
~~^.,~
}}yy
~'~IY
~w
I1
North Abutment
Note Forward Displacement of Timber Posts
,~ J
. ~~~~
Displacement of North Abutment
Posts
~3.~Y;,
,,.,,R ` .. ~.~~
i ~~
~'~ ~~
PHOTOGRAPHS-BRIDGE N0.94023
South Abutment
Rot at South End of South Abutment
PHOTOGRAPHS-BRIDGE NO.9402.5
West Elevation
Looking South at Bridge
Looking North at Bridge Soffit
Note Minor Corrosion of
Structural Steel
:,lc,
~=
South Abutment
PHOTOGRAPHS-BRIDGE NO. 98003
Looking South at Bridge
s~,~ , ,
West Elevation
PHOTOGRAPHS-BRIDGE NO. 98003
~, y :4 T .
~~
+r
w, •~ ,
._
Typical Timber Pier Bents
y' ~.
_,._. .
~G
North Timber Abutment
PHOTOGRAPHS-BRIDGE N0.98003
! ~~~Ja~ tt~
.::
'V
~i~~~`1Y~ 'R ~
`
West End of South Abutment
Note Extensive Rotting of Timbers
~,:~'
~' "~~ ,w.~'a
- ` ~~h ,
,. ,
S~4 ~
s .iii r_ .- .
:~„=
:s
.f~.L ~ `.:f`:~
'':r. J'~~.. ``
~~~~*~
11YYYY1Y~~~~,,,~,~~~yy ~t
Northwest Retaining Wall
Note Rotting of Timbers and Shifting of Crib
{
PHOTOGRAPHS-BRIDGE N0.98011
'.,~;;,
'=r.='-
~ _
..•
.y
,y. ~ . ..
R,.:,.,,,"r
`>•;~ ,~ .
~,,,k;:~.z,
1 s~y: F,,..rr,
/F "~ Yr
~~~'~~ .,
.~~"
West Elevation
Looking South at Bridge
PHOTOGRAPHS-BRIDGE N0.98011
~~ ..
~
^ , ~ ,
.
,
i
,
k~'.~, ~.4w ~
~~n .
~s
t
S t
L
' ,
's
1~
,
t ^
ti ,~"~`4,` `7f
.
a
'r
: c a~ ~ .
;S';
.~~
'
.
,
~
..
~~; t <~,~ M
~..\ ~ _
.~-. ~.a.- . .
'~
/.~'~
South Abutment
Typical Timber Pier Bents
PHOTOGRAPHS-BRIDGE N0.98013
Looking North at Bridge
West Elevation
PHOTOGRAPHS-BRIDGE NO. 98013
Looking North at Bridge Soffit
:~~
4
~'
P~: F~~r.~ ..
/I/
-%
~:%,
/J~', i
,F,,.
Typical Timber Pier Bents
PHOTOGRAPHS-BRIDGE NO. 99015
^
.~
~,. , i -~
~, ~
f~..~ T-~ ~ ~ W
• ~: ~ t,~
'~; . ` ~ '~
"r~'••,
~~~ _ .
.~ ~~
.`?; -• '.
Looking South at Bridge
~~1+,
ti
h.:. - ~y
..,%~
\~.
'„r c
~'
Y'~
~C
West Elevation
PHOTOGRAPHS-BRIDGE NO. 99015
r•'
~.
;;~, ;x?
~+~ ~~
``~
Typical Deterioration of Timber Curb
Missing Top Rail on West Handrail
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
PHOTOGRAPHS-BRIDGE NO. 99015
~ \ yt
' ~..
Typical lleterioration of Timber
Deck Planks
Typical Timber Pier Bents
' PHOTOGRAPHS-BRIDGE NO. 99023
1
u
Looking North at Bridge
East Elevation
PHOTOGRAPHS-BRIDGE NO. 99023
Looking South at Bridge Soffit
Note Corrosion of Structural Steel Girders
and Staining of Deck Soffit
South Abutment
PHOTOGRAPHS-BRIDGE NO. 9)023
North Abutment
Note Scaling of Original Concrete Abutment Face
Northeast Retaining Wal!
Note Extensive Scaling of Concrete
PHOTOGRAPHS-BRIDGE NO. 990=13
-::~~~,
... .
East Elevation
Looking North at Bridge
PHOTOGRAPI-IS-BRIDGC NO. 99043
Looking South at Bridge Soffit
Note Corrosion of Structural Steel Girders
East Exterior Structural Steel Girder
Note Ourivard Rotation of Girder
PHOTOGRAPHS-BRIDGE NO. 99043
~4
,~
Rotation of North
Abutment Face
_ ;~ ,~ .
E . ~.~.
~~. .
North Abutment
Note Vertical and Horizontal Cracks in Concrete
PHOTOGRAPHS-BRIDGE NO. 990=13
Northwest Wingwall
Note Separation of Concrete
Wingwall from Abutment
Southeast Wingwall
Note Cracking and Separation of Top Portion of Wingwall
PHOTOGRAPHS-BRIDGE N0.99045
Looking North at Bridge
West Elevation
Note Missing Section of Curb
PHOTOGRAPHS-BRIDGE NO. 99045
~~~~ Ip ~~ f~f K' ~ r-
~--~Yl~. ~, yt kit ~• ~ ~~ - - • F Ij_ ~ _ .
fit:.- JR.Y. '~_ - -~J~ }y~•~`
~. : - art- -,~~ ~ .. ~ ~
w _
~ ~t.A }~ ~/
~- x ~~, •
„ ~.~
Typical Spalling of Concrete Deck Wearing Surface
l,.l~ri { ~,., y
.~ ~ ~ .1
y ..
_~' _ y I >
r ~. '~ 4,~
Y' o -. ~~ a
.a ~ ~>,~:. ~ ,. . , , ::
~,` .'~~_
Typical Cracking and Scaling of Concrete Deck Wearing Surface
PHOTOGRAPHS-BRIDGE NO. 99045
o
~ ~~"~ ' ..
~.
~.~u~~'.
Looking North at Bridge Soffit
Note Corrosion of Structural Steel Girders
e~~
•.Y
•'i ~. ~,
~,.. 4~ .~
.~'~ ~ ~~
North Abutment
Note Scouring of Concrete Abutment at Waterline
' PHOTOGRAPHS-BRIDGE NO. 99045
Northeast Wingwall
Note Scouring of Concrete Wingwall at Waterline
Southeast Wingwall
Note Wide Cracks in Concrete Wingwall
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
' APPENDIX C
Breakdown of Prelitniaary:-C~st Estimates for ReEair of Existieg Structure
BRIDGE N0.94023
MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
BREAKDOWN OF PRELIMINAR Y COST ESTIM ATE FOR
REPAIR OF EXISTING STRUCTURE
ITEM ESTIMATED UNIT
NO. DESCRIPTION OF ITEM QUANTITY PRICE TOTAL
I Repair of Timber Handrails Lump Sum $1,500.00
2 Replace Deteriorated Timber Deck Planks Lump Sum S3.000.00
3 Reinforce Structural Steel Floor Beams 3 each $3,000.00 $9.000.00
4 Replace Deteriorated Timber Pier and South Lump Sum $10,000.00
Abutment Members
5 Reconstruct North Timber Abutment Lump Sum $20,000.00
6 Rock Protection Lump Sum $10,000.00
7 Miscellaneous Approach Works Lump Sum $8,500.00
Sub-Total $62.000.00
Contingencies $6,000.00
Engineering and Resident Inspection $12,000.00
TOTAL PRELIMINARY ESTIMATED REPAIR COST $80,000.00
BRIDGE NO. 98003
MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
BREAKDOWN OF PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE FOR
REPAIR OF EXISTING STRUCTURE
ITEM ESTIMATED UNIT
NO. DESCRIPTION OF ITEM QUANTITY PRICE TOTAL
1 Repair of Timber Handrails Lump Sum $ ],500.00
2 Replace Deteriorated Timber Deck Planks Lump Sum $3,000.00
and Secure Loose Boards
3 Reconstruct Timber Abutments and Lump Sum $16,000.00
Wingwalls
4 Steel Beam Guide Rail 70 m $110.00 $7,700.00
5 Guide Rail End Treatment 4 each $2,000.00 $8,000.00
6 Miscellaneous Approach Works Lump Sum $5,800.00
Sub-Total $42,000.00
Contingencies $4,000.00
Engineering and Resident Inspection $9,000.00
TOTAL PRELIMINARY ESTIMATED REPAIR COST $55,000.00
BRIDGE NO. 99015
MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
BREAKDOWN OF PRELIMINARY COST ESTIM ATE FOR
REPAIR OF EXISTING STRUCTURE
ITEM ESTIMATED UNIT
NO. DESCRIPTION OF ITEM QUANTITY PRICE TOTAL
I Repair of Timber Handrails Lump Sum $2,000.00
2 Replace Deteriorated Timber Deck Planks Lump Sum $6,000.00
and Curbs
3 Miscellaneous A proach Works Lum Sum $4,000.00
Sub-Total $12,000.00
Contingencies $],000.00
Engineering and Resident Inspection $2,000.00
TOTAL PRELIMINARY ESTIMATED REPAIR COST $15,000.00
lJ
L
t
JI
BRIDGE N0.99023
MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
BREAKDOWN OF PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE FOR
REPAIR OF EXISTING STRUCTURE
ITEM ESTIMATED UNIT
NO. DESCRIPTION OF ITEM QUANTITY PRICE TOTAL
1 Removal and Disposal of Existing Steel Lump Sum $2,500.00
Latticed Handrails
2 Removal Of Asphalt from Concrete 75 m' $25.00 $1,875.00
3 Restoration of Concrete Deck 10 m' $600.00 $6,000.00
4 Modification of Deck Expansion Joints Lump Sum $35,000.00
5 Thrie Beam Guide Rail /Pedestrian Rail Lump Sum $6,000.00
on Structure
6 Spall Repair of Concrete Deck Soffit and Lump Sum $5,000.00
Abutments
7 Reface Concrete Wingwalls and Abutment Lump Sum $10,000.00
Footings
8 Clean and Paint Structural Steel Lump Sum $10,000.00
9 Environmental Protection During Coating Lump Sum $10,000.00
10 Asphalt Membrane Waterproofing 75 m~ $35.00 $2,625.00
11 Hot Mix Asphalt 100 tonne $110.00 $11,000.00
12 Steel Beam Guide Rail 100 m $110.00 $11,000.00
13 Guide Rail End Treatment 4 each $2,000.00 $8,000.00
14 Miscellaneous Approach Works Lump Sum $12,000.00
Sub-Total $131,000.00
Contingencies $13,000.DO
Engineering and Resident Inspection $26,000.00
TOTAL PRELIMINARY ESTIMATED REPAIR COST $170,000.00
BRIDGE N0.99045
MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
BREAKDOWN OF PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE FOR
REPAIR OF EXISTING STRUCTURE
ITEM ESTIMATED UN1T
NO. DESCRIPTION OF ITEM QUANTITY PRICE TOTAL
1 Removal and Disposal of Existing Steel Lump Sum $ ?.500.00
Pipe Handrails
2 Partial Reconstruction of West Curb Lump Sum $ ?,000.00
3 Restoration of Concrete Deck 5 m' $ 600.00 $ 3,000.00
4 Thrie Beam Guide Rail /Pedestrian Rail Lump Sum $ 6,000.00
on Structure
5 $pall Repair of Concrete Deck Soffit and Lump Sum $ 3,000.00
Southeast Wingwall
6 Reface Concrete North Abutment Footing Lump Sum $ 5,000.00
7 Dowels into Concrete 8 each $ 500.00 $ 4,000.00
8 Steel Beam Guide Rail 100 m $ 110.00 $ 11,000.00
9 Guide Rail End Treatment 4 each $ 2,000.00 $ 8,000.00
]0 Miscellaneous A proach Works Lump Sum $ 5,500.00
Sub-Total $ 50,000.00
Contingencies $ 5,000.00
Engineering and Resident Inspection $ 10,000.00
TOTAL PRELIMINARY ESTIMATED REPAIR COST $ 65,000.00
APPENDIX D
Municipal fridge Appraisal Sheets
' MUNICIPAL BRIDGE APPRAISAL SHEET 1
A. IDENTIFICATION 6. Bridge Mo. 093003- -
. Control Cade 3•S-UR•95 T. Road Section No. 93113
2. Mmicipal Name/Code 10402 Town of Clarington 8. MTO Site No. 021-0182-
' Bridge Name GRAHAM CREEK BR IDGE
Road Name MILL ST. SOUTH
Location 0.40 kxi S of TORONTO ST REET
.
9. Roadside Ernironment R 13. Posting Sign t t t 16. Lrossi ng Type D-uAT
10. Posting t t t 14. Low Clearance Sign 17. Federal Navigable Waterway N
11. Bylaw No. 15. Marrow Structure Sign 18. Bridge Yalue (5000) 64
12. Bylaw Expiry Date y m
B. R ILWAY OVERPASS UNDERPASS
2 Rai way Level Crossing Number
27. Original Board Order Number
22. Railway Company
23. Railway Subdivision Date y m d
28. Current Board Order Nunber
24. Subdivision Mileage Date y m d
25. Trareport Canada Crossing No. 29. Seniority
26. Nunber of Tracks
C. JURISDICTION
31. Ownership 0 A MUN
38. Local / Area Mv~icipality
U
Ti
O
l
B 35. Boundary Bridge pper
er
n
y)
N (
32. Heritage Status R
33. Special Designation NSD
36. Adjacent Municipality Name/NO. A. 00000
00000 B. 00000
34. Suburban Roads Lommi ssion 37. Adjacent Bridge No. - -
D. EXISTING CONDITIONS
' GENERAL
41. Year Constructed
A. 1930
193D
B
45.
46.
Span Length
Deck Type
7.3 m 50.
CC 51.
Longitudinal Joints
transverse Joints
0
D
42. Bridge Type .
C•TB-F 47. Deck Length 7.9 m 52. Nu~ber Of Bearings 0
43. Crossing Skew -00° 46. Deck Width 7.3 m 53. Soil Condition U
Number Of Spans
44 01 49. Deck Area 58 sm 54. Abutment And Foundation Type C-UN
.
'
ROAD DYER BRIDGE
55. Existing Road Class
500
59.
No. Of Lanes
2 62.
Barrier Walls/ Railings
CB
S6. Operational Status 2W OAT 60. Median Type / Yidth m 63. Minimun Vertical Clearance m
4earing Surface A 61. Safety Curb /
' i ravel Deck Width 6.1 m Sidewalk and A N N O.Om
Curb Barrier 8 N S O.Om
' ROAD UNDER BRIDGE
Road Class
ti
64
E
i
68
Of Lanes
No
71. Traffic Barrier
ng
.
x
s
65. Operational Status .
69. .
Median Type / Width m 72. Mininmm 4ert ical Clearance m
66. Opening Under m 70. Safely Curb /
67. Surface Nidth m Sidewalk and A m
' Curb Barrier B m
TRAFFIC DATA
E TRAFFIC COUNT 10 YEAR TRAFFIC FORECAST
.
8 Legal Speed Limit 50 83. Year A 1986-E 90. Year %
84. AADT 1460 91. AADT 2044
' 82. Route Des ignet ions 85. DNY Factor 00.0 X 92. DHV Factor 0.0 %
86. DNV 0 vph 93. DXV 0.0 vph
Transit N Truck N 87. Trucks 2 % 94. Trucks 2 X
School N Bicyele N 88. Peak Directional Spl it 0 X 95. Capacity 0 vph
' 89. 10 Year Growth Factor 1.40 %. 20 Year AADT 2662
F. APPROVALS
101. Date y 93 m 09 102. Profess ional Engineer Name D L BAXTER
103. Muni ei polity / Conparry TOTTEN SIMS HUBICKI ASSOC
2. Municipality 10402 - Town of Clarington
' Oate Printed - 08/23/95
b. Bridge No. 093003- -
Page 1 of 4
NUNtCI PAL BRIDGE APPRAISAL SHEET 2
G. BRIDGE NEEDS RATING
NCR PLR TIME of NEED
111. Superstructure 4 5 1-5
" - Yearing Surface 5 5 6-10
Deck Condition 4 5 1-5
.. Expansion Joints 0 0 ADED
115. RaiLirgs 4 4 1-5
116. Substructure 4 4 1-5
117. Coating 0 0 ADEQ
118. Streams / Waterways 1 6 NON
H. FUNCTIONAL NEEDS Existing Ni nimum
ROAD OVER Condition Tolerable TIME of NEED
721. Travel Deck Width 6.1 7.5 NOW
122. Level of Service A E ADEQ
123. Min. Vert. Clear. 4.5 ADEQ
124. Sidewalks ADEQ
ROAD UNDER
125. Surface Width ADEQ
126. Level of Service ADEQ
127. Min. Vert. Clear. ADEQ
128. Sidewalks ADEQ
1. ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION
131. Bridge Drawings UNK
132. Engineering Investigations
Type Year Cost(5000)
A DCS 94 5
B LCE 94 5
C
' D
133. Total Cost of Engineering Inves[igat ioru 10
134. Sirs le Posting y m d t
135. Evaluated Posting t t t
Date Y m
Monitoring 2
Closure / Date y m d
J. TYPE 8 TIME OF IMPROVEMENT
141. Design Class RAXU
142. Operat ionsl Status 2W
143. Abutment Type C
144. Design Deck Width 16.5 m
145. Design Deck Length 9.0 m
e b c d e
146. Type of Costing Time of
I~rovement Category Quantity Inprovement [ost(5000)
A RNL PC NOW 195
B PWP BM 1-5 3
C RSP PC 1-5 5
D RSB PC 1.5 10
E EIR PC NW 20
F OTH PC 1-5 10
K. IMPROVEMENT COST
1 7. Construct ian 243
152. Approaches 45
153. Detours
154. Traffic Control/Protection
155. Utilities
156. Other
157. Contingencies 29
156. Total Construction 317
159. Right of Way
160. Engineering Ernirornamtal Assessment (E/A) Study
161. Ergineeri ng Design 8 Supervision 63
162. Total Project Cost 380
163. Eligibility for Subsidy EFS
164. Non•subsidizable Costs Contributing Non-SUbsidizable
Agency Cost
A
g
C
D
165. Total Non-SUbsidi zable Cost 0
166. Subsidizable Cost 380
167. Municipal Percent of Subzidizable Cost t00X
168. Municipal Share of Cost 380
L. H1Si0RY
ENGINEERING INVESTIGATIONS CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS
Type Year
Type Year
171. 181.
172. 182.
173. 183.
174. 184.
175 185.
2. NunicipalitY 10402
Date Printed - 08/23/95
Town of Cleri ngton
b. Bridge No. 093003• -
Page 2 of 4
~~l
I
Ml1N ICI PAI BRIDGE APPRAISAL SHEET 3
M. Remarks
191. Bridge No. 93003 (Graham Lreek~Br idge), MTO Site No. 27-782, Mill
Street South, 0.40 km South of Toronto Street, Municipality of
Clarington:
• 7.3 mY single span concrete bridge, of 7-beam and slab
construction, with a concrete deck and an asphalt wearing
surface.
^ Concrete balustrade handrails are in fair condition with
localized spelling and eracki ng. The east end posts of the
rwrth handrail has separated from the curb.
^ Asphalt wearing surface is in good condition.
^ Concrete deck soffit is in fair condition with localized
cracking, spelling and delaminat ions. Exposed reinforcing steel
bars are corroded.
^ Concrete sidewalk soffit is in generally good condition with
localized cracking.
^ Concrete T•beams are in fair condition with randan cracking,
localized delaminat ions and rust stains.
^ East concrete abutment is in fair condition with diagonal and
vertical cracking fran the first interior T-beam from the north.
A gap of about 5 ma was rested. the abutment is also cracked and
spelled below the north exterior i-beam.
^ west concrete abutment is in generally good condition with mirror
scouring at about the waterline. One area of de lamination was
noted.
^ Concrete wingwells ere in generally good eordit ion with random
cracking and minor scouring at about the waterline.
^ watercourse is urabstructed with no evidence of scour.
^ Roadway enrbenkments ere in poor condition. Concrete rubble and
steel posts have been installed at the end of the northeast
wingwall but are severely undermined and eroded and are
unstable. A retaining well consisting of steel posts and timber
sheeting is located at the end of the southeast wirgwall. The
retaining wall is badly deteriorated and has partially
collapsed. Imminent failure is probable.
^ Asphalt paved approach roads are rn generally good condition
except for settlements end stress croaking in the northeast,
southeast and northwest quadrants adjacent to the bridge.
^ One length of steel beam guiderail with one post is provided in
each quadrant of the bridge. The guiderail is in fair condition
with minor loss of support in the northeast and southwest
quadrants.
^ Structure does not require posting with a load limit.
^ Should monitor roadway embankments to determine the rate of
deterioration and the need for tenryorary improvements.
^ Should replace existing structure an an improved roadway
alignment.
^ Should patch, waterproof and pave the bridge deck, repair
concrete deck soffit, T-lxmnm, abutments end wingwaLLs and
stabilize the roadway embankamnts to maintain the structure in
its existing condition.
^ Requires a deck condition survey and load capacity evaluation if
the structure is to be maintained.
2. Municipality 10402 - Town of Clarirgton
ATE PRINTED - 08/23/95
6. Bridge No. 093003• -
PAGE - 3 of 4
MUMICI PAL BRIDGE APPRAISAL - SREET 1
A 1DENTIFICAT ON 6. Bridge No. 094023-
. Control Code 3-S•UR•95 7. Road Seet ion No. 94329
2. Muniei pal Name/Code 10402 sown of Clarington 8. NTO Site No. 021-0414•
" Bridge Name PROSPECT STREET BOLMANVILLE
Road Name PROSPECT Si.
Location 0.10 km S of ODELL STREET
9. Roadside Envi rorment S 13. Posting Sign 02t t t 16. Crossing Type 0-RVY
10. Posting 02t t t 14. Low Clearance Sign 17. Federal Navigable Yaterway
11. Bylaw No. 0000000 15. Narrow Structure Sign 18. Bridge Value (f000) 659
12. Bylaw Expiry Date y m
8. RAILYAY OVERPASS UNDERPASS
2 . RaI way Leve Crossing Nunber 27. Original Board Order Nunber
22. Railway Company LPR Date y m d
23. Railway Subdivision 016 26. Current Board Order Number
24. Subdivision Mileage 164.12 Dale y m d
25. Transport Canada Crossing No. 19103 29. Seniority RA
26. Nurber of Tracks 1
C. JURISDICTION
31. Ow~rs tp 0 A RYY 38. Local / Area Municipality
8 35. Boundary Bridge N (Upper Tier Only)
32. Xeritage Status R A. 00000
33. Special Designation NSD 36. Adjacent Municipality Name/NO. 00000 B. 00000
34. Suburban Roads Commission 37. Adjacent Bridge No. - -
D. EXISTING LOND IT IONS
GENERAL
41. Year Constructed A. 1920 45. Span Length 76.5 m 50. Longitudinal Joints 0
B. 1920 46. Deck Type YP 51. Transverse Joints 0
42. Bridge Type 0-l B-X 47. Deek Length 39.3 m 52. Number Of Bearings 0
43. Crossing Skew L-30° 48. Deck Yidth 13.7 m 53. Soil Condition U
44. Nuaber Of Spans OS 49. Deck Area 539 sm 54. Abutment And Foundation Type C-UN
ROAD OVER BRIDGE
55. Existing Road Class L/R 59. No. Of Lanes 2 G2. Barrier Yal ls/ Railings 7P
SA. Operational Status 2Y OAT 60. Median Type / Nidth m 63. Ninimun Vert icel Clearance m
Yearing Surface T 61. Safety Curb /
i revel Deck Width 6.7 m Sidewalk end A N E 2.3m
Curb Barrier B N Y 2.3m
' ROAD UNDER BRIDGE
Road Class
Existin
64
68. No. Of Lanes
71.
Traffic Barrier
g
.
65. Operational Status 69. Median Type / Yidth m 72. Min imim Vertical Clearance m
66. Opening Under m 70. Safety Curb /
67. Surface Yidth m Sidewalk and A m
Curb Barrier B m
E. TRAFFIC DATA iRAFFiC COUNT 10 YEAR TRAFFIC FORECAST
8 . Legal Speed Limit 50 83. Year A 1975-E 90. Veer 85
84. AADT 260 91. AADT 336
82. Route Designations 85. DNY Factor 00.0 X 92. DNV Factor 0.0 X
86. DNV 0 vph 93. DXV 0.0 vph
Transit N Truck N 87. Trucks 2 X 94. Trucks 2 X
School N Bicye le N 86. Peak Directional Split 0 X 95. Capacity 0 vph
69. 10 Year Growth Faetor 1.20 %. 20 Year AADT 403
f. APPROVALS
107. Date y 93 m 09 102. Professional Engineer Name D L BAXTER
103. Municipality / Canpany TDTTEN SIMS NUBI CKI ASSOC
a
2. Munici polity 10402
Date Printed - 08/23/95
Town of Clarington
6. Bridge No. 094023- -
Page - 1 of 4
MUNICIPAL BRIDGE APPRAISAL SNEET 2
G. BRIDGE NEEDS RATING
NCR PLR TINE of NEED
111. Superstructure 5 5 6.10
' Yearing Surfaee 4 5 1-5
Deck Condition 4 5 1-5
.. Expansion Joints 0 0 ADEQ
115. Railings 4 5 1.5
116. Substructure 4 4 1.5
117. Coating 3 4 1.5
118. Streams / Waterways 0 0 ADEQ
. N. FUNCTIaIAL NEEDS Exi st irq Ninimm
ROAD OVER Cordit ion Tolerable TIME of MEED
121. Travel Deek Yidth 6.7 6.0 ADEQ
122. Level of Service A E ADEQ
123. Min. Vert. Clear. 4.5 ADEQ
124. Sidewalks Y Y ADEQ
ROAD UNDER
125. Surfaee Mi dth ADED
126. Level of Service ADEO
127. Min. Vert. Clear. ADED
128. Sidewalks ADEO
I. ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION
131. Bridge Drawings
132. Engineering Investigations
Type Year
A LCE 93
B
C
D
133. Total Lost of Engineer irg Investigations
134. Single Posting y m d
135. Evaluated Posting t
Date y
Monitoring
Closure / Date y m d
5
• t
t t
m
J. TYPE & TINE OF IMPROVEMENT
141. Design Class ULLU
142. Operational Status 2u
143. Abutment Type C
144. Design Deck Yidth 11.0 m
145. Design Deck Length 40.0 m
e b c d e
146. Type of Costing Tine of
Improvement Category Quantity I~rovement Cost(5000)
A RSL PC NOW 660
B
L
D
E
F
K. INPROVEM NT COST
1 .Construction 660
752. Approaches 54
153. Detours
154. Traffic Control/Protection
155. Utilities
156. Other
157. Contingencies 36
158. Total Construction 750
159. Right of May
160. Engineering Ernirormental Assessment (E/A) Study
161. Engineering Design 14 Supervision 150
162. Total Project Cost 900
163. Eligibility for Subsidy EFS
164. Non•subsidizable Costs Contributing Non-Subsi di zeble
Agency Cos[
A RYY 135
g
C
D
165. Total Non-Subs idizable Cost 135
166. Subsidizable Cost 765
167. Nunici gel Percent of Subz idizable Cost 100X
166. Municipal Share of Cost 765
L. HISTORY
ENGINEERING INVESTIGATIONS LONSTRUCTI ON IMPROVEMENTS
Type Year
Type Year
171. 181.
172. 182.
173. 163.
174. 184.
175. 185.
UNK
Coct(f000)
5
2. Municipality 10402 - Town of Clarington 6. Bridge No. 094023• -
Date Printed - 08/23/95 Page 2 of 4
MUNICIPAL BRIDGE APPRAISAL SXEET 3
N. Remarks
191. Bridge No. 94023, MTO Site No. 21.414, Prospect Street, 0. TO km South
of O'Dell Street, Tan of Bo^mmrtvi lle, Municipality of Clarington:
^ Structure is posted with a 2 tome load Limit.
^ Five span bridge consisting of a 16.5 mi structural steel girder
main spsn and 5.7 aa: timber girder end spans. The bridge has a
timber plank deck with a timber wearintg surface.
• Timber plank handrails ere in generally gad cadition with
locslized checking srd splitting. Several timbers have been
replaced nesr the north end of the east handrail.
^ Tinber curbs are in fair condition with wide splits end
localized checking.
^ Timber plank sidewalks are in fair to good condition with minor
splitting ertd checking. Several planks are loose.
m Timber plank deck is in fair condition with extents ive checking
and minor splitting. Timber deck soffit is in good condition
with minor staining.
^ Structural steel gi rdere of the main span are in generally good
eondit ion with minor torrosi on and pitting.
^ Timber girders ere in generally good condition with lxalized
checking and splitting.
^ Timber piled abutments are in fair condition with forward
displacetment of the timber piles of the north abutment noted.
Localized areas of rot were also noted.
^ Embankments are in fair condition with erosion.
m No s~riaa: evi derce of structural distress.
^ Should mintain existing 2 torxte load limit posting.
^ Requires a load capacity eve Luation.
^ Should replace existtng bridge to eliminate the load carrying
capacity def iciertry.
2. Municipality 10402 Town of Clarington 6. Bridge No. 094023- -
' DATE PRINTED 08/23/95 PAGE 3 of 4
MUNICIPAL BRIDGE APPRAISAL SHEET 1
A. IDENTIFICATION 6. Bridge No. 094025- -
. Cant ro Lade 3•S•UR-95 7. Road Section No. 94259
2. Municipal Name/Code 10402 Town of Clar ington 8. NTO Site No. 021.0091-
" Bridge Nacre JACIQUIN ROAD BOWIUNY ILLE
Road Mcrae JACKIUM ROAD
Location 0.50 km E of REGIONAL ROAD 57
9. Rosdcide Enviraraaent R 13. Posting Sign OSt t t 16. Crossing Type 0-WAT
10. Posting OS[ t t 14. Low Clearance Sign 17. Federal Navigable Waterway N
11. Bylaw No. 0000000 15. Narrow Structure Sign 18. Bridge Value tS000) 89
12. Bylaw Expiry Date y m
'~ B. RAILWAY OVERPASS UNDERPASS
2 Rai way Lave Crossing N r 27. Original Board Order Number
22. Railway Company Date y m d
23. Railway Subdivision 28. Current Board Order Number
24. Subdivision Mileage Date y m d
25. transport Canada Crossing No. 29. Seniority
26. Number of Tracks
C. JURISDICTION
3 Ownership D
A MUN
38. Local / Area Municipality
B 35. Bourdary Bridge N (Upper Tier Only)
32. Heritage Status R A. 00000
33. Special Designation NSD 36. Adjacent Muniti polity Name/NO. 00000 B. 00000
34. Suburban Roads Cammiss ion 37. Adjacent Bridge No.
D. EXISTING LOND ITIONS
GENERAL
41. Year Constructed
A. 1920
B. 1990
45.
46.
Span Length
Deck Type
18.3 m 50.
TC 51.
Longitudinal Joints
Transverse Joints
0
2
42. Bridge Type S-TM-S 47. Deck Length 16.5 m 52. Nudier Of Bearings 04
43 Crossing Skew -00° 48. Deck Width 4.3 m 53. Soil Condition U
.
44. Number Of Spans 01 49. Deck Area 8D sm 54. Abutment And Foundation Type C•UN
ROAD OVER BRIDGE
55. Existing Road Class 200 59. No. Of Lanes 1 62. Barrier 4alls/ Railings FB
56. Operat tonal Status 2W OAT 60. Median Type / Width m 63. Nininam Vertical Clearance m
Wearing Surface T 61. Safety Curb /
I Travel Deck Width 3.8 m Sidewalk and A N E 0.1m
Curb Barrier B N 4 0.1m
RO AD UNDER BRIDGE
64. Exist irg Road Class 68. No. Of Lanes 71. Traff it Barrier
65. Operat tonal Status 69. Median Type / Width m 72. Ninimun Vertical Clearance m
66. Opening Under m 70. Safety Curb /
~. 67. Surface Width m Sidewalk end A
Curb Barrier B m
m
L^
E. TRAFFIC DATA TRAFFIC COUNT 10 YEAR TRAFFIC FORECAST
81. Legal Speed Limit 50 83. Year A 7975-C 90. Year 85
84. AADT 170 91. AADT 255
82. Route Designations 85. DHV Factor 00.0 X 92. DHY Factor 0.0 %
86. DHV 0 vph 93. DXV 0.0 vph
Transit N Truck N 87. trucks 2 X 94. Trucks 2 X
School N eicyc le N 88. Peak Directional Split 0 X 95. Capacity 0 vph
89. 10 Year Growth Factor 1.50 96. 20 Year AADT 383
F. APPROVALS
1 1. Date y 93 m 09 102. Professional Engineer Name D L BAXTER
103. Municipeli ty / Canpany TOTTEN SIMS NUBILKI ASSOC
2. Municipality 10402 - Town of Clarington
i Date Printed 08/23/95
6. Bridge No. 094025- -
Page - 1 of 4
MUNICIPAL BRIDGE APPRAISAL SHEET 2
G. BRIDGE NEEDS RATING
MCR PCR TIME of NEED
111. Superstructure 5 6 6-10
' Nearing Surface 4 5 1.5
Deck Conditiai 4 5 1.5
.. Expansion Joints 4 5 1.5
115. Railings 5 5 6-10
116. Substructure 4 5 1.5
117. Coat irg 5 5 6.10
118. Streams / Waterways 5 6 6.10
N. FUNCTId1AL NEEDS Existing Minimm
ROAD OVER Condition Tolerable TIME of NEED
727. Travel Deck Yidth 3.8 6.0 NOW
122. Level of Service A E ADEQ
123. Min. Vert. Clear. 4.5 ADEQ
724. Sidewalks ADEQ
RQAD UNDER
125. Surfxe Yidth ADEQ
726. Level of Service ADEQ
127. Min. Vert. Clear. ADEO
728. Sidewalks ADEQ
1. ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION
131. Bridge Drawings UNK
132. Engineering Invest iget ions
Type Year Cost(f000)
A
6
L
D
133. total Cost of Eng ineerirg Investigations 0
134. Single Posting y 93 m 09 d 31 - OS t
135. Evaluated Posting t t t
Dale y m
Monitoring
Closure / Date y m d -
J. TYPE 8 TIME OF IMPROYEMENT
141. Design Class RLNU '.
142. Operational Status 2W
143. Abutment Type C
144. Design Deek Width 10.0 m
145. Design Deck Length 16.5 m
a b c d e
146. Type of Costing Time of
Improvement Category Quantity Improvement Cost(f000)
A RNL PC NOW 245
g
C
D
E
F
K. IMPRWEMENT COST
1
d{ traction-
Co Z45
152. Approaches 48
153. Detours
154. Traffic Control/Protection
155. Utilities
156. Other
157. Contingencies 15
158. Total Construction 308
159. Right of Way 5
160. Engineering Environmental Assessment (E/A) Study
161. Engineering Design & Supervision 62
162. Total Project Cost 375
163. Eligibility for Subsidy EFS
164. Non-subsidi zeble Costs Contributing Non-Subsidizable
Agency Cosi
A
R
C
D
165. Total Non-SUbsidizable Cost 0
166. Subsidi zable Cost 375
167. Municipal Percent of Subzi di zable Cost 100X
166. NunicipeL Share of Cost 375
L. HISTORY
ENGINEERING INVESTIGAT[ONS CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS
Type Year
Type Year
777. 181.
172. 182.
173. 183.
174. 184.
175. 185.
2. Municipality 70402 Town of Clarington 6. Bridge No. 094025- -
r Date Printed - 08/23/95 Page 2 of 4
MINI CIPAL BRIDGE APPRAISAL SHEET 3
N. Reaierks
191. Bridge No. 94025, Ni0 Site No. 21-91, Jackman Road, 0.50 km East of
Regional Road No. 57, Town of Bowmamille, Municipality of
Clerington:
^ Structure is posted with a 5 tome load limit.
^ 18.3 ^rt single span double single bailey bridge with a tuber
deck and a timber wearirp surface.
^ Steel beam guidereil over the structure and on the approaches is
in fair condition with collision damage.
^ Timber curbs are in fair condition vith collision damage,
splitting end check irg.
^ Timber deck is in fair condition with checking and splitting.
Minor wear and localized rot were also rated.
^ Structural steel bailey bridge components are in good condition.
^ Concrete atwtm^ents are in fair to good condition with scaling
end localized spells.
^ Concrete wi ngwal is are in fair condition with scaling and
cracking.
^ Watercourse is unobstructed with ra evidence of scour.
^ Roadway embankments are in Hood condition.
^ Asphalt paved approach roads are in generally good condition
with minor cracking.
^ No serious evidence of structural distress.
^ Should maintain existing 5 tame load limit posting.
^ Should replace existing structure to eliminate the deck width
and load tarrying capacity def ieient ies.
2. Municipality 10402 - Town of Clarington 6. Bridge No. 094025-
DATE PRINTED 08/23/95 PAGE - 3 of 4
MUNICIPAL BRIDGE APPRAISAL - SWEET 1
A. lDENTIF CATION 6. Bridge No. 098003•
. Contro Code 3'$•UR-95 7. Road Section No. 98001
2. Munieipal Name/Lode 10402 Town of Clarington 8. NTO Site No. 021-0183-
' Bridge Name LOi 22/23 CONC B CLARKE
Road Nente LAKESNORE RD.
Location 1.00 kai S of CONCESSION B/1
9. Roadside Environment R 13. Posting Sign 09t t t 16. Grassing Type 0-RYY
10. Posting 09t t t 14. Low Clearance Sign 17. Federal Navigable Waterway
11. Bylaw No. 0000000 15. Narrow Structure Sign 18. Bridge Value (5000) 355
12. Bylaw Expiry Date y m
8. RAILWY OVERPASS / UNDERPASS
21. Railway Level Crosstrtg Number 27. Original Board Order Number
22. Railway Company CNR Dete y m d
23. Railway Subdivision 495 28. Current Board Order Number
24. Subdivision Mileage 264.30 Date y m d
25. Transport Canada Crossing No. 8228 29. Seniority RA
26. Number of Tracks 2
C. JURISDICTION
3 Ownersh tp 0 A MUN 38. Local / Area Munici polity
B 35. Bourdary Bridge N (Upper Tier Only)
32. Heritage Status R A. 00000
33. Special Designation NSD 36. Adjacent Mtnitipel ity Name/NO. 00000 B. 00000
34. Suburban Roads Commission 37. Adj aeent Bridge No.
D. E%ISTING CONDITIONS
GENERAL
41. Year Constructed A. 1940 45. Span Length 12.9 m 50. Longitudinal Joints 0
B. 1940 46. Deck Type TP 51. Transverse Joints 0
42. Bridge Type 0-IB-C 47. Deck Length 45.3 m 52. Number Of Bearings 0
43. Crossing Skew -00° 46. Deck Yidth 6.4 m 53. Soil Condition U
44. Number Of Spans 09 49. Deck Area 290 sm 54. Abutment And Fourdet ion Type C-UN
ROAD WER BRIDGE
55. Existing Road Class 200 59. No. Of Lanes 2 62. Barrier Walls/ Railings TP
56. Operational Status 2Y OAT ti0. Nedien Type / Width m G3. Minimum Vertical Cl earence m
Yearing Surface T 67. Safety Curb /
Travel Deck Width 5.7 m Sidewalk and A N E O.Om
Curb Barrier B N Y O.Om
ROAD UNDER BRIDGE
64. Existing Road Class 68. No. Of Lanes 71. Traffic Barrier
65. Operational Status 69. Median Type / Width m 72. Minimun Vertical Clearance m
66. Opening Under m 70. Safety Curb /
67. Surface Width m Sidewalk erd A m
Lurb Barrier B m
E. iRAFFIL DATA
81. Legal Speed Limit
80 TRAFFIC LW NT
83. Year
A 1994•L 10 YEAR TRAFFIC FORECAST
90. Year
04
84. AADT 165 91. AAD7 198
82. Route Des igrtet ions 85. DNV Factor
86. DNV 00.0 %
0 vph 92. DHV Factor
93. DXV D.0
0.0 X
vph
Transit N Truck N 87. Trucks 2 % 94. Trucks 2 X
Sehaol N Bicycle N 88. Peak Directional Split 0 % 95. Capacity 0 vph
89. 10 Year Growth Factor 1.20 96. 20 Year AADT 240
F. APPROVALS
101. Date y 93 m 09 102. Professional Engineer Name D L BAXTER
103. Nunic ipelity / Company TOTTEN SINS HUBICKI ASSOC
2. Municipati ty 10402 Town of Clarington 6. Bridge No. 098003- -
~Date Printed 08/23/95 Page 1 of 4
t MURICIPAL BRIDGE APPRAISAL SHEET 2
.~
G. BRIDGE NEEDS RATING
MLR PCR TIME of NEED
111. Superstructure 5 5 6.10
' Wearing Surface 4 5 1.5
Deck Carditien 4 5 1.5
.. Expansion Joints 0 0 ADEO
115. Railings 4 5 7.5
116. Subetrueture 3 4 1-5
117. Coating 0 0 ADED
118. Streams / Waterways 0 0 ADEO
N. FUNCTIONAL NEEDS Existing Minimum
ROAD OVER Condition Tolerable TIME of 'NEED
121. Travel Deck Width 5.7 6.5 NON
122. Level of Service A E ADEw
123. Nin. Vert. Clear. 4.5 ADEO
124. Sidewalks ADEO
ROAD UNDER
125. Surface Width
126. Level of Service
127. Min. Vert. Clear.
128. Sidewalks
ADED
ADED
ADEO
ADEO
UNK
Cost(5000)
A
B
C
D
133. Total Cost of Engineering Investigations 0
134. Single Posting y m d - t
135. Evaluated Posting S t 6 t 16 t
Date y 89 m 08
Monitoring
. Closure / Date y m d -
J. TYPE 8 TIME OF 1NPROVEMENT
141. Design Class RLNU
742. Operational Stetuc 2W
143. Abutment Type p
744. Design Deck Width 70.0 m
745. Design Deck Length 46.0 m
a b c d e
146. Type of Costing Time of
improvement Category Duentity Improvement Cost(5000)
A RSL PC NOW 650
B RIR PC 1.5 1
C RSB PC 1-5 10
D ]AG BN 4 NOW 11
E
F
K. IMPROVEMENT COST
1 .. Cons~ion 672
152. Approaches 48
153. Detours
154. Traffic Control/Protection
155. Utilities
156. Other
157. Contingencies 72
158. ToteL Construction 792
159. Right of May
760. Engineering EnvirorNnental Assessment (E/A) Study
761. Engineering Design 8 Supervision 158
162. Total Project Cost 950
163. Eligibility for Subsidy EFS
164. Non•subs idizable Costs Contributing Nen-SUbs idizable
Agency Cost
A RWY 143
B
C
D
165. Total Non-Subsidizable Cost 143
166. Subsidizeble Cost 807
167. Municipal Percent of Subzidi zable Cost t00X
168. Municipal Share of Cost 807
L. HISTORY
ENGINEERING INVESTIGATIONS CONSTRUCTION INPROVEMENTG
Type Year
771. LCE 89 t81. Type Year
172. 182.
' 173. 183.
174. 184.
175. 185.
I. ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION
131. Bridge Drawings
132. Engineering Investigations
Type Year
2. Munici polity 10402 - Town of Clarington 6. Bridge No. 098003• -
Date Printed - 08/23/95 Page 2 of 4
MUNICIPAL BRIDGE APPRAISAL SHEET 3
M. Remarks
191. Bridge No. 98003, MTO Site No. 21.183, Lakeshore Rosd, 7.00 km South
of Concesaiorre B & 1, Lots 22 & 23, Concession B, Former Clarke,
Municipality of Clarington:
^ Structure is posted with a 9 tome load limit.
^ Nine span (2 B 3.2 mt; 2 B 4.2 ms:; 4 8 4.7 ms:; 1 g 12.9 na)
bridge. The bridge consists of a structural steel girder mein
span and timber girder approach spans. Bridge has a timber
plank deck with a timber wearing surface.
• Timber plank handrails are in generally good condition with
localized checking arcl splitting. One handrail post on the
southwest wingwall is damaged.
^ Timber curbs are in generally good condition with loeali zed
checking and splitting.
^ umber plank deck ie in fair condition with checking and
splitting and localized rot.
^ Timber deck soffit is in good condition.
^ Structural steel girders are in generally good condition with
minor corrosion.
• Timber girders are in generally good condition with minor
checking.
^ Timber pier bents are in good condition.
Timber crib abutments and wi ngwal is are in poor to fair
condition with splitting and checking and localized rot.
Shifting of the wi ngwall in the southeast quadrant was noted.
^ Embankments are in good condition.
^ Asphalt paved approach roads are in generally good condition
with minor rutting and ravelling.
^ No traffic protection is provided on the bridge approaches.
^ Should post strutture with a load limit of L1=5 tames; L2=6
tomes; L3=16 tonnes.
^ Should replace existing structure to eliminate the deck width
and load carrying capacity deficiencies.
^ Should repair timber handrail and south timber crib abutment and
install steel beam 9uiderail on the bridge approaches to
maintain the structure in its existing condition.
2. Municipality 10402 - Town of Claringtan
DATE PRINTED 08/23/95
b. Bridge No. 098003•
PAGE - 3 of 4
MUNICIPAL BRIDGE APPRAISAL SNEET 1
. IDENTIFICATION o. er wye .... ..
Road Section No. 98483
7
. Contro C 3-S•UR•95
Municipal Name/Code 10402 - Town of Clarington .
8. NTO Site No. 021.0385-
8ridge Name CPR BRIDGE LOT 2/3 CdIC B CLARKE
Road Name NICNOLS RD.
i. Location t. 10 kn S of CONCESSION 8/1 02t
Posting Sign
R 13 t t 16. Crossing Type 0-RWY
9. Roadside Envi ronatent
02t t t
i .
14. Low Clearance Sign - 17. Federal Navigable Waterway
ng
10. Post
11. Bylaw Mo. 0000000 15. Narrow Structure Sign 18. Bridge Value (5000) 171
12. Bylaw Expiry Date y e
RAILVAY ERPASS UN RPASS
B b
.
b er
27, prjgi nel Board Order Num
er
21. Rat way Leve Crosstnp Num Date y m d
22. Railway Company - CPR
016 28. Current Board Order Number
23. Railway St6dt vi stun
24. Suhdivtsion Mileage 150.35
1908 Date y m d
29. Seniority RA
25. Transport Caroda Crossing Mo. ;
26. Number of Tracks
C. JURISDICTION
3 Ownersh tp 0 A IN)N 38. Local / Aree Municipality
i
l
g 35. Baurdary Bridge er On
y)
pO r T
N
R A. O
32. Heritage Status
Special Designation NSD
33 36. Adjacent Municipality Name/NO . 00000 B. 00000
.
34. Suburban Roads Commtssian 37. Adjacent Bridge No.
D. EXISTING COND IiIONS
GENERAL
41. Year Constructed A. 1940
1940
B
45. Span Length 6.0 m
46. Deck Type WP
50. Longitudinal Joints 0
51. Transverse Joints 0
. 25
6 Number Of Bearings 0
52
42. Bridge Type T•IB•C m
.
47. Deck Length
h .
o
d
43. Croesirtg Skew ~
Number Of Spans
44 182 sm
49. Deck Aree Fourdet ion Type 0-UN
And
54. Alwtment
.
ROAD OVER BRIDGE
Existing Road Class 100
55
59. No. Of Lanes 2
62. Barrier Nalls/ Railings TP
.
' Operational Status 2W MT 60. Median Type / Width m 63. Mininun Vertical Clearance m
Jeartng Surface T
7 m
k Width 6
l 61. Safety Curb /
Sidewalk and A N E O.tm
.
Dec
Trave Curb Barrier 8 N W 0.2m
ROAD UNDER BRIDGE
64. Existi ngROad Class
68. No. Of Lanes
Median Type / Wi d[h
69
71. Traffic carrier
m 72. Mininun Vertical Clearance m
65. Operational Sta[us
66. Opening Order m .
70. Safety Curb /
67. Surface Width m Sidewalk and A
Curb Barrier 8 m
m
TRAFFIC DATA
E TRAFFIC LWNT 10 YEAR TRAFFIC FORECAST
04
.
81. Legg( Speed limit 80 83. Year A 1994-C 90. Year
84. AADT 20 91. AADT 20
DNY Factor 0.0 X
0 X 92
00
82. Route Designations 85. DNV Factor .
.
0 vph 93. DNV 0.0 vph
Transit N Truck N 86. DXV
87. irueks 2 X 94. Trucks 2 X
v
h
School M Bicycle N 89. 10aYearrOrowthfactort p
1.00 X 96. 20pYearyAADT 20
. F. APPROVALS
101. Date y 93 m o9 102. Professional Engineer Name D L BA%TER
103. Municipality / Loitparry TOTTEN SINS NUBICKI ASSOL
2. Municipality 10402 - Town of Clarington
Date Printed - 08/23/95
i~
ii
6. Bridge No. 098011- -
Page 1 of 4
i~
M1111 CIPAL BRIDGE APPRAISAL SXEET 2
G. BRIDGE NEEDS RATING
NCR PCR TIME of NEED
ttt. Superstructure 5 5 6.10
Nearing Surface 4 5 1-5
Deck Condition 4 5 t•5
.. Expens ion Joints 0 0 ADEg
115. Railings 5 5 6-10
176. Substructure 5 5 6.10
117. Coating 0 0 ADED
118. Streeam / Yeterweys 0 0 ADEg
N. FUNCTIONAL NEEDS Exist irg Miniasan
ROND OVER Condition Tolersble T[ME of NEED
121. Travel Deek Yidth 6.7 6.0 ADED
722. Level of Service A E ADEg
123. Min. Vert. Clear. 4.5 ADEg
124. Sidewalks ADEg
ROAD UNDER
725. Surface Yidth ADEg
726. Level of Service ADEg
727. Min. Vert. Clear. ADEg
128. Sidewalks ADEg
J TYPE & TIME OF IMPROVEMENT
747. Design Class
142. Operat iorel Status
143. Abutnent Type
164. Design Deek Yidth m
145. Design Deck Length m
a b c d e
746. Type of Costing Time of
Improvement Category quantity Improvement Lost(
A
8
C
D
E
F
K. IMPROVEMENT LOST
7 .Construction 0
152. Approaches
153. Detours
154. traffic Control/Protection
155. Utilities
156. other
157. Contingencies D
158. Total Construction 0
159. Right of Way
160 Engineering Envirartnental Assessment (E/A) Study
1 ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION
737. Bridge Drawings UNK
132. Engineering Investigations
Type Year Cost(5000)
A
B
C
D
133. Total Cost of Engineering ]melt i9at ions 0
134. Single Posting y m d t
735. Eva lusted Posting 7 t 8 t 21 t
Date Y 93 m 08
Monitoring
. Closure / Date y m d -
161. Engineering Design 8 Supervision 0
162. Total Project Lost 0
163. Eligibility for Subsidy EFS
164. Non•subsidizable Costs Contributing Non-Subsidi zable
Agency Cost
A
B
C
D
165. Total Non-Subs idizable Cost 0
166. Subeidi zable Cost 0
167. Municipal Percent of Subzidi zable Lost 1DOX
166. Municipal Share of Lost O
L. HISTORY
ENGINEERING INVESTIGATIONS CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS
Type Year
Type Year
771. 181.
17z. 1BZ.
173. 183.
174. 1~'
175. 185.
II
2. Municipality 70402 - Town of Clarington
Date Printed - 08/23/95
6. Bridge No. 098011•
Page 2 of 4
i~
i~
MUNICIPAL BRIDGE APPRAISAL SBEET 3
M. Renmrks
191. Bridge Mo. 98011, NTO Site No. 21.385, Nicholc Road, 1.10 km South of
Concessions B & I, Lots 2 L 3, Concession B, Former Clarke,
Municipality of Llarington:
^ Structure is posted with a 2 tome load limit.
^ Five span (4.5 mt; 4.8 m!; 6.0 ~; 4.9 mf; 5.3 mt) timber girder
bridge with a timber plank deck and a tinter wearing surfxe.
^ Ti der plank handrails are in generally good condition with
localized aplitt irg and checking.
^ Timber eurbc are in good condition.
^ Timber plank deck is in generally 9~d condition with apti tt ing
and checking.
^ Timber girders are in generally good condition with localized
checking.
^ Tinter pier bents are in generally good condition with localized
splits and cheeks.
^ Tidier abutments ere in generally good coMition with localized
splitting.
^ Embankments are in good condition.
^ Gravel approach roods are in fair condition.
^ No traffic protection is provided on the bridge approaches.
^ No serious evidence of st ruetural distress.
^ Should post et ructure with a load limit of L1=7 tarvxs; L2~
tomes; L3=21 tames.
2. Municipality 10402 -sown of Clarington 6. Bridge No. 098011- -
' DATE PRINTED - 08/23/95 PAGE - 3 of 4
MUNICIPAL BRIDGE APPRAISAL SHEET 1
' A. IDENTIFICATION
1. CmtroT Cor7e 3'S-UR-95
i b. an age ao. urou ~.a- -
7. Road Section No. 98483
B. MTO Site No. 021.0387-
ngton
Municipal Name/Code 10402 Town of Cler
3ridpe Name CMR BRIDGE LOT 2/3 CONC 8 CLARKE
Road Napie NICXOLS RD.
7. Location 1.10 km S of CONCESSION B/I
Posting Sign t
t R 13
t t 16. Crossing Type 0•RWY
9. Roadside Envi rormtm
Posting t t t
10 .
14. Low Clearance Sign 17. Federal Navtg~ble Waterway
.
11. Bylaw No. 15. Narrow Structure Sign 18. Bridge Value (5000) 198
12. Bylaw Expiry Dste y m
~ RAILYAY OVERPASS UNDERPASS
B
. .
Beltway Leve Crosstng Nudxr
2 27. Original Board Order Nunber
d
.
22. Rai lwey Coatpsrry CNR
495 Date y m
26. Current Board Order Number
23 Railway Subdivisim 06
279 Date y m d
24. Subdivision Mileage
25. Transport Canada Crossing No. .
8221 29. Seniority
26. Number of Tracks 2
. JURISDICTION
3 Owners ip 0 A MUN 36. Local / Area Municipality
i
l
B 35. Bourdary Bridge er On
y)
N (Upper T
32. Heritage Status R
33. Special Designs[ ion NSD
36. Adjacent Municipality Name/No A. 00000
. 00000 B. 00000
34. Suburban Roads Coamissi at 37. Adj semi Bridge No.
D. E%1 STING CONDITIONS
GENERAL
41. Year Constructed A. 1940
45. Span Length 9.8 m
50. Longitudinal Joints 0
0
i
' 1940
B 46. Deck Type WP nts
51. Transverse Jo
.
42. Bridge Type T-18•C 47. Deck Length 34.3 m 52. Number Of Bearings 0
U
43. Crossing Skew •00°
OS 48. Deck Yidth 6.1 m
Deck Area 210 sm
49 53. Soil Condition
54. Abutment And Fourdetiat Type 0-UN
44. Huber Of Spans .
ROAD OVER BRIDGE
Existing Road Class 100
55
59. No. Of Lanes 2
62. Barrier Walls/ Railings TP
.
Operat ionel Status 2W OAT 60. Median Type / Width m 63. Minitnun Vertical Clearance m
Jeartng Surface T 61. Safety Curb /
Travel Deck Width 5.7 m Sidewalk and A N E O.tm
. Curb Barrier B N W 0.2m
ROAD UNDER BRIDGE
64. Existing Road Class
68. No. Of Lanes
71. Traffic Barrier
m
l
i
l
65. Operational Status 69. Median Type / Width earance
ea
C
m 72. Ninitnun Vert
66. Opening Under m 70. Safety Curb /
67. Surface Wtdth m Sidewalk and A m
Curb Barrier B m
E. TRAFFIC DATA TRAFFIC COUNT 10 YEAR TRAFFIC FORECAST
04
8 . Legal Speed Limit 80 83. Year A 1994-C 90. Year
20
64, MDT 20 91. AADT
82. Route Designations 85. DXV Factor 00.0 % 92. DXV Factor 0.0 X
DXV 0.0 vph
0 vph 93
Transit N Truck M 86. DHV
87. Trucks .
2 X 94. Trucks 2 %
0 v
h
C
i
95
School N Bicycle N 88. Peek Directional Split p
apac
ty
0 X
.
AADT 20
89. 10 Year Growth Factor 1.00 96. 20 Year
F. APPROVALS
1 1. Date y 93 m 09 102. Professional Engineer Name D L BA%TER
. 103. Municipality / Company iOTTEN SINS HUBICKI ASSOC
2. Municipality 10402
Date Printed - 08/23/95
Tan of Clerington
b. Bridge No. 098013- -
Page - 1 of 4
t MINA CIPAL BRIDGE APPRAISAL SNEET 2
G. BRIDGE NEEDS RATING
MCR PCR TIME of NEED
111. Superstructure 5 5 6.10
' Wearing Surface 4 5 1.5
Deck Condition 4 5 1.5
.. Expansion Joints 0 0 ADED
115. Railings 4 5 1-5
116. Substructure 4 5 1.5
177. Coating 0 0 ADEg
118. Streams / Waterways 0 0 ADEg
X. FUNCTIONAL NEEDS Existing Minimum
ROAD OVER Condition Tolerable TIME of NEED
121. Travel Deek Width 5.7 6.0 NON
122. Level of Service A E ADEg
123. Min. Vert. Clear. 4.5 ADEg
124. Sidewalks ADEG
ROAD UNDER
125. Surface Nidth ADEg
726. Level of Service ADEg
727. Min. Vert. Llear. ADEg
128. Sidewalks ADEg
I. ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION
131. Bridge Drawings UMK
132. Engineering Investigations
Type Year Lost(5000)
A
8
C
D
133. Total Coat of Engineering Invest illations 0
134. Single Posting y m d - t
135. Evaluated Posting 7 t 8 t 21 t
Date y 93 m OB
Monitoring
. Closure / Date y m d -
J. TYPE 8 TIME OF IMPROVEMENT
141. Design Llass
142. Operational Status
143. Abutment Type
144. Design Deek Width m
145. Design Deek Length m
a b c d e
146. Type of Costing Time of
Improvement Category quantity Improvement Cost(5000)
A
B
C
D
E
F
K. IMPROVEMENT COST
1 .Construction 0
152. Approaches
753. Detours
154. Traffic Control/Protection
755. Utilities
156. Other
157. Lont ingenues 0
158. Total Construction 0
159. Right of Way
160. Engineering Envi rormental Assessment (E/A) Study
767. Engineering Design 8 Supervision 0
762. Total Project Lost 0
763. Eligibility for Subsidy EFS
164. Non•subsidizable Losts Lont ribut ing Non•Subs idizable
Agency Cost
A
B
C
D
165. Total Non•Subsi dizable Cost 0
166. Subsidizable Cost 0
167. Municipal Percent of Subzidi zable Cost 100X
166. Municipal Share of Cost 0
L. XI STORY
ENGINEERING INVESTIGATIONS CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS
Type Year
TYPe
171. 181.
1 n • 182.
175. 183.
174. 1~•
175, 185.
2. Nunicipel7ty 10402 sown of Clarington
r Dete Printed 08/23/95
Year
6. Bridge No. 098013-
Page 2 of 4
MUNICIPAL BRIDGE APPRAISAL - SNEET 3
N. Remarks
'91. Bridge No. 98013, NTO Site No. 27.387, Nichols Road, 7.10 km South of
Coneeseiane B 8 ), Lots 2 8 3, Concession B, Former Clarke,
Municipality of Clarinptm:
^ Structure is not posted with a load limit.
^ Five span (6.7 nd; 5.2 st; 9.8 mt; 6.1 mt; 6.2 mt) timber girder
bridge with a ti^bar plank deck aid timber wearing surface.
^ 7i^iber plank Aardrei is are in fair to good condition with
localized splitting and checking. Mi mr rot was also rated.
^ umber curbs are in generally good condition with localized
splitting.
^ Timber plank deck is in fair to good condition with localized
splitt irg and checking. Localized rat was also noted.
^ Timber deck soffit is in good condition with minor water
staining.
^ Timber pier bents are in generally good condition with localized
splitting and checking.
^ Ti^ber abutnente srd wirgwalls are in generally good condition
with loceli zed rot.
^ Embankments are in 9aod condition.
^ Gravel approach roads are in fair condition.
^ No traffic protection is provided on the bridge approaches.
• No serious evidence of structural distress.
^ Structure should be posted with a load limit of L7=7 tonnes;
L2=8 tonnes; L3=21 Lomas.
Municipality 10402 Town of Clar ington
ATE PRINTED - 08/23/95
6. Bridge No. 098013- -
PAGE - 3 of 4
i~
MUNICIPAL BRIDGE APPRAISAL SXEET 1
A ID NTIFICAT ON
. Contro Code 3•S•UR•95
2. Municipal Name/Code 10402 Town of CLarington
Bridge Name LOT 4/5 CONC 11 DARLINGTON
Road Name PROVIDENCE RD.
. Location 0.80 kIA N of CONCESSION ST EAST
9. Roadside Envirornent R 13. Posting Sign
10. Posting t t t 14. Low Clearance Sign
11. Bylaw No. 15. Narrow Structure Sign
12. Bylaw Expiry Dale y m
B. RAILWAY OVERPASS NDERPA55
2 . Railway Leve Crossing Nmmber
22. Railway Company CPR
23. Railway Subdivision 016
24. Subdivision Mileage 161.84
25. Transport CarvwJa Crossing No. 19098
26. Number of Tracks 1
6. Bridge No. 099015-
7. Road Section No. 99629
B. NTO Site No. 021.0384-
t t t 16. Crossing type 0•RNY
17. Federal Navigable Waterway
18. Bridge Value (5000) 257
27. Original Board Order Number
Date y m d
28. Current Board Order Number
Date y m d
29. Seniority RA
C. JURISD ICTSON
3 Ownership
0 A RNY
38. Local / Area Munici polity
B 35. Bomxdary Bridge N (Upper Tier Only)
32. Xeri tape Status
33. Special Designet ion R
NSD
36. Adjacent Municipality Name/NO A. 00000
. 00000 B. 00000
34. Suburban Roads CoamU Salon 37. Adj scent Bridge No.
I
D. E%ISTING CONDITIONS
GENERAL
Year Constructed
41
A. 1920
45. Span Length 6.2 m
50. Longitudinal Joints
0
. B. 1920 46. Deck Type NP 51. Transverse Joints 0
' 42. Bridge Type T•IB-C 47. Deck Length 28.7 m 52. Number Of Bearings 0
43. Crossing Skew R•20° 48. Deck Width T.3 m 53. Soil Condition U
44. Number Of Spans OS 49. Deck Area 210 sm 54. Abutment Ard Foundation Type C•UN
ROAD OVER BRIDGE
55. Existing Road Class
200
59. No. Of Lanes 2
62. Barrier Walls/ Railings
TP
5R. Operational Status 2V OAT 60. Median type / Yidth m 63. Minimum Vertical Clearance m
Yearing Surface T 61. Safety Curb /
Travel Deck width 6.5 m Sidewalk and A N E 0.4m
Curb Barrier 8 N 4 0.4m
ROAD UNDER BRIDGE
64. Existing Road Class
68. Mo. Of Lanes
71. Traffic Barrier
65. Operat ionel Status 69. Median Type / Width m 72. Minimum Vertical Clearance m
66. Opening Under m 70. Safety Curb /
67. Surface Width m Sidewalk and A m
Curb Barrier B m
10 YEAR TRAFFIC FORECA ST
E. TRAFFIC DATA TRAFFIC COUNT
81. Legal Speed Limit 80 83. Year A 1994-C 90. Year 04
84. AADT SO 91. AADT 75
82. Route Designations 85. DXV Factor 00.0 X 92. DXV Factor 0.0 X
86. DXY 0 vph 93. DHV 0.0 vph
Transit N Truck N 8T. Trucks 2 X 94. Trucks 2 X
School N Bicycle N 88. Peak Direct ionel Split 0 X 95. Capacity 0 vph
89. 10 Year Growth Factor 1.50 96. 20 Year AADT 110
F. APPROVA S
1 1. Date y 93 m 09
102. Professional Engineer Name D L BAXTER
103. Municipality / Company TOTTEN SIMS XUBI CKI ASSOC
2. Mmniei polity 10402
Date Printed 08/23/95
Town of Clarirgtan
b. Bridge No. 099015- -
Page - 1 of 4
i~
MUNICIPAL BRIDGE APPRAISAL - SHEET 2
G. BRIDGE NEEDS WTIN
MCR PCR TIME of NEED
111. Superstructure 5 5 6-10
Nearing Surface 4 4 1-5
Deck Condition 4 4 1-5
.. Expansion Joints 0 0 ADEO
115. Rail irgs 4 4 1.5
116. Substructure 5 5 6.10
117. Coating 0 0 ADEg
718. Streaac / Naterways 0 0 ADED
X. FUNCTIOIIAL NEEDS Existing Ninimm
ROAD OVER Corxiition tolerable TIME of NEED
121. Travel Deck Nidth 6.5 6.0 ADEO
122. Level of Service A E ADEO
123. Min. Vert. Clear. 4.5 ADEO
124. Sidewalks ADEO
ROAD UNDER
125. Surface Nidth TIDED
126. Level of Service ADED
127. Nin. Vert. Clear. ADED
128. Sidewalks ADED
I. ENGINEERING RECpWENDATION
131. Bridge Drawings UNK
132. Engineering Investigations
Type Year Cost(f000)
A
B
C
D
133. total Cost of Engineering Investigations 0
134. Single Posting Y m d - t
135. Evaluated Poet ing 12 t 19 t 26 t
Date Y 89 m OB
Monitoring
Closure / Date y m d -
J. TYPE & TIME OF IMPROVEMENT
141. Design Class
142. Operational Status
143. Abutment type
144. Design Deck Nidth m
145. Design Deek Length m
a b c d e
146. Type of Costing Time of
Improvement Category Duentity Improvement CostCS000)
A CDR BN 1.5 57
8 RCS PC 1.5 5
C RIR PC 1-5 1
D IAG BM 4 NW 11
E
F
K. IMPROVEMENT COST
1 1. Construe[ ion 74
152. Approaches 7
153. Detours
154. Traffic Control/Protection
155. Utilities
156. Other
157. Contingencies 8
158. Total Construction 89
159. Right of May
160. Engineering Envi rormentaL Assessment (E/A) Study
161. Engineering Design 8 Supervision 18
162. Total Project Cost 107
163. Eligibility for Subsidy Ef5
164. Non-subs idizable Costs Contributing Non-Subsidizable
Agency Cost
A RNY 16
B
C
D
165. total Non-SUbsi dizable Lost 16
166. Subsidixeble Cost 91
167. Municipal Percent of Subzidizable Cost 100X
168. Municipal Share of Cost 91
L. HISTORY
ENGINEERING INYESTI WTIONS CONSTRUCTION INPROYENENTS
Type Year
Type Year
171. LCE 89 181.
172. 182.
173. 183.
174. 1 ~
175. 185.
i~
2. Nunic ipelity 10402 - Town of Clarington
Date Printed - 08/23/95
6. Bridge No. 099015- -
Page 2 of 4
i~
MUNICIPAL BRIDGE APPRAISAL - sXEET 3
M R r s
79t. Bridge No. 99075, NTO Site No. 27.384, Providence Road, 0.80 km North
of Concession Street East, Lots 4 8 5, Concession I1, Former
Darlington, Municipality of Claringtan:
^ Structure is not posted with a load limit.
^ Five span (28.7 as total) tuber girder bridge with a timber
plank deck and timber wearing surface.
^ Timber plank handrails are in fair condition with splitting and
checking of [he timber mcmbers. Several sections of railing are
missing over the mein span srd at the north end of the west
handrail.
^ Tuber curbs are in fair condition with extensive splitting and
checking. Localized collision dm^age and deterioration were
also noted.
^ Timber plonk deck is in fair condition with checking, splitt irg
and localized rot.
^ Timber deck soffit is in good condition.
^ Timber girders are in generally good condition with localized
checking end splitting.
• T uber pier bents are in generally good condition with localized
' checking and splitting.
^ Timber abutments are in good condition.
^ Embankments are in good condition.
• Gravel approach roads are in generally good condition with minor
rutting.
^ No traff is protection is provided on the bridge approaches.
^ No serious evidence of structural distress.
^ should post structure with a load limit of L1=72 torvxs; L2=19
tomes; L3=26 tomes.
^ Should replete tinter plank deck and curbs, repair timber plank
handrails and install steel beam guiderail on the bridge
approaches.
2. Municipality
70402 - town of Clrlington
'DATE PRINTED 08/23/95
i~
i~
6. Bridge No. 099015• -
PAGE - 3 of 4
11
ININ ICIPAL BRIDGE APPRAISAL - SHEET T
~~t_ .
A. ID NTIFICATION ~ ~'~ ~~•
Road Seet lon No. 99529
7
. Contro Code 3.5-UR-95
2. M~nieipal Name/Code 10602 Town of Clarington .
8. MTO Site No. 021-0092-
Bridge Nmne
E
I
W
W LOT 16 CONC IY
RD
S000OG
O
I.D
coed Name
. Location 1.00 km S of REGIONAL RD 4
Posting Sign tOt
R 13 0-WAT
t t ~~
v g
lg
Fr
de~
9. Roadside Emirorment
10t t t .
14. Low Clearance Sign :
able Waterway N
Na
a
e
10. Posting
0000000
15. Narrow Structure Sign 18. Bridge Value (f000) 91
11. Bylaw No.
12. Bylaw Expiry Date y m
8. RAILWAY OVERPASS UNDERPASS 27. Original Board Order Nunber
2 ReI way Leve Crossing N r Date y m d
22. Railway Coapeny 28. CurrMt Board Order Number
23. Railway Subdivision Date y m d
24. Subdivision Mileage 29. Seniority
25. Transport Canada Crossing No.
26. Nunber of Tracks
C. JURISDICTION ~- Local / Area Municipality
31. Ownership 0 A MUN
g
35. Boundary Bridge N (Upper Tier Only)
A. 00000
32. Heritage Status R
NSD
i
Adjacent Municipality Name/N0
36
. 00000 8. 00000
on
33. Special Designer
34. Suburban Roads Coemiselon .
37. Adjacent Bridge No.
D. E%ISTING CONDITIONS
GENERAL
Year Constructed A. 1931
41
45. Span Length 9.4 m
50. Longitudinal Joints
i
t
2
.
8 1931 46. peck Type CL n
s
51. Transverse Jo
i
1
42. Bridge Type S-IB-S
° 47. Deck Length 10.7 m
Deck Width 7.6 m
46 ngs
52. Number Of Bear
U
53. Soil Condition
43. Crossing Skew •00
O1 .
Deck Area 82 sm
49 54. Abutnwmt And Foundation Type C-UN
64. Number Of Spans .
ROAD OVER BRIDGE
55. Existing Road Class 500
59. No. Of Lanes 2
62. Barrier Walls/ Rail digs SP
Minimum Vertical Clearance m
63
s'~ Operational Status 2N MT .
60. Median Type / Width m
5learing Surface A
travel Deck Width T.0 m bt. Safety Curb /
Sidewalk and A N E 0.1m
Curb Barrier B N W 0.1m
' ROAD UNDER BRIDGE
64. Existing Road Class 68. No. Of Lanes 71. Traffic Barrier
Minimum Vertical Clearance m
72
65. Operational Status 69. Median Type / Width .
m
66 Opening Under m 70. Safety Curb /
67. Surface Width m Sidewalk and A
B m
m
Curb Barrier
TRAFFIC CWNT 10 YEAR TRAFFIC FORECAST
E. TRAFFIC DATA
81. Lego Speed Limit 80 83. Year A 1994-C 9p. Year 04
AADT 1650
1100 91
' 82. Route Designations 84. AADT
85. DHY Factor .
00.0 X 92. ONV Factor 0.0 X
0 vph 93. DHV 0.0 vph
Transit N Truck N 86. DNY
87. Trucks
t
r
a 2 X 94. Trucks O ~
X
y
p
School N Bicycle N Growth Factor
Year
89. 70 AADT 2475
Year
96. 20
1.50
F. APPROVALS
101. Date y 93 m 09 102.
Professional Engineer Name D L BAXTER
TTEN SIMS NUBILKI ASSOC
103. Municipality / Company TO
2. Municipality 10402 - Town of Claringtan
Date Printed 08/23/95
II
i~
b. Bridge No. 099023- -
Page 1 of 4
i~
MUNICIPAL BRIDGE APPRAISAL - SXEET 2
r BRIDGE NEEDS RATING
MCR PCR TIME of NEED
++t. Superstructure 4 5
5 1-5
6-10
Wear irg Surface 5
Deck Condition 4 5 1.5
~,r. Expar+sion Joints ~ 5 ~7
115. Rail+rgs 5
116. Substructure 3 5 1-5
117. Coating 0
3 0
3 ADEg
1.5
718. Streams / Waterways
N. FUNCTIONAL NEEDS Exiet irg Minimm
ROND OVER Condition Tolerable TINE of NEED
121. Travel Deck Nidth 7.0 6.5 ADED
122. Level of Service A E ADEO
123. Min. Vert. Clear. 4.5 ADEa
124. Sidewalks ADEg
ROAD UNDER
125. Surface Nidth ADED
126. Level of Service ADEG
127. Min. Vert. Clear. ADED
128. Sidewalks ADEO
I. ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION
131. Bridge Drawings UNK
132. Engineering Investigations
Type Yeer Cost(f000)
A DCS 94 5
B
C
D
133. Total Cost of Engineering Investigations 5
134. Single Posting y m d - t
135. Evaluated Posing t t t
Date Y m
Monitoring
. Closure / Date y m d -
L. HISTORY
ENGINEERING INVESTI WTIONS
~ ,7,.
172.
173.
174.
I~
2. Municipal ity
Date Printed -
II
J. TYPE & TIME OF IMPROVEMENT
141. Design Class
142. Operational Status
143. Abutment Type
144. Design Deck Wid[h m
145. Design Deck Length m
e b c d e
146. Type of Costing Time of
Improvement Category guantity Improvement Cost(t000)
A pyp g(( 1.5 4
B CSR BM 1-5 4
C CDS PL 1-5 10
D CSS BM 1-5 19
E RSB PC 1-5 10
F
K. IMPROVEMENT LOST
47
1 1. Construction 11
152. Approaches
153. Detours
154. Traff ie Control/Protection
155. Utilities
156. Other 6
157. Contingencies
~
158. Total Construction
159. Right of Way
160 E ineeri ng Ernirormental Assessment (E/A) Study
161. Engineering Design & Supervision 13
162. Total Project Cost 77
163. Eligibility for Subsidy EFS
164. Non-subsidizable Costs Cont ribut irq Non-SUbsidizable
Agency Cost
A
B
C
0
165. Total Non-Subsidizable Cost ~
166. Subs idizable Cost
167. Music ipel Percent of Subz idizable Cost 100X
168. Municipal share of Cost 77
CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS
Type Year
Type
,B,.
182.
1B3.
184.
185.
10402 Town of Clarington
08/23/95
Year
6. Bridge No. 099023-
Page 2 of 4
II
MUIII C[PAL BRIDGE APDRAISAL SNEET 3
M. Remar s
191. Bridge No. 99023 (COlwill Bridge), MTO Site No. 21-92, Old Scugog
goad, 7,00 km South of Regions( Road No. 4, Lot 16, Concession IV,
Former Darlington, Municipality of Clerington:
^ structure is posted with a 10 tome load limit.
• 9.4 art single span structural steel girder bridge with a
concrete deck and asphalt weerirq surface.
^ Steel latticed handrails are in generally goad condition with
minor loeelized eurfeee corrosion.
^ Concrete curbs are in generally goad condition with minor
trarreverse cracking.
• Surface treated wearing surface is in generally good condition
with localized patching a~ potholes.
^ Soffit of original concrete deck is covered with steel formwork
and could not be inspected. The steel formwork exhibits minor
corrosion.
^ Concrete dock soffit of the atrueture widening is in fair
condition with minor erecki np and localized spelling and
del VIII MS I Ons.
• Structural steel girders ere in fair condition with overall
corrosion and pitting.
^ Original concrete abutments are in fair condition with extensive
sealing and localized spelling and scouring. Narrow rardan
creeks were also rested.
^ Concrete abutment widenings are in generally good condition.
^ Concrete ~ingwells are in poor to fair condition with extensive
severe scaling and scouring. The northeast and southeast
wingwalls exhibit cracking and delamination along the top of the
wall.
• South concrete abutment tooting has been refaced with concrete
but is udernined.
^ watercourse is Irlobstructed with securing in front of the south
abutment and wingwalls.
^ Roadway embankments are in generally good condition with erosion
in the southwest and northeast quadrants.
Surface treated approach roads are nn generally goad condition
and are rapped up to the structure.
^ Timber guideposts on the approaches are in generally good
Bondi lion.
^ No serious evidence of st ruetural distress.
^ Structure should be posted with a toed limit of L1=10 tomes;
L2=15 tomes; L3=25 tomes.
Should patch, waterproof and pave the bridge deck, clean and
paint steel latticed handrails and structural steel girders, end
repair concrete deck soffit, abutments and wirgwalls.
^ Requires a deck condition survey to eonfim the repair
recommendations.
2. Iknicipelity 10402 - Town of Clarirgtan
'DATE PRINTED 08/23/95
i~
i~
6. Bridge No. 099023- -
PAGE - 3 of 4
i~
MINICIPAL BRIDGE APPRAISAL SXEET 1
A IDENTIFICATION
o Code 3•S•UR•95
t o. er Sawa ~... ..
7. Road Seet ion No. 99549
021-0402-
r
. Con
2 INnic ipal Name/Code 10402 Town of Clerington 8. MTO Site No.
Bridge Name CEDAR PARK BRIDGE
.toed Name CEDAR PARK RD.
- location 0.60 km N of CONCESSION 5/6 t
Posting Sign
R 13 t t 16. Crossing Type 0•WAT
9. Roadside Envi rorment
t t .
e 17. federal Navigable Yaterway N
10. Posting t Structure Sign
Narrow
15 18. Bridge Ya lue (5000) 44
11. Bylaw No. .
12. Bylaw Expiry Dste y m
8. RAILWAY OVERPASS UNDERPASS 27. Original Board Order Number
2 . Railway Level Crassirp Number Dete y m d
22. Railway Comparry 28. Current Board Order Number
23. Railway Subdivision Date y m d
24. Subdivision Mileage 29. Seniority
25. Transport Canada Crossing No.
26. Number of Trecke
C. JURISDICTION 38. Local / Area Municipality
31. Ownership 0 A MUN
B
35. Boundary Bridge (Upper Tier Only)
N
R A. 00000
32. Heritage Status
33. Special Designation NSD 36. Adjacent Minic ipal ity Name/N0 . 00000 B. 00000
-
34. Suburban Roads Commission 37. Adj scent Bridge No.
D. EXISTING CONDITIONS
GENERAL
Year Constructed A. 1970
41
45. Span Length 6.3 m
50. Longitudinal Joints
2
.
B. 1970 46. Deck Type CC 51. Transverse Joints
14
42. Bridge Type S•IB-S 47. Deck Length 7.0 m
h 5 52. Number Of Bearings
i
44. Nrunber OfSSpens R 01 40 sm
49. Deck Area ourdation Type C-UN
54. Abutmen~Arxi F
ROAD OVER BRIDGE
Existing Road Class 200
55
59. No. Of Lanes 1
62. Barrier Walls/ Railings LP
.
cc Operational Status 2Y OAT 60. Median Type / Yid[h m 63. Minimun Vertical Clearance m
4earing Surface A 61. Safety Curb /
travel Deck Width 5.1 m Sidewalk and A N E 0.1m
Curb Barrier B N W O.tm
ROAD UNDER BRIDGE
64. Existing Road Clase
68. No. Of Lanes
71. Traffic Barrier
Minimm Vertical Clearance m
72
65. Operational Status 69. Median type / Yidth .
m
66. Opening Under m 70. Safety Curb /
Surface Width m
67 Sidewalk and A m
. Curb Barrier B m
TRAFFIC DATA
E TRAFFIC COUNT 10 YEAR TRAFFIC fORECA57
65
.
8 Legal Speed Limit 80 aT A 1975-E 90. Year
~. Y
e
96
82. Route Designations M
O
85. DNY factor 80 91. AADT
00.0 X 92. DHV Factor 0.0 X
0 vph
V 0
86. DNV .
0 vph 93. DH
2 X
Transit N Truck N
School N Bicye le N 87. Trucks
88. Peak Directional Split 2 X 94. Trucks
0 X 95. Capacity 0 vph
' 89. 10 Year Growth Factor 1.20 96. 20 Year AADT 116
F. APPROVALS
Date y 93 m 09 102.
1
Professional Engineer Name D L BAXTER
.
103. Municipality / Company TOTTE N SINS HUBI CKI ASSOC
2. Municipality 10402 Town of Clarington
,Date Printed 08/23/95
II
II
6. Bridge No. 099043- -
Page - 1 of 4
i~
INWICIPAL BRIDGE APPRAISAL - SNEET 2
G. BRIDGE NEEDS RATING
MCR PCR TIME Of NEED
1t1. Superstructure 4 4 1-5
Nearirq Surface 4 4 1-5
Deck Corxiition 4 5 1.5
dir. Expansion Joints 0 0 ADEg
115. Railings 3 4 1-5
116. Substructure 3 2 NON
117. Coating 1 1 NON
118. Streams / waterways 4 6 1.5
N. FUNCTIONAL NEEDS Existing Minimum
ROAD OVER Condition Tolerable TIME of NEED
121. Travel Detk Width 5.1 6.0 NOw
122. Level of Service A E ADEa
123. Min. Vert. Clear. 4.5 ADEg
12i. Sidewalks ADED
ROAD UNDER
125. Surface Nidth ADEg
126. Level of Service ADEg
127. Min. Vert. Clear. ADED
128. Sidewalks ADED
I. ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION
131. Bridge Drawings UNK
132. Engineering Investigations
Type Year Cost(f000)
A
B
C
D
133. Total Cost of Engineering Investigations 0
134. Single Pasting Y m d - t
135. Evaluated Posting 13 t 18 t 24 t
Date y 89 m 01
Monitoring Ob
. Closure / Date y m d -
J. TYPE S TIME OF IMPROVEMENT
141. Design Class RLHU
142. Operational Status 2N
143. Abutment Type C
144. Design Deck width 10.0 m
145. Design Deck Length 8.0 m
a b c d e
166. Type of Costing Time of
Improvement Category guantity Improvement Cost(5000)
A RSL PC NOw 720
R
C
D
E
F
K. IMPRWEMENT COST
1 1. Ca~truct lon 120
152. Approaches 47
153. Detours
154. Traff ie Control/Protection
155. Utilities
156. Other
157. Contingencies 8
158. Total Construction 175
159. Right of Nay
160. Engineering Environmental Assessment (E/A) Study
161. Engineering Design 8 Supervision 35
162. Total Project Cost 270
163. Etig ibility for Subsidy EFS
164. Non•subsidizeble Costs Contributing Non•Subsidi zable
Agency Cost
A
g
C
D
165. Total Non•SUbsidizeble Cost. 0
166. Subsidizable Cost 210
167. Municipal Percent of Subzi dizable Cost 100%
168. Municipal Share of Cost 210
L. NISTORY
ENGINEERING INVESTIGATIONS CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS
Type Year
' Type Year
171. 181.
17z. 18z.
' 173. 183.
174. 784•
1~, 185.
2. Municipality 10402
' Date Printed - 08/23/95
Town of Clarington
6. Bridge No. 099043•
Page 2 of 4
' MUNICIPAL BRIDGE APPRAISAL SHEET 3
X. Remarks
191. Bridge No. 99043 (Cedar Park Bridge), MTO Site No. 27.402, Ceder Park
Road, 0.60 km North of Concessions Y & VI, Lots 74 8 75, Corcession
V1, Faramr Darlington, Municipality of Cler inpton:
^ Structure is rat posted with a load lini t.
^ 6.3 ^w si ng Le span structural steel girder bridge with e
concrete deck and an asphalt wearing surfxe.
^ Steel pipe handrails are in poor condition with extereive
collision damge end surface corrosion.
^ Concrete curbs are in poor condition with extensive scaling and
cracking. Several sections of the curb on the east side of the
bridge are nissinp. The curb is ni ssirg from the entire west
side of the bridge.
^ Asphalt wearing surface is in fair condition with minor rutting
end revelling.
^ Concrete deck fascias are in poor condition with extensive
spelling end sealing.
^ Concrete deck soffit is in fair condition with transverse
cracks, rust stains, delminetions mrd spells.
^ Structural eteet girders are in fair condition vith extensive
corrosion end pitting.
^ North concrete abutment is in poor condition with a vide
diagonal crack near the east end of the abutment. The abutment
also exhibits localized sealing, spelling and staining.
^ South concrete abutment is in fair condition with voter staining
end rust stains. Localized spelling and seal irg vas also noted.
A vertical crack was noted near the east end of the south
abutment.
^ Concrete wingwalls are in poor condition with vertical and
horizontal creeks end displacements. Relative displacements of
75 m, 700 m srd 150 m were noted in the southvest, southeast
and northwest wi ngwells respectively.
^ Natercource is unobstructed with scouring rated at the abutment
foot irgs.
^ Roadway embankments ere in fair condition vith erosion in the
southvest quadrant.
^ Asphalt paved approach roads are in fair condition with minor
rutting xnd ravel Ling. Settlements were also noted adjacent to
the structure.
^ No traffic protection is provided on the bridge approaches.
^ Should post st rueture with a load Limit of L1=73 tomes; L2=t8
torxxs; L3=24 tomes.
^ Should monitor concrete abutments and wingwal is at six month
intervals to detemine the rate of movement end the rwwd for
interim repelrs.
^ Should replace existing bridge to elimi note [he deck vidth
def ieieney and due to the deteriorated candi tion of the
structure.
Municipality 10402 - Town of Clari ngton
'DATE PRINTED -08/23/95
6. Bridge No. 099043- -
PAGE - 3 of 4
' !a1NICIPAL BRIDGE APPRAISAL SREET 1
A. IDENTIFICATION o. eriwyo ~~.
7. Road Section No. 99471
' . Contro Code 3-S•UR•95
2 Munici pet Name/Code 10402 - Town of Clarirgtan 6. MTO Site No. 021-0041-
Bridge Name LOi 20/21 CONC VII DARLINGTON
Road Name MOLT RD.
_ Location 0.70 kmN of CONCESSION 6/7
Posting Sign t
R 13
t t 16. Crossing Type 0•WAT
' 9. Roadside Envirorment
t t .
Low Clearance Sign
74 17. Federal Navigable Waterway N
70. Posting t .
Narrow Structure Sign
15 18. Bridge Value (f000) 50
17. Bylaw No. .
12. Bylaw Expiry Date y m
t 8 RAILWAY OVERPASS / UNDERPASS 27. Original Board Order Number
21. Railway Level Crossing Number Dete y m d
22. Rei lway Comparry 28. Current Board Order Number
23. Railway Subdivision Dete y m d
' 24. Subdivision Mileage 29. Seniority
25. Transport Canada Crossing No.
26. Number of Tracks
' C. JURISDICTION
0 A MUN
h 38. Local / Aree Municipality
ip
31. Owners
g
35. Boundary Bridge N (Upper Tier Only)
R p, 00000
32. Heritage Status
33. Special Designation NSD 36. Adjacent Mimic ipality Nave/NO . 00000 B. 00000
t 34. Suburban Roads Commission 37. Adjacent Bridge No.
D. E%ISTING CONDITIONS
' GENERAL
Year Coretructed A. 7950
41
45. Span Length 7.9 m
50. Longitudinal Joints 0
0
.
B. 1950 46. Deck Type CC 51. Transverse Joints
0
42. Bridge Type S-IB•F
•00° 47. Deck length 9.7 m
Deck Nidth 4.9 m
46 52. Number Of Bearings
53. Soil Condition U
43. Crossing Skew
44. Number Of Spans 01 .
49. Deck Aree 45 sm 54. Abutment And Fourdati on Type C•UN
ROAD OVER BRIDGE
Existing Road Class 200
55
59. No. Of Lanes 1
62. Barrier Walls/ Railings LP
.
5R Operational Status 2W OAT 60. Median Type / Vidth m 63. Mini mtm Vertical Cleararce m
Veering Surface C
travel Deck Width 4.3 m 67. Safety Curb /
Sidewalk and A N E 0.1m
Curb Barrier B N W 0.1m
' ROAD UNDER BRIDGE
Existing Road Class
64
68. No. Of Lanes
71. Traffic Barrier
.
65. Operational Status 69. Median Type / Width m 72. Minimum Vertical Clearance m
66. Opening Under m 7D. Safety Curb /
67. Surface Width m Sidewalk and A m
Curb Barrier B m
TRAFFIC DATA
E TRAFFIC COUNT 10 YEAR TRAFFIC FORECAST
85
.
81. Legal Speed Limit 80 83. Year A 1975•E 90. Year
AADT 72
60 91
' 82. Route Designations 84, pppT
85. DHV Factor .
00.0 X 92. DXV Factor 0.0 X
0 vph 93. DMY 0.0 vph
T rarisit N Truck N
e le N
l N Bic
h 86. DHV
87. Trucks
t
r 2 X 94. Trucks 2%
vph
X
pY
y
' y
oo
Sc Growth Factor
89. 10 Year AADT 87
ear
96. 20
1.20
F. APPROVALS
Date y 93 m 09 702.
101
Professional Engineer Name D L BA%TER
.
703. Municipality / Company TOTTEN SIMS HUBICKI ASSOL
2. Municipality 10402 -Town of Clarington
Date Printed - 08/23/95
LJ
b. Bridge No. 099045-
Page - 1 of 4
' MJNICIPAL BRIDGE APPRAISAL SNEET 2
G. BRIDGE NEEDS RATING
MCR PCR TIME of NEED
171. Superstructure 4 5 1.5
Year irg Surface 4 5 1.5
Deck Condition 4 5 1-5
..r. Expansion Joints 0 0 ADED
115. Railings 4 5 1.5
116. Substructure 4 4 1.5
117. Costing 0 0 ADEO
118. Streams / YaterYays 5 6 6-10
X. FUNCTIONAL NEEDS Ezi st irg Niniaan
ROAD OVER Condition Tolerable 71NE of DEED
121. Travel Deek Width 4.3 6.0 NOW
122. Level of Service A E ADEO
123. Min. Vert. Clear. 4.5 ADEq
124. Sidewalks ADEO
ROAD UNDER
125. Surface Mi dth ADED
126. Level of Service ADED
127. Nin. Vert. Clear. ADEO
128. Sidewalks ADED
I. ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION
131. Bridge Drawings UNK
132. Engineering Invest igat ions
Type Year Cost(5000)
A
B
C
D
133. Total Cost of Engineering Investigations 0
134. Single Post irq y 93 m 09 d 31 - 76 t
135. Evaluated Posting t t t
Date y m
Monitoring 12
. Closure / Date y m d -
L. XI STORY
ENGINEERING 1NVESTIGAT IONS
171.
1 T2.
173.
174
175
Type Year
2. Municipality 10402 -Town of Clarirgton
Date Printed - 08/23/95
J. TYPE 8 TINE OF IMPROVEMENT
141. Design Class RLNU
142. Operational Status 2Y
143. Abutment Type C
144. Design Deek Width 10.0 m
145. Design Deck length 70.0 m
a b c d e
746. Type of Costing Time of
Improvement Category quantity Improvement Cost(5000)
A RSL PC NOW 150
B
C
D
E
F
K. IMPROVEMENT COST
1 ..
S Cons
~tru<tion 150
152. Approaches 40
153. Detours
154. Traffic Control/Protection
155. utilities
156. other
157. Contingencies 10
758. Total Construction 200
159. Right of Way
160. Engineering Envi rormentat Assessment (E/A) Study
761. Engineering Design & Supervision 40
162. Total Project Lost 240
163. Eligibility for Subsidy EFS
164. Non•subsidizable Costs Contribut irg Nan-Subsidizable
Agency Cost
A
B
L
D
165. Total Non•Subsidi zable Cost 0
166. Subsidizable Cost 240
167. Municipal Percent of Subzidizable Lost 100X
168. NunicipaL Share of Cost 240
CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS
181.
182.
183.
184.
185.
Type Year
6. Bridge No. 099045•
Page 2 of 4
MUNICIPAL BRIDGE APPRAISAL SNEET 3
N. Remarks
191. Bridge Mo. 99045, NTO Site No. 21.41, Nolt Road, 0.70 qn North of
Concess iorn YI & Y11, Lots 20 8 21, Concession YII, Former
Darlington, Municipality of Clari ngton:
^ Structure is rat posted with a toed knit.
^ 7.9 m: single span structural steel girder bridge with a
concrete deck and a concrete veering surface.
• Steel pipe hsndrails are in fair condition with extensive
collision damage and corrosion.
^ Concrete curbs are in fair condition with transverse cracks and
light scaling.
^ Concrete deck veering surface is in fair condition with light
scaling, transverse cracks and several spells. Asphalt patches
were also noted.
^ Concrete deck fascias are in generally good condition vith minor
scaling.
^ Concrete deck soffit is in generally goad condition vith miner
transverse cracks and localized spells and delaminatians.
^ Structural steel girders ere in generally good condition vith
overall corrosion and minor pitting.
^ Concrete abutments are in fair condition with extensive scaling
and localized spelling.
^ Concrete wi ngwalla are in fair condition with extensive scaling
end eraekirg. the southeast wingwall has separated from the
abutment and has rotated forvard.
^ Yatercour6e is unobstructed with miner scouring in front of the
rarth abutment.
^ Roadway mdx+nkments are in generally good condition with miner
erosion in the northeast quadrant.
^ Asphalt paved approach road south of the structure is in poor
Condition with rutting and ravelling.
• North gravel approach road is in generally good cordit ion.
^ No traffic protection is provided on the bridge approaches.
^ No serious evidence of structural distress.
^ Structure should be posted with a load limit of 16 tomes.
^ Should monitor southeast virgvelt to deternine the rate of
deterioration and the need for interim repairs.
^ Should replace existing structure to eliminate the deck width
def ieiency.
2. Municipality 10402 Town of Clar irgton
' DATE PRINTED - 08/23/95
II
II
6. Bridge No. 099045- -
PAGE - 3 of 4