Open house Sept. 29, 2016

2009-2013 2011 2015 2015 2016

2016 2017 Future activities

Future activities

Future activities

Recommend new bridge crossing linking John Counter Blvd with Gore Rd.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTApproved by City Council 2012 and Province of Ontario 2013

LASALLE CAUSEWAYTraffic Operations Study

Recommend operational improvements to increase capacity of Causeway

ACTION PLAN “SHOVEL-READY”Approved by City Council in 2015

Components include:• KTMP Update• Preliminary Design• Business Plan• Final Design

KINGSTON TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN

Re-validate need for Third Crossing

PRELIMINARY DESIGNCurrently underway

BUSINESS PLAN Currently underway

FINAL REPORT AND COUNCIL DECISION Spring 2017

FINAL DESIGN To be decided – 18 months to complete

CONTRACTOR SELECTION & CONSTRUCTIONTo be decided – 3 years to complete

NEW THIRD CROSSING IN-SERVICE

THIRD CROSSING ROAD MAP

WHY DO WE NEED THE THIRD CROSSING?

OPPORTUNITIES:• Provides needed/forecast transportation capacity across the Cataraqui River over the next 20 years• Decreases travel time and greenhouse gas emissions• Decreases traffic congestion along the Lasalle Causeway• Provides additional access throughout the city for emergency vehicles• Provides an alternative route during Lasalle Causeway and Highway 401 closures• Provides an opportunity for active transportation with a multi-use trail• Accommodates growth as defined within the Official Plan and urban growth boundary

HAVE WE CONSIDERED DIFFERENT SOLUTIONS TO ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR THE THIRD CROSSING? More transit service More trips by walk or cycling Encourage other ways to reduce transportation demand (ride-sharing, telecommute) Tolerate more traffic congestion Allow for more development through infill and intensification

RESULT – THE THIRD CROSSING IS STILL NEEDED

SUPPORTING STUDIES:• Kingston Transportation Master Plan (2004)

• Kingston Transportation Master Plan Update (2009)

• Traffic Operations Study - Lasalle Causeway Corridor (2011)

• Third Crossing Environmental Assessment (2012)

• Kingston Transportation Master Plan Update (2015)

GOALS:• Provide accurate and timely information • Respond to questions• Listen and record input received from public• Incorporate input into the project work• Provide results

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROCESS

HOW ARE WE DOING THIS?• Third Crossing project website• Third Crossing team contact info including project email account• Public Open House #1

• History/timelines of the Third Crossing• Provide progress update on work for Preliminary Design & Business Plan• Results of the Public Survey and how input is being used

• Public Open House #2• A brief history of the project to date• Provide recap of Open House #1 from September 2016• Provide updates on preliminary design and business plan phases• Summary of public feedback received and how it was used

• On-going stakeholder consultations• Parks Canada• First Nations• Permitting agencies (local, provincial, federal)

PUBLIC SURVEY RESULTS

Third Crossing public survey was open July 19 to August 21 2016.

More than 1,100 people participated in the survey. Results include all responses from completed and partially completed surveys, meaning numbers of respondents per questions vary.

More than 100 pages of personalized feedback and opinions include the following themes:• Active transportation and accessibility opportunities

• Urban sprawl and traffic congestion

• Concerns of tax implications over the years

• Third Crossing fatigue regarding the need/ justification

• Do you want/need a third crossing?

93.4% GREATER KINGSTON AREA

5.9% OUTSIDE THE GREATER KINGSTON AREA BUT WITHIN ONTARIO0.5% OUTSIDE ONTARIO BUT WITHIN CANADA

0.1% OUTSIDE OF CANADA

8.1% NEVER/RARELY28.1% A FEW TIMES A MONTH21.1% A FEW TIMES A WEEK16.2% DAILY (INCLUDING WEEKENDS)12.5% DAILY (FIVE TIMES A WEEK)14% A NUMBER OF TIMES A DAY

914 PEOPLE THAT RESPONDED WERE LOCATED AT:

HOW OFTEN THEY TRAVEL OVER THE CATARAQUI RIVER

KAB

87.9% CAR/DRIVE

3.4% BUS

0.2% KINGSTON ACCESS SERVICE

4.3% WALK

3.3% BIKE

0.2% CARPOOL

0.8% OTHER?

THE RESPONDENTS FORM OF TRANSPORTATION:

43% WORK

11.9% SHOPPING

28.8% ENTERTAINMENT/RECREATION

1.1% SCHOOL

2.0% OTHER

7.9% ALL OF THE ABOVE

?

PRIMARY REASON FOR TRAVEL:0.1% UNDER 18

4.3% 18-24

20% 25-34

22% 35-44

21.3% 45-54

20.3% 55-64

11% 65+

1.1% PREFER NOT TO ANSWER

THE RESPONDENTS AGE RANGED FROM:

CONCEPTUAL RENDERING OF ARCH WITH V-PIERS FROM 2012

PRELIMINARY DESIGN: Scope & Schedule

1. It is building on the conceptual information from the Class EA.

2. WE ARE HERE: The Concept Report assesses design options and construction cost estimates from the Class EA and describes a preferred concept

3. LATE 2016 / EARLY 2017: The Interim Preliminary Design Reports will further refine the preferred concept, construction phasing and scheduling and construction cost estimates.

4. APRIL 30, 2017: The Final Preliminary Design Report will confirm the recommended design, construction phasing and scheduling and construction cost estimates in support of pending future final design and construction

PROJECT VISION: Design Quality

UNESCO World Heritage Site ‘World-class signature bridge’ (RFP) ‘Aesthetically pleasing structural solution’ and ‘High quality design’ (Parks Canada Aesthetic Guidelines)Focal Arch Span over Rowing Lanes

BRIDGE SETTING

PROPOSED ALIGNMENT – A Gradual Sweeping S-Curve

NATURAL HERITAGE FIELDWORK

Significant Features:• Woodlands• Wetlands

• Ecological Land Classifications

• Breeding Bird / Wildlife Surveys

• Habitat Assessments

CULTURAL HERITAGE FIELDWORK

• Rideau Canal• Gore Road Library• Archaeological Site BbGc-127• Stone Survey Marker

GEO-ENVIRONMENTAL FIELDWORK

Potential Sites of Concern:• 919 / 931 Montreal Street• 603 John Counter Boulevard• 612 / 630 John Counter Boulevard

• No sites of concern on east shore

TRAFFIC AND LANE CONFIGURATIONS

WEST APPROACH – John Counter Boulevard

EAST APPROACH – Gore Road

Asc

ot L

n.

ReconfiguredPoint St. Mark Drive / Library Entrance

BRIDGE ELEVATION AND PROFILE

HIGH PROFILE – 1.00%, 12 V-Piers

LOW PROFILE – 0.75%, 13 V-Piers

COMPARISON (2.8m height difference)

BRIDGE DECK CONCEPT

TYPICAL CROSS SECTION

DECK CONCEPT• Two Vehicle Lanes• Generous Shoulders• South Side Multi-Use Path• Steel I-Beam Girder Structure• Low Profile Barriers for View

BRIDGE ARCH CONCEPT: Plan & Elevation

ARCH ELEVATION VIEW• Low Profile Arch• Slender Design• Adequate Vertical

Clearances

ARCH PLAN VIEW• Arch Spans Rowing

Lanes and Rideau Boat Channel

• Slight Outward Tilt• Hangars Support Deck• Look-out Platform on

South Side

BRIDGE V-PIER CONCEPT

PREFERRED OPTION OPTIONS CONSIDERED

BRIDGE ARCH CONCEPT: 3D Modelling (In Progress)

VIEW FROM VEHICLE OVERHEAD VIEW ARCH TIE (CONCEPT)

PRECEDENTS: Arch and V-Piers Designs

PEDESTRIAN & CYCLING EXPERIENCE

Corktown Footbridge, Ottawa

ARCH LOOK-OUT CONCEPT – Accessible Seating Area, Interpretive Panels, Continuous Multi-Use Path

Nelson St. Cycleway, Auckland Interpretive Panels

CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS: 3 Year Timeframe

EAST SHORE• Maintain Library Access• Archaeological Site• Stone Survey Marker• Dog Park Temp. Relocation• Noise and Traffic

Example: East Shore Construction Access and Staging Areas

WEST SHORE• Property Acquisition• Overhead Utility Relocations• Noise and Traffic

BRIDGE CORRIDOR• Limited Land for “Laydown” (Construction

Staging, Equipment & Material Storage)• Physical Presence• Rideau Canal (Land/Water)

LANDSCAPE CONCEPT: East Approach

LANDSCAPE CONCEPTS: Mitigate – Restore - Enhance, Native Plantings, User Experience, Connectivity

LANDSCAPE CONCEPT: West Approach

LANDSCAPE CONCEPTS: Mitigate – Restore - Enhance, Native Plantings, User Experience, Connectivity

LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS

SUSTAINABILITY & INNOVATION

- Sustainability design charrette

- Cultural-Natural Heritage Protection

- De-icing and anti-icing systems

- Energy efficient materials (e.g. LED)

- Structural health monitoring

- Service life design

- Maintain construction flexibility

- Sealed components

- Hanger and coating systems

- Stainless / galvanized steel

Interim Noise Assessment Progress Update

Interim noise barrier dimensions (assessment and design options on-going):WEST SIDE EAST SIDE

BR04 BR05 BR07 BR10HEIGHT 2.6 m 2.6 m 1.5 m 2.75 mLENGTH 140 m 113 m 340 m 205 m

PUBLIC SURVEY RESULTSPRELIMINARY DESIGN

Third Crossing public survey was open July 19 to August 21 2016.

More than 1,100 people participated in the survey. Results include all responses from completed and partially completed surveys, meaning numbers of respondents per questions vary.

More than 100 pages of feedback and opinions included the following themes:• Balancing bridge aesthetics and function

• Minimize impact on ecology and habitat

• Include features that promote tourism

• Pay more now if there are practical long-term gains

• Energy generation.

RESPONDENTS THINK IT IS IMPORTANT THAT CARBON EMISSIONS RELATED TO BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION ARE MINIMIZED.

44.9% YES40.7% NO14.4% NOT SURE

SHOULD THE CITY BE PREPARED TO SPEND MORE MONEY TO MINIMIZE/OFFSET CARBON EMISSIONS DURING CONSTRUCTION?

39.6% YES44% NO16.4% NOT SURE

24.8% VERY IMPORTANT39.3% SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT13.5% SOMEWHAT UNIMPORTANT22.5% NOT IMPORTANT

WHEN ASKED HOW IMPORTANT IS IT TO YOU THAT THE BRIDGE INCORPORATE SUSTAINABLE AND RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES SUCH AS SOLAR, WIND AND GEOTHERMAL TO GENERATE ENERGY, RESPONDENTS SAID:

WOULD YOU BE SUPPORTIVE OF PAYING MORE TODAY TO INCLUDE FEATURE THAT WOULD SAVE MONEY IN THE FUTURE 54.5% STRONGLY SUPPORT 33% SOMEWHAT SUPPORT 4.3% SOMEWHAT OPPOSE 5% STRONGLY OPPOSE 3.2% NOT SURE

WHEN ASKED IF THEY HAD TO CHOOSE BETWEEN BRIDGE AESTHETICS AND GENERATING ENERGY THROUGH SOLAR PANELS AND/OR MINI-SCALE WIND TURBINES ON THE BRIDGE, RESPONDENTS SAID:

14.8% FOR AESTHETICS

31.4% FOR ENERGY GENERATION

46.4% LOOK OF THE BRIDGE WITH SOME ABILITY TO GENERATE ENERGY

7.5% NOT SURE

RESPONDENTS RATED THE IMPORTANCE OF SPENDING EXTRA MONEY ON EACH ITEM TO UPGRADE THEM FROM STANDARD ITEMS TO PREMIUM ITEMS

VERY IMPORTANT

SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT

SOMEWHAT UNIMPORTANT

NOT IMPORTANT

NOT SURE

?

HOW IMPORTANT IS IT TO YOU THAT THE BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION BE AS ECONOMICAL AND PRACTICAL AS POSSIBLE?38.3% VERY IMPORTANT37.1% IMPORTANT20.1% SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT4.5% NOT AT ALL IMPORTANT

HOW IMPORTANT IS IT TO YOU THAT THE BRIDGE MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION BE AS ECONOMICAL AS POSSIBLE?51.5% VERY IMPORTANT35% IMPORTANT10.8% SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT2.7% NOT AT ALL IMPORTANT

KNOWING THAT BETTER CONSTRUCTION QUALITY AND ENGINEERING INNOVATIONS TYPICALLY LEADS TO MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION COST SAVINGS IN THE FUTURE, WHICH IS MORE IMPORTANT TO YOU?

83.6% PAY MORE NOW TO SAVE MORE LATER 6.0% PAY MORE LATER BUT SAVE MORE NOW10.4% I’M NOT SURE

WOULD YOU SUPPORT ADDITIONAL COSTS TO CREATE A BRIDGE THAT HAD A UNIQUE OR SIGNATURE LOOK, DESIGN ELEMENTS OR USE(S) THAT SHOWCASED ITS ENGINEERING AND INNOVATION?

KEEP IT PLAIN AND PRACTICAL WITH NO EXTRA COSTS.

MODERATE ADDITIONAL COSTS TO PROVIDE SOME DISTINGUISHING FEATURE.

HIGHER ADDITIONAL COSTS TO GIVE IT UNIQUE AND SIGNATURE FEATURES THAT DISTINGUISH IT FROM OTHER BRIDGES.

NOT SURE

32.6% 43.8%

15.3%

4.7%

NOISE REDUCTION BRIDGE LIGHTING 25.6% 38.3% 16.5% 17.4% 2.2%

MULTI-USE PATHWAY 30.3% 35.0% 15.1% 14.1% 5.5%

ARCH LOOKOUT AMENITIES 9.5% 21.0% 22.1% 44.4% 3.0%

COMPLETE STREET AMENITIES 17.6% 29.5% 21.4% 29.0% 2.5%

BRIDGE LIGHTING 50.0% 35.1% 7.5% 5.6% 1.8%

SIGNAGE AND INTERPRETIVE INFORMATION 16.7% 32.1% 24.4% 24.3% 2.5%

BRIDGE AESTHETICS 23.0% 38.1% 20.2% 16.7% 2.0%

WEST SHORE LANDSCAPING 22.7% 39.6% 18.0% 17.2% 2.6%

EAST SHORE LANDSCAPING 23.8% 40.2% 16.6% 17.0% 2.4%

OTHER 27.6% 4.7% 5.0% 14.3% 48.4%

WHAT IS THE THIRD CROSSING BUSINESS PLAN?

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS “WILL IT BE A GOOD USE OF TAX DOLLARS?”Compares the construction and maintenance costs of the project against the benefits that the project would provide over a 30-year period.

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS “WHAT ARE THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF A THIRD CROSSING?”Calculates the financial impact that would be generated in Kingston’s economy if the Third Crossing would be constructed.

PROCUREMENT OPTIONS ANALYSIS “HOW DO WE ADMINISTER THE DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION?”Involves a qualitative analysis of traditional project delivery models including:• Design/bid/build• Design/build• Private Public Partnership (P3)

PROJECT FINANCING “HOW WILL WE PAY FOR THE BRIDGE?”Involves an analysis of all available funding sources and uses of funds including municipal tax, development charges, user fees, and grants.

BUSINESS PLAN

BUSINESS PLAN STATUS:All components of the business plan are underway and will be completed and presented to Council in spring 2017. It will contain information to answer the question of whether or not

the Third Crossing should be built.

REPORT TO COUNCIL 2017

PURPOSE: A Third Crossing business plan will provide decision makers with important information on costs, benefits, economic impacts, project delivery models, and funding strategies to help answer the following questions.

• Cost-Benefit Analysis is a process of identifying, calculating and comparing the benefits and costs of a project.

• Views the benefits and costs of an infrastructure project from society’s perspective as a whole.

• Enables an “apples to apples” comparison of the impacts of a project by monetizing socioeconomic impacts such as travel time savings, environmental impacts and others.

• A dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow.

• Future benefits and costs are discounted to bring all aspects to the present day.

• Widely used tool for analysis for the appraisal of infrastructure projects.

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS IS NOT INTENDED TO SUPPLANT THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS BUT SUPPLEMENT IT.

WHAT IS COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS?

OTHERS ($)

ENVIRONMENTAL ($)

TIME SAVINGS ($)

HEALTH AND SAFETY ($)

OTHERS ($)

BENEFITS

CONSTRUCTION ($)

MAINTENANCE ($)

COSTS

ENVIRONMENTAL ($)

WHAT IS COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS?

• Collins Barrow engaged to provide an independent and objective Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Third Crossing.

• Transparency is foundational to our approach and all of our inputs, methodology and limitations will be clearly documented and form part of the business plan.

• Cost-Benefit Analysis used extensively by the public sector to in Canada and the USA assess infrastructure projects.

Our independent assessment considers multiple scenarios and other qualitative information as well.

Changes in travel times and distances(For example, vehicle

operating costs, value of travel time)

Socioeconomic data relevant to Kingston

(For example, population growth, average wages)

Construction, development and operating costs

(For example, costs to develop

and operate Third Crossing)

Qualitative and survey data and

information

Cost-Benefit Analysis Model

(For example, Benefit-Cost Ratio)

Risk and sensitivity analysis

(For example, what if population growth is

lower than expected?)

Does the development of the Third Crossing generate societal benefits in excess of costs?

Is it a good use of taxpayer dollars?

Data sourceAnalytical tool

• Economic Impact Analysis helps assess what a project means for the local economy in terms of number of jobs, GDP, government tax revenues and other measures of economic activity.

• Takes into consideration local employment, supply chain and economic development impacts.

• Like Cost-Benefit Analysis, Economic Impact Analysis is a data point that supplements the decision making process.

WHAT IS ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS?

Increased or decreased economic development

due to Third Crossing

Local employment

Local procurement and purchases

Multiplier effectsSpending in a region generates additional spending magnifying the initial economic impact

Total economic impact=

The Collins Barrow team have extensive experience conducting cost benefit and economic impact analysis

PROCUREMENT OPTIONS ANALYSIS

IMPACT ►

PROB

ABIL

ITY ►

PROJECT RISK MATRIX

HIGH

LOW MEDIUM

MEDIUM

DBB CONSIDERATIONS:• Most familiar method for owners and contractors;• Separate contracts allows decision points for each procurement

phase D-B-B;• All design components are specified prior to construction;• Payments to contractors occur on a monthly basis

DBF (P3) CONSIDERATIONS• Less familiar method for owners and contractors;• Combined contract requires only one decision point for P3;• Performance specifications guide the overall design and are less prescriptive allowing flexibility during construction;• Payments to contractors are withheld until the project is completed

PROJECT RISKSProject experts identify, assess, and allocate various elements of risk that could occur on a project. This risk information is used to guide future phases of the project and also informs the value-for-money analysis.

VALUE FOR MONEYThe process of developing and comparing total project costs, measured at the common points in time, as comparators of traditional versus non-traditional models. A value-for-money exists when the risk-adjusted costs of the P3 option are less than the risk-adjusted costs of traditional models.

BACKGROUND:The 2012 Environmental Assessment recommended that the City carry out a review of various Third Crossing procurement options as part of the business plan assignment. The Procurement Options Analysis component of the business plan will determine the preferred design and construction administration methods for the Third Crossing.

PROJECT DELIVERY MODELS DESIGN BID BUILD PROJECT DELIVERY STRUCTURE DESIGN BID FINANCE PROJECT DELIVERY STRUCTURE

P3

P3

PUBLIC SURVEY RESULTSBUSINESS PLAN

Third Crossing public survey was open July 19 to August 21 2016.

More than 1,100 people participated in the survey. Results include all responses from completed and partially completed surveys, meaning numbers of respondents per questions vary.

More than 100 pages of personalized feedback and opinions included the following themes:• Tax implications• Privatization versus public ownership

• Whole-of-Life Costing• Project delivery model preferences

• Government funding

11% VERY FAMILIAR47.1% SOMEWHAT FAMILIAR41.9% NOT AT ALL FAMILIAR

RESPONDENTS FAMILIARITY WITH PROJECT DELIVERY MODELS

BASED ON THEIR KNOWLEDGE OF PROJECT-DELIVERY MODELS, THEY SELECTED THE MODEL THAT THEY BELIEVE PROVIDES THE BEST VALUE FOR KINGSTON FOR THIS PROJECT.29.8% DESIGN-BID-BUILD14.4% DESIGN-BUILD13.2% PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP (P3)26.5% NOT SURE16% IT DOESN’T MATTER TO ME

WHAT ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF A PROJECT DELIVERY MODEL TO YOU?

41% MINIMIZING CONSTRUCTION TIME

31.2% ENSURING GOOD MAINTENANCE REGARDLESS OF OTHER CITY PRIORITIES

61.6% DELIVERING THE PROJECT ON BUDGET

29% KEEPING COSTS AS LOW AS POSSIBLE

32.8% EFFECTIVELY COORDINATING THE WORK WITH OTHER WORK IN THE AREAS AFFECTED

36.8% ENSURING INFO ABOUT THE PROJECT IS OPEN AND ACCESSIBLE

23.5% MAXIMIZING THE OPPORTUNITY FOR CONTRACTORS TO INNOVATE ON EFFICIENT METHODS OF PROJECT DELIVERY

25.9% ENSURING THAT MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS (SNOW PLOWING, POTHOLE REPAIRS) ARE DONE BY CITY EMPLOYEES

10.4% MAXIMIZING THE AMOUNT OF TIME OVER WHICH THE COST OF THE CONSTRUCTION WORK CAN BE SPREAD OUT

19.7% MAXIMIZING THE AMOUNT OF FLEXIBILITY THE CITY HAS TO MODIFY THE PROJECT, IF NEEDED

17.9% MAXIMIZE THE NUMBER OF BIDDERS COMPETING FOR EACH ASPECT OF THE CONSTRUCTION

7.6% MAXIMIZING THE AMOUNT OF CONSTRUCTION WORK THAT IS MANAGED BY THE CITY

19.8% MINIMIZING CARBON EMISSIONS OF CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION PHASE

5.1% OTHER

IT DOESN’T MATTER IF THE CITY OR THE PRIVATE SECTOR MANAGES THE CONSTRUCTION AS LONG AS IT IS FINISHED ON TIME AND ON BUDGET.

70% AGREE 21% DISAGREE9% NOT SURE

IT DOESN’T MATTER IF THE CITY OR THE PRIVATE SECTOR MANAGES THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE BRIDGE AS LONG AS IT IS WELL-MAINTAINED.

64.8% AGREE 26.8% DISAGREE8.4% NOT SURE