To:Budget Committee

Subject:Prince Edward (Bloor Street) Viaduct - Measures to Deter Suicide Attempts

From:Urban Environment and Development Committee

Recommendations:

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommended to Council, for its meeting on May 11, 1999, that:

1. the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be instructed to proceed to finalize the agreement with Dereck Revington Studios/Yolles Partnership Inc. to prepare the detailed design and tender documents for the construction of the Prince Edward Viaduct Suicide Deterrent Measures;
2. the overrun in costs for proceeding with this design be allocated from contingency account;
3. that an amount of $800,000 for the purchase of a modified Bridgemaster vehicle be included in the TTC's 2000 capital budget estimates as a special item over and above the TTC's capital funding needs and that these costs be recovered over 10 years by a yearly rental;
4. the Project Steering Committee be revived and consulted on an ongoing basis.

and requested Budget Committee to report directly to Council for its meeting on May 11, 1999 on this matter.

Background:

At its meeting on April 19, 1999, the Urban Environment and Development Committee gave consideration to the report (March 18, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services providing a status report on the Prince Edward (Bloor Street) Viaduct - Measures to Deter Suicide

Attempts project and to outline, through a series of recommendations, a proposed course of action that will allow the project to proceed to a satisfactory conclusion and recommending that:

(1)subject to approval by the Toronto Transit Commission, Council authorize the additional expenditure of $800,000.00 for the purpose of a modified Bridgemaster vehicle to be included within the TTC's 2000 capital budget estimates, and that the vehicle be maintained, thereafter, in the TTC's ownership;

(2)in view of the confirmation of Dereck Revington Studios/Yolles Partnership Inc. that it cannot complete the project within $1.5 million, the amount prescribed in the terms of reference for the design competition, Council authorize not proceeding with finalization of an agreement with Dereck Revington Studios/Yolles Partnership Inc. and instead, authorize the engagement of E.R.A. Architect Inc. to provide detailed design and tender documents for the construction of the Prince Edward Viaduct Suicide Deterrent Measures based on its design proposal with the prescribed funding amount, and on terms and conditions based on its design proposal with the prescribed funding amount, and on terms and conditions satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the City Solicitor;

(3)temporary measures be put in place without further delay, including six telephones and appropriate signage, and that the additional annual costs estimated to be $2,5000.00 incurred by the Distress Centre, be accommodated through a slightly increased yearly grant to the Centre; and

(4)The Schizophrenia Society working with community groups establish patrols on the bridge, the details of which would be reported to Council at a later date.

The Committee also had before it the further report (April 14, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services providing further information and a recommendation concerning this project as requested by the UEDC at its meeting held on March 31, 1999, and recommending that the Basic Design Alternative be adopted which does not require additional funding.

The Committee also had before it the following reports/communications:

-(March 24, 1999) from the General Manager, Toronto Transit Commission forwarding their Report No. 22 to City of Toronto Council and requesting City funding for the required larger inspection vehicle.

-Communications which were before the Committee at its March 31, 1999 meeting, as follows:

(1)(March 16, 1999) from Alan L. Berman, Executive Director, American Association of Suicidology supporting the effort to create anti-suicide barriers at the Bloor Viaduct.

(2)(February 12, 1999) from David Lester, Ph.D., Professor of Psychology, Past President of the International Association for Suicide Prevention, supporting the fencing in of the Bloor Street West Viaduct to prevent people jumping from it in an effort to commit suicide.

(3)(March 25, 1999) from Councillor Ila Bossons requesting the Provincial Government to provide financial assistance for the Bloor Viaduct suicide barrier.

(4)(March 29, 1999) from Dr. Chris Cantor, Senior Research Psychiatrist, Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention urging all interested parties to negotiate a solution which permits a very worthwhile suicide prevention project to proceed.

(5)(March 26, 1999) from Robin R. Richards, Head, Division of Orthopaedics, St. Michael's Hospital informing the Committee of the number of patients who have fallen from the Bloor Viaduct and survived with usually massive disabling and permanent injuries.

(6)(March 26, 1999) from Geoffrey Thun, Dereck Revington Studio, forwarding three letters of recommendation regarding measures to deter suicide on the Bloor Street Viaduct.

(7)(March 26, 1999) from E.H. Zeidler, Zeidler Roberts Partnership/Architects commenting on the intent of the Committee to employ the services of another architect.

(8)(March 29, 1999) from Dereck Revington, Dereck Revington Studios forwarding documents relating to the Bloor Viaduct - Preventive Measures.

(9)(March 29, 1999) from Claude Prevost, Regie Regionale De La Sante, Et Des Services Sociaux confirming that the installation of a safety fence would be the most appropriate measure.

-(March 30, 1999) from Paul S. Links, M.D., FRCP(C),, Arthur Sommer Rotenberg Chair in Suicide Studies, Professor of Psychiatry, St. Michael's Hospital expressing his concerns about possible delays in completing the barrier for the Bloor Viaduct which may lead to further suicides, particularly after all the media attention that has been given to this initiative and stating that if further delays are unavoidable, then he would encourage the planners to revisit the installation of crisis phone lines and foot patrols on the bridge until the barriers are erected.

-(April 14, 1999) from Dereck Revington, Dereck Revington Studios, forwarding a confirmation letter to Tom Denes, Executive Director, Technical Services, Works and Emergency Services (April 9, 1999) providing further requested information, Work Plan and Schedule and Vermeulens Cost Consultants - Budget Analysis dated April 14, 1999.

-(April 14, 1999) from Dr. D.J. Gunnell, Senior Lecturer in Epidermology and Public Health Medicine, University of Bristol providing comments regarding the creation of barriers and stating that he would not argue that the creation of barriers would prevent all would-be suicides from committing suicide but simply that an important proportion would be prevented.

-(April 16, 1999) from Isaac Sakinofsky, MB, ChB, MD, DPM(Lond), FRCP(C), FRCPsych (UK), Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry & Public Health Sciences, University of Toronto recommending that Councillors strongly stick with their initial decision and go forward with this important life-saving project without further delay, delay which has already caused the costs to rise from what they were originally.

-(April 18, 1999) from Ben Au-Yeung urging the Committee to reaffirm their commitment to build the barrier now and not to delay the project by asking for more analysis or going through another tendering process.

-(April 19, 1999) from Michael Wilson supporting the planned suicide project at the Bloor Street Viaduct.

The following persons appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Dereck Revington, Dereck Revington Studios;

-Richard Vermeulen, Vermeulen Cost Consultants;

-Eric Gordon, Yolles Engineering Inc.;

-Dr. Isaac Sakinofsky, Clarke Institute;

-Teresa and Gary Kruze;

-J.A. (Al) Birney, Past President of East York Chapter and Bridge Committee Chairman, Schizophrenia Society of Ontario;

-Mary Doucette, representing the Doucette family;

-Michael McCamus, Bridge Committee Spokesperson, Schizophrenia Society of Ontario and Member of Bloor Viaduct Project Steering Committee; and

-Ellis Galea Kirkland, Juror, Bloor Viaduct Barrier Design Selection Committee, Urban Planning and Development Services, City of Toronto.

The Committee's recommendations are as noted.

City Clerk

Christine Archibald

Item 3

cc:Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services

General Manager, Toronto Transit Commission

Interested Persons

(Report dated March 18, 1999, addressed to the

Urban Environment and Development Committee from the

Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services)

Purpose:

To provide a status report on the Prince Edward (Bloor Street) Viaduct - Measures to Deter Suicide Attempts project and to outline, through a series of recommendations, a proposed course of action that will allow the project to proceed to a satisfactory conclusion.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

1.Subject to approval by the Toronto Transit Commission, Council authorize the additional expenditure of $800,000.00 for the purchase of a modified Bridgemaster vehicle to be included within the TTC's 2000 capital budget estimates, and that the vehicle be maintained, thereafter, in the TTC's ownership.

2.In view of the confirmation of Dereck Revington Studios/Yolles Partnership Inc. that it cannot complete the project within $1.5 million, the amount prescribed in the terms of reference for the design competition, Council authorize not proceeding with finalization of an agreement with Dereck Revington Studios/Yolles Partnership Inc. and, instead, authorize the engagement of E.R.A. Architect Inc. to prepare detailed design and tender documents for the construction of the Prince Edward Viaduct Suicide Deterrent Measures based on its design proposal with the prescribed funding amount, and on terms and conditions satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the City Solicitor.

3.Temporary measures be put in place without further delay, including six telephones and appropriate signage, and that the additional annual costs estimated to be $2,500.00 incurred by the Distress Centre, be accommodated through a slightly increased yearly grant to the Centre.

4.The Schizophrenia Society working with community groups establish patrols on the bridge, the details of which would be reported to Council at a later date.

Background:

Subsequent to a design competition, Council at its meeting held on October lst and 2nd, 1998, approved Clause 1 of Report No. 11 of the Urban Environment and Development Committee authorizing the engagement of Dereck Revington Studios/Yolles Partnership Inc. to prepare the detailed design and tender documents for the construction of the Prince Edward Viaduct Suicide Deterrent Measures. The Terms of Reference for the design competition was very specific in establishing an upper limit for the costs at $1.5 million and those expenditures were authorized by Council for the completion of the project.

During the preliminary design stage, the TTC expressed concern that following the installation of the barrier, they would no longer be able to carry out periodic inspections of the subway support substructure of the viaduct using their current methodology, consisting of a vehicle with a long flexible arm and a bucket called the Bridgemaster, that reaches over the handrail and under the bridge.

It also became clear that the selected design (or any of the other designs submitted) would not easily lend itself to periodic dismantling in order to facilitate access by the Bridgemaster.

In order to resolve the impasse, City staff have been working closely with TTC staff and have examined various alternatives including:

• a modified inspection vehicle capable of reaching over the barrier (Bridgemaster with a longer arm)

• a track mounted inspection vehicle (Bridgemaster on a TTC work train)

• construction of permanent inspection platforms under the subway tracks; and

• Remote Access Technology involving the use of ropes, harnesses and video equipment.

Discussion on the TTC's Inspection Needs:

TTC staff have estimated the costs of the alternative inspection methods, both in terms of capital expenditures and yearly operating costs and have presented the following summary:

CapitalYearly Operating

Costs Costs

Options($x1,000) ($x1,000)

1. Using the current method with$0$ 56.5

no barrier in place

2.Permanent platforms under the$2,000.00$ 42.2

subway tracks (5 arches)

3.Modified Bridgemaster with $ 800.00$ 67.9

longer arm

4.Remote Access Technology$0$150.0

using video equipment

5.Track Mounted Bridgemaster$ 800.00$129.9

6.Temporary Swing Stages$0$637.2

7.Permanent Platforms for 2 arches$1,600.00$ 57.2

and bucket truck from Bayview and

the DVP

Option 1 is the current method used by the TTC in performing inspections since 1996 using the MTO Bridgemaster.

Option 2 assumes construction in 1999 and 2000 concurrently with the approved support beam replacement contract.

Option 3 will require a delivery time of two years, however, the TTC is currently awaiting quotations from other manufacturers.

Option 4in the TTC's opinion, poses a safety risk on one hand, and insufficient control over inspections on the other and, therefore, has been rejected by them. City staff disagree. Remote access technology is a well accepted method of bridge inspections and was last used in Ontario by the Ministry of Transportation - Ontario for substructure inspections of the Garden City Skyway in the Niagara Region in 1998.

Option 5allows for limited inspection windows of less than two hours a day.

Option 6was the TTC's practice prior to 1996.

Option 7is a combination of Option 2 above and the use of a "cherry picker" truck from the ground for part of the structure. This option would result in frequent road closures on both the Don Valley Parkway and the Bayview Extension.

TTC staff, having considered the implications of the alternatives, are prepared to recommend Option 3 in their report to the Commission.

Discussion on the City's Inspection Needs:

During a meeting held on March 9, 1999, involving the Chair of the UEDC and some of the area Councillors, City staff were requested to provide information, including costs involved in the inspection of the rest of the structure.

The deck of the Prince Edward Viaduct was last repaired in 1989. The recoating of the structural steel substructure followed shortly after. In April 1999, we expect City Council to award the last recoating contract for Span No. 3.

Since the rehabilitation contract, former Metro Transportation and now the City staff have performed regular routine inspections of this bridge. In general, inspection has been performed in accordance with the Structure Inspection Manual issued by the Ontario Ministry of Transportation. Staff have used different methods for inspection on different components. For example, staff would request special permission to enter into the TTC subway right-of-ways with the aid of flaggers to visually inspect the underside of the bridge deck. For the substructure, more detailed inspection has been performed in utilizing the falsework installed for the recoating contracts. Furthermore, visual inspection was also performed from the ground with the aid of binoculars.

When preparing the recoating contracts for Span No. 2 (the Don Valley Parkway span) and Span No. 5 (the Bayview Extension span) "man lifts" or a "cherry picker" bucket truck was used to inspect the steel work. For Spans Nos. 3 and 4 (the Don River span) an inspection engineer with safety harnesses climbed up the structural steel from ground. Steel cable lifelines were also installed to assist the inspection from a safety standpoint. This bridge is currently in good condition, therefore, inspection costs for the City only include staff time and the accessory cost is minimal.

Discussion on Cost Estimates provided by Dereck Revington Studios:

The Terms of Reference for the design competition specified the amount of $1.5 million as the maximum amount within which the project had to be completed. Dereck Revington Studios/Yolles Partnership Inc. won the competition based on those Terms of Reference and Council authorized the engagement of these companies at its meeting held on October lst and 2nd, 1998. In early March 1999, following some quantity estimates by City staff, Mr. Revington was requested to provide assurance, in writing, that the cost of the project would not exceed $1.5 million. In his response dated March 14,1999, he indicates that he can no longer stand by his original estimate and, in fact, the project will cost substantially more than specified in the Terms of Reference. His current estimate is $2.14 million.

City staff have approached E.R.A. Architect Inc., the runner-up in the design competition, and they have indicated in a letter dated March l7, 1999, that they stand behind their original estimates.

Under the circumstances, it would be appropriate for Council to withdraw its previous approval relating to the engagement of Dereck Revington Studios/Yolles Partnership Inc. and to instruct the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to enter into an agreement with E.R.A. Architect Inc. to prepare the detailed design and tender documents. The City Solicitor is in agreement with this recommendation.

Heritage Toronto, who played a key role in the selection of the successful design alternatives, are also in agreement with the recommendation.

Discussion on Temporary Measures:

If Council authorized commencement of the project at its upcoming meeting, it would be completed by the late fall of 1999 at the earliest. In the meantime, immediate short term measures should be considered. These measures include the installation of telephones and community patrols on the bridge. Both of these proposals were discussed by the Steering Committee during the preliminary design phase.

Telephones:

Dedicated telephone lines may prove useful for individuals in need of professional advice. Such telephone lines have been employed in other jurisdictions with a great degree of success. A total of six telephones would be connected directly to the Distress Centre where qualified personnel would deal with individual situations.

The following is the estimate of costs:

• Initial cost of installation$16,000

• Operating cost for telephone lines$ 2,700 per annum

• Additional costs incurred by the

Distress Centre:Initial$ 5,000

Operating$ 2,500 per annum

Patrols:

The patrols can either be from the police or from community groups such as the Schizophrenia Society. In view of the restraint on the police budget, it may be difficult to have their commitment. As for the community groups, this service would be provided on a voluntary basis. It is uncertain, at this time, what level of patrolling is necessary, thus an estimated cost cannot be made until the unknowns are realized.

Conclusion:

The project has suffered significant delays due to the need to accommodate the TTC's ongoing bridge inspection needs. It would now appear that the TTC requirements can be satisfied at an additional cost of $800,0000. If Council agrees to the continued engagement of Dereck Revington Studios/Yolles Partnership Inc. at a cost which is $0.85 million higher than the original submission including contingencies, the project will proceed immediately upon approval and, barring further delays, it stands a good chance of being completed by the end of 1999. In the meantime, temporary measures in the form of telephones, signs and community patrols should be instituted without further delay.

Contact Name & Telephone No.

Mike Chung, P.Eng.

Manager, Structures & Expressways

Design Construction and Inspection

Technical Services Division

Tel. 392-8341

(Report dated April 14, 1999, addressed to the

Urban Environment and Development Committee from the

Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services)

Purpose:

To provide further information and a recommendation concerning this project as requested by the UEDC at its meeting held on March 3l, 1999.

Financial Implications:

Should Council decide to go ahead with the current design, $1,000,000 would have to be allocated in addition to the $1,500,000 already included in the 1999 Capital Budget of the Works and Emergency Services Department. The source of the additional funding would have to be determined.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the Basic Design Alternative be adopted which does not require additional funding.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The UEDC at its meeting held on March 3l, 1999, deferred consideration of the recommendations contained in a report from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services dated March 18, 1999, with the exception of Recommendations #3 and #4 and requested further information concerning:

• the most up-to-date cost estimates
• the views of the Selection Committee members; and
• the appropriateness of considering design alternatives at this time

Discussion on the design competition and/or the views of the Selection Committee members

As requested by your Committee, City staff met with members of the Selection Committee who had reviewed all submissions in the design competition and recommended the appointment of Dereck Revington Studios/Yolles Partnership Inc. in the late summer of 1998.

Members of the Committee are unanimous in their views that:

• although the selection of the winning design occurred through the process of elimination, there was only one selected alternative

• the submission of Dereck Revington Studios/Yolles Partnership Inc. was endorsed by the members in August, 1998, and is still strongly supported by the group.

• the project should proceed, without further delay, to a speedy conclusion.

Discussion on the provisions of the Stage II Design Brief outlining conditions of the competition:

The Design Brief formed the basis of the design competition. The following are some of the relevant points:

• "The budget for the project is $1.5 Million and is not to exceed this amount. The budget must cover all costs to construct preventative measures, including design development, tender and contract documents, construction costs, design fees and applicable taxes" (Section 2.0);

• "The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services is responsible for conducting this selection process and for making a recommendation to the UEDC. He has the right to support, modify or not support the recommendations of the Selection Committee" (Section 6.0);

• "The candidate selected by City Council will be awarded a prize of $20,000. The prize constitutes a deposit on a contract which will be recommended to City Council for authorization. The City of Toronto reserves the right to award the prize, but not to proceed with the project or the contract" (Section 8.0).

Discussion on available alternatives and cost implications:

1.Proceed with the Current Design

Project cost estimated by Dereck Revington

Studios/Yolles Partnership Inc.$2,482,000

New Bridgemaster 800,000

Total$3,282,000

These estimates, not including the Bridgemaster, reflect an increase of $1,000,000 (65%) over the amount specified by Council in the design competition. The source of the additional funding would have to be determined.

It was recommended earlier that $800,000 for the purchase of a new Bridgemaster vehicle be included in the TTC's 2000 Capital Budget estimates as a special item over and above the TTC's Capital funding needs.

2.Terminate the Current Design Process

(a)Call a new competition.

The project could not be completed in 1999, and it is doubtful if a new competition would lead to substantially different results..

(b)Consider a basic design alternative

(4m high from top of parapet, aluminium bars in demountable sections)

It is unlikely that this would achieve the aesthetical objectives of the Selection Committee, however, it is not a "fence" but a visually acceptable alternative. It would be constructed in 1999.

Preliminary Estimated Project Cost$1,324,600

No new Bridgemaster needed --

Total$1,324,600

Resolution would have to be reached as to the City's responsibility for expenses already incurred by Dereck Revington Studios.

Conclusions:

The Selection Committee strongly recommends entering into a contractual agreement with Dereck Revington Studios/Yolles Partnership Inc. for the completion of the project. On the other hand, the Commissioner of Works has been empowered to "support, modify or not support the recommendations of the Selection Committee".

The recommended alternative would not require additional funding either for a new Bridgemaster or for additional costs identified in the recent cost estimates for the Revington/Yolles proposal.

Staff have reviewed the history of the matter with the City Solicitor and he will be available at the meeting to provide the appropriate comments.

(Communication dated March 24, 1999, addressed to the

City Clerk from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission)

At its meeting on Tuesday, March 23, 1999, the Commission considered the attached report entitled, "Prince Edward Viaduct - Suicide Barrier and TTC Structural Inspection Options."

The Commission approved the Recommendation contained in the above report, as listed below:

"It is recommended that the Commission approve:

1.Receipt of this report for information noting that:

-the proposed Prince Edward Viaduct suicide barrier prevents the TTC from using current methods for inspecting the portion of the bridge structure for which TTC is responsible, and

-City staff are reluctant to consider an alternative barrier design which would accommodate TTC's inspection needs, and

-as a result, it will be necessary to procure an inspection vehicle (estimated to cost $800,000) to allow our inspections to continue, and

-alternatively, a removable fence (see attached drawing #3) could be considered as a suicide barrier (estimated at $650,000)which would allow TTC's current cost effective inspections to continue.

2.Forwarding this report to City of Toronto Council to request City funding of the required larger inspection vehicle."

The foregoing is forwarded to the Urban Environment and Development Committee and City of Toronto Council for consideration of the Commission's request that funding for the design and procurement of the larger inspection vehicle be incorporated in the City of Toronto's Capital Program, as noted above.

__________

(A copy of the report entitled, "Prince Edward Viaduct - Suicide Barrier and TTC Structural Inspection Options", referred to in the foregoing communication was forwarded to each Member of Council with the agenda of the Urban Environment and Development Committee meeting of April 19, 1999, and a copy thereof is also on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)

(Copies of the communications referred to in the aforemention report have been forwarded to each Member of Council with the agenda of the Urban Environment and Development Committee meeting of April 19, 1999, and copies thereof are also on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)