March 18, 1999
To:Urban Environment and Development Committee
From:Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services
Subj:Prince Edward (Bloor Street) Viaduct - Measures to Deter Suicide Attempts
Wards:Don River:Councillors Jack Layton and Pam McConnell
Midtown:Councillors John Adams and Ila Bossons
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
Tom G. Denes, P.Eng.
Executive Director
Technical Services Division
Works & Emergency Services Department
Barry H. Gutteridge
Commissioner
Works and Emergency Services Department
