Prince Edward (Bloor Street Viaduct) -

Measures to Deter Suicide Attempts

(Don River and Midtown - Wards 23 & 25)

The Committee recommends the adoption of Recommendations (3) and (4) of the report (March 18, 1999) from the Commissioner, Works and Emergency Services.

The Committee reports, for the information of Council, having deferred consideration of Recommendations (1) and (2) of the report (March 18, 1999) from the Commissioner, Works and Emergency Services and requested the Commissioner to report further to the Committee for consideration at its April 19, 1999 or May 17, 1999 meeting.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following report (March 18, 1999) 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; 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.

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:

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:

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

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following report (March 24, 1999) from the General Manager, 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.

--------

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also had before it the following communications and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk:

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

-(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.

-(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.

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

-(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.

-(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.

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

-(February 12, 1999) from David Lester, Professor of Psychology, The Richard Stockton College of New Jersey, urging that fences be placed on the Bloor Viaduct.

-(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.

-(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.

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

-(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.

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

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

-Derek Revington, Derek Revington Studios;

-Morden Yolles, Yolles Engineering Inc.;

-Richard Vermeulen, Vermeulen Cost Consultants;

-Dr. Isaac Sakinofsky, Clarke Institute;

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

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