Prince Edward Viaduct -

Measures to Deter Suicide Attempts

The Works Committee reports having:

(1)received the following report (August 6, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services; and

(2)directed that such report be submitted to Council, with a request that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services report directly to Council for its meeting on October 26, 27 and 28, 1999, on the results of the tender for the installation of safety barriers on the Prince Edward Viaduct, if possible:

Purpose:

To provide further information concerning this project as requested by the Budget Committee at its meeting held on April 30, 1999.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial recommendations directly associated with this report. However, Council has decided to go ahead with the current design as recommended by the Urban Environment and Development Committee and the Budget Committee. An additional $1,000,000.00 has been allocated to this project in addition to the $1,500,000.00 included in the approved 1999 Capital Works Program of Works and Emergency Services Department. The source of the additional funding is yet to be identified.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Council Reference/Background:

On April 19, 1999, the Urban Environment and Development Committee considered our report dated April 14, 1999 and recommended to Council 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)an amount of $800,000.00 for the purchase of a modified Bridgemaster vehicle be included in the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) 2000 Capital Budget estimates as a special item over and above the TTC's capital funding needs; and

(4)the Project Steering Committee be revived and consulted on an ongoing basis;

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

On April 30, 1999, the Budget Committee, in its consideration of the recommendations of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, requested:

(1)the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to report directly to City Council, at its meeting of May 11, 12 and 13, 1999, on a source of funding for the aforementioned project; and

(2)provisions being made for Mr. Dereck Revington, Dereck Revington Studios, Mr. J.A. (Al) Birney, Past President of the East York Chapter, and Bridge Committee Chairman, Schizophrenia Society of Ontario, and Mr. Michael McCamus, Bridge Committee Spokesperson, Schizophrenia Society of Ontario and Member of the Bloor Viaduct Project Steering Committee, to attend the City Council meeting of May 11, 12 and 13, 1999, as a resource to staff to answer questions respecting the subject project.

History, Comments and/or Discussion:

On January 26, 1998, the Works and Emergency Services Department received a written request from Councillor Case Ootes for information about the feasibility and cost of installing a safety barrier and telephones on the Prince Edward Viaduct that would assist in deterring suicides at the bridge. The Department responded to Councilor Ootes on February 17, 1998, with preliminary cost estimates for the installation of a safety barrier and telephones.

On February 26, 1998, the Works and Emergency Services Department retained Morrison Hershfield Consulting Engineers to carry out a preliminary design and to provide a comprehensive cost estimate for different types of safety barrier designs. The results of the study were as follows:

(i)installation of safety fencing ($400,000.00 - $520,000.00);

(ii)installation of covered walkways ($700,000.00); and

(iii)installation of safety nets below the structure ($530,000.00).

A Project Steering Committee consisting of representatives from the Schizophrenia Society of Ontario, Council of Suicide Prevention, the Toronto Historical Board/Heritage Toronto, Architecture and Civic Improvements of City Planning and the Transportation Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department was established to develop a work program which would enable staff to submit a report with recommendations to the Urban Environment and Development Committee for consideration at its meeting of June 15, 1998.

In subsequent meetings, the Project Steering Committee decided to only proceed with the safety fence option. Based on the estimated cost provided by the consultant, staff established a budget of $1.5 million, approximately three times of the safety fence estimate or double the covered walkway estimate to allow for the unknown aesthetic design component of the project.

This $1.5 million budget would set a cost envelope for the architects/engineers in submitting proposals.

Following the Council meeting on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, which adopted Clause No. 2 of Report No. 8 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, the Works and Emergency Services Department was authorized to solicit proposals for design concepts and full architectural services for the installation of safety barriers on the Viaduct.

On July 8, 1998, the Works and Emergency Services Department notified the TTC in writing of the project, outlining the project schedule and identifying the potential implication on the TTC's inspection methodology. The letter also requested the TTC to consider reverting back to its previous inspection method prior to adopting use of the Bridgemaster.

On July 22, 1998, the TTC responded and requested an opportunity to have input into the design and further requested that, if possible, the barriers be able to be temporarily removed and replaced or have the design accommodate the use of the current Bridgemaster.

At that time, a Consultant Selection Committee for the project consisting of representatives from the Schizophrenia Society of Ontario, the Council on Suicide Preventions, the Toronto Historical Board/Heritage Toronto, Architecture and Civic Improvements of City Planning, the Public Art Policy Advisory Committee and the Works and Emergency Services Department were evaluating the Expressions of Interest submitted by the 16 respondents and short-listed four companies for the stage II submission.

On August 13, 1998, an addendum was issued to the four short-listed design respondents advising them of the TTC's concerns and encouraged to put forward their ideas to address these concerns as part of their design submission. The TTC's request, however, was not included as a mandatory design requirement.

On October 1 and 2, 1998, Council adopted the report recommending the preferred design by Dereck Revington Studios/Yolles Partnership, and that they be retained to prepare the detailed design and tender documents and to provide project management and site supervision services.

Subsequent to Council's endorsement of the design, discussions were undertaken with the Project Steering Committee, the TTC and Dereck Revington Studios/Yolles Partnership with a view to resolving any design concerns prior to authorizing work on the detailed design. However, early into this process it was apparent that the design, as selected, could not be constructed within the originally budgeted amount of $1.5 million, and that the selected design did not easily lend itself to dismantling in order to facilitate the TTC's inspection of the subway support substructure.

The Terms of Reference for submission required the respondents to submit designs which could be constructed within the $1.5 million budget, including all costs of construction, design, tender and contract documents, site supervision and all applicable taxes. At the time of the competition, Dereck Revington Studios/Yolles Partnership, based on the work done through the competition and on the information available to them at that time, indicated that in their professional opinion, the work could be completed within the budget allowance.

The selected proposal from Dereck Revington Studios/Yolles Partnership was not designed to be readily removable. However, the barrier could be partially disassembled to allow for the continued use of TTC's bridge inspection equipment. After a detailed assessment, this option was discarded due to wear and tear on the prestressed cables and the annual costs associated with removal and replacement of the barrier. Accordingly, it became apparent that continued endorsement of the selected design would require a change in the TTC's inspection methodology. The TTC has estimated the cost of purchasing new bridge inspection equipment to be $800,000.00.

Three options were presented to Council:

(i)proceed with the design by Dereck Revington Studios/Yolles Partnership for construction of the suicide barrier in the amount of $2,482,00.00 plus $800,000.00 for purchase of new bridge inspection equipment by the TTC;

(ii)terminate work on the design by Dereck Revington Studios/Yolles Partnership and initiate a new design competition; and

(iii)terminate work on the design by Dereck Revington Studios/Yolles Partnership and construct a basic removable barrier (obviating the need for the purchase of new bridge inspection equipment) at a cost of $1,384,600.00.

On May 11, 12 and 13, 1999, Council adopted the recommendation of the Urban Environment and Development Committee (Report No. 7, Clause No. 2), which directed the Works and Emergency Services Department to proceed with the current design by Dereck Revington Studios/Yolles Partnership, to prepare the detailed design and tender documents for the construction and to increase the funding for the project by approximately $1,000,000.00.

In considering this matter, the Budget Committee posed the following questions:

(1)Why this project ended up the way it did?

(2)Why was the estimate based on a double chainlink fence?

(3)Why this project did not go out to full tender? and

(4)Why the TTC was not involved in this project from the very beginning?

Question (1), Why this project ended up the way it did?

This project is unique, as this type of safety barrier had not previously been designed or constructed. In addition, the barrier had to be functional in deterring suicide attempts as well as be sensitive to the historical context of a landmark structure. Due to the unique design and the purpose of the barrier, there were very few examples of similar types of structures and the associated cost data was not available.

Also complicating this process is the presence of the TTC subway right-of-way located under the road surface. The TTC's current method of inspecting these beams using the MTO Bridgemaster would not be possible after the barrier was constructed. During the competition stage, it was assumed that the TTC would utilize their previous method or a new method of inspection, but none were suitable without an investment in new equipment.

During discussions with the TTC and the designer, Dereck Revington Studios/Yolles Partnership, it became evident that the project could not accommodate TTC's request for a removable barrier and that additional funding would be required to purchase a new inspection vehicle for the TTC.

In the mean time, prior to initiating the final design of the barrier, staff conducted a more detailed review of the cost and material estimate provided by Dereck Revington Studios/Yolles Partnership. It was found that the structure could likely not be built within the $1.5 million budget allowance. The original estimated cost submitted by Dereck Revington Studios/Yolles Partnership reflected their professional opinion and informed assumption about the construction cost, based on their schematic design drawings prepared in the framework of a three-week design competition. At the time of the competition, full information about the actual conditions, points of structural attachment and details of the concrete handrails were not available. Since then, a considerable amount of new site information has been compiled and additional design work carried out which resulted in revision by Dereck Revington Studios/Yolles Partnership to the original cost estimate. The revised estimate reflects an escalation of $106,000.00, which includes the increased costs associated with connections to the existing structure in the amount of approximately $450,000.00, as well as design and construction contingencies in the amount of $316,000.00.

Question (2), Why was the estimate based on a double chainlink fence?

The Works and Emergency Services Department estimated the cost of three types of preventative barriers, as discussed above. Based on the cost estimates of the basic barrier designs, staff increased the budget to $1.5 million to allow for the unknown artistic/architectural treatment for the design. Budget estimates must be based on some form of design, conceptual or preliminary. When the budget was set, there was no design. As a result, a budget of three times the cost of a regular chain link safety fence was deemed appropriate.

Question (3), Why this project did not go out to full tender?

The project could not go to full tender during the competition stage as explained earlier, there was no design at that time. The current design was selected from a two-stage design competition. In the second stage, four qualified respondents submitted design solutions and cost estimates. The design proposals submitted at the competition stage were conceptual in nature and lacked the sufficient detail to enable contractors to tender the work. Once the winning scheme was selected, the designer could then proceed to complete the detailed design of the barrier and prepare tender documents for tendering. Only after the design had been completed, could the work be tendered.

Question (4), Why the TTC was not involved in this project from the very beginning?

The TTC was involved in this project very early in the design process, as stated previously in this report. Based on the TTC's letter of July 22, 1998, the four short-listed design respondents were advised of the TTC'S concerns and encouraged to put forward their ideas to address these concerns as part of their design submission. The TTC'S request, however, was not included as a mandatory design requirement as, at the time of the receipt of the TTC's letter, the competition had been well underway. In so doing, the Works and Emergency Services Department was aware that the TTC had only been using the current inspection equipment for a period of two years and believed that the TTC had other inspection methods which could be utilized in the event that the barrier design precluded the current methodology. It was not apparent until late October 1998 that the TTC did not have other inspection options and at which time efforts were initiated by the TTC to identify alternatives meeting their technical and safety requirements. This work was not concluded until March 1999.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

W.G. Crowther, Director, P. Eng.,

Works Facilities and Structures (416) 392-8256.

--------

The Works Committee reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter the following:

(i)confidential report (July 30, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services respecting the measures to deter suicide attempts on the Prince Edward Viaduct;

(ii)communication (July 8, 1999) from Dr. T.S. Turner, Chief of Psychiatry, and Medical Program Director, Mental Health, St. Joseph's Health Centre, recommending that the City carry out the plan to install suicide hotline phone across the Prince Edward (Bloor) Viaduct; and responding to objections raised against such phones; and

(iii)communication (July 12, 1999) from Mr. Michael McCamus, Bridge Committee Spokesperson, Schizophrenia Society of Ontario, requesting urgent action from City Councillors with respect to the installation of emergency phones on the Bloor Viaduct; and requesting that the "working team" of Councillors McConnell, Layton, Adams and Bossons be reconvened, and that Works staff provide a status report of the Bloor Viaduct emergency phones to the next meeting of the Committee.