october 2013 - ontario good roads association of wellington bridge... · october 2013 county of ......

October 2013

County of Wellington Bridge Study

An Independent Study Commissioned by

http://www.ogra.org

http://www.rccao.org

October 2013

County of Wellington Bridge Study

An Independent Study Commissioned by the

OntariO GOOd rOads assOciatiOn

and the rEsidEntiaL and ciViL

cOnstrUctiOn aLLiancE OF OntariO

With financial support from the

OntariO Ministry OF transpOrtatiOn

Prepared by

rccao.com4

Table of ConTenTs

Executive Summary 5

Structure Inventory 12

Structure Needs 17

Cost of Structure Rehabilitations/Replacements 21

Structure Needs Results 24

Alternative Delivery Options 31

Conclusions and Recommendations 41

List of Figures, Charts and Tables

Figure 1: Small but Timely Renewal Investments Save Money 10

Figure 2: County of Wellington and Constituent Municipalities 12

Figure 3: Total Inventory (635 Structures) 15

Figure 4: Structures Included in Needs Analysis (464 Structures) 16

Chart 1: Total Structural Needs in the County of Wellington and Constituent Townships (2011 dollars) 24

Chart 2: Total Structural Needs in the County of Wellington and Constituent Townships with 3% Inflation 25

Table 1: Study Needs Assumptions – Rehabilitation Cycle 20

Table 2: Comparison of Life-cycle Cost Estimates between the County’s 2011 Bridge and Culvert Appraisal Report and this Study’s Results 26

Table 3: Number of Culverts and Estimated Costs under this Study and the County’s 2011 Bridge and Culvert Appraisal Report 27

Table 4: Number of Bridges and Estimated Costs under this Study and the County’s 2011 Bridge and Culvert Appraisal Report 29

Table 5: Estimated Cost Savings of AFP Bridge Bundling in the County of Wellington and Constituent Townships 38

5County of Wellington Bridge Study October 2013

exeCuTive summary

The issue

Many of Ontario’s bridges are over 50 years old and require major rehabilitation and reconstruction. Municipalities have limited financial resources to address these critical infrastructure needs, so it is essential to find new approaches to improve asset management and address this backlog for bridge rehabilitation. Alternative Financing and Procurement (AFP) delivery and project bundling have been identified by the Province of Ontario as approaches that the municipal sector should consider. To determine whether it is feasible or worthwhile for municipalities to adopt AFP and bundling models, this research study was commissioned to scope the magnitude of bridge work for a typical Ontario county and its constituent municipalities. Using the network of contacts within the Ontario Good Roads Association (OGRA), Wellington County and its constituent municipalities was identified as being a representative candidate for this study.

Despite significant investments by all levels of government, more must be done to address current and emerging municipal infrastructure needs. In June 2011, Ontario’s Ministry of Infrastructure released a long-term infrastructure plan known as Building Together. This 10-year infrastructure plan outlined a number of objectives, such as setting long-term investment priorities by sector, ensuring a pipeline of infrastructure projects, and improving asset management. The plan envisions a broader role for Infrastructure Ontario in all types of government procurement activity, including a stronger presence in transportation projects.

In August 2012, the Ministry of Infrastructure released Building Together: Guide for Municipal Asset Management Plans to provide a framework to address these municipal infrastructure challenges. This framework includes making asset management planning and public reporting universal, making optimal use of the full range of budgeting and financing tools, and addressing the infrastructure challenges that are confronting small municipalities. Provincial infrastructure funding grants would be conditional on published municipal asset management plans. The Guide encourages municipalities to utilize the AFP model where the private sector would have a role in design

rccao.com6

and construction as well as life-cycle maintenance of certain assets under long-term contracts. The Guide endorses AFP delivery methods and the bundling of municipal work. Recognizing that small municipalities may have limited financial capacity to undertake asset management planning, the province has provided funding assistance through the new Municipal Infrastructure Investment Initiative (MIII) program.

study framework

In spring 2012, the Residential and Civil Construction Alliance of Ontario (RCCAO) and OGRA, with MMM Group Limited, signed an agreement to undertake this research study. As it is a matter of provincial interest, the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) agreed to provide financial support of half the study costs. The study was led by a steering committee of representatives from the OGRA, RCCAO, MTO, and the County of Wellington. To test the concept, this research study reviewed the bridge infrastructure needs in the County of Wellington and constituent lower tier municipalities (Figure 2, page 12).

This report summarizes the findings to determine the bridge infrastructure needs of Wellington County and its constituent municipalities, and assess the feasibility of AFP delivery approaches to address long-term municipal bridge infrastructure needs.

Wellington County structure inventory

Findings are based on an assessment of life-cycle costs of the bridge inventory. Within the Wellington study area, there are 635 structures with spans of 3.0 metres or longer (excluding MTO highway structures and structures in the City of Guelph). Approximately one-third of the structures (194 structures) are owned and managed by the County of Wellington and the remainder (441 structures) are owned and managed by seven constituent municipalities including the Town of Erin, Township of Mapleton, Township of Centre Wellington, Township of Wellington North, Township of Guelph/Eramosa, Township of Puslinch, and Town of Minto. The County of Wellington had


generally available and reliable data sets that documented original year of construction, type of structure, and size. Unfortunately, the study includes only 60% of the lower-tier municipal inventory due to missing data that was required for the needs assessment. Despite the missing data, a sufficient sample size was available for the study, and the results were extrapolated to reflect the total infrastructure inventory.

structure improvement Costs

Based on the projections of this study, addressing the bridge infrastructure needs in the County and constituent municipalities will require, over the next seven years (by 2020), approximately $132 million (2011 dollars), or $19 million annually (2011 dollars). The annual rate may be somewhat higher than expected due to the potential backlog of bridge work that has not been addressed in the past. Over the longer term from 2020 to 2050, once the backlog is dealt with, the average annual expenditure required to address these needs is reduced to approximately $10-$11 million (in 2011 dollars—not adjusted for inflation) per year. This expenditure poses significant challenges for the case study municipalities. Clearly there will be competing infrastructure priorities over this period which will be a challenge for any municipality will limited financial resources. The same challenges exist for other Ontario municipalities with a large inventory of bridges that require repair or replacement over the next 20 years.

opportunities for afP Delivery

Municipalities can consider a range of options to gain efficiencies and reduce overall bridge renewal costs, such as municipal managed Design-Build contracts, multi-year contract bundling and AFP delivery. But there is no “one-size-fits-all” approach. A municipality must consider the technical and financial risks and determine whether there is Value for Money (VfM) in delivering through an AFP model, or choosing a Design-Build or other model. When considering any multi-year bridge renewal program, municipalities must also consider long-term allocation of capital and operating budgets and their financial means.

rccao.com8

Applying AFP or public-private partnerships (P3) contract procurement methods to address the structural infrastructure needs has potential benefits for municipalities. The AFP model brings together private and public-sector expertise in a unique structure that reduces the risk of project cost increases and improves project delivery schedule when compared with traditional project delivery methods.

AFP or P3 project delivery can be accomplished by one of several approaches, including Design-Build (DB), Design-Build-Finance (DBF) and Design-Build-Finance-Operate-Maintain (DBFOM). AFP delivery approaches have been implemented by the province on large health, education, and transportation projects to deliver hospitals, schools, highways, and other critical infrastructure. While the AFP model best suits large complex projects, bundling smaller projects together can achieve similar benefits. The Ministry of Infrastructure has identified AFP as an opportunity for municipalities to reduce costs and risk of both capital investments and long-term maintenance commitments.

An earlier study undertaken for Infrastructure Ontario in 2011 identified that AFP-procured projects can achieve significant costs savings (overall in the range of 30%). The savings come from reduced owner costs (10% to 15%), bidder innovation and value engineering (10% to 20%), avoidance of change orders and scope creep (10% +), an accelerated schedule (5% to 10%), and economies of scale. This study conservatively estimates that applying AFP delivery methods can achieve savings in the order of 13% to 20%, in addition to the benefits of accelerated construction.

The preliminary results of this study favour an AFP DB contract that includes bundling County and Township structures over a multi-year period. This type of contract requires the municipalities to make long-term budgetary commitments while at the same time recognizing that there are affordability considerations.

AFP is one option that can be considered for the delivery of such a large


and diverse program of municipal bridge renewal investments. Although AFP delivery has shown promising results in the past, more detailed analysis would be needed to identify the technical and financial risk of the specific investments. A VfM analysis can determine whether an AFP project will deliver value when compared to traditional delivery methods.

benefits of afP Delivery

This study considers how the benefits of a DB contract can be applied to high-value municipal bridge work, which is distributed over a wide geographic area and covers several municipal jurisdictions. Since few municipalities have a volume of work that would provide VfM for a single AFP contract, the study proposes adjoining municipalities with similar structural needs combine resources to prepare a single AFP contract that includes the rehabilitation of many structures over several years. Combining many individual structure projects into one large AFP contract provides the opportunity to achieve the savings that are inherent with AFP contracts.

afP Delivery expertise in ontario

Taking this step may be daunting for municipalities that may not have the technical resources or expertise to manage a DB AFP. There is significant positive AFP/P3 experience in Ontario, however, to help guide the process using Infrastructure Ontario, as well as private consulting expertise. The Province of Ontario and upper-tier municipalities have an opportunity to champion the AFP process and address some of these municipal infrastructure concerns.

improving structure inventory Data

On a broader scale, much can be done to improve the quality of municipal structure inventory data in Ontario. Although the County of Wellington and its constituent townships are considered proactive municipalities, the study team found a number of inconsistencies with the data that hampered the ability to make firm predictions on the state of the infrastructure. OGRA has data collection and asset management tools available and municipalities

rccao.com10

will benefit from making use of these tools. The completeness and quality of the structure inventory and inspection records are essential for efficient asset management. Greater support needs to be provided to ensure that there are regular inspections and that municipal structure inventory data are collected across the province.

The Ministry of Infrastructure’s report Building Together: Guide for Municipal Asset Management Plans says asset management is an important tool to address infrastructure deficit problems: “Because it takes a long-term perspective, good asset management can maximize the benefits provided by infrastructure. It also affords the opportunity to achieve cost savings by spotting deterioration early on and taking action to rehabilitate or renew the asset, as illustrated in Figure 1.”1

1 Building Together: Guide for Municipal Asset Management Plans, Ministry of Infrastructure, Ontario (2012)

figure 1: Small but Timely Renewal Investments Save Money

Smart Asset Management ($40m total): Make timely investments throughout.

Cond

ition

Year

$10m$10m

$10m

$10m

$60m

Poor Asset Management ($60m total): Let asset deteriorate, then replace.


summary recommendations:

1 A concerted effort is required by the Province and municipalities across Ontario to improve the quality of bridge inventory data.

2 Apply asset management tools to provide a long-range plan of municipal infrastructure needs. The Province of Ontario should continue to fund programs to assist municipalities with infrastructure asset management plans.

3 Where appropriate, bundle municipal bridge rehabilitation work geographically and over time to increase the size of contracts and give contractors the flexibility to standardize operations and apply innovation.

4 Consideration should be given to use AFP/P3 procurement delivery models to improve the value of contracts and reduce costs. Municipalities will require assistance from the Province of Ontario to develop AFP strategies to tackle these infrastructure management challenges.

5 The Province of Ontario should consider opportunities to explore AFP delivery options for municipal bridge infrastructure projects and champion a demonstration project with a willing municipality. Such a project will enable municipalities to better determine the financial viability and Value for Money of using AFP/bundled methods.

This study conservatively estimates that

applying AFP delivery methods can achieve

savings in the order of 13% to 20%, in addition

to the benefits of accelerated construction.

rccao.com12

The study area is located in southwestern Ontario and includes the County of Wellington and its constituent municipalities, excluding the City of Guelph, as shown in Figure 2. There are 635 structures within the study area: 323 bridges and 312 culverts.

sTruCTure invenTory

Wellington County Official Map

figure 2: County of Wellington and Constituent Municipalities

Source: County of Wellington

The first step in determining the bridge infrastructure needs was to gather existing data on each structure in the inventory. OGRA’s Municipal DataWorks (MDW) database provided the data, and MMM supplemented it with in-house bridge structure data collected from past work for the County of Wellington and the Township of Centre Wellington.


In accordance with Ontario’s Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act (PTHIA), R.S.O. 1990, all structures with spans equal to or greater than 3.0 metres require biennial inspection under the direction of a professional engineer. For guidance on bridge inspections, the Ontario Structure Inspection Manual (OSIM) provides a comprehensive methodology; however, use of the OSIM is not a legal requirement and bridge inventory reporting is sometimes inconsistent. OSIM recommends that structures in poor condition be inspected more frequently, and the Highway Traffic Act (HTA) provides posted load limits, which are set according to recommendations provided by two professional engineers. The posted load limit, description of the structure, additional investigations, and repairs required on an element by element basis, including quantities, are to be provided on the inspection forms (reports) for each structure. As the Province now requires municipalities to complete asset management plans and demonstrate critical infrastructure needs before requesting provincial capital funding, it is expected that more extensive data, including structure needs and required repairs, will be available over the next 10 years.

Data sufficiency

Although OGRA’s MDW database provides a means to document the OSIM reports, many municipalities are not in full compliance with the bridge inspection reports. The reason could be the cost of inspecting and reporting such detailed quantity-based information on an element-by-element basis. Many municipalities still report structure condition data in accordance with the old Bridge Appraisal Sheets, which are not quantity or element-based. Much of the data required for more detailed assessment of each structure needs is simply not available at the lower-tier level. While the reporting of structure condition should be more detailed, the structures are being inspected, which addresses the due diligence required for public safety in accordance with the Act.

rccao.com14

A review of the study area data indicated that there was generally insufficient information for the majority of the lower-tier structures to make an assessment of the structures needs (costs) over the next 10-year period normally covered by OSIM reports. Inspecting the structures to “fill in the blanks” was beyond the scope of this study and, for 635 structures, would be a formidable task. Copies of the actual inspection reports to “fill in the blanks” on the MDW data were requested; however, the response was limited due to incomplete information.

A review of the data indicated the following information was available for the majority of the structures:• Original year of construction• Structure type: bridge or culvert• Type of bridge or culvert (e.g. rigid frame, slab-on-girder,

truss, CSP, box culvert, etc.)• Deck width or culvert length• Span.

Some structures were likely not classified correctly, based on the stated geometric data. For example, a culvert by definition is an opening through an embankment and its length is more than the roadway’s width. However, the data recorded many structures with “deck widths” much wider than the travel width or road width, which is indicative of a culvert-type structure. Some culverts were classified as bridges, probably because the structure was not buried, but the proportions of the structure appeared to be more “culvert” than “bridge,” therefore they were reclassified as “culverts.” Following reclassification adjustments to the data, the study team determined the inventory is comprised of 312 culverts and 323 bridges.

The bridge inventory by municipality is presented in Figure 3.


Data adjustments

There was also confusion with respect to what constitutes the “span” of a structure. By definition, “span” is the distance from centre to centre of supports (or bearings). Much of what was reported as a span was likely the opening width between abutments, particularly on the concrete rigid frame and concrete box culvert type structures. Furthermore, in some cases the deck length was incorrect and included the length of the approach slabs or the data provided for deck length was the same as the data provided for span.

Where inconsistencies in the data were found, the span and deck length data were corrected based on engineering judgement. Where there was insufficient data to make a reasonable determination of the existing structure size (equivalent deck length and width) or if the original year of construction was missing, the structure was not included in the analysis of the needs.

figure 3: Total Inventory (635 Structures)

Wellington County194

Erin48

Guelph/Eramosa

29

Puslinch14

Centre Wellington

104

Mapleton107

Wellington North96

Minto43

rccao.com16

Another challenge was the stated year of construction. In one municipality, the original year of construction was the same for more than 40 structures. Since it was unlikely that more than 40 structures would be constructed in the same year, the structures reportedly built in the same year were excluded from further analysis. Missing or unreliable data reduced the number of structures in the inventory to be included in the needs analysis from 635 structures to 464 structures comprised of 260 bridges and 204 culverts.

Details of the inventory versus number of structures included in the needs analysis and structure classification are available in the Data Summary in the Appendices. Figure 4 shows the number of structures included in the needs analysis.

figure 4: Structures Included in Needs Analysis (464 Structures)

Guelph/Eramosa29

Puslinch12

Minto14

Wellington North38

Mapleton32

Wellington County192

Centre Wellington

99

Erin48


The next step was to develop a decision matrix for future structural work for each structure to determine costs and year when minor rehabilitation, major rehabilitation, and replacement of the structures will be required. The study adopted a life-cycle of 75 years. According to the current Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC), this number corresponds to the projected service life of new structures.

The resulting decision matrix reflects the available data. The County of Wellington has an asset management plan available for the next 10 years, which details the needs in “now”, “1 to 5 years,” and “5 to 10 year” categories. The lower-tier municipalities do not have asset management plans for their structures or a determination of their bridge infrastructure needs in the near future. Therefore, the decision matrix must provide an assessment of the lower-tier structure needs and of the total inventory needs beyond the next decade. In the future, the study team expects municipalities will have completed asset management plans that provide this critical bridge needs and cost data.

bridges

Typical practice indicates that bridges require minor rehabilitation after 25 years and major rehabilitation after 50 years. Minor rehabilitation works typically include the replacement of bridge bearings, resurfacing, replacement of waterproofing, concrete patching, replacement of expansion joints, and barrier repairs. Major rehabilitations typically involve more extensive work such as concrete overlays on decks or deck replacements, replacement of bridge barriers, resurfacing of substructure components, recoating structural steel, etc.

Theoretically, bridges can be maintained indefinitely by performing minor and major rehabilitation work as required. However, the cumulative effects of fatigue, environmental effects, and accident damage can eventually take a toll on the structure. Without regular maintenance and rehabilitation, the need for rehabilitation becomes more frequent and rehabilitation costs increase significantly. In addition, frequent lane or road closures to

sTruCTure neeDs

rccao.com18

accommodate major rehabilitation increases user costs (although bridge construction traffic interruptions and detours are not always a significant factor on rural low-volume municipal roads). In due course, replacing the structure becomes more economical than repairing it.

To estimate long-term bridge renewal needs and costs, this study assumed lower-tier bridges will be replaced at 75 years of age, and County bridges will be replaced at 100. For the County bridges, the study assumed additional life before replacement because the County has a proactive bridge maintenance program, including annual cleaning.

Structure replacements may also be required for functional reasons. Since most of these bridges were built, traffic loads and demands for structures to carry oversize and overweight loads have steadily increased. Structures with low posted load limits affect routes for maintenance vehicles (snow plows), transportation of goods, as well as emergency vehicle access. In cases where posted load limits do not meet demand and the cost of rehabilitating and strengthening the structure reaches unacceptable levels, replacement would be the practical option. Similarly, if the bridge width is no longer adequate for the traffic volume, increased traffic generated by adjacent land development may accelerate the need for replacement. Municipalities might also need wider bridges to accommodate the increased width of modern farm equipment, calling for replacement rather than rehabilitation. For this study, replacement for “functional” reasons is assumed when existing posted load limits are less than 20 tonnes for single-unit vehicles or the existing structure width is less than the tolerable width for two-way traffic.

Corrugated steel Pipe Culverts

Corrugated steel pipe (CSP) culverts generally have a shorter lifespan than concrete structures. In northern Ontario, CSP culverts are not recommended because the acidity of stormwater corrodes CSP structures in a relatively short period. CSP culverts in the Wellington County geographic area have long service lives compared to those in northern Ontario. Most problems experienced with structural CSP structures in the study area are the result of


bolt-line cracking, a fatigue defect resulting from improper installation. The problem of bolt-line cracking, which is related to how the plates are lapped, was not diagnosed until the 1980s, so there are many existing structures with this problem in the study area. Fortunately, the problem is related to fatigue and many of the bolted CSP structures simply have not achieved enough load cycles (due to low traffic volume) for the problem to develop. In addition, industry has developed a standardized repair for bolt-line cracking. If this repair is applied before or when the cracks first appear, it effectively solves the problem. For this study, the team assumed CSP culverts will have a lifespan of 50 years before requiring replacement.

The service life of CSP culvert structures could be extended by rehabilitation, lining, or other methods. Culvert rehabilitation methods result in smaller waterway openings, reducing flow capacity and possibly having an unacceptable impact on flood lines. The majority of the CSP culverts in the study area are not buried very deeply, however, so the cost to excavate, replace, and backfill corroded CSP culverts is not significantly more than the cost of rehabilitation. Therefore, the study has assumed that CSP structures will be replaced at the end of their service life.

Concrete Culverts

Concrete culverts typically have a longer service life than concrete bridges because they are buried and don’t have joints. Concrete culverts are not subject to deterioration of the deck section and substructure that result from joint leaks and exposure to chloride salts. In addition, structures buried in more than 500 millimetres of fill receive a lower oxygen supply that keeps reinforcing steel from becoming corroded at a higher rate and the fill prevents much of the chloride-laden road drainage from reaching the structure.

Concrete culvert deterioration is typically associated with freeze-thaw deterioration or concrete erosion. New concrete structures are built with air-entrainment to resist freeze-thaw deterioration and are constructed with higher density and stronger concrete than the material used prior to 1970. Freeze-thaw deterioration typically occurs on the culvert fascia with southern

rccao.com20

exposure, which is subjected to more freeze-thaw cycles and direct surface runoff. Because it is limited to the culvert ends which are not subjected to traffic loads, this deterioration is usually of little structural consequence. The more rapid structural deterioration occurs at water level on the culvert walls where freeze-thaw cycles and erosion reduce the wall thickness. Experience has shown that a significant amount of culvert wall deterioration may occur before it has an impact on structural adequacy. The reason is that the deterioration is typically at low-stress locations near the bottom of the walls. The study assumes that concrete culverts will not require rehabilitation for 40 years compared to the 25-year rehabilitation cycle assumed for bridge type structures. As with bridges, the study assumes that concrete culverts will be replaced at 75 years because they are older concrete structures built without air-entrained concrete.

summary of assumptions

The assumptions used in this study to estimate the County and Township needs for the next 75 years are summarized in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Study Needs Assumptions – Rehabilitation Cycle

Structure TypeMinor

Rehabilitation Cycle (years)

Major Rehabilitation Cycle (years)

Replacement Cycle (Years)

Bridges - County 25 50 100

Bridges - Municipal 25 50 75

Culverts - CSP N/A N/A 50

Culverts - Concrete N/A 40 75


The estimated cost of minor and major rehabilitations is normally expressed as a percentage of the existing asset value. The existing asset value for this study is defined as the cost to replace the structure with a deck area of the same size. The cost is determined from average costs per square metre of deck area of bridge and culvert. The study team requested data on costs of bridge contracts in the County of Wellington area as a basis for the costs, but these were not available. Consequently, the team based the structural cost estimates on the parametric unit costs from the MTO 2011 Parametric Estimating Guide (PEG). As the PEG does not include costs for CSP culverts, 75% of the parametric unit cost for concrete culverts was used and based on the author’s experience.

Guide rail

The MTO PEG unit costs provide estimated replacement costs for the structure only and do not include allowances for guide rail on the approaches. Based on experience, it is noted that many of the existing lower-tier structures may not have guide rail on the approaches to the structure, or guide rail is in poor condition or missing end treatments according to current standards. To address this issue, the study assumptions include a $35,000 lump sum cost for the installation of new guide rail systems on the culvert approaches. As a reflection of the 25-year service life of steel beam guide rail systems, the cost is applied to both rehabilitation and replacement estimates.

approach Work

The costs of approach road work associated with bridge and culvert replacements are also not included in the PEG unit structure replacement costs. Local (transition) widening of the approaches is typically required on lower-tier roads to match the width of the replacement structure. In addition, some minor grade changes are typically required to accommodate current soffit clearance requirements and increases in superstructure depth. As noted earlier, the inventory data did not identify the proportion of the bridge structure costs that applied to approach work. Based on collective experience, the study team applied a multiplier of 50% of the bridge replacement cost

CosT of sTruCTure rehabiliTaTions/rePlaCemenTs

rccao.com22

to cover the cost of approach road work. The actual approach road work is expected to vary significantly from site to site depending on the realignment (vertical and horizontal) required to suit the replacement structure.

It was assumed that road width at the County culverts was adequate. Also, since culverts are buried, changes in approach grade are probably not required when culverts are replaced. Approach work on County culverts associated with replacement was considered minimal, so no multiplier was applied for culvert approach work. With respect to lower-tier municipalities, it was assumed the road width at the culverts was likely deficient and transition widening from the existing road width to the structure would be required. A multiplier of 20% of the culvert replacement cost was applied to the lower-tier culvert replacements for associated road work.

Details of the unit costs, multipliers for approach work, and guide rail costs used for bridge and culvert replacements may be found in the Basic Study Assumptions for Bridges and Culverts in the Appendices.

bridge Widths

When existing bridges or culverts require replacement and the existing deck width is insufficient to meet current road standards, the replacement cost is based on the new bridge width or culvert length required.

Many lower-tier structures are on low-volume roads, which suggests that one-lane-only replacement structures are adequate, thereby reducing the width required for the replacement structures. However, the majority of lower-tier roads are posted at 80 kilometres per hour, where single-lane bridges are not allowed according to current standards for this speed. Many other structures need to service farm equipment, which require wider travel widths. Therefore, the study assumed all replacement bridge widths would accommodate current standards for two-way traffic plus an allowance for bridge barriers.


Performance Level 3 barriers with a width of 600 millimetres were assumed for County Roads subjected to higher traffic volumes and Performance Level 2 barriers with a width of 300 millimetres were assumed for the lower tiers. The road standards for lane and shoulder widths according to County Road (arterial or collector) or lower tier (local) road used in the study may be found in the Appendices.

Culvert Widths

Determining the length of replacement culverts was difficult because the depth of the culvert was generally not recorded and what inspectors consider ‘travel width,’ if recorded in the data, was not clear and generally inconsistent with the road widths. In addition, many lower-tier roads are gravel roads, which are treated regularly with maintenance gravel. The many years of the application of maintenance gravel has reduced the platform width and increased the depth of bury on the culverts. The result is that the lengths of the existing culverts are not sufficient to maintain the road cross-section travel width standards. A 3.0-metre increase over the existing culvert length was applied to culverts on lower-tier roads to determine the replacement culvert length. As the County roads are generally paved, this increase in length was not applied to County culverts.

Many of the existing concrete culverts have shallow or no bury depth. Therefore, the required replacement concrete culvert length was based on an assessment of the capability of the existing culvert length to accommodate the replacement travel width. Where the existing concrete culvert length was greater than required for the travel width, the existing concrete culvert length was used for the replacement structure. Where the existing culvert length was less than the replacement travel width (plus an allowance for barriers), the replacement concrete culvert length was based on the new travel width required. However, some existing concrete culverts may be longer than indicated by travel width requirements due to sidewalks or skewed orientation with respect to the road. The study did not consider this factor.

rccao.com24

The structure needs identified in this study represent the costs to address the immediate and anticipated future costs of rehabilitation and replacement, according to the decision matrix and cost formulas developed for the study. Details of the results for each municipality may be found in the Appendices. The resulting needs—assuming no inflation for all of the included structures—were totalled in five-year increments. See Chart 1.

sTruCTure neeDs resulTs

Chart 1: Total structural needs in the County of Wellington and Constituent Townships (2011 dollars)

2011

-201

5

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Cost

($M

illio

n)

104

28

57 60 58

67

45

59

40

26

59

42 4438

53

21

2016

-202

020

21-2

025

2026

-203

020

31-2

035

2036

-204

020

41-2

045

2046

-205

020

51-2

055

2056

-206

020

61-2

065

2066

-207

020

71-2

075

2076

-208

020

81-2

085

2086

-209

0

total needs in 5 year ranges (0% inflation, Extrapolated)

Wellington County

Lower Tiers (Aggregate of all municipalities)

A key observation on Chart 1 is the high value of bridge work in the first five-year period (2011-2015). It reflects the magnitude of the backlog of the estimated bridge rehabilitation requirements that have not been adequately addressed in the past and have been confined to the first period. Beyond the


2015 period, after the backlog of rehabilitation has been addressed the needs appear to be more normally distributed. The total annual structural needs within the County and constituent Townships are, on average, about $10 to $11 million (2011 dollars).

Since the costs identified in Chart 1 do not include inflation, the future anticipated costs are not adequately represented here. Chart 2 displays the effects of inflation over time assuming a 3% inflation rate. By assuming inflation, the costs increase at a compounded rate and could give the mistaken impression that bridge renewal costs are growing over the long term.

Chart 2: Total structural needs in the County of Wellington and Constituent Townships with 3% inflation

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Cost

($M

illio

n)

106

34

8198 109

145114

175

134103

268

223

268 271

434

201

2011

-201

520

16-2

020

2021

-202

520

26-2

030

2031

-203

520

36-2

040

2041

-204

520

46-2

050

2051

-205

520

56-2

060

2061

-206

520

66-2

070

2071

-207

520

76-2

080

2081

-208

520

86-2

090

total needs in 5 year ranges (3% inflation, Extrapolated)

Wellington County

Lower Tiers (Aggregate of all municipalities)

rccao.com26

The County of Wellington independently prepared a Bridge and Culvert Appraisal Report (2011) that outlines the structure needs for a 10-year period between 2011 and 2021. The results of this study were compared with the County’s 2011 Appraisal Report as a means to validate the findings. Table 2 compares the 2011 report findings to the results of this study.

A review of Table 2 shows the 2011 County report estimates greater needs for bridges and slightly lesser needs for culverts than this study identifies. Overall, the findings of this study appear to underestimate the inventory needs for the County structures by approximately 16%.

A review of the culvert OSIM reports, however, shows that approximately $1.4 million of the culvert work shown in the 2011 report is solely related to guide rail upgrades. If we consider these requirements, the 2011 report culvert costs decrease to approximately $8.9 million when the costs for guide rail deficiencies are removed.

Table 2: Comparison of Life-cycle Cost Estimates between the County’s 2011 Bridge and Culvert Appraisal Report and this Study’s Results

LIFE-CYCLE COST ANALYSIS RESULTS COUNTY STRUCTURES FOR PERIOD 2011-2021 ($ Million)

Bridges Culverts Total Bridges Culverts Total

28.5 10.3 38.8 20.8 11.8 32.6

County of Wellington 2011 Bridge and Culvert Appraisal

Study Results (Estimate Based on Original Date of Construction)


In order to compare the results, the following assumptions were applied to the individual structure costs in the 2011 report:• costs less than or equal to 15% of the asset value indicated maintenance

work only;• costs between 15% and 35% of the asset value indicated minor rehabilitation

work; • costs between 35% and 75% of the asset value indicated major rehabilitation

work; and• costs greater than 75% of the asset value indicated structure replacements.

Table 3 describes the number of culverts and the estimated cost of the rehabilitation work over the next 10 years indicated by each study.

1 - Maintenance activities were not addressed in this study.

Table 3: Number of Culverts and Estimated Costs under this Study and the County’s 2011 Bridge and Culvert Appraisal Report

CULvERT WORk

CATEgORY

Maintenance1 35 1.4 N/A N/A

Minor Rehab. 15 0.8 0 0

Major Rehab. 6 1.0 2 0.6

Replacement 15 7.1 30 11.3

Total Excluding Maintenance1 36 8.9 32 11.9

Number of Culverts

Cost of Work ($ million)

Number of Culverts



Study Results (Estimate Based On Original Date of Construction)

rccao.com28

Table 3 shows that significantly more (30 versus 15) culverts are scheduled to be replaced over the next 10 years compared to the OSIM recommendations. Furthermore, the review of the OSIM reports indicates that only one culvert was recommended for replacement in the “6 to 10 years” category. This suggests inspectors readily report culvert needs when signs of structural distress are evident, but are reluctant to make long-term forecasts of culvert needs, which are difficult to determine based solely on a visual inspection. The study also found that, despite observations of heavy corroded steel, inspectors did not recommend rehabilitation or replacement in the next 10 years if there were no signs of structural distress on CSP culverts. In addition, a review of the OSIM reports and comparison of the results suggests the lifespan assumed in the study for culverts, particularly for CSP culverts, may be conservative (shorter lifespan than that found in reality).

Overall the number of culverts identified in this study (32) is within 10% of the County’s estimate (36). Although the County may have indicated that only 15 culverts need replacement, it also identified another 21 culverts needing either minor or major rehabilitation. The overall numbers are close but indicate that this study’s approach to identifying the need may be more conservative.

Another interesting note of comparison between the two studies is the cost of the proposed work. The County’s estimate for the replacement of 15 culverts is approximately $475,000 each, while this study’s estimate is $375,000. Whereas this study may be more conservative in identifying the need, it also may be underestimating the value of the work.

Recent trends indicate that environmental agencies, including conservation authorities (CAs), the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), are requiring that replacement structures accommodate animal passage and the width of the meander belts of waterways. The result is that many culverts require significantly longer spans when replaced, for which this study does not account. Costs for the culvert work could increase by a factor of 10 or more based on current environmental trends.


In summary, this study shows approximately 34% greater needs for culverts over the next 10 years compared to the County’s report, but the overall cost difference is partially offset by the higher unit culvert cost replacement. Future studies could consider extending the assumed lifespan of culverts and increasing the unit cost for culvert replacement.

1 - Maintenance activities were not addressed in this study.

Table 4: Number of Bridges and Estimated Costs under this Study and the County’s 2011 Bridge and Culvert Appraisal Report

BRIDgE WORk

CATEgORY

Maintenance1 37 1.2 N/A N/A

Minor Rehab. 15 3.0 4 0.8

Major Rehab. 17 4.7 16 10.2

Replacement 16 19.6 10 8.3

Total Excluding Maintenance 48 27.3 30 19.3

Number of Bridges


Number of Bridges



Study Results (Estimate Based On 0riginal Date of Construction)

Table 4 shows the similar comparison of bridge statistics between this study and the County’s 2011 Appraisal Report. Based on a review of OSIM reports, the majority of the identified costs for the County bridges reports are a result of guide rail deficiencies. It is not surprising that a large number of the bridges (36%) have deficient guide rail given the average age of the bridges in the County is 51 years, and standards for guide rail end treatments have changed significantly over the last 25 years.

rccao.com30

Table 4 also shows that this study assumes a low typical cost of minor rehabilitation for the County bridge inventory—it is only 25% of the cost estimated in the County’s report. The sample size for minor rehabilitations over the next 10 years is relatively small and, therefore, inconclusive with respect to trends. Conversely, despite a similar number of major rehabilitations, this study’s cost estimate is approximately twice the County’s estimate, suggesting the study’s assumed cost of major rehabilitation work is too high.

With respect to bridge replacements, the 2011 report shows the average cost of a bridge replacement is approximately $1.2 million, which is approximately 50% higher than the study’s estimated average bridge replacement cost. This suggests the study’s assumed costs for bridge replacement may be low. In addition, according to the 2011 report, the number of bridge replacements required for the next 10 years is approximately 50% higher than the study. This observation suggests the study assumes a lifespan of bridges (100 years for the County bridges) that may be too high.

When the maintenance costs generally associated with guide rail upgrades are removed from the bridge and culvert needs, the study results are within 10% of the 2011 report on total inventory needs for the County over the next 10 years. Long-term needs (more than five years from inspection), however, are probably underestimated in previous reports due to the difficulty in determining the “6 to 10 year” needs. The overall study results (total of bridges and culverts) for the inventory are probably 15% to 20% lower than the actual needs.

Details on the extrapolated bridge and culvert costs may be found in the Appendices.


This section considers the possible opportunities to bundle structural work among the municipalities as a means to provide greater value. Increasing the number of structures in a single contract will reduce overall unit costs by providing economies of scale for similar work and better use of labour and equipment. In addition to considering the bundling of structural work, this report also considers the prospect of AFP delivery options, in accordance with recent initiatives in the Province of Ontario, Canada, and the United States.

AFP contracts, also referred to as P3 contracts, are partnerships with major contractors and developers that provide a full range of services to the owner, including design, construction management, and project financing. In a traditional contract delivery, the owner is responsible for the design and tells the contractor what to do; hence, the owner owns all of the design risks and unknown risks. In an AFP contract, the scope of work is defined by the desired results, based on performance specifications. It is up to the contractor to decide how to design and undertake the construction, so the contractor owns most of the risk. Value is achieved because the contractor is most knowledgeable in this area and is in the best position to accept and manage these risks.

General benefits of afP

The delivery of an AFP project for a bundled group of bridges would typically be accomplished in a relatively simple DB contract, where the contractor is responsible for both design and construction. To reduce the financial risk for a municipality, it would be desirable to keep the financial requirements of such a contract to simple milestone payments that are made upon completion of basic elements of structure and/or total completion of the work.

The payment terms are an important element of an AFP contract. These terms can provide a strong incentive to complete the project on time. Experience has shown that most AFP contracts are completed ahead of schedule while traditional design-bid-build contracts are often completed behind schedule. AFP contracts often include performance clauses as a further incentive.

alTernaTive Delivery oPTions

rccao.com32

On August 21, 2013, the Conference Board of Canada released a report, Canada as a Global Leader: Delivering Value through Public-Private Partnerships at Home and Abroad, which assesses the recent cost and time performance of P3s in Canada. The report updates an earlier 2010 Conference Board study, Dispelling the Myths: A Pan-Canadian Assessment of Public-Private Partnerships for Infrastructure Investments. It reviews the flow of Canadian P3 projects that have been procured or have reached construction completion since January 2010. In the Conference Board’s analysis, most recent P3 projects in Canada have been delivered successfully. Of the 42 projects assessed in the study, 35 were completed on time or early. According to the value-for-money studies, cost savings on these projects have averaged 13% in comparison to traditional delivery models.

AFP and P3 contracts are becoming more common. Public agencies are using AFP and P3 contracts in North America to take advantage of the greater value and improved schedule that these contracts provide. As the contractor accepts all of the design and construction risks, public agencies are not subject to the typical scope changes and claims that result when the owner prepares the design and manages the contract. An AFP contract is established on performance based specifications that define the end product instead of how to build it. When advance design work is not provided to contractors in AFP projects, more effort is required by the owner in advance of the procurement process to properly scope the project requirements, identify potential risks, secure/recognize government approvals and prepare detailed cost estimates.

afP Contracts for municipal bridge Works

A 2011 study for Infrastructure Ontario consulted a number of major Canadian transportation construction companies with respect to their views on the delivery of AFP/P3 projects. A key consideration was that a Design-Build contract needs to be of sufficient size, at least $50 million to $100 million, to be viable with the assumption of risk and to justify the investment in the bid process. This may not be a problem on large transportation projects


like Highway 407, the Herb Gray Parkway in Windsor, or an urban light-rail transit project. However, to apply the benefits of AFP procurement to bridge contracts, it would be necessary to bundle bridge work geographically into contracts worth over $50 million.

Depending on the size of a municipality, it may be a challenge to bundle $50 million of bridge work, particularly for some rural Ontario municipalities. The aim of this study is to consider opportunities to pool bridge projects over a number of adjoining municipalities. Although it might be challenging to bring together several municipalities with varying infrastructure priorities, fiscal capacities, and technical resources, the potential benefits are worth the effort.

Case studies

There is limited municipal experience in North America with bridge AFP/P3 contracts. One good municipal example is the Disraeli Bridge in Winnipeg which was procured as a DBFM project. Although this was a single structure, the contract was worth $195 million. The bridge was opened on time and on budget in the fall of 2012 and resulted in multi-million-dollar cost savings in comparison to a traditional delivery approach. The results from the final value-for-money report, completed by Deloitte & Touche LLP, assessed the value of savings at approximately $47.7 million, or 17.1%.

On a larger scale, the State of Missouri launched an ambitious program in September 2008 with a goal to have 802 of the state’s bridges completed by the end of 2014 (250 bridge rehabilitations and 554 bridge replacements).Due to underestimated state of infrastructure (repair cost) and the financial market troubles at the time, the original project launch was cancelled. After repackaging the program, a Design-Build contractor was selected in May 2009 for the $685 million Safe & Sound Bridge Improvement Program. On November 8, 2012, the program drew to a close, with all 802 bridges completed in just slightly more than 3.5 years. The project was expected to take more than five years to complete, so this was a truly successful program.

rccao.com34

MTO has considerable experience with bundling bridge rehabilitation projects. MTO has bundled rehabilitation design and delivery, using DB and traditional design-bid-build approaches. Bundling projects is intended to reduce overall costs, save time, and introduce opportunities for innovative construction approaches. It also permits a contractor to plan work to manage the traffic impacts of construction. There are many Ontario-based contractors that are involved in such major projects and have the necessary construction management and coordination experience.

Partnership with infrastructure ontario

Smaller Ontario municipalities do not often have the experience or expertise to put together and manage major AFP projects; however, in sectors such as health, education and transportation, municipalities have established partnerships with Infrastructure Ontario (IO) to successfully deliver major projects. For example, in recent years IO has partnered with Ottawa, Toronto and Kitchener-Waterloo to deliver light-rail transportation projects. The technical and environmental requirements for delivering bridge projects can be developed by in-house municipal staff resources, or with consultant engineering and project management support.

Bundling several bridge projects requires an understanding of how to set up the AFP procurement process, prepare the performance-based specifications, set up the payment mechanisms, and prepare the project agreement (contract). IO, as well as a select number of engineering consulting firms, has expertise in this area. Significant experience has been gained from AFP projects, such as hospital and transportation projects, to help municipalities with this step. They have built up considerable experience delivering institutional projects (hospitals, courts) and will be able to use this experience to help municipalities with civil infrastructure projects using AFP and bundling methods.


Interested municipalities can become familiar with the process and the results by contacting IO or the respective agencies that have implemented AFP projects. Experience is critical to understanding the potential and the feasibility of alternative delivery approaches, and to assess the agency’s abilities and willingness to undertake a large-scale initiative.

application of afP to bridge Works

AFP models provide an opportunity to advance bridge work and reduce overall costs. Based on MMM’s AFP experience and studies undertaken for IO, it was determined that significant costs savings (overall in the range of 30%) can be achieved from AFP-procured projects. The savings can be realized through: • Reduced owner costs (10% to 15%) as a result of reduced effort in design,

pre-engineering services and construction management.• Bidder innovation and value engineering (10% to 20%) that result from

performance-based specifications.• Avoidance of change orders and scope creep (10% +) as the contractor

assumes most construction risks.• Accelerated schedule (5% to 10%) which can reduce financing costs and

make the infrastructure available sooner.• Economies of scale (also present in a traditional procured project of the

same size).

Although an AFP project will lower the overall project costs for the owner, the contractor cost will be higher due to the additional responsibility for the design, construction management, and risk. Contractor soft costs generally increase to about 40% of the hard construction cost as compared to 30% on a traditional bid-build project. The savings to the owner are reflected in overall project cost savings achieved as a result of contractor innovation as well as reduced owner’s soft cost (design and construction administration), change orders, claims, and owner’s risks.

rccao.com36

large Contracts

How can the potential cost savings of AFP projects be applied to municipal bridge infrastructure projects? The first consideration would be to consolidate the work into a much larger contract. Benefits are achieved if there is a sufficient quantity (value) of work to give contractors the flexibility to standardize work operations and apply innovation. Bundling structures in a geographic area with surrounding municipalities is an excellent way to increase the volume of work. Consideration for grouping structures that are targeted for rehabilitation over subsequent years is another way to increase the volume of work. Bridges can also be bundled on a road network basis or along with major road construction work.

Type of afP Contract

A second consideration is the type of AFP contract. AFP contracts refer to a partnership between the owner and contractor that allows for risk sharing. The most commonly used types of AFP/P3 contracts are Design-Build (DB), Design-Build-Finance (DBF) and Design-Build-Finance-Operate-Maintain (DBFOM).

DB is the simplest alternative. It allows the contractor to undertake the most efficient design and build the project in accordance with performance specifications. Payment can be through regular periodic payments or by milestone payments.

A DBF contract includes the cost to finance the project until completion and handover. In essence, a DBF contract is similar to a DB contract except that full payment is made at the project’s close. A DBF contract usually includes a financial partner (other than the contractor), who finances the project until completion. The financial partner’s interests are aligned with the owner to provide an extra layer of oversight and rigour to ensure the project is delivered on time and in accordance with the contract conditions. A DBF project provides a significant advantage in the form of completion on time or ahead of time.


A DBFOM contract includes not only the financing for the project but the responsibility to operate and maintain the system. This type of contract provides a very powerful incentive to ensure the best and most efficient decisions are made to support the project over the long term. A DBFOM contract provides the most value by including the life-cycle costs. Payments are usually made in lump sum amounts for the capital investment and regular periodic payments during the term of the operations and maintenance.

Potential Cost savings

In the case of a bundled bridge contract, there are likely two scenarios: a simple contract (DB) to deliver the rehabilitated structures, or a longer-term contract that includes the rehabilitation and future maintenance of the infrastructure (DBFOM). While the latter could provide more value over the long term, it would be difficult to scope. It may also be less desirable as it requires a long-term commitment which may financially burden the municipality and provide less flexibility of choice. Rehabilitation work on bridges tends to be spread over longer cycles and in order to achieve benefits from a DBFOM contract, it would be necessary to have a contract term of at least 30 years.

As an example, Table 5 illustrates the potential savings of an AFP project if all the structure work within the county and the constituent townships were to be bundled into a single contract over a 30-year period or a 10-year period. A 30-year contract may be useful if there was interest in committing to a long-term DBFOM contract that included maintenance (note: maintenance cost is not included in these estimates). The 10-year contract provides a more practical approach that typically would be delivered through a DB or DBF approach. The 10-year contract would allow municipalities to achieve the same savings levels at a contact value that meets the threshold for AFP procurement, but without the long-term commitments. Another potential benefit (depending on how payment terms are established) is the work required to address the current structural needs within the program would be accelerated to be completed in less than 10 years (as experienced during the Missouri Safe and Sound program).

rccao.com38

Table 5: Estimated Cost Savings of AFP Bridge Bundling in the County of Wellington and Constituent Townships

Note: Values exclude Mapleton but values are extrapolated to represent all 635 structures

Number of Structures to be Rehabilitated and Constructed

Cost Estimate for All Structures 3% Inflation added

30 Year Cost($Millions)

10 Year Cost($Millions)

COUNTY OF WELLINgTON AND CONSTITUENT TOWNShIPS

TraditionalDeliveryMethod

Hard Cost 440.8 107.7

Contractor Soft Cost (30%) 132.2 32.3

Bid Cost 573.0 140.0

Owner’s Soft Cost (25%) 143.3 35.0

Contingency Allowance (5%) 28.7 7.0

Change Orders/Claims (5%) 28.7 7.0

Total Program Cost 773.6 189.0

AFP/P3DeliveryMethod

Hard Cost 440.8 107.7

VE/Innovation (5%) -22.0 -5.4

Contractor Soft Cost (40%) 167.5 40.9

Bid Cost 586.2 143.2

Owner’s Soft Cost (10%) 58.6 14.3

Contingency Allowance (5%) 29.3 7.2

Total Program Cost $674.2 $164.7

Potential AFP/P3 Benefit 12.8% 12.8%

(775) (267)


bundling structure Projects

Although specific 10- and 30-year examples are provided above, there are various different ways the structures can be bundled, either geographically, by municipal jurisdiction or by different time periods. The basic message: if a sufficient size of contract can be achieved, there is an opportunity to derive savings and accelerate construction. The savings assumptions used in this study are fairly conservative yet still produce benefits in the order of 13%. Considering that experience has demonstrated that AFP benefits typically produce savings in the order of 30%, it is not out of the question to anticipate even greater savings. The degree of savings will depend on a number of things, such as volume and type of work, similarity of the work (repetitiveness), opportunity for innovation, and geographic proximity of all the structures.

The estimates of the number of structures and costs shown in Table 5 were developed by extrapolating the values of the known structural deficiencies excluding the Town of Mapleton to conform to the total number of structures within the county and the townships. The contractor “Hard Costs” were also calculated in order to determine the contractor bid costs under both traditional and AFP scenarios. In order to be conservative and not paint an overly optimistic scenario, lower values were applied for the savings associated with reduced claims (5%) and innovation (5%) in AFP. Overall savings are noted to be in the order of 13%; however, the potential exists for savings to be significantly higher.

implementation

In order to implement an AFP procurement contract, the County and Townships would have to agree to participate in such a venture. The costs of the work would be allocated to each municipality based on estimated costs to do the work in their jurisdiction. The estimates would be used to apportion the final bid cost on a percentage basis of the total. Any scope changes or deviations that may arise after the contract is established would be negotiated separately with the respective municipality that has

rccao.com40

jurisdiction over the structure subject to the change. IO can be called upon for advice and assistance with respect to the procurement methods and contract documents. IO has actively participated with a number of urban municipalities in the procurement of recent major municipal AFP contracts.

This study is based on the preliminary information currently available. More detailed information is required to properly assess both the structural needs and the financial implications. A thorough structural investigation would be required on the target structures to identify the specific structural needs, the proposed solutions, and the costs. Advance engineering work is also recommended to better scope the project, such as environmental approvals, geometric surveys, and geotechnical investigations. This is needed to reduce risk and allow both the municipalities and potential bidders to properly assess the work and determine costs.

reducing uncertainty and risk

A key consideration is to reduce uncertainty with respect to environmental and community impacts. Municipalities can overcome this uncertainty with a bridge infrastructure plan that integrates bridge needs analysis with environmental assessment (EA) planning principles. An example is the Bruce County Bridge Infrastructure Master Plan that examined a group of related bridge projects to address the first two stages of the municipal class EA. This involves consultation with the public, regulatory agencies, and property owners adjacent to the bridges. Through this process the natural, social, economic, and cultural (heritage and archaeological) impacts are considered. This can minimize the transfer of risks to bidders and build community support for the bridge projects ultimately bundled together in the AFP initiative.


1 A concerted effort is required by the Province and municipalities across Ontario to improve the quality of bridge inventory data. 2 Apply asset management tools to provide a long-range plan of municipal

infrastructure needs. The Province of Ontario should continue to fund programs to assist municipalities with infrastructure asset management plans.3 Where appropriate, bundle municipal bridge rehabilitation work geographically and over time to increase the size of contracts and give contractors the flexibility to standardize operations and apply innovation. 4 Consideration should be made to AFP/P3 procurement delivery models to improve the value of contracts and reduce costs. Municipalities will require assistance from the Province of Ontario to develop AFP strategies to tackle these infrastructure management challenges.5 The Province of Ontario should consider opportunities to explore AFP delivery options for municipal bridge infrastructure projects and champion a demonstration project with a willing municipality. Such a project will enable municipalities to better determine the financial viability and Value for Money of using AFP/bundled methods.

This study is a starting point for exploring the potential of alternative delivery approaches for municipal bridge infrastructure. Going forward, the County of Wellington and constituent municipalities are encouraged take action to define any missing bridge data and develop comprehensive bridge asset management plans. The asset management plans will provide the necessary foundation for future consideration of any new and innovative approaches to bridge infrastructure renewal. Having an understanding of the state of the infrastructure is essential for informed decision making.

The municipalities and Wellington County are facing challenges similar to many other Ontario municipalities. Ontario municipalities should be encouraged to develop infrastructure asset management plans and consider new ways of delivering infrastructure including alternative delivery methods. The recent positive AFP experience in Ontario should inspire partnerships to be developed with the private sector, the Ontario government, and neighbouring municipalities.

ConClusions anD reCommenDaTions

County of Wellington Bridge Study September 201342

RCCAO members include: • Carpenters’ Union • Greater Toronto Sewer and Watermain Contractors Association • Heavy Construction Association of Toronto • International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793 • International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, District Council 46 • Joint Residential Construction Council • LIUNA Local 183 • Residential Carpentry Contractors Association • Toronto and Area Road Builders Association

The Residential and Civil Construction Alliance of Ontario (RCCAO) is composed of management and labour groups that represents a wide spectrum of the Ontario construction industry. The RCCAO’s goal is to work in cooperation with governments and related stakeholders to offer realistic solutions to a variety of challenges facing the construction industry and which also have wider societal benefits. For more information on the RCCAO or to view copies of other studies and submissions, please visit the RCCAO website at rccao.com

RCCAO 25 North Rivermede Road, Unit 13Vaughan, Ontario L4K 5V4Andy Manahan, executive directore [email protected] p 905-760-7777w rccao.com

OGRA’s mandate identifies advocacy as one of the five business objectives that will be pursued on behalf of the membership.

• To advocate for sustainable funding for municipal infrastructure.

• To advocate the collective interests of our members through policy analysis, legislative review and consultation.

• To provide affordable and accessible education and training services.

• To promote leadership with regard to infrastructure asset management.

• To develop plans, programs and partnerships for the delivery of services that meet the needs of our members.

Ontario Good Roads Association 1525 Cornwall Road, Unit 22Oakville, ON L6J 0B2Joe Tiernay, executive directore [email protected] p 289-291-6472w ogra.org

Design by Actual Media

view this report with appendices at

rccao.com or at ogra.org

http://www.rccao.com

http://www.ogra.org

County of Wellington Bridge Study - July 2013 Page A1

APPENDIX CONTENTS

Total Inventory Needs Summary ............................................................................................. A2

Basic Study Assumptions: Bridges ......................................................................................... A4

Basic Study Assumptions: Culverts ........................................................................................ A6

Bridge Rehabilitation / Replacement Decision Matrix ............................................................. A8

Culvert Rehabilitation / Replacement Decision Matrix .......................................................... A10

Structure Needs Tables (by Municipality) ............................................................................. A12

Financial Needs Tables (by Municipality) ............................................................................. A16

Bridge and Culvert Inventory Data (by Municipality) ............................................................. A24

TOTAL INVENTORY NEEDS SUMMARY 3% INFLATION (EXTRAPOLATED)

# $1M # $1M # $1M # $1M # $1M # $1M

2 0 10 7 28 15 6 1 14 5 62 46

2 0 8 5 12 8 9 2 13 5 7 5

3 1 7 4 26 33 6 2 19 10 22 14

4 2 4 6 35 57 4 1 14 6 14 13

5 2 1 0 20 42 10 5 9 5 28 30

9 2 5 3 15 45 47 13 9 8 20 38

3 1 3 2 15 39 4 1 11 10 16 32

19 9 8 8 8 26 10 4 7 9 28 68

18 15 14 14 3 36 4 2 19 10 12 31

15 13 7 12 0 0 11 6 11 21 7 21

10 14 14 13 15 32 11 11 56 56 16 61

7 10 15 13 10 28 8 9 7 8 17 89

7 9 23 42 8 40 17 20 24 24 12 64

2 11 23 71 10 65 5 7 12 18 13 50

0 0 22 71 11 93 3 5 18 33 14 128

0 0 2 7 12 48 0 0 13 25 17 64

106 90 166 280 228 607 155 88 256 253 305 755

County &

Lower Tier

Extrapolated

Inventory Total

Total

Study Extrapolated

Inventory

Total

Study Extrapolated

Inventory

Total

(YY - YY)

2010-2015

2016-2020

2021-2025

2086-2090

Minor

Rehab

Major

Rehab Replace

2056-2060

2061-2065

2066-2070

2071-2075

2076-2080

2081-2085

2026-2030

2031-2035

2036-2040

2041-2045

2046-2050

2051-2055

59

51

91

148

165

66

44

49

42

43

64

County of Wellington (192 Study/194 Inventory Structures) Lower Tiers (272 Study/441 Inventory Structures)

Minor

Rehab

Major

Rehab Replace Total

44

65

$1M

22

13

38

66

45

50

43

Total

$1M

22

13

38

20

40 65

$1M $1M

149

166

55

25

60

51

92

55

25

32

48 78

43 69

58 95

52 84

13 21

26 43

$1M

106

90 145

976 986 1096 1778

108 176

75 122

165 268

128 208

106 172

44 71

81 131

145

114

34

81

98

Period

2764

271

434

201

268

223

268

175

134

103

109


TOTAL INVENTORY NEEDS SUMMARY 0% INFLATION (EXTRAPOLATED)

# $1M # $1M # $1M # $1M # $1M # $1M2 0 10 7 28 14 6 1 14 5 62 452 0 8 4 12 6 9 2 13 4 7 43 1 7 3 26 23 6 1 19 7 22 104 1 4 4 35 35 4 1 14 4 14 85 1 1 0 20 22 10 2 9 3 28 169 1 5 1 15 20 47 6 9 4 20 183 0 3 1 15 15 4 1 11 4 16 1219 3 8 3 8 9 10 1 7 3 28 2318 4 14 4 3 10 4 1 19 3 12 915 3 7 3 0 0 11 2 11 5 7 510 3 14 3 15 7 11 2 56 13 16 137 2 15 2 10 5 8 2 7 2 17 177 1 23 7 8 7 17 3 24 4 12 112 2 23 10 10 9 5 1 12 3 13 70 0 22 9 11 11 3 1 18 4 14 160 0 2 1 12 5 0 0 13 3 17 7

106 24 166 61 228 199 155 27 256 69 305 222

Period

802

385321

594244

594026

586745

285760

$1M104

10 16284 287 317 515

18 2911 1720 33

29 4620 32

17 2827 4413 21

27 44

51 8311 1719 30

12 20

$1M $1M

21206

6131015

6

6

19

County of Wellington (192 Study/194 Inventory Structures) Lower Tiers (272 Study/441 Inventory Structures)

Minor Rehab

Major Rehab Replace Total

1519

$1M21112740242317

Total$1M211127

1221 35

9152120

402422171519

(YY ‐ YY)2010‐20152016‐20202021‐2025

2086‐2090

Minor Rehab

Major Rehab Replace

2056‐20602061‐20652066‐20702071‐20752076‐20802081‐2085

2026‐20302031‐20352036‐20402041‐20452046‐20502051‐2055

13

County & Lower Tier Extrapolated

Inventory Total

Total

Study Results Extrapolated Inventory Total

Study Results Extrapolated Inventory Total


BASIC STUDY ASSUMPTIONS BRIDGES


Definitions Bridge Span Distance between the centerlines of adjacent piers or abutments Bridge Deck Width Overall structure width (edge to edge of deck) Bridge Deck Length Longitudinal distance between centrelines of expansion joints or edge to edge

of approach slabs Replacement Criteria

Structures will be replaced at 75 years old Structures with travel width less than tolerable travel width will be replaced at next rehabilitation (25 year or 50 year interval)* *Actual criteria based on bridge width as travel width data not provided) Structures with Posted Load Limit for Single Unit Vehicle less than 20 tonnes will be replaced now

Bridge Replacement Cost*

Deck Area (m²) Average Cost $/m²

1 - 249 4,860

250 - 499 4,280

500 - 749 2,640

750 - 2999 2,420

3000 - 3999 2,300

4000 - 4999 1,760

5000 - 7499 1,240

*Data taken from MTO Parametric Estimating Guide 2011 Associated costs do not include paving, embedded or other electrical work, or traffic control.

County of Wellington Standard Bridge Width County of Wellington Tolerable Bridge Width Lane Width Shoulder Width Barrier Width Total Bridge Width

2 2 2

X X X =

3.50 m 2.50 m 0.60 m 13.2 m

Lane Width Shoulder Width Barrier Width Total Bridge Width

2 2 2

X X X =

3.25 m 1.00 m 0.30 m 9.1 m

Lower Tier Standard Bridge Width Lower Tier Tolerable Bridge Width


2 2 2

X X X =

3.25 m 1.00 m 0.30 m 9.1 m


2 2 2

X X X =

3.00 m 0.50 m 0.30 m 7.6 m

BASIC STUDY ASSUMPTIONS BRIDGES


Calculations Current Year = 2012 Current Asset Value = Existing Deck Area x Bridge Replacement Cost Minor Rehabilitation (assumed at 25 years old) Percentage of Current Value = 15% Major Rehabilitation (assumed at 50 year old) Percentage of Current Value = 35% Guiderail Replacement Cost = $35,000 Approach Multiplier = 1.5 Future Cost (FC) = Current Cost x (1+i)n Where, i = Inflation Rate = 3%

n = Year of Future Cost – Current Year Minor Rehabilitation Cost = ( Current Asset Value x Minor Rehabilitation % ) x Approach Multiplier + Guiderail Replacement Cost Major Rehabilitation Cost = ( Current Asset Value x Major Rehabilitation % ) x Approach Multiplier + Guiderail Replacement Cost Replacement Cost =( Replacement Deck Area x Bridge Replacement Cost/m² ) x Approach Multiplier + Guiderail Replacement Cost

Replacement Deck Area = Existing Length x Replacement (Standard) Width* *If Existing Width > Tolerable Width, Replacement Width = Existing Width

BASIC STUDY ASSUMPTIONS CULVERTS


Definitions Structural Culvert A structure that forms an opening through an embankment and has a span of 3

meters or more. Culvert Span The opening width between abutments or diameter of pipe. Culvert Length Distance between inlet and outlet of culvert.

Replacement Criteria

Concrete Culvert Structures will be rehabilitated at 40 years old and replaced at 75 years old Structures with travel width less than tolerable travel width will be replaced at 40 years old* *Actual criteria based on culvert length as travel width data not available Structures with Posted Load Limit for Single Unit Vehicle less than 20 tonnes will be replaced now CSP Culvert Structures will be replaced at 50 years old Structures with Posted Load Limit for Single Unit Vehicle less than 20 tonnes will be replaced now

Culvert Replacement Cost*

Concrete Culvert CSP Culvert

Deck Area (m²) Average Cost $/m² Average Cost $/m²

All 3,145* 2,359**

*Data taken from MTO Parametric Estimating Guide 2011 **CSP replacement cost assumed to be 75% of concrete culvert cost

County of Wellington Standard Roadway Width County of Wellington Tolerable Roadway Width Lane Width Shoulder Width Barrier Width Total Roadway Width

2 2 2

X X X =

3.50 m 2.50 m 0.60 m 13.2 m

Lane Width Shoulder Width Barrier Width Total Roadway Width

2 2 2

X X X =

3.25 m 1.00 m 0.30 m 9.1 m

Lower Tier Standard Roadway Width Lower Tier Tolerable Roadway Width


2 2 2

X X X =

3.25 m 1.00 m 0.30 m 9.1 m


2 2 2

X X X =

3.00 m 0.50 m 0.30 m 7.6 m

BASIC STUDY ASSUMPTIONS CULVERTS


Calculations Current Year = 2012 Major Rehabilitation Percentage of Current Value = 35% Guiderail Replacement Cost = $35,000 County Approach Multiplier = 1 Lower Tier Approach Multiplier = 1.2 Future Cost (FC) = Current Cost x (1+i)n Where, i = Inflation Rate = 3%

n = Year of Future Cost – Current Year Concrete Culvert

Major Rehabilitation Cost = ( Current Asset Value x Major Rehabilitation % ) x Approach Multiplier + Guiderail Replacement Cost

Current Asset Value = Existing Deck Area x Concrete Culvert Replacement Cost Replacement Cost =( Replacement Deck Area x Culvert Replacement Cost/m² ) x Approach Multiplier + Guiderail Replacement Cost

Replacement Deck Area = ( Existing Culvert Span + 0.6 m ) x ( Existing Culvert Length* + 3 m** ) * Existing Culvert Length must be greater than the Tolerable Roadway Width ** Additional length added at Lower Tiers only

CSP Culvert

Replacement Cost =( Replacement Deck Area x CSP Culvert Replacement Cost/m²) x Approach Multiplier + Guiderail Replacement Cost

Replacement Deck Area = ( Existing Culvert Span ) x ( Existing Culvert Length* + 3 m** ) * Existing Culvert Length must be greater than the Tolerable Roadway Width ** Additional length added at Lower Tiers only

BRIDGE REHABILITATION / REPLACEMENT DECISION MATRIX

Yes

Replace at 100 yrs old

Minor Rehab atReplacement + 25 yrs

Major Rehab at Replacement + 50 yrs

Yes

Posted Load Limit > 20 t? No

Structure ≥ 25 yrs old?


Yes


No

Replacement at 75 yrs old

Minor Rehab at Replacement + 25 yrs


Bridge Width > Tolerable Width? No

Yes

No

Replace at Current Year



Bridge Width > Tolerable Width?

Minor Rehab at 25 yrs old

Major Rehab at 50 yrs old





Yes

No


COUNTY BRIDGE




No



Yes


BRIDGE REHABILITATION / REPLACEMENT DECISION MATRIX

Minor Rehab at 25 yrs old


Replacement at 75 yrs oldMinor Rehab at

Replacement + 25 yrs




Yes




Yes


No



Major Rehab at Replacement+ 50 yrs

Bridge Width > Tolerable Width? No

No




Bridge Width > Tolerable Width? Replace at 25 yrs old No

Yes


LOWER TIER BRIDGE




Yes




Yes

No

Yes


CULVERT REHABILITATION / REPLACEMENT DECISION MATRIX

No

Yes


Structure ≥ 40 yrs old?Bridge Width > Tolerable Width?






Replace at Major Rehab + 35 yrs

No


Major Rehab at Replacement + 40 Yrs

Replace at Major Rehab + 35 Yrs

Yes

No




CONCRETE CULVERT

Yes

Posted Load Limit > 20 t? No Replace at Current Year

Replace at every 50 yrs after initial Replacement


Yes

No



CSP CULVERT



Is culvert CSP?

Yes

LOWER TIER CULVERT

Yes No



Major Rehab at Replacement + 40 Yrs

Replace at Major Rehab + 35 Yrs

Yes


CULVERT REHABILITATION / REPLACEMENT DECISION MATRIX

COUNTY CULVERT

Replace at 100 yrs from original construction

Minor Rehab at 25 yrs after replacement

Major Rehab at 50 yrs after replacement

Yes




Yes

No

Bridge Width > Tolerable Width?







No




Yes

No




CONCRETE CULVERT

Yes

Yes

Posted Load Limit > 20 t? No Replace at Current Year



Yes

No



CSP CULVERT



Is culvert CSP?Yes No


STRUCTURE NEEDS TABLES

WELLINGTON COUNTY (192/194)

Minor Major Replace Major Replace2 9 7 1 212 7 3 1 93 7 19 0 74 2 18 2 175 0 15 1 59 2 10 3 53 2 7 1 8

19 3 7 5 118 4 2 10 115 5 0 2 010 9 2 5 137 3 2 12 87 19 3 4 52 18 4 5 60 15 5 7 60 1 2 1 10

CENTRE WELLINGTON (99/104)

Minor Major Replace Major Replace2 3 27 0 25 1 2 1 11 0 3 1 90 0 0 5 102 2 4 4 6

28 2 4 0 22 5 1 1 23 1 0 0 00 0 0 1 24 2 2 0 14 28 2 6 61 2 5 3 50 3 1 5 30 0 0 1 82 4 2 2 10 1 1 0 2

Culverts

Culverts

2081‐20852086‐2090

4 223 227 553 23

2036‐20402041‐20452046‐20502051‐20552056‐20602061‐20652066‐20702071‐20752076‐2080

(YY‐YY)2010‐20152016‐20202021‐20252026‐20302031‐2035

2071‐20752076‐20802081‐20852086‐2090

Period

2026‐20302031‐20352036‐20402041‐20452046‐20502051‐20552056‐20602061‐20652066‐2070

Period Bridges(YY‐YY)

2010‐20152016‐20202021‐2025

NUMBER OF STRUCTURES IN LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS

0% Inflation211127402422

TotalLIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS RESULTS

3% Inflation221338664449

55

171519613

NUMBER OF STRUCTURES IN LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS RESULTS

Total

42436425595191148165

91521

Bridges

206

3% Inflation30 304 55 74 7

0% Inflation

1511 246 161 21 3

8

5 1916 7011 58



WELLINGTON NORTH (38/96)

Minor Major Replace Major Replace0 1 6 0 10 0 2 3 01 0 3 0 01 3 4 0 02 0 3 0 26 0 2 0 52 0 0 0 03 1 0 0 04 1 3 1 33 2 0 0 02 6 0 0 00 2 0 0 00 3 1 2 03 4 1 5 00 3 2 0 00 1 0 0 1

PUSLINCH (12/14)


2056‐20602061‐20652066‐20702071‐20752076‐20802081‐20852086‐2090

2010‐20152016‐20202021‐20252026‐20302031‐20352036‐20402041‐20452046‐20502051‐2055

2076‐20802081‐20852086‐2090


3 221 9


Culverts Total0% Inflation 3% Inflation

2031‐20352036‐20402041‐20452046‐20502051‐20552056‐20602061‐20652066‐20702071‐2075



2010‐20152016‐20202021‐20252026‐2030


5 52 32 45 94 75 110 11 26 181 42 81 32 144 29

3 30 01 10 02 41 21 20 00 10 11 31 40 20 00 31 8



ERIN (48/48)


MINTO (14/43)


2076‐20802081‐20852086‐2090

1 41 6

0 0

2031‐20352036‐20402041‐20452046‐20502051‐20552056‐20602061‐20652066‐20702071‐2075



2010‐20152016‐20202021‐20252026‐2030


0 02 22 30 0

2086‐2090

1 52 101 73 27

2041‐20452046‐20502051‐20552056‐20602061‐20652066‐20702071‐20752076‐20802081‐2085

(YY‐YY)2010‐20152016‐20202021‐20252026‐20302031‐20352036‐2040

0% Inflation 3% Inflation8 81 11 21 11 22 4

Period Bridges


Culverts Total

2 42 52 62 73 141 3

2 33 65 134 100 01 52 73 141 5



MAPLETON (32/107)

Minor Major Replace Major Replace3 0 0 5 02 0 0 0 02 15 1 0 00 2 0 0 01 0 1 0 00 3 0 1 00 2 0 0 01 2 15 0 50 0 2 0 01 1 0 0 00 0 3 0 00 0 2 0 0

15 1 2 0 12 0 0 0 00 1 1 0 00 0 0 5 0

GUELPH/ERAMOSA (29/29)


2051‐20552056‐20602061‐20652066‐20702071‐20752076‐20802081‐20852086‐2090

(YY‐YY)2010‐20152016‐20202021‐20252026‐20302031‐20352036‐20402041‐20452046‐2050

2056‐20602061‐20652066‐20702071‐20752076‐20802081‐20852086‐2090

Period Bridges

1 8


Culverts Total

2010‐20152016‐20202021‐20252026‐20302031‐20352036‐20402041‐20452046‐20502051‐2055




2 20 07 91 22 32 40 119 563 111 34 201 57 441 42 19

0% Inflation 3% Inflation3 31 11 10 12 54 83 71 41 3

7 541 8

2 81 64 193 171 10


FINANCIAL NEEDS TABLES

COST SUMMARY (464/635 STRUCTURES, 3% INFLATION)

22 30 5 3 2 3 7413 5 3 0 0 1 2638 7 4 1 9 1 6566 7 9 0 2 1 8544 15 7 4 3 5 8449 24 11 2 4 8 108232 88 38 10 21 18 44142 16 1 2 1 7 8643 2 2 0 56 4 12464 3 18 1 11 3 10725 19 4 1 3 8 7359 70 8 3 20 6 18851 58 3 4 5 19 15791 22 14 2 44 17 200148 22 29 0 4 10 223165 55 22 3 19 54 33055 23 9 8 8 8 144976 378 149 36 192 155 2073


Bridge Culvert Bridge CulvertCost ($1M) Cost ($1M) Cost ($1M) Cost ($1M)

13 8 45 78 5 10 235 4 21 655 11 11 838 6 25 1545 4 48 10194 38 161 4830 12 35 938 6 66 1558 7 26 1724 1 39 934 25 101 2725 26 70 3679 12 83 26130 18 43 32119 46 146 1914 40 27 62745 232 798 299 1543 530

2076‐2080 173 502081‐2085 265 652086‐2090 42 102

2061‐2065 136 522066‐2070 95 622071‐2075 162 38

2046‐2050 104 202051‐2055 84 232056‐2060 63 10

2036‐2040 93 1430 YRS SUBTOTAL 355 86

2041‐2045 65 21

18 72021‐2025 55 92026‐2030 66 192031‐2035 64 21

05714504680

27

TOTAL LIFE CYCLE COST BASED ON ORIGINAL DATE OF CONSTRUCTION

WELLINGTON COUNTY LOWER TIERS TOTALBridge Culvert

2010‐2015 59 152016‐2020

TOTAL

Cost ($1M)Cost ($1M)

107

1310

02303615

45

WELLINGTON COUNTY

CENTRE WELLINGTON

WELLINGTON NORTH PUSLINCH

GUELPH /ERAMOSA

Cost ($1M)Cost ($1M) Cost ($1M) Cost ($1M) Cost ($1M)

2076‐2080

124

5

19

MAPLETON

107

MINTO

Cost ($1M)

67143

ERIN

Cost ($1M)812

Period2010‐20152016‐20202021‐20252026‐20302031‐20352036‐2040

30 YRS SUBTOTAL2041‐2045

2081‐2085


2086‐2090

2046‐20502051‐20552056‐20602061‐20652066‐20702071‐2075

Period(YY‐YY) Cost ($1M) Cost ($1M)

Total

Total



WELLINGTON COUNTY (192/194, 3% INFLATION)

Bridges Culverts Total

13 8 22 Bridges Culverts Total8 5 13 Cost ($1M) Cost ($1M) Cost ($1M)35 4 3855 11 6638 6 4445 4 4930 12 4238 6 4358 7 6424 1 2534 25 5925 26 5179 12 91130 18 148119 46 16514 40 55745 232 976

CENTRE WELLINGTON (99/104, 3% INFLATION) WELLINGTON NORTH (38/96, 3% INFLATION)

Bridges Culverts Total Bridges Culverts Total29 1 30 5 1 54 1 5 2 1 33 4 7 4 0 40 7 7 9 0 99 6 15 5 2 722 2 24 5 6 1114 2 16 1 0 12 0 2 2 0 20 3 3 12 7 1817 2 19 4 0 452 18 70 8 0 838 20 58 3 0 312 9 22 12 2 140 22 22 23 6 2950 5 55 22 0 2218 5 23 3 6 9272 106 378 120 29 149

2016‐20202010‐2015

LIFE CYCLE COST BASED ON ORIGINAL DATE OF CONSTRUCTIONLIFE CYCLE COST BASED ON ORIGINAL DATE OF CONSTRUCTION

2086‐2090

2046‐2050

2041‐2045

2056‐20602061‐20652066‐2070

Period

2081‐2085

2026‐2030

2036‐20402041‐2045

2051‐20552056‐20602061‐20652066‐20702071‐20752076‐20802081‐2085

Period

2011 ‐2021

BASED ON ORIGINAL DATE OF CONSTRUCTION

Cost ($1M) Cost ($1M) Cost ($1M)

24 13 37

COMPARISON OF STUDY ASSUMPTIONS VS. 2011 RECOMMENDED WORK PLAN

LIFE CYCLE COST BASED ON ORIGINAL DATE OF CONSTRUCTION

2031‐20352036‐2040

2031‐20352036‐2040

2086‐2090

2031‐2035

2041‐20452046‐20502051‐20552056‐20602061‐2065

BASED ON COUNTY OF WELLINGTON SUMMARY REPORT, 2011 BRIDGE AND

CULVERT APPRAISAL

332046‐20502051‐2055

2071‐20752076‐20802081‐20852086‐2090

2021‐20252026‐2030

2010‐20152016‐2020

2066‐20702071‐20752076‐2080

2021‐2025

11 44

Period

(YY‐YY)2010‐20152016‐20202021‐20252026‐2030

Total

Total Total



PUSLINCH (12/14, 3% INFLATION) ERIN (48/48, 3% INFLATION)


2 1 3 6 3 80 0 0 0 1 11 0 1 0 2 20 0 0 0 1 13 0 4 0 2 22 0 2 2 2 42 0 2 0 4 40 0 0 0 5 50 1 1 1 4 61 0 1 0 7 73 0 3 7 7 141 3 4 0 3 32 0 2 0 5 50 0 0 6 4 103 0 3 0 7 70 8 8 0 27 2722 14 36 22 85 107

MINTO (14/43, 3% INFLATION) MAPLETON (32/107, 3% INFLATION)


0 0 0 1 1 22 0 2 0 0 03 0 3 9 0 90 0 0 2 0 22 1 3 3 0 36 0 6 4 1 413 0 13 1 0 110 0 10 48 8 560 0 0 11 0 115 0 5 3 0 37 0 7 20 0 205 9 14 5 0 55 0 5 39 6 440 0 0 4 0 44 0 4 19 0 196 0 6 0 8 869 10 80 169 23 192

2066‐20702071‐20752076‐2080


Cost ($1M)Cost ($1M) Cost ($1M) Cost ($1M)

Period

(YY‐YY)2010‐2015

2036‐20402041‐20452046‐20502051‐2055

2031‐2035

2056‐20602061‐2065

2046‐20502051‐2055

Total

2046‐20502051‐2055

LIFE CYCLE COST BASED ON ORIGINAL DATE OF CONSTRUCTIONPeriod

RANGE OF YEARS Cost ($1M) Cost ($1M) Cost ($1M)

2056‐20602061‐20652066‐20702071‐20752076‐20802081‐2085

2010‐20152016‐20202021‐20252026‐20302031‐20352036‐20402041‐2045

Cost ($1M) Cost ($1M)RANGE OF YEARS2010‐2015


2016‐20202021‐20252026‐2030

2051‐20552056‐20602061‐20652066‐20702071‐20752076‐2080

2081‐20852086‐2090

2081‐20852086‐2090

2071‐2075

2061‐2065

Period

(YY‐YY)2010‐20152016‐20202021‐20252026‐20302031‐20352036‐20402041‐2045

2056‐2060

2066‐2070

2016‐20202021‐20252026‐20302031‐20352036‐20402041‐20452046‐2050

2086‐2090



2081‐20852086‐2090

Total

Total

Total

2076‐2080



GUELPH/ERAMOSA (29/29, 3% INFLATION)


2 1 31 0 11 0 10 0 12 3 58 0 84 3 72 1 42 2 38 0 84 2 619 0 1913 4 1710 0 1047 7 540 8 8

124 31 155


2046‐20502051‐20552056‐2060

2010‐20152016‐20202021‐2025

Period

(YY‐YY)

Total 2086‐2090

2061‐20652066‐20702071‐20752076‐20802081‐2085


2026‐20302031‐20352036‐20402041‐2045




21 30 5 3 2 3 7211 4 2 0 0 1 2127 5 2 1 7 1 4640 4 5 0 1 0 5224 8 4 2 2 2 4522 11 5 1 2 4 50144 63 24 7 13 11 28517 6 0 1 0 3 3415 1 1 0 19 1 4219 1 6 0 3 1 326 5 1 0 1 2 1913 16 2 1 4 1 419 11 1 1 1 4 2915 4 2 0 7 3 3321 3 4 0 1 1 3120 7 3 0 2 7 406 3 1 1 1 1 15

284 118 45 12 53 35 602


Bridge Culvert Bridge CulvertCost ($1M) Cost ($1M) Cost ($1M) Cost ($1M)

13 8 45 67 4 9 224 2 15 433 7 7 521 3 14 820 2 23 5118 26 111 3012 5 14 313 2 22 517 2 8 56 0 10 27 5 23 65 5 13 713 2 14 418 3 6 415 6 18 22 4 3 7

225 59 242 75

Period(YY‐YY) Cost ($1M) Cost ($1M)

Total

Total


2086‐2090

2046‐20502051‐20552056‐20602061‐20652066‐20702071‐2075

2231

ERIN

Cost ($1M)811

Period2010‐20152016‐20202021‐20252026‐20302031‐20352036‐2040

30 YRS SUBTOTAL2041‐2045

2081‐2085

WELLINGTON COUNTY

CENTRE WELLINGTON

WELLINGTON NORTH PUSLINCH

GUELPH /ERAMOSA

Cost ($1M)Cost ($1M) Cost ($1M) Cost ($1M) Cost ($1M)

2076‐2080

112

1

14

MAPLETON

30

MINTO

Cost ($1M)0220239

22

TOTAL

Cost ($1M)Cost ($1M)

21

540123101125

3


WELLINGTON COUNTY LOWER TIER TOTALBridge Culvert

2010‐2015 57 142016‐2020 15 62021‐2025 39 62026‐2030 40 122031‐2035 34 112036‐2040 43 7

30 YRS SUBTOTAL 230 562041‐2045 26 82046‐2050 36 72051‐2055 25 72056‐2060 16 22061‐2065 30 112066‐2070 18 122071‐2075 27 6

468 134

2076‐2080 24 72081‐2085 33 82086‐2090 5 11



WELLINGTON COUNTY (192/194, 0% INFLATION)


13 8 21 Bridges Culverts Total7 4 11 Cost ($1M) Cost ($1M) Cost ($1M)24 2 2733 7 4021 3 2420 2 2212 5 1713 2 1517 2 196 0 67 5 135 5 913 2 1518 3 2115 6 202 4 6

225 59 284

CENTRE WELLINGTON (99/104, 0% INFLATION) WELLINGTON NORTH (38/96, 0% INFLATION)

Bridges Culverts Total Bridges Culverts Total29 1 30 5 1 54 0 4 2 1 22 3 5 2 0 20 4 4 5 0 55 3 8 3 1 411 1 11 2 3 55 1 6 0 0 01 0 1 1 0 10 1 1 4 2 64 0 5 1 0 112 4 16 2 0 27 4 11 1 0 12 2 4 2 0 20 3 3 3 1 46 1 7 3 0 32 0 3 0 1 190 28 118 36 9 45

Total

Total Total

2021‐2025

7.1 11.8

Period

(YY‐YY)2010‐20152016‐20202021‐20252026‐2030

2041‐20452046‐20502051‐20552056‐20602061‐2065

BASED ON COUNTY OF WELLINGTON SUMMARY REPORT, 2011 BRIDGE AND

CULVERT APPRAISAL

4.72046‐20502051‐2055

2071‐20752076‐20802081‐20852086‐2090

2021‐20252026‐2030

2010‐20152016‐2020

2066‐20702071‐20752076‐2080

2031‐20352036‐2040

2086‐2090

2031‐2035

2031‐20352036‐2040

COMPARISON OF STUDY ASSUMPTIONS VS. 2011 RECOMMENDED WORK PLAN


2011 ‐2021

BASED ON ORIGINAL DATE OF CONSTRUCTION


20.8 11.8 32.6

Period

2041‐2045

2056‐20602061‐20652066‐2070

Period

2081‐2085

2026‐2030

2036‐20402041‐2045

2051‐20552056‐20602061‐20652066‐20702071‐20752076‐20802081‐2085


2086‐2090

2046‐2050

2016‐20202010‐2015




PUSLINCH (12/14, 0% INFLATION) ERIN (48/48, 0% INFLATION)


2 1 3 6 3 80 0 0 0 1 11 0 1 0 1 10 0 0 0 0 12 0 2 0 1 11 0 1 1 1 21 0 1 0 2 20 0 0 0 2 20 0 0 0 1 20 0 0 0 2 21 0 1 2 1 30 1 1 0 1 10 0 0 0 1 10 0 0 1 1 20 0 0 0 1 10 1 1 0 3 39 3 12 10 21 30

MINTO (14/43, 0% INFLATION) MAPLETON (32/107, 0% INFLATION)


0 0 0 1 1 22 0 2 0 0 02 0 2 7 0 70 0 0 1 0 11 1 2 2 0 23 0 3 2 0 25 0 5 0 0 04 0 4 16 3 190 0 0 3 0 31 0 1 1 0 12 0 2 4 0 41 2 3 1 0 11 0 1 6 1 70 0 0 1 0 11 0 1 2 0 21 0 1 0 1 123 2 25 48 5 53

Total

Total

2076‐20802081‐20852086‐2090

Total 2086‐2090



2071‐2075

2061‐2065

Period

(YY‐YY)2010‐20152016‐20202021‐20252026‐20302031‐20352036‐20402041‐2045

2056‐2060

2066‐2070

2016‐20202021‐20252026‐20302031‐20352036‐20402041‐20452046‐20502051‐20552056‐20602061‐20652066‐20702071‐20752076‐2080

2081‐20852086‐2090

2081‐20852086‐2090

2016‐20202021‐20252026‐2030

Cost ($1M) Cost ($1M)RANGE OF YEARS2010‐2015


2046‐20502051‐2055


RANGE OF YEARS Cost ($1M) Cost ($1M) Cost ($1M)

2056‐20602061‐20652066‐20702071‐20752076‐20802081‐2085

2010‐20152016‐20202021‐20252026‐20302031‐20352036‐20402041‐2045

2036‐20402041‐20452046‐20502051‐2055

2031‐2035

2056‐20602061‐2065

2046‐20502051‐2055

Total

2066‐20702071‐20752076‐2080


Cost ($1M)Cost ($1M) Cost ($1M) Cost ($1M)

Period

(YY‐YY)2010‐2015



GUELPH/ERAMOSA (29/29, 0% INFLATION)


2 1 31 0 11 0 10 0 01 1 24 0 42 1 31 0 11 0 12 0 21 0 14 0 42 1 31 0 16 1 70 1 127 7 35Total

2086‐2090

2061‐20652066‐20702071‐20752076‐20802081‐2085


2026‐20302031‐20352036‐20402041‐20452046‐20502051‐20552056‐2060

2010‐20152016‐20202021‐2025

Period

(YY‐YY) Cost ($1M) Cost ($1M) Cost ($1M)


WELLINGTON COUNTY BRIDGE INVENTORY DATA


Structure ID

Year of Original

Construction Deck

Length Deck

Width

Posted Load Limit Level 3 (Single Unit)

1 1920 8.2 6.3

2 1920 7.3 5.2

12 1968 64.6 9.8

13 1928 38.1 5.4 17

32 1950 10.4 6.7

44 1924 26.2 6

58 2004 46.3 11.7

63 1925 8.5 5.8

67 1995 26.8 9.8

70 1964 26.2 10.7

75 1915 13.4 4.9

101 1930 5.8 5.4

5014 1971 9.5 9.9

5015 1930 6.8 13.3

6007 1958 8.2 11.8

6008 1972 10.4 11

6009 1950 31.1 7.9

6010 1953 16.5 7.9

7019 1952 18.7 8.3 25

7028 1949 42.1 8.6

7045 2009 6.7 14.2

7046 2009 7.9 14.2

7059 1980 94.5 14.1

7071 1967 6.7 20.7

8018 1960 8.3 10.7

8022 1962 49.4 10.7

8089 1968 64.3 12.7

8116 1940 4.9 13.4

9117 1969 5.6 18.6

10021 1960 22.8 10.7

10023 1955 22.6 8.3

10024 1955 8.2 11.4

10091 1972 12.1 9.7

11025 1954 22.3 7.9

11026 1964 41.8 10.7

11027 1948 10.1 9.75

11029 1952 65.3 10.1

12033 1921 8.5 11.6

12035 2011 7 13

12036 1965 16.5 10.7

12037 1947 50 8.4 21

12094 1961 15.9 9.4

12100 1960 6.3 12.4

12119 2011 4.4 14.7

14005 1930 23.8 9.6

15102 1950 3.7 9.3

16003 1945 9.1 11.1

16038 1958 13 9.8

16049 2009 29.2 11.7

16103 1950 3.7 17.7

16104 1993 5.6 9.2

16118 1930 3.7 9.8

17040 1972 13.8 11

17098 1950 4.9 17.2

17114 1940 4.5 19

17115

1965

4.9

12.2

Structure ID

Year of Original

Construction Deck

Length Deck

Width


18050 1952 32.6 9.8

18055 1964 39.9 12.5

18056 1951 12.2 5.5

21057 1953 71.9 11.4

22066 1998 32.4 11.4

22107 1950 4.1 11.6

24121 1975 6.9 18.7

25108 2007 9.2 10.6

26048 1978 117 11.3

27106 1940 5 11.8

29065 1955 16.8 9.9

29069 1965 33.5 10.7

29083 1960 16.5 10.1

30124 1940 3.7 17.4

32085 1949 32.4 8.1

34123 1950 4.7 11.2

35087 1963 10.4 10.7

36086 1955 6.8 9.8

36122 1965 5.3 6.1

38078 1972 31 11.9

38113 1950 4.4 15

41084 1960 20.7 9.1

42080 1987 17 9.9

42110 1949 5.3 8.5

42111 1950 3.5 8.5

43054 1955 50 10 21

44093 1971 17.4 9.7

44112 1960 5 12.3

45092 2007 60 12.1

49097 1990 11 12.2

52109 1997 5.6 11.6

86125 1964 52 11

86126 1969 12.5 12.2

87137 1956 14 15.3

87138 1956 26 15.3

109127 1998 25 23.2

109128 1969 8.5 12.2

109129 1957 20 12.3

109130 2003 30.4 14.1

109131 2003 37.2 14.1

109132 1931 18.5 11.6

109133 1931 16 11.5

109134 1934 13.5 11.4

109141 1950 3.6 15

124135 1953 17 14.4

124136 1958 12 13.4

000123A-truss

1905 110 4

2003 7.3 4

WELLINGTON COUNTY CULVERT INVENTORY DATA


Structure ID Structure Type

Year of Original

Construction Culvert Length

Deck Width


20790 RIGID FRAME, VERTICAL LEGS 1960 19.5 4.7



60800 ARCH CULVERT 1965 17.7 11.6

60810 HYBRID 1930 18 5

60820 ROUND CULVERT 1960 18.6 3.2

70290 ROUND CULVERT 1960 30.3 5.2

70470 ROUND CULVERT 1969 35 6.3

70510 ROUND CULVERT 1969 27.4 4.4

70960 ROUND CULVERT 1979 24.5 8.2


71200 BOXCLSD 1998 22 3

71270 HYBRID 1930 19 4.9

86116 RIGID FRAME, VERTICAL LEGS 1964 12.8 7

86117 BOXCLSD 1964 12.8 7

86118 ARCH CULVERT 1964 35 9

86119 HYBRID 2010 19.1 6

86120 HYBRID 1940 28 6

86121 RIGID FRAME, VERTICAL LEGS 2006 30 6



86170 ROUND CULVERT 1965 24 3.4

86180 ROUND CULVERT 1960 32 3.4

87143 AFRAME 1950 25 6

90750 AFRAME 1950 17.1 5.5

90760 BOXCLSD 1969 25.9 7.2

100200 ARCH CULVERT 1984 33 18

100940 ROUND CULVERT 1994 24 3.3


100970 1940 12.6 3


100990 1940 14.5 3.1

101000 CULVERT 1930 21.2 4.9


109123 EARTH FILLED ARCH 1930 11.4 14


110030 ROUND CULVERT 1974 15.2 3.7

110050 ROUND CULVERT 1976 36.6 3.9



110930 CULVERT 1940 18.3 4.3



120060 RIGID FRAME, VERTICAL LEGS 1989 25 4.5

120070 ROUND CULVERT 1960 24.4 3.7

120240 ROUND CULVERT 1976 24.4 3.7

120860 HYBRID 1920 27.5 5.8

120870 CULVERT 1930 21.5 3

120880 CULVERT 1930 13.4 4.3

120890 BOXCLSD 2004 24.4 3

120900 HYBRID 1930 13.5 5.7


124124 CULVERT 1940 24 3

125125 ARCH CULVERT 1968 20.7 9.4

140830 BOXCLSD 2000 22.8 3

140840 HYBRID 1930 11.6 5.7

WELLINGTON COUNTY CULVERT INVENTORY DATA



Year of Original


Deck Width



160040 ROUND CULVERT 1980 16 6

160090 ROUND CULVERT 1970 18.9 3.9

170700 CULVERT 1950 19 3.7


170720 CULVERT 1950 18.7 5.2


170740 HYBRID 1940 26.8 3.8

180210 ROUND CULVERT 1969 38.4 3.1


190260 ROUND CULVERT 1965 21.3 3.7

191070 RECTANGULAR CULVERT 1915 14.3 4.8

210600 ARCH CULVERT 1974 21.3 7.8

220100 ROUND CULVERT 1970 25.6 5.4

221090 1970 19 3.3

221100 ARCH CULVERT 1930 21.6 3


241120 ROUND CULVERT 1965 34 6.3



261080 ARCH CULVERT 1967 22.9 8.5

290110 BOXCLSD 2006 25.3 3


291060 AFRAME 1964 12.5 4.4

320130 ROUND CULVERT 1965 29.6 3

321140 ROUND CULVERT 1960 18.4 4.2

391150 BOXCLSD 1965 15 3

461130 AFRAME 1960 29.8 3.7

000001 SOLID SLAB 1920 22.47026 4.4

002095 RIGID FRAME, VERTICAL LEGS 1975 38.426 7

025072 1940 10.3

TOWNSHIP OF CENTRE WELLINGTON BRIDGE INVENTORY DATA


Structure ID

Year of Original

Construction Deck

Length Deck

Width


WG-16 1910 16 5 15

WG-27 1918 15 5 10

E-03 1919 15 6 10

E-07 1920 10 6 10

WG-02 1921 12 6 15

P-22 1922 18 9

P-33 1922 11 5 10

WG-24 1922 24 5 15

E-05 1923 13 6 10

WG-04 1923 7 6 14

N-12 1925 10 6 5

WG-08 1925 14 6

WG-09 1925 12 5 0

P-32 1926 10 6 10

WG-29 1928 23 6

N-09 1929 26 6 10

P-30 1929 9 6 15

WG-21 1929 19 6 10

P-24 1930 11 6 0

P-10 1935 9 6 6

P-14 1936 11 9

E-06 1940 8 6 15

P-26 1940 10 6 15

WG-01 1940 9 6 10

N-03 1942 26 7 15

WG-30 1942 26 7 0

WG-23 1945 15 8

WG-03 1948 10 10

E-01 1949 11 7

WG-06 1950 4 7

P-21 1956 24 8

E-04 1957 12 11

P-18 1960 4 7

P-03 1961 14 9

P-11 1962 8 9

WG-31 1962 52 9

P-04 1965 13 9

F-02 1969 35 13

E-08 1982 20 9

WG-06B 1985 11 2

WG-28 1985 10 9

WG-13 1988 14 10

EL-02 1989 60 3

WG-20 1990 23 10

F-01 1991 34 2

WG-11 1991 10 10

WG-17 1993 25 10

E-02 1994 13 9

WG-19 1994 13 9

WG-22 1994 25 10

WG-18 1997 25 8

N-06 2007 28 10

P-20 2010 78 9

P-19 2011 23 10

EL-01 64 5 0

P-01 12 5 0

Structure ID

Year of Original

Construction Deck

Length Deck

Width


P-05 14 5

P-28 11 6 0

WG-25 35 10

TOWNSHIP OF CENTRE WELLINGTON CULVERT INVENTORY DATA



Year of Original

Construction Deck

Width Culvert Length


E-09 ELLIPSE CULVERT 2005 6 17

N-01 RECTANGULAR CULVERT 2004 4.4 16.8


N-04 RECTANGULAR CULVERT 1959 7 12.28



N-08 ROUND CULVERT 1976 6.6 20.9

N-11 ROUND CULVERT 1985 5.2 14.11



N-15 ROUND CULVERT 1990 3.4 18.46





N-20 ROUND CULVERT 1980 9.3 16.68

N-21 ROUND CULVERT 1935 6.53 18.2

P-02 RECTANGULAR CULVERT 1958 6.9 8.08



P-08 RECTANGULAR CULVERT 1991 6 17.05


P-12 RECTANGULAR CULVERT 1990 5.2 28



P-16 ROUND CULVERT 1971 5.4 27.5






P-34 RECTANGULAR CULVERT 1995 5.8 14


P-36 RIGID FRAME, VERTICAL LEGS 1970 4.3 17.3

P-37 RECTANGULAR CULVERT 1965 5 15.8


WG-05 RECTANGULAR CULVERT 1950 4.3 7.25


WG-10 ROUND CULVERT 1980 3.7 21.02



WG-15 ROUND CULVERT 1980 4 21.6


WG-32 ROUND CULVERT 1970 4 22

N-10 RIGID FRAME, VERTICAL LEGS 1932 4.3 7.82

TOWNSHIP OF WELLINGTON NORTH BRIDGE INVENTORY DATA


Structure ID

Year of Original

Construction Deck

Length Deck

Width


1 1961 13.7 9.6

2 1940 8.2 7.6

4 1976 14.9 6.6

5 1965 9.1 8.6

6 1930 9.5 7.9

8 1996 15 10

11 1950 9.1 11.9 15

12 1956

18 2006 13.4 7.7

19 2002 9.62 5.64

20 1946 10.4 7.3

21 1980 17.4 6.6

22 1956 6.7 7.3

23 1956 10.4 7.9

24 1977 12 9.2

25 2008 17.2 9.14

26 2005 19.6 9.95

27 1941 16.8 8.1

28 1955 17.4 9.8

31 1985 20 7.5

32 1978 8.8 10.3

33 1950 11.5 6.9 12

37 1940 7.2 11.3

38 1920 14.9 6.4

39 1950 14.3 7.9

40 1950 11.7 7.9

41 1945 10.6 6.9

42 1977 12.2 9

2013 5.5 7.8

2014 4.7 7.5

TOWNSHIP OF WELLINGTON NORTH CULVERT INVENTORY DATA



Year of Original

Construction Deck





9 RIGID FRAME, VERTICAL LEGS 1961 6.8 17.6 18





16 ARCH 1997 18.3





2001 ARCH

2002 ARCH

2003 ARCH

2004 RIGID FRAME, VERTICAL LEGS 7.9 4.8


2006 ARCH

2007 ARCH

2008 ARCH



2011 ARCH


2015 HYBRID






2021 ARCH 3.7 13.9


2023 ARCH 3.8 16.5



2026 I-BEAM OF GIRDERS 6 11.7

2027 RIGID FRAME, VERTICAL LEGS 6 11

2028 RIGID FRAME, VERTICAL LEGS 5.6 7




2032 ARCH





2038 RIGID FRAME, VERTICAL LEGS 6 6.3





2043 ARCH





TOWNSHIP OF WELLINGTON NORTH CULVERT INVENTORY DATA



Year of Original


Deck Width




2050 ARCH



2053 ARCH 9.8


2055 ARCH 11.5


2057 RIGID FRAME, VERTICAL LEGS 3.2

TOWNSHIP OF PUSLINCH BRIDGE INVENTORY DATA


Structure ID

Year of Original

Construction Deck

Length Deck

Width


1001 1958 16.9 5.35

1002 26.4 4.3

1003 1910 6.9 4.9

1004 1931 6.8 11.2

1005 1965 7 9.1

1006 1970 12.3 9.8

1007 1984 8.15 5.75

1008 1948 8.45 13.5

2003 6.5 4.88

2016 1923 11.25 6.45

TOWNSHIP OF PUSHLINCH CULVERT INVENTORY DATA


Year of Original

Construction Deck




2010 RECTANGULAR CULVERT 1920 5 12.6

2012 RECTANGULAR VOIDED SLAB 1994 7 17.75

2015 RECTANGULAR CULVERT 1925 3.65 8

TOWN OF ERIN BRIDGE INVENTORY DATA


Structure ID

Year of Original

Construction Deck

Length Deck

Width


2 1910 12 5.8

3 1920 10.9 5.6

5 1920 6.5 5.6

6 1920 9.3 5.6

7 1925 8.8 7.2

9 1930 9.8 6.5

11 1920 8.8 5.8

12 2001 14 9.1

15 1964 9.2 6

2064 1917 5.2 7.4

TOWN OF ERIN CULVERT INVENTORY DATA


Year of Original

Construction Deck



1 BOX ON OPEN FOOTINGS 1930 6.6 5



10 ARCH CULVERT 1970 10 16




2002 BOX ON OPEN FOOTINGS 1990 5.7 17


2009 ARCH CULVERT 2006 6.3 11.4

2010 ARCH CULVERT 2006 5 11.9






2027 BOX ON OPEN FOOTINGS 1940 7.5 8.5

















2067 ARCH CULVERT 2000 5.1 15





TOWN OF MINTO BRIDGE INVENTORY DATA


Structure ID

Year of Original

Construction Deck

Length Deck

Width


035-0007 1964 9.25 8.26

035-0008 1966 30.35 8.3

035-0033 1975 31.1 8.7

035-0034 1971 28.11 9.04

035-0035 1961 34.1 8.4

035-0036 1981 19.28 9.15

035-0038 1959 12.2 8.4

035-0052 1968 12.5 9.9

035-0053 1970 17.4 9.9

035-0054 1987 16.15 9.47

035-0058 1967 7.9 10.1

035-0062 1969 8.2 9.9

035-1300 8.4 4

035-1400 16.1 4

035-1500 6 7

035-1700 13.74 10.12

035-0042 1950 9.88 6.77

TOWN OF MINTO CULVERT INVENTORY DATA


Year of Original

Construction Culvert Width

Deck Length


035-0049 BOXCLSD 1995 19.95 18.25

035-0100 18 3.95

035-0200 BOX ON OPEN FOOTINGS 12.1 5.71









035-1200 BOX ON OPEN FOOTINGS 14.93 6

035-1600 BOX ON OPEN FOOTINGS 18 9.5

035-1800 ROUND CULVERT

035-1900

035-2000


035-2300 ARCH CULVERT



035-2600 EARTH FILLED ARCH


035-2800 BOX ON OPEN FOOTINGS 7 14



035-3100 CULVERT

TOWNSHIP OF MAPLETON BRIDGE INVENTORY DATA


Structure ID

Year of Original

Construction Deck

Length Deck

Width


BR0000572 1957 9.9 8.5

BR0000576-MB013 1990 6.5 8.48

BR0000580-MB005 1996 7.6 8.5

BR0000585-MB002 1957 5.5 15.1

BR0000888-MB012 2007 26.29 9.3

BR0000897 1957 5.15 10.8

BR0000906 1957 3.7 10.9

BR0000947-MB009 1958 24.38 7.92

BR0000980-PB013 1974 16.66 10

BR0001005 1957 4.57 8.94

BR0001009-PB032 1957 9.04 6.6

BR0001135 1957 3.7 12.9

BR0001147 1957 4.2 12.3

BR0001148-PB001 1974 9.5 8

BR0001150-PB029 1957 3.8 7.8

BR0001151-PB009 1974 6.1 12.2

BR0001156-PB016 1957 12.6 7.9

BR0001157-PB030 1957 3.3 5.8

BR0001158-PB017 1957 8 5.7

BR0001162 1957 3 6

BR0001163 1957 3.2 5.9

BR0001165 1957 9.1 7.9

BR0001166 1957 8.9 4.9

BR0001167 1957 3.6 12.1

BR0001168-PB024 1957 9.14 6.4

BR0001174-PB025 1957 12.19 5.44

BR0001175 1957 6.6 6.2

BR0001176 1957 4.5 5.7

BR0001179 1957 5.5 10.8

BR0001181 1957 4.3 7.9

BR0001182 1974 6.1 7.2

BR0001189 1957 5.5 12.1

BR0001331 1957 9.9 10.5

BR0001332 1957 7.1 7.4

BR0001333-PB019 1957 9.14 6.1

BR0001334 1957 2.5 4.8

BR0001337 1957 4.27 5.61

BR0001348-PB020 1974 8.18 9.75

BR0001352 1957 16.5 7.2

BR0001361-PB011 1974 6 11.8

BR0001363-PB031 1957 3 12.4

BR0001364 1974 4.6 12.3

BR0001365 1957 4.9 11

BR0001374 1957 5.3 7.9

BR0001376-PB007 1974 6.1 10.8

BR0001379-PB004 1979 28.4 9.25

BR0001380-PB003 1976 25.27 9.3

BR0001381-PB002 1988 33.96 10

BR0001383-MB001 1991 7.2 8.5

BR0001384-MB003 1957 17.8 6.3

BR0001387-MB004 1974 7.3 8

BR0001391-PB010 1957 38.4 8

BR0001393-PB015 1957 7.16 10.21

BR0001394-PB014 1974 9.8 8.1

BR0001401 1957 5 12.1

BR0001402-PB012 1975 47.65 9.4

BR0001403 1957 4.45 12.6

TOWNSHIP OF MAPLETON BRIDGE INVENTORY DATA


Structure ID

Year of Original

Construction Deck

Length Deck

Width


BR0001404-MB016 1974 22.96 9.75

BR0001410-MB007 1992 6.71 8.53

BR0001415-MB008 1987 26.01 9.45

BR0001425-MB011 1996 51.21 9.6

BR0001433 1957 3.7 13.4

BR0001436 1957 9.9 7.9

BR0001437 1957 1.98 8.08

BR0001629-PB021 1957 7.85 12.95

BR0001632-PB022 1957 7.47 12.7

BR0001636 1957 4.27 12.19

BR0001637 1957 4.27 12.19

BR0001638-PB028 1974 18.29 9.91

BR0001639-PB027 1974 16.76 9.86

BR0001640-PB026 1974 16.87 9.88

BR0001644 1957 7 7.8

BR0001645-MB014 1974 8.23 10.06

BR0001648 1957 3.6 12.4

TOWNSHIP OF MAPLETON CULVERT INVENTORY DATA



Year of Original

Construction Deck



BR0000575 1957 3.1 18.4

BR0000845 ROUND CULVERT 1957 3 15

BR0000889 1957 3.2 14.8

BR0000945-PB006 RIC 1957 7.5 7

BR0000949 RIC 1957 5 14.1

BR0000976 1957 4.2 17.1

BR0000993 RIC 1957 4.5 14.5

BR0000998-PB008 1974 9.2 8.6

BR0001004 1957 6.8 15.8

BR0001006-MB006 1957 5.5 13.35

BR0001139 1957 6.1 14.4

BR0001164 1957 2.9 17.1

BR0001343-PB023 1974 7.32 20.62

BR0001375 RIC 1957 2.9 16.4

BR0001378-PB005 1974 7.3 16

BR0001386 1957 3 20.1

BR0001399 1957 3.1 14.5

BR0001400 1957 3 14

BR0001409 RIC 1957 2.9 20.6

BR0001427 1957 4.7 18.2

BR0001430-PB018 2000 10.21 17.27

BR0001432 1957 6.2 17.3

BR0001435 1957 4.1 15.3

BR0001455 1974 3.3 18

BR0001631 1957 4.19 16.31

BR0001633 RIC 1957 7.4 18

BR0001642 1957 4.9 16.7

BR0001643 1957 4.9 16.5

BR0003002 1974 5.5 16.9

BR0003010 1957 3 16

PHM0001137 1974

PHM0001160-PB017 1974

PHM0001382 1974

TOWNSHIP OF GUELPH/ERAMOSA BRIDGE INVENTORY DATA


TOWNSHIP OF GUELPH/ERAMOSA CULVERT INVENTORY DATA


Year of Original

Construction Deck



B007 ARCH CULVERT 1945 9.5 17

B2003 RIGID FRAME, VERTICAL LEGS 1940 3.1 9

B2004 ELLIPSE CULVERT 2001 4.15 15









B3009 RECTANGULAR CULVERT 1988 4.3 20


Structure ID

Year of Original

Construction Deck

Length Deck

Width


B002 1946 6.2 8.9

B005 2004 8.6 8.7

B010 2008 14 9.7

B011 2008 10 9.7

B013 2007 22 11.3

B014 1930 13.75 9.0

B019 1992 15.3 15.2

B020 2008 17.95 9.6

B021 1997 9.2 10.8

B022 2008 13.3 9.6

B081 1998 15.1 11.1

B082 2005 7.93 12.2

B3001 1995 25.2 10.4

B3002 1964 25.9 8.3

B3003 1964 24.3 11.3

B3006 1967 4.13 8.3

october 2013 - ontario good roads association of wellington bridge... · october 2013 county of ......

Documents