Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My Public Portal
About
2022-03-03_COW_Website Agenda Package
Page 1 of 1 (Cover Pages) Committee of the Whole AGENDA Thursday, March 3, 2022 Livestreamed via YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_uKlob3qOA6eD62x1kK5Kw 151 King Street, Chester, NS 1. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA/ORDER OF BUSINESS 3. PUBLIC INPUT SESSION (9:00-9:15 a.m. if any) 4. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING 4.1 February 17, 2022. 5. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS/APPOINTMENTS 6. MATTERS ARISING 7. CORRESPONDENCE 8. NEW BUSINESS 8.1 Request for Direction prepared February 22, 2022 – Community Development & Recreation – Public Washrooms. 8.2 Chester Traffic Impact Study/Improvement Plan (Draft Report) February 2022. 8.3 Request for Direction prepared February 23, 2022 – Community Development & Recreation - Gold River Trail Bridge Repair or Construction Options. 9. IN CAMERA 9.1 Section 22(2)(e) of the Municipal Government Act – Contract Negotiations - Hiltz Property, Marriotts Cove. 10. ADJOURNMENT 49 MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER Minutes of COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Via YouTube Live from 151 King St, Chester, NS On Thursday, February 17, 2022 CALLED TO ORDER Warden Webber called the meeting to order at 8:47 a.m. Present: District 1 – Councillor Andre Veinotte District 4 – Warden Allen Webber District 2 – Deputy Warden Shatford District 3 – Councillor Derek Wells District 5 – Councillor Abdella Assaff District 6 – Councillor Tina Connors District 7 – Councillor Sharon Church Staff: Dan McDougall, CAO Tara Maguire, Deputy CAO Jennifer Webber, Communications Officer Pamela Myra, Municipal Clerk Garth Sturtevant, Senior Planner Emily Statton, Planner Chad Haughn, Director of Community Development and Recreation Solicitor: Samuel Lamey, Municipal Solicitor APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND ORDER OF BUSINESS Additions: Public Input – Philip Stevens. 2022-057 MOVED by Councillor Church, SECONDED by Deputy Warden Shatford the February 17, 2022, Agenda and Order of Business be approved as amended. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. PUBLIC INPUT Philip Stevens, Marriotts Cove, indicated that he sent copy of a letter to Councillor Church that he had forwarded to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The letter was regarding the outside fire contract that the Municipality has with the Village Commission and Chester Volunteer Fire Department. The residents in the outside areas (Districts 1 and 7 and part of District 3) have been concerned since the mid-90’s with the model of fire service, promises made, money spent, etc. Committee of the Whole (continued) February 17, 2022 50 The Fire Department recently signed an extension agreement with regard to the upcoming contract and he is concerned again that nothing will change. The residents of the outside areas pay more than 50% of the funding through taxes to the Village Commission/Fire Department. The model isn’t working. Warden Webber acknowledged Mr. Stevens’ concerns noting that he understood the issue and that the Municipality is currently in contract negotiations with the Village of Chester. He thanked Mr. Stevens for his input. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING 4.1 Committee of the Whole – February 3, 2022 – Warden Webber. 2022-058 MOVED by Councillor Wells, SECONDED by Councillor Assaff the minutes of the February 3, 2022, meeting of Committee of the Whole be approved as circulated. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. MATTERS ARISING There were no matters arising for discussion. CORRESPONDENCE There were no items of correspondence. NEW BUSINESS 8.1 Information Report prepared February 7, 2022 – Community Development & Recreation – Development Agreement for Chester Hills. Councillor Veinotte declared CONFLICT OF INTEREST and left the room. Emily Statton, Planner, reviewed the information report, outlining the application for a Development Agreement from Halyard Developments Ltd. for an aging-in-place residential community consisting of a variety of housing options including semi-detached units, townhouses, multi-residential, and single-family style homes. She noted that the developer will take ownership on February 28, 2022. The property is mixed use and does require a Development Agreement. Discussion was held with regard to water/wastewater systems, potential connection/ expansion of the Municipal wastewater system, and an environmental assessment required. Committee of the Whole (continued) February 17, 2022 51 The road would only be NOT Municipally-owned or have to meet municipal specifications if the developer pursues a ‘bare land condos’ approach. Garth Sturtevant, Senior Planner indicted that a line can be run along Stanford Lake Road. He also noted that there will be discussions that will be part of the Development Agreement to determine what they are planning to expend in servicing each unit. 2022-059 MOVED by Councillor Church, SECONDED by Councillor Wells that the Committee of the Whole recommend to Council to direct staff to prepare a draft Development Agreement and hold a Public Information Meeting regarding the proposed Chester Hills development on Stanford Lake Road. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. Councillor Veinotte returned to the meeting room. 8.2 Request for Decision prepared February 9, 2022 – Community Development & Recreation – Request for Development Agreement Discharge for 4564 Highway 3. Councillor Wells declared a CONFLICT OF INTEREST and left the meeting room. Garth Sturtevant, Senior Planner outlined the request to discharge an existing development agreement from Sandra Bain that had been in place to use the property as a laboratory. The property has not been used since June of 2021 and the owner would like to sell the property and have it able to be converted to a residence. The owner has been working with the Development Officer to get a development permit in place to use as a residence. They are aware that building permits could also be required. If Council agrees to the request, then staff will work with the Solicitor to have the property deregistered. He also noted that the fee of $100 has been received. It was also noted that, as part of the Fee Policy Discussions coming up, there will be a discussion on whether legal fees should also be recoverable for these types of requests. The staff recommendation is to discharge the Development Agreement. 2022-060 MOVED by Councillor Church, SECONDED by Deputy Warden Shatford that the Committee of the Whole recommend to council to authorize the discharge of Development Agreement CMDA002 for 4654 Highway 3, Marriott’s Cove per Section 6 a) of the approved Development Agreement and further direct staff to prepare and execute a Notice of Discharge to be recorded at the Land Registry. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. Councillor Wells returned to the meeting room. Committee of the Whole (continued) February 17, 2022 52 PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS 5.1 Elizabeth Finney and Karen Lake, Bonny Lea Farm – Home Today. Home to Stay. Councillor Church declared a CONFLICT OF INTEREST and left the room. Elizabeth Finney and Karen Lake were present to review with Council the project to add two new homes in the community – Phase I is a 4-bedroom home at Bonny Lea Farm that will accommodate residents aging in place so that they do not have to leave their home and go to hospital or a long term care home. This will be capitally funded by Bonny Lea Farm through fundraising and the operational funding will come from the Province. Phase II is another 4- bedroom home that will be located within the community, off of Bonny Lea Farm premises, and will be capitally and operationally funded from the Department of Community Services. They provided an overview of the current homes and residents at Bonny Lea – there are 36 residents and over half of them are between 50 and 70+ years of age. The residents consider Bonny Lea Farm their home and it is where they live and work at any of the six enterprises. When the residents reach an age that they can no longer remain at Bonny Lea, due to the limited capacity for residents who require medical needs, they are moved to hospital or a long term care home. The proposed 4-bedroom home at Bonny Lea will provide a 24/7 barrier free home that never closes. The plans for community engagement and funding were also reviewed with an overview of the financial statement showing income and expenditures. They currently have 549 donors and sponsors. They have received approvals for the two new homes but have not yet confirmed the location of the second home other than it will be in the community. The home proposed to be located at Bonny Lea Farm will be the first of its kind in NS and maybe in Canada – a home with specialized mobility supports, barrier free, with built in lifts, and the ability to support those with light medical needs. It will not be a full scale nursing home. It will provide what any of us would be able to have at home. There may come a time that some will need to leave but this will, by far, extend the time they can spend at their Bonny Lea Farm home. Ms. Finney provided some personal stories from a few of the residents, one of whom developed Alzheimer’s and had to move to long term care where she passed away shortly afterward. They reviewed the layout of the home and the estimated price tag of a Class C estimate of $4.5 Million. They are currently in the capital campaign phase and are approaching the Municipality as well as the Federal Government to join and lead the way for a model that they hope could be implemented in other areas. They have already raised - through pledges and cash in hand - $1.6 Million. Committee of the Whole (continued) February 17, 2022 53 There were some questions/answers to follow regarding the costs, what is required for nursing home standards, operations provincially funded, finding an appropriate location in the community for the Phase II residence, and how to staff and construct as quickly as possible. They also outlined the mid-progress change to a model capped at four bedrooms (from the Province). Councillor Connors thanked Ms. Finney and Ms. Lake for their presentation, noting she appreciated a presentation before major project deliberations to get information that Council may not get from words on a page. She offered to help from her community as well. Warden Webber thanked Ms. Finney and Ms. Lake for their presentation. Councillor Church returned to the meeting room. 5.2 Valerie White, Syd Dumaresq, and Susan Larder of the New Ross Community Care Society were present to discuss the housing project in New Ross. Valerie White thanked Council for the opportunity to speak with them today and introduced Syd Dumaresq and Susan Larder. Ms. White outlined to Council the difficulties in getting an approved project with CMHC; the first submission was too small and the second too big. They have been working with the Department of Housing with a navigator who has been assisting to ensure they have all material needed to move the project forward. They have also met with the Minister and Deputy Minister of Housing with positive results. This project will be a model for other rural communities around the province and they have a commitment of $50,000 to do some of what is required to get the property ready. Turner Drake is moving forward with the project to get to where they need to be before meeting with CMHC and the New Ross Credit Union. The agreement of purchase and sale has been signed with the Church and they hope to have the property purchase complete in March. While this has been going on they have been approached by a company that would be interested in building a nursing home in New Ross. They currently have 50 acres, and the Church has indicated that they would be willing to sell the other 50 acres. Their request is that Council provide the $100,000 committed in 2018 so that they can move forward; acknowledging that the land would be returned if the project did not go forward. They know it will be hard to raise funds without owning the land. Syd Dumaresq provided a brief update on the purchase of Birch Island, thanking the Municipality for their contribution of $75,000 toward the purchase. Mahone Island Conservation Association has raised their $75,000 as well and will be able to forward those Committee of the Whole (continued) February 17, 2022 54 funds - $150,000 to the province before the deadline for the purchase. This is another beautiful island obtained for the residents of the Municipality. Mr. Dumaresq then outlined the project design which shows 24 townhouses on a property adjacent to the school, off of Rosebank Road which provides access to the core of the village as well as to amenities. He outlined the process how they arrived at the design – a 2-story 4-plex on a slope that allows on-grade access at both levels. There are no corridors, stairs, or the requirement for an elevator. The design is appropriate to the scale of New Ross. The floorplan was reviewed which showed wheelchair accessible rooms. The hope of the committee is that this model can be used in other areas as well. Ms. White also commented on the collaboration with MLA Barkhouse. Councillor Connors noted that David Harrison, a consultant working on the project has also commented on the early investment in the project by the Municipality. He has referenced this to other municipalities who may not be involved in affordable housing projects. A break was held from 9:50 a.m. to 10:06 a.m. 8.3 3rd Quarter Financials – Director of Finance & Information Services. Tim Topping, Director of Financial & Information Services was present at the meeting to review the highlights of the 3rd Quarter Financials, commenting on: 2021/22 Priorities for the Remainder of the year. 2021/22 Council Priorities for Finance & Information Services. 2021/22 Financial Forecast of approximately $3.2 Million. Some of this is due to the increased amount of deed transfer tax received which is a significant increase over budget. Expenditures are lower than anticipated, partly because Sustane is not fully functioning at this time (the Municipality would be paying them to take the material if they were fully operational). Variance Analysis – transfers to reserves. This has resulted in an overall growth in reserves. 2021 Financial Forecast – Capital Budget Forecast. Variances – some due to leachate treatment deferred to 2023/24 and savings on an excavator purchased. 8.4 Capital Budget Discussions – Director of Finance & Information Services. The Director of Financial & Information Services provided an update to the Capital Budget for the fiscal years 2023/24, 2024/25, 2025/26, and 2026/27 for review. Items have been updated to what is currently existing and there are some portions Council will see at a later date. Committee of the Whole (continued) February 17, 2022 55 There will be a review of the wastewater strategy, recent or upcoming changes to the strategic priorities, and adjustments at the year end for projects not quite complete. There are also discussions required around ICIP funding and what projects are being completed through that funding. One thing that has changed significantly is the landfill design construction based on the most recent report from CBCL. It was noted that there are more pieces to the budget to come and these items will be provided for Council for review. It was agreed by Council that more detailed discussions are preferred. The CAO indicated that more information would be provided in the capital budget and the projects would be reviewed in more detail. He recommended Council receive the information today for further discussion. It was agreed to continue with the In Camera portion of the meeting following the scheduled Audit Committee. The meeting was suspended until after the Audit Committee. Following an Audit Committee meeting, Council reconvened with all members present. IN CAMERA 9.1 Section 22(2)(e) of the Municipal Government Act – Contract Negotiations – New Ross Continuing Care. 2022-061 MOVED by Councillor Assaff, SECONDED by Councillor Church the meeting convene “In Camera” to discuss a matter under Section 22(2)(e) of the Municipal Government Act – Contract Negotiations – New Ross Continuing Care. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. Following an In Camera session, the meeting reconvened with all members present. ADJOURNMENT 2022-062 MOVED by Councillor Assaff, SECONDED by Councillor Church the meeting adjourn. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. (11:30 a.m.) ___________________________ ___________________________ Allen Webber Pamela Myra Warden Municipal Clerk REQUEST FOR DIRECTION REPORT TO: Municipal Council MEETING DATE: March 3, 2022 DEPARTMENT: Community Development & Recreation SUBJECT: Public Washrooms ORIGIN: 2022-23 Budget Planning Date: February 22, 2022 Prepared by: Chad Haughn, Director of Community Development & Recreation Date: February 23, 2022 Authorized by: Dan McDougall, CAO CURRENT SITUATION Municipal staff are planning for 2022-23 operating and capital budgets, including Municipally supported public washrooms. There are public washroom options available at various locations throughout the community such as in provincial parks and at local businesses, however, there is also a role for the Municipality to provide this service at additional locations. Staff are looking for Council direction on the various locations of porta potties. To provide context, this report also provided information about two other related public washrooms projects, the Wild Rose Park Washroom renovation and the Open Spaces Enviro Toilets. BACKGROUND A) Porta Potties In 2021-22, the Municipality rented six porta potties for the following locations: 1. Lordly Park 2. Croft Road Playground 3. Tancook Ferry Wharf 4. CAMS 5. Chester Train Station 6. Wild Rose Park These porta potties were delivered just prior to the May long weekend and were removed after the Thanksgiving weekend. The Chester Train Station location was an exception as it remained in place until December due to the high volume of trail traffic. B) Wild Rose Park Washroom The Wild Rose Park washroom facility is in poor condition and requires an upgrade for suitability as a public washroom. Due to the poor condition and the Covid cleaning requirements, this facility was not opened in 2021-22. Staff submitted an Enabling Accessibility Grant application to Employment and Social Development Canada for a couple of projects and were approved for $50,000 to be used for the Wild Rose Park Washroom renovation. The grant approval requires funding to be spent by December 31, 2023. R e q u e s t f o r D e c i s i o n P a g e | 2 C) Enviro Toilets Within the approved Plan for Our Open Spaces, several locations have been identified as important sites for public washrooms: 1. Gold River 2. Haughn Property 3. East River Trail Parking Lot 4. Moland Point As year 2 of implementation of the plan starts, the details of enviro toilets will begin to be finalized and it is anticipated that installation will take place later in 2022. DISCUSSION A) Porta Potties The planned locations for rented porta potties for 2022-23 are as follows: 1. Lordly Park: Near Prince Street Park Entrance The Municipality does not own or operate Lordly Park, however, Recreation & Parks staff plan the weekly Picnic In The Park concerts held at this location. In the past, Municipal staff have requested that Royal Flush (the porta pottie rental company) donate a porta pottie for the concert series. For the past few years, Royal Flush has agreed to this donation and although staff plan to request the donation again, the porta pottie will be included in the budget in case the donation is not approved. 2. Croft Road Playground: Parking Lot This porta pottie serves the families that use the playground as well as trail users. 3. Tancook Ferry Wharf: On Municipal Park Property Near Fence The waterfront area near the Tancook Ferry is busy with residents and visitors. 4. CAMS: Parking Lot at the Rear of CAMS Building This location serves all the youth soccer programs that take place at both the CAMS & CDS soccer fields. It also serves track users and skate park users. 5. Chester Train Station: Near Trail Parking Lot The former train station property hosts many visitors including trail users. The high volume of people and the limited access to washrooms in the facility make this a logical location for a porta pottie. 6. Wild Rose Park: Adjacent to Washroom that is Being Renovated. This porta pottie will provide washroom access until such time that the existing washroom is renovated and can be reopened. 7. New Ross: Lions Park Trail Head There is limited access to public washrooms in New Ross. This coupled with the new trails and visitors to the community creates demand for a porta pottie at a central location. 8. East River Trail Parking Lot: In the designated area near the center of the new parking area. We plan to have an enviro toilet at this location, however, until that facility is installed it is important to provide a washroom option to serve the high number of people hiking to Castle Rock. R e q u e s t f o r D e c i s i o n P a g e | 3 In the Fall of 2021, New Ross was identified as an additional location for a porta pottie, however, since it was so close to the end of the season it was determined that a rental would not be put into place until the 2022 season. B) Wild Rose Park Washroom Staff plan to follow through with this project and have the renovation completed in 2022-23. Infrastructure & Operations staff will manage the renovation project and Accessibility Coordinator, will provide comment and opinion for the renovation. This project is included in the 2022-23 capital budget. C) Enviro Toilets Implementation of the Plan for Our Open Spaces is continuing in 2022-23. Recreation & Parks staff intend to issue a Request For Proposals for the supply of Enviro Toilets for the following locations: 1. Gold River – located near the new parking lot and trail head on Beech Hill Road. 2. East River Trail Parking Lot – this location has a high volume of visitors who hike to Castle Rock. 3. Moland Point – This new park is focused on serving visitors with disabilities. *Haughn Property – washroom facilities are important for this location, however, to avoid possible duplication of washroom facilities, an enviro toilet will not be installed at this location until after a final decision is made on the future of the Countway Mosher House. It is common for public washrooms to be located in public parks. Visitors frequently spend extended amounts of time on site and therefore require the appropriate facilities. If facilities are not provided, it is problematic if people choose to “answer natures call” without following proper etiquette. The Enviro Toilet is intended to be a more permanent and better-quality solution compared to a porta pottie. There are several versions of Enviro Toilets on the market and through the RFP process, staff will find a solution that is cost effective, requires as little maintenance as possible and which will provide a comfortable, environmentally friendly option for visitors. OPTIONS 1. Approve the various porta pottie rental locations as outlined above. 2. Suggest changes to the locations outline above. 3. Request additional information from staff. IMPLICATIONS By-Law/Policy NA Financial/budgetary Porta Potties for 2022-23 Monthly Rental Cost $115 x 6 months $690 Delivery & Removal ($32 each) $64 Monthly Service $32 x 6 months $192 Total for Each Porta Pottie Location $946 R e q u e s t f o r D e c i s i o n P a g e | 4 Estimated Total Cost for 8 locations $7,568 The total cost for Porta Pottie rentals will be part of the Infrastructure & Operations operating budget. Wild Rose Park Washroom This renovation project is currently listed in the capital budget at an estimated cost of $54,000. Enviro Toilets The capital budget amount for each Enviro Toilet is $15,000 x 3 locations = $45,000. This amount is included in the 2022-23 capital budget. Environmental Providing public washroom facilities of various types to the public helps to ensure proper disposal of human waste. Strategic Priorities The rental of porta potties will assist the Municipality in advancing the following Priority Outcomes of the 2021- 24 Strategic Priorities Framework: Priority Outcomes: Environmental Stewardship 1. Seek opportunities for innovation and leadership in waste management. Priority Outcomes: Healthy & Vibrant Communities 1. Ensure residents have access to facilities, natural assets, programs, and services that enrich a quality of life and provide safe communities for residents and visitors alike. Priority Outcomes: Infrastructure & Service Delivery 1. Develop and implement evidence-based plans for future infrastructure and service needs, along with related funding models, to accommodate sustainable growth and levels of service. 2. Create efficiencies through innovative service delivery, and proactive maintenance and operations of existing infrastructure. 3. Plan for and create infrastructure that improves the connectivity of roads, multi-use trails, natural assets, and facilities as part of an active transportation network. Work Program Implications Rental of porta potties is an existing annual routine for Infrastructure & Operations and will not add additional work. The Wild Rose Park Washroom renovation and installation of enviro toilets will be projects managed by Infrastructure & Operations. Recreation & Parks Services will provide assistance with the procurement of the enviro toilets and the Accessibility Coordinator will provide assistance with the washroom renovation. Has Legal review been completed? ___ Yes _ _ No _X_ N/A 211063.00 CHESTER IMPROVEMENT PLAN_DRAFT REPORT_20220224.DOCX/cd ED: 24/02/2022 16:22:00/PD: 24/02/2022 16:22:00 Chester Traffic Impact Study / Improvement Plan Municipality of the District of Chester Draft Report 211063.00 • February 2022 Chester Traffic Impact Study / Improvement Plan Final Draft Report E. Nicolescu 2022-02-24 E. MacEachern Chester Traffic Impact Study / Improvement Plan Final Draft Report E. Nicolescu 2022-02-18 E. MacEachern Chester Traffic Impact Study / Improvement Plan Draft Report E. Nicolescu 2022-01-21 E. MacEachern Issue or Revision Reviewed By: Date Issued By: This document was prepared for the party indicated herein. The material and information in the document reflects CBCL Limited’s opinion and best judgment based on the information available at the time of preparation. Any use of this document or reliance on its content by third parties is the responsibility of the third party. CBCL Limited accepts no responsibility for any damages suffered as a result of third party use of this document. 211063.00 CHESTER IMPROVEMENT PLAN_DRAFT REPORT_20220224.DOCX/cd ED: 24/02/2022 16:22:00/PD: 24/02/2022 16:22:00 February 18, 2022 Gordon Tate Active Living Coordinator Community Development & Recreation Municipality of the District of Chester 186 Central Street, Chester, NS, B0J 1J0 Dear Mr. Tate: RE: Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report – DRAFT REPORT CBCL Limited (CBCL) is pleased to submit this Draft Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study report for the Municipality of the District of Chester. The study was completed in accordance with industry best practices to address circulation and parking improvements, along with recommendations from the community. Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned if you have any questions regarding this report. Yours very truly, CBCL Limited Emanuel Nicolescu, MCIP, LPP Urban and Transportation Planner (902)421-7241 ext. 2366 Project No: 211063.00 This document was prepared for the party indicated herein. The material and information in the document reflects CBCL Limited’s opinion and best judgment based on the information available at the time of preparation. Any use of this document or reliance on its content by third parties is the responsibility of the third party. CBCL Limited accepts no responsibility for any damages suffered as a result of third party use of this document. Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report i Contents Chapter 1 Introduction ................................................................................... 1 1.1 Project Overview ................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Study Objectives ................................................................................................................ 1 1.3 Study Process and Methodology ...................................................................................... 1 1.4 Study Challenges ............................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2 Stakeholder Engagement ............................................................. 2 2.1 Online Engagement ........................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Events ................................................................................................................................. 3 2.3 What We Heard .................................................................................................................. 4 Chapter 3 Existing Conditions ........................................................................ 5 3.1 Study Area .......................................................................................................................... 5 3.1.1 Chester Study Area ................................................................................................ 5 3.1.2 Hubbards Study Area ............................................................................................ 6 3.2 Road Network .................................................................................................................... 6 3.2.1 Right–of–Way ......................................................................................................... 8 3.3 Data Collection ................................................................................................................... 9 3.3.1 2021 Intersection Turning Movement Counts .................................................. 11 Chapter 4 Circulation Analysis .....................................................................16 4.1 Capacity Assessment ....................................................................................................... 16 4.1.1 Existing Conditions .............................................................................................. 16 4.1.2 Factored Conditions ............................................................................................ 17 4.2 Safety Evaluation ............................................................................................................. 19 4.2.1 Collision Analysis ................................................................................................. 19 4.3 Traffic Calming Plan ......................................................................................................... 23 4.4 Street Prioritization Assessment .................................................................................... 24 4.4.1 Snow Removal Priority ........................................................................................ 26 4.5 One-way Street Conversion ............................................................................................ 28 4.5.1 Active Transportation Facilities .......................................................................... 28 Chapter 5 Curbside Management ...............................................................32 Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report ii 5.1 On-Street Parking Assessment ....................................................................................... 32 5.2 Sidewalk Café Assessment .............................................................................................. 35 Chapter 6 Options & Recommendations ...................................................38 6.1 Circulation ........................................................................................................................ 38 6.1.1 One-way Street Conversion ................................................................................ 38 6.1.2 Intersection Improvements ................................................................................ 57 6.1.3 Traffic Calming ..................................................................................................... 61 6.1.4 Street Prioritization and Snow Removal Priority ............................................... 61 6.2 Curbside Management .................................................................................................... 64 6.2.1 On-Street Parking ................................................................................................ 64 6.2.2 Seasonal Off-Street Parking ................................................................................ 66 6.2.3 Sidewalk Café Initiative ....................................................................................... 68 Appendices A Engagement Materials, Photos, and Responses B Survey Questionnaire Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 1 Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Project Overview On behalf of The Municipality of the District of Chester (the Municipality), CBCL Limited (CBCL) led the preparation of an Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study for the Village of Chester and Fox Point Front Road in the Community of Hubbards. The Village of Chester (the Village) and the surrounding communities within the Municipality are home to many full-time and seasonal residents and is a major tourist destination which continues to increase in popularity. The large seasonal influx of residents and visitors results an increase of vehicles on the road, placing constraints on the current street network and parking infrastructure. During peak summer weekends, such as the Village’s annual Chester Race Week, the streets are busy with both vehicle and pedestrian traffic and parking spaces in the southern portion of the Village are limited. As a result, vehicles park in areas not designated for parking, disrupting sightlines and blocking the shoulders of the already narrow streets creating unsafe conditions. To minimize safety concerns and improve traffic circulation, we completed a circulation analysis which looked at traffic flow within the study area and assessed implications associated with converting existing two-way streets into one-way access only. Also included in the circulation analysis was an assessment of RCMP collision data from previous years to determine any locations and reasons for collisions and whether implementing traffic calming measures could improve the safety of multimodal road users. The study also looked at the local sidewalk café initiative launched in Chester in response to COVID- 19 capacity restrictions. Following Council’s agreement to temporarily suspend land use by-law enforcement to allow for sidewalk cafés, several restaurants and cafés within the Village have expanded their patios onto the abutting sidewalks. While the initiative has helped local restaurants provide additional seating in wake of reduced seating capacity and social distancing requirements, it also removed parking spaces from the surrounding streets, creating a narrower roadway. Our assessment of the initiative evaluated any impacts sidewalk cafés in the Village may have on traffic and explored whether any strategies to mitigate such impacts were necessary. The majority of roads within the Village study area are owned and maintained by the Department of Public Works (formally NSTAT/TIR), with the exception of a few roads which are either privately or municipally owned (see Figure 1-1). The current provincial road classification rating system ranks all roads within the Village as local roads (level 3), with the exception of Highway 3 which is classified as arterial (level 1B). Under the provincial winter maintenance program, a level 3 classification stipulates that roads are to be cleared within 24 hours, while clearing of level 1B roads is required within 12 hours. It is understood that some roads within the Village have higher operational and functional roles, and therefore require a higher road maintenance priority, especially during winter months. To address municipal concern over emergency response capability during and immediately following winter storms, we have conducted a thorough operational review of the streets within the Village study area. This review served to establish a framework for street classification that is more responsive to the mobility needs of all road users, considers the role of Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 2 streets in serving and influencing adjacent land uses, and addresses the need for improved access for emergency response in the event of inclement weather. The objective of this study was to provide the Municipality with a plan to maximize on street parking and improve the traffic circulation by completing a detailed traffic operation review of the communities of Fox Point Road and the Village of Chester. Figure 1-1: Road Ownership Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 1 1.2 Study Objectives The following goals and primary objectives were identified for this study: Collect and review relevant background information and data Complete a site visit Develop and facilitate stakeholder engagement initiatives Engage with the community to obtain comments and feedback regarding possible areas of improvement and recommendation options Obtain, compile and process traffic and parking count for both peak and non-peak days Estimate future traffic volumes based on projected growth Undertake a multi-modal level of service (MMLOS) analysis for identified intersections Identify operational issues and infrastructure deficiencies based on existing and future LOS Undertake a street prioritization assessment Undertake an assessment of the sidewalk café initiative Identify potential improvement options Compile a report with our technical studies and recommendations 1.3 Study Process and Methodology The Improvement Plan / Traffic Study was conducted in following five project phases: 1 Review of Existing Conditions 2 Circulation Analysis 3 Curbside Management Plan 4 Identification and Refinement of Options 5 Traffic Study / Improvement Plan and Final Recommendations 1.4 Study Challenges When conducting the traffic study there were two key challenges to address. The first challenge was the population discrepancy in the Village between the peak and off-peak seasons. With the large influx of seasonal residents and tourists, the population of the Chester area increases significantly from the beginning of June to the end of September (peak season). Second, the COVID-19 pandemic and ongoing travel restrictions reduced the number of seasonal residents and tourists to Chester, thus creating conditions that are not reflective of a “normal” year. Throughout the traffic study, accommodations have been made to account for these challenges to better reflect “normal” peak and off-peak conditions and allow for the Municipality to better adapt to seasonal population increases while maintaining the safety of all road users. Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 2 Chapter 2 Stakeholder Engagement To better understand the needs of the residents of and visitors to the Village of Chester and Fox Point Front Road in Hubbards, we undertook an extensive public engagement process. The process consisted of two in-person engagement events, and an online platform which included a survey and participatory mapping exercises. The meeting materials, photos, survey questionnaire and responses are contained in Appendix A. 2.1 Online Engagement A public engagement platform was created through the Voices and Choices platform. The Municipality of Chester launched Voices and Choices to allow residents to share their ideas for various municipal planning initiatives. The Voices and Choices platform provides interactive mapping functionality, allowing users to input their feedback relating to the following predefined conditions: • Traffic, Active Transportation & Safety Conditions • Parking Conditions • One-Way Street Conversions The platform also includes survey functionality, allowing us to gain more targeting feedback from residents. The survey focused on the following four topics: • Traffic calming • Parking • Sidewalk cafe initiative • Potential conversion of some streets to one-way The Voices and Choices Chester Traffic Study and Improvement Plan page was launched on August 10, 2021, and remained open for public feedback until August 29, 2021. Upon completion of the Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 3 online engagement exercise, the project team integrated the feedback with feedback received at in- person engagement events for review and summary in the Chester Chats Summary Document. 2.2 Events In coordination with the municipal staff, the team developed an engagement strategy. Two in- person events were held in Chester to allow the public opportunity to provide information and feedback on one-ways streets, street prioritization, traffic calming, street closures and sidewalk café initiatives. Picnic in the Park On Tuesday, August 17 the project team attended the Municipality’s weekly Picnic in the Park event held at Lordly Park from 5pm to 7pm. The engagement process consisted of two tables set up in the park, each with its own project board with a map of the study area where residents could provide feedback on vehicular movement and parking, as well as bicycle, pedestrian, and mobility-aided forms of transport. Using sticky notes, attendees were encouraged to identify specific locations where they had comments, concerns or ideas relating to: • Traffic calming • Parking • Special events (e.g. Race Week) • Sidewalk cafes • Walking and accessibility • Potential for converting the following streets from one-way to two-way: o Pig Loop Road o Water Street o Duke Street o Pleasant Street The project team also provided paper surveys, identical to the survey administered through Voices and Choices, that residents could return to the Municipal Office at their convenience. This informal event presented the project team the opportunity to engage with residents. Open House An open house event was held on Wednesday, August 25 at the Chester Legion. The event took place from 3pm to 6pm, with the project team delivering a brief presentation at 4pm. This open house was held following the second round of traffic counts and had four stations addressing: one- way circulations, road prioritizations, traffic calming, and the sidewalk café initiative. Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 4 2.3 What We Heard TOPIC WHAT WE HEARD SUMMARY CIRCULATION TRAFFIC, ROAD DESIGN, AND TRAFFIC CALMING • 90% think that vehicle speeding and driving behavior is an issue. • Clear vegetation to improve sightlines. • More stop signs and traffic calming treatments like speed tables or speed bumps should be introduced on several streets. • Speed limits should be reduced in several areas in the Village where speeding is an issue and/or where blind crest exist. • Consider adding a speed display device. WALKING, BIKING, AND ACCESSIBILITY • 60% think that streets are not safe and convenient for pedestrians. • 72% think that streets are not safe and convenient for people who get around by walker, wheelchair, or scooter. • 68% think that streets are not safe and convenient for people get around by bike. ONE-WAY STREET CONVERSIONS • 54% are in support of converting Duke Street to be one-way. • 65% are in support of converting Pleasant Street to be one - way. • 50% are against converting Pig Loop Road to be one-way. • 29% are in support of converting parts of Pig Loop Road to be one-way. • 77% are in support of converting Water Steet to be one-way. • Consider seasonal one-ways. CURBSIDE MANAGEMENT PARKING • 79% think that parking is a problem. • 54% support increasing parking controls and enforcement. • 62% think that parking is not safe and convenient for those with reduced mobility to find parking. • The three most cited issues with parking are that parked vehicles obstruct traffic movement, make it less safe for pedestrians, and obstruct the view at crosswalks or intersections. • Most identified that parking issues primarily are in the peak season (July/August) and during special events such as Race Week and Fireworks, and less so between September and June. • In busy times parked cars could prohibit access for emergency vehicles. SIDEWALK CAFÉ INITIATIVE • 75% support extending the sidewalk cafe initiative to allow some existing road space to be used for outdoor dining adjacent to establishments. Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 5 Chapter 3 Existing Conditions 3.1 Study Area The first step in undertaking the Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study was to establish the study area and understand the operational characteristics of the Village of Chester and the Community of Hubbards. In order to identify any existing operational issues, constraints, and opportunities for improvement we undertook a review of the road network. The review of existing conditions included analysis previous traffic count data, collision report data, and multi-modal conditions. 3.1.1 Chester Study Area The defined boundary for the Village of Chester study area is illustrated below in Figure 3-1. Figure 3-1: Village of Chester Study Area Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 6 3.1.2 Hubbards Study Area The impact analysis for a two-way access to one-way access conversion of Fox Point Front Road in the Community of Hubbards was focused in the study area boundary illustrated below in Figure 3-2. 3.2 Road Network The Village’s road network is homogeneous, made up primarily of local streets, accessed through Highway 3, classified as an arterial road (Figure 3-3). Outside of the Village and Hubbards study areas, Highway 3 currently operates with a posted speed limit of 70km/hr. Within the boundaries of both study areas, vehicular speeds Highway 3 are reduced to 50km/hr, aligning with the 50km/hr speed limit on all of the Village’s local roads. Posted Figure 3-2: Hubbards Study Area Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 7 speed limits on both Fox Point Front Road and Route 329 in the Hubbards study area are restricted to 60km/hr. The Village road network, primarily following a grid plan, was operationally designed to facilitate north-south vehicular circulation. Most of the north-south streets operate with no stop signs, while the majority of east-west streets operate with two-way stops with a few notable exceptions: Queen Street at Pleasant Street – North/South two-way stop King Street at Pleasant Street – North/South two-way stop Prince Street at Regent Street – North/South two-way stop Prince Street at Union Street – North/South two-way stop Duke Street at Pleasant Street – Northbound stop/Southbound yield Central Street at Valley Road – Northbound stop King Street at Valley Road – North/South two-way stop Queen Street at Valley Road – North/South two-way stop The narrow street widths reflect the Village’s history and help shape its unique and highly valued charm. As vehicle volumes and speeds have increased over time, residents are increasingly Figure 3-3: Provincial Road Classification Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 8 reporting feelings of unease toward walking or cycling on the narrow streets with limited active transportation infrastructure. Throughout the engagement process numerous comments were made by residents highlighting speeding as a primary issue in the Village. 3.2.1 Right–of–Way The Village’s road network exhibits a fairly consistent public right-of-way (ROW). Most streets within the Village accommodate a 50ft ROW, with the exception of Central Street, which allows for a 70ft ROW. The public ROW is illustrated in Figure 3-4. On most village streets, only 50% of the ROW is paved and dedicated to road usage, with the remaining space being either unpaved, grassed, or consisting of a ditch. In most cases there is no physical separation between private properties and the public ROW; indeed adjacent private landscaping often encroaches into the public ROW. Through the engagement process it was noted that in several instances residents have placed landscaping features such as boulders within the public ROW to discourage vehicles from parking in the space. Figure 3-4: Public Right-of-Way Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 9 3.3 Data Collection Previous traffic counts from 2020 were obtained from NSTAT for comparison (see Error! Reference source not found.). To develop an understanding of the distribution of the travel demand through the Chester and Hubbards study areas, cameras were places at 8 intersections in Chester and 3 intersections in Hubbards (see Error! Reference source not found. ). Volume counts were collected during a typical weekend in June as well as during Race Week in August. A parking count was also complete during a typical weekend and during Race Week to determine the demand. Collision data was obtained from the RCMP for a safety analysis and there were several consultations with stakeholders and the public to determine key areas. In preparation of the traffic volume counts, we obtained 2020 peak weekday and weekend hourly traffic volume as well as the average annual daily traffic (AADT) count data from NSTAT for the following roads: Table 3.1: 2020 Traffic Counts Summary Name Weekday Peak Hourly Volume Weekend Peak Hourly Volume AADT Duke St – 20m North of Regent St 192 132 1340 Old Tk 3 – 30m North of TK3 150 115 1180 Old TK 3 – 100m West of TK3 75 45 450 Valley Rd – 30m South of TK3 222 141 1620 Pig Loop Rd – 50m East of Duke St 120 76 870 Pig Loop Rd – 50m South of TK3 100 70 700 Duke St – 200m South of TK3 274 252 1970 Haddon Hill Rd – 100m North of TK3 84 31 360 Haddon Hill Rd – 100m South of TK3 71 29 340 The weekend and weekday peak hour volumes, as well as the AADT were mapped as per Error! Reference source not found.. Although not all the key intersections were represented, the data nonetheless allows a comparative assessment of the matching intersections. Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 10 Figure 3-5 Traffic Count Volumes for June 2020 Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 11 3.3.1 2021 Intersection Turning Movement Counts With both communities being major tourist destinations in the summer months, two different travel demand profiles were created. This was to assess the proposed one -way street conversions that required evaluating traffic conditions at a dozen intersections. The first profile is driven primarily by residents’ trips, living their daily lives, working, shopping, going to school, and enjoying the Municipality’s amenities. The second profile will be in the high tourist season in the summertime, when the local population more than doubles. The second profile will create different trip purposes. A comprehensive assessment of the transportation and mobility issues in the community of Hubbards and the Village of Chester therefore needed to be considered. Due to the two profiles, traffic data at key intersections was collected in June, and summer peak tourist season (Race Week) to capture both typical and busy conditions (see Error! Reference source not found.). The counts were taken by Miovision Scout camera traffic counting system over a 6-hour period. This long count period showed insight into the patterns of inbound and outbound traffic. Eight cameras were set up in the Village study area and three in Hubbards at key intersections. The intersections included in the count were: Figure 3-7: June & August Traffic Count Locations Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 12 Chester Hubbards Duke St, Water St, Valley Rd & Pig Loop Rd Highway 3 & Duke St Highway 3 & Victoria St Pig Loop Rd & Highway 3 Pleasant St & Duke St Union St & Duke St Victoria St & Parade Square Rd Water St & Water Lane Highway 3 & Route 329 Highway 3 & Fox Point Front Rd Fox Point Front Rd & Route 329 An additional count was conducted in September 2021 to capture conditions along Highway 3 (see Error! Reference source not found.). The intersections included in the were: Chester Hubbards Highway 3 & Duke St Highway 3 & Victoria St Pig Loop Rd & Highway 3 Highway 3 & Route 329 Highway 3 & Fox Point Front Rd Figure 3-8: September Traffic Count Locations Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 13 3.3.1.1 June 2021 Weekend Counts The counts for a June 2021 weekend were very comparable to the counts obtain from 2020 for the same intersections (see Error! Reference source not found.). Figure 3-9: Traffic Count Volumes for June 2021 Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 14 3.3.1.2 Race Week 2021 Counts The Race Week count captured the impacts of the increased travel demand from this event. Figure 3-10: Traffic Count Volumes for August 2021 Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 15 3.3.1.3 September 2021 Weekend Counts The counts for a September 2021 weekend were very comparable to the counts obtained in June 2021 and from 2020 for the same intersections. Figure 3-11: Traffic Count Volumes for September 2021 Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 16 Chapter 4 Circulation Analysis Many engagement respondents reported circulation issues on streets within the Village of Chester. It has been reported that vehicles routinely exceed speed limits and drive too fast in the Village, particularly on streets which run in a north/south direction. Circulation is a persistent issue on several streets in the Village of Chester, as att ested by the comments received throughout the engagement process. At issue is the friction between through movement, the competition for on-street parking, and goods delivery and loading operations that occur on the carriageway and invariably impede or outright block both vehicular and non-motorized circulation. 4.1 Capacity Assessment The analysis assessed the circulation impacts of converting several streets in the village of Chester and Hubbards to one-way and considered the five key users of the road: pedestrians, cyclists, cars, public transit, and freight. The road network was modelled and assessed using Synchro intersections capacity analysis software to calculate the level of service at intersections and along road segment. The existing conditions as well as the future one-way key intersections were modelled and evaluated. The analysis considered the type and scale of the dedicated facilities, safety, travel times and delay. The Synchro software follows the methodology set out in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2010 for intersections capacity analysis. The approach consists of the calculation of statistic deterministic formulas for a given movement’s volume to capacity ratio, average 95th percentile queues, and average vehicular delay. SimTraffic was then used to create a real-world simulation of the road network and output parameters also included queues and delays. A Level of Service (LOS) measure is provided, based on the average delay expected to be experienced by each vehicle. There fore the existing and future LOS of all movements can be qualified, and the impacts o f additional volumes can be quantified. Conversion of streets to one-way traffic required a subjective manual reassignment of vehicular traffic across the site’s road network. 4.1.1 Existing Conditions To assess the impact of converting some streets to one -way, the existing conditions were first modelled. The total delay, average queue, 95th queue and level of service were found for each approach of the 8 intersections where the volume was counted. The level of service is a qualitative measure (A to F) used to describe the performance of an intersection and is based off the total delay experienced by the vehicle. All intersections in Chester are a level of service A (see Table 4.1). A level of service A is considered the best quality of traffic flow. Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 17 Table 4.1: Synchro Summary for Existing Conditions Intersection Total Delay (s) Level of Service Chester Duke St, Water St, Valley Rd & Pig Loop Rd 3.2 A Highway 3 & Duke St 3.4 A Highway 3 & Victoria St 1.9 A Pig Loop Rd & Highway 3 1.7 A Pleasant St & Duke St 1.2 A Union St & Duke St 0.9 A Victoria St & Parade Square Rd 1.4 A Water St & Water Lane 2.4 A Hubbards Highway 3 & Route 329 1.3 A Fox Point Front Rd & Route 329 1.0 A Highway 3 & Fox Point Front Rd 1.8 A 4.1.2 Factored Conditions To factor for the decrease in volume due to COVID-19, the volumes were increased by 30% and run in SimTraffic again (see Table 4.2). Table 4.2: Synchro Summary - 30% Factor Intersection Total Delay (s) Level of Service Chester Duke St, Water St, Valley Rd & Pig Loop Rd 4.0 A Highway 3 & Duke St 6.1 A Highway 3 & Victoria St 2.8 A Pig Loop Rd & Highway 3 1.9 A Pleasant St & Duke St 1.5 A Union St & Duke St 1.1 A Victoria St & Parade Square Rd 1.5 A Water St & Water Lane 2.6 A Hubbards Highway 3 & Route 329 1.2 A Fox Point Front Rd & Route 329 1.1 A Highway 3 & Fox Point Front Rd 2.3 A All intersections were still operating at a level of service A, so the volume was again factored by 50% (see Table 4.3). Table 4.3: Synchro Summary - 50% Factor Intersection Total Delay (s) Level of Service Chester Duke St, Water St, Valley Rd & Pig Loop Rd 4.4 A Highway 3 & Duke St 6.0 A Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 18 Highway 3 & Victoria St 3.3 A Pig Loop Rd & Highway 3 2.2 A Pleasant St & Duke St 1.4 A Union St & Duke St 1.1 A Victoria St & Parade Square Rd 1.6 A Water St & Water Lane 2.6 A Hubbards Highway 3 & Route 329 1.8 A Fox Point Front Rd & Route 329 1.3 A Highway 3 & Fox Point Rd 3.5 A The delay of each intersection increases slightly with the increased volume, but all still operate at a level of service A. The traffic counts were then doubled to see how the intersections would operate (see Table 4.4). The intersection experiencing the most delay is the Highway 3 and Duke St reet intersection. The Northbound approach, as well as the Southbound left and thru approaches are all operating at a failed level of service, F (see Table 4.5). The east and west bound are operating at a level of service A, giving the intersection a C. In Hubbards, the Northbound left movement of the Highway 3 and Fox Point Front Road intersection also experiences a level of service E. Table 4.4: Synchro Summary - Double Intersection Total Delay (s) Level of Service Chester Duke St, Water St, Valley Rd & Pig Loop Rd 4.9 A Highway 3 & Duke St 20.2 C Highway 3 & Victoria St 5.0 A Pig Loop Rd & Highway 3 2.7 A Pleasant St & Duke St 1.5 A Union St & Duke St 1.6 A Victoria St & Parade Square Rd 1.8 A Water St & Water Lane 2.4 A Hubbards Highway 3 & Route 329 1.4 A Fox Point Front Rd & Route 329 1.7 A Highway 3 & Fox Point Front Rd 7.0 A Table 4.5: Highway 3 & Duke St - Performance by Movement - Double Approach Total Delay (s) Level of Service Highway 3 & Duke St Eastbound Left 9.4 A Eastbound Through 5.8 A Eastbound Right 6.5 A Westbound Left 8.4 A Westbound Through 2.0 A Westbound Right 2.2 A Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 19 Northbound Left 121.7 F Northbound Through 109.5 F Northbound Right 82.5 F Southbound Left 61.6 F Southbound Through 50.9 F Southbound Right 27.6 D All 20.2 C 4.2 Safety Evaluation Following the capacity analysis, key intersections and areas were flagged for attention and audited for safety. All historical collision data, vehicular and pedestrian, was reviewed to identify hazard hot spots. 4.2.1 Collision Analysis Collision data was gathered for the years 2017 up to January 2021 for Chester and 2018 to 2020 for Hubbards. There was a total of 24 collisions in Chester over the period and mainly occurred between a vehicle hitting another moving vehicle or a parked car. The 6 Hubbards collision were more varied with the largest number of collisions being caused by hitting another moving vehicle. There were also instances where a vehicle hit a cyclist, pedestrian, or deer, or ran off the roadway. Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 20 4.2.1.1 Chester The following map shows the locations where each collision type happed in Chester. Throughout the analysis, the frequency of the collisions was analysed to determine if there are any common characteristics or reoccurring patterns of these collisions. It was surprising that no collisions occurred on Pig Loop Rd as there have been many concerns by residents on safety. It is possible that not all minor collisions were reported and therefore this data provided by the RCMP does not reflect the true extent of all the collisions or incidents. There may also have been a lot of “near miss” situations that have occurred that reduce the feeling of safety and comfort for all road users. The hit and run collisions all occurred in a grocery store parking lot near the entrance of the Village and the hit parked vehicle collisions occurred on the village streets. There was only one instance with a vehicle and cyclist collision and one instance with a vehicle and pedestrian collision. Several possible contributing factors to all collisions were investigated such as driver action, weather, light, and surface condition (see Table 4.6 to Table 4.8). Figure 4-1: Chester Collision Locations and Causes Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 21 Table 4.6: Driver Action - Chester Backing unsafely Driving on wrong side Failing to yield to right-of- way Following too closely Improper turning No driver action as contributing factor Taking avoiding action Unknown Total Hit and run 3 3 Hit another moving vehicle 1 1 1 6 9 Hit bicyclist 1 1 Hit deer 2 2 Hit parked vehicle 1 1 1 3 1 1 8 Hit pedestrian 1 1 Total 2 1 1 1 2 15 1 1 24 As revealed by the collision data, most recorded incidents did not exhibit any specific driver action as a contributing cause; rather the driver may simply have been inattentive. The other driver actions were well distributed with only 1 or 2 over the time period. Table 4.7: Weather - Chester Clear Overcast Raining Unknown Total Hit and run 2 1 3 Hit another moving vehicle 7 1 1 9 Hit bicyclist 1 1 Hit deer 2 2 Hit parked vehicle 7 1 8 Hit pedestrian 1 1 Total 20 2 1 1 24 The most common weather condition for collisions is a clear day. This may be due to a greater volume of cars on the road when the weather is good, however we are unable to get collision rates based on weather, due to unknown conditions when the volume counts took place. Table 4.8: Light - Chester Daylight Dark Unknown Total Hit and run 2 1 3 Hit another moving vehicle 9 9 Hit bicyclist 1 1 Hit deer 2 2 Hit parked vehicle 8 8 Hit pedestrian 1 1 Total 21 2 1 24 Most collisions took place during the daylight. This again can be due to a greater volume of vehicles on the road during the day. Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 22 Overall, there were no common collision patterns detected. This may be due to the low number of collisions that took place over the past few years. Therefore, in order to enhance the perception of safety and comfort for all road users, we relied on the community’s feedback and opinion. 4.2.1.2 Hubbards The same analysis was done for Hubbards. Similarly, to Chester, the most common driver action that led to a collision was no driver action as contributing factor. Also, like Chester, the most common weather condition was clear, and most collisions occurred during the daylight hours. Table 4.9: Driving Action - Hubbards Driving on wrong side Driving too fast for conditions No driver action as contributing factor Unknown Total Hit another moving vehicle 1 1 2 Overturned, roll over 1 1 Ran off roadway 1 1 2 Inattentive parking 1 1 Total 1 1 3 1 6 Figure 4-2: Hubbards Collision Locations and Causes Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 23 Table 4.10: Weather - Hubbards Clear Overcast Snowing Total Hit another moving vehicle 1 1 2 Overturned, roll over 1 1 1 Ran off roadway 1 2 Inattentive parking 1 1 Total 4 1 1 6 Table 4.11: Light - Hubbards Daylight Dark Total Hit another moving vehicle 2 2 Overturned, roll over 1 1 Ran off roadway 1 1 2 Inattentive parking 1 1 Total 4 2 6 With only six collisions having been reported over the two year period, it is difficult to detect any sort of common occurrence or pattern within the data. Despite the limited data, many residents of Fox Point Front Road have voiced their concerns surrounding current safety conditions on the road. 4.3 Traffic Calming Plan A primary obstacle preventing safe and comfortable multi-modal mobility in the Village is the narrow roadway widths. While the narrow streets are valued as a part of the overall charm of the Village, they also result in the increased potential for user conflict. Throughout the engagement process we heard on many accounts that speeding is an issue in the Village, reducin g the sense of safety and security within the neighborhood. Posted speed limits in the Village are currently 50 km/hour, as set under the Nova Scotia Motor Vehicle Act. This task sought to assess the application of various traffic calming measure to reduce speeds and achieve driver behaviour within the Village which better aligns with the expectations of other road users and adjacent residents. The Nova Scotia Department of Public Works is currently drafting a formal policy on traffic calming. While this document is not yet complete, various traffic calming interventions were proposed to Public Works officials for feedback. Proposed interventions included curb extensions, chicanes, diagonal diverters, raised crosswalks, and speed tables as well as reduced s peed limits and introducing 4- way stops at locations with existing 2-way stops. Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 24 4.4 Street Prioritization Assessment In line with the review of traffic calming option, there is significant concern that some roads in the Municipality are not adequately maintained in winter months, particularly during storm events. Chester is often faced with the movement of emergency vehicles impeded by snow. The Province of Nova Scotia considers all roads within the Village to be local roads (excluding Highway 3), therefore all roads are treated the same way and not formally differentiated by functional or operational characteristics. In light of this, there is no way to target improvements for specific areas. Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 25 In response the Municipality’s concern over emergency response during and immediately following winter storms, we undertook a review to identify functional and operational parameters that could affect street prioritization. At present all roads within the Village, with the exception of Highway 3, are currently classified as Level 3, therefore having an AADT of less than 1500. With an AADT of between 7500 and 4000, Highway 3 is currently classified as Level 1B. Under the observed conditions of this study roads such as Valley Road and Duke Street are on the cusp of becoming Level 2 with an AADT near 1500. Figure 4-3: Nova Scotia Provincial Road Classification Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 26 Table 4.12: Road Classification Level of Service Level 1A Level 1B Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Type of Roads All 100 Series and selected high-volume highways Trunks and selected highways as per AADT limits Routes and selected highways as per AADT limits All local roads All gravel double chip seal and sand seal roads AADT Limits Greater than 7500 Between 7500 - 4000 Between 4000 - 1500 Less than 1500 N/A 4.4.1 Snow Removal Priority The Department of Public Works developed winter maintenance standards to establish levels of service for snow removal based on road classification and traffic volumes. The snow clearing description can be found below in Table 4.13: Table 4.13: Snow Clearing Time Limit Classification Description Time Limit Level 1A Essentially bare pavement Within 8 hours Level 1B Essentially bare pavement Within 12 hours Level 2 Centre line bare Within 12 hours Level 3 Centre line bare Within 24 hours Level 4 Snow packed Within 24 hours For level 3 roads, a minimum of center line bare condition is the objective and should be reached normally within 24 hours post storm and be maintained until conditions permit clearing the full pavement width. The quantity and quality of using de-ice or sand is controlled to meet the specified level of service and can be found in the summary table. This means post snowstorm it can take up to 24 hours for emergency vehicles to travel within the Village. A total summary table for snow removal prioritization (taken from Nova Scotia Highway Maintenance Standards, 2019) is shown in Table 4.14. The results of this review provide grounds for the upgrade of certain Village roads, as outlined in Section 6.1.4. Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 27 Table 4.14 Nova Scotia Highway Maintenance Standards, 2019 LOS Summary Table Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 28 4.5 One-way Street Conversion An initial concern posed at the onset of this study was the possibility of improving safety and circulation conditions for non-auto users along some of the Municipality’s roads. Considering the relative narrowness of Chester’s streets, the provision of ded icated active transportation facilities could generally be possible either via road widenings, or through road space reallocation. In the latter option, this would entail converting the streets to one-way circulation, and allocating the reduced lane to seasonal, or permanent active transportation facilities. This analysis specifically examined impacts on traffic flow, active transportation, parking, and safety. Candidate streets for one-way conversion include: Chester Pig Loop Road Water Street Duke Street (from Union to Pleasant Hubbards Fox Point Front Road The assessment of such conversions was conducted through qualitative methods, in terms of the capacity analysis described above, as well as through a high -level schematic design exercise and public consultation. The analysis also assessed community perception of the current conditions on the candidate streets as well as perceived implications of converting these streets from two-way to one-way. Opinion on one-way street conversions varied widely amongst community members. 4.5.1 Active Transportation Facilities We undertook a review of active transportation facility typologies best suited to existing conditions on both Water Street and Fox Point Front Road. In addition to the Nova Scotia Department of Public Works Paved Shoulder Widths for Active Transportation Policy, we consulted several sources including the British Columbia Active Transportation Design Guide (BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure), Small Town and Rural Multimodal Networks (U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration), and the Bikeway Selection Guide (U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration), Transportation Association of Canada, and the American Association of State Highway and Transpiration Officials . As both Water Street and Fox Point Front Road are under provincial jurisdiction, the Department of Public Works was consulted for preliminary discussion about the proposed projects pertaining to acceptable facility types, considerations for provincial approval, and infrastructure maintenance responsibility. It was noted that maintenance responsibility for new active transportation infrastructure would likely fall on the Municipality. Additionally, as advised by Public Works officials, an active transportation facility on Fox Point Front Road shall only be considered with the provision of a barrier separating vehicle and active transportation space. To advise selection of active transportation facility selection on provincial right-of-way, the primary tool consulted was Part F.1 of the British Columbia Active Transportation Design Guide, Current Practices to Highway Rights -of- Way. Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 29 When selecting the type of active transportation facility many aspects which were considered including: Motor Vehicle Speed Motor Vehicle Volume Road Width Skills, Needs, and Preferences of Anticipated Users On-Street Parking Conflict Points Aesthetics Costs and Funding Climate and Maintenance Land Use Context According to ASHTOO, and TAC guidelines, a road operating with a speed limit of 50km/h may be considered for separate protected cycling facilities when vehicular volumes reach over 3,000 vehicles per day. While vehicular travel on Fox Point Front Road and Water Street do not reach such levels, based on guidance provided by Public Works official, our review focused primarily on facilities that provide physical separation or protection from motor vehicle traffic using a buffer or median. Review of active transportation facilities for Water Street was expanded to include visually separated facilities within the roadway. Department of Public Works policy number PO1063, Paved Shoulder Widths for Active Transportation, provides direction in determining when paved shoulders are to be included, and to identify appropriate shoulder widths to accommodate active transportation on provincial roads. Under the policy, the following directives and guidelines apply. Provincial roads ineligible for shoulder paving when one of the following is identified: • AADT is less than 100 vehicles per day (vpd) • Posted speed limit is greater than 80km/h • Maintenance paving or other pavement preservation is being conducted Provincial roads eligible for shoulder paving when one of the following is identified: • AADT is greater than 100 vpd • Posted is speed limit 80km/h or less • Road is part of new road construction • Road is included in capital paving and repaving projects Special Circumstances (if road is considered a candidate, but not all criteria apply): Figure 4-4: Conceptual Bicycle Facility Selection Diagram Source: British Columbia Active Transportation Design Guide Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 30 • AADT is not greater than 1000 vpd and the section of provincial road is a known cycling route of part of an approved AT Plan. • If a road meets the eligibility criteria but has insufficient subgrade width to pave the shoulders to the recommended width, the paved shoulder width may be reduced to 1.0m. o Signage may be required to notify road users of the narrower paved shoulder condition. Determination of AADT volumes: • Obtained from TIR Traffic Count Data from results collected by TIR Traffic Engineering Census Team and published in Traffic Volume Books. • For roads classified as C to H (as shown in Traffic Volume Books), with an AADT of 500 to 2500, the Traffic Engineering and Road Safety Section/Division shall be contacted to provide an estimate of the summertime (July 1 – August 31) daily traffic volumes. This will provide a volume estimate that is more relevant to peak cycling times. Table 4.15: Nova Scotia - S-2011-200 Paved Shoulder Width for Active Transportation Source: Adapted from Nova Scotia Transportation and Public Works Standards Specification Highway Construction and Maintenance POSTED SPEED (km/h AADT <1000 PAVED SHOULDER WIDTH (m) GRAVEL WIDTH (m) AADT 1000 – 3000 AADT >3000 REPAVING1 (MIN– DESIRED) NEW CONSTUCTION / RECONSTRUCTION2 (MIN – DESIRED) REPAVING (MIN – DESIRED) NEW CONSTUCTION / RECONSTRUCTION (MIN–DESIRED) REPAVING (MIN – DESIRED) NEW CONSTUCTION / RECONSTRUCTION (MIN – DESIRED) 50 NA 1.2 – 1.5 1.5 1.2 – 1.5 1.5 0.3 – 0.5 0.5 60 – 70 NA 1.2 – 1.8 1.5 – 1.8 1.2 – 1.8 1.8 0.3 – 0.5 0.5 80 NA 1.2 – 1.8 1.5 – 2.03 1.2 – 1.8 1.5 – 2.03 0.3 – 0.5 0.5 80+ TO BE DISCUSSED WITH HIGHWAY PLANNING & DESIGN 1. Repaving: no widening of subgrade is planned. 2. New construction/reconstruction guidelines apply to reconstruction or repaving work areas where the existing subgrade is wide enough to meet the new construction shoulder. 3. 1.5m paved shoulder with a 0.5m buffer. Table 4.16: Facility Types Based on Land Use Source: Adapted from British Columbia Active Transportation Design Guide’s Current Mechanisms for Implementing Infrastructure on Provincial Right-of-Way LOCATION FACILITY TYPE PRIMARY MODE OF TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE BY LAND USE COMFORTABLE FOR PEOPLE OF ALL AGES AND ABILITIES Through Urban Environment Between Communities / Rural Environment Physically Separated from Roadway Separated Pedestrian and Bicycle Pathways Cycling and Walking ✓ ✓ ✓ Multi-Use Pathways Cycling and Walking ✓ ✓ ✓ Sidewalks Walking ✓ x ✓ Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 31 Within Roadway Protected Bicycle Lanes Cycling ✓ x ✓ Painted and Buffered Bicycle Lanes Cycling ✓ ✓ x Bicycle and Pedestrian Accessible Shoulders Cycling and Walking x x x Table 4.17: Recommended Active Transportation Facility Width Based on Road Classification Source: British Columbia Active Transportation Design Guide, adapted from Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure BC Supplement to TAC Geometric Design Guide ROAD CLASS AND DESIGN SPEED FACILITY TYPE SUMMARY Bicycle and Pedestrian Accessible Shoulders Painted Bicycle Lanes Off-Street Pathways Width Offset Width Offset Width Offset Rural < 70 km/h 1.5 - 2.0 m N/A 3.0 - 4.0m (2.0m if constrained) 1 Varies 2, 3 Rural ≥ 70 km/h 2.0 - 3.0 4 N/A Urban 1.5 - 1.8 m (1.2 m if constrained) N/A Boulevard 5 1. A minimum width of 2.0 metres should only be considered in exceptional circumstances, including in undeveloped rural contexts with very low volumes of people walking and/or cycling and if there are significant constraints such as property or natural features including significant trees, ditches, or slopes. 2. Separated off-street pathway to be located outside the roadway clear zone. 3. Roadside off-street pathways should be offset the greater of the barrier zone of deflection or 0.5 metres 4. Bicycle and pedestrian accessible shoulders are not recommended for design speeds > 70 km/h. However, if they are provided, t hey should be between 2.0 - 3.0 metres. See further guidance in the Pedestrian and Bicycle Accessible Shoulder section on page F15. 5. Boulevard can be replaced with a physical barrier in constrained conditions. The results of this evaluation culminated in the options and recommendations presented in Section 6.1.1. Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 32 Chapter 5 Curbside Management 5.1 On-Street Parking Assessment At present, the Municipality permits parking on most Village streets with few restrictions. In spite of this, it has been reported throughout the engagement process that there is insufficient parking within the Village, in particular in the activity district along Pleasant Street and Queen Steet. Insufficient parking was also reported along Water Street. During special events like the annual Chester Race Week, many of the street throughout the southern portion of the Village become congested with race attendees and other visitors parking their cars haphazardly, leading to conflict with residents and creating unsafe conditions for pedestrians and cyclists. A review of parking provisions in the Village area was completed to identify any areas of high activity generation and parking utilization, with the intent of assessing the effectiveness and viability of current and future on-street parking and loading management. CBCL field staff surveyed the Village in hourly increments to record the number of vehicles parked on each street block in the Village. Figure 5-1 illustrates the boundary of the area surveyed in red and streets included in the parking survey in blue. To establish a baseline for off-peak Figure 5-1: Parking Survey Study Area Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 33 season vs. peak season parking conditions, CBCL field staff conducted two separate parking surveys taking place on Saturday, June 26, 2021, and Thursday, August 12, 2021, respectively. While late June is typically perceived as being a part of the Village’s peak season, due to Covid-19 travel restrictions conditions in the Village were more reflective of off-peak conditions typically seen in late spring. August 12 was selected for the parking survey in order to capture parking demand during the annual Chester Race Week. The June 26th and August 12th parking volumes on each block were counted and recorded during the following time increments: 10:00 to 11:00 11:00 to 12:00 12:00 to 13:00 13:00 to 14:00 14:00 to 15:00 15:00 to 16:00 The volumes for each hourly count were mapped in QGIS. The total parking spaces available on each block were determined by calculating the total length of each block, subtracting the total length of unavailable shoulder parking (due to vegetation, ditch, no parking signs, driveways, business entrances, etc.) and the distances from other road elements (signs, fire hydrants, crosswalks, and rail) then dividing by the average length of a vehicle. Streets with angled or perpendicular parking were adjusted to reflect the total. There were several blocks without paved shoulders, yet vehicles could park on the grass or gravel shoulder. Currently the Village of Chester has only one dry hydrant located on Water St. The required distances from other road elements were taken from the Nova Scotia Drivers Handbook and state that there is no parking allowed within: 5m of a crosswalk 5m of a fire hydrant or driveway to a fire station Within 7.5m of an intersection or 10m of traffic lights, stop or yield signs Within 15m of a rail Figure 5-2: June 2021 Parking Survey Figure 5-3: August Parking Survey Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 34 With the travel restrictions in place at the time due to Covid-19, it is understood that the conditions surveyed are not a true reflection of “normal” conditions in the Village. In light of this, we conducted a further assessment of parking utilization by increasing the surveyed results by 30% to account for any discrepancy. Parking surveys with a 30% increase in parked vehicles are represented in Figure 5-4 and Figure 5-5. The number of parked cars was counted for both off-peak (June) and peak (August) periods. As illustrated (see Figure 5-6), parking demand more than doubled during the peak period. To calculate parking utilization rates throughout the Village, the number of parked cars within each link (represented by the line segments in the parking survey maps) were divided by the total number of spaces within the same link. The calculated parking utilization rates are symbolized by the varying colours on the parking survey maps, with brown (or >=1.0) indicating exceeding capacity. In many cases during the peak period count, there were more cars parked on roads than designated or legal parking spaces, meaning drivers parked wherever there was available space; Resulting in im pacts to the overall circulation and safety of users within the road network. In both parking counts, it can be noted that parking was more prevalent in the areas surrounding the activity district in the southern portion of the village, particularly along Water Street, Queen Street, Duke Street, King Street, Pleasant Street, and South Street. During peak periods, measures to strategically disperse parking utilization throughout the Village can be an effective tool to mitigate circulation issues and reduce pressure on the road network. Figure 5-4: June Parking Survey +30% Figure 5-5: August Parking Survey +30% Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 35 Parking enforcement measures to be considered include paid on-street parking, limited parking duration, and employee parking restrictions. For such parking management measures to succeed it is paramount that the Municipality establish a means of enforcement that is frequent and consistent. To effectively disperse parking utilization during special events such as Race Week, explicit event management strategies should be implemented. Remote parking strategies, utilizing off-site parking facilities at the periphery of the Village in conjunction with a dedicated shuttle service to transport motorists, can help to alleviate congestion in the Vi llage core. The success of remote parking hinges on event managers providing motorists/attendees with adequate information and incentives to encourage the use of remote sites. 5.2 Sidewalk Café Assessment In effort to curb economic losses on restaurants, bars, and cafés as a result of COVID-19 capacity restrictions, the Municipality introduced a sidewalk café initiative granting a temporary suspension of land use by-law enforcement in order to allow for businesses to expand their dining areas onto abutting sidewalks. To develop an understanding of any residual impacts of the initiative, we undertook an evaluation of the impact sidewalk cafés had on circulation and curbside management on the surrounding streets. Figure 5-6: Parking Demand Comparison Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 36 “I love the option of outdoor dining - it gives Chester a chic character. While I have not used the Pub's Sidewalk Cafe, and do need to walk that way on occasion, I think it is lovely. The more sidewalk cafés the better to attract tourists.” Results of the resident survey indicated strong support for the sidewalk café initiative, with 75% of participants either strongly supporting or somewhat supporting extending the sidewalk café initiative to allow some existing road space to be used for out door dining adjacent to establishments. “I understand the Initiative, but our village streets are narrow, so reducing the width of the streets, along with reducing parking, adds to the challenges that we are already facing.” While the survey results suggested favourable support for sidewalk cafés amongst residents, that support was met with apprehension from some residents that allowing businesses to operate sidewalk cafés would decrease parking availability and hurt other businesses. Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 37 Field observations found that some sidewalk cafés operating within the Village are not providing adequate measures to ensure that all residents are able to safely move throughout the streets and sidewalks where the sidewalk has been obstructed. Furthermore, it was noted that on one occasion an accessible parking spot was displaced to accommodate a sidewalk café with no observed relocation of the accessible space being provided. Given the level of support for sidewalk cafés in the Village as well as the observed conditions, we note that the Municipality is producing a Draft Sidewalk Café By-Law, in line with the successful experiences of other municipalities, and consistent with our recommendations, as set out in Section 0. Figure 5-7: Resident Survey Results Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 38 Chapter 6 Options & Recommendations 6.1 Circulation The Traffic Study process revealed that the Village’s road network does not, strictly speaking, have capacity constraints. Much of the perceived shortage of parking and impediment to mobility and circulation are in fact due to curbside friction between moving, parking, and loading road users. 6.1.1 One-way Street Conversion Based on our analysis examining the impacts of converting existing two-way streets to one-way streets on traffic flow, active transportation, parking, and safety we developed the following series of options for proposed changes to Pig Loop Road, Water Street, Duke Street, and Fox Point Front Road. The logic and rational of each option focused on the reduction of friction between drivers and non - auto road users, through the reduction of vehicular volumes, reduction of speeds, or provision of enhanced facilities. 6.1.1.1 Temporary/Seasonal Interventions We note that any of the conversions presented below may be of a temporary, seasonal nature. The experience of the Town of Saint Andrews, New Brunswick, may be instructive. Following the Transportation Master Plan produced by CBCL in 2021, the Town investigated the conversion to one-way of the main commercial street, Water Street, from Edward Street to Frederick Street, between the months of June and September, 2021. The temporary conversion, shown on Figure 6-1, was achieved through the installation of planters and signage. Parking was maintained on both sides, and the community found the overall impact to be positive. The conversion achieved the desired result of reducing friction on a busy Town road, directing seasonal tourist traffic, and accommodating additional active transportation infrastructure. Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 39 Figure 6-1 On-Way Temporary Road Conversion, Town of Saint Andrews, 2021 6.1.1.2 Permeable Barriers Given the rationale to reduce vehicular volumes and vehicular speeds on a sensitive road, we explore the concept of access restrictions through the installation of permeable barriers. Permeable barriers, or modal filters, are a solution used to achieve filtered permeability by diverting motorized traffic while allowing other modes to filter through, and are an effective tool for creating low traffic neighbourhoods. To maintain emergency access along the entirety of Pig Loop Road, making the road completely unpassable by motorized vehicles is not feasible. To allow for the passage of emergency vehicles modal filters can be designed in a manner which allows for the passage of motorized vehicles while eliminating the road’s function as a through-route. This could include the use of temporary or permanent design features such as collapsible barriers, flexible delineator posts and/or mountable curbs, as illustrated in Figure 6-2. Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 40 Figure 6-2: Examples of Permeable Barrier Design Features Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 41 6.1.1.3 Pig Loop Road Option 1: One-Way Westbound Option one (see Figure 6-3) for one-way conversion of Pig Loop Road directs traffic accessing Pig Loop Road from Highway 3 westbound toward Duke Street, while prohibiting eastbound access onto Pig Loop Road from Duke Street. This option maintains bidirectional entry and exist from connecting side streets onto Pig Loop Road. Advantages Vehicular circulation is reduced to a single lane, allowing allocation of road space to active transportation facilities. Conflicting movements are reduced. Vehicular volumes are reduced Movements in and out of connecting streets is maintained. Disadvantages Some inconvenience is introduced to the area’s residents and users as all inbound traffic must use Highway 3, while all outbound traffic is directed to the Village. Outbound flows are downhill in the vicinity of Nauss Point Road, potentially inducing speeding. The Nauss Point Road approach is stop-controlled, but vegetation and the approach angle cause poor visibility of the Pig Loop Road approach . Figure 6-3: Pig Loop Road Option 1 Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 42 Emergency vehicles may need to access a location along Pig Loop Road from the opposite direction. Considering the narrower roadway, emergency vehicles may block the road or encroach into active transportation facilities. 6.1.1.4 Pig Loop Road Option 2: One-Way Eastbound Option two (see Figure 6-4) for one-way conversion of Pig Loop Road directs traffic accessing Pig Loop Road from Duke Street eastbound toward Highway 3, while prohibiting westbound access onto Pig Loop Road from Highway 3. This option maintains entry and exist points from connecting side streets onto Pig Loop Road. Advantages Vehicular circulation is reduced to a single lane, allowing allocation of road space to active transportation facilities. Conflicting movements are reduced. Vehicular volumes are reduced Movements in and out of connecting streets is maintained. The Nauss Point Road approach would be safer as all inbound movements would be from Duke Street, which has higher visibility. Vehicle entering Pig Loop Road would proceed uphill, which would naturally slow vehicles down. Figure 6-4: Pig Loop Road Option 2 Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 43 Disadvantages Some inconvenience is introduced to the area’s residents and users as all inbound traffic must enter via the Village, and outbound traffic is routed to Highway 3. In the winter, the portion of Pig Loop Road at Nauss Point Road would be uphill and may pose difficulties during icy conditions. Emergency vehicles may need to access a location along Pig Loop Road from the opposite direction. Considering the narrower roadway, emergency vehicles may block the road or encroach into active transportation facilities. 6.1.1.5 Pig Loop Road Option 3: Limited Access Option three (see Figure 6-5) for Pig Loop Road prohibits thoroughfare access from Duke Street to Highway 3 along Pig Loop Road. This option maintains two-way traffic flow on Pig Loop Road entering from Duke Street, with a permeable barrier erected to the east of Chandler Road limiting further access along Pig Loop Road to active transportation and emergency vehicle only. Two-way traffic flow entering Pig Loop Road from Highway 3 is maintained until the barrier east of Chandler Road, at which point vehicles will be directed eastbound back toward Highway 3. This option maintains entry and exist points from connecting side streets onto Pig Loop Road. Special attention to signage will be required to alert visitors approaching from both sides of Pig Loop Road that the road is closed. Advantages Maintains full bi-directional access to all adjacent roads Eliminates direct through traffic, thereby reducing vehicular volumes and reducing speeds Converts Pig Loop Road into a destination rather than a through road. Disadvantages This option does not allocate road space to formal active transportation facilities Requires clear signage on all approaches that circulation is not possible from one end to the other. Requires special treatment at a midpoint location, perhaps at Chandler Road or at Golf Course Road to allow vehicles to turn around should they need to. Requires permeable barriers at the midpoint to block general traffic, while allowing non-auto and emergency vehicles to pass. Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 44 Figure 6-5: Pig Loop Road Option 3 Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 45 6.1.1.6 Pig Loop Road Option 4: Widen Road and Clear Obstructed Sightlines Option four (see Figure 6-6) maintains two-way access along the entirety of Pig Loop Road. This option proposes widening a narrow section of Pig Loop Road as well as clearing any vegetation obstructing sightlines along the roadway, particularly at tighter curves where safety issues were noted throughout the engagement process. The proposed widening would allow for safer conditions for multimodal road users while maintaining the current two-way traffic flow and could be completed in tandem with the planned sidewalk installation. Advantages Minimal intervention on Pig Loop Road and surrounding area Provides for wider road along the portion exhibiting unsafe conditions and poor visibility Maintains current access from all directions Disadvantages This option would not reduce vehicular volumes or speeds along Pig Loop Road Roadside vegetation may need to be replaced with low-growing species that will not impede visibility. Constant vegetation clearance would be needed to maintain visibility around the bends Road widening may need supporting earthworks on either side, depending on the topography and condition of the road bed. Figure 6-6: Pig Loop Road Option 4 Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 46 6.1.1.7 Water Street and Duke Street Figure 6-7 illustrates the proposed arrangement for converting Water Street from a two -way to one- way street. This option would constrain circulation on Water Street to one-way northbound and on Duke Street to one-way southbound (from Water Street to Water Street), creating a one-way traffic loop. This is dictated by the need to maintain access to the boat launch adjacent the Tancook Island Ferry dock. By reducing traffic to one lane on Water Street additional space may be allocated to a dedicated active transportation facility on the east side connecting to the existing sidewalk south of the Rope Loft. This option could be implemented on full-time or seasonal basis using temporary removable barriers or platers. Figure 6-7: Water Street Northbound Duke Street Southbound Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 47 Advantages Reduces friction on Water Street by reducing the number of conflicting movements possible Maintains bi-directional access from Regent Street and Union Street Allows extension of active transportation facility along entire length of Water Street . Preserves space for the ~35 existing on-street parking spaces, on the west side. Simplifies wayfinding; visitors enter the Village core via Duke Street, and exit via Water Street. Upon relocation of the Tancook Island Ferry service, this option would allow conversion of Water Street into a more cohesive destination, attracting non-vehicular users and additional activity. Disadvantages As discussed below, this option may impede access to private wharfs on the east side of Water Street. It was noted that at least two privately owned water lots on Water Street carry the right to build and access a wharf (see Figure 6-8). This would require that any treatment of Water Street maintain wharf access for these properties. Figure 6-8 Water Street Private Water Lots Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 48 6.1.1.8 Fox Point Front Road Option 1: One-Way Southbound Option one (see Figure 6-9) for one-way conversion of Fox Point Front Road directs traffic accessing Fox Point Front Road from Highway 3 southbound toward Route 329, while prohibiting northbound access onto Fox Point Front Road from Route 329. Reducing traffic to one lane along Fox Point Front Road allows for existing road space to be reallocated to provide an active transportation facility. While Figure 6-9 illustrates the active transportation facility along the water side of Fox Point Front Road, it could be accommodated on either side depending on facility design preference. Figure 6-9: Fox Point Front Road Option 1 Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 49 Advantages Vehicular circulation is reduced to a single lane, allowing allocation of road space to active transportation facilities. Conflicting movements are reduced. Vehicular volumes are reduced. Movements in and out of adjacent properties is maintained. Disadvantages Some inconvenience is introduced to the area’s residents and users as all inbound traffic must use Highway 3, while all outbound traffic is directed to Highway 329. There is some concern over one-way conversion promoting speeding. 6.1.1.9 Fox Point Front Road Option 2: One-Way Northbound Option two (see Figure 6-10) for one-way conversion of Fox Point Front Road directs traffic accessing Fox Point Front Road from Route 329 northbound toward Highway 3, while prohibiting northbound access onto Fox Point Front Road from Route 329. As with option one, reducing traffic to one lane along Fox Point Front Road allows for existing road space to be reallocated to provide an active transportation facility. While Figure 6-10 illustrates the active transportation facility along the inland side of Fox Point Front Road, it could be accommodated on either side depending on facility design preference. Advantages Vehicular circulation is reduced to a single lane, allowing allocation of road space to active transportation facilities. Conflicting movements are reduced. Vehicular volumes are reduced. Movements in and out of adjacent properties is maintained. Disadvantages Some inconvenience is introduced to the area’s residents and users as all inbound traffic must use Highway 329, while all outbound traffic is directed to Highway 3. There is some concern over one-way conversion promoting speeding. Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 50 Figure 6-10: Fox Point Front Road Option 2 Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 51 6.1.1.10 Fox Point Front Road Option 3: Limited Access Option three (see Figure 6-11) prohibits access between Fox Point Front Road and Route 329 while maintaining two-way traffic flow along Fox Point Front Road, eliminating through traffic. Advantages Through movements between Highway 3 and Highway 329 are eliminating, thereby reducing vehicular volumes and reducing speeds. Maintains full bi-directional access to all adjacent properties Converts Fox Point Front Road into a destination rather than a through road. Disadvantages Access to Fox Point Front Road would only be possible via Highway 3. This option does not allocate road space to formal active transportation facilities. Requires clear signage at both ends that circulation is not possible from one end to the other. Requires permeable barriers at the Highway 329 intersection to block general traffic, while allowing non-auto and emergency vehicles to pass. Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 52 Figure 6-11: Fox Point Front Road Option 3 Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 53 6.1.1.11 Active Transportation Facility Type Selection As outlined above, converting Water Street and Fox Point Front Road from two -way streets to one- way creates an opportunity to introduce formal active transportation facilities. Multi-Use Paths – Fox Point Front Road Typically by-directional and separated from the roadway, multi-use paths offer safe opportunities for recreational cycling for riders of all ages and abilities. Beyond cycling, multi-use paths can accommodate a mix of users including pedestrians and in-line skaters and provide safe nonmotorized transportation access to natural and recreation areas . In order to provide a satisfactory experience for all path users special care must be taken in the planning and design of multi-use paths to ensure safe sharing of the facility for users of different speeds and abilities, as well as reduce future maintenance costs and maximize long term benefits of the infrastructure. Multi-use pathways can be appropriately installed adjacent to roads in a rural context, such as Fox Point Front Road, when vertical buffer separation is provided. Providing a facility that separates active transportation users from motor vehicles reduces the risk of conflict between the two . Although the separation creates real and perceived safety along the corridor, special care must be taken to ensure that areas with increased numbers of interactions with motor vehicles, such as driveways and intersections, are managed appropriately. A variety of treatments can be used to provide vertical separation between the roadway and pathway including barriers, trees, and other landscaping features. When selecting the type of buffer zone treatment factors such as ongoing operations and maintenance costs and potential obstruction of sightlines and signage should be considered. When utilizing existing corridors or upgrading existing infrastructure, multi-use pathways can be implemented in a cost effective manner. Figure 6-12: Multi-Use Paths Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 54 A particular consideration may be the installation of such facilities on a seasonal basis, particularly on Fox Point Road. This would address some of the community’s most pressing safety concerns during peak summer season, while avoiding the complications to snow clearing during the winter months. Seasonal solutions could include removable curbs, planters, and plastic or concrete barriers. Shared Street with Designated Zones – Water Street Shared streets, also known by the Dutch term “woonerf”, can be described as a space in which pedestrians are prioritized and all modes share the same space. Typically implemented on low volume roads, shared streets are suitable on one-way roads or roads with no directional dividing line in both commercial and residential settings. Acting as an extension to its surrounding land uses, shared streets function as public spaces which provide extended space for recreation, socialization, and commercial/retail activity. Along Water Street, the right-of-way may be completely open to all modes, or include designated zones which exclude or promote certain modes or activities. Targeted design enhancements like textured or pervious pavements, street furniture, and landscaping can be incorporated in the design to define a clear path which is protected from traffic and help to reinforce pedestrian priority on the street. Existing parking spaces along Water Street, both formal and informal in nature, are highly valued by residents and visitors to the Village of Chester. The design of a shared street can maintain Figure 6-13: Seasonal Protected Multi-Use Paths Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 55 the existing parking inventory by including parallel parking lanes and/or dedicated perpendicular and angled parking spaces. Strategic placement of parking and landscaping can serve as a tool to calm traffic by creating a meandering chicane effect. The use of removable or strategically placed planters for such landscaping features would ensure that snow clearing is not affected in the winter months. Additionally, shared street use can operate on a year-round or seasonal basis. Throughout the engagement process residents expressed their desire that existing views and access along the waterfront on Water Street be maintained and pedestrian use prioritized. In conjunction with converting Water Street to one-way, a shared street facility allows for those desires to be met while maintaining a comparable inventory of parking spaces, creating a flexible public space which encourages active transportation and social interaction, and providing increased potential for commercial or retail activity. Upon the upcoming relocation of the Tancook Island ferry service to Blandford, reallocating the use of the existing wharf to compliment a shared street may further support increased commercial or retail activity and contribute to economic benefits. In Banff, Alberta, a four year pilot project was launched in 2015 using temporary features to test the viability of transforming Bear Street into a shared street. The trial aimed to test pedestrian circulation and vehicle patterns, introduce a gradual approach to change, and allow for public review and opinion before proceeding with a permanent capital investment. Figure 6-16 illustrates a shared use concept throughout the planning process. Reconstruction of Bear Street into a permanent shared street was completed in July 2021. Initiating such a pilot project to test the viability and configuration of a shared Water Street can be implemented at a lower cost than a permanent project and offer more opportunities for the public to offer feedback on the proposed changes. Studies have shown that converting two-way streets to one-way results in decreased turning movements, generally increasing pedestrian safety. However, one-way streets have been found to increase motor vehicle speeds. Engagement results found that there is significant apprehension toward converting Pig Loop Road to one-way. Residents cited concern that eliminating two-way traffic would result in increased motor vehicle speeds and reduced safety for active transportation users. Concerning the impact of converting Pig Loop Road to one -way on traffic flows, our analysis found that the conversion would not significantly impact circulation on Pig Loop Road and the surrounding road network. Figure 6-14: Example of shared residential street using various pavement materials to delineate zones Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 56 Initial stakeholder engagement for Hubbards demonstrated considerable support amongst residents of Fox Point Front Road for a one-way conversion. As a part of the ongoing Hubbards Streetscape Project, representatives of the project who travelled door-to-door speaking to the residents of Fox Point Front Road found that residents seemed positive about the idea of eliminating two-way traffic. Further conversation with stakeholders suggested the desired direction of one-way travel to be northbound, as well as the desire for the reclaimed road space to be repurposed to create new active transportation space. A detailed plan providing justification for the need of the proposed changes as well as written support from all property owners alo ng Fox Point Front Road is required before the Department of Public Works will consider any of the proposed options outlined above. Based on our analysis and conversation with Public Works officials, we present the following recommendations: Figure 6-16: Bear Street Shared Street - Banff, Alberta Figure 6-15: Example of Possible Shared Street Cross Section - Water Street Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 57 6.1.1.12 Recommendations Conduct pilot projects to test viability of one-way street conversion for Pig Loop Road, Water Street and Duke Street. Consider implementing seasonal one-way conversion of Water Street and Duke Street. Conduct pilot program during peak summer months to test the viability of a shared street or a visually separated active transportation facility along Water Street. Consider bidirectional multi-use path along Fox Point Front Road to support walking and cycling for all ages and abilities. 6.1.2 Intersection Improvements To accommodate the placement of a generator in close proximity to the existing sewer pumping station at the intersection of Duke Street, Water Street and Pig Loop Road, the following two options are proposed. 6.1.2.1 Option 1: Duke/Water Remain Two-way To accommodate the placement of the generator, option 1 proposes reconfiguring the existing intersection while maintaining existing two-way traffic flow. This option, illustrated in Figure 6-17, includes the following changes to the intersection: Removing existing slip lane providing northbound access from Pig Loop Road on to Duke Street. Decommission existing crosswalk on the north leg of the intersection. Paint and maintain crosswalk on the Valley Road leg, and on the south leg of the intersection. Modify edges of asphalt to tighten intersection geometry at Pig Loop Road/Duke Street and Water Street/Duke Street. Removing the slip lane currently providing northbound access from Pig Loop Road on to Duke Street allows for the land within the ROW to be repurposed to accommodate the placement of the generator. Northbound access from Pig Loop Road onto Duke Street will be rerouted to the existing stop sign posted in the main intersection, where drivers will make a right turn. By modifying the edges of the asphalt to tighten the intersection geometry where Water Street meets Pig Loop Road, the intersection maintains sufficient space for vehicles to maneuver through the turn safely while reducing crossing distance and minimizing possible conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, and other users of the road. 6.1.2.2 Option 2: Duke/Water One-way Pair To accommodate the placement of the generator, option 2 proposes reconfiguring the existing intersection while accommodating one-way traffic flow as proposed in section 6.1.1. This option, illustrated in Figure 6-18 and Figure 6-17, includes the following changes to the intersection: Converting Duke Street and Water Street to one-way with parking lanes. Removing existing slip lane providing northbound access from Pig Loop Road on to Duke Street. Decommission existing crosswalk on the north leg of the intersection. Paint and maintain crosswalk on the Valley Road leg, and on the south leg of the intersection. Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 58 Modify edges of asphalt to tighten intersection geometry at Pig Loop Road/Duke Street and Water Street/Duke Street. Like option 1, option 2 proposes removing the slip lane currently providing northbound access from Pig Loop Road on to Duke Street, allowing for the land within the ROW to be repurposed to accommodate the placement of the generator. Northbound access from Pig Loop Road onto Duke Street will be rerouted to the existing stop sign posted in the main intersection, where drivers will make a right turn. By modifying the edges of the asphalt to tighten the intersection geometry where Water Street meets Pig Loop Road, the intersection maintains sufficient space for vehicles to maneuver through the turn safely while reducing crossing distance and minimizing possible conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, and other users of the road. Option 2 incorporates the proposed conversion of Water Street and Duke Street into a pair of one-way streets, effectively creating a loop and opening up a lane providing additional parking capacity. Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 59 Figure 6-17: Option 1 - Duke/Water remain 2-way Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 60 Figure 6-18: Option 2 - Duke/Water 1-way pair Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 61 6.1.3 Traffic Calming Throughout the engagement process many residents raised their concerns about vehicles travelling at excessive speeds within the Village, with 90% of survey respondents strongly or somewhat agreeing that speeding driver behavior is an issue. Further to that, feedback received indicated strong support for the introduction of traffic calming initiatives, with many participants citing their desire for reduced speed limits on village streets. Consultation with officials from the Department of Public Works found that of the proposed traffic calming measures only speed tables and curb extensions would be considered for approval. It was suggested by Public Works that increasing the availability of dedicated on -street parking as well as increased enforcement efforts is an option for traffic calming that should be considered by the Municipality. Currently, the Province does not have a formal application process for traffic calming. In light of this, to support the need for traffic calming interventions, we propose the following recommendations. 6.1.3.1 Recommendations Conduct a speed survey within the Village to establish 85th percentile speed and support the further need for traffic calming design interventions (i.e., curb extensions and/or speed tables). Installation of temporary or permanent speed feedback devices. Increase enforcement efforts rather than implementing design interventions. 6.1.4 Street Prioritization and Snow Removal Priority Following the review of Village streets, we have developed a new street classification system that differentiates the treatment of streets based on functional and operational characteristics, is more responsive to the mobility needs of road users, and is more reflective of a street’s adjacent land uses and surrounding character. The classification of certain streets within the Village should be elevated to reflect a higher priority for snow clearance and provide designated emergency vehicle access routes in and out of the Village. Serving as the main gateway into the Village, Duke Street consistently observed higher volumes of traffic than other Village streets assessed in this study, with the exception of Highway 3. Duke Street along with Pleasant Street and South Street are on the cusp of an AADT volume of 1500 vehicles per day. Central Street, running in a north/south direction through the Village, deviates from other Village streets in that it is the only street consisting of a 70-foot ROW as opposed to the 50-foot ROW seen elsewhere. Although traffic volumes observed on the southern end of Central Street were relatively low in comparison to volumes counted on other streets, given the high rates of parking utilization observed in the southern portion of the Village during peak conditions, the widened ROW limits obstructions into the roadway as a result of parked vehicles and sets Central Street as an emergency route. Likewise, parking utilization rates on South Street captured during the Race Week parking survey neared or exceeded capacity along the entirety of the street, Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 62 obstructing the roadway and reducing traffic flow from two lane to one (see Figure 6-19). In the event of an emergency, conditions such as this create a challenge for passing emergency vehicles and an increase in response time. Should an emergency requiring medical assistance occur in the southern portion of the peninsula under conditions such as the ones observed during Race Week, ambulances called to the scene would face significant delays. In addition to emergency response times, under the current level 3 road classification there is no formal road prioritization for snow removal in the Village. In the event of an emergency during a winter storm event, the Department of Public Works must be contacted to send a vehicle to clear the snow for emergency response vehicles. Under current policy, this is only triggered by a 911 event. Where all roads in the Village are classified the same, there is no pre-determined order in which the roads Figure 6-19: Observed Conditions on South Street Figure 6-20: Proposed Level 2 Streets Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 63 are plowed, making it challenging to have reliable emergency management plans in place. For these reasons, we propose that Duke Street, Pleasant Street, Central Street, and South Street be reclassified from level 3 and recognized as level 2. 6.1.4.1 Recommendations Adopt a new road classification system recognizing Duke Street, Pleasant Street, South Street, and Central Street as level 2. Consider establishing registered priority roads for prioritized snow removal to provide a dedicated access route(s) to and from Highway 3. Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 64 6.2 Curbside Management 6.2.1 On-Street Parking Most Village streets have not been designed for high levels of parking activity, and parking areas are not well defined, leading to unsafe parking conditions particularly during the high tourist season and events such as Chester Race Week. The perceived parking shortage reported throughout the engagement process manifests itself in three ways: typical (off-peak) demand, seasonal (peak) demand, and during large events like Chester Race Wee k. Under typical conditions, on-street parking is primarily observed in the activity district in the southern portion of the village, particularly along Duke Street, Pleasant Street, King Street, and Water Street. While many of these parking spaces are used by visitors to the village and local businesses, public feedback received suggests that much of the parking utilization is associated with employment uses and residents of Tancook Island. A major dynamic of on-street parking is the dwell time and turnover rate. Currently, vehicles tend to park at one location and remain there for extended periods, sometimes occup ying the same space all day or even over multiple days. This effectively removes the parking space from the inventory and maintains the perception of no parking availability. An effective on-street parking policy would therefore limit the dwell time in the most heavily used areas. Under current regulations, parking is restricted to a maximum of 4 hours in much of the activity district along Queen Street, Pleasant Street, Duke Street, and Water Street. A two-hour limit is typical for a high- activity mixed use commercial area such as this. Limiting parking utilization in this manner can ensure a higher turnover rate and guarantee that parking spaces will be freed up in a reasonable amount of time. The Municipality should consider expanding parking restrictions onto other streets observed to have higher rates of parking utilization. However, to capture the benefits of the imposed parking restrictions, effective management must be implemented. Many streets in the activity district have 4 hour parking limits in place; however, it was observed that vehicles do not follow these restrictions. Parking enforcement in the Village is currently provided by the RCMP, who are typically occupied with their primary duties. Whereas parking restrictions are only as effective as the enforcement effort supporting them, it is recommended that the Municipality investigate hiring enforcement staff on a full-time or seasonal basis. Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 65 Effective management of on-street parking would require stricter enforcement of current parking restrictions and could include implementing a pay to park system in high demand areas. The Village should consider the option of installing individual parking meters, typically in dual configuration, or installing one multi-space parking machine at each intersection. Services like HotSpot provide parking payment services at no cost to municipalities. 6.2.1.1 Tancook Island Ferry Over the next few years, the Tancook Island Ferry service is planned to move from its current location on Water Street to Blandford. When that happens, much of the parking paces currently used by Tancook Island residents and visitors would be released for general usage. The implications are first, that the parking lot at Valley Road, currently dedicated to Tancook Island Ferry users, could be used for other purposes, freeing approximately 30 spaces for managed events or seasonal parking management. Second, the 20-30 parking spaces at the foot of Water Street, currently largely used by Ferry users, would also be available for other users. These spaces may be used to increase the overall inventory of general on-street parking spaces in Chester, or may be used to offset the loss of parking elsewhere. 6.2.1.2 Recommendations Increase the amount of designated time restricted parking spaces in high use areas and increase enforcement efforts. Implement a pay to park system to deter long-term parking in high use areas. Utilize the 70 ft right-of-way along Central Street to allocate more designated defined parking spaces for year-round or seasonal use. Figure 6-21: On-Street Parking Management Solutions Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 66 6.2.2 Seasonal Off-Street Parking During the summer months, as the Village experiences an influx of seasonal residents and tourists, the demand for parking grows. While longer term parking is currently available for residents of the Tancook Islands in a dedicated lot on Valley Road, short term parking within the Village is left to the street. Many participants noted throughout the engagement process that often times vehicles belonging to residents of the Tancook Islands remain parked long term in the parking spaces on Water Street rather than the dedicated lot on Valley Road. When the Tancook Ferry will be relocated to Blandford, the opportunity will arise to make use of 50-60 parking spaces for general users and visitors. Since parking is prohibited in very few places on the Village streets, drivers tend to park wherever is convenient. This is especially true during events like Chester Race Week, where vehicles were observed parked in areas blocking intersection sightlines and intruding into the roadway causing unsafe conditions. During such events and festivities special provisions are needed to effectively manage the high volume of people and vehicles coming into the Village. It is therefore proposed that during large events, or perhaps during heavy winter storms, attendees and visitors be directed Figure 6-22: Potential Locations for Off-Street Event Parking Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 67 to dedicated parking areas in the Village. In the case of seasonal events like Race Week, pickup and drop-off of attendees, equipment, judges, etc… should and drop off should be restricted to dedicated and reserved spaces. Furthermore, it is proposed that for such events, temporary signage be put in place to direct the flow of vehicles and pedestrians. The Municipality may wish to investigate the opportunity to temporarily close some access points to streets with large planters or other temporary structures, thereby directing the flow of vehicles, while remaining accessible to pedestrians and cyclists. Upon review of off-street parking provisions in the Village, the locations illustrated in Figure 6-22 were identified to accommodate event parking. As is the case with on-street parking, effective implementation and management of any temporary off-street parking strategies will rely on stricter enforcement of on-street parking restrictions. Enforcing on-street parking time limits will help encourage attendees and other visitors to utilize the designated pickup and drop off areas and dedicated event parking rather than parking on street for extended periods of time. By removing these vehicles from streets observed to already have higher rates of parking utilization, the Municipality can ensure a higher turnover rate and guarantee that more spaces will be available for residents and visitors looking to visit local businesses and take in all that the Village has to offer. 6.2.2.1 Emergency Services It is understood that the Chester Volunteer Fire Department will relocate to another location in the coming years. This provides the opportunity to re-allocate the property currently used to event or seasonal parking management. On-street parking at this location will also be less intrusive to fire services, once fire trucks no longer need to manoeuvre from the fire department building onto the road. 6.2.2.2 Recommendations Implement a special temporary parking strategy during seasonal events and winter storms to direct parking to designated lots on the periphery of the Village, utilizing existing lots where possible (see Figure 6-22 for examples). Such strategy would include on one hand the enactment of temporary parking restrictions and designated/reserved parking and loading area at critical locations, while promoting on-street parking in a distributed manner across the rest of the Village. Consider supporting a bus shuttle service between designated parking areas, the yacht club, and wharves, either through chartered services, or directly using municipal staff. Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 68 6.2.3 Sidewalk Café Initiative Given the general support for the Village Sidewalk Café Initiative and the limited impact on traffic and parking evaluated within the Village, we found no ground to support suspending the initiative in future years. However, in order to further prevent observed conditions limiting the safe movement of pedestrians within the public right-of-way, we recommend the Municipality consider the development of Sidewalk Café Bylaw and guidelines similar to those adopted by the Town of Wolfville or the Halifax Regional Municipality. Such should be done in a way which provides clarity on the introduction of sidewalk cafés complimentary to Department of Public Works permitting and provides clear design guidelines to ensure adequate access is maintained within the public right-of-way. Bylaw and guidelines should include requirements and design standards for: Café Dimensions and Design (ex. barriers, decking, lighting, landscaping, fencing, and furnishings) Temporary sidewalks Emergency access Accessibility Figure 6-24: Wolfville Land Use Bylaw Sidewalk Café Requirements Figure 6-23: Inadequate Access Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 69 As a result of the general approval of the sidewalk cafés in the Village, the Municipality is currently working on a draft by-law to support an ongoing sidewalk café initiative which maintains accessibility and promotes the safe movement of pedestrians in the public right-of-way. 6.2.3.1 Recommendations Complete the Draft Sidewalk Café Bylaw currently in the works, and ensure guidelines cover at a minimum the same requirements as those adopted by the Town of Wolfville or Halifax Regional Municipality. Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 70 APPENDIX A Engagement Materials, Photos, and Responses Chester Improvement Plan / Traffic Impact Study Report 71 APPENDIX B Survey Questionnaires REQUEST FOR DIRECTION REPORT TO: COW MEETING DATE: March 3, 2022 DEPARTMENT: Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: Gold River Bridge repair or construction options ORIGIN: Date: February 23, 2022 Prepared by: Gord Tate, Active Living Coordinator Date: February 23, 2022 Reviewed by: Chad Haughn, Director, Community Development & Recreation Date: February 24, 2022 Authorized by: Dan McDougall, CAO CURRENT SITUATION MOC closed the Gold River bridge on September 24, 2021 based on an assessment report prepared by ABLE Engineers. Council received the report and summary of its findings on October 7. The purpose of this report is to update Council on the actions taken and discussions had with stakeholders since the closure, and to request direction for MOCs preference for detouring users around the closure; and for either a) repair/rehabilitation, or b) new construction of a bridge. BACKGROUND Our Letter of Authority (LOA) from the Province of Nova Scotia states the MOC shall ensure that the trail and any related structures are properly maintained. However, MOC holds no jurisdiction over the facility and land use decisions that need to be made. Therefore, since closure, we have consulted with partner agencies to explore both a) short term detour options, and b) their unique perspectives on long term solutions. These discussions are summarized below. Short-term: detours Long-term: repairs/new construction Acadia First Nation AFN’s Council is willing to permit a detour through their property (behind the Gold Bean Café/Shell) but with modifications to the existing route. Their preference would be to construct a new path that avoids putting traffic into the parking area or past the old office building which is slated for re- purposing. Although willing to explore this, they are reluctant based on the lack of sidewalks, lighting, and other safety infrastructure on the Beech Hill Road approach. AFN will expect that an archaeological assessment be conducted if any land disturbance occurs as a result of repair or new construction. The KMK agency (Kwilmu’kw Maw- klusuaqn) has been introduced to this discussion and will want to be included in future conversations. AFN is conscious that any short-term solution may become long-term and therefore cannot be decoupled from their community development and economic plans. Department of Public Works By law, OHVs are not permitted in the road corridors under any conditions. They will permit us to note detours for bikes and pedestrians, but we We have asked if it might be feasible for the gold River highway 3 bridge to be modified to accommodate bikes, peds, and OHVs. R e q u e s t f o r D i r e c t i o n P a g e | 2 must make it very clear that users will be leaving the trail corridor and entering a road environment. After an internal review, DPW’s staff have recommended against pursuing this option. Department of Natural Resources and Renewables We will need to modify our LOA to reflect any future scenarios If the existing rail-trail bridge is abandoned, DNRR is likely to remove it. CBCL Engineering and Environmental Design was enlisted in December 2021 to do a review of trail detour options (report attached). We asked them to determine under what conditions could trails users be encouraged to use the road corridors. They concluded that although technically cyclists and pedestrians are permitted to use the corridor, it is not advisable as there no safety enhancements in place. DPW has since clarified that signage may be erected to guide users through a detour, but that it needs to clearly convey to users that they will be leaving the trail corridor and entering roadways that do not have pedestrian/cyclist facilities. As per provincial regulation, OHVs are prohibited in the roadways and cannot use the bridge. CBCL suggested that modifying the highway 3 bridge should be investigated further and that the bridge cross section, with modifications could technically accommodate all users (with improvements to the approaches). This suggestion has been further reviewed by Staff at DPW and they do not recommend that we pursue this option. The map below shows various detour options discussed with the stakeholders above R e q u e s t f o r D i r e c t i o n P a g e | 3 If MOC is to promote a detour for cyclists/pedestrians then the most acceptable route would be to use Croft Rd (#2 on map) and a new connector through AFN lands. This route minimizes user exposure to the road environment. To enable this, MOC would need to negotiate with AFN and contribute to the establishment of a new connector on the south side of their former band office (parallel to #4) and safe crossing across Beech Hill Road. R e q u e s t f o r D i r e c t i o n P a g e | 4 DISCUSSION The table below summarizes the current information available on repair and new construction options. Option Cost (M) Service Life Extension (yrs) Pros Cons REPAIR Make all necessary repairs to existing trail bridge $3.1 25 Existing trail corridor is used so no new alignment necessary. Heritage value retained. Closure continues until repairs can be made, although wise phasing may allow the bridge to re-open while work proceeds. NEW CONSTRCUTION At existing site (using existing piers) $4.1* 35 Existing trail corridor is used so no new alignment necessary. Some heritage value may be retained. Most heritage value lost. At a new site $2.0-$3.5** 35+ May or may not fit in the current trail corridor May require a new corridor to be established Decommission and removal $1 n/a * This cost could be decreased if only portions of the bridge are refurbished, and the configuration is modified. **This represents a range of prices provided in both the ABLE report, and a trail bridge construction company who reviewed the site and offered their opinion of costs. If Council were to prefer new construction, there are still several issues to be addressed such as location, design, and cost. These would best be addressed through an RFP and a thorough engineering and design process by a qualified firm. OPTIONS SHORT-TERM: DETOUR Option 1: Establish and promote a detour. To work with AFN for a new connector on their property, and with DPW to place signage at the bridge closure and along the roadways to direct people. There are no options for OHV’s to use the roadways or to cross the highway 3 bridge. Option 2: No action. A short-term gap would exist in the trail network until a long-term solution is in place. This may cause concerns for users, conflicts between users, or concerns among adjacent landowners. LONG-TERM: REPAIR/NEW CONSTRUCTION R e q u e s t f o r D i r e c t i o n P a g e | 5 Staff request that Council indicate a clear preference for a) repair, or b) new construction. Based solely on the costs and extension to the service life, staff’s recommendation is to pursue a new construction solution; however, staff recognizes that other factor must be considered such as the heritage value of the bridge, community preferences, disturbance to users, neighbour and stakeholder preferences, and technical feasibility. These issues are intertwined and complex. For now, we seek direction on which course to place our efforts. For clarity, we consider ‘new construction’ to be any approach that does not try to precisely maintain the existing structure and its components. Monitoring the condition and movement of the bridge, for the purpose of temporarily re-opening it is not an option. The engineers recently re-stated that the bridge in is failure mode now - it has just not fallen down yet. If Council chooses to repair the bridge, monitoring may be useful to inform a more ‘surgical’ rehabilitation plan. We would need to consider the cost of monitoring at $75k as an investment in finding efficiencies in the final rehabilitation work plan. Obviously, if new construction is pursued then monitoring is of no use. Option1: Make all necessary repairs to the existing bridge structure. If this option is chosen by Council, then the next steps would be to prepare the tender documents for bidding by qualified firms. Option 2: Pursue new construction. Council may direct staff to develop an RFP for construction of a new rail- trail bridge solution over the Gold River. The proponents will be responsible for analysing and proposing the most feasible construction method and location. The length of river between the existing bridge, downstream to, but not including the Gold River highway 3 bridge, may be considered. RFP respondents will be required to suggest the most feasible design and location for a new bridge. Project costs, timelines, environmental protections should be addressed. A plan for community and stakeholder engagement should be included, with specific consideration given to Acadia First Nation and archaeological assessments. The intent of the RFP will be to bring back to Council the most feasible (cost, engineering, location, community acceptance, environmental impact) option for Council’s final decision. Option 3: Maintain the status quo and take no action. A gap would remain in the trail network and users would need to rely on themselves to navigate over the Gold River. This may cause concerns for users, conflicts between users, or concerns among adjacent landowners. Essentially this would mean that the trail bridge is abandoned. Under our LOA, MOC is responsible for the maintenance of the bridge, but it remains under the ownership of the province. Should we choose to accept the gap in the network, then NS will be responsible for the future of the bridge which would likely entail decommissioning, and removal. IMPLICATIONS By-Law/Policy MOC holds the LOA to operate and maintain the trail and its facilities. MOC’s Active Transportation Policy supports maintaining a connected trail network and passage over the Gold River for all users. R e q u e s t f o r D i r e c t i o n P a g e | 6 Financial/budgetary A total of $541,159 has been budgeted in MOC’s capital plan to support engineering and construction solutions. This represents MOC’s 27% contribution to the total ICIP project cost of $2,029,092 for repairs to the bridge. Notice of a successful ICIP application I still pending. When we closed the bridge in September, we alerted the Department of Energy and Mines and stated that our priority is to maintain passage over the Gold River. We believe the federal and provincial funding contributions under the ICIP program remain available whether repair or new construction is chosen. MOC has access to grants from other agencies (e.g. OHV fund, Trans-Canada Trail) that may support repair or new construction. Environmental RFP respondents will need to outline all environmental protection measures they would employ for either repair or new construction. Strategic Priorities Finding a viable detour option, and the repair or construction of a new Gold River bridge will assist the Municipality in advancing the following Priority Outcomes of the 2021-24 Strategic Priorities Framework: Priority Outcomes: Economic Development 1. Partner in the development of infrastructure and opportunities for business development and attraction. 2. Promote and grow the Municipality’s economic sectors. 3. Position the Municipality as Nova Scotia’s south shore community of choice for residents, businesses, and organizations, and as an international tourism destination. Priority Outcomes: Environmental Stewardship 1. Support environmental conservation & protection initiatives and efforts to tackle the impact of climate change (e.g. environmental protections required for works over watercourses). Priority Outcomes: Healthy & Vibrant Communities 1. Ensure residents have access to facilities, natural assets, programs, and services that enrich a quality of life and provide safe communities for residents and visitors alike. Priority Outcomes: Infrastructure & Service Delivery 1. Develop and implement evidence-based plans for future infrastructure and service needs, along with related funding models, to accommodate sustainable growth and levels of service. 2. Create efficiencies through innovative service delivery, and proactive maintenance and operations of existing infrastructure. 3. Plan for and create infrastructure that improves the connectivity of roads, multi-use trails, natural assets, and facilities as part of an active transportation network. R e q u e s t f o r D i r e c t i o n P a g e | 7 Work Program Implications Project management for either course of action will require significant staff resources. Consideration should be given in the RFP stage as to how best manage this. Has Legal review been completed? ___ Yes _ _ No _x_ N/A COMMUNICATIONS (INTERNAL/EXTERNAL) As decisions are made, we will keep the public up to date on timelines, milestones, and re-opening plans through our usual social media and print channels, and through direct communication with our partners. ATTACHMENTS 1. ABLE’s Condition Assessment Report (Gold River Bridge - Report Rev1 (26 September 2021).pdf) 2. Gold River Bridge – A Summary of the Conditions Assessment Report (Gold River Bridge assessment - Summary of finding.ppt) 3. CBCL Letter – review of Detour Options for the Chester Connection Trail (211063.01_LE01_Chester Connection Trail Detour Options.pdf) December 3, 2019 Nick Brown Town of Bridgewater 60 Pleasant St. Bridgewater, NS B4V 3X9 RE: Responses to November 21 P.1 Design Roundhouse Dr Town Engineer Comments Dear Recipient, GOLD R IVER MULTI - USE BRI DGE GOLD RIVER , NOVA SCOTIA CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT September , 2021 (REVISION No. 1) PREPARED BY: ABLE ENGINEERING SERVICES INC. SUITE 201, 5209 ST. MARAGERT’S BAY ROAD, UPPER TANTALLON, NOVA SCOTIA, CANADA PREPARED FOR: M.O.D.C. Kavita Khanna, As sistant Director of Infrastructure & Operations P.O. BOX 369, 151 King Street, Chester, NS, B0J 1J0 Condition Assessment Report –Gold River Multi-Use Bridge September 26, 2021 (Rev.1). ABLE Project #210128 -04 Condition Assessment 210128-04 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXE CUTIVE SUMMARY ..........................................................................................................................3 1 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................5 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND OBJECTIVES ..........................................................................5 1.2 PROJECT CONTACT INFORMATION ......................................................................................7 2 INSPECTION ...................................................................................................................................8 2.1 DESCRIPTION OF TASK .........................................................................................................8 2.2 INSPECTION METHODOLOGY AND TECHNIQUES ................................................................9 2.2.1 TIMBER INSPECTIONS ...................................................................................................9 2.2.2 STUCTURAL STEEL INSPECTIONS .............................................................................. 10 2.2.3 BEARINGS INSPECTIONS ........................................................................................... 10 2.2.4 STONE MASONRY INSPECTIONS ............................................................................... 10 2.3 OBSERVATIONS .................................................................................................................. 11 2.3.1 TIMBER TRESTLES ...................................................................................................... 11 2.3.2 STEEL PLATE GIRDERS............................................................................................... 12 2.3.3 BEARINGS .................................................................................................................... 13 2.3.4 STONE MASONRY PIERS ............................................................................................ 14 3 EVALUATION ............................................................................................................................... 14 3.1 DETERIORATION & CONTEXT OF CONDITION ................................................................... 14 3.1.1 TIMBER TRESTLES ...................................................................................................... 16 3.1.2 STEEL PLATE GIRDERS............................................................................................... 17 3.1.3 BEARINGS .................................................................................................................... 19 3.1.4 STONE MASONRY PIERS ............................................................................................ 20 4 SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................... 23 4.1 PRE-REFURBISHMENT MONITORING AND MEASUREMENT INSPECTION PROGRAM .. 25 4.2 BRIDGE REFURBISHMENT OPTIONS AND RELATED COST ESTIMATES ......................... 29 4.2.1 OPTION 1 – MAKE ALL NECESSARY REPAIRS TO EXISTING BRIDGE .................... 29 4.2.2 OPTION 2 – REPLACE ENTIRE STRUCTURE AT EXISTING SITE ............................... 31 4.2.3 OPTION 3 – REMOVE FROM SERVICE AND DECOMMISSION EXISTING STRUCTURE AND PROVIDE REPLACEMENT STRUCTURE AT A NEW LOCATION ........................................ 31 4.2.4 OPTION 4 – REMOVE FROM SERVICE AND DECOMMISSION (REMOVE) EXISTING STRUCTURE WITHOUT REPLACEMENT ..................................................................................... 32 Condition Assessment Report –Gold River Multi-Use Bridge September 26, 2021 (Rev.1). ABLE Project #210128 -04 Condition Assessment 210128-04 2 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A TACTEN INDUSTRIAL INC. 2021 INSPECTION REPORT (Inc. PAINT SAMPLE ANALYSIS) MASONTECH INC. 2021 INSPECTION REPORT APPENDIX B SUPPLEMENTAL PHOTOGRAPHS AND PAINT ANALYSIS APPENDIX C REPAIRS MANAGEMENT STRATEGY TABLE AND BUDGETARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES APPENDIX D WAUGH ASSOCIATES LTD. 2001 GOLD RIVER BRIDGE DRAWINGS Condition Assessment Report –Gold River Multi-Use Bridge September 26, 2021 (Rev.1). ABLE Project #210128 -04 Condition Assessment 210128-04 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ABLE Engineering Services Inc. (ABLE) has been engaged by the M unicipality of the District of Chester (MODC) to carry out a detailed inspection and condition assessme nt of the Gold River Multi-Use Bridge which forms a part of the Trans Canada Trail network. O riginally constructed 100 or more years ago as an elevated railway crossing over the Gold River just west of Chester , the bridge was removed from rail service and abandoned in the 1990`s . The bridge structure was assessed for re -purposing as a primarily pedestrian structure in 2001 and at that time it was determi ned that in spite of its overall condition, remnant structural capacity appeared to be ample for reduced live loadings associated with planned pedestrian service. At that time , though possibly in excess of 80 years old, the timber trestle approach structures, steel main span girder assemblies and supporting stone block masonry pier towers were deemed to be in good condition. Following that assessment the bridge was modified, re - purposed and opened for pedestrian traffic. A subsequent engineering inspection and condition assessment report for the structure was issued in 2013 . That report concluded that in the years since the 2001 condition assessment several primary and secondary structural components were beginning to visibly exhibit progressive deterioratio n. As a result of that report a construction tender was issued which was intend ed to address and correct reported damage and deficiencies. However, that work was not awarded or carried out . The structure has not had the benefit of significant repair s since then . As of 2021 the structure has seen about 20 years of renewed service as a multi-use bridge. In those ensuing 20 years structural damage and deteriorations have steadily progressed and are readily visible in several areas. Although some primary structural components such as some of the timber trestle components and the main steel girder s appear to be able to continue to provide adequate operational service (for the short term), other primary structural components such as several timber trestle piles , related parts and fasteners have reached or exceeded their expected service lives. Of particular note is the observed very poor condition of steel girder bearings including non -functional expansion sliders. Also found to be in poor cond ition are the main stone masonry support piers. Note that s tructural damage at the timber trestles can be repaired , but such refurbishment work will likely leave a structure in place that is comprised partially of 100+ year old weathered and otherwise deteriorated timbers. Under such conditions , especially in the Nova Scotia climate , such timber repairs and limited component replacements would not significantly improve the existing remaining service life expectations for the trestle structures. It will be necessary to repla ce the timber trestle structures if any significant service life extension is to be achieved. Structural steel components associated with the main span girders are no long er in good condition. Local deteriorations have become significant in recent years and damage associated with those deteriorations has become visible. However, it is probable that the steel Condition Assessment Report –Gold River Multi-Use Bridge September 26, 2021 (Rev.1). ABLE Project #210128 -04 Condition Assessment 210128-04 4 girders can be adequately repaired and that the expected remaining service life of the girders can be improved. Of greatest immediate concern is the condition of the girder support bearing assemblies located at the tops of the stone masonry support towers, and their effect on the stone masonry piers. With non -functioning bearing sliders cyclical expansion and contraction of the main girders cannot be accommodated by the structure. Instead, the tops of the stone masonry piers must resist significant horizontal loads associated with thermal expansion and contraction of the steel girders. This is a load condition for which the rigid and brittle stone piers were never intended to bear and if left un -checked will eventually lead to structural failure and collapse of the bridge. Therefore, in order to extend the existing remaining service life for the bridge significant replacements and reconstructions are necessary. Note that f or every year that such work is delayed the repair scope and costs will likely grow. If it is desired by MODC that this structure should r emain in service, t imber trestles can be replaced, s tructural steel components can be repa ired, bearings can be replaced and stone masonry repaired and strengthened , but implementation of such repairs will not be an inexpensive undertaking. Alternatively, the bridge can be removed from service and decommissioned /disassembled. N ote that the condition of the structure has now reached a point where doing nothing is not an option. The bridge must be either repaired/reconstructed/replaced or removed from service and decommissioned (demolished ). However, even abandonment and decommissioning will be at a significant cost . This report examines the condition and recommends repairs for components vital to maintaining adequate str uctural integrity at the Gold River Multi-Use Bridge. Alternatives to repair are also presented herein. Estimated costs for those repairs and other recommended alternatives are also presented herein. In the meantime , because of the risk and the potential consequences of bridge failure it is recommended that the bridge be taken out of service and closed to the public until such time that recommended repairs , refurbishments , reconstructions and improvements can be completed. Condition Assessment Report –Gold River Multi-Use Bridge September 26, 2021 (Rev.1). ABLE Project #210128 -04 Condition Assessment 210128-04 5 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJE CT DESCRIPTION AND OBJECTIVES The Gold River Multi-Use Bridge in the Munici pality of the District of Chester is a former railway bridge which appears to have been constructed in the early part of the 20th century. The structure has been in use primarily as a pedestrian bridge since the railway was converted to a recreational trai l system. The b ridge is a combination timber trestle and riveted steel plate -girder two-span structure which stands about 55 ’ above the normal water surface of the Gold River. Approaches at each side of the river are elevated timber trestle structures co nsisting of timber piles and bolted timber struts and bracing. The trestle approach at the east side of the river is 81 feet long , and the trestle approach structure at the west side of the structure is a length of 140 feet. Two existing s teel main span girders are located directly over the Gold River. E ach span is about 73 feet, and the girders are supported by three large masonry pier towers . The west pier is located along the river’s edge, the east pier is above the riverbank and the middle pier is at a bout the centre of the river. The Bridge incorporates a horizontal curve on its alignment with a radius of about 500 feet. Existing pier caps and bearings arrangement demonstrate that the horizontal geometry exhibits a slight super -elevation on that curve. Original creosoted timber trestle piles , beams, braces struts, stringers, and rail ties as well as structural steel plate girder assemblies, and stone masonry support piers remain an integral part of the bridge structure. However, steel train rails have been replaced with a treated lumber deck and treated wood pedestrian guards at each side of the deck. Timber trestle approach structures consist of groups of driven timber piles in braced and interconnected “pile bents”. (At this structure such a feature is comprised of an assembly of six piles aligned laterally to the longitudinal axis of the former tracks and topped with a timber pile cap forming a timber pier structure commonly referred to as a “pile bent”). Each pile bent is interconnected with longitu dinal top stringers . Closely spaced r ail ties are installed laterally atop the stringers . Pile bents are spaced at about 12 feet at the deck level and are interconnected through their height with bolted horizontal (lateral and longitudinal) struts at about 20 foot vertical increments . The trestles are cross-braced at paired pile bent framing panel points. Note that piles are installed with a prescribed batter (angle from vertical) depending on pile location to resist horizontal dynamic rail service loads and reactions. The steel plate girders are constructed from plate and angle components typically availa ble at the time of construction. Structural steel components in the early 20 th century were normally high in carbon content and not intended for welding. (Steel structural welding did not become Condition Assessment Report –Gold River Multi-Use Bridge September 26, 2021 (Rev.1). ABLE Project #210128 -04 Condition Assessment 210128-04 6 a common and widespread means for steel fastening in construction until about the mid-20th century). At the time of the construction of the bridge, steel components for various structural fabrications were assembled and riveted into common “I `- girder”, or ”box” and other miscellaneous sectional shapes, and were usually reinforced with “doubler plates” and stiffeners and otherwise braced and reinforced with angles as and where required. Interconnection of these steel parts was normally via hot rivets. This method of steel component manufacture and component assembly was utilized in the construction of the Gold River Bridge. (See Appendix A - Tacten Report photos.) Other steel structures constructed by this method in N ova Scotia in the early to mid -20th century include Halifax`s Pier 21 buildings, the Halifax Forum and the Angus L. Macdonald Bridge. Supporting the steel span components at Gold River are three stone masonry pier towers. The towers are constructed of cu t granite ashlar blocks which were originally mortared in place with a lime -based mortar compound . Each of the masonry stone pier structures (and associated rubble cores ) is a gravity structure which transfers bridge main span loads and reactions into the foundation sub -structure. The masonry piers are capped with granite blocks that are intended to seal the tops of the piers from moisture intrusion while providing structural seats for steel girder bearing assemblies. Those bearings are anchored into top granite cap blocks and not only spread girder reaction loads into the caps of the pier towers, but at the centre pier sliders also provide a means for accommodating thermal expansion and contraction of the steel girders. Each of the main structural component systems of the bridge, including the timber trestles, steel girder main span assemblies and the masonry support towers are beginning to show their age by way of significant visible deterioration. Timber components have remained serviceable since original construction, and that is a testament to the effectiveness of creosote wood preservative treatment (and its corrosion inhibiting properties). However, many metal connectors as well as the timber itself are now visibly exhibiting extensive degradation. In a ddition to pedestrian traffic, the bridge frequently sees light off-road vehicle (all-terrain 4x4) crossings. Highway vehicles generally do not operate on the structure. The bridge was removed from active rail service in September of 1991 and was apparen tly abandoned at that time. A structural inspection and assessment of the abandoned bridge was completed in 2001 by Waugh Associates (Waugh). Bridge renovations were completed subsequent to that inspection and assessment which featured installation of new treated lumber decking and side guards . More recently a follow-up inspection and assessment of the bridge structure was completed in 2013 by SNC Lavalin Inc. (SNC). A construction tender package for recommended repairs and maintenance derived from the SNC report was subsequently issued for pricing. However, the work associated with that tender was not awarded or executed. ABLE was retained by the MODC in the winter of 2021 to oversee a new updated visual inspection of the Gold River Bridge , and to produce an updated bridge condition assessment report. The prime objectives of this work was to identify any areas of deterioration that may be Condition Assessment Report –Gold River Multi-Use Bridge September 26, 2021 (Rev.1). ABLE Project #210128 -04 Condition Assessment 210128-04 7 of immediate or future structural concern , and to examine the existing structure with the goal of deriving, prioritizing and estimating costs for necessary repairs and maintenance tasks . To this end structural components of the bridge have been inspected by ABLE in -house experienced professionals and specialized sub -consultant experts. Previous Gold River bridge engineerin g inspection reports produced in 2001 and 2013 have been reviewed and referenced to provide background and historical reference for condition of the bridge structure. ABLE has been responsible for g eneral project planning, inspection coordination, client liaison and reporting as well as evaluation s and interpretation of site inspection data collected during timber, structural steel and stone masonry component inspections . ABLE is responsible for derivation of and/or confirmation of suitability of specific s tructural repairs recommendations provided by engaged sub -consultants: Sub -consultant Tacten Industrial Inc. (Tacten) of Burnside has been engaged to provide all required site high angle access condition inspections (timber, structural steel and stone mas onry), compile observations, to determine and record various component dimensions and thicknesses and to identify chemical composition of previously installed protective coatings. Masontech Inc. (Masontech) of Halifax has been engaged to collect and review stone masonry data collected at site , to evaluate the existing condition of the stone masonry piers and to prioritize and provide budget pricing for required masonry repairs and rehabilitation of stone masonry components . R eporting on the observed condit ion of structural components and recommended necessary repairs is summarized in this report. See Section 4.0 and Appendix C of this report for construction cost estimate information . Since there is a lack of original design drawings for the bridge structur e, for reference we have included drawings produced for and included in the 2001 Waugh condition assessment report. See Appendix D. 1.2 PROJECT CONTACT INFORMATION The project team for the Condition Assessment Inspection consists of: Lead Project Engineer and Timber Expert: Jamie Yates Project Manager: Marco Visentin, ABLE Project Coordinator: Neil McCallum, ABLE 1st Remote Access Technician: Brett Webster, Tacten Steel Expert: Wesley Albert, Tacten Masonry Expert: Mark Fougere, Masontech Condition Assessment Report –Gold River Multi-Use Bridge September 26, 2021 (Rev.1). ABLE Project #210128 -04 Condition Assessment 210128-04 8 2 INSPECTION 2.1 DESCRI PTION OF TASK Due to the geometric configuration of the bridge structure, much of the critical structural components are relatively inaccessible to conventional inspections/inspectors and normal structural inspection and access techniques. Therefore two op tions for inspection were considered: 1. Erection of an extensive and costly scaffolding system to not only provide access for an inspection team but to also address fall protection requirements when working at and under an elevated bridge deck; or, 2. Engagemen t of high angle access technicians from Tacten (formerly Remote Access Technology, commonly formerly known as “RAT”) to perform climbing access inspections with ropes and harnesses. Because of the very significant cost differential between the two access alternatives (installation of scaffold was conservatively estimated to be in excess of 10x the cost of rope and climbing access), Tacten was engaged to provide ac cess to and inspection at difficult to access components such as trestle stringers , timber piles, pile caps, bracing and struts; s tructural steel , bearings and related components ; and masonry pier caps and cut stone and mortar. Therefore, o n April 14 th, 15th, 16th, & 19th and again on June 4th, 2021 industrial rope access t echnicians from Tacten In dustrial visited the Gold River bridge to perform visual inspection s of the bridge and its structural components . The inspection of the bridge was completed using rope access techniques in accordance with the Industrial Rope Access Trades Associ ation (IRATA) International Code of Practice (ICOP) and Acuren ACU -ROPE procedures. Tacten inspections areas of interest included timber trestles and related components; structural steel girders , bearings and related components ; and stone masonry piers and related parts. During this work t imber core samples were collected from piles, struts, braces, stringers and ties and were assessed by ABLE. Remnant protective coating flake samples were collected from structural steel and were examined at Tacten /Acuren laboratory facilities. Input on component repairs costs was received from Tacten and utilized in development of overall project repair cost estimates. A visual photograp hic record of components inspected during the high angle inspection exercise was assem bled as part of that task. (See Appendix A for Tacten report and Appendix B for inspection photographic record ) Part -time stone masonry inspection at ground and deck level was provided by Mark Fougere of Masontech on the 14 th to 19th of April. Mr. Fouger e provided interpretation of Tacten collected high angle data from masonry towers and was able to probe and sample selected masonry joints in the tower structures. Once masonry information was collected and collated, an effective masonry repair methodology for the towers was derived and a component Condition Assessment Report –Gold River Multi-Use Bridge September 26, 2021 (Rev.1). ABLE Project #210128 -04 Condition Assessment 210128-04 9 construction cost estimate was completed. (See Appendices A and B for Masontech report and photographic record ) Neil McCallum , a representative for ABLE was on site to provide coordination and liaison between sub -consultants and to assist in determination of which areas of the structure would require prioritized inspection attention. Jamie Yates was at site on a part -time basis during inspection s to provide direction to high angle inspectors and sub -consultants on areas of interest and desired material sampling and photo record assembly, as well as interpretations of initial findings at site and scope for required subsequent supplemental site inspections and sub -consultant reporting . For reference, the East end of the bridge is nearest Croft Rd, in the direction towards Chester and the west end of the structure is furthest from Croft Road and in the direction away from Chester. The North face of the bridge is the upstream side, the south th e downstream. See Appendix D for the s ite layout and structural details (Waugh 2001). 2.2 INSPECTION METHODOLOGY AND TECHNIQU ES 2.2.1 TIMBER INSPECTIONS Condition of timber components was assessed by three main methods: 1. Visual inspection with identification/notation of visible anomalies id entifying cracking, checking, brooming, rot, hollowness, growth of moss or other biological or inorganic surface abnormalities, and any other anomalous observations. A very wide area of a structure can usually be visually inspected in a relatively short pe riod of time, from which a reasonably representative general condition of the timber can be determined; 2. Hammer Sounding is a process of tapping the exterior of the timber components with a hammer and subjectively assessing the quality of the sound report p roduced by the taps. A wide area sampling of a structure is usually possible for such an inspection (usually a representative sample) over a relatively short period of time: a. Firm noise report typically suggests a solid cross section and good structural int egrity. b. A dull or hollow noise resulting from hammer tapping typically indicates hollowness, delamination of growth rings, and/or interior/exterior rot. 3. Retrieval of component timber core samples in selected locations. This sampling and resting technique can usually confirm or dispel hypotheses derived from the other two testing methods described above. Conditions to note during a core sampling exercise are as follows: a. A solid or nearly solid retrieved core sample is normally characteristic of good structu ral integrity. b. Significant coring tool rotational resistance in the sampled timber is usually an indication of good structural integrity. Condition Assessment Report –Gold River Multi-Use Bridge September 26, 2021 (Rev.1). ABLE Project #210128 -04 Condition Assessment 210128-04 10 c. Poor coring tool rotational resistance in the sampled timber is usually an indication of poor structural integrity. d. Poor sample cohesion , blackened colour and high moisture content of retrieved core usually results from rot and/or delamination of sample at growth rings which is usually indicative of poor structural integrity. The combination of these sampling and testin g techniques allowed Tacten to identify areas where timber is in relatively good condition and locations where varying levels of rot and other degradation are evident. See Appendix B for photos of timber core samples with source member type and location of retrieval described. 2.2.2 STUCTURAL STEEL INSPECTIONS Steel sections of girder pairs for each span were visually assessed and areas exhibiting deformations and damage such as corrosion or cracking or missing fasteners or other hardware have been identified. The former surface/paint condition was examined and samples were retrieved. See Appendix A – Tacten report for paint flake testing results. Calipers and Ultrasonic Thickness (U.T.) measurement tools were used to gauge thicknesses of steel member components and to assist in estimation of how much loss of material thickness has been experienced in selected locations. 2.2.3 BEARINGS INSPECTIONS Girder bearings are intended to support and distribute steel girders’ vertical end reactions at the tops of the stone mason ry pier towers via the cap bearing stones found at that location. Original beari ngs in place at the Gold River bridge include stacked shims of varying thicknesses at each set of paired girders in order to accommodate horizontal curve super - elevation. Each of th e girders in each span pairing w as originally fitted with dedicated bearing supports. At one end of each of the girder pairs fixed steel bearings and steel shims are fitted to the ends of the girders and to cap stones of the masonry pier assemblies (at east and west pier towers). At the opposite end of each girder pair, sliding steel/metal bearings have been installed to accommodate daily/seasonal thermal longitudinal expansion and contraction of the steel girders (at opposite sides of the central pie r tower). A lthough the sliding bearing s are attached to the girders to prevent lateral movements, they are not intended to resist longitudinal girder movements relative to the bearings and the tops of the masonry pier caps which are generated by thermal expansion/contraction of the steel girders . 2.2.4 STONE MASONRY INSPECTIONS The Masonry Piers were visually assessed for; Condition Assessment Report –Gold River Multi-Use Bridge September 26, 2021 (Rev.1). ABLE Project #210128 -04 Condition Assessment 210128-04 11 Straightness, plumb and general symmetry; Local deformations; Non-uniform settlement; Physical condition of the ashlar granite blocks; Align ment and spacing of the granite blocks; C ondition of mo rtar, cracking of mortar joints; Assessment of core of stone masonry towers. A cordless hammer drill was used to drill into the pier core at a mortar joint near the base of one of the stone masonry tow ers to determine the make -up and condition of the masonry core. A more detailed inspection of the masonry core may be possible through temporary removal of a carefully chosen granite block. 2.3 OBSERVATIONS 2.3.1 TIMBER TRESTLES The East and West approach trestles are constructed of timber pile bents, struts and bracing and are topped with longitudinal stringers and rail ties. The timber piles are installed with a prescribed slight longitudinal and/or lateral batter (vertical angle departure from vertical), dependin g on the location of the pile bent, to accommodate incidental longitudinal and lateral loadings and accelerations imparted to the structure when it was still utilized as part of local rail transport infrastructure. East approach bents have been labelled 1 -7 with bent 1 being the east ernmost trestle abutment. The West approach bents have been labelled 1 -12 with 1 being the west ernmost abutment. The timber piles numbers within each bent were labelled numerically with 1 being the North ernmost p ile and 6 being the southernmost pile . See Appendix A – Tacten report and Appendix D - Site Layout for clarification. Included in this section are the observations on the condition of rail ties and bridge pedestrian lumber decking. Piles, struts, bracing, stringers and ties were all originally treated with creosote preservative. As a result, many of the treated timber components and steel fasteners were found to be in fair to good condition . However, the following items were noted: a) Several timber pilings were observed t o have animal/insect holes and local areas of decay. At some of the pi les the outer layers/growth rings have delaminated and/or there is significant spitting at the timber surface . At most piles that deterioration may not penetrate deeply into the heartwoo d. See Photos 1-5. b) Decay is advancing at sawn ends of several cross-bracing members. This deterioration appears to be extending into areas where bolted connections are located, bringing the integrity of those connections into question. See Photos 6-10. c) Areas of damage resulting from vandalism were observed. Photos 11-12. d) Several steel fasteners and related connecting hardware were observed to be heavily corroded and in need of replaceme nt. Photos 13-16 Condition Assessment Report –Gold River Multi-Use Bridge September 26, 2021 (Rev.1). ABLE Project #210128 -04 Condition Assessment 210128-04 12 e) Some rail ties, in particular a grouping near the junct ion of the eastern trestle approach and the eastern steel girder span have been replaced in recent years. However, those ties were not treated with creosote and have suffered serious rot related deterioration. Those rotted ties, although appearing to have originally been treated with a chromated copper arsenate (CCA) or similar preservative solution are no longer serviceable in spite of being installed long after original construction of the bridge. Remaining original rail ties, though exhibiting some splits and some sawn end deterioration tend to be in much better condition than those recent replacements. See Photos 17 -18 f) CCA treated Bridge decking installed over the original timber rail ties and related side safety treated lumber guards appear to be in fair to good condition , except for occasional loose, worn or otherwise damaged board s. g) Most timber core samples at creosoted ties, stringers and pile caps exhibited fair to good internal cross section integrity, even if some of the cores were broken during the extraction process. However, s everal cores taken from trestle piles and braces exhibited delamination and evidence of internal rot . See Photos 59-65 2.3.2 STEEL PLATE GIRD ERS Two pairs of steel plate girders (four girders in total) were used to span between th e stone masonry piers over the river. Each span was constructed of two 73’ long girders spaced 9’ apart. The spans were labelled East and West and the two girders in each span were labelled North and South. See Appendix A. The plate girders are built -up s ections fabricated from riveted plate and angles to form substantial typical steel “I -sections”. The girders have incorporated deeper sections at mid - span where bending moment is greater and have incorporated web doubler -plates at the supports where shear forces are higher. Girder section height varies from about four feet at the masonry support s to about seven feet at mid -span. As well, girder flange widths increase from 12 ½” at the supports to 24” at mid-span and bottom flange thicknesses increase s from about ¾” to 2” at mid-span by the incremental addition of added flange plates. The addition of these reinforcing plates has had the effect of strengthening and stiffening the utilized girder sections, while also making these components less prone to vibrat ion induced damage such as metal fatigue in spite of having been exposed to heavy service loads and significant vibration while in service as rail infrastructure. C onnecting angles between the ½” web and the flanges are L 6” x 6” x ¾”. The girder webs ar e stiffened by “T” sections and angles riveted to each side . The plate girders are fully braced, for wind and lateral loading at the top and bottom flanges. Vertical cross braces between paired girders are provided at 9’ centres. Bracing members are usuall y L 3 ½” x 3 ½” x 3/8” with 3/8” thick gusset plates . Considering the age and t he service conditions (the site is located close enough to salt water to be considered a marine environment) the plate girders and related parts are in overall fair condition , with some exceptions : There is a relatively uniform layer of surface corrosion on all exposed surfaces of the girders , and only small remnants of a former protective coating remain on the Condition Assessment Report –Gold River Multi-Use Bridge September 26, 2021 (Rev.1). ABLE Project #210128 -04 Condition Assessment 210128-04 13 structure. However, except in some locations where corrosion is note d as being more severe, many steel components appear to exhibit original or near original thicknesses. This observation was a bit of an initial surprise, but it appears that the tight -grained surface oxidation layer may be sealing the exposed metal and pro tecting it from further or rapid deterioration. More modern Grades of steel have been available that have been designed to withstand corrosion by generating a layer of sealing surface oxidation. Although a similar process may be taking place on the exposed metal surfaces at the Gold River bridge it appears that this may be a matter of happenstance rather than planned design. Some h eavier amounts of corrosion were found along the top flanges of the girders where dirt and debris can collect and retain moistu re, which has resulted in pack rust and deterioration of the angle bracing and gusset plates in these areas. Remnant p aint chips were removed from the girders and sent to a lab for analysis which indicated high levels of lead and other toxins . See appendix A for test results. Thickness readings were taken periodically throughout the girder inspection. See below for tabulated results for average readings as provided by Tacten (see also Appendix A): TYP. CROSS MEMBER CONNECTING PLATE-CENTER 0.453" PHOTO 39 TYP. CROSS MEMBER CONNECTING PLATE-CORNER 0.413" PHOTO 40 TYPICAL CROSS MEMBER 0.374" PHOTO 41 TYPICAL GIRDER WEB STIFFENERS 0.606" PHOTO 42 TYPICAL GIRDER WEB 0.510" PHOTO 43 See photos 24 -43 and supplemental photos 1 -7. 2.3.3 BEA RINGS P late steel bearings girder support points are located at the tops of all three masonry piers and provide the connection of the pier caps to the bottom flange ends of the main span steel plate girders . The Ea st and West piers of the bridge , located approximately at each r iver bank, support the fixed girder bearings points while the center pier supports non-fixed, sliding bearing s for each girder. The non -fixed sliding bearings allow for longitudinal movement of the girders at their supports which allows for longitudinal thermal expansion and contraction of the girders while not inducing horizontal longitudinal and thermally induced girder end reactions at the tops of the masonry piers. A fixed bearing connection is created using 1 ½” diameter anchor bolts connecting the layered and shimmed plate steel bearings to the masonry pier tower stone caps. The non-fixed bearing uses 1 ½” anchor bolts in combination with slotted holes and a bearing slide to allow for longitudinal thermal expansion movements of the girders while resist ing lateral forces . It has been observed and reported by our sub -consultant high angle inspection crew that the girder bearing assemblies exhibit significant visible corrosion throughout and that the s liding bearing s are no longer functioning . The sliding bearings are therefore considered to have failed. As a result of this failure, the tops of the stone masonry piers are exposed to and forced Condition Assessment Report –Gold River Multi-Use Bridge September 26, 2021 (Rev.1). ABLE Project #210128 -04 Condition Assessment 210128-04 14 to resist steel girder horizontal longitudinal thermal expansion and contraction forces. See photos 55 -58 There is some visible evidence that the ashlar stone blocks at the tops of the stone masonry piers supporting the sliding girder bearings at the centre pier have broken free from the pier caps and have been inadvertently providing the function of a sliding bearing . If this is actually taking place, then multiple one to two ton granite blocks are in motion and sliding on themselves in an uncontrolled fashion as dictated by forces induced by thermal expansion and contraction of the steel girder pairs. 2.3.4 STONE MASONRY PIERS Stone masonry piers are approximately 12’ long x 22’ wide at the base and 6 ’ x 16’ at the caps and are constructed of rock-faced granite ashlar stones which vary slightly in size, maximum 2’ x 4’ with uniform bed heights of about 20 to 26”(+/-). Stones were originally mortared together in a typical stretcher course arrangement . The piers vary in height depending on ground and foundation elevation, but nominal height is about 55 feet above the normal river water surface level . The pier interior is l ikely mostly rubble based filler material. The bridge is located on a horizontal curve on the railway alignment and as a result there is a slight super -elevation (lateral slope to the travelled surface) at the pier caps and at the bearing assemblies. Most of the mortared joints throughout all three masonry piers have either completely deteriorated or are providing minimal function. The pier cap joints were also found to be in poor condition, allowing water infiltration into the interior of the pier. This moisture will freeze in winter conditions and can damage the piers if the moisture cannot adequately evacuate the structure. Note that t he center pier cap and nearby stones show evidence movement . This could be the result of failed girder sliding bearings. Other undesirable observed conditions include vegetation growth at stone joints. Several stone blocks throughout the pier structures have been observed to be cracked and otherwise damaged. A description of observed damages is included in Appendix A – Masontech site inspection report . See photos 44-54. 3 EVALUATION 3.1 DETERIORATION & CONTEXT OF CONDITION A s tructure such as the Gold River Multi-Use Bridge would normally be expected to provide approximately 50 to 75 years of service life following initial construction so long as regular maintenance and repairs are carried out . This means that the bridge is already about 25 to 50 years past its expected service life. Condition Assessment Report –Gold River Multi-Use Bridge September 26, 2021 (Rev.1). ABLE Project #210128 -04 Condition Assessment 210128-04 15 The 2013 report by S NC indicated that known deficiencies will continue to become worse with time unless ef fort s are made to correct, control and prevent deterioration and degradation of structural elements of the bridge . ABLE agrees with that statement. Unfortunately, no repairs have been initiated since publication of the SNC document . Therefore, deteriorated conditions observed at site and described in th at report can be expected to have worsened since 2013. However, it should be noted that the bridge’s original construction and operational service conditions differ greatly from current service demands placed on the structure : As indicated, the bridge was originally built as a part of the Nova Scotia south shore railway network linking the city of Halifax to Liverpool in the Region of Queens Municipality (formerly Queens County) and other more inland commun ities. Upon closure of that rail line, existing related infrastructure such as railway bridges were not demolished, but were left in place and permitted to deteriorate for many years without on -going planned maintenance. Recent revival of the r ail line system and related infrastructure as primarily a pedestrian and bicycle trail exposes the bridge structures on the trail to vastly reduced live loadings. Because service load requirements for these structures have been so significantly reduced, it has been considered in recent years and by way of recent condition assessments (2001 and 2013) that even though the Gold River bridge has been subjected to significant deterioration since abandonment , that it has appeared to remain robust enough in its existing deteriorated condition to provide adequate structural capacities for its repurposed service. Although that consideration /assumption has been generally correct when applied to assessments of m any of the structures incorporated into the trail network , and in particular for lighter, sh orter span bridges, there are cases where remnant structures have been deemed inadequate for planned re -purposing and as a result have not been put back into re -purposed service without first receiving significant repairs and/or reconstruction. Larger and more complex structures such as the Gold River Multi-Use Bridge are constructed of more complex and inter -dependent structural systems than some smaller structures, and therefore are more dependent upon functionality of many specific com ponents. With the Gold River bridge those components include timber trestles and related parts , girder bearing assembl ies, and relatively high (and unreinforced) masonry pier supports. At larger structures, due to their overall size and component mass, and depending on over all condition of the remnant components, self -weight loads rather than reduced live service loads can dictate whether continued safe operability of that infrastructure is possible. Therefore, deficiencies in certain critical components in those larger stru ctures can present significant risk to the structural integrity of that infrastructure. Previous inspections and condition assessment reports for the Gold River have reported that remnant live load service capacities of deteriorating comp onents have at the time of those inspections appeared to be adequate for the structure to remain in service as a trail bridge. However, on-going repairs and planned maintenance is critically necessary if remnant structural capacities are to remain adequate . Very little on -going maintenance and repairs appear to have been carried out at the Gold River bridge since about the early to mid - 2000’s. W ithout repairs and on -going maintenance such structures , some already in excess of 100 years old, will have a ver y limited remaining service life expectation. Further, once significant Condition Assessment Report –Gold River Multi-Use Bridge September 26, 2021 (Rev.1). ABLE Project #210128 -04 Condition Assessment 210128-04 16 degradation becomes clearly apparent, the st ate of that deterioration is usually at an accelerated r ate. Such is the case at Gold River, where creosoted timber systems and metal fasten ing components are beginning to show significant visual deterioration, steel girder flanges are corroded in specific locations , girder support bearings have become non - functional , and masonry support piers exhibit what may be significant damage. 3.1.1 TIMBER TRESTLES The 2001 W augh condition assessm ent report found the Timber components, considering their age, to be in excellent condition. Using the same inspection techniques of visually assessing and hammer sounding used in th at inspection exercise many timbe r components were found to be still in good condition . However, although creosote has proven to be a very effective preservative treatment for timber components and an effective corrosion inhibitor for steel and other metal components such as fasteners, ma ny of the existing piles, braces and struts have begun to show their age with a slightly mottled surface appearance , surface splitting, delamination and brooming at saw -cut ends exposed to weather. Unfortunately, creosote treated timber used in infrastruct ure projects has a normal and finite expected service lifespan which is normally approximately 50 years. Longer service life is possible in some applications, such as structures which remain fully submerged or those in fully dry service and which are exposed to good air -flow around structural components. The Gold River bridge timber approach trestles a re structures which have been exposed to service conditions which are conducive to extended service life. However, adequate performance in service in excess o f 100 years for a timber structure without significant reconstruction or repairs is a rarity. After that much time in service even creosote treated wood in the Nova Scotia climate can start to become soft, and begin to lose strength as the wood fibres unde rgo a natural organic degradation . When such deterioration sets in the deterioration rate usually accelerates and structural components quickly lose integrity. Similarly, steel fasteners and related components in service in a mar ine climate quickly deterio rate once protective coatings wear away. This is the condition in which the timber trestle components are now found. Therefore, the trestle structures have significantly exceeded their practical service lives. Note that not all timber components are in a p oor condition. Existing stringers and rail ties (with some noted exceptions) appear to remain in very good condition. Some of those components, sheltered from rain and poor weather have remained so sound that hand -boring equipment meant for core sample ret rievals was damaged in the coring process, as the wood was so solid that it resisted cutting by that specialized tool. Although decaying of the ends of the timber cross bracin g members at the trestle structures was identified in 2001 , it was noted that such local degradation was not particularly extensive or serious at that time and that observed damage was at that time un likely to detrimentally affect the load carrying capacity of those components . However, the structure has seen an additional 20 years of service since that report was produced, and timber conditions appear to have generally det eriorated over that period . Much of the sawn end deterioration has extended into locations where metal connectors are utilized. Shear resistance of the wood fibres at many of those connections appears to have significantly degraded. Therefore, and in consideration of the age of the trestles, the timber trestles would now be classified as being in Condition Assessment Report –Gold River Multi-Use Bridge September 26, 2021 (Rev.1). ABLE Project #210128 -04 Condition Assessment 210128-04 17 poor condition . The trestles are exhibiting only limited remaining expected effective service life without extensive re pair/reconstruction or replacement . Note however that undertaking a trestle repair project is now no longer practical, the structures must be replaced. It is not practical to repair the trestle structure s and leave some 100+ year-old partially deteriorated timber components and metal fasteners (with limited remaining service expected life) in place. Therefore, and due to the nature of the timber trestle structure, and the expected extent of required disassembly needed during a repair exercise, it will be more expedient and much more worthwhile to replace those timber trestle structures in their entirety rather than attempt to repair or reconstruct. Although a lternative methods of repairing piles have been explored , such work would not result in any expected service life improvements. See photo 22 which identifies a previous pile splice repair. Such a repair technique should be avoided unless adequate supplemental struts and bracing are installed to provide improved lateral rigidity at the joint. Such repairs should not be considered to be permanent and should not be implemented in a wide -spread manner. The layout and details of the timber trestles can be found in Appendix D. Replacement of som e deteriorated timber rail ties was recommended in 2001. It is unknown whether/when that work was carried out. Photos 17-18 show severe deterioration of replacement rail ties. Th ose newer ties have decayed at a much faster rate than adjacent original creosote treated timber parts and are now Creosote treatment has proven itself over ma ny years to be one of the most effective means of protecting timber structures from rot and decay. However, creosote and related coal -tar based products are extremely toxic and are known carci nogens. Therefore, very little timber is so treated nowadays. E ven creosote protection does not last forever, and rot based deterioration has occurred at the porous ends of the various timbers which may have been cut to size at site during original constru ction, and after factory creosote treatment. Evaluation of t imber core retrieved samples generally confirmed findings of visual examinations and hammer-sounding assessment s. (See photos 59 -65) Core samples proved rot existed where suspected and existence of good quality wood beneath the creosote d exterior is found elsewhere. However, all examinations revealed some degree of visible deterioration in most timber components of the trestle structures. The timber trestle structure would benefit from the removal of natural vegetation (trees and shrubs) nearby the structure as vegetation growth as observed can impede air flow around timber components and can thereby promote accelerated timber decay. Enhanced f ree-flow of air around above -ground structures usually improves service longevity. Note that the overall findings of the current timber inspection broadly resemble what was found by SNC in 2013, except that the extent and severity of degradation appears to now be worse. 3.1.2 STEEL PLATE GIRDERS Steel plate girders were determined to be in mostly very good condition in 2001 with o nly limited evidence of significant corrosion . In 2013 the steel plate girders and angle bracing Condition Assessment Report –Gold River Multi-Use Bridge September 26, 2021 (Rev.1). ABLE Project #210128 -04 Condition Assessment 210128-04 18 were deemed to be in good condition with some minor surface rusting, while the top flange plates and gusset plates exhibited visible evidence of surface rusting at a few locations. In the current examination i t was noted that the top flange of the plate girders was experiencing some decay in several areas due to moisture being trapped between the flange and the rail ties where dust and debris has been able to accumulate . Heavy amounts of pack rust were found in locations at girder bottom flange stiffener connection s where the stiffener ties into the flange. The areas of note were located along the flat portion of the girders and on the internal sides of the girders. Approximately 40% of the connections were affected. See Appendix A – supplemental photos 6 -7 for reference and associated markup sketch indicating location. Note that along the girder top flanges approximately 50% of the vertical cross bracing upper corner connection plates had heavy amounts of pitting and corrosion . Some of these plates will require replacement. See Appendix A - supplemental photos 4 -5 for reference and associated marku p sketch indicating location. Approximately 90 -95% of the top chord horizontal diagonal bracing connection gusset plates had significant amounts of pitting and corrosion (heaviest on the top side) throughout the steel assemblies. Some of these bracing plates will require replacement. See Appendix A - supplemental photos 1 -3 for reference and associated markup sketch indicating location. Extent and a mounts of damage and corrosion observed in this inspection exercise appear to have progressed since 2013. This should come as no surprise since the degradation process is one that continues if not abated. As well, there are areas of significant corrosion at the girders that appear to have not been identified in previous reports. One of these locations is identified in Appendix A - Photo 36 where there is relatively heavy pitting along the bottom flange. W here significant metal degradation has been observed and it is determined that repairs are necessary, it is recommended that replacement pieces be engineered and installed as full moment bolted connection splices (allowing full bending stress and tension/compression transfer). These repair pieces will have to be bolted into the girder section s as and where necessary to provide near like -for-like repairs to the existing riveted structure. As previously indicated, the existing structural steel likely has a high carbon content which will make provision of effective structural steel repairs by way of welding impractical . A protective coating (paint) was at one time applied to the steel girder assemblies . That coating appears to have failed several decades ago, sometime prior to 2001. However, the steel utilized in primary girder components in construction of this bridge, produced in the early 1900’s appears to have the ability to surface oxidize and seal itself , reducing its exposure to corrosive conditions and compounds . A light but uniform layer of surface corrosion was observed on most exposed steel surfaces . That surface oxidation is comparable, to what was described in the 2013 inspection report. As a result, and given the limited structural steel corrosion damage observed at the bridge, it appears that blasting and recoating is not necessary. Further, costs associated with environmental protection associated with steel surface preparation/media blasting of high - lead remnant paint can be avoi ded. (Note that similar conditions were recently discovered at Condition Assessment Report –Gold River Multi-Use Bridge September 26, 2021 (Rev.1). ABLE Project #210128 -04 Condition Assessment 210128-04 19 the Liverpool Mersey River rail crossing bridge. Due to the condition of the existing steel at that location it was deci ded to not recoat that structure.) However, r emnants of the previous protective coating will hold moisture and contribute to further unwanted corrosion in those areas and should therefore be mechanically removed and disposed of off -site. This inspection confirmed the plate girders and associated stiffeners and bracing generally remain in fair condition, and that local repairs will be necessary in order to maintain steel girder structural integrity. 3.1.3 BEARINGS The expansion bearings specifically were noted to be rusty in 2001. The 2013 inspection found all bearings to be in poor condition and in need of replacement. This inspection confirmed there is heavy corrosion in all the bearing plates and that there has been no visible free movement at the sliding bearings for some time . As a result, it is concluded that that the sliding bearings (at least) have failed. See photo 56. The bearing plates have been deteriorating for many years. As they have corroded the coefficient of friction between the sliding bearing plates has steadil y increased. That means that although vertical bridge girder loads and reactions may still be adequately distributed to bridge masonry support piers, effectiveness of sliding bearings to accommodate longitudinal girder movements h as been becoming less and less efficient. In their current condition the sliding bearings are non -functional. Based on bridge code calculations the expected total thermally induced longitudinal movement for the 73’ girders is expected to be about 0.75 to 1.0 inches. Without adequat ely operating sliding support bearings at one end of each pair of girders the tops of the rigid masonry piers will be forced to resist longitudinal forces associated with that movement. Those forces will be considerable and will be measured in tons. The stone piers have not been constructed with the intent of being able to withstand such horizontal loadings. Although the thermal expansion and contraction of the girders is not a large dimension in terms of the existing bridge height and span, this is a sign ificant distance when considering the inherent rigidity and brittle nature of the supporting vertical stone masonry piers. Such induced loadings at the pier tops will force the rigid and unreinforced stone masonry piers into flexure and to act as vertical cantilevers . Such loading will eventually result in significant damage to the masonry structures , rendering the piers unstable in service. There is some visible evidence that stone blocks supporting the bearings at the masonry pier caps may have worked loo se and are now shifting and inadvertently providing allowance for expansion and contraction of the steel girders. This condition represents instability in the bridge structure. See photos 47 -51. Although visual examinations suggest that the bridge masonry piers are not in imminent danger of collapse, such condition s represents a structural instability that must be mitigated as soon as practical. However, due to recent pandemic restrictions and manufacturing slow - downs many replacement bridge bearings have b ecome relatively long delivery items and therefore cannot be replaced at short notice. Condition Assessment Report –Gold River Multi-Use Bridge September 26, 2021 (Rev.1). ABLE Project #210128 -04 Condition Assessment 210128-04 20 Therefore, as temperatures cool and the main span steel girders contract, implementation of a masonry pier cap and bearing monitoring program to observe and measure p ier cap stone blocks displacements and/or pier tower wobble/deflections is warranted . Such an information gathering exercise will enable more precise determinations of wh ether or not and to what degree the bridge structure is experiencing structural failure. Note that the optimum time for bearing replacement activity may be during warmer months when the bridge span is at or near its maximum expansion and night temperatures are not significantly lower than day temperatures. Also note that it is recommended that bearing replacements be undertaken as part of a wider masonry pier tower reconstruction effort as bearings cannot be fully replaced until masonry pier caps are stabilized and yet, pier caps cannot be stabilized until bearings are again functioning adequately. Bearings can be temporarily accessed for replacement via a partial disassembly of the bridge deck travelled way and temporary removal of rail ties in the vicinity of the bridge bearings. The bridge will have to be temporarily closed to the public while bearings replacement work is underway. 3.1.4 STONE MASONRY PIERS The stone masonry piers that support the mai n span steel girders are gravity-type structures that primarily support vertical loads and reactions , and are dependent upon on their self -mass and geometry for stability and resistance of light to moderate horizontal loads. These structures are no t reinforced with steel and have no significant tensile or flexural structural capacity. Such structures are considered to be rigid and inflexible , and not intended to resist significant horizontal live loads. It is especially important that the piers not be exposed to concentrated horizontal live loads applied at the tops of the piers. These structures are wholly reliant on the ir mass and cohesive interconnection of their parts for structural integrity and stability. Although each of the pier tower structu res has a geometry which provides accommodation (resistance) for moderate lateral loads associated with wind or earthquakes, the tops of the stone masonry piers are not intended to ever be exposed to concentrated horizontal longitudinal loadings associated with thermal expansion/contraction of the steel girder pairs. If the tops of the piers are subjected to such forces the piers will be prone to significant structural damage. Such damage and continued unintended loadings can eventually result in an uncontr olled collapse of the structure. Therefore, it is imperative that the girder bearings always be maintained in serviceable condition. It is critically important that the integrity of all the components of these constructed pier supports (including girder be arings) be kept well maintained for so long as the masonry pier towers remain in service. Other c omponents that must be maintained in good condition include, but are not limited to : foundation material; stone blocks; mortar; drains and vents; cap stones; m echanical fastenings; and, joints and seals. Condition Assessment Report –Gold River Multi-Use Bridge September 26, 2021 (Rev.1). ABLE Project #210128 -04 Condition Assessment 210128-04 21 Severe mortar joint deterioration in all three piers and pier caps was observed in 2013. Similar observations have been made as part of this inspection , although it appears that mortar deterioration at the piers is more exten sive in 2021 than was reported in 2013. Note that loss of mortar in stone masonry structures over a period of at least 100 years is not surprising. Some of the older mortar mixes didn’t have the long -term durability that more modern mixes now exhibit . O lder lime-based mortar mixes are easily damaged by movement and/or vibration. Probable causes for mortar failure at Gold River are: Long -term exposure to weathering ; Exposure to i nduced vibrations from normal railway transport l oadings; Freeze thaw cycle damage and exposure to moisture that may enter the piers via the joints in the stone pier caps; Unintended movement of component stones in the pier structure; Unintended flexure (wobble) of the rigid pier structure s due to exposure to forces related to expansion and contraction of the steel girder spans . Long term exposure to wind and rain will eventually degrade and damage cementitious mortars and grouts. This damage is usually characterized by the grout eroding from the joints between stones, or having pieces of grout literally fall out of the joints as they de-bond from the granite stone . Rail cars and locomotives induce heavy loadings and high frequency vibration s into structures such as rail bridges. Stone masonry construct ion is relatively rigid and brittle and is therefore prone to damage when exposed to such cyclical and high impact loadings. Such vibrations will tend to crack mortar and stone . Since older masonry mortar is not usually reinforced, pieces of the mortar wil l fall out of the joints as they flex and fracture. Cementitious mortar is prone to freeze and thaw damage in winter months especially in the presence of moisture. The mortar will absorb moisture, especially at cracks, and when that moisture freezes it wi ll expand and cause further cracking in those cementitious components. This can become a more severe problem if moisture is permitted to enter the core of the structure and can not evacuate via installed drains or vents at the mortar joints. Under such cond itions that moisture can exert hydrostatic pressure on the interior surface of the stone blocks and mortar joint s. Such pressure will tend to move the blocks and push the mortar or mortar remnants out of the joint. If stone blocks experience non-uniform movement, pieces of the mortar joint will break and fall from the masonry pier structures . Stone cap joints in their current condition are recognized as a source for water ingress to the pier cores in the 2013 SNC report, and correction of this condition was identified therein as a high priority repair item. As indicated, t hose repairs were not carried out subsequent to the 2013 inspection report. Girder sliding bearings no longer function. Therefore it is probable that forces associated with thermal expansi on/contraction of the steel girders may be inducing loads which cause local movement in stone blocks. Any non -uniform movement of stone blocks in the masonry piers will cause a mechanical failure of the mortar. Condition Assessment Report –Gold River Multi-Use Bridge September 26, 2021 (Rev.1). ABLE Project #210128 -04 Condition Assessment 210128-04 22 Because girder sliding b earings no longer function, it is probable that forces associated with thermal expansion/contraction of the steel girders may be inducing a wobble to the pier towers. If the pier towers flex, or blocks move in a non -uniform manner a mechanical failure of the mortar will resu lt. M issing and cracked mortar within the masonry stone joints is widespread. Block mortar is not only essential to preserving structural integrity of pier tower stone blocks, it also provides resistance to water infiltration at the masonry core material, and thereby reduces the effects of detrimental freeze and thaw cycles. Therefore mortar repair remains a top repair priority for the masonry structures . Failure to repair the mortar will lead to more serious and more visible structural deterioration in the stone masonry. Mortar appears to have originally extended into the stone joints at least several inches. High quality replacement mortar should extend similarly into the joints to form tight and secure bond s between stone blocks. A repointing effort shoul d be carried out to adequately seal the structure from on -going moisture infiltration while allowing remnant core moisture a means for draini ng and venting from the structure. Repaired mortar should be inspected regularly post repair, and further repairs periodically implemented upon discovery of new damage. Stone damage will normally occur as a result of mechanical impact loadings (sometimes these impacts are repetitive), exposure to other concentrated stresses and/or expansion of existing cracking via fr eeze-thaw activity and/or non -uniform movement in the piers . Stone blocks can chip, spall , break and split depending on source and type of loading responsible for observed damage. If internal hydrostatic loads develop, those forces can displace unanchored stone blocks. As well, failure at sliding bearing components can also result in block damage and displacement. Light damage to blocks such as corner cracks and spalling can sometimes be accommodated by the structure without significant repair efforts. A m ortar repair may remedy a corner or edge crack, while a small surface spall may not require any attention. Replacement is usually the most effective means for correcting severe block damage. Such damage would include breaking, splitting, lateral or angular fracture or crushing damage. However, depending on location and the amount of disassembly or shoring of the structure that might be necessary, block replacement may not be a feasible alternative. In that case, local in -situ repairs might be more practical . Such repairs may involve one or more of the following repair techniques and materials: Use of epoxy adhesives to bond damaged parts ; Tools to bore into th e block to allow the installation of metal rods and other mechanical fasteners to re-join damaged b lock parts . Installation of smaller patch Dutchman blocks or simple mortar infills as appropriate. Typically each individual damaged stone block should be independently assessed for whether damage should be repair ed. If a damaged block is to be repaired , it should be determined which repair method is best to be employed in the repair of that pa rticular block. In 2013 the masonry stones were found to be in relatively good condition. In 2021 while most of the stone blocks remain in good condition, some stone s have been found to exhibit some movements , splits and cracks. Condition Assessment Report –Gold River Multi-Use Bridge September 26, 2021 (Rev.1). ABLE Project #210128 -04 Condition Assessment 210128-04 23 As indicated, masonry piers probably originally incorpor ated a rubble filled core. Loss of mortar from the stone block joints can also result in loss of fine material from the core. The longer that joints are left open, the longer that the core may be subjected to migration of material. Photo 49 shows a tape measure inserted into a missing mortar joint of the centre pier as part of the most recent inspection exercise. It Measures approxima tely 7’ deep until reaching firm core material. A similar picture from the 2013 report also shows a tape measure in a missing mortar joint of the centre pier. The measuring tape probe measured approximately 4’ deep at that location at that time. So, the st one masonry pier tower structures are not intended to resist significant horizontal loads , or to resist horizontal forces associated with longitudinal thermal expansion of steel girders. Functioning s upport bearings are intended to protect the masonry pier s from being exposed to expansion/contraction related horizontal longitudinal loads from the steel girders . To correct overloading and/or structural destabilizations the stone masonry pier towers must be repaired and girder support bearings must be replace d. Masonry piers repair scope should include the following: Repointing of any open joints; Repair of fractured granite ashlar; Resetting of dislodged granite blocks; Installation of drain and vent holes in the mortared joints ; Caulking of joints in top of granite caps with a high quality sealer is required; Dutchman repairs to granite blocks should be carried out where determined necessary; Cleaning of granite surfaces (Optional). See attached masonry pier inspection report from Masontech Limited in Appendi x A. 4 SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS The findings and recommendations of this bridge structure inspection and condition assessment report are based on visual examination and experienced engineering judgement. Note that this report compilation is not a detailed engineering design exercise meant to specifically derive damage mitigations for planned repairs. Rather, this document is an inspection and condition assessment of existing structural components condition with the intent to identify deficiencies and to pro vide conceptual r epair alternatives and related Order of Magnitude budgetary construction cost estimates. It appears, from visual examinations that damage and structural distress being experienced by the bridge is extensive and will eventually lead t o general structural failure . However, there are no current definitive visual indications that the bridge is in imminent danger of collapse. However, such a finding should be confirmed by more detailed measurement and data collection at site. More detailed measurement and data i nterpretation is required to enable a more precise determination of whether or not the structure is experiencing stresses and distortions that will lead to structural failure in the short term. To that end a monitoring, measurement and inspection plan that can record and compare variable distortions is re commended. Section 4.1 Condition Assessment Report –Gold River Multi-Use Bridge September 26, 2021 (Rev.1). ABLE Project #210128 -04 Condition Assessment 210128-04 24 of this report describes the recommended inspection and monitoring requirements that can be carried out over the next several months and which will provide more detailed data enabling more accurate determination of the level of distress that the structure is experiencing. The list of r equired repairs for the structure is extensive and will probably become larger as partial disassembly and repair activities are likely to reveal further deficiencies . Gold River Multi-Use Bridge has seen limited on -going repairs and planned maintenance since the early 2000’s . The structure is now in excess of 100 years old and is in need of extensive repairs and reconstructions if it is to remain in service . Because of t he extent and nature of damage and deteriorations on primary and secondary structural comp onents it is not possible to derive existing dead load and service load capacities except by the most conservative methods and by incorporation of the most conservative assumptions. However, if necessary repairs are carried out, once they are com pleted a reasonable assessment of actual post reconstruction structural capacities can be derived. Similarly, the extent of bridge damage and required repairs is such that it is not possible without detailed measurement data to accurately derive a reasonable deterio ration rate or remaining service life for the structure. Further, since many of the structural components of the bridge are already at or beyond their expected service lives, deterioration rates and estimates of remaining service life are irrelevant. As indicated, r epair requirements are extensive, and a phased approach for repairs and reconstruction works may be appropriate. Recommended work includes replacement of timber trestles at each approach to the structure, repairs to main span steel plate girders assemblies , replacement of girder bearing assemblies , and repairs to stone masonry girder support piers. No cost or scheduling allowance has been made for environmental permitting or related applications or consultations required for repair/reconstruction construction a pprovals. A brief description of four possible alternatives for the existing bridge structure are listed and described in Section 4.2 below. A repairs option, two replacement options a e well as a removal from service and decommissioning option (without repla cement) are considered and summarized. The listed options are all costly, but are worthy of consideration in moving forward . Please refer to Appendix C for related construction cost estimates. Note that to do nothing and to let the bridge continue to fall further into disrepair is not a pra ctical option given the potential public safety risk and environmental liabilities that could result from a n eventual uncontrolled structural collapse. Breakdown of costs are included in Appendix C. All listed cost estimates are considered to be Class 4 i n conformance with AACE International Cost Estimate Classification System, and are therefore exclusive of contingency am ounts and applicable taxes. Since there are no definitive visible indications of imminent failure it is difficult to precisely determine when the bridge will fail. However, has been determined that due to the observed Condition Assessment Report –Gold River Multi-Use Bridge September 26, 2021 (Rev.1). ABLE Project #210128 -04 Condition Assessment 210128-04 25 con d ition of the bridge and its support components it is a certainty that the bridge is at risk of s tructural failure. Therefore, it is recommended that MODC to immediately remove the Gold River Multi -Use Bridge from service and close it to public access until such time that required repairs and reconstructions can be completed. 4.1 PRE-REFURBISHMENT MONITORING AND MEASUREMENT INSPECTION PROGRAM Sliding expansion bearing assemblies at the top of the central stone masonry girder support tower are no longer functional. The primary purpose of those bearings (and the non -sliding bearings located at the tops of the east and west towers) is to transfer vertical reaction loads from the steel main span girders to each of the main support piers, and to accommodate horizontal longitudinal movements associated with thermal expansion and contraction of the steel girders via a horizontal sliding connections (expansion bearings). Accommodation of those m ovements at the bearing assemblies prevents imposition of horizontal loads at the tops of the stone masonry pier towers which are associated with resistance of expansion and contraction of the steel girder assemblies. The stone masonry piers are gravity st ructures and when in good repair have a very significant vertical load capacity (having been constructed to carry railway locomotive and freight car loadings). However, unlike modern reinforced concrete bridge support structures, the rigid stone masonry pi ers are unreinforced. Therefore the piers have a limited capacity to withstand imparted horizontal longitudinal and lateral loadings before experiencing fracture and possible eventual structural failure. Therefore a loss of functionality of girder support bearings and the accompanying loss of capacity to accommodate expansion and contraction of major steel components is potentially a very serious structural deficiency at the bridge. Since the sliding expansion bearings at the central pier are no longer func tioning, considerable longitudinal horizontal loads are now being imparted to the tops of the masonry support piers when the steel girders expand and when they contract. The nominal thermal gradient (coldest normal expected winter steel temperature to war mest expected summer steel temperature, based on normal ambient temperatures) appear to induce about 0.75 to about 1.0 inches expansion and contraction in each steel girder span. Although that expansion is not of an overly large magnitude given the total s pan of each girder, given the overall size of the girders the force required to resist horizontal girder expansion and contraction will be measured in tons. Under these conditions, with non -functioning sliding expansion bearings at the central pier, the girders will in warm weather go into axial compression and push against each other at the central support pier . This may result in a reaction where the expanding girders thus push the tops of the east and west masonry piers further from the central pier. In this loading condition the east and west piers will act as vertical cantilevers to resist steel girder horizontal expansion. Such horizontal loading will be expected to cause some longitudinal horizontal deflection at the tops of the east and west pier towers. In cold conditions pier horizontal loadings opposi te to those experienced in warm conditions will occur. When cold, the girders will go into tension as they contract. Under cold horizontal loading conditions longitudinal horizontal forces at the tops of the east and west piers will reverse, drawing the to ps of those piers closer to the central pie r tower. In addition, a Condition Assessment Report –Gold River Multi-Use Bridge September 26, 2021 (Rev.1). ABLE Project #210128 -04 Condition Assessment 210128-04 26 significant shear or vertical tearing stress will be imparted to the top and approximate lateral centre line of the central pier to resist girder tensile forces from both directions when th e girders contract. The contraction induced forces at the top of the central pier will literally be trying to tear the top of that pier apart in opposite directions while the tops of the east and west piers are pulled in a direction opposite to how they ar e loaded in warm weather. Since the pier girder expansion bearing assemblies are no longer functional, it should be noted that the bridge is located on a horizontal curve in the former railway alignment. Therefore opposing horizontal loads at the top of th e central pier are not equal and opposite, are not balanced and will not cancel each other. Instead, an unbalanced circumferential resultant load will be experienced at the top of the central pier under those conditions. In warm weather that reaction will be induced by girder compression in a direction normal (at a right angle) to the outside of the curve alignment at the top of the central pier. In cooler weather, a similar but opposite net lateral unbalanced load reaction will be produced by girder contra ction (tension) at the inside of the curve a t the top of the central pier. Left u nmitigated, these loads will eventually destabilize the central masonry pier tower. These loads and reactions may induce a measurable wobble at each of the masonry pier towers . The failed bearings may not only induce lateral movements in the pier towers. As indicated, since the un -mortared stone blocks may now be only held in place by self -weight and friction, stone blocks which are rigidly attached to existing bearing assemb lies may be unstable and disconnected from the pier caps. Such stones may have inadvertently assumed the function of the sliding expansion bearing assemblies. This phenomenon may be occurring at the east and west piers caps as well as at the top of the cen tral pier. When weather is warm and the sun is shining on the steel girders they may experience higher than normal theoretical temperature gradients and may experience even greater expansion rates than that suggested above. Therefore, depending on how the piers actually react to each other in warm and cold conditions, and how well the masonry structures resist these horizontal longitudinal loadings, the east and west structures could each be subjected to as much as an inch of net sway (or more), while the central pie r stone masonry tower cap and bearing seats could consist of stone blocks which are floating on top of the pier structure, no longer effectively rigidly interconnected with the other blocks. If it is in tended to return the Gold River Multi -Use Bridge to service, establishment of a comprehensive monitoring and measurement progr am is worthwhile and is recommended. Such a program should span the next several months at least, and should collect precise and detailed geometric data on bridge deflections/distortions and measurable bridge pier non- uniform movements. A comprehensive monitoring and measu rement program will be one that provides precise monitoring and measuring of longitudinal and lateral pier sway and deflections as well as providing data on possible individual gr anite block instabilities and relative movements of those blocks. Engineerin g interpretation of collected site data will be a necessary part of such a program. Through data interpretation it should be possible to make determination as to whether or not the bridge structure is at risk of imminent collapse. Condition Assessment Report –Gold River Multi-Use Bridge September 26, 2021 (Rev.1). ABLE Project #210128 -04 Condition Assessment 210128-04 27 An effective monitoring program would involve repeated visits to site to measure and re - measure the locations of points on the bridge in three dimensions over a period of time to identify any changes in relative dimensions and geometry at varying ambient temperatures. Measuremen ts taken in warm and in cold conditions would be compared. Changes in measured distances and/or locations of reference points on the bridge relative to established independent control points would be indicative of movement, flexure or displacement at the b ridge structure. From that data the amount of movement in the tops of bridge piers, for instance, can be accurately determined. It may at some time become apparent during such a monitoring program that keeping a record of the precise length of the main gir der bridge spans through warm and cold weather may also be useful. However, that may add cost to a monitoring program. The focus of information collection in this program must be on how much the rigid pier structures actually move, and whether there is any relative measurable individual stone block component movement. A Total Station (TS) survey is a method of electronic surveying of structures with Electronic Distance Measuring (EDM) devices to accurately determine straight line distances as well as horizontal and vertical angles to selected points on the structure relative to established stationary control locations. When measured distances and angles are located by triangulation and are plotted in three dimensions, measured points on the structure can b e located in space relative to established stationary control points. Small changes in measured dimensions and angles from one site visit to the next would represent structural displacements. A TS survey method is probably the easiest and most effective me ans for establishing and monitoring overall bridge and pier geometry and general structural displacements. Monitoring of selected points on the bridge structure would be carried out by the installation of reflective offset prisms rather than metal pins. Pr isms will allow accurate measurements to be taken with the total station base unit without having to place a movable target on various fixed pins at hard to get at locations. Note that many prism installations will have to be carried out in hard to get at and high angle locations. Therefore it is likely that a contractor such as Tacten would be required to carry out those prism installs. It may be necessary to carry out some pre-construction vegetation and tree cutting and clearing at site to en sure adequate si te lines for the TS survey to be effective. Such a monitoring program should be arranged to easily collect as much pertinent bri dge structural and geometric data as possible while being able to illustrate with collected data the existing bridge conditi on/geometry and relative displacements at various ambient temperatures. A comprehensive TS type survey with established local control points (and a tie - in with other technology such as Lidar) can be used to collect data, establish geometry and monitor dime nsional changes in the structure. However, a TS survey will in all likelihood not be a practical means for identifying or monitoring possible movement of granite blocks relative to the position of masonry pier support structure in which those blocks reside . Collection of detailed cut ashlar stone block location/movement data will require the introduction of a 3D laser scan survey. By adding the laser scan data collection enhancement, Condition Assessment Report –Gold River Multi-Use Bridge September 26, 2021 (Rev.1). ABLE Project #210128 -04 Condition Assessment 210128-04 28 a much more complete picture of movements of structural components in the stone masonry piers can be determined. Regardless of the level of precision which is available with a TS or laser scan survey data collection exercise, each site visit will only provide a snap -shot in time of the geometric conditions of the bridge at the time of a particular visit to site. However, accumulated geometric changes over time can determine whether or not structural displacements are excessive, and to what degree such displacements are indicative of structural distress. Therefore it is recommend ed that site data collection exercises not necessarily be pre - scheduled, but rather they should be planned to be carried out to coincide with weather conditions which might be at approximate warm and cold extremes, if/when possible. In addition, special in spections should also be carried out after significant storm or environmental events. Observed damage or deformations discovered during those inspections should be referred for engineering assessment and repaired without delay. Although once prisms are in place and any required laser targets are installed much of the site surveying can be carried out by a single technician, it is recommended that for safety reasons there should always be a second technician (or helper) on site during data collection acti vities in case of injury or exposure to unexpected environmental conditions. MODC should be always aware of when a data collection survey is underway at site. For budgetary purposes, it is expected that once prisms are in place and an initial site control survey and the initial bridge spatial survey are completed a further eight to t en site visits for follow -ups through autumn, winter and spring may be required. Some scope adjustment may be required during the execution of a monitoring program at the Gold R iver Multi-Use Bridge, therefore a budget price range estimate for establish ing and carrying out that work has been derived and is expected to be about $75,000 (plus HST). A basic cost breakdown for Monitoring Program work is as follows: Cost of Prisms (allowance - 20 prisms) $10,000 Prism Installations by High -Angle Team (allow two days) $ 8,500 Initial Site Se t-up, Establishment of Control Points (allowance) $ 5,000 Initial TS Survey and 3D Laser Scan of Structure (allowance) $10,000 Trips to Site for Collection and Assembly of Geometric Data (allow 10 trips) $30,000 Structural Interpretation of Surveying Results (allowance) $ 5,000 Overhead and Insurance Costs (allowance) $ 6,500 Condition Assessment Report –Gold River Multi-Use Bridge September 26, 2021 (Rev.1). ABLE Project #210128 -04 Condition Assessment 210128-04 29 4.2 BRIDGE REFURBISHMENT OPTIONS AND RELATED COST ESTIMATES The following is a list of estimated costs and allowances for bridge repair/replacement and abandonment options. Option 1 : Make all necessary repairs t o the existing structure , including timber trestle approaches replacements, repairs to steel girder main spans, r eplacement of bearing assemblies, refurbishment of stone masonry piers. Estimated Cost: $3,100,000 . Option 2 : Replace entire structure at site (option to refurbish, reconfigure and maintain existing stone masonry piers. Estimated cost: $4,034,000 . Option 3 : Replace entire structure at a new site such as adjacent the Trunk Rte. No. 3 bridge crossing Gold River within the highway right of way (if po ssible). Estimated cost includes allowances for extending trails/bike lanes and or sidewalks from the existing trail to the new Gold River crossing location, an allowance for expropriations and costs which may be required to incorporate new trail component s within the existing highway rights of way and an estimate of costs for abandoning and decommissioning the existing bridge. Estimated Cost: $3,500,000. Option 4 : Abandon and decommission existing structure without replacement. Estimated Cost: $1,000,000. A summary of work scopes and costs for Options 1 through 4 is as follows in sections 4.2.1, through 4.2.4: 4.2.1 OPTION 1 – MAKE ALL NECESSARY REPAIRS TO EXISTING BRIDGE 4.2.1.1 Replace ment of East and West Timber Trestle Approaches: Disassemble, demolish , remove and dispose of two existing Timber Trestles Approach Structures Replace Timber Trestles Approach Structures with new marine grade treated timber and galvanized fastening components Replace deteriorated rail ties with like -size marine grade treated hemlock. Loose or damaged decking boards at main span and approaches to be re -fastened or replaced. Approximate Expected Service Life Extension 25 years Component Cost Estimate Allowance $1,400,000 4.2.1.2 Steel Plate Girders Repairs : Removal of d eteriorated guss et plates and bracing and replace ment with galvanized or otherwise protected components . Replacement of d eteriorated portions of top and bottom flanges. Condition Assessment Report –Gold River Multi-Use Bridge September 26, 2021 (Rev.1). ABLE Project #210128 -04 Condition Assessment 210128-04 30 NO WELDING . Due to probable high carbon content in the existing steel main span girders it is unlikely that existing steel is readily weldable. Therefore, a ll replacement components to be bolted with high -strength fasteners. Where steel is to be replaced, only bolted connections are to be permitted . Loose and remnant existing protective coating and grit accumulations to be mechanically removed (where practical) and collected, disposed of off -site to reduce moisture collection and reduce potential for further corrosion in those locations . NO SAND or MEDIA BLASTING. Sand or media b lasting to be avoided for env ironmental protection purposes , also to avoiding a reduction in steel thickness and costs associated with proper removal and disposal. Approximate Expected Service Life Extension 25 years Component Construction Cost Estimate Allowance: $350,000 4.2.1.3 Bearings As sembly Replacements : Removal and reinstatement/repairs of bridge decking and former rail ties at bearings locations to allow access to tops of pier towers and bearing assemblies. Replacement of fixed steel bearings at shoreline masonry pier towers. Replace ment of e xpansion sliding bearings at centre masonry pier tower with elastomeric bearing pad s and steel plate component s that will accommodate longitudinal movements of steel plate girders associated with thermal expansion and contraction of girder assembl ies. Bearing seats at masonry piers will require re-anchorage and/or reconstruction . Approximate Expected Service Life Extension 25 years Component Construction Cost Estimate Allowance: $250,000 4.2.1.4 Stone Masonry Piers Repairs : A 100% repointing of the mortar joints. Including installation of vents and drain holes. All vegetation rooted in masonry joints to be removed. Re-install pier caps blocks to original position . Pier cap stones re -pointed and -sealed. Resetting dislodged granite and repairing fractured granite and joints. This may include the provision of cut granite inserts (dutchm an pieces). Bearing seats to be repaired or reconstructed. o Since we do not have access to any original design drawings, the appropriate bearing seat repair methodology may not be known until the existing bearings components are disassembled and removed . It may be appropriate to grout the masonry pier cores , but more engineering is required before a final determination can be made on that repair alternative . Cleaning of the ston es for aesthetic purposes (OPTIONAL). Approximate Expected Service Life Extension 25 years Component Construction Cost Allowance: $1,100,000 (add $150,000 for cleaning masonry stone surfaces .) Condition Assessment Report –Gold River Multi-Use Bridge September 26, 2021 (Rev.1). ABLE Project #210128 -04 Condition Assessment 210128-04 31 4.2.1.5 Total Estimate of Costs OPTION 1 – Make All Necessary Repairs : Approximate Expected Service Life Extension 25 years Total Construction Cost Allowance for OPTION 1: $3,100,000 (add $150,000 for cleaning masonry stone surfaces.) 4.2.2 OPTION 2 – REPLACE ENTIRE STRUCTURE AT EXISTING SITE Existing steel plate girders and beari ngs removed and disposed of $700,000, includes cost for new crane access road on east side of the river to access east span. Remove and dispose of existing timber trestle structures $100,000. Replacement bridge structure cost (4 spans) about $734,000 (fabr ication only). Replacement bridge Installation and bearings $800,000. Stone masonry piers must be repaired or replaced as part of this option in order for new bridge spans to be installed (1,100,000). East and west stone masonry piers must be strengthened or enhanced to provide support for new spans which will replace timber trestle structure (allowance $400,000). Construct new bridge concrete abutments at each end of bridge to support new steel spans which will replace timber trestle structures. ($200,000). Approximate Expected Service Life Extension: 35 years Total Construction Cost Allowance for OPTION 2: $4,034,000 4.2.3 OPTION 3 – REMOVE FROM SERVICE AND DECOMMISSION EXISTING STRUCTURE AND PROVIDE REPLACEMENT STRUCTURE AT A NEW LOCATION Existing timber trestles, steel plate girders , bearings and masonry piers removed and disposed of $1,000,000, includes cost for new crane access road on east side of the river to access east span and approach . Replacement bridge structure cost (single span) (allowance $350,000 - fabrication only). Construct new bridge concrete abutments at each end of bridge to support new steel span ($2 50,000). Replacement bridge Installation (allowance $400,000.) Construct new bike path/sidewalks from existing trails along paved roadway right of way (allowance $500,000) Costs associated with land acquisition/agreement with provincial Highways Department for construction in or near the highway Right of Way. (allowance $500,000) Expropriation Costs (allowance $500,000). Approximate Expected Service Life E xtension: 35 years Total Construction Cost Allowance for OPTION 3: $3,500,000 Condition Assessment Report –Gold River Multi-Use Bridge September 26, 2021 (Rev.1). ABLE Project #210128 -04 Condition Assessment 210128-04 32 4.2.4 OPTION 4 – REMOVE FROM SERVICE AND DECOMMISSION (REMOVE) EXISTING STRUCTURE WITHOUT REPLACEMENT Construct equipment/crane access roads and provide siltation protection. Remove and dispose of entire e xisting bridge structure off site. Access road removal and environmental reinstatements at the water course. Approximate Expected Service Life Extension: N/A Approximate Construction Cost Estimate Allowance: $1,000,000 Prepared by: Jamie Yates , P.Eng. Sr. Civil Project Engineering Consultant Condition Assessment Report –Gold River Multi-Use Bridge September 26, 2021 (Rev.1). ABLE Project #210128 -04 Condition Assessment 210128-04 33 APPENDIX A TACTEN INDUSTRIAL INC. 2021 INSPECTION REPORT (Inc. PAINT SAMPLE ANALYSIS ) MASONTECH INC. 2021 INSPECTION REPORT J010575 Able-Gold River Bridge Inspection Report R04.docx 61 Raddall Avenue, Unit 0 Dartmouth, NS, Canada B3B 1T4 www.tacten.ca Phone: 902.434.4405 INSPECTION REPORT CLIENT: Able Engineering SECTION: PAGE: 1 of 41 DATE: Aug 8, 2021 TACTEN JOB #: 801-10ACU004-J010575 REPORT #: VT-CD-J010575-R04 CONTRACT/PO: NA WO: NA ATTENTION: Neil McCallum WORK LOCATION: Chester Basin PROJECT: Gold River Bridge Inspection ITEM(S) EXAMINED: Timber Trestles, Steel Girder & Stone Piers PART #: NA MATERIAL: NA THICKNESS: NA SCOPE: See below TYPE OF INSPECTION: Visual TEST DETAILS: ACCEPTANCE STANDARD: Client's Information REVISION: N/A PROCEDURE/TECHNIQUE: Client's Information REVISION: N/A METHOD: EQUIPMENT TYPE: Camera MANUFACTURER: Nikon MODEL: Coolpix AW130 S/N: 50001778 LIGHT SOURCE: Flashlight/Ambient ILLUMINATION INTENSITY: >100 Foot-Candles LIGHT METER S/N: CAL. DUE: ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT: NA MAGNIFICATION POWER: NA SUPPLEMENTAL NDT REPORT ATTACHED?: NA PROCEDURE DEMONSTRATION REQUIRED?: NA TEST SURFACE CONDITION: NA SCOPE: At the request Able Engineering, Tacten Industrial Inc. conducted a visual inspection on the Gold River Bridge between April 14th and 19th, 2021. All components that were not reasonably accessible from the ground were inspected within arms reach via rope access. The inspection took place at the direction of the Ab le Engineering on site representative and subject matter experts. TECHNIQUES: The inspection of the bridge was completed using rope access techniques in accordance with the Industrial Rope Access Trades Association (IRATA) International Code of Practice (ICOP) and Acuren ACU-ROPE procedures. For referencing, the East side of the bridge was nearest Croft Rd and the North face of the bridge was the upstream side. Client acknowledges receipt and custody of the report or other work ("Deliverable"). Client agrees that it is responsible for assuring that acceptance standards, specifications and criteria in the Deliverable and Statement of Work ("SOW") are correct. Client acknowledges that Acuren is providing the Deliverable according to the SOW, and not any other standards. Client acknowledges that it is responsible for the failure of any items inspected to meet standards, and for remediation. Client has 15 business days following the date Acuren provides the Deliverable to inspect it, identify deficiencies in writing, and provide written rejection, or else the Deliverable will be deemed accepted. The Deliverable and other services provided by Acuren are governed by a Master Services Agreement ("MSA"). If the parties have not entered into an MSA, then the Deliverable and services are governed by the SOW and the "Acuren Standard Service Terms" (www.acuren.com/serviceterms) in effect when the services were ordered. CLIENT: Neil McCallum DTR NO.: N/A CLIENT PRINTED NAME CLIENT SIGNATURE ACCEPTED & ACKNOWLEDGED BY TACTEN TECHNICIAN: Brett Webster Nelson Seniuk 1st Technician 2nd Technician REVIEWER: Cory Dearman (Generated Using: CAN-QUA-02F007 R09 - 02/26/2020) ABLE ENGINEERING Section – Page 2 of 41 J010575 Able-Gold River Bridge Inspection Report R04.docx TACTEN JOB # 801-10ACU004-J010575 REPORT # VT-CD-J010575-R04 TIMBER TRESTLES: The East and West approach trestles consist of timber bents. The East approach bents were labelled 1 -7 with bent 1 being nearest the abutment. The West approach bents were labelled 1-12 with 1 being nearest the abutment. The post numbers within each bent were labelled numerically with 1 being the Northmost post. Included in this section are the observations on the rail ties. Generally, the treated timber members were found to be in fair to poor condition however, the following items were noted: a) Several posts were found to have animal/insect holes and local decay. Photos 1-5. b) Decay on many ends of the cross-bracing members. Photos 6-10. c) Area of vandalism. Photos 11-12. d) Several heavily corroded and deteriorating connectors. Photos 13-16 e) Some newer rail ties were heavily deteriorated. Photos 17-18 f) Two posts were spliced. Photos 22-23 STEEL PLATE GIRDERS: Four steel plate girders were used to span between the stone masonry piers over the river. Each span was constructed of two 73’ long girders. The spans were labelled East and West and the two girders in each span were labelled North and South. The plate girders and bracing were in good condition ov erall. There was, however, at least a mild degree of surface corrosion found throughout the girders and bracing due to the failed coating throughout the steel. Heavier amounts of corrosion were found along the top flanges of the girders which has resulted in pack rust and deterioration of the angle bracing and gusset plates in these areas. Seriously effecting approximately 20% of the connections along the top flange. This is likely caused by moisture penetration through the rail ties. Paint chips were removed from the girders and sent to a lab for metal analysis. See page 41 for results. See photos 19-43 Thickness readings were taken periodically throughout the girder inspection. See below results for average readings: CROSS MEMBER CONNECTING PLATE-CENTER 0.453” PHOTO 29 CROSS MEMBER CONNECTING PLATE-CORNER 0.413” PHOTO 30 CROSS MEMBER 0.374” PHOTO 31 GIRDER WEB STIFFENERS 0.606” PHOTO 32 GIRDER WEB 0.510” PHOTO 33 ABLE ENGINEERING Section – Page 3 of 41 J010575 Able-Gold River Bridge Inspection Report R04.docx TACTEN JOB # 801-10ACU004-J010575 REPORT # VT-CD-J010575-R04 PIERS: Three stone bridge piers are used along this bridge, East, center, and West piers. The piers are constructed with 2’ x 4’ granite stones and mortared together. The interior core is unknown. The main area of concern with the piers appears to be the condition of the mortared joints. The majority of the joints throughout all three piers have either completely deteriorated or are providing minimal function. Also, the pier cap joints were found to be in poor condition, allowing water infiltration into the interior of the pier. The center pier cap also showed signs of shifting. Other areas of note include vegetation growth throughout the piers and cracking found on multiple stones throughout the piers. See photos 44-54 BEARINGS: The plate bearings are located on all three piers and are anchored to the pier caps. The West and East piers of the bridge support the fixed ends of the girders and the center pier supports the expansion ends of the girders. Heavy amounts of corrosion were found throughout all bearings. It appears that the amount of corrosion has hindered the ability for expansion and contraction at the center pier as no signs of recent bearing movement were evident. See photos 55-58 RECOMMENDATIONS TIMBER TRESTLES: • If practical. area of vandalism should be cleaned of rot, treated with a wood preservative, and reinforced . • All deteriorated and missing structural support and connector components are to be replaced as directed by Able. Prior to replacement, all existing bolt holes to remain should be cleaned of rot and treated with a wood preservative. STEEL PLATE GIRDERS: • Remnant protective coating should be removed. • Deteriorated gusset plates and bracing should be removed and replaced with galvanized steel members. PIERS: • All mortar joints should be re-pointed. • All vegetation should be removed from joints. • Pier cap stones should be re-pointed and re-sealed. • Re-install pier caps to original position BEARINGS: • Expansion sliding plates at center piers should be removed and replaced. ABLE ENGINEERING Section – Page 4 of 41 J010575 Able-Gold River Bridge Inspection Report R04.docx TACTEN JOB # 801-10ACU004-J010575 REPORT # VT-CD-J010575-R04 Photo 1: East approach bent 6 post 4. Animal/insect damage. Photo 2: Close up of previous photo. ABLE ENGINEERING Section – Page 5 of 41 J010575 Able-Gold River Bridge Inspection Report R04.docx TACTEN JOB # 801-10ACU004-J010575 REPORT # VT-CD-J010575-R04 Photo 3: East approach bent 6 post 6. Animal/insect damage. Photo 4: East approach bent 3 post 1. Animal/insect damage. ABLE ENGINEERING Section – Page 6 of 41 J010575 Able-Gold River Bridge Inspection Report R04.docx TACTEN JOB # 801-10ACU004-J010575 REPORT # VT-CD-J010575-R04 Photo 5: East approach bent 6 post 3. Animal/insect damage. Photo 6: East approach bent 6 post 1. Bracing end decay. ABLE ENGINEERING Section – Page 7 of 41 J010575 Able-Gold River Bridge Inspection Report R04.docx TACTEN JOB # 801-10ACU004-J010575 REPORT # VT-CD-J010575-R04 Photo 7: East approach bent 7 post 1. Bracing end decay. Photo 8: East approach bent 6 post 6. Bracing end decay. ABLE ENGINEERING Section – Page 8 of 41 J010575 Able-Gold River Bridge Inspection Report R04.docx TACTEN JOB # 801-10ACU004-J010575 REPORT # VT-CD-J010575-R04 Photo 9: East approach bent 6 post 6. Bracing end decay. Photo 10: East approach bent 6 post 6. Bracing end decay. ABLE ENGINEERING Section – Page 9 of 41 J010575 Able-Gold River Bridge Inspection Report R04.docx TACTEN JOB # 801-10ACU004-J010575 REPORT # VT-CD-J010575-R04 Photo 11: West approach bent 11 post 6. Vandalism. Photo 12: West approach bent 11 post 6. Vandalism. ABLE ENGINEERING Section – Page 10 of 41 J010575 Able-Gold River Bridge Inspection Report R04.docx TACTEN JOB # 801-10ACU004-J010575 REPORT # VT-CD-J010575-R04 Photo 13: East approach North side. Heavily corroded and deteriorating nut. Photo 14: West approach bent 9 post 4. Missing nut. ABLE ENGINEERING Section – Page 11 of 41 J010575 Able-Gold River Bridge Inspection Report R04.docx TACTEN JOB # 801-10ACU004-J010575 REPORT # VT-CD-J010575-R04 Photo 15: West approach bent 3 post 1. Missing nut. Photo 16: West approach bent 1 post 1. Loose rod. ABLE ENGINEERING Section – Page 12 of 41 J010575 Able-Gold River Bridge Inspection Report R04.docx TACTEN JOB # 801-10ACU004-J010575 REPORT # VT-CD-J010575-R04 Photo 17: East approach North side near bent 4. Newer style rail tie is decaying. Photo 18: East approach North side near bent 4. Newer style rail tie is decaying. ABLE ENGINEERING Section – Page 13 of 41 J010575 Able-Gold River Bridge Inspection Report R04.docx TACTEN JOB # 801-10ACU004-J010575 REPORT # VT-CD-J010575-R04 Photo 19: East approach South side. General cracking. Photo 20: East approach South side. General cracking. ABLE ENGINEERING Section – Page 14 of 41 J010575 Able-Gold River Bridge Inspection Report R04.docx TACTEN JOB # 801-10ACU004-J010575 REPORT # VT-CD-J010575-R04 Photo 21: East approach bent 7 post 1. Decay at footing. Photo 22: Spliced post. West approach bent 6 post 2. ABLE ENGINEERING Section – Page 15 of 41 J010575 Able-Gold River Bridge Inspection Report R04.docx TACTEN JOB # 801-10ACU004-J010575 REPORT # VT-CD-J010575-R04 Photo 23: Spliced post. East approach bent 6 post 3. Photo 24: Bottom flange West girder. 2.13” ABLE ENGINEERING Section – Page 16 of 41 J010575 Able-Gold River Bridge Inspection Report R04.docx TACTEN JOB # 801-10ACU004-J010575 REPORT # VT-CD-J010575-R04 Photo 25: Top flange West girder. 2.32” Photo 26: Bottom flange West girder. 1.38” ABLE ENGINEERING Section – Page 17 of 41 J010575 Able-Gold River Bridge Inspection Report R04.docx TACTEN JOB # 801-10ACU004-J010575 REPORT # VT-CD-J010575-R04 Photo 27: Bottom flange West girder. 2.21” Photo 28: 2.14” ABLE ENGINEERING Section – Page 18 of 41 J010575 Able-Gold River Bridge Inspection Report R04.docx TACTEN JOB # 801-10ACU004-J010575 REPORT # VT-CD-J010575-R04 Photo 29: Bottom flange West girder. 2.17” Photo 30: Top flange East girder. 2.01 ABLE ENGINEERING Section – Page 19 of 41 J010575 Able-Gold River Bridge Inspection Report R04.docx TACTEN JOB # 801-10ACU004-J010575 REPORT # VT-CD-J010575-R04 Photo 31: Bottom flange East girder. 2.14” Photo 32: Girder East span. Pack rust and deterioration at a top lateral bracing- girder gusset plate. ABLE ENGINEERING Section – Page 20 of 41 J010575 Able-Gold River Bridge Inspection Report R04.docx TACTEN JOB # 801-10ACU004-J010575 REPORT # VT-CD-J010575-R04 Photo 33: Girder East span South side. Coating failure throughout. Photo 34: General photo looking through the West span. ABLE ENGINEERING Section – Page 21 of 41 J010575 Able-Gold River Bridge Inspection Report R04.docx TACTEN JOB # 801-10ACU004-J010575 REPORT # VT-CD-J010575-R04 Photo 35: Girder West span. Pack rust and deterioration at a top lateral bracing- girder gusset plate. Photo 36: Girder West span. Heavy pitting along the bottom flange. ABLE ENGINEERING Section – Page 22 of 41 J010575 Able-Gold River Bridge Inspection Report R04.docx TACTEN JOB # 801-10ACU004-J010575 REPORT # VT-CD-J010575-R04 Photo 37: General upper corner connection. Photo 38: General lower corner connection. ABLE ENGINEERING Section – Page 23 of 41 J010575 Able-Gold River Bridge Inspection Report R04.docx TACTEN JOB # 801-10ACU004-J010575 REPORT # VT-CD-J010575-R04 Photo 39: Cross bracing center connection plate. Thickness reading location. Photo 40: Cross bracing corner connection plate. Thickness reading location. ABLE ENGINEERING Section – Page 24 of 41 J010575 Able-Gold River Bridge Inspection Report R04.docx TACTEN JOB # 801-10ACU004-J010575 REPORT # VT-CD-J010575-R04 Photo 41: Cross bracing. Thickness reading location. Photo 42: Girder web stiffener thickness reading. ABLE ENGINEERING Section – Page 25 of 41 J010575 Able-Gold River Bridge Inspection Report R04.docx TACTEN JOB # 801-10ACU004-J010575 REPORT # VT-CD-J010575-R04 Photo 43: Girder web thickness readings. Photo 44: East pier. Cracked granite stone. ABLE ENGINEERING Section – Page 26 of 41 J010575 Able-Gold River Bridge Inspection Report R04.docx TACTEN JOB # 801-10ACU004-J010575 REPORT # VT-CD-J010575-R04 Photo 45: East Pier. Missing mortar 6” depth. Photo 46: East pier. General photo. ABLE ENGINEERING Section – Page 27 of 41 J010575 Able-Gold River Bridge Inspection Report R04.docx TACTEN JOB # 801-10ACU004-J010575 REPORT # VT-CD-J010575-R04 Photo 47: Center pier South side. Cap has shifted. Photo 48: Center pier. Missing mortar throughout the pier cap. ABLE ENGINEERING Section – Page 28 of 41 J010575 Able-Gold River Bridge Inspection Report R04.docx TACTEN JOB # 801-10ACU004-J010575 REPORT # VT-CD-J010575-R04 Photo 49: Center pier. Missing mortar. Tape measure inserted approx. 7”. Photo 50: Center pier. Cracked granite stone. ABLE ENGINEERING Section – Page 29 of 41 J010575 Able-Gold River Bridge Inspection Report R04.docx TACTEN JOB # 801-10ACU004-J010575 REPORT # VT-CD-J010575-R04 Photo 51: Center pier. Cracked granite stone. Photo 52: Center pier. Vegetation growth throughout. ABLE ENGINEERING Section – Page 30 of 41 J010575 Able-Gold River Bridge Inspection Report R04.docx TACTEN JOB # 801-10ACU004-J010575 REPORT # VT-CD-J010575-R04 Photo 53: West pier. Missing mortar at the pier cap. Photo 54: West pier. Missing mortar. ABLE ENGINEERING Section – Page 31 of 41 J010575 Able-Gold River Bridge Inspection Report R04.docx TACTEN JOB # 801-10ACU004-J010575 REPORT # VT-CD-J010575-R04 Photo 55: East pier bearing. Heavy corrosion throughout. Photo 56: Center pier bearing. Heavy corrosion and no sign of expansion. ABLE ENGINEERING Section – Page 32 of 41 J010575 Able-Gold River Bridge Inspection Report R04.docx TACTEN JOB # 801-10ACU004-J010575 REPORT # VT-CD-J010575-R04 Photo 57: Center pier bearing. Heavy corrosion and no sign of expansion. Photo 58: West pier bearing. Heavy corrosion throughout. ABLE ENGINEERING Section – Page 33 of 41 J010575 Able-Gold River Bridge Inspection Report R04.docx TACTEN JOB # 801-10ACU004-J010575 REPORT # VT-CD-J010575-R04 APPENDIX A At the request of Able Engineering, Tacten Industrial Inc. conducted an additional visual inspection as well as ultrasonic thickness readings on the Gold River The additional inspection was requested to obtain thickness information throughou t the steel girders and associated components, quantify the components that require replacement and obtain bearing details. All steel girder components were inspected within arms reach via rope access. The inspection took place at the direction of the Engineering on site representative. All field photos and bearing details were submitted to Able outside of this report. The majority of the members requiring replacement are along the top chord. Approximately 90-95% of the top chord lateral diagonal bracing connection plates had heavy amounts of pitting and corrosion (heaviest on the top side) throughout the plates. See photos 1-3 for reference. See page 38 for drawing mark up to detail the plate locations. As well along the top chord, approximately 50% of the vertical cross bracing upper corner connection plates had heavy amounts of pitting and corrosion throughout the plates. See photos 4-5 for reference. See page 39 for drawing mark up to detail the plate locations. Heavy amounts of pack rust were found on the bottom flange stiffener connection where the stiffener ties into the flange. The areas of note were located along the flat portion of the girders a nd on the internal sides of the girders. Approximately 40% of the connections were heavily effected. See photos 6-7 for reference. See page 40 for drawing mark up to detail the location. All thickness readings taken on areas with multiple layers of plating, only the thickness of one outside plate was obtained and recorded on the member with chalk. The overall thickness was obtained using a caliper. All thickness readings and caliper measurements are recorded in the field photos sent separately to Able. ABLE ENGINEERING Section – Page 34 of 41 J010575 Able-Gold River Bridge Inspection Report R04.docx TACTEN JOB # 801-10ACU004-J010575 REPORT # VT-CD-J010575-R04 Photo 1: Top chord lateral diagonal bracing connection plates. Pack rust on topside between plate and tie. Photo 2: Top chord lateral diagonal bracing connection plates. Heavy corrosion and missing rivets. ABLE ENGINEERING Section – Page 35 of 41 J010575 Able-Gold River Bridge Inspection Report R04.docx TACTEN JOB # 801-10ACU004-J010575 REPORT # VT-CD-J010575-R04 Photo 3: Top chord lateral diagonal bracing connection plates. Pack rust on topside between plate and tie. Photo 4: Vertical cross bracing upper corner connection plates. Heavy amount of pack rust between members. ABLE ENGINEERING Section – Page 36 of 41 J010575 Able-Gold River Bridge Inspection Report R04.docx TACTEN JOB # 801-10ACU004-J010575 REPORT # VT-CD-J010575-R04 Photo 5: Vertical cross bracing upper corner connection plates. Heavy amount of pack rust between members. Photo 6: Bottom flange stiffener connection where the stiffener ties into the flange. Heavy amount of pack rust between members. ABLE ENGINEERING Section – Page 37 of 41 J010575 Able-Gold River Bridge Inspection Report R04.docx TACTEN JOB # 801-10ACU004-J010575 REPORT # VT-CD-J010575-R04 Photo 7: Bottom flange stiffener connection where the stiffener ties into the flange. Heavy amount of pack rust between members. GOLD RIVER BRIDGE: MASONRY CONDITION REPORT REPORT BY: Mark Fougere MASONTECH INC May 20, 2021 ATTN: Able Engineering Services Inc Gold River Bridge, Chester N.S.: Masonry Condition Report Overview: Further to your request for the above-mentioned property, a visual, non-intrusive, inspection was performed in April 2021. The bridge was constructed near the beginning of the 20th century and was in use as a railway bridge until September 19, 1991. The main focus was to determine the overall condition of the three masonry piers that support the bridge. These piers consist of rock-faced granite ashlar with bed heights of +/-26”, entail measurements of +/-20” and varying lengths. The composition of the core is unknown but the piers are assumed to have originally been built by laying a full course of the granite ashlar and then infilling the cores using rubble and mortar. During the visual inspection we were able to slide a measuring tape 7’ deep in one of the open joints and up to 4’ deep in another location. This evidence combined with age of the structure and lack of maintenance leads us to believe that the rubble core has likely been subject to extensive water infiltration and freeze/thaw cycles which, in turn, likely means that the core has lost any structural capacity that it may have once had. It was also evident from the visual inspection that the vast majority of the mortar joints require repointing. Determining exact quantities for various depths of repointing is difficult but based on the visual inspection and some minor exploratory work (drilling into a few joints using a rotary hammer drill) we believe that, at a minimum, all mortar joints should be cut and repointed to depth of 5 inches. As with the restoration/conservation of any historic structure, minimizing the extent of intervention is the guiding principle and, in this instance, we believe the scope of work should include: - Repointing of any open or degraded mortar joints; - Repair of fractured granite ashlar; - Resetting of any dislodged granite; - Installation of weep and vent holes; - Caulking joints on top of the granite caps with a high-quality sealant. Optional items that would address some aesthetic issues include: - Cleaning of granite; - Dutchmen repairs to broken granite. Recommended Quantities & Methods for Scope of Work: Repointing: The total quantity of repointing is approximately 6,900 lineal feet which I believe should all be cut out and repointed to a depth of 5”. This repointing amounts to approximately one quarter of the overall depth of the stones and will help solidify the structure. In most exterior, above grade applications a Type “N” mortar (1:1:6 – Portland Cement:Lime:Sand) is usually adequate – however, due to the environmental exposure and high-moisture environment, we believe that it would be more prudent to use a Type “S” (2:1:9) (see attached data sheets). The Type “S” will be slightly more prone to cracking but it will also be more resistant to water infiltration, which we believe is the biggest factor to the degradation of the piers. There will also be many areas that will require deeper repointing but the quantities for these is quite difficult. For tendering purposes, I have created a unit rate table and have allotted various percentages of the 6,900 lineal feet total: Depth Quantity Percentage to Repoint Total Quantity 5” 6,900 lin.ft. 100% 6,900 lin.ft. 5”-7” 6,900 lin. ft. 50% 3,450 lin.ft. 7”-9” 6,900 lin.ft. 25% 1,725 lin.ft. 9”-11” 6,900 lin.ft. ~10% 862 lin.ft. 11”-13” 6,900 lin.ft ~5% 431 lin.ft. Considering that the depth of the stones appears to be +/-20”, any repointing that is required beyond a depth of 7” would likely require some shoring of the stones to ensure that they do not shift after the old mortar has been removed. This could be achieved using small pieces of granite or a high-density plastic shim. Ideally, any repointing beyond a depth of the 5” minimum would be achieved using non-pressurized grouting – however, considering that the composition of the core is unknown and that we have environmental concerns regarding the river, it is not likely a feasible approach. It may be useful to do some exploratory investigative work to try and determine if grouting could be an option as this would likely reduce costs for the stabilization of the piers. Repair of Fractured Ashlar While on site, it was noted, that there are a few pieces of granite that have vertical cracks that likely extend through the entire depth of the bed. The recommended intervention in these situations would typically be to remove the stone and insert stainless steel threaded rod and epoxy in a manner that would not be visible when the stone is reset in the wall. However, in this instance, you could pin them in situ by drilling diagonally through the face so that the drilled hole would span both pieces of the fractured stone. You would then clean the hole, pump in some epoxy (e.g., Epcon A7+ by Redhead – see attached data sheet) and insert the stainless-steel threaded rod. The hole in the face of the stone could either be repaired with a granite dutchmen or a repair mortar. It appeared as though at least five pieces of granite were cracked but it was difficult to be sure of the exact total. We recommend that there be an allowance to repair ten stones. Resetting of Dislodged Granite It was observed that a few pieces of granite ashlar have been dislodged over the years – potentially from the vibrations caused by the trains or maybe due to water infiltration that could have froze and moved the stones. They may or may not pose a structural issue but we believe it would be prudent to remove these from the wall and have them reset in proper alignment. This could also give you a chance to observe the conditions of the pier cores and determine if any further interventions could be required. Installation of Weep and Vent Holes: With many open joints and an unknown core structure that has been absorbing water for many years, it could be beneficial to install some weep and vent holes to allow the piers to breathe and hopefully reduce their moisture content to help minimize the damage caused by freeze/thaw cycles. Something on the order of 36 holes per pier (10 on each large elevation and 8 on each small elevation) should help with air flow. In a perfect world you would remove and reset a granite unit adjacent to each hole, however, you could choose to simply drill some inclined holes through the joints (where the bed joints meet the perpendicular joints). Caulking The joints between the granite caps were covered in what appeared to be a mastic based product. With the extra exposure to the elements, we typically recommend that any horizontal joints be sealed using a good quality sealant (e.g., Dymonic 100 by Tremco – see attached data sheet). Masonry Cleaning Quite a bit of the granite could benefit from some cleaning, though it would only be for aesthetic purposes. Obviously, any type of chemical cleaner would be difficult to use due to the potential environmental exposure but you could just use a pressure washer. Another option would be a low pressure micro-abrasive system such as the “Rotec Vortex” cleaning system by Quintek. The Rotec Votex system is typically used when you are dealing with softer stone, such as sandstone, and would be a bit of overkill for this application, unless you are looking to get the stone very clean. Please note that the budget in the unit rate table is for the Quintek system. Cost for pressure washing would be significantly less. Dutcmen Repairs There are a few corners that have fractured or broken off completely that could be repaired using dutchmen repairs. For tendering purposes, we have included for ten repairs and the unit rate provided would cover the cost for a 6”x6”x4” granite dutchmen. These repairs are both for aesthetics and for practical reasons – if you opt to not proceed with these repairs, you will need to fill them with mortar during the repointing and large areas like this would be more prone to cracking and premature failure. Conclusion: As with any masonry restoration project, the full extent of work and the methods to achieve that work can vary significantly once work has begun. It would be prudent to carry a contingency fund to help cover any unforeseen issues. The size of this contingency is tough to pinpoint but something on the order of 20-30% wouldn’t be out of the question. Without having done any real exploratory work and not having been able to access the majority of the stonework, there is also a chance that the budgets we have provided could end up falling significantly short of what could actually be required to ensure the structural stability of the piers and bridge. It should also be noted that this report is comprised of personal opinions and that we are not able to confirm that the interventions recommended will be adequate for the intended loads on the bridge. Trust the above meets your approval. Should you have any questions or concerns please do not hesitate to contact me. Cheers, Mark Fougere Masontech Inc. Item Class of Labour, Plant or Material Unit Quantity Price per Unit Extended Amount 1 Scaffolding lump N/A N/A 250,000.00$ 2a Repointing up to 5" depth lin. ft.6900 40.00$ 276,000.00$ 2b Repointing from 5" to 7"lin. ft.3450 52.00$ 179,400.00$ 2c Repointing from 7" to 9"lin. ft.1725 67.60$ 116,610.00$ 2d Repointing from 9" to 11" lin. ft.862.5 87.88$ 75,796.50$ 2e Repointing from 11" to 13"lin. ft.431.25 114.24$ 49,267.73$ 3 Repair Broken Granite per stone 10 200.00$ 2,000.00$ 4 Reset Dislodged Granite per stone 5 2,500.00$ 12,500.00$ 5 Caulking lin. ft.100 20.00$ 2,000.00$ 6 Dutchmen Repair (Granite) ea 20 500.00$ 10,000.00$ 7 Masonry Cleaning sq.ft.9,900 15.00$ 148,500.00$ 8 General Conditions lump N/A N/A 100,000.00$ May 1, 2021 MODC - Gold River Bridge [Masonry] Total Extended Amount (TEA):1,222,074.23$ Unit Price Table TYPE S MORTAR DIVISION 04 KING 2-1-9 GREY All KING products are manufactured using ISO 9001:2008 Certified Processes Mixing Strength With Satisfaction KING PACKAGED MATERIALS COMPANY 1-800-430-4104 • masonry@kpmindustries.com • www.king-masonry.com KING 2-1-9 GREY is a pre-mixed, pre-bagged, Type S mortar specially formulated to be used laying brick, natural stone, concrete blocks and other masonry products, when a higher compressive strength is required. This mortar is a blend of grey Type GU Portland Cement, Type S hydrated lime, an air entraining agent, and sand with controlled grain size. KING 2-1-9 GREY mortar complies with Table 6 of CSA-A179-14 for Type S mortar with addition of water on-site. This product is grey in colour, but may be coloured in the factory or field using KING’s exclusive Colour Plus System. EXECUTION • The application of the mortar must comply with the requirements of Sections 6 and 7 of CSA A371-14 • Never spread mortar on frozen surfaces MIXING Mix KING 2-1-9 GREY with a maximum of 5.0 L (1.3 US gallons) of potable water per 30 KG (66 lb) of mortar in a clean mortar mixer. Pour 4.5 L (1.2 US gallons) of water into the mixer and add 30 KG (66 lb) of KING 2-1-9 GREY mortar. Mix for 3 to 5 minutes, or 5 to 10 minutes when a colourant is added on-site. Allow the mortar to rest for a short period of time. Using the remaining water, adjust the mortar to obtain the desired consistency. PLACEMENT OF MORTAR The placement of the mortar must be done in the period of time stipulated in article 6.3.1. of CSA A179-14. JOINT CLEANING The tooling of joints exposed to rain is an important step that contributes to the waterproofing of the masonry system, and must be done using a jointer. The amount of water present in the mortar joint at the time of tooling will determinate the final colour of the cured mortar. To avoid colour variation, ensure that the mortar joint always contains the same amount of water when it is tooled. As a general rule, the joint is considered ready to be tooled when the mortar has hardened sufficiently, such that a fingerprint mark remains. Unless otherwise stated, a concave joint is preferred. CLEANING Using a little water, a piece of jute or a small piece of wood, make sure to remove as much splash or mortar stains as possible before the mortar has hardened to prevent the use of cleaning agents. If the use of cleaning products is necessary, be sure to contact the manufacturer of the product to validate the compatibility of the product and the procedure to follow. Regardless of the technique, or product selected, it is essential to preserve the integrity of the mortar. FEATURES & BENEFITS x High compressive strength x Superior adhesion x Superior workability x Good resistance to freeze-thaw cycles x Self-healing property USES x Laying brick, natural stone or concrete blocks where greater compressive strength is required x Plastering x Repointing work where very high compressive strength is required (Contact your KING Technical Representative) CAUTION Colour variations on the hardened mortar can be observed even if the mortar in-place has been previously coloured in the factory and complies with the project specifications. These colour variations are mainly attributed to various implementation conditions such as delay between mixing and tooling of the joints, lack of protection against the weather during implementation, or rate of absorption/ humidity variability. In order to avoid an undesirable result, we recommend that you pay particular attention to these points. TYPE S MORTAR DIVISION 04 KING 2-1-9 GREY Mixing Strength With Satisfaction Note: The contents of this Technical Data Sheet are updated regularly. To ensure that you have the most recent version, please visit our website at the following address: www.king-masonry.com This product is designed to meet the performance specifications outlined in this product Technical Data Sheet. If the product is used in conditions for which it was not intended, or applied in a manner contrary to the written recommendations contained in the product data sheet, the product may not reach such performance specifications. The foregoing is in lieu of any other warranties, representations or conditions, expressed or implied, including, but not limited to, implied warranties or conditions of merchantable quality or fitness for particular purposes, and those arising by statute or otherwise in law or from a course of dealing or usage of trade. KING PACKAGED MATERIALS COMPANY LIMITATIONS x Do not use KING 2-1-9 when Type N mortar is specified. In this case, it is recommended to use KING 1-1-6 x Never add admixtures on-site to modify set time, handling or any other properties of the plastic or hardened mortar x Use only the recommended amount of water to obtain the desired plastic or hardened properties PACKAGING This product is packaged in 30 KG (66 lb), triple-lined bags or bulk bags, wrapped on wooden pallets. STORAGE AND SHELF LIFE Always store in a dry area, protected from the weather. On-site, an additional tarpaulin must be used to cover the product to prevent water infiltration. Unopened, properly stored bags have a shelf life of 12 months. SAFETY PROCEDURES This product is made of Portland Cement. Wearing safety equipment used for the handling of cement-based products is therefore recommended: rubber gloves, dust mask and safety glasses. Safety Data Sheets can be provided upon request. TECHNICAL DATA* REQUIREMENT OF CSA A179-14 STANDARD AVERAGE VALUE OF KING 2-1-9 GREY COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH ASTM C 109 7 Days 28 Days 7.5 MPa (1088 psi) 12.5 MPa (1813 psi) 8.5 MPa (1233 psi) 15 MPa (2175 psi) FLOW 110% +/- 5% 110% +/- 5% AIR CONTENT CSA A 3004 18% Maximum 10%-12% WATER RETENTION ASTM C 1506 70% Minimum 70% VAPOUR TRANSMISSION ASTM E 96 N/A 15 Perms WITHDRAWAL ASTM C 596 - 91 Day N/A 0.119% FREEZE-THAW RESISTANCE ASTM C 666M N/A Excellent after 100 cycles YIELD PER 30 KG (66 LB) BAG N/A 0.018 m3 (0.65 ft3) of fresh mortar * All values required by the CSA A-179-14 Standard, as well as the average values of the KING product, are obtained under laboratory conditions. The average values of the KING product are applicable when the product is used as a bedding mortar; if the product is used as a repointing or parging mortar, the average values will be different. V0119 Oakville Office 555 Michigan Dr., Suite 100 Oakville, ON L6L 0G4 Phone: 905-639-2993 Fax: 905-333-3730 Boisbriand Office 3825 rue Alfred-Laliberté Boisbriand, QC J7H 1P7 Phone: 450-430-4104 Fax: 450-430-6855 Brantford Office 541 Oak Park Rd. Brantford, ON N3T 5L8 Phone: 519-756-6177 Fax: 519-756-7490 Sudbury Office 644 Simmons Rd. Dowling, ON P0M 1R0 Phone: 705-855-1155 Fax: 705-855-1122 WRITERS’ PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY This document is published by KING – A SIKA Co. It contains information for the sole purpose of helping you make informed decisions. It is not our intention and we cannot assume in anyway the role and professional liability of the architect who executed, signed and sealed these plans and specifications. As such, this document was diligently drafted by experienced professionals and therefore must not be copied integrally; rather you must adapt or even modify it according to your project, which our technical representatives and engineering service would be more than happy to help you with. Additional information available: Although this document covers a wide variety of applications, we also invite you to refer to our electronic catalog of recommendations. Thus, following a proposal for use specific to your project, we will recommend one or more products. The electronic catalog and all of the technical sheets for our products can be found on our website at the following link: www.king-masonry.com Architectural Specifications Page 1 of 6 Division 04 Mortar and grout for masonry 04 05 12 _____________________________________________________________________________________ V1120 PART 1 – GENERAL 1.1 REFERENCES .1 CSA Standards .1 CSA A-179 Mortar and grout for unit masonry .2 CSA A-371 Masonry for buildings .2 ASTM Standards .1 ASTM C 207 Standard Specification for Hydrated Lime for Masonry Purposes .2 ASTM C 270 Standard Specification for Mortar for Unit Masonry .3 ASTM C 979 Standard Specification for Pigments for Integrally Colored Concrete .3 National Building Code (Quebec) .1 Section 9.20 (Load-bearing and non-load-bearing masonry) .2 Sections 9.20 and 9.22 (chimney and fireplace) 1.2 DOCUMENTS/SAMPLES/INFORMATION TO SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL .1 Submit the required technical data sheets and the samples conforming to section 01 33 00 –Documents and samples to submit. .2 Submit 3 samples of each mortar used by presenting them in the U-shaped plastic extrusions measuring 10 mm X 10 mm X 100 mm in length. The samples must be correctly identified. .3 Submit the technical data sheet of each mortar or grout used. The technical data sheet must include the product’s characteristics, performance criteria and limits. .4 Submit two copies of the material safety data sheet of each mortar or grout used. .5 No requests for equivalency will be accepted after the bid closing date. 1.3 HANDLING AND STORAGE .1 The bags of mortar and grout must be delivered in their original packaging with the legible identification of the manufacture .2 The mortar and grout product bags must be stored on wooden pallets and protected against inclement weather. Architectural Specifications Page 2 of 6 Division 04 Mortar and grout for masonry 04 05 12 _____________________________________________________________________________________ V1120 1.4 WALL Mock-up .1 Erect a wall mock-up with a minimum height and length of 1000 mm X 1000 mm. .2 Erect a wall mock-up for each mortar and grout specified. .3 The wall mock-up should display what the final colour and texture of the joint will look like. .4 The wall mock-up must form an integral part of the works. .5 Do not start work until the wall mock-up has been approved by the professional in charge of the project. 1.5 PLACEMENT CONDITIONS .1 Cold weather placement during construction: .1 -4°C to 4°C: The mortar shall have a minimum temperature of 4°C and a maximum, temperature of 50°C. .2 -7°C to -4°C: 1.5.2.1 The mortar shall have a minimum temperature of 4°C and a maximum, temperature of 50°C. 1.5.2.2 Source heat shall be provided on both sides of the walls 1.5.2.3 Windbreaks shall be employed when the wind speed exceeds 25 km/h .3 -7°C and below: 1.5.3.1 The mortar shall have a minimum temperature of 4°C and a maximum, temperature of 50°C. 1.5.3.2 Enclosures and supplementary heat shall be provided to maintain an air temperature above 0°C .2 Cold weather protection for completed masonry or section not in progress .1 0°C to 4°C: Masonry shall be protected from rain or snow for 48 hours .2 -4°C to 0°C: Masonry should be completely covered for 48 hours .3 -7°C to -4°C: Masonry shall be completely covered with insulating blankets for 48 hours Architectural Specifications Page 3 of 6 Division 04 Mortar and grout for masonry 04 05 12 _____________________________________________________________________________________ V1120 .4 -7°C and below: The masonry temperature shall be maintained above 0°C for 48 hours by enclosure and supplementary heat. .3 Hot weather placement: .1 Cover the works with a waterproof tarpaulin to prevent them from drying too quickly. Make sure to use a tarpaulin that does not stain. .2 Never wet the masonry units, unless otherwise indicated by the professional in charge of the project. 1.6 PROTECTIVE MEASURES .1 Unfinished masonry works must be wrapped with waterproof tarpaulins that do not stain. The tarpaulins must cover the walls and extend them by 600 mm on each side to protect the works against gusts of rain caused by wind. .2 Finished masonry works must be protected from mortar spatter by covering them with stain-free tarpaulins or polyethylene. .3 Protect the windows, frames, doors and sills from spatter or other damaging elements. PART 2 – PRODUCTS 2.1 MATERIALS .1 Mortar and grout materials must be provided by the same supplier. .2 All mortar and grout must be manufactured in a plant where processes are certified ISO 9001:2008. .3 Portland Type GU Cement, conforming to standard CSA A-3000. .4 Hydrated lime Type “S”, conforming to standard ASTM C-207. .5 Sand: Fine-grain sand particle size conforming to table 1 of standard CSA A-179. .6 Water: Only use clean potable water free of harmful substances such as oils, acids, salts and organic matter. .7 Pigments: The percentage of pigments should not exceed 10% of the binder density. Architectural Specifications Page 4 of 6 Division 04 Mortar and grout for masonry 04 05 12 _____________________________________________________________________________________ V1120 .8 It is strictly prohibited to use any type of additive to alter the setting time, workability or any other property of the plastic or cured mortar. 2.2 MORTARS .1 All mortars described hereafter are manufactured by the company «KING – A SIKA Co.». .2 Each type of mortar must be factory pre-blended with Portland cement, lime, sand and colouring agents, and then mixed with water at the construction site according to the manufacturer’s instructions. If pigments needs to be add on site, use only the Colour Plus System exclusive to « KING – A SIKA Co.» .3 Mortar for exterior masonry work, above ground level. .1 Mortar for load-bearing walls: As a minimum, use a Type “S” mortar such as KING 2-1-9, prepared according to the batching specifications .2 Mortar for non-load-bearing walls: As a minimum, use a Type “N” mortar like KING 1-1-6, prepared according to the batching specifications .3 Mortar used in the case of parapets and masonry exposed to a high level of saturation such as chimneys and self-supporting exterior walls: Use a Type “S” mortar, prepared according to dosage specifications such as KING 2-1 -9 mortar. .4 Mortar used for laying bricks and glass blocks: Use a Type “S” mortar with waterproofing agent, such as MasonGlass mortar. .4 Mortar for exterior masonry work at ground level or below. .1 Mortar used for foundation walls, retaining walls, manholes, sewers, pavements, aisles and patios: Minimally use a Type “S” mortar such as the KING BLOCK or a mortar prepared according to the specifications relating to the dosage, such as KING 2-1-9 mortar. .5 Mortar for interior masonry works .1 Mortar for load-bearing walls: As a minimum, use a Type “S” mortar like KING Block or KING 2-1-9. .2 Mortars for non-load-bearing walls requiring low compressive strength resistances or non-load-bearing walls: Minimally use a Type “N” mortar prepared according to the dosage specifications such as KING 1-1-6. Architectural Specifications Page 5 of 6 Division 04 Mortar and grout for masonry 04 05 12 _____________________________________________________________________________________ V1120 .3 Mortar used when laying glass blocks: Use a Type “S” mortar with waterproofing agent, such as MasonGlass mortar or a Type “N” mortar, prepared according to dosage specifications such as KING 1-1-6 mortar. 2.3 GROUTS .1 All grouts described hereafter are manufactured by the company «KING – A SIKA Co.». .2 It is strictly prohibited to use mortar as grout. .3 Each type of grout must be factory pre-blended with the raw materials, and then mixed with water on the construction site according to the manufacturer’s instructions. .4 The grouts must conform to table 7 of standard CSA A179. .5 Grout should be an expansive type. Expansion shall be less than 2%. .6 Unless otherwise indicated, to fill the cells of the block, use a grout with 15 MPa at 28 days, such as KING CellFiller E-15. PART 3 – EXECUTION 3.1 MIXING Important: In order to avoid segregation issues, always mix the total content of one bag. If less than 30 kg is required, dry mix - without water – the total contents of the bag in a clean container, take the required amount, and then add water to the amount withdrawn from the mixture. .1 Always use a clean mixer for each type of mortar and colour. .2 Conformity: Comply with the requirements, recommendations and specifications on the manufacturer’s technical data sheet. Architectural Specifications Page 6 of 6 Division 04 Mortar and grout for masonry 04 05 12 _____________________________________________________________________________________ V1120 3.2 PLACEMENT .1 Unless otherwise indicated by the architect, place the masonry mortar and grout in compliance with standards CSA A-179 and CSA A-371. 3.3 JOINTS .1 Unless otherwise indicated by the architect, the joints must be 10-mm thick. .2 The joints must be smoothed so that they have a concave profile. 3.4 PLACEMENT TIMEFRAME FOR MORTAR AND GROUT .1 Mortar .1 If room temperature is equal to or greater than 25°C, mortar must be placed in under 1.5 hours after mixing. If room temperature is less than 25°C, mortar must be placed in under 2.5 hours after mixing. .2 Grout .1 Expansive grout must be placed at the latest 20 minutes after mixing. Regular grout must be placed in under 1.5 hours after mixing. 3.5 REMIXING .1 Remixing is a criteria of placing mortar and grout. It is done to ensure the necessary workability. .2 Once the desired consistency is obtained, it is not recommended to add water to the coloured mortars in order to compensate for the loss of water caused by evaporation. Adding water could affect the final colour of the product. 3.6 COLOUR UNIFORMITY .1 In order to ensure colour uniformity of the mortar, the contractor must: .1 Use the same supplier for all mortar and grout. .2 Once the desired consistency is obtained, it is not recommended to add water to the coloured mortars in order to compensate for the loss of water caused by evaporation. Adding water could affect the final colour of the product. .3 Process of tooling joints when the mortar has hardened sufficiently such that a fingerprint mark remains Architectural Specifications Page 7 of 6 Division 04 Mortar and grout for masonry 04 05 12 _____________________________________________________________________________________ V1120 .4 Ensure that the quantity of water in the mortar joints remains the same while smoothing them. .5 Always use a clean water container .6 Always use a clean mixer. 3.7 CLEANING .1 Once finished the work, remove the excess mortar using a wooden blade. Once the mortar has sufficiently cured, the contractor must: .1 Moisten the wall surface with clean water, starting from the bottom. .2 Scour the wall surface using water and a brush with nylon bristles. .3 Do NOT use any form of acid, unless otherwise indicated by the professional in charge of the project. .4 If the use of cleaning product is necessary, contact the product manufacturer to validate the compatibility of the product and the procedure to follow. If the colour ONYX is used, be sure to mention to the cleaning product manufacturer that the mortar contains Carbon Oxides pigments. Generally used cleaning agents are not compatible with Carbon Oxides. Apart from colour Onyx, all KING – A SIKA Co. coloured mortars contain iron or titanium oxides. .5 Regardless of the technique or product selected, it is essential to preserve the integrity of the mortar. .6 Proceed with a witness section of 2000 mm high X 2000 mm long minimum. .7 Wait for approval of the cleaning control zone by the professional in charge of the project before proceeding with the entire building. END OF SECTION Technical Datasheet - A7+ Adhesive Anchor Description: Quick-Cure Adhesive Anchor for Concrete and Masonry Applications Product Description - High-Strength, quick-cure structural concrete and masonry adhesive anchoring system, Adhesive Type 2-part injectable hybrid epoxy (10:1 ratio) Cartridge Types & Sizes Durable and re-sealable cartridges available in 3 sizes: 9.5oz coaxial cartridge (standard caulking tube) 28oz. dual cartridge 5oz coaxial cartridge Approvals ICC-ES ESR 3903 (Concrete Report) ICC-ES ESR 3951 (Masonry Report) 2015, 2012, 2009, 2006 International Building Code (IBC) Compliant Florida Building Code (FBC) City of Los Angeles (COLA) Extensive Department of Transportation (DOT) Listings (visit itwredhead.com for more info) NSF/ANSI 61 Approval for use in Drinking Water System Components ASTM C881, Types I, II, IV, and V, Grade 3, Classes A, B, & C (meets Type III except elongation) Anchor Sizes & Types Threaded Rod: ¼” – 1-1/2” Rebar: #3-#11 Rebar Load Types Suitable for use in applications subject to short- and long-term sustained loads, including static, seismic and wind loads in tension or shear. Water Resistance 100% hydrophobic, suitable for use in saturated concrete and water-filled or submerged holes Hole Orientation Suitable for use with vertical down, horizontal and overhead anchors Hole Size 1/16” to 1/8” larger than diameter of rod / rebar, contact technical support at (800) 848-5611 for more detail Drill Types Hammer or standard rotary drill using carbide drill bits. For instructions for use with diamond core drills, call Technical Service at (800) 848-5611 In-Service Temperatures -41° through 176°F (-41° through 80°C) Working (Gel Time) 5 minutes at 70°F (21°C) Full Cure Time 45 minutes at 70°F (21°C) Adhesive Color Gray when properly mixed Storage Life & Temperature 18 months from date of manufacture when stored in 32° through 95°F (0° through 35°C) Country of Origin Made in France (28oz & 5oz Kits Packaged in the US) © 2017 Illinois Tool Works, Inc. RH010917 For additional information, please visit www.itwredhead.com 23Call our toll free number 800-848-5611 or visit our web site for the most current product and technical information at www.itwredhead.com A7+ DESCRIPTION Quick Curing Hybrid Epoxy Adhesive RED HEAD A7+ is a high-strength, fast-cure adhesive that is designed to securely anchor threaded rod and rebar to cured concrete and masonry. A7+ is one of the most versatile achoring solutions on the market, suitable for use in an extremely wide range of applications and environmental conditions. n The only quick-cure ICC-ES listed for use in all wet conditions n Qualified for use in concrete, block, brick, and clay tile. Solid or hollow base materials n Cures in only 45 minutes (at substrate temperature of 70°F/21°C) n ICC-ES listed for cracked concrete and seismic applications (ICC-ES ESR 3903) n ICC-ES listed for masonry applications (ICC-ES ESR 3951) n No drip formula that allows direct-injection overhead installation n Low odor - suitable for use indoors and in occupied buildings n 18-month storage life minimizes waste and risk of using expired product n Rugged cartridge resists breakage due to rough handling or cold temperatures n Store between 320F and 950F in a cool, dry place. ADVANTAGES n All weather formula n Works in damp holes and underwater applications n Fast curing time, 45 minutes at 70°F n ICC-ES Evaluation Report ESR-3903 (Concrete) and ESR-3951 (Masonry) n NSF 61 Listed, certified for use in conjunction with drinking water systems n Fast & easy dispensing, even 28 ounce cartridge can be hand dispensed n Formula for use in solid and hollow base materials Curing Times The Most Versatile Quick Cure Adhesive A7P-10 CONCRETE ADHESIVE GEL TIME FULL CURE TIME(F°)(C°)(F°)(C°) 110 43 110 43 1.5 minutes 45 minutes 90 32 90 32 3 minutes 45 minutes 70 21 70 21 5 minutes 45 minutes 50 10 50 10 15 minutes 90 minutes 32 0 32 0 35 minutes 4 hours 14 -10 32 0 35 minutes 24 hours A7P-28 NOMINAL ANCHOR DIAMETER (IN.) MINIMUM SPACING (IN.) MINIMUM EDGE DISTANCE (IN.) 3/8 15/16 15/16 1/2 1-1/2 1-1/2 5/8 2-1/2 2-1/2 3/4 3 3 7/8 3-1/2 3-1/2 1 4 4 1-1/4 5 5 Most Competitive Spacing and Edge Distance APPLICATIONS / USES n Concrete dowelling (slabs, walls, columns) n Steel framing (columns, beams, ledgers) n Brick pinning and CMU reinforcement n Architectural metal fastening (railings, signage) n Mechanical, electrical, and plumbing attachment n Vibratory equipment anchoring n Overhead and horizontal anchors 24 Call our toll free number 800-848-5611 or visit our web site for the most current product and technical information at www.itwredhead.com S75 “High Flow” Mixing Nozzle p/n S75 (qty/ctn:24) NOZZLESCARTRIDGES TOOLS S55 Mixing Nozzle p/n S55 (qty/ctn:24) E55 Mixing Nozzle p/n E55 (qty/ctn:24) A24S Mixing Nozzle p/n A24S (qty/ctn:24) A7P-10 Cartridge p/n A7P-10 (includes A24S mixing nozzle) A7P-28 Cartridge p/n A7P-28 (includes S55 mixing nozzle) A100 Dispenser p/n A100 A300Dispenser p/n A300 A200 PneumaticDispenser p/n A200 A102-V3 Dispenser p/n A102-V3 S75EXT Nozzle p/n S75EXT (qty/ctn:24) APPROVALS/LISTINGSINSTALLATION STEPS Water Treatment Facilities The best-in-class in edge and spacing distance of Red Head A7+ and its ability to work in water have make it a great fit for waste water treatment plants. A7+ APPLICATIONS PSI: 50 min/100 max. 2x ’s 4 PSI: 50 min/100 max. 2x ’s 60%1 3 5 6 2x’s 2 PSI: 50 min/100 max. 2x ’s 4 PSI: 50 min/100 max. 2x’s 60%13 5 6 2x’s 2 * Damp, submerged and underwater applications require 4x’s air, 4x’s brushing and 4x’s air ** Dust is shown for diagram purposes only. To help mitigate airborne dust and comply with OSHA requirements, we recommend that you either wet the concrete before blowing out the hole, or use a drill dust extractor with your pneumatic air nozzle. We recommend vacuum assisted dust extractors like Milwaukee part numbers 5261-DE or 5317-DE. Call our technical services at (800) 848-5611 for more information.” Roadway Doweling A7+ dispenses so quickly and rebar inserts so easily that contractors find installed costs are lower than many other products including grout for doweling. ICC-ES ESR 3903 (Concrete Report) ICC-ES ESR 3951 (Masonry Report) 2018, 2015, 2012, 2009, 2006 International Building Code (IBC) Compliant Florida Building Code (FBC) City of Los Angeles (COLA) Extensive Department of Transportation (DOT) Listings NSF/ANSI 61 Approval for use in Drinking Water System Components ASTM C881, Types I, II, IV, and V, Grade 3, Classes A, B, & C (meets Type III except elongation) For most current approvals and listings please visit: www.itwredhead.com DRILL BLOW** BLOW**DISPENSE INSTALL BRUSH 1. Disposable, self-contained cartridge system capable of dispensing both components in the proper mixing ratio 2. Acrylic components dispensed through a static mixing nozzle that thoroughly mixes the material and places the material at the base of the pre-drilled hole 3. Cartridge markings: Include manu- facturer’s name, batch number and best-used-by date, mix ratio by vol- ume, ANSI hazard classification, and appropriate ANSI handling precautions PACKAGING All Red Head nozzles can be used with all A7+ cartridges. Choose the nozzle that is right for you depending on hole depth and dispensing needs. 25Call our toll free number 800-848-5611 or visit our web site for the most current product and technical information at www.itwredhead.com A7P–10 fl. oz. Ordering Information PART NUMBER DESCRIPTION BOX QTY A7P-10 9.5 Fluid Ounce Cartridge with A24S Nozzle 6 A24S Mixing Nozzle for A7P-10 Cartridge Nozzle diameter fits 3/8” to 5/8” holes (overall length of nozzle 6-3/8”) 24 A100 Hand Dispenser Designed for A7P-10 Cartridge Contractor Quality 26:1 Thrust Ratio 1 ESTIMATING TABLE A7+ 9.5 Fluid Ounce Cartridge Number of Anchoring Installations per Cartridge* using Rebar with A7+ in Solid Concrete REBAR DRILL HOLE DIA. INCHES EMBEDMENT DEPTH IN INCHES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 #3 7/16 189.4 94.7 63.1 47.4 37.9 31.6 27.1 23.7 21.0 18.9 #4 5/8 92.8 46.4 30.9 23.2 18.6 15.5 13.3 11.6 10.3 9.3 #5 3/4 64.5 32.2 21.5 16.1 12.9 10.7 9.2 8.1 7.2 6.4 #6 7/8 47.4 23.7 15.8 11.8 9.5 7.9 6.8 5.9 5.3 4.7 #7 1 36.3 18.1 12.1 9.1 7.3 6.0 5.2 4.5 4.0 3.6 #8 1-1/8 28.6 14.3 9.5 7.2 5.7 4.8 4.1 3.6 3.2 2.9 #9 1-1/4 23.2 11.6 7.7 5.8 4.6 3.9 3.3 2.9 2.6 2.3 #10 1-1/2 16.1 8.1 5.4 4.0 3.2 2.7 2.3 2.0 1.8 1.6 #11 1-3/4 11.8 5.9 3.9 3.0 2.4 2.0 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.2 *The estimated number of anchoring installations per cartridge is based upon calculations of filling the hole 60% full of adhesive per the recommendation in our installation instructions. Hole volumes are calculated using ANSI tolerance carbide tipped drill bits. These estimates do not account for any waste. ESTIMATING TABLES A7+ 9.5 Fluid Ounce Cartridge Number of Anchoring Installations per Cartridge* using Threaded Rod with A7+ in Solid Concrete ROD (In.)DRILL HOLE DIA. INCHES EMBEDMENT DEPTH IN INCHES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1/4 5/16 371.3 185.6 123.8 92.8 74.3 61.9 53.0 46.4 41.3 37.1 3/8 7/16 189.4 94.7 63.1 47.4 37.9 31.6 27.1 23.7 21.0 18.9 1/2 9/16 114.6 57.3 38.2 28.6 22.9 19.1 16.4 14.3 12.7 11.5 5/8 3/4 64.5 32.2 21.5 16.1 12.9 10.7 9.2 8.1 7.2 6.4 3/4 7/8 47.4 23.7 15.8 11.8 9.5 7.9 6.8 5.9 5.3 4.7 7/8 1 36.3 18.1 12.1 9.1 7.3 6.0 5.2 4.5 4.0 3.6 1 1-1/8 28.6 14.3 9.5 7.2 5.7 4.8 4.1 3.6 3.2 2.9 1-1/4 1-3/8 19.2 9.6 6.4 4.8 3.8 3.2 2.7 2.4 2.1 1.9 1-1/2 1-5/8 13.7 6.9 4.6 3.4 2.7 2.3 2.0 1.7 1.5 1.4 *The estimated number of anchoring installations per cartridge is based upon calculations of filling the hole 60% full of adhesive per the recommendation in our installation instructions. Hole volumes are calculated using ANSI tolerance carbide tipped drill bits. These estimates do not account for any waste. 26 Call our toll free number 800-848-5611 or visit our web site for the most current product and technical information at www.itwredhead.com ESTIMATING TABLE A7+ 28 Fluid Ounce Cartridge Number of Anchoring Installations per Cartridge* using Threaded Rod with A7+ in Solid Concrete Rod (in.) DRILL HOLE DIA. INCHES EMBEDMENT DEPTH IN INCHES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1/4 5/16 1094.0 547.0 364.7 273.5 218.8 182.3 156.3 136.7 121.6 109.4 99.5 91.2 84.2 78.1 72.9 3/8 7/16 558.2 279.1 186.1 139.5 111.6 93.0 79.7 69.8 62.0 55.8 50.7 46.5 42.9 39.9 37.2 1/2 9/16 337.7 168.8 112.6 84.4 67.5 56.3 48.2 42.2 37.5 33.8 30.7 28.1 26.0 24.1 22.5 5/8 3/4 189.9 95.0 63.3 47.5 38.0 31.7 27.1 23.7 21.1 19.0 17.3 15.8 14.6 13.6 12.7 3/4 7/8 139.5 69.8 46.5 34.9 27.9 23.3 19.9 17.4 15.5 14.0 12.7 11.6 10.7 10.0 9.3 7/8 1 106.8 53.4 35.6 26.7 21.4 17.8 15.3 13.4 11.9 10.7 9.7 8.9 8.2 7.6 7.1 1 1-1/8 84.4 42.2 28.1 21.1 16.9 14.1 12.1 10.6 9.4 8.4 7.7 7.0 6.5 6.0 5.6 1-1/4 1-3/8 56.5 28.3 18.8 14.1 11.3 9.4 8.1 7.1 6.3 5.7 5.1 4.7 4.3 4.0 3.8 1-1/2 1-5/8 40.5 20.2 13.5 10.1 8.1 6.7 5.8 5.1 4.5 4.0 3.7 3.4 3.1 2.9 2.7 *The estimated number of anchoring installations per cartridge is based upon calculations of filling the hole 60% full of adhesive per the recommendation in our installation instructions. Hole volumes are calculated using ANSI tolerance carbide tipped drill bits. These estimates do not account for any waste. PART NUMBER DESCRIPTION BOX QTY S55 Mixing Nozzle for A7P-28 Cartridge Nozzle diameter fits holes for 3/8” diameter & larger anchors (overall length of nozzle 10”) 6 A200 Pneumatic Dispenser for A7P-28 Cartridge 1 E25-6 6-Foot Straight Tubing (Used when holes are deeper) (can cut to proper size) (.39 in I.D. x .43 in. O.D.)24 A300 Cordless Battery Dispenser for A7P-28, C6P-30 and G5P-30 Cartridge. Includes one battery and charger. Works with all Milwaukee® M18™ batteries 1 *See page 65 for nozzle extension tubes and other accessories A7P–28 fl. oz. Ordering Information PART NUMBER DESCRIPTION BOX QTY A7P-28 28 Fluid Ounce Cartridge A7+ Each cartirdge comes with a S55 Nozzle 4 E55 Mixing Nozzle for A7P-28 and G5-22 Cartridge Nozzle diameter fits 3/8” to 5/8” holes. (overall length of nozzle 14”) 24 A102-V3 Heavy-Duty 34:1 thrust ratio hand dispenser for A7P-28 cartridge 1 ESTIMATING TABLE A7+ 28 Fluid Ounce Cartridge Number of Anchoring Installations per Cartridge* using Rebar with A7+ in Solid Concrete REBAR DRILL HOLE DIA. INCHES EMBEDMENT DEPTH IN INCHES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 #3 7/16 558.2 279.1 186.1 139.5 111.6 93.0 79.7 69.8 62.0 55.8 50.7 46.5 42.9 39.9 37.2 #4 5/8 273.5 136.7 91.2 68.4 54.7 45.6 39.1 34.2 30.4 27.3 24.9 22.8 21.0 19.5 18.2 #5 3/4 189.9 95.0 63.3 47.5 38.0 31.7 27.1 23.7 21.1 19.0 17.3 15.8 14.6 13.6 12.7 #6 7/8 139.5 69.8 46.5 34.9 27.9 23.3 19.9 17.4 15.5 14.0 12.7 11.6 10.7 10.0 9.3 #7 1 106.8 53.4 35.6 26.7 21.4 17.8 15.3 13.4 11.9 10.7 9.7 8.9 8.2 7.6 7.1 #8 1-1/8 84.4 42.2 28.1 21.1 16.9 14.1 12.1 10.6 9.4 8.4 7.7 7.0 6.5 6.0 5.6 #9 1-1/4 68.4 34.2 22.8 17.1 13.7 11.4 9.8 8.5 7.6 6.8 6.2 5.7 5.3 4.9 4.6 #10 1-1/2 47.5 23.7 15.8 11.9 9.5 7.9 6.8 5.9 5.3 4.7 4.3 4.0 3.7 3.4 3.2 #11 1-3/4 34.9 17.4 11.6 8.7 7.0 5.8 5.0 4.4 3.9 3.5 3.2 2.9 2.7 2.5 2.3 *The estimated number of anchoring installations per cartridge is based upon calculations of filling the hole 60% full of adhesive per the recommendation in our installation instructions. Hole volumes are calculated using ANSI tolerance carbide tipped drill bits. These estimates do not account for any waste. 27Call our toll free number 800-848-5611 or visit our web site for the most current product and technical information at www.itwredhead.com PART NUMBER DESCRIPTION BOX QTY A7P-501KIT Kit for Standard Caulk Gun (1) Cartridge (1) Sleeve for Caulk Gun (1) Nozzle Nozzle diameter fits 3/8” to 5/8” holes 8 A7P–5 fl. oz. Ordering Information PART NUMBER DESCRIPTION BOX QTY A7P-500KIT Kit with Dispenser Included (1) Cartridge (1) Dispenser (plastic) (1) Nozzle Nozzle diameter fits 3/8” to 5/8” holes 8 3. Place assembly in caulking gun and dispense adhesive. Simple Assembly and Dispensing 2. Thread nozzle onto cartridge. 1. Push adaptor tightly against back of cartridge. 3. Turn lever in order to dispense adhesive. Simple Assembly and Dispensing 2. Thread nozzle onto cartridge. 1. Twist-lock dispenser onto cartridge. EASY PACKAGING! A500 and A501 kits are perfect for both counter or pegboard hanging display. AVAILABLE WITH YOUR CHOICE OF TWO, EASY DISPENSING SYSTEMS A7P-501KIT A7P-500KIT (not shown) A500 PLASTIC DISPENSER Attaches directly to cartridge allowing for easy hand dispensing. No extra tools are required. A501 CAULKINGGUN ADAPTOR Allows cartridge to work with most standard caulking guns (caulking gun supplied by contractor) ESTIMATING TABLES A7+ 5 Fluid Ounce Cartridge Number of Anchoring Installations per Cartridge* using Threaded Rod with A7+ in Solid Concrete ROD (in.)DRILL HOLE DIA. INCHES EMBEDMENT DEPTH IN INCHES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1/4 5/16 198.9 99.5 66.3 49.7 39.8 33.2 28.4 24.9 3/8 7/16 101.5 50.7 33.8 25.4 20.3 16.9 14.5 12.7 1/2 9/16 61.4 30.7 20.5 15.3 12.3 10.2 8.8 7.7 5/8 3/4 34.5 17.3 11.5 8.6 6.9 5.8 4.9 4.3 3/4 7/8 25.4 12.7 8.5 6.3 5.1 4.2 3.6 3.2 7/8 1 19.4 9.7 6.5 4.9 3.9 3.2 2.8 2.4 1 1-1/8 15.3 7.7 5.1 3.8 3.1 2.6 2.2 1.9 *The estimated number of anchoring installations per cartridge is based upon calculations of filling the hole 60% full of adhesive per the recommendation in our installation instructions. Hole volumes are calculated using ANSI tolerance carbide tipped drill bits. These estimates do not account for any waste. 28 Call our toll free number 800-848-5611 or visit our web site for the most current product and technical information at www.itwredhead.com PERFORMANCE TABLE A7+ The Most Versatile Quick-Cure Threaded Rod Ultimate Tension and Shear Loads 1,2,3 Installed in Solid Concrete THREADED ROD DIAMETER DRILL HOLE DIAMETER MAX. CLAMPING FORCE AFTER PROPER CURE EMBEDMENT IN CONCRETE 2000 PSI (13.8 MPa) CONCRETE 4000 PSI (27.6 MPa) CONCRETE ULTIMATE TENSION ULTIMATE SHEAR ULTIMATE TENSION ULTIMATE SHEAR in.(mm)in (mm)ft.-lbs (Nm)in.(mm)lbs.(kN)lbs.(kN)lbs.(kN)lbs.(kN) 3/8 (9.5)7/16 (11.1)9 (12) 1-1/2 (38.1)N/A N/A N/A N/A 3,734 (16.6)4,126 (18.3) 3-3/8 (85.7)5,852 (26.0)5,220 (23.2)10,977 (48.8)5,220 (23.2) 4-1/2 (114.3)7,729 (34.4)5,220 (23.2)11,661 (51.9)5,220 (23.2) 1/2 (12.7)9/16 (14.3)16 (21) 2 (50.8)N/A N/A N/A N/A 6,022 (26.8)8,029 (35.7) 4-1/2 (114.3)10,798 (48.0)8,029 (35.7)17,162 (76.3)8,029 (35.7) 6 (152.4)14,210 (63.2)8,029 (35.7)17,372 (77.3)8,029 (35.7) 5/8 (15.9)3/4 (19.1)47 (63) 2-1/2 (63.5)N/A N/A N/A N/A 7,330 (32.6)11,256 (50.1) 5-5/8 (142.9)16,417 (73.0)15,967 (71.0)26,504 (117.9)15,967 (71.0) 7-1/2 (190.5)18,747 (83.4)15,967 (71.0)29,381 (130.7)15,967 (71.0) 3/4 (19.1)7/8 (22.2)70 (95) 3 (76.2)N/A N/A N/A N/A 8,634 (38.4)20,126 (89.5) 6-3/4 (171.5)18,618 (82.8)20,126 (89.5)29,727 (132.2)20,126 (89.5) 9 (228.6)23,934 (106.5)20,126 (89.5)37,728 (167.8)20,126 (89.5) 7/8 (22.2)1 (25.4)90 (122) 3-1/2 (88.9)N/A N/A N/A N/A 13,650 (60.7)20,920 (92.9) 7-7/8 (200.0)N/A N/A 29,866 (132.9)44,915 (199.8)29,866 (132.9) 10-1/2 (266.7)36,881 (164.1)29,866 (132.9)48,321 (215.0)29,866 (132.9) 1 (25.4)1-1/8 (28.6)110 (149) 4 (101.6)N/A N/A N/A N/A 16,266 (72.2)33,152 (147.5) 9 (228.6)32,215 (143.3)37,538 (167.0)48,209 (214.5)37,538 (167.0) 12 (304.8)46,064 (204.9)37,538 (167.0)63,950 (284.5)37,538 (167.0) 1-1/4 (31.8)1-3/8 (34.9)370 (501) 5 (127.0)N/A N/A N/A N/A 21,838 (97.1)33,152 (147.5) 11-1/4 (285.8)45,962 (204.5)58,412 (259.8)56,715 (252.3)58,412 (259.8) 15 (381.0)62,208 (276.7)58,412 (259.8)84,385 (375.4)58,412 (259.8) 1 Allowable working loads for the single installation under static loading should not exceed 25% capacity of the ultimate load. To calculate the allowable load of the anchor, divide the ultimate load by 4. 2 Ultimate load values in 2000 and 4000 psi stone aggregate concrete. Ultimate loads are indicated for the embedment shown in the Embedment in Concrete column. Performance values are based on the use of high strength threaded rod (ASTM A193 Gr. B7). The use of lower strength rods will result in lower ultimate tension and shear loads. 3 Linear interpolation may be used for intermediate spacing and edge distances. ESTIMATING TABLES A7+ 5 Fluid Ounce Cartridge Number of Anchoring Installations per Cartridge* using Rebar with A7+ in Solid Concrete REBAR DRILL HOLE DIA. INCHES EMBEDMENT DEPTH IN INCHES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 #3 7/16 101.5 50.7 33.8 25.4 20.3 16.9 14.5 12.7 #4 5/8 49.7 24.9 16.6 12.4 9.9 8.3 7.1 6.2 #5 3/4 34.5 17.3 11.5 8.6 6.9 5.8 4.9 4.3 #6 7/8 25.4 12.7 8.5 6.3 5.1 4.2 3.6 3.2 #7 1 19.4 9.7 6.5 4.9 3.9 3.2 2.8 2.4 #8 1-1/8 15.3 7.7 5.1 3.8 3.1 2.6 2.2 1.9 #9 1-1/4 12.4 6.2 4.1 3.1 2.5 2.1 1.8 1.6 *The estimated number of anchoring installations per cartridge is based upon calculations of filling the hole 60% full of adhesive per the recommendation in our installation instructions. Hole volumes are calculated using ANSI tolerance carbide tipped drill bits. These estimates do not account for any waste. 29Call our toll free number 800-848-5611 or visit our web site for the most current product and technical information at www.itwredhead.com PERFORMANCE TABLE A7+ The most Versatile Quick Cure Threaded Rod Allowable Tension Loads1,2 Installed in Solid Concrete THREADED ROD DIAMETER DRILL HOLE DIAMETER MIN. EMBEDMENT DEPTH ALLOWABLE TENSION LOAD BASED ON ADHESIVE BOND STRENGTH ALLOWABLE TENSION LOAD BASED ON STEEL STRENGTH 2000 PSI (13.8 MPA) CONCRETE 4000 PSI (27.6 MPa) CONCRETE ASTM A307 (SAE 1018)ASTM A193 GR. B7 (SAE4140)ASTM F593 AISI 304 SS in.(mm)in.(mm)in.(mm)lbs.(kN)lbs (kN)lbs (kN)lbs (kN)lbs (kN) 3/8 (9.5)7/16 (11.1) 1-1/2 (38.1)N/A N/A 934 (4.2)2,080 (9.3)4,340 (19.3)3,995 (17.8) 3-3/8 (85.7)1,460 (6.5)2,740 (12.2)2,080 (9.3)4,340 (19.3)3,995 (17.8) 4-1/2 (114.3)1,930 (8.6)2,915 (13.0)2,080 (9.3)4,340 (19.3)3,995 (17.8) 1/2 (12.7)9/16 (14.3) 2 (50.8)N/A N/A 1,505 (6.7)3,730 (16.6)7,780 (34.6)7,155 (31.8) 4-1/2 (114.3)2,700 (12.0)4,290 (19.1)3,730 (16.6)7,780 (34.6)7,155 (31.8) 6 (152.4)3,550 (15.8)4,340 (19.3)3,730 (16.6)7,780 (34.6)7,155 (31.8) 5/8 (15.9)3/4 (19.1) 2-1/2 (63.5)N/A N/A 1,832 (8.2)5,870 (26.1)12,230 (54.4)11,250 (50.0) 5-5/8 (142.9)4,100 (18.3)6,625 (29.5)5,870 (26.1)12,230 (54.4)11,250 (50.0) 7-1/2 (190.5)4,685 (20.8)7,345 (32.7)5,870 (26.1)12,230 (54.4)11,250 (50.0) 3/4 (19.1)7/8 (22.2) 3 (76.2)N/A N/A 2,158 (9.6)8,490 (37.8)17,690 (78.7)14,860 (66.1) 6-3/4 (171.5)4,655 (20.7)7,430 (33.1)8,490 (37.8)17,690 (78.7)14,860 (66.1) 9 (228.6)5,980 (26.6)9,430 (42.0)8,490 (37.8)17,690 (78.7)14,860 (66.1) 7/8 (22.2)1 (25.4) 3-1/2 (88.9)N/A N/A 3,413 (15.2)11,600 (51.6)25,510 (113.5)20,835 (92.7) 7-7/8 (200.0)N/A N/A 11,230 (49.9)11,600 (51.6)25,510 (113.5)20,835 (92.7) 10-1/2 (266.7)9,220 (41.0)12,080 (53.7)11,600 (51.6)25,510 (113.5)20,834 (92.7) 1 (25.4)1-1/8 (28.6) 4 (101.6)N/A N/A 4,067 (18.1)15,180 (67.5)31,620 (140.7)26,560 (118.1) 9 (228.6)8,050 (35.8)12,050 (53.6)15,180 (67.5)31,620 (140.7)26,560 (118.1) 12 (304.8)11,515 (51.2)15,985 (71.1)15,180 (67.5)31,620 (140.7)26,560 (118.1) 1-1/4 (31.8)1-3/8 (34.9) 5 (127.0) N/A N/A 5,460 (24.3)23,800 (105.9)49,580 (220.6)34,670 (154.2) 11-1/4 (285.8)11,490 (51.1)14,175 (63.1)23,800 (105.9)49,580 (220.6)34,670 (154.2) 15 (381.0)15,550 (69.2)21,095 (93.8)23,800 (105.9)49,580 (220.6)34,670 (154.2) 1 Use lower value of either bond or steel strength for allowable tensile load.2 Larger rods and/or deeper holes may be used. However, it may not be covered by current codes. PERFORMANCE TABLE A7+ The most Versatile Quick Cure Threaded Rod Allowable Shear Loads1,2 Installed in Solid Concrete THREADED ROD DIAMETER DRILL HOLE DIAMETER MIN. EMBEDMENT DEPTH ALLOWABLE SHEAR LOAD BASED ON CONCRETE STRENGTH ALLOWABLE SHEAR LOAD BASED ON STEEL STRENGTH 2000 PSI (13.8 MPA) CONCRETE 4000 PSI (27.6 MPa) CONCRETE ASTM A307 (SAE 1018) ASTM A193 GR. B7 (SAE4140) ASTM F593 AISI 304 SS in.(mm)in.(mm)in.(mm)lbs.(kN)lbs.(kN)lbs.(kN)lbs.(kN)lbs.(kN) 3/8 (9.5)7/16 (11.1)1-1/2 (38.1)N/A N/A 1,031 (4.6)1,040 (4.6)2,170 (9.7)1,995 (8.9) 3-3/8 (85.7)1,305 (5.8)1,305 (5.8)1,040 (4.6)2,170 (9.7)1,995 (8.9) 1/2 (12.7)9/16 (14.3)2 (50.8)N/A N/A 2,005 (8.9)1,870 (8.3)3,895 (17.3)3,585 (15.9) 4-1/2 (114.3)2,005 (8.9)2,005 (8.9)1,870 (8.3)3,895 (17.3)3,585 (15.9) 5/8 (15.9)3/4 (19.1)2-1/2 (63.5)N/A N/A 2,814 (12.5)2,940 (13.1)6,125 (27.2)5,635 (25.1) 5-5/8 (142.9)3,990 (17.8)3,990 (17.8)2,940 (13.1)6,125 (27.2)5,635 (25.1) 3/4 (19.1)7/8 (22.2) 3 (76.2)N/A N/A 5,030 (22.4)4,250 (18.9)8,855 (39.4)7,440 (33.1) 6-3/4 (171.5)5,030 (22.4)5,030 (22.4)4,250 (18.9)8,855 (39.4)7,440 (33.1) 7/8 (22.2)1 (25.4) 3-1/2 (88.9) N/A N/A 5,230 (23.3)5,800 (25.8)12,760 (56.8)10,730 (47.7) 7-7/8 (200.0)7,465 (33.2)7,465 (33.2)5,800 (25.8)12,760 (56.8)10,730 (47.7) 1 (25.4)1-1/8 (28.6) 4 (101.6)N/A N/A 8,288 (36.9)7,590 (33.8)15,810 (70.3)13,285 (59.1) 9 (228.6)9,385 (41.7)9,385 (41.7)7,590 (33.8)15,810 (70.3)13,285 (59.1) 1-1/4 (31.8)1-3/8 (34.9) 5 (127.0) N/A N/A 8,288 (36.9)11,900 (52.9)24,790 (100.3)18,840 (83.8) 11-1/4 (285.8)14,600 (64.9)14,600 (64.9)11,900 (52.9)24,790 (100.3)18,840 (83.8 1 Use lower value of either concrete or steel strength for allowable shear load.2 Larger rods and/or deeper holes may be used. However, it may not be covered by current codes. 30 Call our toll free number 800-848-5611 or visit our web site for the most current product and technical information at www.itwredhead.com PERFORMANCE TABLE A7+ The Most Versatile Quick-Cure Rebar Ultimate Tension Loads1,2,3 Installed in Solid Concrete REINFORCING BAR DIAMETER EMBEDMENT IN CONCRETE 2000 PSI (13.8 MPa) CONCRETE ULTIMATE TENSION 4000 PSI (27.6 MPa) CONCRETE ULTIMATE TENSION ULTIMATE TENSILE AND YIELD STRENGTH: GRADE 60 REBAR MINIMUM YIELD STRENGTH MINIMUM ULTIMATE TENSILE STRENGTH in.(mm)in.(mm)lbs.(kN)lbs.(kN)lbs.(kN)lbs.(kN) # 3 (9.5)3-3/8 (85.7)6,180 (27.5)8,324 (37.0)6,600 (29.4)9,900 (44.0) 4-1/2 (114.3)7,560 (33.6)11,418 (50.8) 6,600 (29.4)9,900 (44.0) # 4 (12.7)4-1/2 (114.3)9,949 (44.3)16,657 (74.1) 12,000 (53.4)18,000 (80.1) 6 (152.4)15,038 (66.9)17,828 (79.3)12,000 (53.4)18,000 (80.1) # 5 (15.9)5-5/8 (142.9)14,012 (62.3)20,896 (93.0) 18,600 (82.7)27,900 (124.1) 7-1/2 (190.5)16,718 (74.4)26,072 (116.0)18,600 (82.7)27,900 (124.1) # 6 (19.1)6-3/4 (171.5)21,247 (94.5)26,691 (118.7)26,400 (117.4)39,600 (176.2) 9 (228.6)33,325 (148.2)37,425 (166.5) 26,400 (117.4)39,600 (176.2) # 7 (22.2)7-7/8 (200.0)N/A N/A 40,374 (179.6) 36,000 (160.1)54,000 (240.2) 10-1/2 (266.7)38,975 (173.4)46,050 (204.8) 36,000 (160.1)54,000 (240.2) # 8 (25.4)9 (228.6)35,600 (158.4)47,311 (210.5) 47,400 (210.9)71,100 (316.3) 12 (304.8)41,010 (182.4)66,140 (294.2) 47,400 (210.9)71,100 (316.3) # 9 (28.6)10-1/8 (257.2)N/A N/A 57,221 (254.5) 60,000 (266.9)90,000 (400.4) 13-1/2 (342.9)N/A N/A 79,966 (355.7)60,000 (266.9)90,000 (400.4) # 10 (31.8)11-1/4 (285.8)49,045 (218.2)73,091 (325.1) 76,200 (339.0)114,300 (508.5) 15 (381.0)69,079 (307.3)83,295 (370.5) 76,200 (339.0)114,300 (508.5) # 11 (34.9)12-3/8 (314.3)63,397 (282.0) 75,047 (333.8) 93,600 (416.4)140,400 (624.6) 16-1/2 (419.1)81,707 (363.5) 91,989 (409.2) 93,600 (416.4)140,400 (624.6) 1 Allowable working loads for the single installation under static loading should not exceed 25% capacity or the allowable load of the anchor rod. 2 Ultimate load values in 2000 and 4000 psi stone aggregate concrete. Ultimate loads are indicated for the embedment shown in the Embedment in Concrete column. Performance values are based on the use of minimum Grade 60 reinforcing bar. The use of lower strength rods will result in lower ultimate tension loads. 3 SHEAR DATA: Provided the distance from the rebar to the edge of the concrete member exceeds 1.25 times the embedment depth of the rebar, calculate the ultimate shear load for the rebar anchorage as 60% of the ultimate tensile strength of the rebar. 4 Larger rods and/or deeper holes may be used. However, it may not be covered by current codes. PERFORMANCE TABLE A7+ The Most Versatile Quick-Cure Threaded Rod Recommended Edge Distance Requirements for Tension Loads Installed in Solid Concrete ANCHOR DIAMETER EMBEDMENT DEPTH CRITICAL EDGE DISTANCE (100% LOAD CAPACITY) INTERPOLATED EDGE DISTANCE (90% LOAD CAPACITY) INTERPOLATED EDGE DISTANCE (80% LOAD CAPACITY)MINIMUM EDGE DISTANCE (70% LOAD CAPACITY) in.(mm)in.(mm)in.(mm)in.(mm)in.(mm)in.(mm) 3/8 (9.5)3-3/8 (85.7)2-1/2 (63.5)1-15/16 (49.2)1-3/8 (34.9)13/16 (26.2) 4-1/2 (114.3)3-3/8 (85.7)2-5/8 (66.7)1-7/8 (47.6)1-1/8 (28.6) 1/2 (12.7)4-1/2 (114.3)3-3/8 (85.7)2-5/8 (66.7)1-7/8 (47.6)1-1/8 (28.6) 6 (152.4)4-1/2 (114.3)3-1/2 (88.9)2-1/2 (63.5)1-1/2 (38.1) 5/8 (15.9)5-5/8 (142.9)4-3/16 (106.4)3-1/4 (82.6)2-5/16 (58.7)1-3/8 (34.9) 7-1/2 (190.5)5-5/8 (142.9)4-3/8 (111.1)3-1/8 (79.4)1-7/8 (47.6) 3/4 (19.1)6-3/4 (171.5)5-1/16 (128.6)3-15/16 (100.0)2-13/16 (71.4)1-5/8 (15.9) 9 (228.6)6-3/4 (171.5)5-1/4 (133.4)3-3/4 (95.3)2-1/4 (57.2) 1 (25.4)9 (228.6)6-3/4 (171.5)5-1/4 (133.4)3-3/4 (95.3)2-1/4 (57.2) 12 (304.8)9 (228.6)7 (177.8)5 (127.0)3 (76.2) 1-1/4 (31.8)11-1/4 (285.8)8-7/16 (214.3)6-9/16 (166.7)4-3/4 (120.7)2-7/8 (73.0) 15 (381.0)11-1/4 (285.8)8-3/4 (222.2)6-1/4 158.8)3-3/4 (95.3) 31Call our toll free number 800-848-5611 or visit our web site for the most current product and technical information at www.itwredhead.com Combined Tension and Shear Loading—for A7+/C6+/G5+ Adhesive Anchors Allowable loads for anchors under tension and shear loading at the same time (combined loading) will be lower than the allowable loads for anchors subjected to 100% tension or 100% shear. Use the following equation to evaluate anchors in combined loading conditions: Na = Applied Service Tension Load Va = Applied Service Shear Load Ns = Allowable Tension Load Vs = Allowable Shear Load(())Na Va ≤ 1+ 5/3 5/3 Ns Vs 1 Use linear interpolation for load factors at edge distances or spacing distances between critical and minimum. 2 Anchors are affected by multiple combination of spacing and/or edge distance loading and direction of the loading. Use the product of tension and shear loading factors in design. LOAD FACTOR DISTANCE FROM EDGE OF CONCRETE Critical Edge Distance—Tension 100% Tension Load 0.75 x Anchor Embedment Minimum Edge Distance—Tension 70% Tension Load 0.25 x Anchor Embedment Critical Edge Distance—Shear 100% Shear Load 1.25 x Anchor Embedment Minimum Edge Distance—Shear 10% Shear Load 0.25 x Anchor Embedment LOAD FACTOR DISTANCE FROM ANOTHER ANCHOR Critical Spacing—Tension 100% Tension Load 1.25 x Anchor Embedment Minimum Spacing—Tension 80% Tension Load 0.25 x Anchor Embedment Critical Spacing—Shear 100% Shear Load 1.25 x Anchor Embedment Minimum Spacing—Shear 25% Shear Load 0.25 x Anchor Embedment PERFORMANCE REFERENCE TABLE A7+ The Most Versatile Quick-Cure Allowable Stress Design Reference Tables PERFORMANCE TABLE A7+ The Most Versatile Quick-Cure Threaded Rod Recommended Edge Distance Requirements for Shear Loads Installed in Solid Concrete ANCHOR DIAMETER EMBEDMENT DEPTH (100% LOAD CAPACITY)CRITICAL EDGE DISTANCE (80% LOAD CAPACITY) INTERPOLATED EDGE DISTANCE (50% LOAD CAPACITY) INTERPOLATED EDGE DISTANCE (10% LOAD CAPACITY)MINIMUM EDGE DISTANCE in.(mm)in.(mm)in.(mm)in.(mm)in.(mm)in.(mm) 3/8 (9.5)3-3/8 (85.7)4-3/16 (106.4)3-7/16 (87.3)2-5/16 (58.7)13/16 (20.6) 1/2 (12.7)4-1/2 (114.3)5-5/8 (142.9)4-5/8 (117.5)3-1/8 (79.4)1-1/8 (28.6) 5/8 (15.9)5-5/8 (142.9)7 (177.8)5-3/4 (146.1)3-1/8 (79.4)1-3/8 (34.9) 3/4 (19.1)6-3/4 (171.5)8-7/16 (214.2)6-15/16 (176.2)4-5/8 (117.5)1-5/8 (41.3) 1 (25.4)9 (228.6)11-1/4 (285.8)9-1/4 (235.0)6-1/4 (158.8)2-1/4 (57.2) 1-1/4 (31.8)11-1/4 (285.8)14-1/16 (357.2)11-5/8 (295.3)7-7/8 (200.0)2-7/8 (73.0) Threaded Rod and Rebar Installation in Solid Concrete Edge / Spacing Distance Load Factor Summary1,2 32 Call our toll free number 800-848-5611 or visit our web site for the most current product and technical information at www.itwredhead.com STRENGTH DESIGN TABLE A7+ The Most Versatile Quick-Cure Threaded Rod Tension (lbf) and Shear (lbf) Loads in Uncracked Concrete1,2,3,4 ASTM A193 B7 Anchor Diameter (in.) Embedment Depth (in.) Tension (lbf)Shear (lbf) 2500 psi 3000 psi 4000 psi 5000 psi 6000 psi - 8000 psi 2500 psi - 8000 psi 3/8 3-3/8 3,870 3,870 3,870 3,870 3,870 3,775 4-1/2 5,160 5,160 5,160 5,160 5,160 3,775 7-1/2 7,265 7,265 7,265 7,265 7,265 3,775 1/2 4-1/2 6,880 6,880 6,880 6,880 6,880 6,915 6 9,175 9,175 9,175 9,175 9,175 6,915 10 13,305 13,305 13,305 13,305 13,305 6,915 5/8 5-5/8 10,405 10,750 10,750 10,750 10,750 11,015 7-1/2 14,335 14,335 14,335 14,335 14,335 11,015 12-1/2 21,185 21,185 21,185 21,185 21,185 11,015 3/4 6-3/4 13,675 14,980 15,480 15,480 15,480 16,305 9 20,640 20,640 20,640 20,640 20,640 16,305 15 31,355 31,355 31,355 31,355 31,355 16,305 7/8 7-7/8 17,235 17,740 17,740 17,740 17,740 22,505 10-1/2 23,650 23,650 23,650 23,650 23,650 22,505 17-1/2 39,420 39,420 39,420 39,420 39,420 22,505 1 9 21,060 23,070 23,170 23,170 23,170 29,525 12 30,890 30,890 30,890 30,890 30,890 29,525 20 51,490 51,490 51,490 51,490 51,490 29,525 1-1/4 11-1/4 29,430 32,240 37,225 41,620 42,785 47,240 15 45,310 49,635 57,045 57,045 57,045 47,240 25 90,855 90,855 90,855 90,855 90,855 47,240 1 Tabulated values are for estimation purposes only and should not be used for design (please use our free TruSpec anchorage design software at www.itwredhead.com) 2 Tabulated values represent strength design per ACI 318 for a single anchor in adequate concrete thickness, not near an edge nor adjacent anchorage, and not for sustained loading. 3 Bond strengths used in calculations are for dry, uncracked concrete with periodic inspection 4 Bond strengths used in calculations are for Temperature Range A (maximum long term temperature of 110F, maximum short term temperature of 142F). 33Call our toll free number 800-848-5611 or visit our web site for the most current product and technical information at www.itwredhead.com STRENGTH DESIGN TABLE A7+ The Most Versatile Quick-Cure Threaded Rod Tension (lbf) and Shear (lbf) Loads in 4,000 psi Uncracked Concrete1,2,3,4 Anchor Diameter (in.)Embedment Depth (in.) ASTM A193 B7 Threaded Rod Stainless Steel F593 Carbon Steel A36 Tension (lbf)Shear (lbf)Tension (lbf)Shear (lbf)Tension (lbf)Shear (lbf) 3/8 3-3/8 3,870 3,775 3,375 1,755 3,870 2,280 4-1/2 5,160 3,775 3,375 1,755 4,785 2,280 7-1/2 7,265 3,775 3,375 1,755 4,785 2,280 1/2 4-1/2 6,880 6,915 6,170 3,210 6,880 4,040 6 9,175 6,915 6,170 3,210 8,760 4,040 10 13,305 6,915 6,170 3,210 8,760 4,040 5/8 5-5/8 10,750 11,015 9,830 5,115 10,750 6,440 7-1/2 14,335 11,015 9,830 5,115 13,955 6,440 12-1/2 21,185 11,015 9,830 5,115 13,955 6,440 3/4 6-3/4 15,480 16,305 14,550 7,565 15,480 7,610 9 20,640 16,305 14,550 7,565 16,500 7,610 15 31,355 16,305 14,550 7,565 16,500 7,610 7/8 7-7/8 17,740 22,505 17,740 10,445 17,740 10,530 10-1/2 23,650 22,505 20,085 10,445 22,820 10,530 17-1/2 39,420 22,505 20,085 10,445 22,820 10,530 1 9 23,170 29,525 23,170 13,700 23,170 13,815 12 30,890 29,525 26,345 13,700 29,935 13,815 20 51,490 29,525 26,345 13,700 29,935 13,815 1-1/4 11-1/4 37,225 47,240 37,225 21,920 37,225 22,090 15 57,045 47,240 42,155 21,920 47,865 22,090 25 90,855 47,240 42,155 21,920 47,865 22,090 1 Tabulated values are for estimation purposes only and should not be used for design (please use our free TruSpec anchorage design software at www.itwredhead.com) 2 Tabulated values represent strength design per ACI 318 for a single anchor in adequate concrete thickness, not near an edge nor adjacent anchorage, and not for sustained loading. 3 Bond strengths used in calculations are for dry, uncracked concrete with periodic inspection 4 Bond strengths used in calculations are for Temperature Range A (maximum long term temperature of 110F, maximum short term temperature of 142F). 34 Call our toll free number 800-848-5611 or visit our web site for the most current product and technical information at www.itwredhead.com STRENGTH DESIGN TABLE A7+ The Most Versatile Quick-Cure Threaded Rod Tension (lbf) and Shear (lbf) Loads in 4,000 psi Cracked Concrete1,2,3,4 Anchor Diameter (in.)Embedment Depth (in.) ASTM A193 B7 Threaded Rod Stainless Steel F593 Carbon Steel A36 Tension (lbf)Shear (lbf)Tension (lbf)Shear (lbf)Tension (lbf)Shear (lbf) 3/8 3-3/8 2,315 3,245 3,375 1,755 3,870 2,280 4-1/2 3,090 3,775 3,375 1,755 4,785 2,280 7-1/2 5,150 3,775 3,375 1,755 4,785 2,280 1/2 4-1/2 3,070 4,295 6,170 3,210 6,670 4,040 6 4,095 5,730 6,170 3,210 8,760 4,040 10 6,825 6,915 6,170 3,210 8,760 4,040 5/8 5-5/8 5,220 7,310 9,320 5,115 9,320 6,440 7-1/2 6,965 9,750 9,830 5,115 13,955 6,440 12-1/2 11,605 11,015 9,830 5,115 13,955 6,440 3/4 6-3/4 7,785 10,895 12,255 7,565 12,255 7,610 9 10,380 14,530 14,550 7,565 16,500 7,610 15 17,300 16,305 14,550 7,565 16,500 7,610 7/8 7-7/8 8,270 11,580 15,440 10,445 15,440 10,530 10-1/2 11,030 15,445 20,085 10,445 22,820 10,530 17-1/2 18,385 22,505 20,085 10,445 22,820 10,530 1 9 10,185 14,260 18,865 13,700 18,865 13,815 12 13,580 19,010 26,345 13,700 29,050 13,815 20 22,635 29,525 26,345 13,700 29,935 13,815 1-1/4 11-1/4 16,795 23,515 26,370 21,920 26,370 22,090 15 22,395 31,355 40,600 21,920 40,600 22,090 25 37,330 47,240 42,155 21,920 47,865 22,090 1 Tabulated values are for estimation purposes only and should not be used for design (please use our free TruSpec anchorage design software at www.itwredhead.com) 2 Tabulated values represent strength design per ACI 318 for a single anchor in adequate concrete thickness, not near an edge nor adjacent anchorage, and not for sustained loading. 3 Bond strengths used in calculations are for dry, cracked concrete with periodic inspection 4 Bond strengths used in calculations are for Temperature Range A (maximum long term temperature of 110F, maximum short term temperature of 142F). STRENGTH DESIGN TABLE A7+ The Most Versatile Quick-Cure Threaded Rod Tension (lbf) and Shear (lbf) Loads in Cracked Concrete1,2,3,4 ASTM A193 B7 Anchor Diameter (in.)Embedment Depth (in.) Tension (lbf) 2,500-8,000 psi Shear (lbf) 2,500-8,000 psi 3/8 3-3/8 2,315 3,775 4-1/2 3,090 3,775 7-1/2 5,150 3,775 1/2 4-1/2 3,070 6,915 6 4,095 6,915 10 6,825 6,915 5/8 5-5/8 5,220 11,015 7-1/2 6,965 11,015 12-1/2 11,605 11,015 3/4 6-3/4 7,785 15,365 9 10,380 16,305 15 17,300 16,305 7/8 7-7/8 8,270 20,915 10-1/2 11,030 22,505 17-1/2 18,385 22,505 1 9 10,185 27,320 12 13,580 29,525 20 22,635 29,525 1-1/4 11-1/4 16,795 46,600 15 22,395 47,240 25 37,330 47,240 1 Tabulated values are for estimation purposes only and should not be used for design (please use our free TruSpec anchorage design software at www.itwredhead.com) 2 Tabulated values represent strength design per ACI 318 for a single anchor in adequate concrete thickness, not near an edge nor adjacent anchorage, and not for sustained loading. 3 Bond strengths used in calculations are for dry, cracked concrete with periodic inspection 4 Bond strengths used in calculations are for Temperature Range A (maximum long term temperature of 110F, maximum short term temperature of 142F). 35Call our toll free number 800-848-5611 or visit our web site for the most current product and technical information at www.itwredhead.com STRENGTH DESIGN TABLE A7+ The Most Versatile Quick-Cure Rebar Tension (lbf) and Shear (lbf) Loads in Uncracked Concrete1,2,3,4 ASTM A615 Grade 60 Rebar Anchor Diameter (in.) Embedment Depth (in.) Tension (lbf)Shear (lbf) 2500 psi 3000 psi 4000 psi 5000 psi 6000 - 8000 psi 2500 - 8000 psi #3 3/8 3-3/8 3,660 3,660 3,660 3,660 3,660 3,560 4-1/2 4,880 4,880 4,880 4,880 4,880 3,560 7-1/2 4,835 6,435 6,435 6,435 6,435 3,560 #4 1/2 4-1/2 7,445 7,520 7,520 7,520 7,520 6,480 6 10,030 10,030 10,030 10,030 10,030 6,480 10 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 6,480 #5 5/8 5-5/8 10,405 11,395 11,540 11,540 11,540 10,040 7-1/2 15,385 15,385 15,385 15,385 15,385 10,040 12-1/2 18,135 18,135 18,135 18,135 18,135 10,040 #6 3/4 6-3/4 13,675 14,870 14,870 14,870 14,870 14,255 9 19,825 19,825 19,825 19,825 19,825 14,255 15 25,740 25,740 25,740 25,740 25,740 14,255 #7 7/8 7-7/8 17,235 18,880 19,465 19,465 19,465 19,440 10-1/2 25,955 25,955 25,955 25,955 25,955 19,440 17-1/2 35,100 35,100 35,100 35,100 35,100 19,440 #8 1 9 21,060 23,070 25,110 25,110 25,110 25,595 12 32,420 33,485 33,485 33,485 33,485 25,595 20 46,215 46,215 46,215 46,215 46,215 25,595 #9 1-1/8 10-1/8 25,130 27,525 31,195 31,195 31,195 32,400 13-1/2 38,690 41,590 41,590 41,590 41,590 32,400 22-1/2 58,500 58,500 58,500 58,500 58,500 32,400 #10 1-1/4 11-1/4 29,430 32,240 37,225 41,620 44,505 41,145 15 45,310 49,635 57,315 59,345 59,345 41,145 25 74,295 74,295 74,295 74,295 74,295 41,145 1 Tabulated values are for estimation purposes only and should not be used for design (please use our free TruSpec anchorage design software at www.itwredhead.com) 2 Tabulated values represent strength design per ACI 318 for a single anchor in adequate concrete thickness, not near an edge nor adjacent anchorage, and not for sustained loading. 3 Bond strengths used in calculations are for dry, uncracked concrete with periodic inspection 4 Bond strengths used in calculations are for Temperature Range A (maximum long term temperature of 110F, maximum short term temperature of 142F). 36 Call our toll free number 800-848-5611 or visit our web site for the most current product and technical information at www.itwredhead.com STRENGTH DESIGN TABLE A7+ The Most Versatile Quick-Cure Rebar Tension (lbf) and Shear (lbf) Loads in Cracked Concrete1,2,3,4 ASTM A615 Grade 60 Rebar Anchor Diameter (in.)Embedment Depth (in.) Tension (lbf) 2500 - 8000 psi concrete Shear (lbf) 2500 - 8000 psi concrete #3 3/8 3-3/8 1,650 2,310 4-1/2 2,200 3,080 7-1/2 3,665 3,560 #4 1/2 4-1/2 2,935 4,105 6 3,910 5,475 10 6,520 6,480 #5 5/8 5-5/8 4,585 6,420 7-1/2 6,115 8,560 12-1/2 10,190 10,040 #6 3/4 6-3/4 5,115 7,160 9 6,820 9,550 15 11,370 14,255 #7 7/8 7-7/8 6,965 9,750 10-1/2 9,285 13,000 17-1/2 15,475 19,440 #8 1 9 9,095 12,735 12 12,125 16,980 20 20,215 25,595 #9 1-1/8 10-1/8 11,510 16,115 13-1/2 15,350 21,490 22-1/2 25,585 32,400 #10 1-1/4 11-1/4 16,795 23,515 15 22,395 31,355 25 37,330 41,145 1 Tabulated values are for estimation purposes only and should not be used for design (please use our free TruSpec anchorage design software at www.itwredhead.com) 2 Tabulated values represent strength design per ACI 318 for a single anchor in adequate concrete thickness, not near an edge nor adjacent anchorage, and not for sustained loading. 3 Bond strengths used in calculations are for dry, cracked concrete with periodic inspection 4 Bond strengths used in calculations are for Temperature Range A (maximum long term temperature of 110F, maximum short term temperature of 142F). 37Call our toll free number 800-848-5611 or visit our web site for the most current product and technical information at www.itwredhead.com MASONRY DESIGN TABLE A7+ The Most Versatile Quick-Cure Grout-filled Concrete Block: Threaded Rod Allowable Tension and Shear Load Based on Steel Design Information for U.S. Customary Unit 1,2,3 Anchor Diameter (in.) Tension (lb)Shear (lb) ASTM A307 Fu = 60 ksi ASTM A193Grade B7 Fu = 125 ksi ASTM F593SS 304 Fu = 100 ksi ASTM A307 Fu = 60 ksi ASTM A193Grade B7 Fu = 125 ksi ASTM F593SS 304 Fu = 100 ksi 3/8 2,185 4,555 3,645 1,125 2,345 1,875 1/2 3,885 8,100 6,480 2,000 4,170 3,335 5/8 6,075 12,655 10,125 3,130 6,520 5,215 3/4 8,750 18,225 12,390 4,505 9,390 6,385 For SI: 1 inch = 25.4mm, 1 lbf = 4.45N, 1ft-lbf = 1.356 N-M, 1 psi = 0.006895 MPa 1 Allowable load used in the design must be the lesser of bond values and tabulated steel element values. 2 Allowable tension and shear loads for threaded rods to resist short term loads, such as wind or seismic, must be calculated in accordance with Section 4.1 of ICC ESR 3951as applicable. 3 Allowable steel loads are based on allowable tension and shear stresses equal to 0.33X Fu and 0.17xFu, respectively. MASONRY DESIGN TABLE A7+ The Most Versatile Quick-Cure Grout-filled Concrete Block: Threaded Rod Allowable Tension Loads with Reduction Factors 1,2,3,4,7,9,10,12 Anchor Diameter (in.) Minimum Embedment (inches)Load at scr and ccr (lb) Spacing5 Edge Distance6 Critical scr (inches)Minimum smin (inches)Load reduction factor for smin 8 Critical ccr (inches)Minimum cmin (inches)Load reduction factor for cmin 8 3/8 3-3/8 1,125 13.5 4 1.00 12 4 1.00 1/2 4-1/2 1,695 18 4 0.60 20 4 0.90 5/8 5-5/8 2,015 22.5 4 0.60 20 4 0.90 3/4 6-3/4 3,145 27 4 0.60 20 4 0.63 MASONRY DESIGN TABLE A7+ The Most Versatile Quick-Cure Grout-filled Concrete Block: Threaded Rod Allowable Shear Loads with Reduction Factors 1,2,3,4,7,9,10,12 Anchor Diameter (in.) Minimum Embedment (in.) Load at scrand ccr (lb.) Spacing5 Edge Distance6 Critical scr (in.) Minimum smin (in.) Load reduction factor for smin 8 Critical ccr (in.) Minimum cmin(in.) Load reduction factor for cmin 8 3/8 3-3/8 750 13.5 4 0.50 12 4 0.95 1/2 4-1/2 1,520 18 4 0.50 20 4 0.44 5/8 5-5/8 2,285 22.5 4 0.50 12 4 0.26 3/4 6-3/4 2,345 27 4 0.50 20 4 0.26 For SI: 1 inch = 25.4mm, 1 lbf = 0.0044 kN, 1 ksi = 6.894 MPa. (Refer to Table 4 for footnotes) 1. All values are for anchors installed in fully grouted concrete masonry with minimum masonry strength of 1500 psi (10.3 MPa). Concrete masonry units must be light-, medium, or normal-weight conforming to ASTM C 90. Allowable loads have been calculated using a safety factor of 5.0. 3. Anchors may be installed in any location in the face of the masonry wall (cell, web, bed joint). 4. A maximum of two anchors may be installed in a single masonry cell in accordance with the spacing and edge or end distance requirements. Embedment is measured from the outside surface of the concrete masonry unit to the embedded end of the anchor. See Figure 2 of ICC ESR 3951. 5. The critical spacing distance, scr, is the anchor spacing where full load values in the table may be used. The minimum spacing distance, smin, is the minimum anchor spacing for which values are available and installation is permitted. Spacing distance is measured from the centerline to centerline between two anchors. 6. The critical edge or end distance, ccr, is the distance where full load values in the table may be used. The minimum edge or end distance, cmin, is the minimum distance for which values are available and installation is permitted. Edge or end distance is measured from anchor centerline to the closest unrestrained edge. 7. The tabulated values are applicable for anchors in the ends of grout-filled concrete masonry units where minimum edge distances are maintained. 8. Load values for anchors installed less than scr and ccr must be multiplied by the appropriate load reduction factor based on actual spacing (s) or edge distance (c). Load factors are multiplicative; both spacing and edge reduction factors must be considered. 9. Linear interpolation of load values between minimum spacing (smin) and critical spacing (scr) and between minimum edge or end distance (cmin) and critical edge or end distance (ccr) is permitted. 10. Concrete masonry width (wall thickness) must be equal to or greater than 1.5 times the anchor embedment depth (e.g. 3/8-inch- and 1/2-inch-diameter anchors are permitted in minimum nominally 6-inch-thick concrete masonry). The 5/8- and 3/4-inch-diameter anchors must be installed in minimum nominally 8-inch-thick concrete masonry. 11. Allowable loads must be the lesser of the adjusted masonry or bond values tabulated above and the steel strength values given in Table 2 of ECC ESR 3951. 12. Tabulated allowable bond loads must be adjusted for increased in-service base material temperatures in accordance with Figure 1 of ECC ESR 3951. 38 Call our toll free number 800-848-5611 or visit our web site for the most current product and technical information at www.itwredhead.com Rebar Size Tension (lb) ASTM A615, Grade 60 Shear (lb) ASTM A615, Grade 60 No. 3 3,270 1,685 No. 4 5,940 3,060 No. 5 9,205 4,745 No. 6 13,070 6,730 For SI: 1 inch = 25.4mm, 1 lbf = 4.45N, 1ft-lbf = 1.356 N-M, 1 psi = 0.006895 MPa 1 Allowable load used in the design must be the lesser of bond values and tabulated steel element values. 2 Allowable tension and shear loads for threaded rods to resist short term loads, such as wind or seismic, must be calculated in accordance with Section 4.1 of ICC ESR 3951 as applicable. 3 Allowable steel loads are based on allowable tension and shear stresses equal to 0.33X Fu and 0.17xFu, respectively. MASONRY DESIGN TABLE A7+ The Most Versatile Quick-Cure Grout-filled Concrete Block: Rebar Allowable Tension and Shear Loads1, 2, 3 Anchor Diameter (in.) Minimum Embedment (inches) Load at scr and ccr (lb.) Spacing5 Edge Distance6 Critical scr (in.) Minimum smin (in.) Load reduction factor for smin 8 Critical ccr (in.) Minimum cmin (in.) Load reduction factor for cmin 8 3/8 3-3/8 1,530 13.5 4 1.00 12 4 1.00 1/2 4-1/2 1,845 18 4 0.60 20 4 0.90 5/8 5-5/8 2,465 22.5 4 0.60 20 4 0.90 3/4 6-3/4 2,380 27 4 0.60 20 4 0.63 MASONRY DESIGN TABLE A7+ The Most Versatile Quick-Cure Grout-filled Concrete Block: Rebar Allowable Tension Loads with Reduction Factors1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 12 Anchor Diameter (in.)Minimum Embedment (in.) Load at scrand ccr ┴ to edge (lb.) Spacing5 Edge Distance6 Critical scr (in.)Minimum smin (in.)Load reduction factor for smin 8 Critical ccr (in.)Minimum cmin (in.)Load reduction factor for cmin 8 3/8 3-3/8 1,410 13.5 4 0.50 12 4 0.95 1/2 4-1/2 1,680 18 4 0.50 20 4 0.44 5/8 5-5/8 3,245 22.5 4 0.50 12 4 0.26 3/4 6-3/4 4,000 27 4 0.50 20 4 0.26 For SI: 1 inch = 25.4 mm; 1 lbf = 0.0044 kN, 1 ksi = 6.894 MPa. (The following footnotes apply to both Tables 6 and 7) 1 All values are for anchors installed in fully grouted concrete masonry with minimum masonry strength of 1500 psi (10.3 MPa). Concrete masonry units must be light-, medium, or normal-weight conforming to ASTM C 90. Allowable loads have been calculated using a safety factor of 5.0. 3 Anchors may be installed in any location in the face of the masonry wall (cell, web, bed joint). 4 A maximum of two anchors may be installed in a single masonry cell in accordance with the spacing and edge or end distance requirements. Embedment is measured from the outside surface of the concrete masonry unit to the embedded end of the anchor. See Figure 2 of ICC ESR 3951. 5 The critical spacing distance, scr, is the anchor spacing where full load values in the table may be used. The minimum spacing distance, smin, is the minimum anchor spacing for which values are available and installation is permitted. Spacing distance is measured from the centerline to centerline between two anchors. 6 The critical edge or end distance, ccr, is the distance where full load values in the table may be used. The minimum edge or end distance, cmin, is the minimum distance for which values are available and installation is permitted. Edge or end distance is measured from anchor centerline to the closest unrestrained edge. 7 The tabulated values are applicable for anchors in the ends of grout-filled concrete masonry units where minimum edge distances are maintained. 8 Load values for anchors installed less than scr and ccr must be multiplied by the appropriate load reduction factor based on actual spacing (s) or edge distance (c). Load factors are multiplicative; both spacing and edge reduction factors must be considered. 9 Linear interpolation of load values between minimum spacing (smin) and critical spacing (scr) and between minimum edge or end distance (cmin) and critical edge or end distance (ccr) is permitted. 10 Concrete masonry width (wall thickness) must be equal to or greater than 1.5 times the anchor embedment depth (e.g. No. 3 and No. 4 reinforcing bars are permitted in minimum nominally 6-inch-thick concrete masonry). No. 5 and No. 6 reinforcing bars must be installed in minimum nominally 8-inch-thick concrete masonry. 11 Allowable loads must be the lesser of the adjusted masonry or bond values tabulated above and the steel strength values given in Table 2 of ICC ESR 3951. 12 Tabulated allowable bond loads must be adjusted for increased in-service base material temperatures in accordance with Figure 1 of ICC ESR 3951 as applicable. MASONRY DESIGN TABLE A7+ The Most Versatile Quick-Cure Grout-filled Concrete Block: Rebar Allowable Shear Loads with Reduction Factors 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 12 Use: ▪ To level and plumb stone Dimensions: 1/16" x 2" x 2" 1/8" x 2" x 2" 1/4" x 2" x 2" 3/8" x 2" x 2" 1/2" x 2" x 2" Custom Sizes Available call 1-800-659-4731 or sales@masonpro.com Finish: ▪ High density plastic ▪ Molded from a fire retardant engineered copolymer plastic ▪ Compressive strength of 10,000 to 12,000 psi Advantages: ▪ Simple and economical to install ▪ Will not corrode in contact with limestone ▪ Excellent stability, eliminates rust, stained concrete, etc. ▪ Extremely long life For technical assistance call us toll free at 1-800-659-4731. MASONPRO, Inc. 43300 Seven Mile Road Northville, MI 48167 1-800-659-4731 sales@masonpro.com www.masonpro.com Product Data Sheet High Density Stone Shims Product Information: MASONRY SPECIALTY MATERIALS & SUPPLIES Condition Assessment Report –Gold River Multi-Use Bridge September 26, 2021 (Rev.1). ABLE Project #210128 -04 Condition Assessment 210128-04 34 APPENDIX B SUPPLEMENTAL PHOTOGRAPHS AND PAINT ANALYSIS BV LABS JOB #: C1A9660 Received: 2021/04/24, 13:40 CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS Report Date: 2021/04/29 Report #: R6614440 Version: 1 - Final Attention: Cory Dearman Tacten Industrial Inc. 61 Raddall Ave., Unit 0 Dartmouth, NS Canada B3B 1T4 Sample Matrix: Paint# Samples Received: 1 Analyses Quantity Date Extracted Date Analyzed Laboratory Method Analytical Method Metals Paint Acid Extr. ICPMS 1 2021/04/28 2021/04/28 ATL SOP 00058 EPA 6020B R2 m Remarks: Bureau Veritas is accredited to ISO/IEC 17025 for specific parameters on scopes of accreditation.Unless otherwise noted,procedures used by Bureau Veritas are based upon recognized Provincial,Federal or US method compendia such as CCME,MELCC,EPA,APHA. All work recorded herein has been done in accordance with procedures and practices ordinarily exercised by professionals in Bureau Veritas'profession using accepted testing methodologies,quality assurance and quality control procedures (except where otherwise agreed by the client and Bureau Veritas in writing).All data is in statistical control and has met quality control and method performance criteria unless otherwise noted.All method blanks are reported;unless indicated otherwise,associated sample data are not blank corrected.Where applicable,unless otherwise noted,Measurement Uncertainty has not been accounted for when stating conformity to the referenced standard. Bureau Veritas liability is limited to the actual cost of the requested analyses,unless otherwise agreed in writing.There is no other warranty expressed or implied.Bureau Veritas has been retained to provide analysis of samples provided by the Client using the testing methodology referenced in this report. Interpretation and use of test results are the sole responsibility of the Client and are not within the scope of services provided by Bureau Veritas,unless otherwise agreed in writing.Bureau Veritas is not responsible for the accuracy or any data impacts,that result from the information provided by the customer or their agent. Solid sample results,except biota,are based on dry weight unless otherwise indicated.Organic analyses are not recovery corrected except for isotope dilution methods. Results relate to samples tested.When sampling is not conducted by Bureau Veritas,results relate to the supplied samples tested. This Certificate shall not be reproduced except in full,without the written approval of the laboratory. Reference Method suffix “m” indicates test methods incorporate validated modifications from specific reference methods to improve performance. *RPDs calculated using raw data.The rounding of final results may result in the apparent difference. Page 1 of 5 Bureau Veritas Laboratories 200 Bluewater Rd, Suite 105, Bedford, Nova Scotia Canada B4B 1G9 Tel: 902-420-0203 Toll-free: 800-565-7227 Fax: 902-420-8612 www.bvlabs.com BV LABS JOB #: C1A9660 Received: 2021/04/24, 13:40 CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS Report Date: 2021/04/29 Report #: R6614440 Version: 1 - Final Attention: Cory Dearman Tacten Industrial Inc. 61 Raddall Ave., Unit 0 Dartmouth, NS Canada B3B 1T4 Encryption Key Please direct all questions regarding this Certificate of Analysis to your Project Manager. Preeti Kapadia, Project Manager Email: Preeti.Kapadia@bureauveritas.com Phone# (902)420-0203 Ext:252 ==================================================================== This report has been generated and distributed using a secure automated process. BV Labs has procedures in place to guard against improper use of the electronic signature and have the required "signatories", as per ISO/IEC 17025, signing the reports. For Service Group specific validation please refer to the Validation Signature Page. Total Cover Pages : 2 Page 2 of 5 Bureau Veritas Laboratories 200 Bluewater Rd, Suite 105, Bedford, Nova Scotia Canada B4B 1G9 Tel: 902-420-0203 Toll-free: 800-565-7227 Fax: 902-420-8612 www.bvlabs.com BV Labs Job #: C1A9660 Report Date: 2021/04/29 Tacten Industrial Inc. ELEMENTS BY ATOMIC SPECTROSCOPY (PAINT) BV Labs ID PKE170 Sampling Date 2021/04/15 UNITS GOLD RIVER BRIDGE RDL Metals Acid Extractable Aluminum (Al)mg/kg 1100 100 Acid Extractable Antimony (Sb)mg/kg ND 20 Acid Extractable Arsenic (As)mg/kg 110 10 Acid Extractable Barium (Ba)mg/kg 2300 50 Acid Extractable Beryllium (Be)mg/kg ND 20 Acid Extractable Boron (B)mg/kg ND 500 Acid Extractable Cadmium (Cd)mg/kg ND 3.0 Acid Extractable Chromium (Cr)mg/kg 47 20 Acid Extractable Cobalt (Co)mg/kg ND 10 Acid Extractable Copper (Cu)mg/kg 63 20 Acid Extractable Iron (Fe)mg/kg 76000 500 Acid Extractable Lead (Pb)mg/kg 73000 5.0 Acid Extractable Manganese (Mn)mg/kg 490 20 Acid Extractable Mercury (Hg)mg/kg ND 1.0 Acid Extractable Molybdenum (Mo)mg/kg ND 20 Acid Extractable Nickel (Ni)mg/kg 41 20 Acid Extractable Selenium (Se)mg/kg ND 5.0 Acid Extractable Silver (Ag)mg/kg ND 5.0 Acid Extractable Strontium (Sr)mg/kg ND 50 Acid Extractable Thallium (Tl)mg/kg 2.3 1.0 Acid Extractable Tin (Sn)mg/kg ND 20 Acid Extractable Uranium (U)mg/kg ND 1.0 Acid Extractable Vanadium (V)mg/kg ND 20 Acid Extractable Zinc (Zn)mg/kg 290 50 RDL = Reportable Detection Limit ND = Not detected Page 3 of 5 Bureau Veritas Laboratories 200 Bluewater Rd, Suite 105, Bedford, Nova Scotia Canada B4B 1G9 Tel: 902-420-0203 Toll-free: 800-565-7227 Fax: 902-420-8612 www.bvlabs.com Condition Assessment Report –Gold River Multi-Use Bridge September 26, 2021 (Rev.1). ABLE Project #210128 -04 Condition Assessment 210128-04 35 APPENDIX C REPAIRS MANAGEMENT STRATEGY TABLE AND BUDGETARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES BRIDGE CURRENT PRIORITYESTIMATEDESTIMATED SERVICE LIFEITEMCOMPONENTCONDITIONREPAIR REQUIREDCODE*COST**UNTIL REQUIRED REPAIR1TIMBER TRESTLESTimber Trestle Repairs PostsPoorSome hollow/rotten piles require replacement with kiln dried marine grade treated hemlock.B3 yearsCross BracingPoorRepair or replace partially rotten wooden cross bracing with kiln dried marine grade treated hemlock.B3 yearsBent CapsGoodNoneD> 5 yearsStringersGoodNoneD> 5 yearsConnectorsPoorCorroded and deteriorating connectors require replacement with galvanized steel boltsB3 yearRetaing WallsGoodNoneD> 5 yearsRail TiesFairReplace rotted timber rail ties with kiln dried marine grade treated hemlockB3 yearsDecking Repairs FairRepair or replace damaged and rotted decking boards with kiln dried marine grade treated hemlock. Re-fasten boards where appriopriate with galvanized fasteners.C 5 yearsGuards RepairsGood NoneD> 5 years Timber Trestle Replacement Replace Timber Trestle StructureN/AReplace timber approach structures.N/AN/ADecking Repairs FairRepair or replace damaged and rotted decking boards with kiln dried marine grade treated hemlock. Re-fasten boards where appriopriate with galvanized fasteners.C $1,400,000 5 yearsGuards RepairsGood NoneD> 5 years2STEEL PLATE GIRDERSTop FlangePoorLocal rusting requires replacementA1 yearGirdersGoodNoneD>5 yearsCross Bracing poorDeteriorated members to be removed or replacedB3 yearsGusset PlatesFair/PoorDeteriorated members to be removed and replacedA1 yearBottom FlangeFairLocal rusting requires replacementB3 years3BEARINGSExpansionVery PoorRemoval & replacementA1 yearFixedPoorRemoval & replacementA1 year4STONE MASONRY PIERSMasonry StonesFairReset dislodged granite, repair broken granite, reinstalling pier caps to original position, scaffolding & general, optional cleaningA$200,0001 yearMasonry Stones facadeGoodCleaning of stones is optional and for aesthetic puroposes only. (Therefore cost is omitted in total sum)$150,000NAMortarVery PoorRemove vegetation and perform 100% repoint, scaffolding & generalA$900,0001 yearSummary:Timber Trestle Replacement (repair deemed impractical)$1,400,000Steel Girder Repairs$350,000Bearings Replacement$250,000Stone Masonry Piers Refurbishment$1,100,000Total:$3,100,000Option 2: REPLACE ENTIRE STRUCTURE AT EXISTING SITE$700,000Removal & Disposal of Existing Timber Trestle Structure$100,000Replacement Bridge Structure (4 spans)$734,000Replacement Bridge Installation and Bearings$800,000Stone Masonry Piers Refurbishment or Replacement$1,100,000Strengthening of east and west piers as they support two spans rather than one span one trestle$400,000New Bridge Abutments to support new spans in place of trestles$200,000Total:$4,034,000Option 3: ABANDON AND DECOMISSION EXISTING STRUCURE AND PROVIDE REPLACEMENT STRUCTURE AT A NEW LOCATION$1,000,000$350,000$250,000Replacement Bridge Installation$400,000Construction of new pedestrian paths to accommodate new pedestrian bridge location$500,000Costs associated with land acquisition/agreement with provincial highways for construction in or near highway ROW$500,000$500,000Total:$3,500,000Option 4: ABANDON AND DECOMISSION EXISTING STRUCTURE WITHOUT REPLACEMENTTotal:$1,000,000$250,000Option 1: MAKE ALL NECESSARY REPAIRS TO EXISTING BRIDGERemoval & Disposal of Existing Steel GirdersRemoval & Disposal of Entire StructureReplacement Bridge Structure (Fabrication Only)New Bridge AbutmentsExpropriation CostsTable C.1 Bridge Repairs Management Strategy Table$350,000$1,000,000 Condition Assessment Report –Gold River Multi-Use Bridge September 26, 2021 (Rev.1). ABLE Project #210128 -04 Condition Assessment 210128-04 36 APPENDIX D WAUGH ASSOCIATES LTD . 2001 GOLD RIVER BRIDGE DRAWINGS 1.h, i r'1 , i ' a, ( j%' r_ _ --_.' /r :..rte /: _ t_ •—__/- ' r i , • j + r 11 r r' o., r; r•-. , i r / _ l_ / i ; ' /i l '>i.i• ` .' / 1 ))) j I ,. 1, rl `/ r i \ --. ;+ r\ ,•. _ l ; , } ,^ r, % `1 '\'i, ; / J 1 , It : \ l '-i _ ' 'Itt iIv •• ' . ` \ ' 'fir 1' I / II. 1.- 1 ,1' / ! , '1 1 ( \ 1 T,. / 1 / J"-'\(\ 1 r r /; t 1 '.Yr [ ' 1 i r ! \ ,- % r' •r, i Chester Basin / 1. Reereation Park- iv, art. It l I\ t .) -\ /' — / j, / ,, rJ r• ( •.1 \.' r' l.\ I Ilk ChesterChester Basin Playground Site of Old Chester Basin '` '• 1 V n / .. ,\ t Station tl ', 1 tril... \ ,,\ ., 1 'n ! ` X :'` ', '`•i rr;' L ! i .. Gold River bridge 1 r i' H ^ by 1\., % `,.. 1 367' deck plate girder with two pile trestle approaches 150' wide ROW ; r', 1 , i/ f i/! ,, ;/JVic o: l , 1, \ ,l f r • - c /' ' ,$<- . , iii i 1, , r. P °+F tt',' = •I 61(:•..:\ r _ , .'.'_ it l l 'p • °eP S 1 f j , ' .i i 1 I t , , ' •' \ y ii / I 1... , ? , {3' ' Cne.rP I'` ` ( \ I ;' I 'A r :: __ . f I 4r I I r i 11 •\`.__> .•` c ..\.S i i.'-1 I \ j ' P,,, ti L 1 • — _r } ` \_\ • t . S \.,TY i' (/1•/. f •• 1 = '1 1 1 1 '/{/ \ lri" f C'pY 4i Pl '• V1 1 C\ 1 • • j . y l 0 t j :. \ 1 / .. \, 1 t / r i'' 'n / \ / t " +d of , i _, ' •\ t r•.,1 ( r j>, I ' t.,,•'` 1 Itt i 'I"\\\tFc. 4. 5 r...,.> • T , i' ;_J,r r - r,, i! -,. • Chester I r• r Basin; t ( \ i rt r ; .rte i1j r `•a.i'`•. / `:I ; n "t i . tel. ` F ` / , ' `\\ 1 1+• ' r ,, -- , r j y %: C ) t• / = e..i S 1 \ 1 a , C4; / er • ( Gni 1 Jl. 1 : \ ' j / r _ 1t IFI '/ •/ 11: \ :i`11 t, , a / j Western Shore/ PROJECT DATE PROJECT NO. V\Aw.,ugh Associates Ltd. GOLD RIVER BRIDGE EVALUATION JAN 2000 20032ConsultingCivilandCHESTER, NOVA SCOTIA SCALEStructuralEngineers 1'30000SHEETTITLE SKETCH NO. Phone: (902) 466-0997 Fax: (902) 465-4692 LOCATION PLAN SK-GRB-1DRAWN/CHECKED WAW 3 7 o v a L L Z_ .4 6 6 ree-s-,-G-- s&,cY29,v N O! P GA a p e sic •®`/__ _. PF JECT DATE PROJECT NO. Assod. ud. GOLD RIVER BRIDGE EVALUATION JAN 2000 20032FyAVO%W*: ltin Civil and CHESTER, NOVA SCOTIA SCALE Structure! Engineers AS NOTED SKETCH NO. SHEET TITLE Phone: (902) 466-M7 SOUTH ELEVATION, PLAN, DMWWCHECKED SK-GRB-2 Fax. (902) 4654692 TRESTLE AND PIER SECTIONS WAW 102 4 r r f b -4 L 8 / o i`..—. •^----'-`.,r—=^rte ;.. , a-=_=-- -- — ' ! . I° —.. i r — , , 45 PROJECT DATE PROJECT NO. Waugh Associates Ltd. GOLD RIVER BRIDGE EVALUATION IAN 2000 20032 Consulting Civil and CHESTER NOVA SCOTIA SCALE Structural Engineers AS NOTED SKETCH NO. SHEET TITLE Phone: (902) 466-0997 WEST TRESTLE ELEVATION, DRAwwCHECKED SK-GRB-3 Fax: (902) 465-4692 AND DETAILS WAW T x -'s g , Waugh AssociatesLtd. V\ Consulting Civil ander structural Engineers PROJECT GOLD RIVER BRIDGE EVALUATION CHESTER, NOVA SCOTIA DATE JAN 2000 PROJECT NO. 20032 SKETCH SCALE AS NOTED SHEET TITLE NO Phone: (902) 466-0997 Fax: (902) 465-4692 GIRDER ELEVATION, END AND CENTRE SECTIONS AND BRACING SK-GRB-4DRAWNZHECKEO WAW T- g , Waugh AssociatesLtd. V\ Consulting Civil ander structural Engineers PROJECT GOLD RIVER BRIDGE EVALUATION CHESTER, NOVA SCOTIA DATE JAN 2000 PROJECT NO. 20032 SKETCH SCALE AS NOTED SHEET TITLE NO Phone: (902) 466-0997 Fax: (902) 465-4692 GIRDER ELEVATION, END AND CENTRE SECTIONS AND BRACING SK-GRB-4DRAWNZHECKEO WAW 3 e--" i _ _ _ i -- 01.4 _. Cv I CY-pa./ 4i d pa. • n q i 4 /Z S PROJECT DATE PROJECT NO. V\V/\ W,ugh Associates Ltd. GOLD RIVER BRIDGE EVALUATION JAN 2000 Consulting Civil and CHESTER, NOVA SCOTIA SCALE 20032 Structural Engineers SHEET TITLE AS NOTED SKETCH NO. Phone: (902) 466-0997 RAIL TIE CONNECTIONS DRAWN/CHECKED SK-GRB_5 Fax: (902) 465-4692 BEARING DETAILS WAW GOLD RIVER BRIDGEA SUMMARY of the FINDINGS OF THE CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT REPORT The last train crossed the bridge on September 19, 1991.Since 2003, the bridge has supported only recreational uses.The bridge is ~100 years old; 25-50 years beyond its intended lifespan.BACKGROUND: A draft condition assessment report was received by MOC on September 21, 2021. BACKGROUND:The new assessment could be compared to assessments conducted in 2001 and 2013. This allowed the engineers to determine the rate of deterioration and priority of repairs. There are FOUR main structural components2. Stone and Masonry Piers3. Steel Girders1. Timber TrestlesThe strength of the bridge relies on these four systems working together4. Bearing PlatesBACKGROUND: OBSERVATIONS: Timber Trestles•The lifespan of creosote timbers is typically 50 years•Many timbers are in very good condition. However, some have degraded rapidly in recent years due to: Animal and insect damageDecay VandalismRusting and missing hardwareCracked timbers OBSERVATIONS : Stone & Masonry PiersPiers are intended to support downward forcesThey are not intended to support lengthwise or side-to-side forcesThe piers have degraded in recent years due to:Missing masonryCrackingShifting and cracked top caps – allows water to get inVegetation OBSERVATIONS: Steel GirdersDegradation has progressed in recent years due to:Pitting and corrosion on flangesPack rust on lateral bracesSurface coating failure OBSERVATIONS: Bearing PlatesBearing plates sit between the steel girders and the stone piersThis is an issue because the piers, whose condition is also compromised, were not designed to accommodate the lengthwise and side-to-side forces. The central bearings have failed and no longer slideCorrosion and no evidence of ‘sliding’ as would be expectedThis failure transfers the movement of the girders down into the piers creating a ‘vertical cantilever’. Think of how a flagpole wobbles at the top while the bottom stays fixed.The central bearings are designed to slide to accommodate the expansion/contraction of the steelThe east and west end bearings are fixed CONCLUSIONS:The components of the bridge that were designed to move, no longer do.And the components that were not supposed to move, now do. CONCLUSIONS:Yes, the bridge used to hold up trains. The question now is not: can the bridge support a train, ATV, bicycle, or hiker?BUTCan the bridge hold itself up? CONCLUSIONS:It is highly unlikely that the bridge will fall tomorrow, next week, or next year.But the engineers cannot say with 100% certainty that it won’t.From the 2021 Assessment Report (page 24):“ “Click here to access the full report. CONCLUSION:Based on this recommendation AND the awareness that we are approaching the cold season (steel contraction/movement + snow loads), MOC decided that the best course of action was to close the bridge to ensure public safety. NEXT STEPS:MOC is responsible for the management of the bridge.The bridge is still owned by the Province of Nova Scotia.We will now begin to explore the best and most achievable options to maintain passage over the Gold River for all users in the short-term and long-term.Options include:•Repair•Reconstruction •New construction•Decommissioning 211063.01_LE01_CHESTER RAIL BRIDGE DETOUR OPTIONS.DOCX/bm ED: 07/12/2021 09:17:00/PD: 07/12/2021 09:17:00 December 07, 2021 Gordon Tate Active Living Coordinator Municipality of Chester 186 Central Street Chester, NS B0J 1J0 gtate@chester.ca Dear Mr. Tate: RE: Review of Detour Options for the Chester Connection Trail CBCL Limited were engaged by the Municipality of Chester (MOC) to review potential detour options caused by the closure of the Gold River rail bridge. This letter summarizes our review of pertinent legislation, consultation with Nova Scotia Department of Public Works (DPW) staff, and potential options for temporary and permanent detouring. Background Information The Chester Connection Trail utilizes the existing railway alignment and infrastructure that were abandoned after the last train passed through the area in September 1991. The infrastructure includes several rail bridges that are at least 100 years old, including the Gold River rail bridge that was closed in September 2021 following recommendations from a recent condition assessment carried out by ABLE Engineering Services, Inc. The Chester Connection Trail is an Active Transportation (AT) facility that is used by pedestrians, cyclists, Off-Highway Vehicles (OHVs), as well as skiers and snowmobilers during winter months. The bridge closure leaves a major gap in the trail, one that does not have an obvious detour route. Literature Review CBCL initially completed a review of the Acts and Regulations relevant to the operation of pedestrians/cyclists and Off-Highway Vehicles (OHV) on provincial highways. These documents published by the Province of Nova Scotia include: Off-highway Vehicle Pilot Project Regulations; Off-highway Vehicles Trails Designation; Gordon Tate December 07, 2021 Page 2 211063.01_LE01_CHESTER RAIL BRIDGE DETOUR OPTIONS.DOCX/bm ED: 07/12/2021 09:17:00/PD: 07/12/2021 09:17:00 Off-highway Vehicles Designated Trails and Trail Permits Regulations; Off-highway Vehicles General Regulations; and, Motor Vehicle Act – Province of Nova Scotia A meeting was subsequently held with Ben Buckwold, a Trail & OHV Program Officer from the Nova Scotia Department of Public Works (DPW), to confirm our understanding of the relevant policies. Critical discussion items from the meeting are summarized below: The OHV pilot project has been implemented in the locations specifically noted in the “Off-highway Vehicles Trails Designation”, and will not be expanded under the current timeline, which was recently extended until October 2023; Non-highway traffic, including pedestrians, cyclists, equestrians, and cross-country skiers, would technically be permitted to travel on a provincial highway (Gold River Highway 3 bridge), however, it is not encouraged since dedicated facilities for these users are not provided; If a new AT/OHV facility is constructed, the detour route along existing highways should be minimized to lessen safety concerns and conflicts between trail users and traffic; If a temporary or permanent detour route is implemented along an existing highway, then modifications will be required along both approaches to include dedicated facilitates for AT/OHV use; and, OHVs are ultimately not permitted to travel on the Highway 3 bridge over Gold River. It was understood from this meeting that the DPW is not in a position to encourage pedestrians or cyclists to travel on the Highway 3 bridge over Gold River, and OHVs are not permitted. Temporary Detour Option Potential temporary options were investigated to determine if there would be safe means for its users to detour around the rail bridge closure. Various constraints and aspects of the potential detour routing were examined, including: Potential roadways required to create a detour route do not have dedicated facilities for AT/OHV users. These include Highway 3, Croft Road and Beech Hill Road; While AT users are permitted to travel on the shoulder of the Gold River Highway 3 bridge, this is not encouraged due to various safety concerns, including: o Absence of dedicated AT facilities; o Narrow shoulder widths along both approaches; o Adjacent traffic speeds of 70+ km/hr; and, o Highway 3 horizontal curvature. Gordon Tate December 07, 2021 Page 3 211063.01_LE01_CHESTER RAIL BRIDGE DETOUR OPTIONS.DOCX/bm ED: 07/12/2021 09:17:00/PD: 07/12/2021 09:17:00 Due to the safety concerns associated with vulnerable users (i.e., pedestrians, cyclists, etc.) travelling adjacent to live traffic, it is suggested that a formal detour requiring AT users to cross the Gold River Highway 3 bridge not be implemented at this time. Furthermore, OHVs are not permitted to use the Gold River Highway 3 bridge as a detour option. Permanent Detour Option The MOC prepared a sketch of potential route options, as shown in Figure 1. These options were reviewed and comments for each of the eight route sections are summarized below. Note that all of these assume the trail would be re-routed to cross Gold River at or near the Highway 3 bridge. The numerical list below corresponds to each of the route numbers illustrated in Figure 1. Gordon Tate December 07, 2021 Page 4 211063.01_LE01_CHESTER RAIL BRIDGE DETOUR OPTIONS.DOCX/bm ED: 07/12/2021 09:17:00/PD: 07/12/2021 09:17:00 1. Correct distance is ~40m. In conjunction with new AT/OHV trail along Highway 3, this would provide the most direct route to the existing trail alignment east of the bridge. 2. This is an indirect route which would involve 700-800m of backtracking. May induce non- compliance. Appears it would require road widening to provide adequate shoulders and removal of some vegetation to improve sightlines. 3. Correct distance is ~550m. This is an indirect route which would involve 1000-1200m of backtracking. May induce non-compliance. May require road widening to provide adequate shoulders and removal of some vegetation to improve sightlines. 4. Correct distance is ~140m. This route would be adjacent to the Shell gas station and the Gold Bean Café. It would provide the most direct route to the existing trail alignment west of the bridge. It is through land owned by Acadia First Nation and we understand they are open to this general arrangement, pending land agreements and/or property acquisition. 5. Correct distance is ~130m. This is not a desirable route due to narrow shoulders and potential sight distance concerns. 6. Correct distance is ~265m. Would require a new trail bridge or modifications to the existing roadway bridge (see discussion of this below) plus new AT/OHV trail along Highway 3; according to the attached base map with property boundaries, it appears there may be sufficient right-of-way (ROW) for this, but some property acquisition may be needed. 7. Correct distance is ~165m. This would only be needed if Bridgeview Drive is used. 8. Correct distance is ~350m. Would require new AT/OHV trail along Highway 3; according to the attached base map with property boundaries, it appears there may be sufficient right-of-way (ROW) for this, but some property acquisition may be needed. While it is understood that the ABLE report includes estimates of probable costs for the rehabilitation of the existing rail bridge and to construct a new AT/OHV bridge across the Gold River, we believe there would also be merit in investigating the option of reconfiguring the existing 12.1m wide cross section of the Highway 3 bridge. Modifying the bridge, as noted below, would allow it to include a protected crossing for the Chester Connection Trail. Note that the 2.5m width between barriers would only allow for one-way OHV use such that users would have to yield to opposing traffic, which was also how the existing rail bridge operated for OHVs. Potential Highway 3 bridge cross section (south to north): o 450mm existing barrier; o 1000mm shoulder; o 3500mm traffic lane; o 3500mm traffic lane; o 700mm shoulder; o 450mm TL-4 traffic barrier; o 2500mm AT/OHV path; and, o Remove existing 450mm barrier and replace with a side-mounted trail barrier. Gordon Tate December 07, 2021 Page 5 211063.01_LE01_CHESTER RAIL BRIDGE DETOUR OPTIONS.DOCX/bm ED: 07/12/2021 09:17:00/PD: 07/12/2021 09:17:00 Beyond modifying the bridge, this option would also require moving the Highway 3 centreline about 500mm southward, which may require some road widening and/or realignment. Regardless of which option is selected, the NS Department of Public Works (DPW), Lands and Forestry, and Acadia First Nation will need to review and approve the approach before it could be implemented. Closing Thank you for the opportunity to review the potential detour options for the Chester Connection Trail. We understand the importance of AT infrastructure within a community, and trust the information provided from the review satisfies your current requirements. If you have any comments or questions that arise from the study, please reach out to us at your convenience. Yours very truly, CBCL Limited Prepared by: Reviewed by: Brendan McPhee, M.Sc.E., P.Eng. Mark MacDonald, P.Eng. Municipal Engineer Senior Transportation Engineer Direct: 506-633-6650 E-Mail: bmcphee@cbcl.ca Attachment: Property Boundary Base Map CC: Emanuel Nicolescu Project No: 211063.01 DRAWING NAME: \\CBCL.LAN\CBCL\HALIFAX\DATA\PROPOSALS\218400.01 TRANSPORTATION LETTER PROPOSALS\218400.01-11 TOWN OF CHESTER - AT TRAIL DETOUR\GIS\218400.01 - EXISTING SITE PLAN.DWG LAYOUT NAME: TABLOID LANDSCAPE PLOT DATE:December 7, 2021 12:16:47 PM CAD OPERATOR: SHANEM ScaleDateDesignedApprovedContractCheckedDrawnCBCL No.211063.01SEM1:2000DEC 07/21SK1BASE MAPCHESTER CONNECTIONS TRAILDETOUR OPTIONSHIGHWAY 3BEECH HILL ROADCROFT ROADWHITE BIRCH ROADOLD BRIDGE ROAD DEMONE R O A DGOLD RIVERCHESTER CONNECTIONS TRAIL ScaleDateDesignedApprovedContractCheckedDrawnDRAWING NAME: Y:\HALIFAX\DATA\PROJECTS\211063.01 CHESTER - TRAIL DETOUR OPTIONS\44 CAD\01 CIVIL\02 WORKING FILES\02 DESIGN FILES\211063.01_SK1.DWG LAYOUT NAME: LAYOUT1 PLOT DATE:December 15, 2021 3:45:26 PM CAD OPERATOR: DAVIDCHNo.DescriptionCBCL No.MUNICIPALITY OF CHESTERCHESTER CONNECTION TRAIL DETOUR OPTIONSCONCEPT HIGHWAY 3 BRIDGE MODIFICATIONSDrawingSK1DEC 15/21AS NOTEDMRMDRCMRM211063.01