City of Hamilton – Parkway and Red Hill Valley – Sustainability Plan
A Multi-Dimensional Sustainability Plan for Asset Preservation, Safety, and Quality of Life
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN Executive Summary June 5, 2007
E.2
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
Executive Summary
The City of Hamilton is currently completing the construction of a Parkway to the south and east of the City connecting Provincial Highway 403 and the QEW. The City has also taken this opportunity to complete a major rehabilitation of the Red Hill Valley and its creek, work that has won two national environmental awards. These projects, once completed, will have technical and environmental considerations attached to their perpetual care. They also include a number of sub-components that need to be considered as a whole if the social, environmental and financial benefits are to be maximized, while costs are minimized.
There are basically two assets covered by this report: the Red Hill Creek Valley (RHCV) and the Parkway. The first component, the RHCV itself, was the focus of extensive rehabilitation and improvement works and is covered as its own asset as part of this sustainability plan. The road assets have basically two sub-assets: the first section of the Parkway south and east of Hamilton was opened in 1997 and is referred to as the Lincoln Alexander Parkway (LINC) in honour of the former Governor-General of Ontario. The second section of the road is currently under construction and is scheduled to be opened in the fall of 2007 and is referred to as the Red Hill Valley Parkway (RHV). There are also a number of related appurtenances such as bridges, signals, storm sewers, etc. that are also covered in this report. It should also be noted that by the very nature of these assets they require a higher level of service than similar assets within the City.
This report is a tactical document and forms the basis for development of Standard Operating Best Practices (SOBPs) in conjunction with a sustainable budget. It offers a range of options in terms of maintenance, rehabilitation and reconstruction as well as with preliminary budgetary envelopes. It also lists a number of environmental issues that need to be addressed as part of the ongoing management of these assets. Many of the recommendations are based on Regulation 239/02 Minimum Maintenance Standards for Municipal Highways, however, this standard is related to the mitigation of liability associated with asset defects and is not related to the improvement or preservation of the asset. Therefore, in addition, input based on the City’s current practices and other sources of information are as noted. The report is a Multi- Dimensional Sustainability Plan for Asset Preservation, Safety and Quality of Life.
RED HILL CREEK VALLEY The Red Hill Valley is an urban valley, which includes a creek and other natural resources. The Red Hill Creek acts as a watershed for 64 square kilometres in the eastern part of the City. As a result, it was negatively impacted over time by the building of homes in the valley as well as development on Hamilton Mountain draining into it. There was extensive damage from erosion, the creek bed had no flood plain to dissipate energy and the vegetation was under stress. The
E.1
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN Executive Summary June 5, 2007
Red Hill Valley project therefore became more than a road. Significant investments were made to vastly improve the state of the Red Hill Creek through re-channelization, stormwater ponds to control runoff and a 2.9 km long Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) pipe to reduce the number of discharges to the creek. Landscaping of the valley was also improved, along with the recreational and cultural aspects such as trails. The City made a commitment to monitor the Red Hill Valley environment for a minimum period of five (5) years following the opening of the road in the fall of 2007.
There are three components to the environmental considerations involved in the management of these assets: 1. Precautions to take when maintenance, rehabilitation and reconstruction activities are taking place. This includes management of the “internal” stormwater facilities built into the road right-of- way and the valley itself; 2. Measurement and monitoring programs of the ecosystem (flora as well as fauna) in the RHCV; 3. Management of the “external” stormwater systems for the urbanized areas that drain into the Red Hill Creek. These three areas were dealt with separately for the purposes of this report, although it is understood that all actions noted under this Section are part of the whole in order to maintain and protect the RHCV.
PARKWAY INFRASTRUCTURE ASSETS
The Parkway consists of a number of assets which, when compiled, form the asset network. The assets, listed in the following table, include the paved surface, overpasses, safety devices, traffic control, and storm water control. In addition, the Red Hill creek and trail have been included as an associated asset due to the impact from the RHV and the added asset inventory associated with the trail network.
E.2
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN Executive Summary June 5, 2007
Asset Replacement Asset Type Asset Quantity Value ($M) Road 19 km $150 Parkway Structures 52 $172 Traffic Control - $4 Water Management - $4 Waterway 7 km <$1 RHCV Trails 7 km $1
Natural Heritage Areas ~100ha -
Total: $332
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
The analysis included both Pay-as-you-go and Debt-Financed options for maximum and minimum asset useful lives. This provides us with a range of annual revenue requirements for the 100 year analysis. This range is identified from a minimum life-cycle cost based on no financing costs and all assets requiring interventions at their maximum useful life; to a maximum life-cycle cost based on debt-financing all capital expenditures and assets requiring interventions at their minimum useful life. The actual number will probably fall somewhere within this range since assets will require intervention between these extreme life expectancies and potentially some mix of debt-financing and reserve funding will be used, these are all policy decisions which must be considered by City Staff and Council.
The following table provides a summary of the results from these different analyses.
Maximum Useful Life Minimum Useful Life PAYG $12 M/year $17 M/year Debt-Financed $17 M/year $24 M/year
E.3
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN Executive Summary June 5, 2007
Based on the annual funding requirements of between $12 and $24 million and 155,000 households, the average City household is responsible for approximately $77 to $155 per year or $0.22 to $0.41 per day.
In conclusion, there is a need for: • An average annual O&M budget of $4 million for the Parkway; • An average annual O&M budget of $280,000 for the RHCV; • Average annual contribution to capital reserves of $6 (maximum life) to $10 million (minimum life). Annual contributions vary based on capital project requirements, the average has been based on the 100 year life-cycle; • Staff training on environmental issues for O&M of the assets associated with the Parkway and Valley; • Annual contracts for environmental monitoring of RHCV; • Inclusion of repayment of the current debt associated with the construction of this project. The financial analysis did not take into consideration this current debt load.
E.4
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY E.1
1.0 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...... 2.1
2.0 BASIC PRINCIPLES AND APPROACH...... 2.1 2.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 2.1 2.2 OBJECTIVES...... 2.1 2.3 SCOPE OF WORK ...... 2.1 2.4 TASKS AND DELIVERABLES...... 2.2 2.5 PRINCIPLES OF LIFE-CYCLE ANALYSIS ...... 2.3 2.5.1 What do you have?...... 2.3 2.5.2 What is it worth? ...... 2.3 2.5.3 What condition is it in?...... 2.4 2.5.4 What do you need to do to it?...... 2.4 2.5.5 When do you need to do it?...... 2.4 2.5.6 How much money do you need? ...... 2.6 2.5.7 How do you reach sustainability? ...... 2.6 2.6 SERVICE LEVELS / INDICATORS AND BENCHMARKS ...... 2.6 2.7 ANALYTICAL ASSUMPTIONS...... 2.8 2.8 FINANCIAL ASSUMPTIONS ...... 2.9 2.8.1 Cost of Capital: ...... 2.10 2.8.2 Overhead and Other Costs:...... 2.10 2.9 GROWTH PROJECTIONS ...... 2.11 2.10 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS...... 2.11
3.0 LIFE-CYCLE ANALYSIS...... 3.1 3.1 PAVEMENT ...... 3.1 3.1.1 What do you have?...... 3.1 3.1.2 What is it worth? ...... 3.1 3.1.3 What condition is it in?...... 3.2 3.1.4 What do you need to do to it?...... 3.4 3.1.5 When do you need to do it?...... 3.7 How much money do you need? ...... 3.12
i
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN Basic Principles and Approach June 5, 2007
3.2 RIGHT-OF-WAY (ROW) ASSETS...... 3.13 3.2.1 What do you have...... 3.13 3.2.2 What is it worth ...... 3.15 3.2.3 What condition is it in...... 3.17 3.2.4 What do you need to do to it...... 3.17 3.2.5 When do you need to do it...... 3.20 3.2.6 How much money do you need ...... 3.21 3.3 BRIDGES...... 3.23 3.3.1 What do you have?...... 3.23 3.3.2 What is it worth? ...... 3.24 3.3.3 What condition is it in?...... 3.24 3.3.4 What do you need to do to it?...... 3.26 3.3.5 When do you need to do it?...... 3.27 3.3.6 How much money do you need? ...... 3.29 3.4 RED HILL CREEK VALLEY ASSETS...... 3.31 3.4.1 What do we have? ...... 3.31 3.4.2 What is it worth? ...... 3.31 3.4.3 What condition is it in?...... 3.32 3.4.4 What do you need to do to it?...... 3.32 3.4.5 When do we need to do it? ...... 3.33 3.4.6 How much money do you need? ...... 3.33
4.0 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING PROCEDURES...... 4.1 4.1 BARRIERS AND FENCES ...... 4.1 4.1.1 Description of Activity...... 4.1 4.1.2 Concerns...... 4.1 4.1.3 Mitigation of Potential Impacts...... 4.1 4.1.4 Activity-Specific Permits...... 4.3 4.2 DITCHING...... 4.3 4.2.1 Description of Activity...... 4.3 4.2.2 Concerns...... 4.3 4.2.3 Mitigation of Potential Impacts...... 4.4 4.2.4 Activity-Specific Permits...... 4.5 4.3 DRAINAGE STRUCTURES...... 4.5 4.3.1 Description of Activity...... 4.5 4.3.2 Concerns...... 4.5
ii
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN Basic Principles and Approach June 5, 2007
4.3.3 Mitigation of Potential Impacts...... 4.6 4.3.4 Activity-Specific Permits...... 4.7 4.4 HARD SURFACE...... 4.7 4.4.1 Description of Activity...... 4.7 4.4.2 Concerns...... 4.7 4.4.3 Mitigation of Potential Impacts...... 4.8 4.4.4 Activity-Specific Permits...... 4.8 4.5 VANDALISM, WASTE, DUST...... 4.9 4.5.1 Description of Activity...... 4.9 4.5.2 Concerns...... 4.9 4.5.3 Mitigation of Potential Impacts...... 4.9 4.5.4 Activity-Specific Permits...... 4.10 4.6 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT ...... 4.10 4.6.1 Description of Activity...... 4.10 4.6.2 Concerns...... 4.10 4.6.3 Mitigation of Potential Impacts...... 4.11 4.6.4 Activity-Specific Permits...... 4.12 4.7 STREAMS, RIPARIAN ZONE...... 4.12 4.7.1 Description of Activity...... 4.12 4.7.2 Concerns...... 4.12 4.7.3 Mitigation of Potential Impacts...... 4.13 4.7.4 Activity-Specific Permits...... 4.15 4.8 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ...... 4.16 4.8.1 Description of Activity...... 4.16 4.8.2 Concerns...... 4.16 4.8.3 Mitigation of Potential Impacts...... 4.16 4.8.4 Activity-Specific Permits...... 4.18 4.9 STRUCTURES – BRIDGES AND CULVERTS ...... 4.18 4.9.1 Description of Activity...... 4.18 4.9.2 Concerns...... 4.18 4.9.3 Mitigation of Potential Impacts...... 4.19 4.9.4 Activity-Specific Permits...... 4.20 4.10 SIGNS AND ROAD MARKINGS...... 4.20 4.10.1 Description of Activity...... 4.20 4.10.2 Concerns...... 4.21 4.10.3 Mitigation of Potential Impacts...... 4.21 4.10.4 Activity-Specific Permits...... 4.22
iii
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN Basic Principles and Approach June 5, 2007
4.11 TRAILS ...... 4.22 4.11.1 Description of Activity...... 4.22 4.11.2 Concerns...... 4.22 4.11.3 Mitigation of Potential Impacts...... 4.23 4.11.4 Activity-Specific Permits...... 4.23 4.12 SOUTHERN FLYING SQUIRREL HABITAT STRUCTURES...... 4.23 4.12.1 Description of Activity...... 4.23 4.12.2 Concerns...... 4.23 4.12.3 Mitigation of Potential Impacts...... 4.24 4.12.4 Activity-Specific Permits...... 4.24
5.0 FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS ...... 5.1 5.1 WHAT IS THE COST OF DOING WHAT WE HAVE TO DO? ...... 5.1 5.2 HOW DO WE GET THERE? ...... 5.4
6.0 CONCLUSIONS ...... 6.1
APPENDIX A: PAVEMENT SUSTAINABILITY PLAN FOR LINCOLN ALEXANDER AND RED HILL VALLEY PARKWAYS
APPENDIX B: STRUCTURE SUSTAINABILITY PLAN FOR LINCOLN ALEXANDER AND RED HILL VALLEY PARKWAYS
iv
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
1.0 Acknowledgments
Stantec Consulting, along with IDX Consulting wishes to thank the City’s Public Works team for its contribution to this Lincoln Alexander Parkway (LINC) and the Red Hill Valley Project Sustainability Plan. We apologize in advance for any inadvertent omissions. In particular, we note the following major contributors:
City of Hamilton Scott Stewart, General Manager of Public Works Capital Planning and Implementation Gerry Davis, Director of Capital Planning and Implementation Gary Moore, Manager of Design Richard Andoga, Senior Project Manager of Infrastructure Programming Red Hill Valley Project Chris Murray, Acting Director of Red Hill Valley Project Marco Oddi, Senior Project Manager - Red Hill Valley Project James Rockwood, Environmental Coordinator - Red Hill Valley Operations & Maintenance Wray Oakes, Manager of Road Operations & Maintenance Jennifer Atkinson, Operations Coordinator Mike McNamara, Manager of Forestry & Horticulture Consultant Engineering Participants Andy Dalziel, Stantec Consulting Wael Bekheet, Stantec Consulting Harry Wood, Stantec Consulting Léo Gohier, IDX Consulting Reed Ellis, Stantec Consulting Bob Hodgins, Ecoplans Limited Peter Roscoe, Stantec Consulting Murray Dinning, McCormick Rankin Project Team Chris Murray Richard Andoga (905)546-2424 (905)546-2424 [email protected] [email protected] Andy Dalziel Harry Wood (519)585-7484 (519)585-7484 [email protected] [email protected] Léo Gohier (905)541-6428 [email protected]
2.1
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN Basic Principles and Approach June 5, 2007
2.2
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
2.0 Basic Principles and Approach
2.1 INTRODUCTION
The first section of the Parkway south and east of Hamilton was opened in 1997, and is called the Lincoln Alexander Parkway (LINC) in honour of the former Governor-General of Ontario. The second section of the road is currently under construction and is scheduled to be opened in the autumn of 2007 and is referred to as the Red Hill Valley Parkway (RHV). Finally, the third component of this asset is the Red Hill Creek Valley itself (RHCV), which is the focus of extensive rehabilitation and improvement works as part of this project.
This report is a tactical document and forms the basis for development of Standard Operating Best Practices (SOBPs) combined with a sustainable budget. It offers a range of options in terms of maintenance, rehabilitation and reconstruction along with preliminary budgetary envelopes; it also lists a number of environmental issues that will need to be addressed as part of the ongoing management of these assets.
2.2 OBJECTIVES
This report will identify trends and issues that the community will face over the life-cycle of these assets. It serves as a foundation for discussion and communication among stakeholders, as well as serve as a starting point for development of more detailed SOBPs aimed at the sustainability of these assets over the long-term.
The primary objective of this report is to define a framework within which these assets will be maintained to ensure long-term sustainability. Secondary objectives include ensuring that this is achieved in both an environmentally positive and cost effective manner.
2.3 SCOPE OF WORK
This project involved the development of a sustainability report for the Parkway, ensuring consistency with the City’s goals as they pertain to sustainable infrastructure as described in the State of the Infrastructure Report.
The report encompasses the entire right-of-way and natural areas, and addresses the issues surrounding the rehabilitation and/or replacement of the infrastructure within the roadway corridor. The physical assets that are included in the review are listed below:
2.1
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN Basic Principles and Approach June 5, 2007
• Pavement – ramps, medians, shoulders • Bridges and culverts • Storm drainage – catchbasins, retention • Water and wastewater crossings ponds, storm sewers • Signs & Pavement markings • Noise barriers • Lighting In addition, the natural area within the Red Hill Valley including the Creek, Trails, and the related Flora have been included to reflect the replacement value and maintenance funding requirements.
2.4 TASKS AND DELIVERABLES
Work involved in the project has been broken down into three major tasks covering: Review of Current Maintenance Procedures, Life-Cycle Financial Analysis, and Final Reporting. A summary of the task objectives and deliverables is provided below:
Task 1 – Review of Current Maintenance Procedures
Objective Identify current maintenance practices for assets within the right-of-way and develop recommendations for the frequency of all current and proposed activities. Deliverables • Summary of current O & M activities • Summary of suggested O & M activities based upon best practice guidelines, where applicable • Summary of costs for O & M activities identified • Summary of environmental considerations associated with the O & M activities Task 2 – Life-Cycle Financial Analysis
Objective Prepare a high-level financial plan that identifies the costs associated with sustainable management of the Parkways. Deliverables Life-cycle costing analysis and valuation for inclusion with the Final Report
Task 3 – Final Report
Objective: Prepare Sustainability Plan, based upon the Table of Contents provided by the City Deliverables • Draft Report for comment • Final Report summarizing the following: 1. Current O & M activities 2. Suggested O & M activities 3. Draft O & M activity descriptions 4. Life-cycle costing analysis and valuation
2.2
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN Basic Principles and Approach June 5, 2007
2.5 PRINCIPLES OF LIFE-CYCLE ANALYSIS
This report has been developed within the same framework used in the preparation of the State of Infrastructure Report 2005 prepared for the City of Hamilton, which itself was based on the Best Practice for Municipal Infrastructure Asset Management produced by the National Guide in November 2003 and ASCE asset report cards. The framework requires the City to answer seven questions related to understanding the responsibilities for sustainable management of the public works infrastructure. These questions are: 1. What do you have? 2. What is it worth? 3. What condition is it in? 4. What do you need to do to it? 5. When do you need to do it? 6. How much money do you need? 7. How do you reach sustainability? (Short- and Long-term Financial Plan)
2.5.1 What do you have?
This identifies the assets which are currently part of the infrastructure portfolio, as shown as example in Table 2.1. Table 2.1: Inventory Component
Unit Overall Asset Asset Useful Life Inventory Replacement Replacement Type Component Cost Value (Years) RHC Trails 7,000 m $50/m $350 K 10 Overhead Signs & Traffic 38 $52,500 ea $2 M 30 Supports
2.5.2 What is it worth?
The infrastructure is divided into asset type, and further divided into components. As shown by example in Table 2.1, overall replacement values are calculated and sustainable capital investment needs are projected based on an assigned useful service life. Analytical models used are not a substitute for specific project planning, but form the basis for the development of a long-term asset management plan in terms of trend analysis, financial planning and dialogue with the community.
2.3
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN Basic Principles and Approach June 5, 2007
2.5.3 What condition is it in?
The data for this section was based on past condition surveys, ongoing condition surveys, where available, as well as, industry accepted asset deterioration models.
2.5.4 What do you need to do to it?
Road infrastructure will typically have four types of rehabilitation activities associated with it during the life-cycle of the pavement with objectives for each one. These are: • Preventive Maintenance (PM) Activities – slow pavement deterioration • Minor Rehabilitation Activities – improve functional performance and safety of paved surface • Major Rehabilitation Activities – improve structural condition • Construction/Reconstruction Activities – reserved for distressed or failed areas. Many of the maintenance and repair recommendations used within this document, with respect to the road and bridge assets, are based on Regulation 239/02 Minimum Maintenance Standards for Municipal Highways, as issued and enforced by the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO), however, it should be noted that these specifically focus on activities required to improve safety. Therefore, in addition to these activities, the report also includes additional activities which are common within the industry.
2.5.5 When do you need to do it?
Asset deterioration is dynamic, and it is important to proceed with the right intervention at the right time and on the right asset if cost-effectiveness is to be maintained. Figure 2.1 illustrates this dynamic problem very clearly. Pavement deterioration models are used to predict the future condition and expected pavement life. Pavement deterioration is site specific since it depends on many variables which make the deterioration rates vary significantly from one pavement section to another. However in the case of the Parkway it can be argued that these pavement sections are homogeneous in terms of the factors which influence deterioration rates such as:
• Environment (weather etc) • Pavement type • Traffic patterns • Sub-grade condition • Pavement structure
2.4
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN Basic Principles and Approach June 5, 2007
PM PM Major Rehab Minor Rehab Minor Rehab Minor
Pavement Performance Terminal Serviceability
Year
Figure 2.1: Pavement Life-Cycle The figure above illustrates the deterioration of the pavement and the associated points of intervention. By adhering to a policy which encourages the use of the appropriate rehabilitation strategy at the right time the life of a pavement section can be increased while overall life-cycle costs are minimized. Failure to do this will lead to the use of more costly rehabilitation alternatives and increased life-cycle cost.
An index called the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) is typically used to describe the pavement condition and this condition index should be used as the trigger to proceed with certain work at a certain time. For example, when the PCI is 65 out of 100, rehabilitation of the freeway should occur. However, as more data is collected through the regular pavement inspection and monitoring program, these models can then be calibrated against actual data to better predict the pavement condition for project planning purposes.
2.5
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN Basic Principles and Approach June 5, 2007
2.5.6 How much money do you need?
This report provides an estimate of the probable costs associated with the ongoing maintenance of the assets contained in this study. The analysis also includes a review of maximum and minimum asset life expectancies to assist the City in determining the impact of various investment decisions on the costs associated with the sustainable management of these assets.
However, it is important to note that the level of investment required will vary significantly over time. These required investments do not suit a straight-line projection. Actual projects are time- sensitive and do not fit fixed annual capital and operating budgets, hence the need for the use of strategic reserve funds.
2.5.7 How do you reach sustainability?
The LINC section of the asset is not very old and is generally in good to excellent condition. The other assets are currently under construction. This is therefore the ideal time to identify sustainable programs and funding levels and to establish the necessary reserve funds. This report is the first step in that direction. The next step will be to develop detailed levels of service and SOBPs approved by City Council, as well as the related technical, environmental and financial plans.
2.6 SERVICE LEVELS / INDICATORS AND BENCHMARKS
The level of service provided by an asset is a function of the expectations of the user and the willingness of the community to pay for the maintenance required to ensure that an asset performs at the desired level of service. Therefore, the setting of service levels should involve community input.
In December 2002, InfraGuide published a Best Practice titled “Developing Indicators and Benchmarks”. In April 2003, they also published a Best Practice titled “Defining Levels of Service”. Much of the material included in this section is derived from these two publications.
The goal of the asset manager should be to move away from reactive and “worst first” planning to maintenance of assets in a “state of good repair”. This is the most economical way to manage assets and to provide higher levels of service. The InfraGuide Best Practices highlighted above identify three types of indicators that should be developed:
Strategic indicators — Strategic indicators are the highest and most abstract type of indicators. They are set and reviewed by the highest level of municipal decision makers.
2.6
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN Basic Principles and Approach June 5, 2007
Examples include a measurement of a municipality’s quality of life or meeting an annual infrastructure budget. Other examples would include percentage of reinvestment compared to value of system, and financial needs versus budgets.
Tactical (Functional) indicators — Functional indicators result from analyzing different but related operational indicators to obtain an overview of an infrastructure asset’s condition. A functional indicator provides managerial-level municipal decision makers (e.g., city engineer, public works manager) with an overview of an infrastructure asset’s condition, state or value. For example, a number of operational indicators, such as number and types of cracks, smoothness, etc., can be combined to produce an overall pavement condition index (PCI) or pavement quality index (PQI).
Operational indicators — an operational indicator is generally raw data collected about an infrastructure asset by road or work crews while performing their duties or as part of an asset inventory process. Operational indicators are often expressed by municipalities as survey results or scorecards. Some indicators can also be a dollar value, expressed as the cost of an individual asset repair.
There are two basic rules to follow when setting indicators: first identify what you are trying to measure, and then define the necessary indicators. InfraGuide cautions against developing and using too many indicators, or indicators that are onerous and do not achieve the desired results, resulting in data overload and frustration. InfraGuide recommends ensuring indicators are:
• Manageable • Measurable/quantifiable • Relevant • Well-defined • Meaningful • Aligned with objectives
There is a need to develop a full suite of Indicators that take into account social, environmental and financial elements. There is still also a great deal of work to do in the future in this area, in order to define Service Levels and to link them to actual cost options. Other examples of Performance Measures (as viewed internally, i.e. by the asset managers) to measure a Level of Service (as viewed externally, i.e. by the users or the community) could be:
Strategic Indicators: • % of reinvestment in maintenance compared to replacement value of infrastructure • % of reinvestment in rehabilitation compared to replacement value of infrastructure • % of reinvestment in replacement compared to replacement value of infrastructure
2.7
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN Basic Principles and Approach June 5, 2007
Tactical Indicators: • Asset Condition Indicator such as Pavement Quality Index (PQI), International Roughness Index (IRI), Bridge Condition Index (BCI), Skid Resistance, etc. • Minimum Cost/Benefit ratio for Maintenance programs based on life-cycle (ex. crack sealing, resurfacing, etc.) • Minimum Cost/Benefit ratio for Rehabilitation designs based on life-cycle • Minimum Cost/Benefit ratio for Replacement designs based on life-cycle • Minimum Cost/Benefit ratio for New construction based on life-cycle Operational Indicators: • Respond to messages within 4 hours • Snow removal within (x) hours on main roads, and (y) hours on residential streets (95% success) • Disruption in service as a result of traffic signals being inoperative less than (x) hours (95% success)
2.7 ANALYTICAL ASSUMPTIONS
The following assumptions have been made for the inventory and analysis: • The cost of the Major Rehabilitation/Reconstruction on the LINC & RHV is based on the average of Major Rehabilitation and Construction. • 25% of the Reconstruction cost for is used for the Rehabilitation cost at 67% of the assets useful life • 1997 LINC Construction Year • 2007 RHV Construction Year • 3.6m lane width for the Parkway (Travel, Ramp, Shoulder, Approaches, & Bridge Surface) • 4 lane cross section for the Parkway Travel lanes, ramps, approaches, and Bridge Surface • 2 km truck climbing lane on the RHV from Greenhill to the LINC • 11 km centre line for LINC • 8 km centre line for RHV • 6 km of ramp centre line on the LINC • 7 km of ramp centre line on the RHV • 44 km of shoulder on the LINC • 32 km of shoulder on the RHV • 2 km of overpass approach road center line on the LINC • 1 km of overpass approach road center line on the RHV
2.8
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN Basic Principles and Approach June 5, 2007
• 56 km of curb on the LINC • 46 km of curb on the RHV • 20 km of Noise Barrier on the LINC • 2 km of Noise Barrier on the RHV • 6 km of Fence on the LINC • 3 km of Fence on the RHV • 264 Crash Attenuators on the LINC • 110 Crash Attenuators on the RHV • 2 km of Guide Rail on the LINC • 12 km of Guide Rail on the RHV • 125 Lights on the LINC • 75 Lights on the RHV • 80 km of striping on the LINC • 70 km of striping on the RHV • 380 markings on the LINC • 234 markings on the RHV • 11 Signals on the LINC • 7 Signals on the RHV • 470 Signs on the LINC • 289 Signs on the RHV • Sign inventory does not include delineators (755 on design quantity sheets for RHV) • 1,000 New Tree replacement inventory • 7 km of trail in the RHCV • 7 km of creek (banks) in the RHCV • 17 Flying Squirrel habitat features in the RHCV • 150 Hydrological deflection features in the RHCV • 200 Signage features in the RHCV • 20 Waste Receptacles in the RHCV • 20 Trail furniture (Picnic Tables, bike racks etc.) in the RHCV • 100 Lighting/ Electrical Features, Control Panels, Poles, and fixtures in the RHCV
2.8 FINANCIAL ASSUMPTIONS
The following basic financial assumptions were used in writing this report, with exceptions and details noted as required:
• Costs are shown in 2006 dollars; • No discount rate was used;
2.9
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN Basic Principles and Approach June 5, 2007
• No inflation was used, and neither was interest gained on reserve funds; • Current debt levels were not incorporated when assessing reserve funds. The costs associated with debt servicing identified in this report are over and above those pertaining to the current debt; Other sources of revenue such as development charges and grants/subsidies from senior levels of government were not included within the analysis.
2.8.1 Cost of Capital:
For purposes of this report, debentures were calculated using an interest rate of 6% and an amortization period of 15 years (as suggested by the City’s Finance Department for the State of the Infrastructure Report 2006).
The current practice of using debt-financing for capital expenditures, and even the type of work that has traditionally been considered as capital projects, should be reviewed when considering and establishing sustainable investment levels. Our asset management models tracked these costs separately, in order to determine the potential savings to the community if reliance on capital financing was reduced to a minimum (if not completely abandoned) thereby increasing the amount of net capital available for infrastructure investment. Since the debenture period is similar to the life of the major asset, that is the pavement, borrowing for capital expenditure results in perpetual debt. The overall cost of this perpetual debt is approximately 48% of overall expenditures for these assets, which means that the total cost of operating these assets in perpetuity could be reduced by that amount if there was no reliance on capital debt financing. The consequence is that the tax levy may have to rise more quickly in the first few years while reserves are being built up, however, the long term benefits are significant with life-cycle costs being substantially reduced.
2.8.2 Overhead and Other Costs:
Design, inspection, and other overhead and administrative costs must be considered when setting budget plans, both in terms of operating as well as capital budgets. These costs have been considered in our report as separate line items, and the percentage used approximate current amounts charged against capital expenditures. Allowances for engineering, overhead and contingencies (as a % of projected sustainable capital costs) were made as follows:
• Engineering services: 15% • Contingency: 10% • Overhead and administration: 10% • Internal Cost Allocations (to other departments): 5%
2.10
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN Basic Principles and Approach June 5, 2007
2.9 GROWTH PROJECTIONS
The City has not projected growth requirements for the Parkway. It is prudent management to nevertheless consider widening requirements as part of an overall financing plan. The actual addition of lanes will be determined as the traffic patterns and volumes stabilize after the completion of the Parkway and as growth indicates the need to increase the number of lanes on the Parkway.
For the purpose of the overall analysis an increase has been assumed based on the addition of one lane in each direction to the Parkway starting in 25 years.
2.10 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
There are three components to the environmental considerations involved in the management of these assets:
1. Precautions to take when maintenance, rehabilitation and reconstruction activities are taking place. This includes management of the “internal” stormwater facilities built into the road right-of-way and the valley itself; 2. Measurement and monitoring programs of the ecosystem (flora as well as fauna) in the RHCV; Management of the “external” stormwater systems for the urbanized areas that drain into the Red Hill Creek.
These three areas will be dealt with separately for purposes of this report, although it is understood that the all actions noted under this Section are part of a complete series of processes required to maintain and protect the RHC.
2.11
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN Life-Cycle Analysis June 5, 2007
3.0 Life-Cycle Analysis
3.1 PAVEMENT
The following pavement life-cycle utilizes the findings from the detailed Pavement sustainability report contained in Appendix A. This section has been limited to only the driving lanes and excludes the shoulders and ramps.
3.1.1 What do you have?
The LINC consists of approximately 158,400 m2 of paved driving surface and the RHV consists of approximately 123,123 m2 of paved driving surface. This includes four travel lanes on the Parkway and a 2 km truck lane on the RHV.
Table 3.1: Pavement Inventory Summary Quantity Road Component Quantity (m2) (ln-km) LINC Driving Lanes 44 158,400 RHV Driving Lanes 34 123,120 Total: 281,520
3.1.2 What is it worth?
Based on the current paved surface inventory and value of $178 per m2 to replace the paved surface the following a total replacement value of $50M has been determined.
Table 3.2: Pavement Replacement Value Replacement Road Component Quantity (m2) Value ($M) LINC Driving Lanes 158,400 $28 RHV Driving Lanes 123,120 $22 Total: 281,520 $50
3.1
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN Life-Cycle Analysis June 5, 2007
3.1.3 What condition is it in?
Pavement deterioration models are used to predict the future pavement condition and the expected pavement service life. Pavement deterioration is site-specific, since it depends on many variables making the deterioration rates vary significantly from one pavement section to the other. However, general patterns for pavement deterioration can be expected, depending on the general condition of the road section.
Pavement deterioration typically depends on the construction history, traffic patterns, environmental conditions, etc. A newly constructed pavement would typically have a longer service life, than a rehabilitated section. Preventive maintenance activities can slow the deterioration rate of the pavement section and extend its service life.
In defining the pavement deterioration models for the Parkway, the following should be considered: • The models are initiated based on the new construction of the Parkway • The LINC has been in service for about 9 years however; it is mainly used by commuter traffic, at this time. • Historic performance data for the Parkway is very limited and might not be suitable to develop site-specific models for these roads. Performance data from only two data collection cycles were completed on the LINC, in 2002 and 2006, which might not be enough for development of relatively accurate models. • After the completion of the RHV, the traffic patterns on the Parkway are expected to change significantly, accommodating higher commercial traffic avoiding the already congested 403/QEW link and attracting additional commercial traffic from the east and south of the City of Hamilton. The expected traffic patterns would suggest that the Parkway is similar to those associated with the provincial 400 series freeways, such as the 403 and QEW.
Therefore, the deterioration models and expected service lives of the different maintenance and rehabilitation activities to be used in the Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) were primarily based on the MTO performance models for the 400 series freeways. Additionally the City of Hamilton uses a pavement deterioration model for the LINC within its pavement management system. This model was also considered in the analysis.
Prediction Model Requirements Pavement deterioration is dependant on various factors. However, given the homogeneous nature of the Parkway, in terms of environmental impact, traffic patterns, pavement structure,
3.2
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN Life-Cycle Analysis June 5, 2007 pavement type, sub-grade conditions, etc, the deterioration models considered in the analysis are the same across the entire length of the Parkway. Figure 3.1 shows the deterioration trend of a typical pavement section. It should be noted that the window of opportunity for performing an activity may only be 2 to 3 years before the asset moves into the next activities window of opportunity.
Four types of rehabilitation activities are considered in the LCCA are dependent upon pavement condition. These activities are: • Preventive maintenance activities • Minor rehabilitation activities • Major rehabilitation activities • Reconstruction Localized Repairs are included as part of rehabilitation or reconstruction when required.
Trigger for Preventive Maintenance
Trigger for Minor Rehabilitation
Trigger for Major Rehabilitation/Reconstruction Pavement ConditionPavement
Age / Traffic
Figure 3.1: Typical Pavement Deterioration Model
Prediction Models Pavement condition is described in terms of a Pavement Condition Index (PCI). PCI is a scale between 0.0 and 100.0, with 100.0 representing the best possible pavement condition. The service life of a specific intervention is calculated as the time between that intervention and the next required intervention. Figure 3.1 also illustrates the fact that there is generally a “window of opportunity” to proceed with a specific activity. If the prescribed activity is not undertaken within that window, then a more expensive and extensive intervention is required.
3.3
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN Life-Cycle Analysis June 5, 2007
3.1.4 What do you need to do to it?
Inspections & Monitoring Pavement Condition Pavement performance is affected by a large number of variables, such as traffic level, environmental conditions, material quality, construction quality, sub-grade condition, etc. Almost all of these variables are considered at the design stage. However, the pavement condition tends to deteriorate over time and sometimes this deterioration can vary from the predicted performance.
Therefore, to ensure a cost-effective sustainable plan for the pavement surface, a comprehensive inspection and monitoring program needs to be implemented. This monitoring program would have the following benefits:
• Provide more pavement condition information, supporting the maintenance and rehabilitation decisions; • Identify specific distresses that are components of the overall pavement condition which can impact on public safety or satisfaction; • Identify areas of pavement surface where premature failure may occur, thus addressing such problems before they materialize; • Allow for adjustments in planned future budgets to address the change in predicted pavement condition. The data collection would address the various pavement condition components and provide an expected time frame and costs associated with each of these tests. These data collection activities, identified below, could potentially be integrated into the City of Hamilton data collection regime.
Skid Resistance – Identify the areas with low skid resistance that may affect public safety
Surface Condition Evaluation – Information about roughness, rutting, cracking and other localized distresses that may affect the pavement deterioration and may pose a safety hazard
Structural Condition Evaluation – The main purpose of evaluating the structural condition is to provide more accurate information about the pavement condition and identify potential failure in the pavement section.
Drainage Condition – The main purpose of evaluating the sub-drains and culverts is to identify any potential drainage problems, which could lead to the weakening of the sub-grade and/or base material, leading to localized pavement failures.
3.4
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN Life-Cycle Analysis June 5, 2007
Pavement Maintenance and Rehabilitation Within the detailed analysis contained in Appendix A, two scenarios have been considered for the sustainability plan for the Parkway;
First Scenario – Considered only major rehabilitation activities where the pavement is allowed to deteriorate until it reaches the end of the initial construction or major rehabilitation service life. At this point another major rehabilitation is preformed.
Second Scenario – includes surface treatments, or preventive maintenance, and minor rehabilitation activities to extend the service life of the pavement until it reaches a point where major rehabilitation is required. Figure 3.2 shows a typical performance model for a pavement section, and the impact of preventive maintenance on the pavement performance. As can be noted from the figure, preventive maintenance can either improve the pavement condition or reduce the rate of deterioration. In all cases, preventive maintenance can potentially enhance pavement performance and reduce the life-cycle costs of highway facilities.
The Pavement Sustainability Plan, included in Appendix A, details both scenarios and supports the use of the second scenario based on the reduced overall cost. Based on a lower life-cycle cost associated with the use of preventative maintenance this report and the associated analysis have used the second scenario to determine all timings and costs.
3.5
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN Life-Cycle Analysis June 5, 2007
Improvement in condition (Jump)
PM Trigger
Slower rate of deterioration (Flatter Curve) Performance Index Performance Rehabilitation Trigger
Age
Figure 3.2: Impact of PM Activities on Pavement Performance Preventive Maintenance – Preventive maintenance (PM) surface treatments to the pavement surface intended to target minor surface defect and thereby delay the overall pavement deterioration. Activities include Crack Filling or Sealing, and Micro surfacing, these and others are defined in Appendix A.
Minor Rehabilitation – Improvements to the existing paved surface. This can include a partial removal of the paved surface and will include the addition of new structural pavement. This includes activities such a single lift overlays, single lift mill with single lift overlay, or single lift mill with double lift overlay.
Major Rehabilitation – The complete removal and replacement of the pavement and, where required, localized repairs to the subsurface. This type of treatment is performed later in the life of the road, and typically has a goal of returning the road surface to a “like new” state.
Reconstruction – This is typically considered the full removal of the existing pavement and substructure. In the case of the Parkway only partial reconstruction has been considered within the analysis. This will consist of the removal of the asphalt, re-grading of the base material, and, where required, localized removal and replacement of the base and sub-base material.
3.6
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN Life-Cycle Analysis June 5, 2007
3.1.5 When do you need to do it?
Inspections & Monitoring Pavement Condition The data collected through the pavement condition monitoring program will support the maintenance and rehabilitation decisions by identifying deficiencies in any of the pavement condition components that affects public safety or satisfaction. Based on the actual pavement conditions and the short-term predictions, adjustments to the sustainability plan can be performed to achieve the most cost-effective use of the budget available. Table 3.3 summarizes the data collection program and the estimate of probable costs
Table 3.3 Pavement Condition Monitoring Program
Expected Opinion of Data Collection Activity Frequency Probable Cost
Skid Resistance Testing 2 years $5,000 Surface Condition Survey 1 year $10,000 FWD Testing 5 years $35,000 Drainage Inspection 2 years $5,000
It should be noted that the monitoring program for the Parkway should be tied-in with the regular data collection program for the City of Hamilton. Although the surface distress data may provide some indication of the structural condition of the pavement sections, structural testing can identify weak sections and potential failure in the pavement structure before the failure actually happens, thus allowing for more cost-effective pavement maintenance and rehabilitation. Therefore, it is recommended that a monitoring program be implemented. LINC – Preventive Maintenance and Rehabilitation The LINC has been in service since 1997, and functional performance data from the years 2002 and 2006 are available. On examining this data, the following was observed: • Over the four years period, significant deterioration in the roughness condition of the pavement were observed in some sections. • On examining the images available from 2006, a significant quantity of sealed cracks were observed. Sealing the cracks may have contributed to the increase in the roughness of the pavement, however, would reduce the rate of pavement condition deterioration by limiting the water infiltration into the pavement structure.
3.7
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN Life-Cycle Analysis June 5, 2007
Based on the latest performance data available for the LINC from the 2006 data collection cycle, the pavement condition seems to be in fair to good condition. Therefore, no immediate rehabilitation is required. Figure 3.3 shows the expenditure stream for the M&R scenario including surface treatments and minor rehabilitation activities that would maintain the pavement condition at a higher performance. Major Rehab PM Minor Rehab PM Minor Rehab PM PM PM Pavement PerformancePavement Pavement PerformancePavement Terminal Serviceability Base Year (2007) Year Base
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Figure 3.3 M&R Scenarios for the LINC This M&R scenario assumes that some preventive maintenance and minor rehabilitation activities are implemented at various points within the life-cycle, with the objective of extending the pavement service life. Based on the construction methods used on The LINC a complete cycle would include six preventive maintenance surface treatments, two minor rehabilitations and a major rehabilitation activity. The total costs are calculated assuming 4 lanes and 11 km length roads. Based on the current condition of the LINC, it has already passed the threshold point for completing the first PM activity. Also, based on a review of the LINC’s current surface conditions, it is believed that the first PM activity has already been implemented. Therefore, it is recommended that the M&R cycle continue to the second PM activity in 2008 to be followed by the Minor Rehabilitation activity in 2013. Table 3.4 shows the LINC M&R scenario, where the analysis year is calculated assuming the year 2007 to be Year 0. The analysis period extends over 100 years and includes two complete life-cycle analyses.
3.8
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN Life-Cycle Analysis June 5, 2007
Table 3.4 - LINC M&R Scenario Analysis Year Age Activity Year 1997 0 Construction 2008 1 11 Surface Treatment 2013 6 16 Minor Rehabilitation 2020 13 23 Surface Treatment 2025 18 28 Surface Treatment 2030 23 33 Minor Rehabilitation 2037 30 40 Surface Treatment 2042 35 45 Surface Treatment 2047 40 50 Major Rehabilitation 2054 47 57 Surface Treatment 2059 52 62 Surface Treatment 2064 57 67 Minor Rehabilitation 2071 64 74 Surface Treatment 2076 69 79 Surface Treatment 2081 74 84 Minor Rehabilitation 2088 81 91 Surface Treatment 2093 86 96 Surface Treatment 2098 91 101 Major Rehabilitation
RHV – Preventive Maintenance and Rehabilitation The RHV has not yet been opened to the public as it is expected to be completed in 2007, therefore, 2007 is considered the analysis base year. Figure 3.4 shows the expenditure stream for the M&R scenario which includes surface treatments and minor rehabilitation activities that would maintain the pavement condition at a better average condition.
3.9
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN Life-Cycle Analysis June 5, 2007 Major Rehab Major PM PM Rehab Minor PM Minor RehabMinor PM PM PM Pavement Performance Performance Pavement Pavement Performance Performance Pavement Terminal Serviceability Base (2007) Year
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Figure 3.4 M&R Scenarios for the RHV This M&R scenario assumes that all required preventive maintenance and minor rehabilitation activities are implemented, with the objective of extending the pavement service life. Based on the construction methods used on The LINC a complete cycle would include six preventive maintenance surface treatments, two minor rehabilitations and a major rehabilitation activity. The total costs are calculated assuming 4 lanes for 6 km and 5 lanes for 2 km of the road.
3.10
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN Life-Cycle Analysis June 5, 2007
Table 3.5 shows the RHV scenario, where the analysis year is calculated assuming the year 2007 to be Year 0. The analysis period extends over 100 years and includes two complete life- cycle analyses.
Table 3.5 - RHV-B M&R Scenario Analysis Year Age Activity Year 2007 0 Construction 2012 5 5 Surface Treatment 2017 10 10 Surface Treatment 2024 17 17 Minor Rehabilitation 2029 22 22 Surface Treatment 2034 27 27 Surface Treatment 2041 34 34 Minor Rehabilitation 2046 39 39 Surface Treatment 2051 44 44 Surface Treatment 2058 51 51 Major Rehabilitation 2063 56 56 Surface Treatment 2068 61 61 Surface Treatment 2075 68 68 Minor Rehabilitation 2080 73 73 Surface Treatment 2085 78 78 Surface Treatment 2092 85 85 Minor Rehabilitation 2097 90 90 Surface Treatment 2102 95 95 Surface Treatment 2109 102 102 Major Rehabilitation
3.11
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN Life-Cycle Analysis June 5, 2007
How much money do you need?
Based on the accumulated information on activities to be performed and the timing of these activities the following table has been compiled to identify the cost and timing of the required work. This results in a total cost from 2007 to 2106 for the pavement of $76 M or $760 K/year, excluding growth.
Table 3.6: Summary of Pavement Activity Costs
RHV LINC Inspection Cost Cost Cost Activity Activity Activity ($M) ($K) ($K) Surface Surface Treatment $6,161 Treatment $7,266 Distress $400 Total Minor Minor Cost Distress, FWD $450 Rehabilitation $10,258 Rehabilitation $13,198 ($K) Major Major Rehabilitation $10,260 Rehabilitation $26,399 Distress, Skid, Drainage $800 Distress, FWD, Skid, Drainage $4950 $26,679 $48,863 $2,145 Total: $75,687
The Parkway created by the Lincoln M. Alexander Parkway and the Red Hill Creek Valley Parkway will provide an increased level of service to the citizens and business with the City of Hamilton. In order to maintain this beneficial service the pavement must be maintained to an acceptable level. This report recommends that the pavement be maintained and rehabilitated at a regular interval with the understanding that not only will this regular maintenance cost less over the life of the asset but will also provide the users of the Parkway with a effective and acceptable route.
3.12
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN Life-Cycle Analysis June 5, 2007
3.2 RIGHT-OF-WAY (ROW) ASSETS
3.2.1 What do you have
The Parkway consists of a number of ROW assets including ramps, curbs, fencing, and signs. Table 3.7 provides a listing of all the evaluated asset components and their quantities. This data was gathered through input from City Staff.
Table 3.7: ROW Inventory Summary
Asset Type Asset Component UM Quantities
LINC Ramps m2 86,400 Shoulders m2 158,400 Curbs m 56,000 Median m 11,000 Roadway Noise Barriers m 20,000 Fencing m 6,000 Guide/Guard Rails m 2,000 Crash Attenuators ea 264 Striping m 80,000 Marking ea 380 Signs & Supports ea 48 Traffic Overhead Signs & Supports ea 24 Signals Ea 11 Lighting Ea 119 Catch Basins Ea 220 Ditches M 11,000 Drainage Inlets/Outlets Ea 20 Pipes/Culverts M 1,000 Storm Water Outlet Control Ea 2 Management Ponds m2 2,000 Access Roads M 1,000
3.13
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN Life-Cycle Analysis June 5, 2007
Asset Type Asset Component UM Quantities
Fencing (Ponds) M 800 Ramps m2 100,800 Shoulders m2 115,200 Curbs m 56,000 Median m 8,000 Roadway Noise Barriers m 2,000 Fencing m 3,000 Guide/Guard Rails m 12,000 Crash Attenuators ea 110 Striping m 70,000 Marking ea 234 Signs & Supports ea 289 RHV Traffic Overhead Signs & Supports ea 14 Signals ea 7 Lighting ea 73 Catch Basins ea 160 Ditches m 8,000 Drainage Inlets/Outlets ea 20 Pipes/Culverts m 1,000 Outlet Control ea 4 2 Storm Water Ponds m 4,000 Management Access Roads m 2,000 Fencing (Ponds) m 1,600
3.14
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN Life-Cycle Analysis June 5, 2007
3.2.2 What is it worth
Based on the unit replacement costs identified by City staff the 2007 replacement value for this network is $108 million. Table 3.8 provides a break down of the individual asset components and their 2007 replacement value.
Table 3.8: Asset Replacement Value Unit Replacement Replacement Asset Type Asset Component Value Value ($K) ($) LINC Ramps $178 $15,360 Shoulders $178 $28,160 Curbs $50 $2,800 Median $36 $396 Roadway Noise Barriers $500 $10,000 Fencing $25 $150 Guide/Guard Rails $50 $100 Crash Attenuators $200 $53 Striping $0.23 $19 Marking $12 $5 Signs & Supports $150 $7 Traffic Overhead Signs & Supports $52,500 $1,260 Signals $110,000 $1,210 Lighting $1,000 $119 Catch Basins $1,500 $330 Ditches $25 $275 Drainage Inlets/Outlets $5,900 $118 Pipes/Culverts $650 $650 Storm Water Outlet Control $26,500 $53 Management Ponds $50 $100 Access Roads $145 $145
3.15
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN Life-Cycle Analysis June 5, 2007
Unit Replacement Replacement Asset Type Asset Component Value Value ($K) ($) Fencing (Ponds) $25 $20 Ramps $178 $17,920 Shoulders $178 $20,480 Curbs $50 $2,800 Median $36 $288 Roadside Noise Barriers $500 $1,000 Fencing $25 $75 Guide/Guard Rails $50 $600 Crash Attenuators $200 $22 Striping $0.23 $16 Marking $12 $3 Signs & Supports $150 $43 RHV Traffic Overhead Signs & Supports $52,500 $735 Signals $110,000 $770 Lighting $1,000 $73 Catch Basins $1,500 $240 Ditches $25 $200 Drainage Inlets/Outlets $5,900 $118 Pipes/Culverts $650 $650 Outlet Control $26,500 $106 Storm Water Ponds $50 $200 Management Access Roads $145 $290 Fencing (Ponds) $25 $40 Total Replacement Value: $107,999
3.16
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN Life-Cycle Analysis June 5, 2007
3.2.3 What condition is it in
The Red Hill Valley section of the Parkway is scheduled to be opened in 2007. Therefore, for the purpose of the report this part of the asset is considered in “New” Condition. The LINC section was opened in 1997 and for the most part the associated ROW assets are well within their Useful Life, and therefore, still in good condition.
3.2.4 What do you need to do to it
Hamilton’s current Ontario Municipal CAO’s Benchmarking Intuitive (OMBI) road maintenance value is approximately $10,500/ln-km averaged across all classifications of roads. Based on the need to maintain the Parkway to a higher standard when compared to the other Public Works assets would result in an O&M value in excess of the OMBI value. The maintenance activities that relate to the current OMBI road maintenance values translate to the Parkway to approximately $28,700/ln-km or an increase of approximately 173%.
The following table identifies the annual maintenance activities, and associated costs, to be performed on the Parkway.
Table 3.9: Maintenance Requirements
Unit Total Asset Asset Type Activity Cost Cost Component ($) ($K)
Pavement Travel Snow/Ice Plowing, Removal, Patrol, Material $5 $1,450 Roadway Ramps Snow/Ice Plowing, Removal, Patrol, Material $2 $300 Shoulder Sweeping <$1 $8 Shoulder Flushing <$1 $7 Median Forestry <$1 $5 Median Snow Fence $1 $10 Crash Attenuators Safety Barrier Maint./Repair $67 $25 Crash Attenuators Impact Alternatives $32 $12 Crash Attenuators Alternative Systems $251 $94 Guardrails Guardrails $3 $35 Median Weed Control $1 $14 Median Urban Mowing (9 cuts per season) $6 $90
3.17
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN Life-Cycle Analysis June 5, 2007
Median Rural Mowing (4 cuts per season) $1 $14 Median Debris/Litter/Road Kill Pick-up $3 $47 Median Bank Erosion $3 $39 Median Mowing/Vegetation Management $2 $23 Fencing Security Fencing $1 $5 Noise Barriers Noise Barriers Repairs $1 $11 Noise Barriers Noise Barriers Graffiti Removal $2 $38 Catch Basins Catch Basin Cleaning $116 $44 Catch Basins Catch Basin Repairs $24 $9 Pipes/Culverts Storm Sewer Cleaning $10 $19 Pipes/Culverts Storm Sewer Repairs $14 $28 Ditches Ditching $1 $28 Inlets/Outlets Inlet/Outlet Cleaning $1,675 $67 Drainage Shoulder Motor Veh. Collisions/Spills <$1 $14 Catch Basins Catch Basin Sorbents $11 $4 Pipes/Culverts Culvert Cleaning $4 $7 Pipes/Culverts Culvert Repair/Replacement $6 $11 Catch Basins West Nile Larvicide $18 $7 Pipes/Culverts Culvert Thawing $5 $10 Curbs Curbs <$1 $50 Striping Line Striping <$1 $35 Marking Markings $12 $7 Signs & Supports Signage Repair <$1 <$1 Traffic Overhead Signs & Signage Repair <$1 <$1 Supports Signals Signal Operating Costs $2,800 $50 Lighting Lights/Signals/Luminaries $100 $19 Storm Water Outlet Control Creek $4 $28 Management Outlet Control Outlet Control Structure Maintenance $2,333 $14 Access Roads Access Road Repair/Maintenance $1 $4 Ponds Vegetation Plantings $2 $9
3.18
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN Life-Cycle Analysis June 5, 2007
Ponds Bank Erosion Repair $2 $14 Ponds Forebay / Sediment Cleaning $8 $50 Ponds Bird Management $1 $5 Bridges O&M $3,893 $160 Culverts O&M $275 $3 Bridge/ Approaches Snow/Ice Plowing, Removal, Patrol, Material $23 $1,000 Structures Approaches Sweeping <$1 $3 Approaches Flushing <$1 $2 Total Annual O&M: $3,928 The table below identifies the individual Asset Components and the total maintenance costs per annum. It also identifies the percentage of replacement based on the asset component and type.
Table 3.10: Maintenance vs. Replacement Cost 2007 Annual Maintenance as a % of Asset Type Asset Component Replacement Maintenance Replacement Value ($K) ($K) Component Type Pavement 1 Travel $50,048 $1,450 2.90% 2.90% Ramps $33,280 $300 0.90% Shoulder $48,640 $29 0.06% Curbs $5,600 $50 0.89% Median $684 $242 35.38% Roadway 0.84% Noise Barriers $11,000 $49 0.45% Fencing $225 $5 2.22% Guide/Guard Rails $700 $35 5.00% Crash Attenuators $75 $131 175.13% Structures 1 Approaches $6,000 $1,05 1.75% 1.75% Traffic Striping $35 $35 100.00% 100.0% Marking $7 $7 100.00% Signs & Supports $51 $0 0.00% 1.64% Overhead Signs & $1,995 $0 0.00% Supports Signals $1,980 $50 2.55%
3.19
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN Life-Cycle Analysis June 5, 2007
2007 Annual Maintenance as a % of Asset Type Asset Component Replacement Maintenance Replacement Value ($K) ($K) Component Type Lighting $192 $19 10.00% Catch Basins $570 $64 11.23% Ditches $475 $28 5.89% Drainage 9.07% Inlets/Outlets $236 $67 28.39% Pipes/Culverts $1,300 $75 5.77% Outlet Control $159 $42 26.42% Storm Water Ponds $300 $78 26.00% 13.00% Management Access Roads $435 $4 0.92% Fencing (Ponds) $60 $0 0.00% Total: $164,047 $2,865 1.75% 1. These assets have been included in the ROW Maintenance to account for non-structural maintenance activities.
3.2.5 When do you need to do it
The useful life of any asset is influenced by many variables such as material, soil condition, uneven manufacturing quality, installation practices, local weather conditions, etc. Due to these factors maximum and minimum useful life values were used in the analysis. This was done to identify the worst (minimum useful life) and best (maximum useful life) replacement profile for all the assets.
Table 3.11: Asset Useful Life
Useful Life Asset Type Asset Component Ave Min Max Ramps 30 20 40 Shoulder 30 20 40 Curbs 45 30 60 1 Roadway Median 100 100 100 Noise Barriers 35 20 50 Fencing 20 15 25 Guide/Guard Rails 30 20 40 Crash Attenuators 10 5 15
3.20
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN Life-Cycle Analysis June 5, 2007
Useful Life Asset Type Asset Component Ave Min Max Striping 1 0.5 1.5 Marking 1 0.5 1.5 Traffic Signs & Supports 10 5 15 Overhead Signs & Supports 10 5 15 Lighting 30 20 40 Catch Basins 80 60 100 Ditches 1 100 100 100 Drainage Inlets/Outlets 75 60 90 Pipes/Culverts 30 20 40 Outlet Control 50 35 65 Storm Water Ponds 40 30 50 Management Access Roads 50 35 65 Fencing (Ponds) 20 15 25 1. Since these assets are not replaced, the Useful Life is set to the length of the analysis and do not have a max/min value.
3.2.6 How much money do you need
The analysis identifies the funding requirements to maintain, rehabilitate, and replace the various assets within the Parkway. Though these assets have a wide range of useful lives the entire analysis was completed to project the financial requirements over the next 100 years requiring multiple life-cycle analyses of the shorter lived assets. The following assumptions and criteria were used within this analysis:
1. All values are calculated in current (2006) dollars. 2. Replacement costs are based on the values identified in Section 3.2.2 3. Maintenance costs are based on the values identified in Section 3.2.4 4. The construction date for all assets has been assumed to be 2007 for the RHV and 1997 for the LINC. 5. Rehabilitation has been assumed to be 25% of the full replacement cost at 67% of the asset’s useful life. This is with the exception of Signs, and Markings which are replaced through the maintenance calculations and are not rehabilitated.
3.21
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN Life-Cycle Analysis June 5, 2007
6. Growth has been based on the addition of lanes to the Parkways between 2031 and 2035. The associated pavement cost has been included in this section since growth was excluded from the pavement evaluation. 7. Gross capital investment requirements were derived by adding allowances for Engineering (15%), Contingencies (10%) and Overhead & Admin (10%). 8. Gross Operating investment requirements were derived by adding allowances for Overhead & Admin (10%) and Cost Allocations (5%). 9. The analysis was extended to reports on maximum and minimum asset useful lives.
The following table provides a summary of the financial requirements derived from the analysis.
Table 3.12: ROW Financial Summary
Total 100 Year Requirement Annual Requirement
($M) ($M)
Maximum Useful Life $890 M $9 M/year Minimum Useful Life $1,105 M $11 M/year
3.22
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN Life-Cycle Analysis June 5, 2007
3.3 BRIDGES
3.3.1 What do you have?
This study covers 52 structures on the Parkway. These structures consist of 41 bridges (5 of which are pedestrian bridges) and 11 culverts.
Table 3.13: Structure Types Deck Area* Structure Type Number (m2) Thin slab on steel girders (boxes) 2 6,698 Thin slab on concrete girders (includes one 9 18,932 pedestrian bridge) Rigid frame vertical legs 2 3,498 Bridge Circular voided slab / rectangular voided slab 21 30,893 (includes one pedestrian bridge) Solid slab 4 3,585 Through truss (pedestrian bridges) 3 238 Rectangular culvert 2 Arch culvert 2 Culvert 6,725 Rigid frame vertical legs 6 Solid slab 1 * Plan area of the bridge deck, out to out, end to end of deck Plan area of the culvert top slab, out to out, end to end
CITY OF HAMILTON LINC/RHVP BRIDGES/CULVERTS
16 The bridges and culverts were 14 constructed between 1990 and 2006. The 12 average age of the structures is 10 approximately 6 years old. The chart 8 below shows the distribution of the assets 6 relative to their age. 4
NUMBER OF STRUCTURES 2 0 0 2 3 5 6 8 9 4 10 11 12 13 1 15 16 AGE Figure 3.5: Age of Construction
3.23
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN Life-Cycle Analysis June 5, 2007
3.3.2 What is it worth?
The replacement cost of bridges can often be underestimated in simple calculations. This is because the replacement bridge is invariably wider/longer than the existing one. Also in many estimates indirect costs such as traffic control, engineering and contract administration are often ignored. The result of this is that insufficient funds are available for replacements when required.
The initial construction of the Parkway structures accommodates growth associated with this study. Therefore, it is assumed that the deck areas will not increase due to growth in traffic volumes on the streets that connect to the bridge; this typical adjustment is called the swell factor. In addition, no provision was made for growth of the network, that is, only the existing 52 structures have been included in this study. An allowance for design and contract administration was included. An allowance of 6% for traffic control was made for the mainline bridges. For the overpasses and the culverts, a 5% traffic control allowance was included. The following table outlines the assumptions made for the replacement of these structures.
Table 3.14: Replacement Costs
Deck Unit Basic Design Traffic Factored Swell Site area replacement Replacement and Control Replacement factor (m2) cost ($/m2) Costs ($ M) CA Provision Cost ($ M)
Bridges 63,844 $1,500 $96 1.00 1.20 1.06 $121
Culverts 6,724 $900 $6 1.00 1.10 1.05 $7
Total: $102 $128
3.3.3 What condition is it in?
Structure Safety In 2006, a visual inspection of bridges and culverts on the Parkway was completed in accordance with Ontario Structure Inspection Manual (OSIM). The inspection of 15 structures on the LINC and 11 structures on the RHV was completed. Settlement of the approach sidewalks, unstable embankments, disconnected railings and expansion joint armor were identified as performance deficiencies.
For the structures that were inspected by Stantec the OSIM protocols were followed.
3.24
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN Life-Cycle Analysis June 5, 2007
Functional Performance On the LINC leaking expansion joints were visible. Asphalt drains that spill onto the bearing seat were noted.
Structure Condition Evaluation The structure condition is evaluated in terms of a Bridge Condition Index (BCI). The BCI is based on the remaining economic worth of the bridge and ranges from 0 to 100 (Best). This index is a function of the existing condition state of the deck, beams, abutments, piers and barriers. BCI = Current Element Value/Total Replacement Value × 100 This index requires that the current condition state of the elements be determined. The governing standard is the OSIM, published by the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO). This visual inspection is used to assess the element condition state and to record the areas that are deteriorated. The material condition state is specified in the OSIM and guidelines are established to evaluate the areas that require rehabilitation and have a reduced economic value. In general, OSIM describes in detail how to rate element distresses in terms of type, severity and extent. The surface condition in terms of surface defects is typically evaluated visually. Material condition states are categorized as Excellent, Good, Fair or Poor.
For the purpose of this report, the structural condition index has been assumed to vary from 80 to 90 for bridges on the LINC and to be 100 for the newer bridges on the RHV.
The BCI for the network has been calculated as 94, which reflects the fact that this particular inventory is relatively new. It was assumed that the structures built in 2006 on the RHV have a BCI of 100. The BCI of the structures on the LINC have been calculated using the OSIM inspection data that Stantec collected in 2006. The BCI of the remaining structures was estimated.
The 17 structures built on the LINC are about 8 to 16 years old and inspection of 15 of the bridges/culverts in accordance with OSIM revealed some deterioration of the components, generally, these included: • Failure of the wearing surface, surface ponding • Minor deterioration of concrete components, barriers, sidewalks, deck soffit, abutments The 35 structures built on the RHV are new to 16 years old and inspection of 11 bridges/ culverts in accordance with OSIM revealed no or minor deterioration of the components.
3.25
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN Life-Cycle Analysis June 5, 2007
The MTO guidelines state that for BCI less than 70% but more than 60% recommended work should be performed within 1-5 yrs, and if BCI is less than 60% then the bridge is considered in poor condition and the recommended work should occur now (i.e. within 1 yr). To be proactive the City of Hamilton should implement rehabilitation within 5 years when the BCI for each structure reaches the 70% value.
The following simplified figure demonstrates that the deterioration is proportional to the age of the structure. The rehabilitation in year 25 is recommended but will not return the structure to perfect condition. It is recognized that the deterioration will not be linear and the rate of deterioration will vary for each bridge type and location, but this simplified figure serves to illustrate the basic principles at play.
100%
90%
Bridge 80% Condition Rehabilitation Index Recommended 70%
60%
50% 0 25 38 Structure Age in Years
Figure 3.6: Structure Deterioration Model
3.3.4 What do you need to do to it?
The following activities are typical for the types of structures in the inventory: Preventative maintenance activities may include: • Scheduled activities • Bridge deck, expansion joint, drain and abutment bearing seat cleaning • Crack sealing, pothole patching, etc. • Concrete sealing (5-year cycle) • Removal of delaminated concrete over traffic or pedestrians • Patching of spalled concrete
3.26
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN Life-Cycle Analysis June 5, 2007
• Safety improvements These measures moderately improve functional condition and/or slow pavement/concrete deterioration. Minor rehabilitation activities may include: • Shave & pave type activities • Repair of spalled/delaminated concrete surfaces • Major rehabilitation activities may include: • Patch / waterproof / pave, reconstruction • Concrete demolition, concrete overlay, waterproof / pave • Construction of Semi integral abutments • Specialized materials, waterproof asphalt, waterproof concrete, self consolidating concrete, epoxy and polyurethane for crack injection; carbon fibre reinforcement may be incorporated in the major rehabilitation. Like pavement, the analysis was completed using Preventive Maintenance and Minor Rehabilitation and did not include allowing the structures to deteriorate to failure. This methodology was chosen based primarily on safety considerations. 3.3.5 When do you need to do it? Structure deterioration models are used to predict the future structure condition and the expected structure service life. Structure deterioration is site-specific, since it depends on many variables making the deterioration rates vary from one structure to another. However, general patterns of deterioration can be expected, depending on the general condition of the bridge/culvert. Structure deterioration typically depends on the construction history, traffic patterns, environmental conditions, etc. A newly constructed structure would typically have a longer service life than a rehabilitated bridge. Preventative maintenance activities can slow the deterioration rate of the structure section and extend its service life. In defining the structure deterioration models for the Parkway, the following should be considered: • Both the Parkway is new construction • The LINC has been in service for over 8 years however; most of the bridges are overpasses and completion of the RHV will have a minimal impact on these bridges • Historic performance data that can be used for developing a site-specific performance model for the Parkway is almost non-existent. With the latest OSIM inspection of the LINC (2006 data), little or no deterioration was observed on the bridges
3.27
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN Life-Cycle Analysis June 5, 2007
After the completion of the RHV, the deterioration of the bridges on the RHV will be faster than the rate of deterioration on the LINC overpass because of the higher truck traffic. For information and reference, typical service lives of typical bridge components are provided below: Table 3.15: Bridge Component Typical Service Life
Component Typical Service Life a) Asphaltic concrete pavement 15-20 years b) Hot applied rubberized waterproofing membrane 25-30 years c) Concrete overlays with waterproofing 30 years d) Steel coating systems 10-20 years e) Timber wearing surfaces 5-10 years f) Expansion joints 15-30 years g) Expansion joint seals 5-15 years h) Bearings under expansion or fixed joints 25-40 years Taken from Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code CHBDC S6-06, Commentary Actual service life may vary from the above typical service life predictions, and will depend on traffic, maintenance history, etc. It is evident that the main roadway bridges on the Parkway are in good condition, therefore, remediation will only be required in about 10 to 15 years.
It should be noted that these models are based on MTO experience. However, as more data is collected through the OSIM inspection process, these models can be calibrated to better predict the structure condition specific to Hamilton.
The following simplified figure demonstrates that the deterioration is proportional to the age of the structure. It should be noted, that, the rehabilitation strategies in year 25 and year 50 do not return the structure to perfect condition.
3.28
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN Life-Cycle Analysis June 5, 2007
Structure Rehabilitation Model 100%
90%
Bridge 80% Condition Rehabilitation 1 Index 70% Rehabilitation 2
60% Stru ctu re Replacement
50% 0 255075 Structure Age in Years
Figure 3.7: Bridge Condition Index vs. Age 3.3.6 How much money do you need?
A 75 year design live was selected for the Parkway Bridges based on the following information from the Commentary on CAN/CSA-S6-06 Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code C1.4.2.3:
“In earlier codes, a 50-year design life was assumed but not explicitly stated. Increasing the structure design life to 75 years was a pragmatic decision that took into account the desirability of having more durable structures, consistency with other codes (AASHTO 1994), and the slowing of obsolescence and renewal rates as highway systems approach maturity.”
The total costs over the 75 year analysis period are summarized in Figure 3.8. This graph includes the annual operating and maintenance costs, rehabilitation and replacement costs of the Parkway’s structure inventory. The cost scale is logarithmic to show the annual maintenance cost as well the rehabilitation replacement costs of the bridges and culverts over the 75 year analysis period. These are the costs in 2006 dollars in the year that the activity occurs. The sum of these expenditures is $174 million.
3.29
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN Life-Cycle Analysis June 5, 2007
$100 Annual Total Structure Costs City of Hamilton: Lincoln Alexander Parkway & Red Hill Valley Parkway
$ 40 Structure Replacement Rehabilitation 2 Rehabilitation 1
Cost in Operations & Maintenance Millions $10
$1
$0.1
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070 2075 2080 Year Figure 3.8: Operating, Maintenance, Rehabilitation, and Replacement Cost Profile
3.30
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
3.4 RED HILL CREEK VALLEY ASSETS
3.4.1 What do we have?
The Valley contains a number of natural and man made assets that will be maintained by the City. The following table provides a listing of these assets.
Table 3.16: Valley Asset Summary
Asset Type Asset Component UM Quantities Banks m 7,000 Waterway Hydrological deflection ea 20 Trails m 7,000 Trees/Shrubs ea 1,000 Flying Squirrel habitat ea 50 Trails Signs ea 200 Waste Receptacles ea 20 Furniture ea 20 Lighting/Electrical ea 100
3.4.2 What is it worth?
Based on replacement values provided by City staff a 2007 Valley asset replacement value of $1.5 million has been calculated. The following table provides a summary of the asset replacement values.
Table 3.17: Asset Replacement Value Unit Replacement Asset Type Asset Component Replacement Values Value ($K) Banks $50 $350 Waterway Hydrological deflection $500 $10 Trails $50 $350 Trees/Shrubs $450 $450 Flying Squirrel habitat $50 $2 Trails Signs $150 $30 Waste Receptacles $100 $2 Furniture $1,000 $20 Lighting/Electrical $2,500 $250 Total Replacement Value: $1,464
3.31
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN June 5, 2007
3.4.3 What condition is it in?
With the development of the Parkway through the Red Hill Creek Valley considerable effort has been put into restoring the natural area. As a result the assets within the Valley are considered new with respect to the Life-Cycle Analysis.
3.4.4 What do you need to do to it?
Based on input from City staff the following activities, and associated costs, have been identified for the maintenance to be performed against the various assets within the Valley.
Table 3.18: Maintenance Requirements Annual Asset Component Activity Unit Cost Expenditure ($K) Banks Fish Passage/Habitat <$1 $1 Banks Terrestrial Consulting/ Monitoring $21 $150 Trails Trails $4 $25 Trails Grading <$1 $3 Trails Ground Litter Control $1 $10 Waste Receptacles Waste receptacle removal $250 $5 Banks Slope Stabilization $1 $8 Banks CSO's <$1 $5 Banks Storm Outfalls <$1 $5 Banks Vegetation <$1 $5 Trees/Shrubs Tree/Shrub after care $1 $1 Trees/Shrubs Tree Replacement $8 $8 Trees/Shrubs Shrub replacement $2 $2 Trails Overseeding <$1 $1 Banks Creek Bed/Watercourse <$1 $5 Banks Bank Erosion Repair $1 $10 Lighting/Electrical Other Utilities $10 $1 Total Annual O&M: $ 245
3.32
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN June 5, 2007
3.4.5 When do we need to do it?
The useful life of any asset is influenced by many variables such as material, soil condition, uneven manufacturing quality, installation practices, local weather conditions, etc. Due to these factors maximum and minimum useful life values were used in the analysis. This was done to identify the worst (minimum useful life) and best (maximum useful life) replacement profile for all the assets.
Table 3.19: Asset Useful Life Useful Life Asset Type Asset Component Ave Min Max Banks 100 100 100 Waterway Hydrological deflection 20 15 25 Trails 10 5 15 Trees / Shrubs 60 45 75 Flying Squirrel habitat 15 10 20 Trails Signs 10 5 15 Waste Receptacles 10 5 15 Furniture 10 5 15 Lighting / Electrical 30 20 40
3.4.6 How much money do you need?
The analysis identifies the funding requirements to maintain, rehabilitate, and replace the maintained assets within the Red Hill Valley. Though these assets have a wide range of useful lives the entire analysis was completed to project the financial requirements over the next 100 years requiring multiple life-cycle analyses of the shorter lived assets. The following assumptions and criteria were used within this analysis: 1. All values are calculated in current (2006) dollars. 2. Replacement costs are based on the values identified in Section 3.2.2 3. Maintenance costs are based on the values identified in Section 3.2.4 4. The construction date for all assets has been assumed to be 2007. 5. Rehabilitation has been assumed to be 25% of the full replacement cost at 67% of the assets useful life. 6. No growth has been included within the analysis.
3.33
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN June 5, 2007
7. Gross capital investment requirements were derived by adding allowances for Engineering (15%), Contingencies (10%) and Overhead & Admin (10%). 8. Gross Operating investment requirements were derived by adding allowances for Overhead & Admin (10%) and Cost Allocations (5%). 9. The analysis was extended to reports on maximum and minimum asset useful lives. The following table provides a summary of the financial requirements derived from the analysis.
Table 3.20: RHCV Financial Summary
Total 100 Year Requirement Annual Requirement
($M) ($K) Maximum Useful Life $9 M $94 K/year
Minimum Useful Life $44 M $439 K/year
3.34
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
4.0 Operations and Maintenance Environmental Operating Procedures (note: the following Operations and Maintenance Environmental Operating Procedures comprise Section 4 of Appendix D of the RHVP Environmental Management Plan (EMP). Where references are being drawn to sections of the larger EMP document, the user is directed to review those sections for clarity.
4.1 BARRIERS AND FENCES
4.1.1 Description of Activity
• Inspection and maintenance of the noise barriers and security fencing is carried out to ensure the integrity of the structures and to ensure that gaps do not develop.
4.1.2 Concerns
• Noise barriers prevent traffic generated noises from impacting the quality of life of adjacent noise sensitive areas.
• Security fencing prevents people and animals from gaining access to the highway reducing the risk of collision.
• Maintenance and repairs to noise barriers and fences can damage vegetation in both terrestrial and Riparian Areas.
4.1.3 Mitigation of Potential Impacts
• All openings in security fences shall be repaired as soon as possible;
• All gaps under noise barriers shall be filled and stabilized as soon as possible;
• all operations shall be in compliance with City of Hamilton’s Noise Bylaw No. 03-020 (as it exists from time to time) and the City Environmental Protection Plan General Condition #14, unless otherwise directed by the Engineer;
• works shall be conducted such that removal of vegetation is minimized and shall provide for planting of new vegetation in accordance with the RHVP Landscape Management Plan;
• vegetation removal shall occur so as to minimize impacts to nesting birds and meet the intent of the Migratory Birds Convention Act. Any clearing occurring during the migratory period (March 1st to September 9th) shall be carried out in accordance with the Migratory Birds Convention Act;
4.1
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN June 5, 2007
• no trees shall be felled into or across watercourses unless it is unsafe to do otherwise;
• no equipment will be operated within 5 metres of a watercourse without approval of the Engineer.
• grubbing shall not take place within 30 m of a watercourse until such time as all the appropriate erosion control devices are in place and the drainage structures are in place;
• vegetation within 10 m of the stream shall be removed in such a manner as to minimize potential erosion and other impacts to the watercourses;
• trees shall be felled to avoid damaging standing trees that are to be preserved;
• the Engineer shall ensure to protect roots of all trees that are not identified for removal to the dripline at all times to prevent disturbance or damage. Vehicle traffic, dumping and storage of materials over the root zones of trees to be protected is prohibited;
• the Engineer is required to ensure the use of use vertical trench walls and appropriate support systems when excavating within the dripline of trees to be retained;
• all exposed roots over 25 mm in diameter shall be cut back cleanly to the soil surface within 48 hours of being exposed;
• where root damage or loss is extensive, portions of the tree shall be pruned by a qualified and experienced landscaper using approved arboriculture techniques and practices. The pruning shall be carried out in such a manner as to retain as much as possible of the plant’s natural form;
• when the branches of trees located within the right-of-way will interfere with construction operations, they shall be pruned prior to equipment entering the dripline of the tree;
• when the branches of trees located off the right-of-way, overhang the right-of-way and will interfere with construction operations, they shall be pruned prior to equipment entering the dripline of the tree. Prior to pruning Permission to Enter forms may need to be completed by the land owners to permit work crews to carryout work beyond the road allowances;
• when pruning branches, they shall be cut back to the nearest suitable trunk, crotch or lateral, where they will no longer interfere with the construction operation. Should a homeowner refuse entry to prune branches on private property, then the branches shall be cut vertically at the property line;
4.2
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN June 5, 2007
• cut material shall be disposed of through removal, or chipping. Burning shall not be permitted;
• stabilization of disturbed areas and/or appropriate erosion control measures shall be completed concurrent with construction and/or repairs; and
• reference Operations and Maintenance, Environmental Operating Procedures ; 4.2- Ditching; 4.5-Vandalism, Waste and Dust; 4.6-Vegetation Management; 4.7-Streams and Riparian Zones; 4.8-Stormwater Management System.
4.1.4 Activity-Specific Permits
• Permission to Enter forms
• For Emergency repairs adjacent to Riparian Areas see City of Hamilton Emergency Works Protocol.
4.2 DITCHING
4.2.1 Description of Activity
• Ditching is carried out to ensure positive drainage of surface and subsurface water away from the road surface and road bed. In areas of high siltation, ditch cleaning is done to ensure the original drainage capacity of the system is maintained.
• Ditch maintenance can include excavation/cleaning, placing topsoil, sod placement, seeding, placing gabions / geotextiles and placing rip rap.
4.2.2 Concerns
• Release of contaminants and sediments during ditching operations can cause damage to adjacent lands and waterbodies. This runoff can be particularly harmful to Aquatic Habitats and represents a “deleterious substance” under the Fisheries Act. The introduction of a deleterious substance to a waterbody can lead to charges being laid under the Fisheries Act;
• sediment laden runoff can reduce the storage capacity of storm water ponds; and
• Spills occurring during ditch maintenance operations can introduce deleterious substances to fish bearing waters.
4.3
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN June 5, 2007
4.2.3 Mitigation of Potential Impacts
• Prior to starting ditch cleaning operations, site-specific erosion control and sediment management procedures shall be in place as per the Erosion and Sediment Control Environmental Operating Procedure (forming section 3.5 of the Red Hill Valley Project Environmental Protection Plan);
• materials loosened by the ditching process must be prevented from migrating, this is a critical element when cleaning ditches within 10 metres of a catch basin, watercourse, waterbody, wetland or stormwater management pond;
• the works supervisor will ensure construction, inspection and maintenance of the erosion and sediment control devices throughout the period of the work are in keeping with “Keeping Soil on Construction Sites” - Hamilton Conservation Authority April 1994;
• at all times prior to removal of the flow check, including during winter, temporary flow checks shall be maintained in place, without gaps and undermining, to prevent sediment passage through or under the flow check.
• accumulated sediment shall be removed to the level of the grade when it reaches one half of the effective height of the flow check; and immediately prior to the removal of the temporary flow check. Unless contaminated, the sediment shall be managed as excess earth material. Contaminated materials shall be managed in accordance with all applicable legislation and regulations.
• the temporary flow check shall be removed when it is no longer required. It shall be removed in a manner that avoids entry of mechanical equipment to any watercourse; and prevents the release of sediment and debris;
• the ditches must be stabilized immediately after excavation to prevent erosion;
• all operations shall be in compliance with City of Hamilton’s Noise Bylaw No. 03-020 (as it exists from time to time) and the City Environmental Protection Plan General Condition #14, unless otherwise directed by the Engineer;
• all spills will be managed as per the Spills Response Contingency Plan (forming section 5.1 of the RHVP Environmental Protection Plan); contaminated materials discovered during ditching operations shall be managed in accordance with all applicable Legislation and regulations. Refer to Contaminated Sites Contingency Plan (forming section 5.2 of the RHVP Environmental Protection Plan) or to the City of Hamilton Contaminated Sites Management Plan; and
4.4
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN June 5, 2007
• reference Operations and Maintenance, Environmental Operating Procedures; 4.2- Ditching; 4.3-Drainage Structures; 4.5 Vandalism, Waste and Dust; 4.6-Vegetation Management; 4.7-Streams and Riparian Zones; 4.8-Stormwater Management System.
4.2.4 Activity-Specific Permits
• Ministry of the Environment Waste Generator Number of disposal of hazardous or liquid waste if required.
• Any work in or adjacent to a watercourse that could result in harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat (HADD) will require prior Authorization under the Fisheries Act.
• The City has a common law obligation to ensure that all drainage works are directed to a “sufficient outlet” as defined by the Drainage Act RSO 1990.
• Disposal of contaminated materials must be carried out in accordance with the Environmental Protection Act and may require prior approval of the Ministry of the Environment.
• Emergency repairs conducted adjacent to or in Riparian Areas must comply with the City of Hamilton Emergency Works Protocol.
4.3 DRAINAGE STRUCTURES
4.3.1 Description of Activity
• Maintaining the subsurface drainage systems is critical to ensuring the systems function as designed. Catch basins are cleaned to preserve the sumps capacity to settle solids out of the water before it is released into the sewer systems. Laterals are flushed to remove sediment, inlet and outlets are cleaned to prevent ponding and to maintain capacity. Structural repairs to the catch basins, laterals, storm sewers, head walls etc are necessary to maintain the system’s functionality.
4.3.2 Concerns
• The material removed from catch basins may contain oil and grease, and heavy metals from vehicles. If not properly disposed of, this material may cause surface water and/or soil contamination.
• Contaminants and sediments released during cleaning operations can impair water quality and reduce the storage capacity of storm water ponds.
4.5
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN June 5, 2007
• Spills which occur in the vicinity of water systems can have significant downstream environmental impacts.
4.3.3 Mitigation of Potential Impacts
• While cleaning catch basins, laterals and storm sewers, care must be taken to prevent any of the materials from the sump from being displaced down the lateral or spilled onto the ground. Spilled material must be cleaned immediately and not left to wash away;
• the liquid portion of the waste collected from catch basins and laterals and determined to be within Regulatory Agency guidelines, may be disposed of by decanting into the sanitary sewer system or decanting directly at the sewage treatment plant. Permission to decant the wastes needs to be obtained from the Wastewater Division prior to decanting. Decanting should not occur during or after any period of high rainfall;
• where appropriate, as determined by the works Supervisor, water from cleaning operations shall be assessed for contamination;
• potentially contaminated water shall be tested prior to decanting. Any water from dewatering operations that is contaminated shall be contained and sent for disposal in compliance with the Environmental Protection Act;
• the waste slurry remaining after decanting must be disposed of according to all applicable Legislation, Regulations and Guidelines;
• potentially contaminated waste slurry shall be tested prior to disposal. Any waste slurry that is contaminated shall be contained and sent for disposal in compliance with the Environmental Protection Act;
• material removed from inlet/outlet debris racks should be removed from the site and disposed of appropriately. Down stream energy dissipating devises in the spillways should be cleaned at the same time and the material disposed of appropriately;
• where gutter outlets are installed, regular hand cleaning is required to ensure correct functioning of the drainage system;
• repairs to catch basins, sewers and inlet/outlet should be designed to prevent any sediment from washing down stream. Erosion and sediment control devices should be installed according to ‘Keeping Soil on Construction Sites’ Hamilton Conservation Authority April 1994;
4.6
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN June 5, 2007
• all spills will be managed as per the Spills Response Contingency Plan (forming section 5.1 of the RHVP Environmental Protection Plan);
• site-specific erosion control and sediment management procedures shall be in place as per the Erosion and Sediment Control Environmental Operating Procedure (forming section 3.5 of the Red Hill Valley Project Environmental Protection Plan); and
• reference Operations and Maintenance Environmental Operating Procedures; 4.6- Vegetation Management; 4.7-Streams and Riparian Zones; 4.8-Stormwater Management; 4.9-Structures - Bridges and Culverts.
4.3.4 Activity-Specific Permits
• Ministry of the Environment, Certificate of Approval (CofA) to collect, transfer and dispose of catch basin, lateral and storm sewer wastes.
• Approval to decant must be obtained from the City’s Director, Water and Wastewater or his designate.
4.4 HARD SURFACE
4.4.1 Description of Activity
• Periodic maintenance work is required on the driving lanes and paved shoulders to prolong the lifespan of the pavement and to maintain ride quality and safety. This may include crack sealing, saw cutting, paving/patching, milling/grinding
4.4.2 Concerns
• Release of contaminants and sediments from hard surface maintenance activities can impair water quality and reduce the storage capacity of drainage systems and storm water ponds.
• waste materials can plug up catch basins and laterals and eventually impact the down stream systems;
• improper clean up procedures can introduce solvents and flammable liquids into the catch basins, storm sewers and receiving water bodies or soils;
• activities associated with hard surface maintenance and repair involve substances and generate waste materials which are definable as deleterious substances and if released to waterbodies are a violation of section 36(3) of the Fisheries Act; and
4.7
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN June 5, 2007
• airborne particulates produced during maintenance activities can impair air quality.
4.4.3 Mitigation of Potential Impacts
• Waste materials produced from grinding, milling, routing or saw cutting should be swept immediately and removed from the work site to ensure none of it enters the drainage systems or becomes airborne;
• waste materials from grinding operations can be recycled as granular materials in road building or road maintenance. These grindings are usually referred to as Reclaimed Asphalt Product (RAP). Caution should be taken to ensure that any RAP from asphalt containing slag aggregate is not re-used as sub-base materials where the residual iron content can cause expansion problems or in wet areas where any leaching from the RAP can impact water quality;
• liquid materials such as concrete saw slurry must be prevented from entering any catch basin or drainage inlet and removed;
• tack coats, slurry seals, seal coats, fog coats, or surface treatment emulsions must not be applied if rain is occurring or imminent. Catch Basins are to be covered during any of the above spraying operations;
• tools and equipment cleaning must be done off site. Cleaning solvents shall be disposed of in compliance with all applicable Legislation, Regulations and Guidelines;
• any equipment leaking oil or fuel should be repaired immediately. Oil and grease are to be cleaned with sorbent materials;
• all spills will be managed as per the Spills Response Contingency Plan (forming section 5.1 of the RHVP Environmental Protection Plan);
• all equipment shall be operated, maintained and fuelled as per the Equipment Operation, Maintenance and Fuelling Environmental Operating Procedure (forming 3.4 of the Red Hill Valley Project Environmental Protection Plan); and
• reference Operations and Maintenance, Environmental Operating Procedures; 4.3- Drainage Structures, 4.6-Vegetation Management; 4.11-Trails.
4.4.4 Activity-Specific Permits
• None
4.8
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN June 5, 2007
4.5 VANDALISM, WASTE, DUST
4.5.1 Description of Activity
• Sweeping is carried out on those road sections where there are curbs to collect materials and debris.
• Removal of solid waste and garbage.
• Removal of graffiti.
4.5.2 Concerns
• Road sweeping is an activity that can have significant negative impacts on local air quality. Road grit and winter sand can be ground into fine particles that become airborne and migrate off site. These airborne particulates can impact air quality and cause problems for people with respiratory conditions. Additionally sweeping can cause larger particles to become airborne and be deposited in water courses and riparian areas;
• illegally released liquid wastes within the road allowance or the valley can impair soils, and surface and groundwater quality;
• illegally placed solid wastes can clog culverts and cause ponding in the ditches and swales and can be a hazard to the driving public and human health;
• management of waste, dust and the results of vandalism are critical in maintaining the cleanliness of the landscape and a positive perception of the community as a whole; and
• the “Broken Window Theory” suggests that municipalities can deter vandalism and illegal dumping by immediately repairing or cleaning up the damage done. The theory has been put into practice in urban areas where graffiti, damage to public property and littering are expensive social problems. Preliminary studies indicate that immediate response to vandalism and graffiti may decrease its incidence.
4.5.3 Mitigation of Potential Impacts
• incidents of graffiti, illegal dumping or other vandalism should be cleaned or corrected immediately upon discovery or as per a frequently scheduled regime;
• removal of graffiti located adjacent to waterbodies must be completed in a manner such that no legislative or regulatory violations (ex Fisheries Act, Environmental Protection Act, etc.) or negative environmental impacts occur.
4.9
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN June 5, 2007
• litter pick up should be routinely scheduled and include areas off-line from the main corridor and trail system;
• sweeping of the curb areas should be regularly scheduled using sweepers rated for a minimum of PM 10; and
• sweeping should occur during periods of the day when minimal outdoor residential activity is anticipated and be deferred on days with poor air quality.(i.e. smog alert days).
4.5.4 Activity-Specific Permits
• None
4.6 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT
4.6.1 Description of Activity
• Roadside vegetation management is required to maintain public safety, maintain clear drainage in ditches and swales, and to comply with the Weed Control Act of Ontario, RSO 1990; and to maintain the goals of the Red Hill Valley Project Landscape Management Plan;
• mowing is carried out according to City Levels of Service for each particular roadway class;
• tree Removal is carried out to eliminate potential hazards from deadfalls, blockage of drainage systems and the propagation of pests or diseases; and
• pruning is carried out to maintain an appropriate clearance offset from the travelled portion of the road (see Minimum Maintenance Standards for Municipal Highways), to remove safety hazards or to control pests or diseases.
4.6.2 Concerns
• Medians planted with perennial native species have a significantly different maintenance regime than traditionally planted median;
• mowing has the potential to increase erosion on steep banks and the grass cuttings can clog culverts and interfere with aquatic species as well as destabilize slope stability;
• use of chemical weed control has the potential to impact terrestrial and aquatic plants and animals beyond the target species;
4.10
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN June 5, 2007
• tree removal operations can increase erosion particularly if there is associated stump removal and can give rise to negative consequences to migratory birds;
• use of non-native species, or native species from foreign gene pools can negatively impact the integrity of the ecological restoration work;
• pruned tree limbs can clog ditches and create ponding; and.
• mowing adjacent to water bodies with scythe or sickle bar leaves mats of vegetation which can be carried downstream and interfere with drainage and can increase the biological oxygen demand as it decays.
4.6.3 Mitigation of Potential Impacts
• Pruning, clearing and grubbing operations shall be completed as per the Clearing and Grubbing Environmental Operating Procedure (forming section 3.1 of the Red Hill Valley Project Environmental Protection Plan);
• as per the Migratory Birds Convention Act, clearing of vegetation or other activities that could negatively impact nesting birds can only occur within the period from March 1st to September 9th. Although Environment Canada normally recommends restrictions on vegetation clearing in the Hamilton area between May 9th and July 23rd in forest habitats and May 1st and July 23rd in open habitats based on the nest record summary prepared for Environment Canada by the Royal Ontario Museum (Peck et.al. 2000), nesting activity outside of this ‘core’ period is possible, and therefore the more conservative interpretation will be applied for the Red Hill Valley Project;
• medians planted with perennial native species require weeding twice yearly and mulching once yearly.
• where possible tree removal operations should be carried out under frozen ground conditions. Fallen branches should be removed immediately to adjacent naturalized areas. Depressions left from grubbing work should be graded and immediately stabilized to prevent erosion.
• vegetation replacement must be in keeping with the Red Hill Valley Project Landscape Management Plan. Ecological restoration has either been completed or is in process throughout the corridor and adjacent areas. Native species, as defined in the Red Hill Valley Project Landscape Management Plan (LMP), must be protected and/or restored if destruction is unavoidable. The genetic integrity of the vegetation is a significant component of the LMP and as such materials must be procured through local growers with source identified stock from within 75 kms of the Red Hill Valley;
4.11
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN June 5, 2007
• mechanical removal of weeds will be used unless herbicides are absolutely necessary and only where there exists no potential for the herbicide to migrate to receiving waters;
• chemical weed control shall be carried out in compliance with the Pesticides Act by licensed personnel;
• in areas where ecological restoration has been completed, only species specific herbicides may be used. Native species in all applications must be protected or restored if destruction is unavoidable.
• waste herbicide and herbicide containers shall be disposed of in accordance with all applicable Legislation, Regulations and Guidelines;
• herbicide application equipment will be cleaned in such a way that waste herbicide and cleaning agents are collected and disposed of in accordance with all applicable Legislation, Regulations and Guidelines;
• mowing operations should be conducted in a manner as to shred the vegetation to prevent any migration of the cut material; and
• all spills will be managed as per the Spills Response Contingency Plan (forming section 5.1 of the RHVP Environmental Protection Plan).
4.6.4 Activity-Specific Permits
• None
4.7 STREAMS, RIPARIAN ZONE
4.7.1 Description of Activity
• Stream bank and/or rock vein maintenance may be necessary;
• vegetation management operations like mowing or removals for access or invasive species management as well as replanting may be required; and
• debris removal, either natural or manmade, must be conducted on a regular basis.
4.7.2 Concerns
• The new channel for the Red Hill Creek has been engineered using natural channel design principles. This has produced a stable naturalized stream. The stability of the
4.12
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN June 5, 2007
natural channel can be disrupted if stream repairs and maintenance are not properly planned, designed and executed;
• vegetation management operations (ex. removals for access), can result in erosion and sedimentation and destabilization of various creek elements;
• debris, either natural or manmade can be deposited and modify the streams flows such that the stream banks and flow control structures (i.e. rock vein structures) become destabilized;
• the vegetation that has been established in the Riparian Area provides both soil stabilization and contributes directly to habitat for terrestrial and aquatic organisms by providing shade, cover and food production areas. Vegetation management practices must support the physical and ecological goals of the creek and Riparian Area. Removal of riparian vegetation can harm fish habitat and destabilize stream banks and shorelines leading to erosion and sediment release;
• Red Hill Creek is designed to flood. Personnel, equipment and materials located on the flood plain during high water events are a safety and environmental risk;
• erosion, deposition or blockages can degrade the drainage function of the stream system and result in negative environmental impacts;
• sediments released to watercourses from maintenance may represent a “deleterious substance” under the Fisheries Act; and
• spills occurring in the vicinity of any watercourse can potentially result in a violation of section 36(3) of the Fisheries Act as well as potential violations of section 6(1) of the Environmental Protection Act and section 30(1) of the Ontario Water Resources Act.
4.7.3 Mitigation of Potential Impacts
• A qualified fluvial geomorphologist and fisheries biologist should be consulted when designing and implementing stream repairs;
• emergency repairs must be conducted in accordance with the City of Hamilton Emergency Works Protocol;
• all in-stream work shall respect fisheries timing windows. The timing window considered appropriate is July 15th to September 15th. If the intended work falls outside of this period, contact the Ministry of Natural Resources, and Conservation Authority, regarding specific fisheries timing window restrictions;
4.13
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN June 5, 2007
• to protect personnel, equipment and the environment, the Flood Contingency Plan (forming section 5.6 of the Red Hill Valley Project Environmental Protection Plan) must be adhered to throughout all operations occurring within the Riparian Area (i.e. the flood plain);
• prior to commencement of any maintenance work the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, ONTARIO OPERATIONAL STATEMENT, Habitat Management Program must be reviewed to assist in the identification of Regulatory Agency approvals requirements;
• the DFO - Operational Statements do not release anyone from the responsibility of obtaining any other permits or approvals that may be required under municipal, provincial and federal legislation (e.g., the Navigable Waters Protection Act, Public Lands Act, Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act, Conservation Authorities Act, etc.) that apply to the work being carried out in relation to any Operational Statement;
• pruning, clearing and grubbing operations shall be completed as per the Clearing and Grubbing Environmental Operating Procedure (forming section 3.1 of the Red Hill Valley Project Environmental Protection Plan);
• vegetation removals in the vicinity of or adjacent to streams, Riparian Areas and other sensitive areas must be completed using methods which do not utilize heavy equipment;
• where possible tree removal operations should be carried out under frozen ground conditions. Stumps should be left in place and fallen branches must be removed immediately to adjacent naturalized areas or other acceptable locations. Grubbing should be avoided, however when it must occur, resultant depressions must be graded and immediately stabilized to prevent erosion;
• should grubbing be required the vegetation must be lifted in mats with root systems intact (~35cms of soil), and stockpiled in single layer in a safe location (i.e. above the flood plain and where it won’t be driven on), to be replaced at the end of the work;
• erosion and sediment control shall be as per the Erosion and Sediment Control Environmental Operating Procedure (forming section 3.5 of the Red Hill Valley Project Environmental Protection Plan);
• mechanical/manual removal of weeds will be used. The use of herbicides in Riparian Areas is strictly prohibited;
• ecological restoration has either been completed or is in process throughout the Riparian Area. Native species, as defined in the Red Hill Valley Project Landscape Management Plan (LMP), must be protected and/or restored if destruction is unavoidable. The genetic integrity of the vegetation is a significant component of the LMP and as such materials
4.14
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN June 5, 2007
must be acquired through local growers with source identified stock from within 75 kms of the Red Hill Valley;
• downed vegetation produced from mowing operations must be removed to prevent migration to receiving waters and plugging of transport routes i.e. ditches and sewers;
• if damage is the result of wildlife and is anticipated to be ongoing, a licensed wildlife manager should remove and relocate the animal(s) prior to any construction;
• all equipment shall be operated, maintained and fuelled as per the Equipment Operation, Maintenance and Fuelling Environmental Operating Procedure (forming 3.4 of the Red Hill Valley Project Environmental Protection Plan);
• all spills will be managed as per the Spills Response Contingency Plan (forming section 5.1 of the RHVP Environmental Protection Plan) or the City Spills Response Plan;
• debris removal (ex. shopping carts and other man made debris and logs and branches etc.) from the stream must occur in a timely and consistent manner to ensure maintenance of design flows and fish passage (protocol to be developed); and
• debris removal from culverts must be completed in compliance with the following: ONTARIO OPERATIONAL STATEMENT, Habitat Management Program CULVERT MAINTENANCE Version 2.0, Valid until March 31, 2007. Available at;
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/regions/central/habitat/os-eo/prov-terr/on/os- eo06_e.htm
• reference Operations and Maintenance, Environmental Operating Procedures; 4.1- Barriers and Fences, 4.2-Ditching, 4.3,-Drainage Structures, 4.5-Vandalism, Waste and Dust, 4.6-Vegetation Management, 4.8-Stormwater Management System, 4.9- Structures; Bridges and Culverts, 4.10-Signs and Road Marking, 4.11-Trails
4.7.4 Activity-Specific Permits
• Consultation with the Hamilton Conservation Authority may be required - protocol to be developed for removal of debris not associated with culverts or bridges. (ex: shopping carts).
• Any in-stream work that will cause harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat (HADD) shall be reviewed with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and where required, an Authorization under the Fisheries Act shall be obtained prior to the commencement of the work.
4.15
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN June 5, 2007
• Additional approvals may be required (e.g., the Navigable Waters Protection Act, Public Lands Act, Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act, Conservation Authorities Act, etc.)
4.8 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
4.8.1 Description of Activity
• Maintenance activities associated with Stormwater management ponds may include dewatering and sediment removal, weed control, aquatic and terrestrial planting, adjustment of detention times and trash removal.
4.8.2 Concerns
• Stormwater Management Ponds are engineered to control the rate of release of stormwater, and the quality of the water released.
• Failure to maintain the storage capacity of the stormwater management system can increase flood risk, increase erosion and reduce water quality.
• Dewatering prior to sediment removal will be required, with potentially sediment laden water discharged to surface waters.
• Sediments deposited in SWM facilities may be contaminated.
• Terrestrial and aquatic plantings in the vicinity of SWM ponds contribute significantly to mitigation of thermal and chemical pollution, dieback or invasive weeds can inhibit the design function of the plantings.
• Garbage and debris can plug control structures and impair the function of the SWM system .
• Online stormwater management facilities may be considered fish habitat. Works within on-line stormwater facilities require consultation with Regulatory Agencies.(HCA, MNR, DFO)
4.8.3 Mitigation of Potential Impacts
• Frequency of sediment removal in each facility is dependent on several factors; upstream land use and level of imperviousness; active and permanent pool storage capacities; upstream development activities and municipal practices. Each site will be assessed and sediment removal schedules developed dependent on the RHVP monitoring program;
4.16
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN June 5, 2007
• effectiveness of detention times and storage capacities of each pond will be determined via the RHVP monitoring plan and addressed through the associated adaptive management strategies.
• dewatering will be completed in compliance with the Dewatering EOP (forming section 3.3 of the Red Hill Valley Project Environmental Protection Plan)
• prior to removal sediments will be tested to determine hazardous / non-hazardous classification.
• non-hazardous sediments may be removed to acceptable locations (ex; City yards) for drying prior to final disposal.
• hazardous sediments must be removed to appropriate licensed facilities;
• garbage and debris removal must occur on a frequent and scheduled basis.
• pruning, clearing and grubbing operations shall be completed as per the Clearing and Grubbing Environmental Operating Procedure (forming section 3.1 of the Red Hill Valley Project Environmental Protection Plan);
• erosion and sediment control shall be as per the Erosion and Sediment Control Environmental Operating Procedure (forming section 3.5 of the Red Hill Valley Project Environmental Protection Plan);
• all equipment shall be operated, maintained and fuelled as per the Equipment Operation, Maintenance and Fuelling Environmental Operating Procedure (forming 3.4 of the Red Hill Valley Project Environmental Protection Plan);
• vegetation management is required to maintain public safety, maintain clear drainage in ditches and swales, and to comply with the Weed Control Act of Ontario, RSO 1990; and to maintain the goals of the Red Hill Valley Project Landscape Management Plan. Use of herbicides is strictly prohibited;
• ecological restoration has either been completed or is in process throughout the Riparian Area. Native species, as defined in the Red Hill Valley Project Landscape Management Plan (LMP), in all operations must be protected and/or restored if destruction is unavoidable. The genetic integrity of the vegetation is a significant component of the LMP and as such materials must be sourced through local growers with source identified stock from within 75 kms of the Red Hill Valley;
• all spills will be managed as per the Spills Response Contingency Plan (forming section 5.1 of the RHVP Environmental Protection Plan).
4.17
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN June 5, 2007
• Reference Operations and Maintenance Environmental Operating Procedures; 4.1- Barriers and Fences; 4.2-Ditching; 4.3-Drainage Structures; 4.5-Vandalism, Waste and Dust; 4.6-Vegetation Management; 4.9-Structures; Bridges and Culverts.
4.8.4 Activity-Specific Permits
• MOE Waste Generator Number for disposal of hazardous and liquid waste if required.
4.9 STRUCTURES – BRIDGES AND CULVERTS
4.9.1 Description of Activity
• Bridge and culvert repair and maintenance may include deck sweeping and washing, drain cleaning, joint maintenance, culvert cleaning and de-icing, removal of debris (including woody debris, garbage and ice build-up), scour repairs, repairs to side slopes and erosion-protection.
4.9.2 Concerns
• use of chemical agents for de-icing can accelerate culvert corrosion as well as result in violations of the Environmental Protection Act; sections 6.(1), 14.(1), the Ontario Water Resources Act; section 30.(1) and the Fisheries Act; section 36.(3);
• washing bridges and flushing drains can introduce de-icing chemicals, sand and grit, and volatile organic compound’s to surface waters resulting in violations of the Environmental Protection Act; sections 6.(1), 14.(1), the Ontario Water Resources Act; section 30.(1) and the Fisheries Act; section 36.(3);
• failure to maintain free flow within culverts at both high and low water can prevent fish and wildlife movement within the stream corridor;
• embankments at culverts and bridges can erode creating down slope impacts to riparian and terrestrial habitats;
• migratory birds often utilize various elements of bridges and culverts for nesting sites. Maintenance activities can impact nesting migratory birds resulting in a violation of the Migratory Birds Convention Act; and
• debris can plug culverts resulting in flooding.
4.18
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN June 5, 2007
4.9.3 Mitigation of Potential Impacts
• Bridge and culvert maintenance must be in compliance with the following Fisheries and Oceans Canada, ONTARIO OPERATIONAL STATEMENTS, Habitat Management Program; Bridge Maintenance; Clear Span Bridges; and Culvert Maintenance. Available at:
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/regions/central/habitat/os-eo/prov-terr/on/index_e.htm
• the DFO - Operational Statements do not release anyone from the responsibility of obtaining any other permits or approvals that may be required under municipal, provincial and federal legislation (e.g., the Navigable Waters Protection Act, Public Lands Act, Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act, Conservation Authorities Act, etc.) that apply to the work being carried out in relation to any Operational Statement;
• during sweeping operations, care must be taken to prevent or minimize the introduction of loose material into drains and joints;
• clean and remove debris and sediment from drainage structures and dispose of the material in an approved disposal area.
• sweep decks, including curbs, sidewalks, medians and drainage structures to remove as much material as practical before washing.
• during flushing operations care must be taken to prevent or minimize the escape to surface waters of sediment and debris laden fluids;
• where liquids from flushing operations flow off the running surface, ensure that flows do not cause the development of rills or other erosion.
• should pumping from fish bearing waters be required, the hose intakes must be equipped with an appropriately sized screen to avoid entrainment and impingement of fish. Guidelines to determine the appropriate mesh size for intake screens may be obtained from DFO (Freshwater Intake End-of-Pipe Fish Screen Guidelines, 1995, available at;
www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/223669.pdf ).
• during the Migratory Birds Convention Act and the Environment Canada expanded window (March 1st to September 9th) bridge washing must not occur unless an assessment has been made clearing the structure of nesting migratory birds. If nesting migratory birds are present washing activities must be delayed until such time as no nesting activity is observed.
4.19
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN June 5, 2007
• Pruning, clearing and grubbing operations shall be completed as per the Clearing and Grubbing Environmental Operating Procedure (forming section 3.1 of the Red Hill Valley Project Environmental Protection Plan);
• all equipment shall be operated, maintained and fuelled as per the Equipment Operation, Maintenance and Fuelling Environmental Operating Procedure (forming 3.4 of the Red Hill Valley Project Environmental Protection Plan);
• erosion and sediment control shall be as per the Erosion and Sediment Control Environmental Operating Procedure (forming section 3.5 of the Red Hill Valley Project Environmental Protection Plan);
• Use of herbicides in areas where there is any potential for migration to surface waters is strictly prohibited;
• ecological restoration has either been completed or is in process throughout the Riparian Area. Native species, as defined in the Red Hill Valley Project Landscape Management Plan (LMP), in all operations must be protected and/or restored if destruction is unavoidable. The genetic integrity of the vegetation is a significant component of the LMP and as such materials must be sourced through local growers with source identified stock from within 75 kms of the Red Hill Valley;
• all spills will be managed as per the Spills Response Contingency Plan (forming section 5.1 of the RHVP Environmental Protection Plan).
• Reference Operations and Maintenance Environmental Operating Procedures, 4.1- Barriers and Fences; 4.2-Ditching; 4.3-Drainage Structures; 4.5-Vandalism, Waste and Dust; 4.6-Vegetation Management; 4.9-Structures; Bridges and Culverts.
4.9.4 Activity-Specific Permits
• None
4.10 SIGNS AND ROAD MARKINGS
4.10.1 Description of Activity
• Line painting involves the painting of traffic control lines on the highway and access ramps. Fast drying paint is applied using sprayers. The paint is loaded into large tanks on the painting vehicles off site and brought to the site. Paint sprayers are cleaned using solvents.
4.20
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN June 5, 2007
• Signs are installed and replaced routinely. In some cases excavation is required to remove a damaged support system or to install a new sign. Frequently signs supports are place in swales and ditches since their offset from the edge of pavement is regulated and road authorities have few location options. Sign placement is control by the Ontario Traffic Manual.
4.10.2 Concerns
• Paint spills during loading, or in the event of an accident, and improper disposal of waste paint, containers and solvents used to clean spray equipment can impact soil and water;
• concerns with excavation for structures include the disposal of excavated material and excavation in the vicinity of watercourses and Wetlands. The primary concern is the potential for erosion and sedimentation. Where dewatering operations are needed, disposal of potentially sediment-laden water can impact on Aquatic Habitats.
• Excavations adjacent to watercourses are subject to flooding at times of high water, with the resultant potential for stranding fish within the excavation.
4.10.3 Mitigation of Potential Impacts
• All road marking will be conducted in compliance with the LINE PAINTING Environmental Operating Procedure (forming section 3.10 of the Red Hill Valley Project Environmental Protection Plan)
• where practicable non-volatile organic compound based paints should be used.
• excavation form sign repair and installation shall be conducted in compliance with the Excavation for Structures Environmental Operating Procedure (forming section 3.6 of the Red Hill Valley Project Environmental Protection Plan);
• pruning, clearing and grubbing operations shall be completed as per the Clearing and Grubbing Environmental Operating Procedure (forming section 3.1 of the Red Hill Valley Project Environmental Protection Plan);
• all equipment shall be operated, maintained and fuelled as per the Equipment Operation, Maintenance and Fuelling Environmental Operating Procedure (forming 3.4 of the Red Hill Valley Project Environmental Protection Plan);
• erosion and sediment control shall be as per the Erosion and Sediment Control Environmental Operating Procedure (forming section 3.5 of the Red Hill Valley Project Environmental Protection Plan);
4.21
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN June 5, 2007
• ecological restoration has either been completed or is in process in many areas adjacent to the running surface. Native species, as defined in the Red Hill Valley Project Landscape Management Plan (LMP), in all operations must be protected and/or restored if destruction is unavoidable. The genetic integrity of the vegetation is a significant component of the LMP and as such materials must be sourced through local growers with source identified stock from within 75 kms of the Red Hill Valley; and
• all spills will be managed as per the Spills Response Contingency Plan (forming section 5.1 of the RHVP Environmental Protection Plan).
• Reference Operations and Maintenance, Environmental Operating Procedures; 4.1- Barriers and Fences; 4.2-Ditching; 4.3-Drainage Structures; 4.5-Vandalism, Waste and Dust; 4.6-Vegetation Management; 4.9-Structures; Bridges and Culverts.
4.10.4 Activity-Specific Permits
• MOE Waste Generator Number for disposal of hazardous and liquid waste if required.
4.11 TRAILS
4.11.1 Description of Activity
• Base and surface repairs
• Danger tree assessment and removal
• Vegetation management
• Waste and debris removal
• Culvert / ditch cleaning and repair
• Surface water flow management
4.11.2 Concerns
• Repairs to chip and tar surfaces require the use of oil based products which have the potential to release contaminants/ deleterious substances to aquatic and terrestrial habitats;
• dead, dying and weakened trees pose a direct threat to public safety;
4.22
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN June 5, 2007
• vandalism and garbage negatively impact the public perception and reduce valley stewardship; and
• waste and debris can plug ditches and culverts, plugged ditches and culverts can cause flooding and related damages to trails.
4.11.3 Mitigation of Potential Impacts
• For hardened trail surface treatments see Hard Surface EOP (forming section 4.4 of this document);
• the trail system requires periodic danger tree assessment by a qualified danger tree assessor. Trees which pose a risk to the public are required to be felled. The falling chance should be assessed such that damage to surrounding vegetation is minimized;
• Vandalism, waste and debris management is to be conducted as per the Vandalism, Waste and Dust Environmental Operating Procedure(forming section 4.5 of this document)
• ditches and culverts shall be managed as per the Ditching Environmental Operating Procedure. (forming section 4.2 of this document) and the Drainage Structures Environmental Operating Procedure (forming section 4.3 of this document).
4.11.4 Activity-Specific Permits
• MOE Waste Generator Number for disposal of hazardous and liquid waste if required.
4.12 SOUTHERN FLYING SQUIRREL HABITAT STRUCTURES
4.12.1 Description of Activity
• Replacement of failed structures.
4.12.2 Concerns
• The Southern Flying Squirrel is listed in the Species at Risk Act.
• The structures are wooden and open to vandalism, through fire and physical damage (ex. chopping with an axe) ;
• The poles are treated above ground with an odourless environmentally inert preservative rated for 25 year protection.
4.23
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN June 5, 2007
• The poles are treated below ground with an odourless environmentally inert epoxy with an anticipated life span of 25 years.
• The poles are located in an ecologically restored site that could be damaged during pole replacement.
4.12.3 Mitigation of Potential Impacts
• the poles must be monitored for rot and physical damage;
• when appropriate, the pole must be replaced to maintain passage of the squirrels;
• new poles must be treated above ground with an odourless environmentally inert preservative rated for 25 year protection;
• new poles must be treated below ground with an odourless environmentally inert epoxy with an anticipated life span of 25 years;
• Additional vandalism, waste and debris management is to be conducted as per the Vandalism, Waste and Dust Environmental Operating Procedure(forming section 4.5 of this document);
• ecological restoration has either been completed or is in process in many areas adjacent to the running surface. Native species, as defined in the Red Hill Valley Project Landscape Management Plan (LMP), in all operations must be protected and/or restored if destruction is unavoidable. The genetic integrity of the vegetation is a significant component of the LMP and as such materials must be sourced through local growers with source identified stock from within 75 kms of the Red Hill Valley; and
• poles must be removed from the site without the use of heavy equipment.
4.12.4 Activity-Specific Permits
• None
4.24
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
5.0 Financial Considerations
5.1 WHAT IS THE COST OF DOING WHAT WE HAVE TO DO?
The analysis identifies the funding requirements to maintain, rehabilitate, and replace the various assets within the Parkway and Valley. Though these assets have a wide range of useful lives the entire analysis was completed to project the financial requirements over the next 100 years requiring multiple life-cycle analyses of the shorter lived assets. The following assumptions and criteria were used within this analysis: 1. All values are calculated in current (2006) dollars. 2. Maintenance and Replacement costs are based on the values identified in Section 3 of this document 3. With the exception of Structures the construction year for all other assets has been assumed to be 2007 for the RHV and 1997 for the LINC. The actual construction year of the structures has been used within the analysis. 4. Rehabilitation has been assumed to be 25% of the full replacement cost at 67% of the assets useful life. This is with the exception of Pavement, Structures, Signs, and Markings. The Pavement and Structure rehabilitation cost and timing are defined within their specific sections. Signs and Markings are replaced through the maintenance calculations and are not rehabilitated. 5. Growth has been based on the addition of lanes to the Parkway in 25 years and a 20% increase in the deck area of the bridges when they are determined to require replacement. 6. Borrowing costs have been calculated based on 6.0% interest over a 15 year debenture period. 7. Gross capital investment requirements were derived by adding allowances for Engineering (15%), Contingencies (10%) and Overhead & Admin (10%). 8. Gross Operating investment requirements were derived by adding allowances for Overhead & Admin (10%) and Cost Allocations (5%). This identifies the funding requirements assuming a range of useful lives not just a set useful life. The funding requirements also compare all projects using a “Pay-As-You-Go” (PAYG) approach and the more traditional approach of debt-financing Capital projects.
5.1
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN June 5, 2007
The following table provides a summary of the financial requirements derived from the analysis. Table 5.1: Annual Revenue Envelopes
Maximum Useful Life Minimum Useful Life PAYG $12 M/year $17 M/year Debt-Financed $17 M/year $24 M/year
The following charts graphically represent the findings of the financial analysis:
$140 Millions
$120
$100
$80
$60
$40
$20
$12
$-
2007 2022 2037 2052 Year 2067 2082 2097
Cumulative reserves Total O & M Total Capital Requirements Variable Funding Level Average Funding Level
Figure 5.1: Maximum Life PAYG
5.2
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN June 5, 2007
$40
Millions $35
$30
$25
$20
$17
$15
$10
$5
$-
2007 2022 2037 2052 Year 2067 2082 2097
Total O & M Cost of Borrowing Sustainable Funding Level Interest Payment
Figure 5.2: Maximum Life Debt-Financed
$140 Millions $120
$100
$80
$60
$40
$20 $17
$-
2007 2022 2037 2052 Year 2067 2082 2097 Cumulative reserves Total O & M Total Capital Requirements Variable Funding Level Average Funding Level Figure 5.3: Minimum Life PAYG
5.3
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN June 5, 2007
$40 Millions $35
$30
$25 $24
$20
$15
$10
$5
$-
2007 2022 2037 2052 Year 2067 2082 2097
Total O & M Cost of Borrowing Sustainable Funding Level Interest Payment
Figure 5.4: Minimum Life Debt-Financed
5.2 HOW DO WE GET THERE?
Since the Parkway and Valley assets are relatively new the City is in a prime time to establish a full PAYG policy for these assets. By directing the full 100 year sustainable funding value to these assets reserves can be established to fully fund the large scale capital projects which will be required within the next 50 years. The difficulty lies in securing this level of funding and maintaining the resulting reserves. The minimum sustainable funding target is $12 million which can be reached in four years by committing to approximately a 0.6% increase in taxes annually and directing that to the Parkway and Valley.
A mix of PAYG and debt-financing is a possible solution. This would result in some of the projected capital projects being funded through debt-financing but the majority of the 100 year sustainable funding still coming from PAYG strategy.
It is recommended that a review of current and proposed funding sources be completed. The completion of the RHV section of the Parkway will facilitate the commercial and residential
5.4
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN June 5, 2007 development of south eastern section of the City. Development charges within that area could have a specific percentage dedicated to the development off the reserves.
5.5
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
6.0 Conclusions
This document has been developed at a tactical level to identify general needs. Standard Operating Best Practices (SOBP) must be developed to support staff responsible for the M&R of the assets.
1. The sustainable funding requirements for the Parkway and Valley should be established within a four year period assuming a manageable increase in Taxes of 0.6% per annum is introduced and dedicated to these assets. 2. Having established the required funding to sustain the assets indicators should be established to identify that the asset is adequately being sustained. These indicators will consider items such as response times and physical condition. The indicators will be used as a gauge to identify if the M&R activities are meeting, exceeding, or failing to meet expected level. These indicators should in part form Standard Level of Service. These standards must be detailed since they will dictate how services are delivered to the public. Also, since this is a standardized service level to the public Council acceptance of these standards will be required. Due to the nature of these standards a detailed report should be established. 3. The environmental sensitivity of the Red Hill Valley and uniqueness of the Parkway when compared to the majority of the roads within the City will present a requirement for specialized knowledge. Specific training requirements for City Staff must be established and updated as new methodologies are introduced to the industry. Those individuals involved with the M&R must successfully complete this training and keep any certification up-to-date. 4. The Parkway and Valley are currently located within more then one maintenance district. For constancy, retention and easy access to knowledge about these assets the overall maintenance and rehabilitation should be controlled out of one district yard. 5. Unique information gained through the construction phase must be available, and where possible, transferred to those responsible for maintaining and rehabilitating the Parkway and Valley. Some of the knowledge is readily transferred and situations requiring this unique information should arise within a calendar year, accounting for all seasonal maintenance. Other unique situations will be encountered over a number of years and could require the immediate access to this information. In order to facilitate this individuals involved with the construction phase should be directly involved with the maintenance and rehabilitation of the assets. It should be anticipated that this involvement will be required over several years. 6. Due to the environmentally sensitive nature of the Valley monitoring of the Flora and Fauna is required. A detailed list of environmental concerns, their monitoring requirements, including cost and frequency, must be developed.
6.1
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN June 5, 2007
7. This report and follow up reports will detail the needs of these assets. Part of these needs will be the staff required to maintain and rehabilitate the asset.
6.2
CITY OF HAMILTON – PARKWAY AND RED HILL VALLEY – SUSTAINABILITY PLAN
APPENDIX A: PAVEMENT SUSTAINABILITY PLAN FOR THE LINCOLN ALEXANDER AND RED HILL VALLEY PARKWAYS