Environmental Study Report - Fort York Pedestrian & Cycle Bridge

7/27/2019 Environmental Study Report - Fort York Pedestrian & Cycle Bridge

1/143

Fort York Pedestrian and Cycle BridgeMunicipal Class Environmental Assessment Study

EnvironmEntal Study rEport

December, 2009


2/143

FORT YORK PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLE BRIDGECLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTENVIRONMENTAL STUDY REPORT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Stantec Consulting Ltd. i

1.0 BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION

Since 2000, a broad range of planning studies have considered the need for a potentialcommunity link across the two rail corridors north of Fort York, between StrachanAvenue and Bathurst Street. Two of the more strategic reports included the Fort York:Setting it Right document, completed in J une 2000 by the Friends of Fort York andGarrison Common (The Friends) and the Fort York Management Board, and theGarrison Creek Open Space Linkage Plan, a Council-approved, comprehensive civicimprovement strategy to reinstate open space linkages and revitalize interest in theenvironmental benefits of Garrison Creek (October 1998). In addition to a vision for abridge connection over the rail corridors, both of these planning reports placed anemphasis on restoring Fort York to a position of increased prominence within the City of

Toronto.

As a first step in realizing a vision for a new pedestrian and cycle bridge at Fort York, theCity of Toronto, through the Waterfront Secretariat, initiated a Class EnvironmentalAssessment (EA) Study for the Fort York Pedestrian and Cycle Bridge. The EA processrequires that the proponent (City) confirm the need and justification for the undertaking(define the problem and opportunity), identify and evaluate alternative solutions andconcepts, assess impacts of the design concepts on the natural, social and economicenvironments, and present a recommended preferred design concept for finalconsideration and approval.

Fort York, the birthplace of Toronto, has been one of the focal points of this Class

Environmental Assessment Study. All decisions and actions arising from this study havehad the potential to significantly impact on current and future plans for the Fort, and theadjacent lands surrounding the Fort (the Precinct).

Fort York is a National Historic Site of Canada, and consists of both the Fort lands, at100 Garrison Road, as well as Victoria Memorial Square, bounded by Wellington,Portland and Niagara Streets. For the purpose of this study, the area directly associatedwith the Fort lands was of primary concern, while Victoria Memorial Square was outsideof the study limits.

Figure 1 provides an overview of lands surrounding Fort York, and also illustrates thebroad limits of the Study Area considered appropriate for this project. The Study Arealimits were as follows:

Strachan Avenue to the West. Wellington Street to the North. Bathurst Street to the East. Fleet Street and Fort York Boulevard to the South.


3/143

FORT YORKPEDESTRIAN AND CYCLE BRIDGE

CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Key Map and Study Area Limit s

S T U D Y A R

E A


4/143


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Stantec Consulting Ltd. iii

Stantec Consulting Ltd., with the support of various subconsultant specialists, wasselected by the City of Toronto to provide professional planning, engineering,

architectural and environmental services in conjunction with the Class EnvironmentalAssessment Study. The Stantec proposal for this assignment was chosen in acompetitive process based on the City of Torontos Request for Proposal No. 9121-08-7029.

2.0 CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS

The Class Environmental Assessment for the Fort York Pedestrian and Cycle Bridgeproject has been undertaken in accordance with the guidelines set out in the provinciallyapproved document titled Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MunicipalEngineers Association, October 2000, as amended in 2007). The project falls within

the category of a Schedule C Class Environmental Assessment, and included thefirst four (4) Phases of the study process (detailed design not included).

At the outset of the project, background reports, property ownership data, land use, andother information related to the natural environment was collected and reviewed.Additional data was gathered through field investigations of natural and socialenvironmental conditions, geotechnical, hydrogeological, wildlife habitat, and topographywithin the Study Area. In addition, input from government agencies and local interestgroups was solicited through direct correspondence and liaison.

In addition to convening two (2) Public Information Centre (PIC) meetings, details of the

project were also reviewed at Project Team meetings, at Project Technical AdvisoryCommittee meetings, as well at specially arranged presentations to the City of TorontoDesign Review Panel, the City of Toronto Pedestrian Committee and at briefings withelected officials.

In summary, the Class Environmental Assessment for the Fort York Pedestrian andCycle Bridge has ensured, through adherence to the guiding principles of the EAprocess, that the following key elements of the project have been completed:

Consultation with affected agencies, the public, property owners and other interestgroups.

Consideration of a reasonable range of alternatives, including both alternatives toand alternative methods of implementing a solution.

Identification and consideration of the impacts of the alternatives on all aspects of theenvironment.

Completion of a thorough evaluation process that led to the selection of arecommended preferred design concept.


5/143


6/143


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Stantec Consulting Ltd. v

3.0 GO TRANSIT AND METROLINX

CN Rail and GO Transit are the owners and primary operators on the two railwaycorridors within the study area. The Project Team recognized, in the beginning, thesignificant importance of these two agencies in the decision making process andconceptual design associated with any structure over the tracks. Therefore, meetingswere initiated with CN and GO Transit as soon as possible in the study schedule.

One of the key design criteria affecting the conceptual design of the pedestrian andcycle bridge was the vertical clearance between the top of rail and the underside of thestructure. Rail clearance parameters may vary from site to site, depending on issuessuch as track profile, horizontal alignment, and sight line impacts. It was necessary,therefore, to confirm the factors affecting vertical clearance at this location before

proceeding with any structure profile concepts.In early discussions with GO Transit, it was determined that a Sight Line Visibility studywould be needed to confirm actual clearance restrictions at the proposed bridge crossinglocation. This technical study, it was learned, would need to be facilitated by GO Transitand funded by the proponent (City of Toronto). In the interim, GO Transit proposed thata clearance of 8.4 metres (27.6 feet) be used for functional planning during the ClassEA, such clearance being subject to change based on further analysis during detaileddesign.

Going forward, all bridge planning was based on a railway clearance of 8.4 metres,under the assumption that 8.4 metres was somewhat conservative and any minorincrease to this interim value would not negatively impact the functional level detailing of the bridge. Further, it was recognized that any potential reduction in the clearancerestriction, below the 8.4 metres, could be readily accounted for in the detailed design,and would serve to reduce the project cost.

In response to growing concerns over the inadequacy of road and public transit systemsin the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA), the Government of Ontario passedlegislation in 2006 that created the Metrolinx Agency. Its mission is to create a state-of-the-art transportation system for the GTHA that will move people and goods effectively,economically and in an environmentally sustainable manner.

One of the first major project initiatives of Metrolinx has been the planning of theproposed Georgetown South Rail Corridor Expansion and New Rail Service betweenUnion Station and Pearson International Airport. This project would have direct impactson the Fort York Pedestrian and Cycle Bridge as it crosses the Georgetown Rail Corridor

just east of Strachan Avenue (north tracks in study area).


7/143


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Stantec Consulting Ltd. vi

In addition to plans by GO Transit/Metrolinx to provide future electrification of its entireGO system, the subject study also examined alternatives for a new grade separation

(bridge) at Strachan Avenue. The planning for a structure at this location requirednumerous technical and social factors needed to be weighed and balanced in reaching asolution that was ultimately acceptable to Metrolinx, the City of Toronto and localproperty owners/stakeholders.

As part of the Metrolinx Environmental Assessment Study, public meetings wereconvened in the area which focused, to a large extent, on the functional plans for theStrachan Avenue grade separation. Initially, Metrolinx proposed that Strachan Avenuebe constructed over the existing tracks, with no change to the rail elevations. However,this concept would have significant detrimental impacts on the adjacent neighbourhoods,cutting off access to Wellington Street and dividing the community on either side of

Strachan Avenue.

Following public meetings and civic engagement on other fronts, Metrolinx reconsideredits approach to the Strachan Avenue railway grade separation, opting for a compromisesolution that would:

Raise Strachan Avenue by 4 metres at the track crossing. Lower the expanded rail corridor by 5 metres at the Strachan Avenue crossing. Install retaining walls over the limits of the track lowering to avoid property

acquisitions on either side of the tracks.

Gradually raise the elevation of the lowered track, both east and west of StrachanAvenue, matching existing track grade just west of Bathurst Street to the east.

As a result of the Metrolinx EA Study and the compromise solution for the StrachanAvenue gra de separation, the rail clearance requirement for the Fort York Pedestrianand Cycle Bridge was reduced by Metrolinx and GO Transit from 8.4 metres to 7.4metres. This clearance criteria was used in the final planning of the Fort York Bridge.


8/143


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Stantec Consulting Ltd. vii

4.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE UNDERTAKING

4.1 Alternative Planning Solutio ns In accordance with the Class Environmental Assessment process, the project teamidentified an d evaluated a range of Alternative Planning Solutions to the Undertaking.Alternative Planning Solutions identify ways of solving the problem in the Problem andOpportunity statement. All of the Alternative Planning Solutions included the plannedBathurst Street and Strachan Avenue rehabilitations. For this project, the followingAlternative Planning Solutions were considered:

Do Nothing

Rely on current road corridors/sidewalks for pedestrian and cycle circulation andaccess to Fort York.

Enhance Pedestrian/Cyclist Infrastructure on Existing Roads

This alternative includes providing on-street bike lanes on Bathurst Street andWellington Street and improving pedestrian facilities on Strachan Avenue, WellingtonStreet, and Bathurst Street.

Construct New Pedestrian/Cyclist Link

Build a new pedestrian and cycle crossing of the railway corridor, between Strachan

Avenue and Bathurst Street. Provide a user friendly linkage between the StanleyPark/Niagara Neighbourhoods, the Fort York district neighbourhood, and the TorontoWaterfront.

Note: Other Alternative Planning Solutions were identified but were screened out inadvance of the detailed evaluation, including limiting development and improvementsto other modes of transportation. These solutions were not consistent with existing Cityand Provincial planning strategies and were not considered to be reasonablealternatives in the context of current City and Provincial planning strategies.

The evaluation process provided an objective approach to the analysis and evaluation of

alternative planning solutions. Evaluation criteria that address key issues related to thedecision-making process were identified and are listed below. Each of the evaluationcriterion is an independent variable that can contribute a positive or negative influenceon the overall suitability of an alternative solution.


9/143


10/143


11/143


12/143


13/143



Bridge Alignment Concept Option 2

SCALE 1:2000


14/143




SCALE 1:2000


15/143




SCALE 1:2000


16/143


17/143


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Stantec Consulting Ltd. xvi

4.3 Evaluation of Alternative Design Concepts

An objective assessment of the four (4) alternative alignment concepts, which werepresented at the first Public Information Centre meeting, was completed and reviewedwith the Project Team and the Technical Advisory Committee. The evaluation processprovided commentary on the advantages, disadvantages, and potential impacts of eachof the four alignment concepts within broad categories, including:

Environmental.

Planning and Land Use.

Historical Context.

Architectural and Engineering.

Based on the aggregate of assessment criteria and commentary, it was concluded that Al ternat iv e Al ignm ent Concept 4 was the preferred design alignment and should bethe recommended concept for the Fort York Pedestrian and Cycle Bridge. AlternativeAlignment Concept 4 was the preferred design within each of the above categories, butwas most favoured for the following reasons:

It evokes the historical relevance of the Garrison Creek alignment.

Its southern connection to the Garrison Common provides good connectivity to Fort

York and the future Visitor Information Centre, while limiting direct physical impact onthe historical and vegetated grounds within the Common.

The geometry of the structure offers variable viewing opportunities of the surroundinglands and the Toronto skyline.

The geometry of the structure creates an aesthetically pleasing and innovativedesign, one that has the potential to become a landmark structure in a rapidlyredeveloping area of the City.

In terms of the Structure Type, it was determined that an Inclined Tied Arch designconcept was preferred over the Thru-Truss design concept for many reasons, some of which included:

The inclined tied arch concept would integrate better with Alignment Concept 4.

The inclined tied arch concept would provide a more open and inviting feel topedestrians and cyclists.


18/143


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Stantec Consulting Ltd. xvii

The inclined tied arch concept would provide a more aesthetic statement on thecityscape.

The inclined tied arch would add to the historical attachment of Garrison Creek,representing the erosion of embankment along a creeks meandering edge.

The inclined tied arch would be more aesthetically pleasing and fulfill the objectivesof creating a Legacy project in the commemoration of the War of 1812.

At the first Public Information Centre meeting on April 16, 2009, the general public wasoffered its first look at the four alternative alignment concepts as well as the thru-trussand tied arch structure options. It was an opportunity for the Project Team to receiveinitial feedback on the alternative alignment and structure types, before further analysis

was carried out on the designs. It was important at this point in the study to gauge theinterest of the local community on the need for a pedestrian and cycle bridge as well aswhat the structure should look like.

Attendees at the first PIC demonstrated both a keen interest in the proposed pedestrianand cycle link as well as a preference for a specific bridge alignment and structure type.

5.0 RECOMMENDED PREFERRED DESIGN CONCEPT

The Recommended Preferred Design Concept for the Fort York Pedestrian and CycleBridge evolved over the course of the Class EA Study, ultimately being selected on thebasis of an evaluation process, public and agency input, feedback from internal Citycommittees, and extensive discussions by the Project Team and the Technical AdvisoryCommittee. In the end, the preferred concept was a clear winner over the otheralternatives that were considered for the bridge, despite the fact that changes weremade to the preferred design due to structural design constraints.

The recommended preferred design concept reflects the original configuration of Alternative Alignment 4, with inclined tied arch support structures on each of two spans.Computer renderings of the proposed bridge, generated on aerial photos at the site, areprovided in Figures 7, 8 and 9 .

The following provides an overview of the architectural and engineering features of the

proposed bridge:

Tied arches are inclined 25 from vertical and are situated on the interior of thebridge radius. The location of the arches was revised from the original concept,which had them on the outside of the bridge radius, due to structural design issues.


19/143


20/143


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Stantec Consulting Ltd. xix

The Fort York Pedestrian and Cycle Bridge Study has been completed in accordancewith the Guidelines for a Schedule C Class Environmental Assessment, as outlined in

the document titled Municipal Class Environmental Assessment, Municipal EngineersAssociation, October 2000, as amended in 2007, approved by Order-in-Council No.1920/2000. Through this structured process, a recommended preferred designconcept has been selected for a new pedestrian and cycle bridge to cross the two railcorridors north of Fort York. Incorporated within this Environmental Study Report (ESR)are all of the background reports, data, correspondence, public and agency feedback,and functional details for the proposed bridge structure.

Based on the extensive analysis, evaluations, Project Team and Committee directionand feedback, public and agency input, and other considerations, the followingsummarizes the final recommendations of this Schedule C Class Environmental

Assessment:

1. It is recommended that the City of Toronto and the Waterfront Secretariat acceptAlternative Alignment Concept 4, with a Tied-Arch support structure as therecommended preferred design concept for the Fort York Pedestrian and CycleBridge, as illustrated on the functional plans and graphic simulations included inthis report.

2. It is recommended that the City of Toronto remove the existing parking lot on thesouth side of Wellington Street (municipal address: 53 Strachan Avenue), andredevelop this site as an extension of Stanley Park.

3. It is recommended that the Stanley Park Extension, noted above, be constructedin conjunction with the Fort York Pedestrian and Cycle Bridge so that a properramp approach may be provided between Wellington Street and the bridge.

4. It is recommended that the City of Toronto proceed, as soon as possible, tonegotiate a contract with a qualified consulting team to complete the final designand contract drawings for the Fort York Bridge, and to provide contractadministration services during construction. Time is of the essence in order thatcompletion of the structure, and all related works, is realized by spring 2012.

5. It is recommended that the City of Toronto continue to liaise with CN Rail and GO Transit during the detailed design phase, in order that drawings and constructionapprovals may be expedited. The tight schedule associated with the design andconstruction phases warrants close cooperation between the City of Toronto andrailway authorities.


21/143


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Stantec Consulting Ltd. xx

6. It is recommended that a Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment be carried out inall areas where the proposed bridge structure and approach ramps encroach

within areas designated as having archaeological site potential, as noted in theStage I Archaeological Assessment report. The Stage 2 assessment should beconducted as soon as possible in the detailed design program, and inaccordance with the Ministry of Cultures draft Standards and Guidelines forConsultant Archaeologists.

7. It is recommended that a qualified heritage professional assess the detaileddesign plans for the bridge in order to determine if there are specific impacts toidentified cultural heritage resources in the study area.

8. It is recommended that a geotechnical and foundations investigation be

completed to determine existing subsurface conditions at the proposed bridgefoundation locations, based on detailed design calculations. The investigation isto include boreholes at foundation locations and provide recommendationsrelated to the structural design of the bridge. The report should also examinesubsurface conditions and foundation needs in the area of the Stanley ParkExtension, to support the proposed fill material and deal with any contaminatedsoils.

9. It is recommended that a legal survey be completed to clearly identify propertyboundary limits and ownerships in the area of the proposed bridge. A properreference plan should be prepared to show the limits of the proposed bridge,

based on final design geometry.10. It is recommended that any future construction contract contain provisions for

dust and noise control, in accordance with City of Toronto Bylaws and/or Ministryof the Environment Guidelines.

11. It is recommended that appropriate tests be completed on any existing soils thatmay require removal from the site to determine contaminant levels from previousland uses or dumping. Appropriate action shall be taken consistent with theEnvironmental Protection Act, should contaminated soils be discovered.

12. It is recommended that the Toronto Police Service be consulted during detaileddesign to ensure that an appropriate approach to Crime Prevention ThroughEnvironmental Design (CPTED) be implemented, through strategies of naturalsurveillance, natural access control and territorial reinforcement.

13. It is recommended that the Toronto Emergency Medical Services (EMS) beconsulted during detailed design to incorporate any features in the bridge and/orapproaches that will contribute to improved accessibility of EMS teams andservice to the public.


22/143


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Stantec Consulting Ltd. xxi

14. It is recommended that the Friends of Fort York and the Fort York ManagementBoard be partners in the detailed design process, ensuring that features of the

bridge and approach areas are consistent with the vision of the Fort York MasterPlan. Aspects to be considered include a coordinated landscape plan, signageand historical markers, vista platforms, bridge materials (railings, deck, etc),pathway linkages, and tree preservation and restoration.

15. It is recommended that appropriate measures be taken to protect existing trees,within the project limits, that do not require removal to accommodate the bridgeconstruction, particularly in the Garrison Common. All such trees shall be clearlymarked prior to construction and all protection measures implemented inaccordance with the Tree Inventory Report, dated October 2009, employing theservices of an ISA Certified Arborist. Tree management measures shall conform

to the City of Torontos Tree Protection Policy and Specifications forConstruction Near Trees.

16. It is recommended that a survey be completed to identify the potential presenceof nesting areas for Chimney Swifts, such survey to be conducted the same yearas proposed construction. Should nesting areas be observed, they should beprotected with a 25 metre buffer during construction, where possible.

7.0 COUNCIL MOTIONS

Recent meetings of the Toronto East York Community Council and Toronto CityCouncil have resulted in the following actions related to the Class EnvironmentalAssessment Study for the Fort York Pedestrian and Cycle Bridge:

The Fort York pedestrian and cycle bridge will cross over the Ordnance Trianglelands, and the preferred design concept provides for future access to these landsfrom the bridge. At its meeting of November 10, 2009, Toronto East YorkCommunity Council adopted a motion that City Planning prepare a report byDecember 31, 2009 regarding the appropriate zoning of the Ordnance Trianglelands, with a view to having them classified as future parkland.

At its meeting of November 30, December 1, 2, 4 and 7, 2009, Toronto City Councilgranted authority to City staff to issue a Notice of Study Completion followingcompletion of the Fort York Pedestrian and Cycle Bridge Environmental StudyReport to the satisfaction of the Waterfront Secretariat and Transportation Services,substantially in the form outlined in the staff report to City Council. Staff were alsoauthorized to file the Environmental Study Report on the public record for 30 days, inaccordance with the requirements of the Municipal Class EnvironmentalAssessment.


23/143


24/143


25/143

LOOKING EAST

LOOKING EAST

FORT YORK GARRISON COMMON


26/143

LOOKING WEST

LOOKING NORTHEAST

LOOKING EAST


27/143


28/143


TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

Stantec Consulting Ltd. i

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY 1.1

1.2

THE STUDY AREA 1.2

1.3 RELATED STUDIES 1.6 1.4 PROJ ECT NEED AND J USTIFICATION 1.7 1.4.1 Background 1.7 1.4.2 Policy and Planning Context 1.8 1.4.3 Current Situation and Identified Problem 1.8 1.4.4 Identified Opportunity 1.9

2.0 STUDY OBJECTIVES 2.1

3.0 STUDY PROCESS 3.1 3.1 CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS 3.1 3.2 PART II ORDERS 3.4

3.3 WORK PLAN, PROJ ECT DELIVERABLES AND STUDY SCHEDULE 3.4 3.3.1 General 3.4 3.3.2 Project Deliverables 3.5 3.3.3 Work Plan and Schedule 3.7 3.4 PROJ ECT STUDY ORGANIZATION 3.9 3.5 PUBLIC AND AGENCY CONSULTATION 3.10 3.5.1 Notice of Study Commencement 3.11 3.5.2 Public Information Centre (PIC) Meeting Number One:

Thursday, April 16, 2009 3.11 3.5.3 Public Information Centre (PIC) Meeting Number Two:

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 3.16 3.5.4 Correspondence and Liaison 3.18

3.5.4.1 The Friends of Fort York and Garrison Common 3.183.5.4.2 CN Rail and GO Transit 3.203.5.4.3 Metrolinx 3.213.5.4.4 Ministry of the Environment 3.233.5.4.5 Other External Agencies 3.253.5.5 Notice of Study Completion 3.26 3.6 CITY OF TORONTO INTERNAL LIAISON 3.26 3.6.1 Project Team 3.26 3.6.2 Technical Advisory Committee 3.27 3.6.3 City Design Review Panel 3.27 3.6.4 City Pedestrian Committee 3.27 3.6.5 Deputy Mayor and Ward Councillor J oe Pantalone 3.28

3.6.6 Consultant Design Team 3.28 4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 4.1 4.1 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 4.1 4.1.1 Physiography and Soils/Foundations 4.1 4.1.2 Tree Inventory Assessment 4.2 4.1.3 Natural Environment 4.4 4.1.4 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 4.5 4.1.5 Hydrogeological Assessment 4.6 4.2 CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT 4.7 4.2.1 Archaeological Assessment 4.7


29/143


30/143


TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

Stantec Consulting Ltd. iii

10.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 10.1

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Notices and Agency CirculationAppendix B Public Information Centre (PIC) MeetingsAppendix C Technical ReportsAppendix D Planning Solutions Evaluation MatrixAppendix E Alternative Design Concepts/Alignments Evaluation MatrixAppendix F Minutes of MeetingsAppendix G General CorrespondenceAppendix H Metrolinx Liaison

Appendix I Technical Memoranda 1, 2 and 3 (without Appendices)Appendix J Study Design Report (without Appendices)Appendix K Presentations to City Design Review Panel and City Pedestrian CommitteeAppendix L Property Ownership Map

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Key Map and Study Area LimitsFigure 2 Site Restoration Components (2008-2012) Demonstration PlanFigure 3 Overall Parkland/Trails Context PlanFigure 4 Municipal Class EA Planning and Design Process

Figure 5 Workplan and ScheduleFigure 6 Land Use PlanFigure 7 Bridge Alignment Concept Option 1Figure 8 Bridge Alignment Concept Option 2Figure 9 Bridge Alignment Concept Option 3Figure 10 Bridge Alignment Concept Option 4Figure 11 Alignment Bridge Structure TypesFigure 12 Recommended Preferred Design ConceptFigure 13 Recommended Preferred Design ConceptFigure 14 Recommended Preferred Design ConceptFigure 15 North Parkette Viewed from Wellington Street

Figure 16 Bridge Ramp Viewed from Garrison CommonFigure 17 Bridge Ramp Entering South ParketteFigure 18 Bridge General ArrangementFigure 19 Bridge Illumination Examples


31/143


1.0 Introduction

1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

In J une 2000, The Friends of York and Garrison Common (The Friends) and the Fort York Management Board released a study document titled Fort York: Setting It Right,which focused on the relationship between Fort York, its surrounding landscape, and theemerging neighbourhoods around it. Through the presentation of recommendedguidelines and principles for redevelopment in the area, a renewed sense of opportunityprevailed that Fort York could be restored to a more prominent level of accessibility andvisibility in the City of Toronto.

The Setting It Right document represented support for the Garrison Creek Open

Space Linkage Plan, a Council approved, comprehensive strategy for the planning anddevelopment of urban infrastructure, pathways and parks that would, over time, connectneighbourhoods along the former Garrison Creek with Fort York and the waterfront. Itsobjective was to restore the legacy of Garrison Creek and enhance the position of Fort

York in a new urban landscape.

The above documents provided a road map for future development in the Fort Yorkarea, in conjunction with a strategic list of design principles that relate to this ClassEnvironmental Assessment Study:

The outstanding archaeological resources associated with Fort York and itsneighbourhood should be recognized and protected, and, where appropriate, shouldbe explored professionally.

Views to and from the Fort should be protected and enhanced. A system of parks and open spaces should connect the Fort York Precinct with the

adjoining neighbourhoods and the waterfront. A public pathway system should link the paths in the Fort York Precinct, the

sidewalks of the surrounding streets, the paths in adjoining neighbourhoods and thewaterfront promenades and trails.

Vehicular access and parking should be provided in ways that support otherobjectives for restoring the landscape setting of the Fort while ensuring ease of access for visitors.

The above design principles 1 have a commonality about them, in that they consider thespatial integration of pathway and park facilities adjacent to, and within, the Fort YorkPrecinct and adjacent neighbourhoods.

1 Relevant Design Principles extracted from Fort York: Setting It Right, J une 2000

Stantec Consulting Ltd. 1.1


32/143


Both the Fort York: Setting It Right and the Garrison Creek Open Space Linkage Plandocuments identified the need for a new pedestrian and cycle bridge across the railwaycorridors north of the Fort, connecting the Niagara Neighbourhood and Stanley Park toFort York. South of the Fort, the trail system would extend to Gore Park, the Exhibition

Grounds, Coronation Park and the Martin Goodman Waterfront Trail. The proposedbridge would be located west of the Fort entrance, within the Garrison Common.

In subsequent years, further planning studies recognized the need for improvedcommunity trail connections in the neighbourhoods surrounding Fort York, many of which have included consideration of a pedestrian and cycle link across the two railcorridors north of Fort York. The War of 1812 Bicentennial Steering Committee hasincluded this bridge connection as one of four (4) legacy projects in its plans for theBicentennial Celebrations scheduled for 2012. The other legacy projects include:

Revitalization of the Fort York National Historic Site, which is to include the creation

of a coherent open space plan of the entire 43-acre site, construction of a newvisitors centre outside the ramparts, and restoration/reinterpretation of the buildingsinside the ramparts.

Nomination of Fort York for inscription on the UNESCO World Heritage List, basedon its connection to the War of 1812, which has already been recognized byUNESCO as an event of international significance. The designation would be a majorcontribution to the shared goal of the Province, the City, and Tourism Toronto tomake the city a gateway to cultural and heritage tourism in Ontario and to position

Toronto as a distinctive premier tourist destination.

Creation of the Toronto Heritage Trail System, including an 1812 to Confederationtrail, to provide a way-finding system for visiting historical and notable sites andproviding local economic benefits as visitors explore neighbourhoods. The Torontosystem would link to a proposed province-wide system.

As a first step towards building a new pedestrian and cycle bridge at Fork York, the Cityof Toronto, through the Waterfront Secretariat, initiated a Schedule C ClassEnvironmental Assessment (EA) Study for the Fort York Pedestrian and Cycle Bridge .

The project commenced in September, 2008.

1.2 THE STUDY AREA

Fort York, the birthplace of Toronto, has been one of the focal points of this ClassEnvironmental Assessment Study. All decisions and actions arising from this study havehad the potential to significantly impact on current and future plans for the Fort, and theadjacent lands surrounding the Fort (the Precinct).



33/143


34/143



Key Map and Study Area Limit s

S T U D Y A R

E A


35/143


36/143


37/143


1.4.1

Environmental Study Report: Class Environmental Assessment Study (Schedule C)for the Infrastructure Improvements in the Fort York and Railway Lands WestNeighbourhoods, August 2006.

Strachan Avenue and Georgetown/Milton Rail Corridor: Grade Separation Study,October 2008.

Spacing Toronto: Lets Build the Bathurst Street Bridge Toronto Deserves, March2008.

City of Toronto Staff Report: Strachan Avenue and the Georgetown/Milton RailCorridor Grade Separation Design Concept Study, October 2008.

1.4 PROJECT NEED AND JUSTIFICATION

Fort York (the Fort) is a significant historical resource in the City of Toronto that hasbeen designated as a National Historic Site of Canada for its role in the defense of early

York (Toronto) and the survival of an important collection of early military buildings,earthworks, and cemetery.

Background

The significance and need to preserve and enhance Fort York as a resource has beenconfirmed in a number of studies, including the Fort York: Heritage Conservation DistrictStudy (1984), and more recently in the Fort York: Setting It Right (Fort-CenteredPlanning and Design Principles) (2000), Fort York and Garrison Common Parks andOpen Space Design and Implementation Plan (2001), and Fort York Neighbourhood

Public Realm Plan (2004). These reports, and particularly the planning and designprinciples within the Public Realm Plan, have focused on maintaining and enhancing thecultural heritage and landscape design of the Fort York Site.

These reports have also identified the potential to increase the visibility of the site byimproving pedestrian and cyclist connectivity between Fort York, the Toronto Waterfront,and adjacent communities.

For example, the 2001 Open Space Design and Implementation Plan identified a needto integrate the historic site with it surroundings by linking the site with adjacentcommunity open spaces. The 2001 study suggests that linking the site would

commemorate the common history of Fort York and the adjacent neighbourhoods. The desire to link the site to adjacent neighbourhoods was also identified in the Setting ItRight document of 2000, which also highlighted a desire to connect the Fort withadjacent neighbourhoods and to integrate the Fort into a broader system of public parks.



38/143


39/143


1.4.4

Liberty Village/Niagara Street neighbourhoods and the Martin Goodman TrailNetwork.

The Garrison Creek Trail and the Toronto Waterfront.

Fort York and lands to the north.

However, the current situation clearly indicates that barriers to pedestrian and cyclistmovement exist in the study area, including:

Comfort and safety concerns on existing roads, including Bathurst Street andStrachan Avenue bridges.

CN and GO Transit rail corridors.

Identified Opportun ity

To support goals of the City of Toronto, the Friends of Fort York and the Fort YorkManagement Board, and Waterfront Toronto, in commemorating the common history of Fort York and the Fort neighbourhoods, existing parks and trails in the Fort York areaneed to be connected through a strategic north-south open space connection over therailway corridors.

A structure over the existing railways would:

Connect major City of Toronto Parks, including Trinity Bellwoods Park, Stanley Park, J une Callwood Park, Coronation Park, the Martin Goodman Trail and Garrison

Common (Fort York). Promote positive redevelopment of lands north of Fort York.

Re-establish a continuous park system extending from the original Iroquois Shoreline(now St. Clair Avenue) to Lake Ontario, as identified in the Garrison Creek LinkagePlan.

Increase the public presence of Fort York by increasing public traffic and providing anew view-shed to Fort York from a bridge structure.

Support policies in the City of Torontos Official Plan and Bike Plan.

Improve pedestrian and cyclist safety and comfort in the Fort York area by providingan alternative to the rail crossings on Strachan Avenue and Bathurst Street, whichare both busy municipal roads.

Provide access to the future Fort York Visitor Information Centre.



40/143


Figure 3 is an aerial photo plan of the study area, which illustrates a system of existingtrails and pathways providing for the needs of pedestrians and cyclists both north andsouth of the rail corridors. By completing the Fort York Pedestrian and Cycle Bridge, anextension of the existing trail system may be created, as illustrated by the Potential Trail

System, encompassing Fort York, the proposed bridge and an extension of StanleyPark south of Wellington Street.



41/143


42/143



2.0 Study Objectives

The main objectives of this Class Environmental Assessment Study, and how they were

generally approached, are summarized as follows:

Objective 1:

To implement a cooperative and solution-directed approach to liaison with propertyowners, business representatives, municipal/government agencies, the general public,and other stakeholders, leading to a consensus-oriented solution.

A key element of any environmental assessment process is the solicitation andevaluation of study dialogue and technical input from various affected property owners,government agencies, the general public and other stakeholders, leading to the selection

of a preferred solution which generally satisfies a majority of expressed concerns and/ordesirable results. By means of Public Information Centres, Public Information Packages,individual consultations, Committee meetings and correspondence, a thorough approachwas taken to general liaison over the course of the project. At all times, constructivedialogue, in a cooperative environment, was promoted so that the preferred designconcept represents a consensus-oriented solution. This approach is the foundation of the Class Environmental Assessment Process and was the prime focus of the Project

Team.

Objective 2:

To identify and consolidate all relevant natural, social, cultural and economic issues andconstraints within the Study Area, and determine how the Fort York Pedestrian andCycle Bridge may be constructed within the context of conserving and enhancing thecurrent community environment, while recognizing the mobility needs of pedestrian andcycle traffic.

This Class Environmental Assessment Study was completed in the context of previousplanning studies, reports and environmental research. Where needed, the data fromthese previous reports was used and updated to reflect the current status of existingconditions. Environmental specialists, architects, planners and engineers were includedon the Project Team to interpret data and to assist with the integration of bridge andlandscape design details into the existing urban environment.


43/143



Objective 3:

To develop alternative improvement solutions and design concepts based onacceptable design and operational standards, and to systematically evaluate the

alternatives according to established impact criteria and mitigation potential. Theprocess of evaluation must be accountable to legislative planning strategies and policies,natural and social environmental constraints, property issues, railway crossingstandards, scheduling and costs.

Various alternative design concepts were developed for the Fort York Pedestrian andCycle Bridge, employing suitable architectural vision and insight into the historical settingof the proposed structure. The evaluation process for the bridge recognized variousissues and constraints associated with its horizontal and vertical geometry, itssignificance to the Toronto skyline, its relevance to the surrounding communities, itsfunctionality, and its potential impact on the natural and cultural features of the area,

particularly within the Fort York Precinct.Objective 4:

To complete a functional design of the recommended preferred design concept thatillustrates specific details of the proposed bridge and addresses any environmentalenhancement or mitigation measures within the immediate limits of the structure.

Upon selection of the preferred design concept over the course of the Class EA studyprocess, a functional General Arrangement (GA) drawing was prepared whichdocumented the structural and geometric parameters of the bridge. This functionaldesign was augmented by the presentation of various computer generated images andgraphic renderings of the bridge, approaches and other features, which were alsoimportant in the consultation and selection process.

Objective 5:

To summarize the environmental assessment and functional design documentation in aconcise and defendable Environmental Study Report (ESR).

This Environmental Study Report (ESR) represents the culmination of four phases of afive phase Class EA process. The fifth phase represents the detailed design andconstruction stages of the project, which were not part of this assignment. The

Environmental Study Report is a comprehensive document that summarizes the entireClass EA process for the project, and presents the recommended preferred designconcept along with recommendations for mitigation of any environmental impacts thatmay be anticipated during construction.


44/143



3.0 Study Process

3.1 CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS

The Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) Planning and Designprocess is an approved five-phase planning procedure, under the Ontario EnvironmentalAssessment Act, that applies to municipal infrastructure projects. Projects undertakenthrough this planning process are classified by municipalities into one of threeSchedule types ranging from Schedule A to Schedule C, in accordance with theirdegree of anticipated environmental impact. Schedule C projects have the highestpotential for environmental impacts and must proceed under the full planning anddocumentation procedures specified under the Municipal Class Environmental

Assessment Guidelines.

The five phases of the Class EA planning and design process are summarized asfollows:

Phase 1 Identify the problem (deficiency) or opportunity

Phase 2 Identify alternative solutions to address the problem or opportunity,taking into consideration the existing environment, and select apreferred solution based on a thorough evaluation process andconsultation with public, agencies and other stakeholders.

Phase 3 Examine a range of alternative design concepts for implementing thepreferred solution, based on existing constraints, public and review

agency input, potential environmental impacts, and methods of mitigating any negative environmental affects.

Phase 4 Document, in an Environmental Study Report (ESR) the rationale forthe recommended preferred design concept, based on the planning,design and consultation process established through Phases 1 to 3.

The ESR must be made available for public and agency review andcomment, for a specified period of time.

Phase 5 Complete contract drawings and documents, and proceed toconstruction of the recommended design concept, once all EAapprovals are in place. Monitoring of construction activities and

operations is warranted to ensure adherence to environmentalprovisions and mitigation measures noted in the ESR.

A copy of the flow chart outlining the Municipal Class EA Planning and Design Processis provided in Figure 4 , courtesy of the Municipal Engineers Association (MEA).


45/143



Municipal Class EA Planning and Design Process


46/143


The Class Environmental Assessment for the Fort York Pedestrian and Cycle Bridgeproject has been undertaken in accordance with the guidelines set out in the provinciallyapproved document titled Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MunicipalEngineers Association, October 2000, as amended in 2007). The project falls within the

category of a Schedule C Class Environmental Assessment, and included the firstfour (4) Phases of the study process (detailed design not included).

At the outset of the project, background reports, property ownership data, land use, andother information related to the natural environment were collected and reviewed.Additional data was gathered through field investigations of natural and socialenvironmental conditions, geotechnical, hydrogeological, wildlife habitat, and topographywithin the Study Area. In addition, input from government agencies and local interestgroups was solicited through direct correspondence and liaison.

In addition to convening two (2) Public Information Centre (PIC) meetings, details of the

project were also reviewed at Project Team meetings, at Project Technical AdvisoryCommittee meetings, as well at specially arranged presentations to the City of TorontoDesign Review Panel, the City of Toronto Pedestrian Committee and briefings withelected officials.

In summary, the Class Environmental Assessment for the Fort York Pedestrian andCycle Bridge has ensured, through adherence to the guiding principles of the EAprocess, that the following key elements of the project have been completed:

Consultation with affected agencies, the public, property owners and other interestgroups.

Consideration of a reasonable range of alternatives, including both alternatives toand alternative methods of implementing a solution.

Identification and consideration of the impacts of the alternatives on all aspects of theenvironment.

Completion of a thorough evaluation process that led to the selection of arecommended preferred design concept.

An outline of mitigative measures to protect and/or enhance the environment, inresponse to agency input, public feedback and study data.

Documentation of the planning process in a comprehensive, clear and traceableformat, with respect to the decision-making principles.



47/143


48/143


3.3.2

More specifically, in this case, the Municipal Class EA process has provided verificationof the following:

Confirmation of the study area.

Confirmation of the need and justification for a new pedestrian bridge over theexisting railway corridors.

Identification of existing social, environmental and economic environmentalconditions.

Evaluation of alternative planning solutions based on appropriate assessmentcriteria.

Development of alternative design concepts for the pedestrian and cycle crossing.

Selection of a recommended preferred design concept.

Refinement of the preferred design concept.

Consultation with agencies, the public, advisory committees, elected officials andother stakeholders, at strategic points in the study process.

Public and Agency consultation was a key element of the process and determined to alarge degree, the success of the project. In providing a thorough and transparent publicconsultation and planning process, and in securing broad base support for therecommended design concept over the course of the study, the Study Team developed

confidence in the recommendations that were being considered for the proposedpedestrian and cycle bridge.

Project Deliverables

The scope of deliverables for a Class Environmental Assessment Study are reasonablystraight forward, and are documented in the Municipal Engineers Association Class EAdocument. A summary of the project deliverables, associated with the Fort YorkPedestrian and Cycle Bridge Class EA, were as follows:

Preparation of a Study Design document.

Notice of Study Commencement.

Summary of relevant background data and reports.

Stage I Archaeological Assessment Report.



49/143


Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) Report.

Hydrogeological Report.

Traffic Assessment (rail, vehicular, pedestrian, cyclist) Report.

Property ownership and contact mailing list.

Photographic summary of study area.

Geotechnical Assessment Report.

Built Heritage and Cultural Report.

Need and J ustification Statement.

Three Technical Memorandum Reports. Alternative Solutions Evaluation.

Development of Alternative Design Concepts, including all plans, graphics,architectural renderings, photo imaging, and preliminary engineering.

Evaluation Criteria and Summary of the selection process leading to arecommended preferred design concept.

Notice of Public Information Centre (PIC) Meetings.

PIC displays and Handouts/Comment Sheets.

Summaries of PIC feedback.

Agendas and Minutes of Meetings (Project Team, Technical Advisory Committee,etc.).

Environmental Study Report (ESR).

Content Assistance for Citys project Website (Website development by City).

Correspondence documentation.



50/143


3.3.3 Work Plan and Schedule

A copy of the approved Work Plan and Schedule is provided in Figure 5 . This schedule,dated November 2008, provided a milestone road map governing all activities and

target dates associated with the project.For the most part, the Project Team has been able to achieve all of the project activityobjectives and deadlines, with the exception of a minor delay through J uly and August,2009. Due to an unexpected labour disruption that affected City operations, PublicInformation Centre (PIC) Two was delayed from August 20, 2009 to September 16,2009. However, efforts were made by all connected with this project to complete theEnvironmental Study Report by the original finish date of December 23, 2009.

The following provides a summary of the key milestone activities and dates associatedwith the project:

Project Start-Up Meeting: September 11, 2008.

Notice of Study Commencement: First issued October 3, 2008 and Advertised inLocal Newspapers on October 16, 17, 23 and 24, 2008.

Technical Memorandum One: December 22, 2008.

Public Information Centre Meeting One (PIC #1): April 16, 2009.

Technical Memorandum Two: April 30, 2009.

City Design Review Panel Meeting (1st

Meeting): May 25, 2009. Public Information Centre Meeting Two (PIC #2): September 16, 2009.

City Pedestrian Review Committee Meeting: September 22, 2009.

Technical Memorandum Three: October 1, 2009.

City Design Review Panel Meeting (2 nd Meeting): October 22, 2009.

City Executive Committee: November 2, 2009.

Environmental Study Report:

o Draft Document: November 13, 2009.

o Final Document: December 24, 2009.

Notice of Study Completion: J anuary 7, 2010.



51/143



Workplan and Schedule


52/143





53/143





54/143


3.4 PROJECT STUDY ORGANIZATION

The success of this project may be attributed to input from the Project Team, theDirector of the Waterfront Secretariat, the Technical Advisory Committee, the CityDesign Review Panel, the City Pedestrian Committee, the area Ward Councillor andChair of the War of 1812 Bicentennial Committee, and other information meeting groupsassociated with the Fort York Pedestrian and Cycle Bridge.

The structure of the Project Team, which was the primary committee group directing theproject, was as follows:

City of Toronto

Stephen McKenna, Project Manager, Waterfront Secretariat; Stephen OBright, Technical Coordinator, Waterfront Secretariat; J ohn Bryson, Manager, Structures & Expressways, Technical Services; Marilia Cimini, Transportation Engineer, Infrastructure Planning, Transportation

Services.

Stantec Consulting Ltd.

Garry E. Leveck, P. Eng., Project Manager, Vice-President, Transportation; Maya Caron, Environmental Coordinator, Environmental Planner; Mike Trader, P. Eng., Bridge Design, Head, Structural Engineering; Mike Dartizio, OALA, CSLA, Landscape Architecture, Senior Landscape Architect.

Montgomery Sisam Architects Robert Davies, Bridge Architecture, Senior Architect/Partner; Kirsten Thomson, Bridge Architecture, Assistant Project Architect.

Assisting Stantec Consulting Ltd (Prime Consultant) throughout the project wasMontgomery Sisam Architects, who played a major role in developing the bridge designconcepts and attending all meetings over the course of the study. Other subconsultantsincluded Archaeological Services Inc. (ASI), who completed a Stage I ArchaeologicalAssessment and a Cultural Heritage Assessment (Built Heritage and Cultural HeritageLandscapes), and Peto MacCallum Limited, who completed a Preliminary Foundation

and Geotechnical Assessment Investigation Report. The Project Team had formal meetings at various stages during the study, to reviewproject data, alternative solutions, alternative design concepts, evaluation criteria andrecommendations, public and agency input, P IC presentation material, technical issues,and other pertinent study content. The minutes of all Project Team meetings areincluded in Appendix F.



55/143


To supplement the guidance and direction provided by the Project Team, details of thestudy were presented to and reviewed by a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), madeup of City staff from various departments as well as GO Transit, Toronto Police Servicesand EMS. In addition to the Project Team members noted above, who were integral to

the TAC Committee, the following personnel made up the balance of the TechnicalAdvisory Committee:

Technical Advisory Commit tee (in additi on to Project Team members)

Eric Pedersen, Program Manager, Urban Design, City Planning; David OHara, Museum Administrator, Museum Services, EDC & T; J o Ann Pynn, Supervisor, Cultural Affairs, EDC & T; Mary MacDonald, Acting Manager, Heritage Preservation, City Planning; Susan Hughes, Supervisor, Heritage Preservation, City Planning; J amaica Hewston, Planner, Community Planning, West Section, City Planning; Kathie Capizzano, Project Manager, Policy & Appraisal, Facilities & Real Estate; David Dunn, Engineer Coordinator, Pedestrian & Cycling Infrastructure, Transportation Services; Sean Harvey, Acting Supervisor, Design & Development , Parks, Forestry &

Recreation; J ennifer Tharp, Planner, Design & Development, Parks, Forestry & Recreation; Hans Riekko, Assistant Planner, Transportation Planning, City Planning; J eff Bateman, Senior Planning Officer, GO Transit; Caroline Mellor, Senior EMS Planning Officer, Emergency Medical Services; * Gordon Reid, Police Constable, Community Response Unit, Toronto Police Service. *

Throughout the Class EA Study, the Project Team and Technical Advisory Committeemeetings provided excellent forums for assessing relevant issues and constraints, withlengthy discussions and team building evident at all times. As a result, critical decisionswere reached in an atmosphere of cooperation for the good of the project and thecommunity, and within the spirit of the Class Environmental Assessment process.

3.5 PUBLIC AND AGENCY CONSULTATION

Public and agency consultation is a key feature of the Ontario Municipal ClassEnvironmental Assessment planning and design process. Through an effective publicand agency participation program, the proponent can generate meaningful dialoguebetween the project planners and external stakeholders, allowing an exchange of ideas,a broadening of the project information base, and ultimately a consensus-oriented

decision making process. One of the principal aims of external consultation is to achieveresolution of differences of points of view, thus reducing or avoiding controversy andavoiding the need for implementing Part II of the Ontario Environmental Assessment

Act.

* Note: Consulted through liaison with Project Team



56/143


3.5.1 Notice of Study Commencement

The first step in the public and agency consultation process was the publication andcirculation of the Notice of Study Commencement , a copy of which is provided in

Appendix A . Advertising was as follows:NOW Magazine: October 16/23, 2008.Parkdale Liberty: October 17/24, 2008.Citys Get Involved Website ( http://www.toronto.ca/involved/index.htm ).

Circulation of the Notice of Study Commencement was also made by mail to anextensive list of Agencies, Associations and Residents/Property Owners. A complete listof the Agency and Association contacts is provided in Appendix A , whileresidents/property owners are not provided. This contact list was updated over thecourse of the project based on responses from the circulations, attendance at PublicInformation Centre Meetings, and comments received as input to the study.

The Notice of Study Commencement advertising and circulation process resulted inresponses being received from various agencies and interested stakeholders, includingthe following:

Ministry of the Environment, Ontario (MOE); Toronto Region Conservation Authority (TRCA); Enbridge P ipelines; Waterfront Action; Toronto Police Service; The Friends of Fort York; Ministry of Culture, Ontario; Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration.

Copies of the initial responses to the Notice of Study Commencement, as noted, areincluded in Appendix G .

3.5.2 Publi c Information Centre (PIC) Meeting Number One:Thursday, April 16, 2009

The first of two Public Information Centre (PIC) meetings was convened on Thursday,April 16, 2009. It was held at the Niagara Public School, located in the heart of theNiagara Neighbourhood, which is the central community area to the north of theproposed pedestrian and cycle bridge.

The purpose of the first Public Information Centre was to introduce the public to thebackground studies that prompted the Class Environmental Assessment, to confirm theNeed and J ustification for the project, to provide data and reports in fulfillment of the EAprocess, and to introduce the Alternative Solutions and Preliminary Design Conceptsunder consideration. No decisions on a preferred alternative were presented at thisiniti al Public Information Centre Meeting .

http://www.toronto.ca/involved/index.htmhttp://www.toronto.ca/involved/index.htm


57/143


All attendees were invited to view display panels that were arranged in the meetingroom, and to provide comments to the Project Team members on any issues of interestor concern. A total of seventeen (17) written Comment Sheets were received at themeeting, which was attended by an estimated 65 public participants. Three email

responses were received after the PIC.

A general overview of the organization and documentation details of the first PublicInformation Centre meeting is provided below. A copy of each of the Notice of PublicInformation Centre Meeting, the Display Panels, the Public Handout Document, andCompleted Comment Sheets and E-mail Responses are included in Appendix B .

(i) Location, Time and Format:

Date: Thursday, April 16, 2009.

Time: 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.

Location: Niagara Public School,222 Niagara Street, Toronto.

Drop-In format with one-on-one interaction between attendees and Project Team Members.

(ii) Advertisement Process (Notice of Public Information Centre Meeting):

Publications in NOW Magazine (April 2 and 9, 2009) and the ParkdaleLiberty Newsletter (April 3 and 10, 2009).

Direct mailing to Agencies, Community Organizations, Property Ownerswithin the Study Area, and Interested Stakeholders.

Mass postal mailing to local residents and businesses (+ 12,000 mailings)within the general distribution boundary of Queen Street West, BathurstStreet, Lakeshore Boulevard West, and Shaw Street.

(iii) PIC Display Panels and Public Handout Document:

Twenty five (25) display panels were available for public viewing. Thesedisplays were grouped into the following broad categories:

o Welcome, Project Objectives and Overview of Class EnvironmentalAssessment Process

o Project Need and J ustification

o Historical Fort York and Garrison Creek



58/143


o Background Studies and their relevance to the Fort York Bridge Class EAStudy

o Recent Studies: Archaeological, Built and Cultural Heritage, Landscape

Architecture and Transportation Assessmentso Alternative Planning Solutions and Evaluation Matrix, including

identification of Preferred Planning Solution (New Pedestrian and cycleStructure)

o Property Ownership Mosaic

o Preliminary Bridge Design Concepts, including Alignment and SectionAlternatives, and the Approach to Design

o Photo Overview of Study Area

o What are the Next Steps in the Study Process?

A Public Handout Document and Comment Sheet was provided to eachattendee for their review and use in providing feedback on the project.

(iv) Attendance and Response:

Public Information Centre No. 1 was attended by the Director of theWaterfront Secretariat, four (4) members of the Stantec Consultant Team,four (4) members of the City of Toronto/Waterfront Secretariat Project Team,

two (2) members of the City of Toronto Technical Advisory Committee, andDeputy Mayor and Ward Councillor, J oe Pantalone.

Fifty four (54) members of the public officially registered for the PIC; it isestimated that there were approximately 65 public attendees as not everyonewished to sign the Attendance Registry.

Seventeen (17) Comment Sheets were received from attendees at the PIC. They were filled out on-the-spot and left in a Comment Drop Box providedat the meeting.

Three email responses were received after the PIC.

In general, the overall response to the proposed pedestrian and cycle bridgewas positive. Further, it was felt that the attendance level and extent of written responses was excellent, providing a good cross-section of thoughtsas well as strong support for a specific type of structure. A general summaryof the Public Comments follows:



59/143


Public Response:

Seventeen (17) comment sheets were filled out and left at the meeting, with anadditional three (3) email submissions forwarded at a later date.

Public Comments:

(1) In favour of Pedestrian and cycle Bridge:

19 out of 20 (95%). 1 cautiously in favour, subject to available funding (5%).

(2) Preferred Alternative Design Concept:

Of the 20 respondents, nine attendees specified a preferred design concept,while 11 did not state a preference.

Of the nine who commented on a preferred design concept, all (100%)recommended Alternative 4/Arch design.

(3) General Comments:

Provide viewing platforms on the bridge to enjoy the various vistas in the area. Provide safety and security to users, particularly at night. Avoid, wherever possible, detrimental impacts on Garrison Common. Provide a pathway connection to Bathurst Street, north of Fort York. Preserve the history of Fort York. Provide access to the Ordnance Triangle Lands, for future use. Design should be creative and unique.



60/143

PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE MEETINGS


61/143


3.5.3 Publi c Information Centre (PIC) Meeting Number Two:Wednesday, September 16, 2009

The second of two Public Information Centre (PIC) Meetings was held on Wednesday,

September 16, 2009 at the Wellington on the Park condominium complex, 15 StaffordStreet, which is located adjacent to existing Stanley Park. It is estimated that 44members of the public attended the second PIC meeting.

The primary purpose of the second Public Information Centre was to present theRecommended Preferred Design Concept for the Fort York Pedestrian and CycleBridge, based on the extensive study documentation, evaluations, public and agencyfeedback, project team reviews, and technical design criteria. A recommendation toapprove Alternative Alignment 4/Tied Arch as the preferred design concept waspresented to the public for final consideration.

In addition to a series of displays available for public viewing and discussion, a formalPower Point presentation was made to explain, in greater detail, the evolution of thedesign process that culminated in the recommended preferred design concept. Aquestion and answer period followed the formal presentation, which was attended byabout twenty four (24) members of the public.

A general review of the organization and documentation details of Public InformationCentre Meeting Two is provided below. A copy of each of the Notice of PublicInformation Centre Meeting, the Public Display Panels, the Power PointPresentation, the Public Handout Document, and the Completed Comment Sheetsand Email Responses are included in Appendix B .

(i) Location, Time and Format:

Date: Wednesday, September 16, 2009.

Time 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.

Location: 15 Stafford Street, Wellington on the Park.

Drop-in format with one-on-one interaction between attendees and Project Team members.

Formal presentation at 7:00 p.m. followed by a question and answer period.Formal part of the meeting lasted until 7:50 p.m.

(ii) Advertisement Process (Notice of Public Information Centre Meeting):

Publication in NOW magazine (September 3 and 10, 2009).

Direct mailing to agencies, community organizations, property owners withinthe Study Area, attendees from PIC#1, and interested stakeholders.



62/143


Mass postal mailing to local residents and businesses (+ 12,000 mailings),within the general distribution boundary of Queen Street West, BathurstStreet, Lakeshore Boulevard West, and Shaw Street.

(iii) PIC Display Panels and Public Handout Document: Twenty-four (24) display panels were available for public viewing. These

displays were grouped into the following broad categories:

o Welcome, and Invitation to Participate

o The Environmental Assessment Process and Property Ownership

o Parkland and Trails Context Planning

o Review of Bridge Concepts presented at PIC#1, and Public Feedback

o Tree Inventory Assessment within Study Area

o Metrolinx Study Impacts on Fort York Bridge Study

o Evaluation of Alternative Design Concepts

o Recommended Preferred Design Concept and Computer GeneratedImages

o Landscape Architectural Concepts and Artistic Renderings, plusIllumination opportunities

o What are the Next Steps in the Study process?

A Public Handout Document and Comment Sheet was provided to eachattendee for their review and use in providing feedback on the proposedpedestrian and cycle bridge project.

(iv) Presentation at Public Information Centre Meeting:

At the second Public Information Centre Meeting, a formal presentation wasmade to attendees who wished to receive additional information on the project,

and to ask questions of the Project Team. A Meeting Facilitator was engaged bythe City of Toronto to run this formal part of the PIC. The presentation was madeby Stantecs Project Manager after introductory remarks by Deputy Mayor andWard Councillor J oe Pantalone. Twenty-four (24) members of the public werepresent for the presentation, which lasted 50 minutes.



63/143


3.5.4

(v) Attendance and Response:

Public Information Centre No. 2 was attended by three (3) members of theConsultant Team, two (2) members of the City of Toronto/Waterfront

Secretariat Project Team, two (2) members of the City of Toronto Project Technical Advisory Committee, and Deputy Mayor and Ward Councillor J oePantalone.

Thirty-five (35) members of the public officially registered for the PIC; it isestimated that there were approximately 44 public attendees as not everyonewished to sign the Attendance Registry.

Five (5) Comment Sheets were left by meeting attendees.

Six (6) additional comments were forwarded by email after the PIC.

In general, the overall response to the public display presentation, the formalPower Point Presentation, and the Recommended Preferred DesignConcept was extremely favourable at the second PIC. It was clear that amajority were in support of the design being recommended for the Fort YorkPedestrian and Cycle Bridge.

Correspondence and Liaison

Over the course of the study process, there has been correspondence and liaison withvarious agencies and interested stakeholders, all of whom provided input to the issues,constraints, solutions, concepts and details of the project. The following summarizes

external agency and public input outside of the interaction arising from the PublicInformation Centre (PIC) meetings.

3.5.4.1 The Friends of Fort York and Garrison Common

The Friends of Fort York and Garrison Common is a non-profit organization dedicated tothe preservation and enhancement of Fort York by supporting its operations as aNational Historic Site and through the communication of its past history for the benefit of all citizens and visitors. Over the course of the Class EA Study, Friends of Fort Yorkrepresentatives have taken an active interest in the direction of the project, plus theassessment of bridge alternatives and their relative impacts on the Fort York Lands.



64/143


65/143

FORT YORK PEDESTRIAN A ND CYCLE BRIDGECLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTENVIRONMENTAL STUDY REPORT

3.5.4.2 CN Rail and GO Transi t

CN Rail and GO Transit are the owners and primary operators on the two railwaycorridors within the study area. The Project Team recognized, in the beginning, the

significant importance of these two agencies in the decision making process andconceptual design associated with any structure over the tracks. Therefore, meetingswere initiated with CN and GO Transit as soon as possible in the study schedule.

What was learned by the Project Team included the following:

The North Tracks (East of Strachan Avenue):

o Georgetown (Galt Subdivision) Lineo Currently 4 trackso Future 7 tracks as part of Metrolinx Expansion Planso Corridor and tracks owned by GO Transit

The South Tracks (East of Strachan Avenue):

o Lakeshore (Oakville Subdivision) Lineo Currently 4 trackso No current plans for track expansionso Corridor and tracks owned by CN Rail

In early discussions with CN Rail and GO Transit, it was determined that all liaisonrelated to design criteria, issues and constraints, and overall railway operations was tobe through GO Transit staff, who would represent CN Rail. To facilitate ongoing liaisonand ensure that GO Transit authorities were up-to-date on the progress of the study, GO

Transit was invited to be represented on the Project Technical Advisory Committee. GO Transit obliged, and Mr. J eff Bateman, Senior Planning Officer with the TransportationPlanning and Development division of GO Transit, attended various TAC meetings.

One of the key design criteria affecting the conceptual design of the pedestrian andcycle bridge was the vertical clearance between the top of rail and the underside of thestructure. Rail clearance parameters may vary from site to site, depending on issuessuch as track profile, horizontal alignment, and sight line impacts. It was necessary,therefore, to confirm the factors affecting vertical clearance at this location beforeproceeding with any structure profile concepts.

In discussions with GO Transit, it was determined that a Sight Line Visibility study wouldbe needed to confirm actual clearance restrictions at the proposed bridge crossinglocation. This technical study, it was learned, would need to be facilitated by GO Transitand funded by the proponent (City of Toronto). In the interim, GO Transit proposed thata clearance of 8.4 metres (27.6 feet) be used for functional planning during the ClassEA, such clearance being subject to change based on further analysis during detaileddesign.



66/143


Going forward, all bridge planning was based on a railway clearance of 8.4 metres,under the assumption that 8.4 metres was somewhat conservative and any minorincrease to this interim value would not negatively impact the functional level detailing of the bridge. Further, it was recognized that any potential reduction in the clearance

restriction, below the 8.4 metres, could be readily accounted for in the detailed design,and would serve to reduce the project cost.

Over the course of the Class EA Study, the impact of the Metrolinx Georgetown RailCorridor Study grew in significance, and ultimately had a direct bearing on the directionprovided by GO Transit on clearance requirements at the Fort York Bridge site. In May,2009, GO Transit merged with Metrolinx with a goal to integrate the planning and growthstrategies of the two organizations. A discussion of how the Class EA study wasaffected by the Metrolinx Rail Corridor Study Environmental Assessment is provided inSection 3.5.4.3.

In the end, the rail clearance requirement for the Fort York Pedestrian and Cycle Bridge

was relaxed by Metrolinx and GO Transit to 7.4 metres. Copies of meeting notes andcorrespondence with CN And GO Transit are provided in Appendix F .

3.5.4.3 Metrolinx

In response to growing concerns over the inadequacy of road and public transit systemsin the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA), the Government of Ontario passedlegislation in 2006 that created the Metrolinx Agency. Its mission is to create a state-of-the-art transportation system for the GTHA that will move people and goods effectively,economically and in an environmentally sustainable manner.

One of the first major project initiatives of Metrolinx has been the planning of theproposed Georgetown South Rail Corridor Expansion and New Rail Service betweenUnion Station and Pearson International Airport. This project would have direct impactson the Fort York Pedestrian and Cycle Bridge as it crosses the Georgetown Rail Corridor

just east of Strachan Avenue (north tracks in study area).

In addition to plans by GO Transit/Metrolinx to provide future electrification of its entireGO syste m, the subject study also examined alternatives for a new grade separation(bridge) at Strachan Avenue. The planning for a structure at this location required thatnumerous technical and social factors be weighed and balanced, in reaching a solutionthat addressed the perspectives of Metrolinx, the City of Toronto and local property

owners/stakeholders.As part of the Metrolinx Environmental Assessment Study, public meetings wereconvened in the area which focused, to a large extent, on the functional plans for theStrachan Avenue grade separation. Initially, Metrolinx proposed that Strachan Avenuebe constructed over the existing tracks, with no change to the rail elevations. However,this concept would have significant impacts on the adjacent neighbourhoods, cutting off access to Wellington Street and dividing the community on either side of Strachan Avenue.



67/143


In response to requests from the City of Toronto and local residents, Metrolinxreconsidered its approach to the Strachan Avenue railway grade separation, opting for acompromise solution that would:

Raise Strachan Avenue by 4 metres at the track crossing. Lower the expanded rail corridor by 5 metres at the Strachan Avenue crossing. Install retaining walls over the limits of the track lowering to avoid property

acquisitions on either side of the tracks. Gradually raise the elevation of the lowered track, both east and west of Strachan

Avenue, matching existing track grade just west of Bathurst Street to the east. Raise the intersection of Str

Environmental Study Report - Fort York Pedestrian & Cycle Bridge

Documents

Transcript of Environmental Study Report - Fort York Pedestrian & Cycle Bridge