CITY OF HAMILTON · The City of Hamilton ... centrelines of abutment and pier bearings are 8.70 m,...

CITY OF HAMILTON

CENTENNIAL PARKWAY / CN RAIL UNDERPASS CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

BRIDGE 163

November 2011 SLI: 506510

PR-2044B

PHASE 1 & 2 REPORT

PHASE 1 & 2 REPORT

i j:\506510\40-eng mgmt\4e-env\er-env-eng reports\technical memo #1\final phase 1 & 2 report\centennial parkway phase 1&2 report final_rev 3 .doc

To: File Date: November 15, 2011

CC:

From: SNC-Lavalin Inc. Ref: 506510

Subject: CENTENNIAL PARKWAY/CN RAIL UNDERPASS IMPROVEMENTS

MUNICIPAL CLASS EA

PHASE 1 & 2 REPORT

Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................... 1 3.0 PROBLEM/OPPORTUNITY STATEMENT ....................................................................................... 2

3.1 Structural Component ....................................................................................................................... 2 3.2 Opportunities ..................................................................................................................................... 3

4.0 MUNICIPAL CLASS EA PROCESS .................................................................................................. 3 5.0 PUBLIC/STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ..................................................................................... 5 6.0 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES AND PREFERRED PLANNING SOLUTION ........................... 6 7.0 SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS ....................................................... 14

List of Figures Figure 1: Location Plan .................................................................................................................................. 1 Figure 2: Municipal Class EA Process........................................................................................................... 5 Figure 3: Study Area and Key Stakeholders .................................................................................................. 6

List of Tables Table 1: Assessment of Bridge Improvement Planning Alternatives ............................................................ 9

PHASE 1 & 2 REPORT

1 j:\506510\40-eng mgmt\4e-env\er-env-eng reports\technical memo #1\final phase 1 & 2 report\centennial parkway phase 1&2 report final_rev 3 .doc

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The City of Hamilton (the City) is conducting a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Municipal Class EA) for improvements to the Centennial Parkway/CN Rail Underpass, located between the Queen Elizabeth Way (QEW) and Barton Street, and has retained SNC-Lavalin Inc. (SLI) to assist in preparing the Municipal Class EA. The City also retained SLI to provide Consulting Engineering Services for the Feasibility Study and Preliminary Design of improvements to the structure in 2010. The location of the bridge is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Location Plan

2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND

The CN Rail Underpass structure was constructed in 1929 and carries two (2) tracks (one in each of the westbound and eastbound directions) over Centennial Parkway. The bridge is a closed abutment structure and is composed of two-span, non-continuous precast concrete beams, with ballast and ties supporting the rail tracks. The spans of the structure between centrelines of abutment and pier bearings are 8.70 m, with a total length of 17.07 m between the

PHASE 1 & 2 REPORT


faces of the east and west abutments. The overall deck width of the structure is approximately 9.86 m, which includes 0.47 m curb with railing on the outside edges of the structure to contain the ballast material over the bridge. The depth of the ballast, including the ties, is approximately 0.45 m.

Centennial Parkway carries two lanes of traffic in each of the northbound and southbound directions. The existing pedestrian sidewalks on the west and east sides of the southbound and northbound roadway are narrow and substandard. In addition, the vertical clearance under the bridge is only 4.2 m, which is less than the 4.65 m minimum required by today’s bridge design standards. Additionally, CN requires clearance for new structures to be a minimum of 5.3 m, which can be reduced to 5.0 m with an additional requirement for a superstructure crash barrier. Additionally, there is an issue regarding existing stormwater drainage in the project area, with the underpass subway flooding 4-6 times annually. The City has retained AMEC Earth & Environmental to examine potential solutions to rectify the drainage issue.

3.0 PROBLEM/OPPORTUNITY STATEMENT

Within the Municipal Class EA process, the rationale for considering an undertaking is based on an assessment and statement of the problem (need) being addressed and/or opportunities that present themselves in the course of addressing the problem. In the case of this undertaking, there are both problems and opportunities that can be included in the statement of the need and justification for the bridge improvements.

3.1 Structural Component

Based on the investigation conducted as part of SLI’s 2010 evaluation of the structure

1,

structural problems include:

The structure can carry the dead load that it was designed for, but has load capacity deficiencies in relation to current railway bridge design standards.

Numerous medium and large alligator cracks at the soffit of the beams and the substructures.

Continuous water leakage between the precast elements has considerably stained the soffit of the beams and faces of the piers.

Existing pedestrian sidewalks are narrow and substandard.

Vertical clearance under the bridge is only 4.2 m and less than the 4.65 m minimum required for existing structures (5.3 m for new structures).

The SLI Structural Evaluation Report is presented in Appendix A of this Report.

1 Structural Evaluation Report: CN Rail Underpass at Centennial Parkway. SNC-Lavalin Inc., February

2011.

PHASE 1 & 2 REPORT


3.2 Opportunities

Opportunities for improvements in the overall function of the structure, roadway and associated infrastructure include:

Reconstruct (lower) Centennial Parkway to achieve additional clearance to meet current standards.

Rectify historical drainage problems in subway.

Introduce a road cross-section that accommodates safer passage through the structure for pedestrians and cyclists.

Provision for future Metrolinx/GO Transit regional rail transportation improvement/expansion in the CN Rail corridor.

4.0 MUNICIPAL CLASS EA PROCESS

This study is being conducted in accordance with the Municipal Engineers Association (MEA) Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (June 2000) (“Municipal Class EA”), as amended in October 2007. Under the Municipal Class EA, there are three types of projects or activities:

Schedule ‘A’ Municipal maintenance, operational and emergency activities. These projects are pre-approved and, therefore, allow the municipality to proceed without further approval under the Environmental Assessment Act.

Schedule ‘A+’ Municipal maintenance, operational and emergency activities, which have potential for public interest. These projects are pre-approved and, therefore, allow the municipality to proceed without further approval under the Environmental Assessment Act provided that the public is notified.

Schedule ‘B’ Projects that may have some adverse environmental effects on the environment. These projects are approved, subject to a screening process, including consultation with directly affected public and agencies.

Schedule ‘C’ Projects which may have significant environmental effects on the environment and must proceed under the full planning and documentation procedures outlined in the Municipal Class EA document.

In a previous assessment, the City identified bridges within its jurisdiction that are 35 years of age or older and classified them in relation to their heritage significance (Heritage Structure Assessment, 2002). The purpose of this assessment was related to the requirement to address Project Type 30 in Appendix I of the Municipal Class EA, which reads as follows:

“30. Reconstruction or alteration of a structure or the grading adjacent to it when the structure is over 40 years old, which after appropriate evaluation is found to have cultural heritage value*”,

PHASE 1 & 2 REPORT


*Determination of cultural heritage value will be in accordance with a screening checklist developed by the Ministry of Tourism and Culture (MTC) and posted on the MEA website

where the structure meets the CSA-S6-00 definition of a bridge:

“A structure that provides a roadway or walkway for the passage of vehicle, pedestrians, cyclists across an obstruction, gap …. and has a span greater than 3 m.”

The proposed improvements to the Centennial Parkway/CN Rail bridge meet the Municipal Class EA Item 30 criterion for preparation of an EA, based on the scope of the works and the age of the bridge (constructed in 1929). In compliance with City policy, the City’s Heritage Bridge Guideline & Heritage Bridge Conservation document (2006) is being applied to the EA process. The City retained Archaeological Services Inc. to conduct a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) of the bridge in 2011, for incorporation in the Municipal Class EA process.

The Centennial Parkway/CN Rail Underpass improvement is being conducted as a Schedule

‘C’ undertaking and involves completion of Phases 1-4 of the Municipal Class EA process, including the following major activities (refer also to Figure 2):

Phase 1 - Identification of a Problem or Opportunity;

Phase 2 - Identification, Assessment of Impacts, and Evaluation of Alternative Solutions to the Problem or Opportunity, and Selection of a Preferred Planning Solution;

Phase 3 - Analysis of Alternative Design Concepts for the Preferred Planning Solution; and

Phase 4 - Completion of an Environmental Study Report.

Following filing of the ESR (Phase 4), there will be a 30-day public review period. If, after reviewing the project proposals and discussing any concerns with the City, there are still concerns with the proposed project, government agencies and members of the public may request the Minister of the Environment to require a proponent to comply with Part II of the Environmental Assessment Act, which addresses individual EAs, before proceeding with the proposed undertaking. This is known as a “Part II Order” request. The Minister determines whether or not this is necessary, with the Minister’s decision being final. After this review period is concluded a Notice of Completion will be published and the project will move to the implementation phase, consisting of detail design and tendering of the contract for construction. This report presents the results of the first two phases (Phases 1 & 2). It includes evaluation of the Alternative Solutions and recommends a Preferred Planning Solution to be carried forward for further consideration.

PHASE 1 & 2 REPORT


Figure 2: Municipal Class EA Process

5.0 PUBLIC/STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION

To simplify and expedite the Municipal Class EA work for this project, the City has elected to deal directly with potentially affected stakeholders in the vicinity of the bridge site, rather than convening Public Information Centres. However, Public Consultation will involve provision of the mandatory area-wide Notice of Study Commencement and Notice of Completion (ESR placement in the public record for review), including placement of newspaper advertisements and direct mail/email notice to government agencies. Information to the broader public will also be available through the City’s project website, which will include postings of two Progress Reports prior to the ESR (including this first progress report). The City will also provide notice of the Progress Report postings via placement of newspaper advertisements and direct mail/email notice to government agencies. Locations of the affected stakeholders relative to the project location are shown in Figure 3. Stakeholders identified at this stage in the project include:

Proponent – The City of Hamilton

Regulatory/Other Agencies – CN Rail, GO Transit, Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO), Hamilton Conservation Authority, the Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Culture (MTC), and Transport Canada (TC)

Affected Property Owners – Select Mazda, SmartCentres, Home Depot, Pines Motel, Old Pine Tree Restaurant

PHASE 1 & 2 REPORT


Figure 3: Study Area and Key Stakeholders

6.0 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES AND PREFERRED PLANNING SOLUTION

Based on the results of archival research, an analysis of bridge design and construction in Ontario, field investigations and application of Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the Centennial Bridge was determined to retain moderate heritage value. In particular, the bridge was found to have design and historical associations with the Township of Saltfleet, road and rail transportation, the Queen Elizabeth Way, and early concrete bridge design and decorative features typical of the 1920s/1930s. As such, the structure was found to meet at least one of the criteria of Regulation 9/06 under the Ontario Heritage Act and, therefore, may be considered for municipal designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. Consequently, consideration of the full range of alternatives in the City’s Heritage Bridge Guideline was required. The planning solutions in the Heritage Bridge Guideline are arranged in a continuum, from strategies with the least potential impact to the structure and its heritage value, to those with the most potential impact

2:

A. Retention of existing bridge and restoration of missing or deteriorated elements where

physical or documentary evidence (e.g., photographs or drawings) can be used for their design;

2 Heritage Bridge Guideline. City of Hamilton (January 2006), p. 9.

PHASE 1 & 2 REPORT


B. Retention of existing bridge with no major modifications undertaken; C. Retention of existing bridge with sympathetic modification; D. Retention of existing bridge with sympathetically designed new structure in proximity; E. Retention of existing bridge no longer in use for vehicle purposes but adapted for pedestrian

walkways, cycle paths, scenic viewing, etc.; F. Relocation of bridge to appropriate new site for continued use (see D) or adaptive re-use

(see E); G. Retention of bridge as heritage monument for viewing purposes only.

In addition, two mitigation options are suggested by the Ontario Heritage Bridge Guideline in the case of bridge replacement/removal: H. Replacement/removal of existing bridge and construction of a new bridge with replication of

the appearance of the heritage bridge in the new design, with allowances for the use of modern materials (with salvage of elements/members for incorporation into new structure or future conservation work/displays); and

I. Replacement/removal of existing bridge and construction of a new bridge with historically sympathetic design qualities to the heritage bridge, with allowances for the use of new technologies and materials.

The foregoing planning alternatives were screened using a standard set of environmental assessment criteria:

Environmental Component

Evaluation Criteria

Technical/Financial Considerations Transportation network Ability to construct Construction costs Operation/maintenance costs

Natural Environment Natural vegetation communities Roadside vegetation/site landscaping

Cultural Heritage Environment Historical significance Archaeological potential Built heritage/cultural landscapes

Socio-Economic Environment Land use Access (property/transit/school bus/EMS) Pedestrian/cyclist facilities Community impacts Construction noise

The Cultural Heritage assessment of planning solutions incorporated the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) conducted by ASI, which is presented in Appendix B of this Phase 1 & 2 Report. The HIA was conducted exclusively in the context of Regulation 9//06 of the Ontario Heritage Act and the City’s Heritage Bridge Guideline.

PHASE 1 & 2 REPORT


Evaluation of these planning alternatives for improvements to the underpass was also influenced by:

The load carrying deficiencies of the bridge;

The structure’s current conditions (piers, abutments and the deck are in fair to poor condition);

The fact that the structure is more than 80 years old and is near, if not at, the end of its service life;

Inadequate pedestrian facilities and substandard clearance of the existing structure; and

The important functions of the bridge in serving traffic, both on the rail corridor and along Centennial Parkway.

Table 1 presents a summary of the evaluation of the planning alternatives.

PHASE 1 & 2 REPORT


Table 1: Assessment of Bridge Improvement Planning Alternatives

Bridge Improvement Alternative Considerations Conclusions

Technical/Financial Natural Environment Cultural Heritage Environment Socio-Economic Environment

Retention of Existing Bridge

A Restoration of missing or deteriorated elements using physical or documentary evidence for design (major rehabilitation of deck/railings; repair/strengthen/clean beams, stringers, bracing, piers, foundation, abutments, retaining walls)

Capital cost for major bridge rehabilitation is approximately $3.5 Million.

Life expectancy of rehabilitated bridge would be in the order of 50 years.

Ongoing maintenance costs will be higher than a new bridge, reaching approximately $1.5 Million over the bridge life.

No permanent land acquisition.

Construction of new two-track structure adjacent to the existing to accommodate rail traffic.

Temporary lane closures of Centennial Parkway will be required, with some full road closure for the erection of girders (if required), which may warrant temporary road detour.

Existing deficiencies (clearance, sidewalk width) not corrected.

Minimal.

Vegetation adjacent to the bridge abutments will be impacted due to bridge rehabilitation.

No significant impacts. Temporary impacts to access and/or parking for adjacent business owners during construction.

Temporary impacts to vehicular, cyclist and pedestrian traffic due to lane/sidewalk closures during construction.

Pedestrian and cyclist passage safety issues not addressed.

Only partially addresses structural deficiencies. Rehabilitating to satisfy current standards would require major works, including superstructure replacement, and yet the major deficiencies of vertical clearance and sub-standard sidewalks will remain. This imposes undesirable long term maintenance costs (compared to a new bridge) that are disproportionate to benefits achieved.

NOT RECOMMENDED

B Retention of the Centennial Parkway Bridge with no major modifications (Do Nothing)

Structural integrity is not adequate to meet current design standards and ongoing deterioration will become a safety concern.

Imputed/uncontrolled costs due to catastrophic failure include:

loss of road and rail service

loss of asset materials


Existing deficiencies (drainage, clearance, sidewalk width) not corrected – opportunity cost.

No significant impacts. No significant impacts Pedestrian and cyclist passage safety issues not addressed.

Imputed/uncontrolled costs due to catastrophic failure include:

loss of life

Retention of the existing structure without repairs is not a viable alternative due to the condition of the bridge.

NOT RECOMMENDED

Least Preferred Most Preferred

PHASE 1 & 2 REPORT





C Retention of the Centennial Parkway Bridge with sympathetic modifications sufficient to satisfy current bridge design standards

Similar to Alternative A.

Capital cost for major bridge rehabilitation is approximately $3.5 Million.

Life expectancy of rehabilitated bridge would be in the order of 50 years.

Ongoing maintenance costs will be higher than a new bridge, reaching approximately $1.5 Million over the bridge life.



Temporary lane closures of Centennial Parkway will be required, with some full road closure for the erection of girders (if required), which may warrant temporary road detour.


Minimal.

Vegetation adjacent to the bridge abutments will be impacted due to bridge rehabilitation.

No significant impacts.

Sympathetic modifications are recommended and preference should be given to the use of an open concept, steel hand railing, use of concrete materials, and retaining decorative features such as the gothic arch opening in the pier and recessed lines in the deck fascia, piers and wingwalls.

Temporary impacts to access and/or parking for adjacent business owners during construction.

Temporary impacts to vehicular, cyclist and pedestrian traffic due to lane/sidewalk closures during construction.


Meets heritage conservation needs, but does not address structural deficiencies in the long term and imposes unwarranted maintenance costs.

NOT RECOMMENDED

D Retention of existing bridge with sympathetically designed new structure in proximity

Structural integrity is not adequate to meet current design standards and ongoing deterioration will become a safety concern.

Ongoing maintenance costs will be higher due to the need to maintain two bridges.


Minimal.

Vegetation adjacent to the new bridge abutments will be impacted due to bridge construction, depending on access and staging requirements.

Minimal.

Setting and context, as well as view of the bridge, will be changed by the introduction of a new structure.



Retention of the existing structure without repairs is not a viable alternative due to the condition of the bridge.

NOT RECOMMENDED


PHASE 1 & 2 REPORT





E Retention of existing bridge no longer in use for vehicular purposes but adapted for pedestrian walkways, cycle pathways, scenic viewing, etc.

Does not meet the requirement for rail traffic to make use of the bridge.


No significant impacts. Minimal.

The change in use constitutes an alteration to the heritage value of the bridge.

Elimination of the rail function has a broad socio-economic impact on the regional network for commuter and freight rail.


Infeasible due to elimination of rail traffic service function.

NOT RECOMMENDED

F Relocation to appropriate new site for continued use or adaptive re-use

Relocation is not a viable alternative due to the need for continued rail service at the existing site.

Minimal.

Vegetation adjacent to the bridge abutments will be impacted due to bridge relocation and reconstruction, depending on access and staging requirements.

Moderate.

In addition to changes in context, view, and use, there will be impacts expected as a result of moving the structure.


Relocation of the rail line will have a broad socio-economic impact on the regional network for commuter and freight rail.


Relocation of the rail line to a new nearby location is not a feasible option, given current and future rail transportation demands.

NOT RECOMMENDED

G Retention of existing bridge as heritage monument for viewing purposes only

Does not meet the requirement for rail traffic to make use of the bridge.


No significant impacts. Minimal.

The change in use constitutes an alteration to the heritage value of the bridge.

Elimination of the rail function has a broad socio-economic impact on the regional network for commuter and freight rail.


Infeasible due to elimination of rail function.

NOT RECOMMENDED


PHASE 1 & 2 REPORT





Replacement/Removal of Existing Bridge*

H Replacement/removal of existing bridge and construction of a new bridge with replication of the appearance of the heritage bridge in the new design, with allowances for use of modern materials (with salvage of elements/members for incorporation into new structure or future conservation work/displays)

Capital costs are estimated at $5.5 Million.

Lower maintenance costs compared to a rehabilitated structure, estimated at $300,000 over 50 years.

Requires temporary closure of Centennial Parkway and construction of a detour road located to the east.


Remove existing bridge superstructure. Replace existing structure with new structure, with salvage of existing elements.

Moderate.

Vegetation adjacent to the bridge abutments will be impacted due to bridge construction.

Landscaped vegetation along the east side of Centennial Parkway will also be impacted by construction of the detour road.

Construction of the level crossing at the rail line will also require clearing of vegetation to meet sight line safety requirements.

Major.

Impacts will result from the removal of the bridge, though mitigated through retention of structural elements.

If the bridge is replaced or removed, the structure should be fully documented, on archival paper and under optimal light conditions and the results should be deposited with the Hamilton Public Library’s Special Collections Department and with the City of Hamilton’s Heritage and Urban Design Department. New design concepts should consider the use of an open concept steel hand railing and incorporation of design elements of existing bridge (i.e., recessed lines in concrete, arched openings in pier).


No significant impacts to traffic level of service at Arrowsmith Road, Goderich Road or QEW ramps, but additional stop condition is introduced by CN/Rail detour road at grade crossing.

Pedestrian and cyclist passage safety issues addressed by new configuration.

Salvage of existing bridge elements/members is not viable from a structural perspective. Does not fully meet heritage conservation objectives.

NOT RECOMMENDED


PHASE 1 & 2 REPORT





I Replacement/removal of existing bridge (with full recording and documentation of heritage bridge) and construction of a new bridge with historically sympathetic design qualities to the heritage bridge, with allowances for the use of new technologies and materials

Capital costs are estimated at $5.5 Million.

Lower maintenance costs compared to a rehabilitated structure, estimated at $300,000 over 50 years.

Requires temporary closure of Centennial Parkway and construction of a detour road located to the east.


Remove existing bridge superstructure Replace existing structure with new structure.

Moderate.

Vegetation adjacent to the bridge abutments will be impacted due to bridge construction.

Landscaped vegetation along the east side of Centennial Parkway will also be impacted by construction of the detour road.

Construction of the level crossing at the rail line will also require clearing of vegetation to meet sight line safety requirements.

Major.

Impacts will result from the removal of the bridge.

If the bridge is replaced or removed, the structure should be fully documented, on archival paper and under optimal light conditions and the results should be deposited with the Hamilton Public Library’s Special Collections Department and with the City of Hamilton’s Heritage and Urban Design Department. New design concepts should consider the use of an open concept steel hand railing and incorporation of design elements of existing bridge (i.e., recessed lines in concrete, arched openings in pier).


No significant impacts to traffic level of service at Arrowsmith Road, Goderich Road or QEW ramps, but additional stop condition is introduced by CN/Rail detour road at grade crossing.

Pedestrian and cyclist passage safety issues addressed by new configuration.

Does not fully meet heritage conservation objectives. However, based on the need to remove what will become a safety liability, as well as current and future rail transportation demands, replacement of the bridge is justified.

RECOMMENDED TO BE CARRIED

FORWARD

Note: Cost estimates for Rehabilitation Scenarios (A&C) do not include costs to correct existing deficiencies (clearance, pedestrian/cyclist safety)

Preferred Planning Alternative


PHASE 1 & 2 REPORT


7.0 SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS

From strictly a Cultural Heritage perspective, ASI concluded that Alternatives A through C are the preferred planning options, with Alternative A being the most preferred option:

Retention of the existing structure with restoration of missing or deteriorated elements using physical or documentary evidence for design (major rehabilitation of deck/railings; repair/strengthen/clean beams, stringers, bracing, piers, foundation, abutments, retaining walls)

However, the HIA also includes the following recommendation:

Should replacement of the bridge be chosen as the preferred alternative (Conservation Alternative 8 (H) or 9 (I)), two mitigation options should be considered:

a) Replacement/removal of existing bridge and construction of a new bridge

with replication of the appearance of the heritage bridge in the new design, with allowances for the use of modern materials. The following character-defining elements identified should be considered for replication: Current grade; Concrete construction materials; Two-span, slab bridge design; Open concept steel hand railings; Chamfered soffit of bridge deck and chamfered edges of pier cap; and Recessed lines forming rectangles across the deck fascia, and

recessed lines that accent the general shape of various bridge elements: the pier faces, abutment walls and wingwalls;

b) Replacement/removal of existing bridge and construction of a new bridge

with historically sympathetic design qualities to the heritage bridge, with allowances for the use of new technologies and materials.

In addition to (a) and (b), the HIA suggests that development of a commemorative strategy, such as plaquing, may be appropriate. In light of over-riding safety considerations associated with the current condition of the structure,

and in consideration of the HIA recommendations, the Project Team concluded that Alternative

I (Replacement of bridge with full recording and documentation of heritage bridge), with

appropriate mitigation (replacement/removal of existing bridge and construction of a new

bridge with historically sympathetic design qualities to the heritage bridge, with

allowances for the use of new technologies and materials) should be adopted as the

recommended planning solution for the following reasons:

Rehabilitation options for the bridge (Alternatives A and C) carry substantial costs and, even with repairs, will still have a shortened structural lifespan and increased maintenance requirements compared to a new structure. While Option C provides for the retention of

PHASE 1 & 2 REPORT


heritage elements, neither rehabilitation option addresses pedestrian or clearance deficiencies.

Retention or Do Nothing (Alternative B) does not address the existing deficiencies and, based on the structural condition of the bridge, poses an escalating safety risk for pedestrian, road and rail traffic going forward.

Options that retain the bridge for alternate purposes, or relocate it, are not recommended due to the previously discussed safety risk associated with retention, as well as significant impacts to the regional traffic networks and infrastructure for both road and rail, including destruction of the existing CN Rail railscape and Centennial Parkway roadscape identified by ASI as cultural heritage landscapes in the HIA.

Alternative H addresses all deficiencies, corrects safety and structural issues, and has only temporary impacts on the rail and road transportation networks. However, it is less desirable than Alternative I to due to the anticipated difficulties associated with salvaging existing structural elements of the bridge.

PHASE 1 & 2 REPORT

A - 1 j:\506510\40-eng mgmt\4e-env\er-env-eng reports\technical memo #1\final phase 1 & 2 report\centennial parkway phase 1&2 report final_rev 3 .doc

APPENDIX A

STRUCTURAL EVALUATION REPORT

STRUCTURAL EVALUATION REPORT

CN RAIL UNDERPASS AT CENTENNIAL PARKWAY (North of Barton Street)

City of Hamilton

DRAFT

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 STRUCTURE TYPE/DETAILS .................................................................................................. 2

2.1 EXISTING BRIDGE SUPERSTRUCTURE: ......................................................................................... 2

2.2 DESIGN CRITERIA/ASSUMPTIONS ................................................................................................ 2

2.3 SUMMARY OF VISUAL INSPECTION ............................................................................................... 3

3.0 STRUCTURE EVALUATION ..................................................................................................... 4

3.1 STRUCTURE EVALUATION SUMMARY ............................................................................................ 5

4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................... 7

APPENDICES: Appendix A Reference Drawings – Design Drawings Appendix B Typical Photographs Appendix C OSIM Inspection Report by Stantec Consulting Ltd., dated August 10 2009

Summary of Structural Evaluation: CN Rail Underpass at Centennial Parkway (North of Barton Street, Hamilton)

Page 1 of 8

April 2010 331647

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The City of Hamilton has requested SNC-Lavalin Inc. (SLI), to provide Consulting Engineering Services for the Feasibility Study and Preliminary Design for the Structure Rehabilitation/Replacement of the CN Rail Bridge over the Centennial Parkway, north of Barton Street in the City of Hamilton. The CN Rail Bridge over the Centennial Parkway is a 2 span precast concrete girder railway bridge carrying two tracks of CN Rail over the Centennial Parkway. The Centennial Parkway carries two lanes of traffic in each of the northbound and southbound direction. The existing pedestrian sidewalks on the west and east sides of the southbound and northbound roadway are narrow and substandard. In addition the vertical clearance under the bridge is only 4.2 m and less than the 4.65 m minimum required. The original bridge was constructed in 1929 and no history of previous rehabilitation works on the structure has been made available. The physical condition based on visual observation suggests that the bridge is in a fair to poor state. According to the City of Hamilton, future development in the corridor and the anticipated increase in pedestrian movement along the sides of the Centennial Parkway would require greater access for pedestrians under the bridge. This will in effect necessitate the provision of either a wider sidewalk along the west and east edges of the road (under the bridge) or the construction of a new pedestrian tunnel under the rail tracks behind the east abutment. The City of Hamilton has therefore requested that SLI carry out a Feasibility Study to determine the best solution to satisfy the future needs for pedestrian movement, with minimal disruption/impact to the rail traffic and vehicular traffic on Centennial Parkway. This will include the investigation for the provision of a pedestrian tunnel under the rail tracks with either the rehabilitation or the replacement of the existing railway bridge. Alternatively, investigate the provision of a completely new structure with the appropriate sidewalks on the sides of the Centennial Parkway. As part of this Study SLI will determine the need to rehabilitate the structure or completely replace the bridge to accommodate the present and future needs. This investigation therefore would require the Structure Evaluation of the existing bridge to determine whether rehabilitation of the bridge is warranted and the most cost effective.


Page 2 of 8

April 2010 331647

In addition, the study will include the review for the need for temporary rail detouring, construction staging, as well as traffic restraints on Centennial Parkway during construction. The assignment will include the review of applicable rehabilitation/replacement alternatives, preliminary construction cost estimates for the alternatives as well as the preliminary design of the preferred alternative.

2.0 STRUCTURE TYPE/DETAILS

The CN Rail Underpass structure was constructed in circa 1929 and carries two (2) tracks (one in each westbound and eastbound direction) over the Centennial Parkway. The bridge is a closed abutment structure and is composed of two span non-continuous precast concrete beams with ballast and ties supporting the rail tracks. The spans of the structure between centre lines of abutment and pier bearings are 8.70 m with a total length of 17.07 m between the faces of the east and west abutments. The overall deck width of the structure is approximately 9.855 m, which includes 0.47 m curb with railing on the outside edges of the structure to contain the ballast material over the bridge. The depth of the ballast including the ties is approximately 0.45 m. The existing drawings do not indicate the presence of approach slabs at the bridge approaches.

2.1 EXISTING BRIDGE SUPERSTRUCTURE:

The bridge superstructure consists of six (6) inner sections of precast concrete elements of 1372 mm wide and 985 mm± deep and two outer sections of 762 mm wide with raised curb of 533 mm on the outside placed side by side. The lifting weights of the inner and outer precast concrete sections are 30 tonnes and 21.4 tonnes respectively. The main reinforcement used for the precast concrete sections consist of old 80 lb rail sections. Detail of existing structure is shown in Appendix A.

2.2 DESIGN CRITERIA/ASSUMPTIONS

The available as-built drawings indicate that the existing bridge was designed in 1928 and built in 1929. Details provided on the as built drawings indicate that the bridge was designed to Cooper E 60 (EM 270) Railway Live Loads. Our structural analysis and evaluation is performed in accordance with the current American Railway Engineering and


Page 3 of 8

April 2010 331647

Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA) Manual and to both the Cooper E 60 (EM 270) and Cooper E 80 (EM 360) live loads. The analysis and evaluation has been based on the physical dimensions and design material properties of the structure determined from the available design drawings (see Appendix A) and assumptions based on the year of construction and recommendations from the AREMA Manual. Our Structural analysis and evaluation was performed using the following recommended/assumed material properties:

Yield Strength of reinforcing steel (stirrups), etc., fy

= 230MPa - AREMA 2005, assuming structural steel Grade and construction before 1968

Yield Strength of main reinforcing steel (old 80 lb rail), fry

= 230MPa

Compressive strength of concrete in precast slabs

= 20.7MPa - Design drawings

2.3 SUMMARY OF VISUAL INSPECTION

The structure is generally in poor to fair condition with efflorescence and water stains at the deck soffit, faces of the pier and abutments. The closed abutments and the wingwalls are in generally fair condition with wide cracks at the top of the south west abutment/wingwall. The deck soffit is in poor to fair condition with medium to wide alligator cracks over the majority of the soffit area, some spalls and impact damage at the exterior beam of the southbound lanes. Water leaks between the joints of the precast elements staining the deck soffit and the faces of the pier. The steel railing on the side curbs of the bridge are in generally good condition with some missing and disconnected members at the southwest end. There is concrete spalling and delamination of the raised curbs.


Page 4 of 8

April 2010 331647

The asphalt surfacing of the Centennial Parkway under the bridge is in good condition with the approach curbs and gutters in poor condition showing wide cracks and delamination. There are utility plants (owners yet to be identified) suspended on the outside faces of the curbs and pier, and evidence of buried gas plants located in close proximity to the bridge and tracks at the south east end of the bridge.

3.0 STRUCTURE EVALUATION

The structural capacity of the existing bridge was evaluated in accordance with Part 19 of the AREMA Manual. The factored maximum shear and bending forces are estimated at the Ultimate limit States for applicable load combinations I and IA for both Cooper E 60 (EM 270) and E 80 (EM 360) live loads, and the values compared with the Ultimate Capacities. In addition, the rating factor (LFN) is estimated for the structure based on the shear and bending capacities and the maximum rating determined based on the Cooper E 80 (EM 360) loading. The evaluation of the structure was performed for the existing conditions, including the dead loads from the ballast, ties and track by assuming the following loading:

1. Self weight of the precast concrete members based on the section properties (as shown in the available drawings – Appendix A) and concrete unit weight of 24.0 kN/m3;

2. Superimposed dead load on the girder assuming 450 mm depth of ballast and ties on top of the beams at a unit weight of 20.0 kN/m3;

3. Superimposed dead load due to track rails, guardrails and fastenings on top of the ballast/ties at 3.0 kN/m;

4. Two Live Loads (Cooper E 60 and Cooper E 80) are investigated separately for each track with axle loads and axle spacing as shown in fig 1a and 1b respectively;

5. In accordance with AREMA (2005), Part 2: Section 2.2.3d, the Impact force I is calculated as a function of the span as follows:

• For L ≤ 4 meters I = 60 • For 4 metres < L ≤ 39 metres I = 125/(√L) • For L > 39 meters I = 20


Page 5 of 8

April 2010 331647

The Structure evaluation did not include the substructure or foundations.

(135

kN)

(270

kN)

(270

kN)

(270

kN)

(270

kN)

(172

.5kN

)

(172

.5kN

)

(172

.5kN

)

(172

.5kN

) (1

35kN

)

(270

kN)

(270

kN)

(270

kN)

(270

kN)

(172

.5kN

)

(172

.5kN

)

(172

.5kN

)

(172

.5kN

)

30, 0

00

60, 0

00

60, 0

00

60, 0

00

60, 0

00

39, 0

00

39, 0

00

39, 0

00

39, 0

00

30, 0

00

60, 0

00

60, 0

00

60, 0

00

60, 0

00

39, 0

00

39, 0

00

39, 0

00

39, 0

00

90 kN/m = 6000 Ib per

Fig 1a. – Cooper E60 (EM 270) Axle Load Diagram

(180

kN)

(360

kN)

(360

kN)

((36

0kN

)

(360

kN)

(230

kN)

(230

kN)

(230

kN)

(230

kN)

(180

kN)

(360

kN)

(360

kN)

(360

kN)

(360

kN)

(230

kN)

(230

kN)

(230

kN)

(230

kN)

40, 0

00

80, 0

00

80, 0

00

80, 0

00

80, 0

00

52, 0

00

52, 0

00

52, 0

00

52, 0

00

40, 0

00

80, 0

00

80, 0

00

80, 0

00

80, 0

00

52, 0

00

52, 0

00

52, 0

00

52, 0

00

120 kN/m = 8000 Ib per

Fig 1b. – Cooper E80 (EM 3600) Axle Load Diagram

3.1 STRUCTURE EVALUATION SUMMARY

The analysis/evaluation of the precast concrete box beams was based on the assumption that the members are new, that is, the structure is in the same condition as at the time of construction and have not undergone any physical deterioration. Our analysis indicates that the precast concrete box beams have adequate capacity to carry the Cooper E 60 (EM 270) live loads including the existing superimposed dead loads at the Ultimate Limit States (ULS) in both Bending and Shear. However, the bridge does not have adequate strength capacities to carry the full Cooper E 80 (EM 360) rail loading


Page 6 of 8

April 2010 331647

including the existing superimposed dead loads at the Ultimate Limit States (ULS) I in both Bending and Shear. The maximum rating of the structure as defined by the AREMA Manual and considering Ultimate Bending and Shear forces in the beam are 318.1 kN and 275.3 kN respectively with shear controlling. The results of the analysis/evaluation for the precast concrete box beam for both Cooper E 60 (EM 270) and E 80 (EM 360) live loads are summarized in Table 1a and 1b for Bending and Shear Forces respectively.

Table 1a - Applied ULS Bending, (MF) vs. Bending Capacity, (MR)

Load Combination I [1.4 x (D + 5/3(L + I) + CF + E+B]

Load Combination IA 1.8 x (D + L + I + CF + E+B +SF)

E 60 (EM 270) E 80 (EM 360) E 60 (EM 270) E 80 (EM 360)

MF (kNm) 2835.2 3564.5 2520.1 3082.7

MR (kNm) 3224.4 3224.4 3224.4 3224.4

MR / MF 1.137 0.905 1.279 1.046

LFN* 1.178 0.884 1.940 1.455

Note: 1. - LFN denotes Rating Factor as defined in AREMA CL. 19.5.3.2.1 2. - MR denotes Bending Moment capacity of the precast concrete beam at mid-span. 3. - MF denotes Factored Bending Moments at ULS at the mid-span of precast concrete beam. 4. VR denotes Shear Force capacity of the precast concrete beam close to the supports. 5. - VF denotes Factored Shear Force at ULS close to the supports of precast concrete beam.

Table 1.b - Applied ULS Shear, (Vf) vs. Shear Capacity, (Vr)

Load Combination I [1.4 x (D + 5/3(L + I) + CF + E+B]

Load Combination IA 1.8 x (D + L + I + CF + E+B +SF)

E 60 (EM 270) E 80 (EM 360) E 60 (EM 270) E 80 (EM 360)

VF (kN) 1235.8 1568.5 1075.8 1332.4

VR (kN) 1331.4 1331.4 1331.4 1331.4

VR/VF 1.077 0.849 1.237 0.999

LFN* 1.020 0.765 1.675 1.257


Page 7 of 8

April 2010 331647

4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the assumptions as listed on pages 3 and 4 of this report, our analysis/evaluation of the precast concrete beams indicate that though they were capable of carrying all the existing dead, superimposed and Cooper E 60 (EM 270) live loads for which the bridge was designed for, it does not have the capacity for carrying Cooper E 80 (EM 360) loads at both Ultimate Bending and Shear in accordance with the AREMA Manual for load combination I. The maximum rating of the structure was only 275.3 kN as compared with the required of 360 kN, with Shear Force controlling. Our visual inspection of the bridge generally indicated that the structure is in fair to poor condition. The exterior beams show evidence of impact damage and the vertical clearance is only 4.20 m and below the required minimum of 4.65 m. There is continuous water leakage between the precast elements which have considerably stained the soffit of the beams and faces of the piers. In addition there are numerous medium and large alligator cracks at the soffit of the beams and the substructures are also in fair condition. In summary, the bridge is over eighty years old and near to, if not at the end of its service life. Rehabilitating this bridge will generally require the strengthening of the structure to improve its structural integrity and to make it capable of carrying at least the Cooper E 80 (EM 360) loads if not the E 90 (EM 405) loads. This will be a fairly costly preposition considering the age of the structure and the required improvements. This will not be good engineering judgement as well as not be cost effective. In addition the existing deficiencies (i.e. the vertical clearance, sidewalk widths, etc.) will still remain and the new pedestrian tunnel behind the abutments as proposed will have to be constructed. Based on the above, we recommend for the existing bridge to be replaced and a new CN Rail bridge constructed. This will provide the opportunity to correct all the existing deficiencies and to address the future needs of the railway companies (CN and Metrolinx) and the Centennial Parkway corridor. The new bridge will be designed according to the latest AREMA Manual and will satisfy all CN Rail standards, City of Hamilton Standard, Transport Canada requirements and to Cooper E 90 (EM 405) loads. Our feasibility Study therefore will look into all the requirements including property requirements, raising the profile of the rail tracks, lowering the profile of Centennial parkway, and evaluation of alternate structural types to provide the most cost effective solution. This will include a structure with adequate vertical clearance and wider spans and sidewalks to accommodate pedestrian traffic in accordance with present standards. In addition, the construction of a pedestrian tunnel under the rail tracks with the bridge replacement will also be evaluated. These two scenarios will be compared and evaluated and recommendations made to the City of Hamilton. In summary considering the physical condition of the bridge, the structural capacity and the existing deficiencies, we recommend that the CN Rail Underpass structure at the


Page 8 of 8

April 2010 331647

Centennial Parkway should be replaced with a new bridge designed to the current standards and addressing the future needs of the users.

- ~ - SNC-Lavalin Inc. prepared this report for the City of Hamilton. Structure Evaluation & Report Prepared By: Reviewed By:

Michael Asante-Nimako, P.Eng. Senior Structural Engineer

Larry Ng, P.Eng. Manager Bridge Design

PHASE 1 & 2 REPORT

A - 2 j:\506510\40-eng mgmt\4e-env\er-env-eng reports\technical memo #1\final phase 1 & 2 report\centennial parkway phase 1&2 report final_rev 3 .doc

APPENDIX B

HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Heritage Impact Assessment: Centennial Bridge

Centennial Bridge Environmental Assessment Study

City of Hamilton, Ontario

Bridge ID No. 163-1067

Prepared for:

City of Hamilton, Public Works Department

320-77 James Street North Hamilton, ON L8R 2K3

Tel: (905) 546-2424 Fax: (905) 546-4435

Email: [email protected] Web: www.hamilton.ca

ASI File 11EA-016

April 2011 (Revised June 2011 & August 2011)

Heritage Impact Assessment: Centennial Bridge

Centennial Bridge Environmental Assessment Study

City of Hamilton, Ontario

Bridge ID No. 163-1067

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Archaeological Services Inc. was contracted by the Public Works Department at the City of Hamilton to conduct a Heritage Impact Assessment of the Centennial Bridge in order to establish the potential cultural heritage significance of the structure and to assess impacts of the undertaking on the resource. This work was undertaken as part of the Centennial Bridge Environmental Assessment Study, in the City of Hamilton, Ontario. The Centennial Bridge carries Canadian National rail traffic over Centennial Parkway. While listed as a structure of moderate heritage value in the document entitled: City of Hamilton - Heritage Bridge Guideline and Heritage Bridge Conservation, it is not designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, and it is not currently listed on the Ontario Heritage Bridge List. Based on the results of archival research, an analysis of bridge design and construction in Ontario, field investigations and application of Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the Centennial Bridge was determined to retain heritage value. In particular, the bridge was found to have design and historical associations with the Township of Saltfleet, road and rail transportation, the Queen Elizabeth Way, and early concrete bridge design and decorative features typical of the 1920s/1930s. As such, the structure was found to meet at least one of the criteria of Regulation 9/06 under the Ontario Heritage Act and may therefore be considered for municipal designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. The evaluation of the Centennial Bridge against the 2002 City of Hamilton’s criteria for the evaluation of heritage bridges resulted in a score of 43 out of 100 points, and is thus recognized as having moderate heritage value. Following the evaluation of potential impacts on the heritage resource (see Table 3), it was determined that Conservation Alternatives 1 – 3 are the preferred alternatives, given that no impacts are expected to the heritage resource and its identified heritage attributes, with Alternative 1 being the most preferred. The remaining conservation alternatives (4 – 9) have a range of impacts, with Alternatives 8 and 9 being the least preferred options given the level and nature of the impacts resulting from removal of the bridge. Given the identified heritage value of the Centennial Bridge, the following recommendations and mitigation measures should be considered and implemented:

1. Based on the results of heritage evaluation, Conservation Alternatives 1 -3 are the preferred alternatives, with Alternative 1 being the most preferred. As part of the selection of the preferred alternatives as part of the Environmental Assessment, a clear rationale for the proposed course of action should be documented.

2. This report should be filed with the Heritage Planning Section at the City of Hamilton, the

Hamilton Municipal Heritage Committee, and other local heritage stakeholders that may have an interest in this project.

Heritage Impact Assessment: Centennial Bridge Centennial Bridge Environmental Assessment Study, City of Hamilton, Ontario Page iii

3. This report should be filed with the Ministry of Tourism and Culture for review and

comment.

4. Should retention of the bridge be chosen as the preferred alternative (one of Conservation Alternatives 1 – 7), the character-defining elements identified in Section 8.1 should be retained and treated sympathetically.

5. Should replacement of the bridge be chosen as the preferred alternative (Conservation

Alternative 8 or 9), two mitigation options should be considered:

a. Replacement/removal of existing bridge and construction of a new bridge with replication of the appearance of the heritage bridge in the new design, with allowances for the use of modern materials. The character-defining elements identified in Section 8.1 should be considered for replication;

b. Replacement/removal of existing bridge and construction of a new bridge with

historically sympathetic design qualities to the heritage bridge, with allowances for the use of new technologies and materials.

c. In addition to (a) and (b), development of a commemorative strategy, such as

plaquing, may be appropriate.

Heritage Impact Assessment: Centennial Bridge Centennial Bridge Environmental Assessment Study, City of Hamilton, Ontario Page iv

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES INC. BUILT HERITAGE AND CULTURAL LANDSCAPE PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT PERSONNEL

Project Director: Rebecca Sciarra, MA, CAHP

Cultural Heritage Specialist Manager, Built Heritage and Cultural Landscape Planning Division

Project Manager: Lindsay Popert, MA, CAHP Cultural Heritage Specialist

Cultural Heritage Specialist:

Lindsay Popert

Archival Research Lindsay Popert

Project Coordinator: Sarah Jagelewski, Hon. BA Research Archaeologist

Project Administrator:

Carol Bella, Hon. BA Research Archaeologist

Report Preparation: Lindsay Popert

Graphics Preparation: Caitlin Lacy, Hon. BA Staff Archaeologist Lindsay Popert

Report Reviewer: Rebecca Sciarra

Heritage Impact Assessment: Centennial Bridge Centennial Bridge Environmental Assessment Study, City of Hamilton, Ontario Page v

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. ii PROJECT PERSONNEL................................................................................................................................... iv TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................................................... v 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 CONTEXT AND METHODOLOGY .........................................................................................................2

2.1 Municipal Context and Policies....................................................................................................2 2.2 Heritage Impact Assessment Report ............................................................................................4

3.0 HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND CONSTRUCTION ...................................................................................... 5 3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 5 3.2 Local History and Settlement....................................................................................................... 5 3.3 Bridge Construction .................................................................................................................... 7

3.3.1 Early Bridge Building in Ontario .......................................................................................... 7 3.3.2 Previous Bridge Crossings .................................................................................................. 7 3.3.3 Construction of the Centennial Bridge .................................................................................8

4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND INTEGRITY .............................................................................................9 4.1 Comparative Geographic and Historic Context of Concrete Slab Bridges...................................... 10 4.2 Additional Cultural Heritage Resources.......................................................................................11

5.0 HERITAGE EVALUTION OF CENTENNIAL BRIDGE.................................................................................11 6.0 ALTERNATIVES TO BE CONSIDERED FOR HERITAGE BRIDGES AS PART OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL

ASSESSMENT PROCESS ................................................................................................................ 16 7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OPTIONS....................................................................................... 16

7.1 Evaluation of Impacts................................................................................................................ 16 8.0 CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................................. 19

8.1 Summary Statement of Cultural Heritage Value.......................................................................... 19 9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................................................................... 19 10.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................. 21 APPENDIX A: .............................................................................................................................................. 23 APPENDIX B: .............................................................................................................................................. 32

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Location of the Study Area. ............................................................................................................. 1 Figure 2: The study area overlaid on the 1875 map of the Township of Saltfleet...............................................6 Figure 3: The study area overlaid on the 1904-05 topographic map of Niagara Peninsula ................................ 7 Figure 4: Aerial view of the Stoney Creek Traffic Circle at the QEW and Highway 20, 1970. The Centennial

Bridge is located in the lower-right corner. ......................................................................................9

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Evaluation of the Centennial Bridge using Ontario Heritage Act Regulation 9/06 .............................. 12 Table 2: Evaluation of the Centennial Bridge using the City of Hamilton’s Heritage Criteria ........................... 14 Table 3: Evaluation of the Potential Impacts of Bridge Improvement Alternatives on the Cultural Heritage

Resource and Identified Heritage Attributes................................................................................... 18

Heritage Impact Assessment: Centennial Bridge Centennial Bridge Environmental Assessment Study, City of Hamilton, Ontario Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION Archaeological Services Inc. (ASI) was contracted by the Public Works Department at the City of Hamilton to conduct a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) of the Centennial Bridge in order to establish the potential cultural heritage significance of the structure and to assess impacts of the undertaking on the resource. This work was undertaken as part of the Centennial Bridge Environmental Assessment (EA) Study, in the City of Hamilton, Ontario (Figure 1). The Centennial Bridge carries Canadian National (CN) rail traffic over Centennial Parkway. While listed as a structure of moderate heritage value in the document entitled: City of Hamilton - Heritage Bridge Guideline and Heritage Bridge Conservation, it is not designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, and it is not currently listed on the Ontario Heritage Bridge List.

Figure 1: Location of the Study Area.

Base Map: NTS Sheet 30 M/4 (Hamilton-Grimsby)


The following report is presented as part of an approved planning and design process subject to Environmental Assessment (EA) requirements. This portion of the EA study is intended to address the proposed replacement of the subject structure with a new bridge. The principal aims of this report are to:

• Describe the methodology that was employed and the legislative and policy context that guides

heritage evaluations of bridges over forty years old; • Provide an historical overview of the design and construction of the bridge within the broader

context of the surrounding townships and bridge construction generally; • Describe existing conditions and heritage integrity; • Evaluate the bridge within Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act and draw conclusions

about the heritage attributes of the structure; and • Assess impacts of the undertaking, ascertaining sensitivity to change in the context of identified

heritage attributes and recommend appropriate mitigation measures. 2.0 CONTEXT AND METHODOLOGY Infrastructure projects have the potential to impact cultural heritage resources in a variety of ways. These include loss or displacement of resources through removal or demolition and the disruption of resources by introducing physical, visual, audible or atmospheric elements that are not in keeping with the resources and/or their setting. When considering cultural heritage resources in the context of improvements to specified areas, a 40 year old threshold is used as a guiding principle when identifying cultural heritage resources. While identification of a resource that is 40 years old or older does not confer outright heritage significance, this threshold provides a means to collect information about resources that may retain heritage value. Similarly, if a resource is slightly younger than 40 years old, this does not preclude the resource from retaining heritage value. The analysis used throughout the cultural heritage resource assessment process addresses cultural heritage resources under various pieces of legislation and their supporting guidelines:

• Environmental Assessment Act (R.S.O. 1990, Chapter E.18) o Guideline for Preparing the Cultural Heritage Resource Component of Environmental

Assessments (MCC 1992) o Guidelines on the Man-Made Heritage Component of Environmental Assessments (MCR

1981)

• Ontario Heritage Act (R.S.O. 1990, Chapter O.18) and a number of guidelines and reference documents prepared by the Ministry of Tourism and Culture (MTC):

o Ontario Heritage Tool Kit (MCL 2006) 2.1 Municipal Context and Policies The City of Hamilton has developed policies and procedures to evaluate the heritage value of bridges and associated structures which are over 40 years old and also compiled an inventory in 2002 of bridge structures over 35 years old. The results of these policies are contained within the City’s 2006 Heritage


Bridge Guideline and Heritage Bridge Conservation document and are to be utilized to aid the implementation of environmental and municipal planning processes. The City of Hamilton’s heritage assessment methodology, as applied to bridges over forty years old, was developed in order to soundly determine the heritage value of any given bridge. The Province of Ontario’s Ontario Heritage Bridge Guideline (1983, draft 2003) and methods employed for heritage bridge evaluation in the states of Virginia and Oregon were utilized to develop the City of Hamilton’s heritage bridge evaluation criteria. The City of Hamilton’s evaluation criteria are grouped into seven categories which include: age; materials; design; integrity; aesthetics and environment; historical associations; and documentation/public interest. Each of these seven categories are weighted, and each criterion contains sub-criteria which are assigned individual scores. During evaluation of a bridge over 40 years old, the cultural heritage specialist will assign a score to each of the seven category’s sub-criteria to determine an overall score for the structure. Once the evaluation is complete and the scoring has been totaled, the structure will be classified into one of four heritage value rankings:

• Class A: Exceptional Heritage Value (70+ Score) • Class B: High Heritage Value (55-69 Score) • Class C: Moderate Heritage Value (40-54) • Class D: Low Heritage Value (39 or less)

During Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Schedule B or Schedule C projects and following evaluation of a bridge that is over forty years old, consideration of alternatives is required. With respect to bridges over forty years old, the following alternatives must be considered. The alternatives are itemized in a continuum from strategies with the least impact to the structure and its heritage value to those with the most impact:

1. Retention of existing bridge and restoration of missing or deteriorated elements where physical or documentary evidence (e.g. photographs or drawings) can be used for their design;

2. Retention of existing bridge with no major modifications undertaken; 3. Retention of existing bridge with sympathetic modification; 4. Retention of existing bridge with sympathetically designed new structure in proximity; 5. Retention of existing bridge no longer in use for vehicle purposes but adapted for

pedestrian walkways, cycle paths, scenic viewing etc.; 6. Relocation of bridge to appropriate new site for continued use or adaptive re-use; 7. Retention of bridge as heritage monument for viewing purposes only; 8. Replacement/removal of existing bridge with salvage elements/members of heritage

bridge for incorporation into new structure or for future conservation work or displays; 9. Replacement/removal of existing bridge with full recording and documentation of the

heritage bridge. A clear rationale for the proposed course of action must be articulated and informed by the heritage bridge evaluation results. In addition, two mitigation options are suggested by the Ontario Heritage Bridge Guideline in the case of bridge replacement/removal:

a. replacement/removal of existing bridge and construction of a new bridge with replication of the appearance of the heritage bridge in the new design, with allowances for the use of modern materials;


b. replacement/removal of existing bridge and construction of a new bridge with historically

sympathetic design qualities to the heritage bridge, with allowances for the use of new technologies and materials.

With respect to bridges located in the City of Hamilton which are over forty years old and which have been evaluated for their heritage significance, Class A structures should receive treatments closer to the top of the list while those rated as Class D structures receive treatments closer to the bottom of the list. It should be noted that while the City’s Heritage Bridge Guideline and Heritage Bridge Conservation program notes that “the higher the heritage score, the more diligent should be the efforts to conserve the bridge in the most desirable manner possible” (2006:9), all of the above alternatives (1 through 9 and alternatives a and b) must be considered and a clear rationale for the proposed course of action should be documented. Additionally, it should be further noted that if a bridge evaluated under Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act is determined to retain heritage value, all of the above alternatives must be considered. 2.2 Heritage Impact Assessment Report In early 2011, the Ministry of Tourism and Culture (MTC) indicated that bridges owned by either upper or lower-tier municipalities should be evaluated against Ontario Regulation 9/06 and not the Ministry of Transportation’s Ontario Heritage Bridge Guidelines (Interim, 2008) or the Ontario Heritage Bridge Program (1991). With this in mind, the MTC recommends that a Heritage Impact Assessment is necessary for structures found to have potential heritage significance (MTC, February 2011). The scope of a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) is provided by the MTC’s Ontario Heritage Tool Kit. An HIA is a useful tool to help identify cultural heritage value and provide guidance in supporting environmental assessment work. An HIA includes the following components:

• A general description of the history of the study area as well as a detailed historical summary of property ownership and structure development;

• A description of the cultural heritage landscape and built heritage resources; • Representative photographs of the structure and character-defining architectural details; • A cultural heritage resource evaluation guided by the Ontario Heritage Act criteria; • A summary of heritage attributes; • Consideration of alternatives, mitigation and conservation methods; • Historical mapping and photographs; and • A location plan.

Using background information and data collected during the site visit, the cultural heritage resource is evaluated using criteria contained within Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act. Ontario Heritage Act Regulation 9/06 provides a set of criteria, grouped into the following categories which determine the cultural heritage value or interest of a potential heritage resource in a municipality:

i) Design/Physical Value; ii) Historical/Associative Value; and iii) Contextual Value.


Should the potential heritage resource meet one or more of the above mentioned criteria, it may be considered for designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. Further, as part of Schedule B and C Class Environmental Assessments, all conservation and mitigation strategies listed in Section 2.1 must be considered as part of the examination of alternative solutions. 3.0 HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND CONSTRUCTION 3.1 Introduction The Centennial Bridge is a two span structure carrying railway tracks over Centennial Parkway (formerly Highway 20, Webster’s Side Road) in the City of Hamilton. Structural designs date to 1928, and the bridge was completed in 1929. Historically, the study area is located in the former Township of Saltfleet, County of Wentworth, Ontario. Cultural heritage resources are those buildings or structures that have one or more heritage attributes. Heritage attributes are constituted by and linked to historical associations, architectural or engineering qualities and contextual values. Inevitably many, if not all heritage resources, are inherently tied to “place”, geographical space, within which they are uniquely linked to local themes of historical activity and from which many of their heritage attributes are directly distinguished today. In certain cases, however, heritage features may also be viewed within a much broader context. Section 3 of this report details a brief historical background to the settlement of the surrounding area. A description is also provided of the construction of the bridge within its historical context. 3.2 Local History and Settlement The land within Saltfleet Township was acquired by the British from the Mississaugas in 1784. The first township survey was undertaken in 1791, and the first legal settlers occupied their land holdings in the same year. The township is said to have been named after a place in Lincolnshire, England. Saltfleet was initially settled by disbanded soldiers, mainly Butler’s Rangers, and other Loyalists following the end of the American Revolutionary War. In 1805, Boulton described Saltfleet as “a township claiming no particular observation.” By the 1840s, the township was noted for its excellent land and well-cultivated farms (Boulton 1805:87; Smith 1846:163; Armstrong 1985:147; Rayburn 1997:305). The post office village of Stoney Creek, situated southeast of the study area, was located on part Lots 24 and 25, Concessions 3 and 4, Saltfleet Township. It was first settled by Loyalists during the 1790s and was known as “Fifty Mile Creek.” The land surrounding Battlefield House, which was the home the Gage family constructed around 1796, was the site of an engagement between British and American forces in June 1813. The name of the post office was “Stony Creek” in 1827, but the “e” was added sometime later. It is said that the name may have either been given due to the proximity of the creek, or it may have been in honour of either James Stoney or Edmund Stoney who were early settlers. Registered plans of subdivision for this village date from 1835-1856. In 1875, it contained a blacksmith shop, three hotels and a post office, several stores and a grist mill. In 1873, the population numbered 200 (Crossby 1873:323; Winearls 1991:814; Scott 1997:214; Rayburn 1997:330). Historically, the study area is located on part of Lots 26 and 27, Broken Front Concession (BF) and Concession I, in the former Township of Saltfleet, Wentworth County. Centennial Parkway, originally known as Webster’s Side Road, ran south to the escarpment from the King Street intersection (Figure 2).


The 1875 Atlas indicates that the subject north-south road alignment was not yet built at that time. The road was extended to the north in the late 1800s from King Street to Beach Road (present day Van Wagner's Beach Road). This became the basis for the modern Highway 20/Centennial Parkway alignment, which only became a principal road in the last half of the twentieth century (Erland Lee 2011). The Great Western Railway, which began operations in 1853, bisects the study area. The railway originally extended from Niagara Falls through Hamilton to London and was financed under the amended Guarantee Act. The company was acquired by the Grand Trunk Railway in 1882. The Grand Trunk became part of the Canadian National in 1923 and continues to be maintained by the CN (ASI 2004). Topographic maps from 1904-05 illustrate the extension of Centennial Parkway north from King Street; however, development of the area remained slow (Figure 3).

Figure 2: The study area overlaid on the 1875 map of the Township of Saltfleet.

Base Map: Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Wentworth, 1875


Figure 3: The study area overlaid on the 1904-05 topographic map of Niagara Peninsula

Base Map: Department of Militia and Defence, Grimsby Sheet No. 4, 1907 3.3 Bridge Construction 3.3.1 Early Bridge Building in Ontario Up until the 1890s, timber truss bridges were the most common bridge type built in southern Ontario. Stone and wrought iron materials were also employed, but due to their higher costs and a lack of skilled craftsman, these structures were generally restricted to market towns. By the 1890s, steel was becoming the material of choice when constructing bridges given that it was less expensive and more durable than its wood and wrought iron predecessors. Steel truss structures were very common by 1900, as were steel girder bridges. The use of concrete in constructing bridges was introduced at the beginning of the twentieth century, and by the 1930s, it was challenging steel as the primary bridge construction material in Ontario (Ministry of Culture and Ministry of Transportation […]:7-8). 3.3.2 Previous Bridge Crossings The Centennial Bridge is the first bridge crossing at this location. This results from the relatively recent survey and construction of Centennial Parkway (formerly Webster’s Side Road) in the late nineteenth century. The 1904-5 topographic map shown above (See Figure 3) indicates that the intersection of Webster’s Side Road and the existing railway line was an at-grade crossing.


3.3.3 Construction of the Centennial Bridge The Centennial Bridge is a two span, concrete slab bridge carrying two railway tracks over four lanes of Centennial Parkway traffic. The structure was completed in 1929 and is the first bridge crossing to be built at this site. Bridge drawings for the subject structure date to 1928 and were prepared by the Canadian National Railway (CNR), with approvals from the Department of Public Highways of Ontario (DPHO) (see Appendix B). The CNR Bridge Engineer is listed as Charles P. Davey, while the DPHO Bridge Engineer is listed as A. Sedgewick. Rehabilitation or repair drawings are not available for this bridge and therefore repairs or alterations made to the bridge since its construction in 1929 are not fully recorded here. The Township of Saltfleet Council Minutes from 1928 and 1929 were reviewed for reference to the construction of the subject bridge. While reference to the construction of a railway bridge at Webster’s Side Road was never found, there were a number of discussions and actions surrounding the widening of Webster’s Side Road in 1929. In 1928, Council was in the midst of discussions with landowners in the area regarding a proposal to widen the existing Webster’s Side Road to a width of 66 feet. In December 1928, all necessary approvals were in place and a survey of Webster’s Side Road was ordered. The plans were completed by January 1929 by McKay and McKay, and widening of the subject road was completed by November 1929. Interestingly, no correspondence with the CNR or the DPHO regarding the construction of a bridge in the Township or County Council Minutes was found. A single historic photograph of the Centennial Bridge was found, from the year 1970 (Figure 4). It shows the relationship between the subject bridge and the Queen Elizabeth Way (QEW) to the north, and the former Stoney Creek Traffic Circle that linked Centennial Parkway and the highway. The traffic circle was built in 1938 when the QEW was first built through the area, and removed in the mid-1970s (Bevers n.d.). The photograph also shows that the area around the bridge remained largely undeveloped, with the exception of light industrial operations to the northeast and southwest. A planning study completed in 1989 by the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth (RMHW) concerning the Centennial Parkway noted that the subject railway bridge required maintenance and repainting, and recommended that art work be added to the bridge “in order to provide a visual ‘gateway’... and landscaping on road allowances adjacent to the railway bridge on both north and south sides to be introduced to complement the bridge” (RMHW 1989:3). The document later notes that “this structure appears as a barrier to views of the roadway to the south, due to its narrow width and low elevation” (RMHW 1989:17). New sidewalks were also suggested in order to help pedestrians negotiate this section of the street (RMHW 1989:24). It is not known if any of these recommendations were implemented. Local history books and files regarding bridges in Hamilton and the historical development of Stoney Creek/Township of Saltfleet were reviewed as part of background research. However, additional information regarding the construction of the Centennial Bridge, its continual use since 1929, and its present role and recognition by the community was not found.


Figure 4: Aerial view of the Stoney Creek Traffic Circle at the QEW and Highway 20, 1970. The Centennial Bridge is located in the lower-right corner.

Source: Bevers n.d. 4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND INTEGRITY A field review was undertaken by Lindsay Popert on April 20th, 2011, to conduct photographic documentation of the bridge crossing and to collect data relevant for completing a heritage evaluation of the structure. Results of the field review and bridge inspection reports received from the client were then utilized to describe the existing conditions of the bridge crossing. This section provides a general description of the bridge crossing and associated cultural heritage features. Photographic documentation of the bridge crossing is provided in Appendix A. The Centennial Bridge is located in the City of Hamilton, formerly the City of Stoney Creek/Town of Stoney Creek/Township of Saltfleet. While listed as a structure of moderate heritage value in the document entitled: City of Hamilton - Heritage Bridge Guideline and Heritage Bridge Conservation, it is not designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, and it is not currently listed on the Ontario Heritage Bridge List.


The Centennial Bridge is a two span, concrete slab bridge that was built in 1929. The bridge was built to the designs and specifications of the CNR and signed off by the Department of Public Highways of Ontario. It is currently owned by the City of Hamilton. The structure features an overall deck length of 17.5 metres and width of 10.02 metres. The precast concrete slab deck with railway ballast wearing surface, consisting of rails, ties and ballast, is supported by cast-in-place concrete wingwalls, pier and abutment walls. The bridge deck is bounded to the north and south by steel railing systems. The pier consists of concrete rectangular columns with a cap beam. The sloping embankments to the north and south of the bridge, to either side of Centennial Parkway, are a mixture of grass and treed areas. Pedestrians are able to cross under the bridge on either side of the roadway by means of a narrow concrete sidewalk. The bridge is finished with decorative recessed lines on the bridge deck fascia, piers, abutment walls and wingwalls. In addition, the edges of the bridge pier cap and bottom of the deck fascia is chamfered for added visual appeal. The type and date of previous repairs undertaken on the subject bridge since its construction in 1929 are not known given that subsequent repair or rehabilitation drawings of this bridge are not available. However, by comparing the original drawings with the present condition of the bridge, it was determined that the bridge has not undergone any major modifications to its original design and appearance. The Ontario Structure Inspection Manual’s Inspection Report for the Centennial Bridge prepared in 2008 by Stantec Consulting Limited presented the following comments regarding the condition of the bridge:

• Vehicular impact damage; • Pot holes and asphalt settlement in approaches; • Spalling (Curbs, deck soffit); • Delamination (Pier, wingwalls); • Efflorescence (Pier caps); • Cracks (Deck soffit; wingwalls, curbs); and • Disconnected hand railings.

The Bridge Inspection Report completed in 2010 provided the following concluding remarks regarding the condition of the Centennial Bridge (SNC-Lavalin Incorporated 2010:7):

Our visual inspection of the bridge generally indicated that the structure is in fair to poor condition. The exterior beams show evidence of impact damage and the vertical clearance is only 4.20 m and below the required minimum of 4.65 m. There is continuous water leakage between the precast elements which have considerably stained the soffit of the beams and faces of the piers. In addition there are numerous medium and large alligator cracks at the soffit of the beams and the substructures are also in fair condition. In summary, the bridge is over eighty years old and near to, if not at the end of its service life.

4.1 Comparative Geographic and Historic Context of Concrete Slab Bridges The City of Hamilton - Heritage Bridge Guideline and Heritage Bridge Conservation (Ecoplans Ltd & UMA: 2006) was reviewed to determine the potential design significance of the subject bridge within the City of Hamilton. The report presents an inventory of heritage bridges within the greater Hamilton area, arranged by former municipalities (i.e. Stoney Creek, Glanbrook, Flamborough, Ancaster, Dundas,


Hamilton), and then by bridge type. A total of 75 concrete slab bridges were identified1. Slab bridges are the most numerous bridge type recorded in Hamilton. Other bridges inventoried in the document included: beam; rigid frame; arch; truss; box beam; trestle; truss; and cantilevered. The majority of slab bridges identified date to the post-1940 period. A total of six bridges were constructed prior to 1940. The earliest construction date is associated with the road bridge carrying Valley Inn Road over the former Grand Trunk Railway, estimated to have been constructed sometime between 1868 to 1900. Other concrete slab structures contemporary to the Centennial Bridge include: Puslinch Townline and Bronte Creek, built in 1925; John Street and the former Great Western Railway, built in 1928; New Mountain Road and the former Toronto Hamilton Railway, built between 1901 and 1939; and the rail bridge carrying the former TH&B rail line over Ferguson Avenue, built between 1901 and 1939. Of the six pre-1940 slab bridges constructed in the City of Hamilton, only three bridges scored 48 out of a possible 100. This score indicates that they are Class C bridges retaining moderate heritage value. Given that there are only three Class C slab bridges in Hamilton, which includes the subject structure, the Centennial Bridge is considered to be rare within this context. A comparison of the overall length, width and number of spans associated with all slab bridges within Hamilton was not possible given that an inventory of bridges containing this information was not available from the City of Hamilton2. 4.2 Additional Cultural Heritage Resources Additional cultural heritage resources in the study area include:

• the alignment of the CNR was also identified as a cultural heritage resource given its early survey date and historical importance to the City of Hamilton as an early transportation corridor; and

• the Centennial Parkway road alignment, based on its former role as Webster’s Side Road and its association with the original Township survey, and its more recent role as Highway 20 and its association with the Provincial Highway system.

5.0 HERITAGE EVALUTION OF CENTENNIAL BRIDGE Table 1 contains the evaluation of Centennial Bridge against criteria as set out in Ontario Heritage Act Regulation 9/06. Table 2 contains the evaluation of the subject bridge against the City of Hamilton’s Evaluation Criteria for bridges. Within the Municipal EA process, Regulation 9/06 is the prevailing evaluation tool when determining if a heritage resource, in this case a bridge, has cultural heritage value. If the bridge is determined to retain heritage value, the nine conservation options and two mitigation

1 The 75 concrete slab bridges in the former municipalities are divided as follows: Ancaster – 15 structures, all post-1940 and all with low heritage value; Dundas – 3 structures, all post-1940 and all with low heritage value; Flamborough – 25 structures, all but one are post 1940, and all have low heritage value; Glanbrook – 10 structures, all are post-1940 and all have low heritage value; Hamilton – nine structures, all but two have low heritage values (the subject bridge and the oldest structure at Valley Inn Road), and all but two have construction dates earlier than 1940 (1928 and 1901-1939); Stoney Creek – 12 structures, all but one have low heritage significance and pre-1940 construction date (New Mountain Road and the former T. H. Railway, construction date between 1901 and 1939). 2 A request for the City of Hamilton Bridge Inventory for comparative analysis reasons was not granted because the City does not have resources to consolidate the data request (Pers. Comm., Lorissa Skrypniak of the City of Hamilton, March 30 2011).


strategies, as described in Section 2.1, must be considered as part of the examination of alternative solutions. The Centennial Bridge was previously identified during the City of Hamilton’s 2002 Heritage Structure Assessment Study. Between May and August 2002, the City of Hamilton established a heritage record for all bridge structures over the age of 35 years. As part of this assessment, all identified structures were subject to evaluation using the City of Hamilton’s evaluation criteria. During the 2002 assessment study, the Centennial Bridge was ranked as a Category C structure with a score of 48, indicating that it had moderate heritage value. As part of the Centennial Bridge Environmental Assessment, the subject bridge has been re-evaluated to determine its current heritage value. Using the City of Hamilton’s criteria for the evaluation of heritage bridges, the heritage evaluation resulted in a score of 43 (moderate heritage value) with score summaries noted below. Table 1: Evaluation of the Centennial Bridge using Ontario Heritage Act Regulation 9/06 1. The property has design value or physical value because it : Ontario Heritage Act Criteria Analysis i. is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method;

The Centennial Bridge is a representative example of 1920s concrete railway bridge construction. Of the 75 concrete slab bridges identified within the Hamilton Bridges Master Plan, the subject bridge is within the top six of interest given its early construction date. Further, three of the six slab bridges built prior to 1940 were determined to retain moderate heritage value, including the subject bridge.

ii. displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or;

This bridge exhibits decorative detailing illustrative of its construction period: chamfered soffit of bridge deck and chamfered edges of pier cap; recessed, rectangular lines on the north and south bridge fascia; recessed outlines in the north face and south face of the central pier; and recessed lines in the wingwalls and abutment walls.

iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement.

This criterion is not satisfied given that the structure does not demonstrate a high degree of technical achievement.

2. The property has historical value or associative value because it: Ontario Heritage Act Criteria Analysis i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community;

The bridge represents early township development and growth, retains associations with rail and road transportation, and the introduction of grade separated road and rail crossing as a reflection of safety concerns in the early twentieth century. Growth in this area at the turn of the century necessitated the extension of Webster’s Side Road northerly from King Street and the eventual replacement of an at-grade rail crossing with the subject bridge crossing to facilitate vehicular traffic. In the following decade, traffic to this area continued to increase as a result of the opening of the Queen Elizabeth Way, in which Webster’s Side Road was linked to by means of a large traffic circle known as the Stoney Creek Traffic Circle built in 1938.

ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes

This criterion is not satisfied given that the structure does not yield or have the potential to yield information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture.


Table 1: Evaluation of the Centennial Bridge using Ontario Heritage Act Regulation 9/06 to an understanding of a community or culture, or; iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community.

This criterion is not satisfied given that the structure does not demonstrate or reflect the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to the community.

3. The property has contextual value because it: Ontario Heritage Act Criteria Analysis i. is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area;

The late 1920s design and construction of the bridge maintains and supports the character of the area, which is predominantly commercial/industrial and which developed towards the end of the twentieth century. This includes enabling the continued functioning of an active rail line. Additionally, the bridge may have been designed with consideration of the proposed “Middle Road”, later renamed the QEW, given their close proximity and shared construction period. The bridge may have been planned as a gateway on to the Middle Road (QEW) at the Stoney Creek Traffic Circle from Webster’s Side Road (or Highway 20). This is suggested by the Department of Public Highways involvement in the design of the bridge, and the fact that it was designed with particular ornamentation to be sympathetic with the proposed highway (plans for a new ‘superhighway’ were first conceived of in 1916) (van Nostrand 1983). As such, the bridge may have contributed to the character of the area which formerly existed, before it was obscured by modern developments and the removal of the 1938 traffic circle.

ii. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or;

There were no previous bridge crossings at this location. It is important to note that this railway line was in operation through this area for 75 years prior to the construction of the subject bridge, and for approximately 30 to 40 years as an at-grade crossing. While not historically linked to the construction of this rail line, it is, however, historically linked to a second phase of railway development which saw the renewal of rail lines and the upgrading of new and/or busy road crossings. Further, it is physically, functionally and visually linked to the rail line and the development and growth of the surrounding area.

iii. is a landmark. It is not known to function as a gateway or landmark feature. While the 1989 planning study prepared by the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth suggests that it is a potential gateway feature, the same report also indicates that it serves as a visual barrier to southbound travelers on Centennial Parkway.


Table 2: Evaluation of the Centennial Bridge using the City of Hamilton’s Heritage Criteria Criterion and Weighting Max.

Score Score Achieved

Evaluation Comments

Age (20%) 20 12 Pre-1867 20 1868-1900 16 1901-1939 12 12 1940-1955 8 1956-1967 4

The Centennial Bridge was built in 1929.

Materials (20%) 20 8 Stone 20 Timber 15 Concrete 8 8 Steel 8

Concrete was commonly employed in the construction of bridges in the early twentieth century.

Design (15%) 15 10 Unique 15 Unusual 10 Rare as a survivor 10 10

The Centennial Bridge is a representative example of 1920s concrete railway bridge construction. Of the 75 concrete slab bridges identified within the Hamilton Bridges Master Plan, the subject bridge is within the top six of interest given its early construction date. Further, three of the six slab bridges built prior to 1940 were determined to retain moderate heritage value, including the subject bridge.

Integrity (15%) 15 10 No known material modifications 15 Sympathetic modifications 10 10

Repair/rehabilitation drawings are not available, thus the number and nature of repairs previously made to the bridge remains unknown. However, there is no evidence that any major (and unsympathetic) modifications were made to the bridge since its construction in 1929.

Aesthetics & Environment (10%) 10 5 Ornamentation/Decoration 3 3 Remnants of previous bridge site 3 Landmark 2 Gateway 2 2

This bridge exhibits decorative detailing illustrative of its construction period: chamfered soffit of bridge deck and chamfered edges of pier cap; recessed, rectangular lines on the north and south bridge fascia; recessed outlines in the north face and south face of the central pier; and recessed lines in the wingwalls and abutment walls. There were no previous bridge crossings at this location. The bridge may have been designed with consideration of the proposed “Middle Road”, later renamed the QEW, given their close proximity and shared construction period. The bridge may have been planned as a gateway on to the Middle Road (QEW) at the Stoney Creek Traffic Circle from Webster’s Side Road (or Highway 20). This is suggested by the Department of Public Highways involvement in the design of the bridge,


Table 2: Evaluation of the Centennial Bridge using the City of Hamilton’s Heritage Criteria Criterion and Weighting Max.

Score Score Achieved

Evaluation Comments

and the fact that it was designed with particular ornamentation to be sympathetic with the proposed highway (plans for a new ‘superhighway’ were first conceived of in 1916) (van Nostrand 1983).

Historical Association (18%) 18 8 Person/Group 5 Event 5 Theme 5 5 Known/Prolific Builder 3 3

The bridge represents early township development and growth, retains associations with rail and road transportation, and the introduction of grade separated road and rail crossing as a reflection of safety concerns in the early twentieth century. Growth in this area at the turn of the century necessitated the extension of Webster’s Side Road northerly from King Street and the eventual replacement of an at-grade rail crossing with the subject bridge crossing to facilitate vehicular traffic. In the following decade, traffic to this area continued to increase as a result of the opening of the Queen Elizabeth Way, in which Webster’s Side Road was linked to by means of a large traffic circle known as the Stoney Creek Traffic Circle built in 1938.

Documentation/Public Interest (2%)

2 0

Archived Information 2 0

No known documentation/public interest/archival information filed on this bridge.

TOTAL 100 43 Given that Centennial Bridge met at least one of the criteria contained in Regulation 9/06, this property may be considered for municipal designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. In particular, it was determined to retain design, historical and contextual value given its decorative detailing, early construction date, and associations with the road and rail transportation, the introduction of grade separated crossings, early twentieth century township growth and relationship with the early planning stages of the QEW. In summary, character-defining elements associated with the Centennial Bridge include, but are not limited to:

• Current grade of the railway and its visibility from Centennial Parkway; • Concrete construction materials; • Two span, slab bridge design; • Open concept steel hand railings; • Chamfered soffit of bridge deck and chamfered edges of pier cap; and • Recessed lines forming rectangles across the deck fascia, and recessed lines that accent the

general shape of various bridge elements: the pier faces, abutment walls and wingwalls.


6.0 ALTERNATIVES TO BE CONSIDERED FOR HERITAGE BRIDGES AS PART OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS

Following the evaluation of the subject cultural heritage resource, the Centennial Bridge was determined to retain cultural heritage value. The conservation options contained in the City of Hamilton’s Heritage Bridge Guideline and Heritage Bridge Conservation document are based on the Ontario Heritage Bridge Program (1991), which is regarded as current best practices for conserving heritage bridges in Ontario and ensures that heritage concerns, and appropriate mitigation options, are considered. The following nine conservation options are arranged according to level or degree of intervention from minimum to maximum:

1. Retention of existing bridge and restoration of missing or deteriorated elements where physical or documentary evidence (e.g. photographs or drawings) can be used for their design;

2. Retention of existing bridge with no major modifications undertaken; 3. Retention of existing bridge with sympathetic modification; 4. Retention of existing bridge with sympathetically designed new structure in proximity; 5. Retention of existing bridge no longer in use for vehicle purposes but adapted for pedestrian

walkways, cycle paths, scenic viewing etc.; 6. Relocation of bridge to appropriate new site for continued use or adaptive re-use; 7. Retention of bridge as heritage monument for viewing purposes only; 8. Replacement/removal of existing bridge with salvage elements/members of heritage bridge for

incorporation into new structure or for future conservation work or displays; 9. Replacement/removal of existing bridge with full recording and documentation of the heritage

bridge. Given that the bridge was evaluated to retain cultural heritage value under Regulation 9/06, all nine of these conservation options should be considered as part of the Centennial Bridge Environmental Assessment. 7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OPTIONS The City of Hamilton retained SNC-Lavalin Incorporated to provide Consulting Engineering Services for the Feasibility Study and Preliminary Design for the Structure Rehabilitation/Replacement of the CN Rail Bridge over the Centennial Parkway. As part of the study, the nine conservation alternatives listed in Section 6.0 are under consideration as bridge improvement alternatives. 7.1 Evaluation of Impacts To assess the potential impacts of the proposed alternatives, the cultural heritage resource and identified heritage attributes were considered against a range of possible impacts (Table 3) as outlined in the Ministry of Tourism and Culture document entitled Screening for Impacts to Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes (September 2010), which include: • Destruction of any, or part of any, significant heritage attribute or feature (III.1). • Alteration which means a change in any manner and includes restoration, renovation, repair or

disturbance (III.2).


• Shadows created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change the visibility of a natural feature of plantings, such as a garden (III.3).

• Isolation of a heritage attribute from it surrounding environment, context, or a significant relationship (III.4).

• Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas from, within, or to a built and natural feature (III.5).

• A change in land use such as rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential use, allowing new development or site alteration to fill in the formerly open spaces (III.6).

• Soil Disturbance such as a change in grade, or an alteration of the drainage pattern or excavation (III.7)


Table 3: Evaluation of the Potential Impacts of Bridge Improvement Alternatives on the Cultural Heritage Resource and Identified Heritage Attributes Nine Bridge Improvement Alternatives Destruction, removal or

relocation Alteration Shadows Isolation Direct or indirect obstruction

A change in land use Soil disturbance

1) Retention of existing bridge and restoration of missing or deteriorated elements where physical or documentary evidence (e.g. photographs or drawings) can be used for their design

No impact. No impact. No impact. No impact. No impact. No impact. No impact.

2) Retention of existing bridge with no major modifications undertaken

No impact. No impact. No impact. No impact. No impact. No impact. No impact.

3) Retention of existing bridge with sympathetic modification

No impact. No impact given that alterations would be sympathetic to heritage attributes.

No impact. No impact. No impact. No impact. No impact.

4) Retention of existing bridge with sympathetically designed new structure in proximity

No impact. Yes – impacts are expected given that a new bridge in proximity to the existing one will alter the immediate setting and context of the bridge site.

No impact. No impact. Yes – impacts are expected given that views to and from the bridge from either the north or south approach to the bridge site would be obscured.

No impact. Yes – impacts are expected through the construction of a new structure in proximity.

5) Retention of existing bridge no longer in use for vehicle purposes but adapted for pedestrian walkways, cycle paths, scenic viewing etc

No impact. Yes – a change in use would result in alterations to the heritage resource.

No impact. No impact. No impact. Yes – use of bridge for pedestrian walkways, cycle paths, scenic viewing, et cetera, would result in a change from the original use of the structure.

No impact.

6) Relocation of bridge to appropriate new site for continued use or adaptive re-use

Yes – impacts to the heritage resource are expected through relocation.

Yes – alterations to the resource are expected through relocation.

No impact. Yes – relocation of the resource will isolate it from its original context and relationship to the railway line.

Yes – impacts are expected given that views to the bridge from the north or south will be altered.

Yes – the adaptive re-use of the bridge for purposes other than vehicular/rail purposes would result in a change from the original use of the structure. If the bridge remains in vehicular and/or rail use, no impact is expected.

Yes – impacts are expected through process of removing the bridge from its current location.

7) Retention of bridge as heritage monument for viewing purposes only

No impact. Yes – use of bridge for viewing purposes only would result in a change from the original use of the structure and thus is considered to be an alteration.

No impact. No impact. No impact. Yes – use of bridge for viewing purposes only would result in a change from the original use of the structure.

No impact.

8) Replacement/removal of existing bridge with salvage elements/members of heritage bridge for incorporation into new structure or for future conservation work or displays

Yes - Impacts to the heritage resource are expected through removal.

Yes – alterations to the resource are expected through removal.

No impact.

No impact.

No significant impacts to the Centennial Parkway streetscape are expected provided that a new bridge incorporates a similar grade to the railway.

No impact. Yes – impacts are expected through removal of the existing bridge and the introduction of a new structure.

9) Replacement/removal of existing bridge with full recording and documentation of the heritage bridge

Yes - Impacts to the heritage resource are expected through removal.

Yes – alterations to the resource are expected through removal.

No impact.

No impact. No significant impacts to the Centennial Parkway streetscape are expected provided that a new bridge incorporates a similar grade to the railway.

No impact. Yes – impacts are expected through removal of the existing bridge and the introduction of a new structure.


8.0 CONCLUSIONS The Centennial Bridge is a two span, concrete slab bridge that was designed in 1928 and built in 1929. The structure was built to carry railway traffic over Webster’s Side Road (Highway 20), now Centennial Parkway. It is located in the City of Hamilton, formerly the Township of Saltfleet, and more recently, Stoney Creek. The bridge is not known to have undergone any major modifications since its construction in 1929. While it has likely been repaired/rehabilitated on a number of occasions as part of routine maintenance, no major alterations to its original form or design is apparent. 8.1 Summary Statement of Cultural Heritage Value The Centennial Bridge retains historical associations with road and rail transportation, the historical development of the former Township of Saltfleet during the early twentieth century, and the construction of a grade separated crossing as a safety measure. The subject structure reflects design value given that it is listed among the top six concrete slab bridges of historical interest within the City of Hamilton based on its early construction date. However, the structure is considered to be a representative example of 1920s concrete rail bridge construction, and a moderately rare example of concrete slab bridge construction within the Hamilton context. In addition, the bridge contains some artistic merit given its decorative detailing: chamfered soffit of bridge deck and chamfered edges of pier cap; recessed, rectangular lines on the north and south bridge fascia; recessed outlines in the north face and south face of the central pier; and recessed lines in the wingwalls and abutment walls. The bridge retains contextual values given its association with: the industrial character of the area; its possible role as a gateway feature on to the Middle Road (QEW); and its historical/ functional/ physical/ visual relationship to a second phase of railway development which saw the renewal of rail lines and the upgrading of new and/or busy road crossings. In summary, character-defining elements associated with the Centennial Bridge include, but are not limited to:

• Current grade of the railway and its visibility from Centennial Parkway; • Concrete construction materials; • Two span, slab bridge design; • Open concept steel hand railings; • Chamfered soffit of bridge deck and chamfered edges of pier cap; and • Recessed lines forming rectangles across the deck fascia, and recessed lines that accent the

general shape of various bridge elements: the pier faces, abutment walls and wingwalls. 9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of archival research, an analysis of bridge design and construction in Ontario, field investigations and application of Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the Centennial Bridge was determined to retain heritage value. In particular, the bridge was found to have design and historical associations with the Township of Saltfleet, road and rail transportation, the Queen Elizabeth Way, and


early concrete bridge design and decorative features typical of the 1920s/1930s. As such, the structure was found to meet at least one of the criteria of Regulation 9/06 under the Ontario Heritage Act and may therefore be considered for municipal designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. The evaluation of the Centennial Bridge against the 2002 City of Hamilton’s criteria for the evaluation of heritage bridges resulted in a score of 43 out of 100 points, and is thus recognized as having moderate heritage value. Following the evaluation of potential impacts on the heritage resource (see Table 3), it was determined that Conservation Alternatives 1 – 3 are the preferred alternatives, given that no impacts are expected to the heritage resource and its identified heritage attributes, with Alternative 1 being the most preferred. The remaining conservation alternatives (4 – 9) have a range of impacts, with Alternatives 8 and 9 being the least preferred options given the level and nature of the impacts resulting from removal of the bridge. Given the identified heritage value of the Centennial Bridge, the following recommendations and mitigation measures should be considered and implemented:

1. Based on the results of heritage evaluation, Conservation Alternatives 1 -3 are the preferred

alternatives, with Alternative 1 being the most preferred. As part of the selection of the preferred alternatives as part of the Environmental Assessment, a clear rationale for the proposed course of action should be documented.

2. This report should be filed with the Heritage Planning Section at the City of Hamilton, the

Hamilton Municipal Heritage Committee, and other local heritage stakeholders that may have an interest in this project.

3. This report should be filed with the Ministry of Tourism and Culture for review and

comment. 4. Should retention of the bridge be chosen as the preferred alternative (one of Conservation

Alternatives 1 – 7), the character-defining elements identified in Section 8.1 should be retained and treated sympathetically.

5. Should replacement of the bridge be chosen as the preferred alternative (Conservation

Alternative 8 or 9), two mitigation options should be considered:

a. Replacement/removal of existing bridge and construction of a new bridge with replication of the appearance of the heritage bridge in the new design, with allowances for the use of modern materials. The character-defining elements identified in Section 8.1 should be considered for replication.

b. Replacement/removal of existing bridge and construction of a new bridge with

historically sympathetic design qualities to the heritage bridge, with allowances for the use of new technologies and materials.

c. In addition to (a) and (b), development of a commemorative strategy, such as

plaquing, may be appropriate.


10.0 REFERENCES Archaeological Services Inc.

2004 The Archaeological Study for the Growth Related Integrated Strategy (GRIDS), City Of Hamilton. Report on file with the Ministry of Tourism and Culture (MTC PIF P050-037).

2011 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment (Background Research and Property Inspection) Centennial Bridge Environmental Assessment Study, City of Hamilton, Ontario. DRAFT.

Armstrong, Frederick H.

1985 Handbook of Upper Canadian Chronology. Dundurn Press, Toronto. Boulton, D’Arcy.

1805 Sketch of His Majesty’s Province of Upper Canada. C. Rickaby (reprinted in Toronto by the Baxter Publishing Company, 1961), London.

Bevers, Cameron

n.d. Photographic History of King’s Highway 20. Accessed at http://www.thekingshighway.ca/PHOTOS/Hwy20photos.htm

Crossby, P.A. 1873 Lovell’s Gazetteer of British North America. Montreal: John Lovell. Department of Militia and Defence 1907 Grimsby, Sheet No. 4. Ecoplans Limited and Unterman McPhail Associates (UMA)

2006 City of Hamilton Heritage Bridge Guideline and Heritage Bridge Conservation. (On file with the author).

Erland Lee Museum

2011 Western Saltfleet: The Lost Lands. Site accessed March 15, 2011. http://www.virtualmuseum.ca/pm_v2.php?id=story_line&lg=English&fl=0&ex=00000320&sl=1445&pos=1

Ministry of Culture, Ontario (MCL)

2005 Ontario Heritage Act. 2006 Ontario Heritage Tool Kit

Ministry of Culture and Communications, Ontario

1992 Guidelines for Preparing the Cultural Heritage Resource Component of Environmental Assessments.

Ministry of Culture and Recreation, Ontario (MCR)

1981 Guidelines on the Man-Made Heritage Component of Environmental Assessments. Ministry of Environment, Ontario 2006 Environmental Assessment Act


Ministry of Tourism and Culture, Ontario 2010 Screening for Impacts to Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes. Ministry of Transportation (MTO)

2006 Environmental Reference for Highway Design 2006 Environmental Standards and Practices 2006 Cultural Heritage – Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes: Technical

Requirements for Environmental Impact Study and Environmental Protection/Mitigation. 2007 Environmental Guide for Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes

Ministry of Transportation and Ministry of Culture and Communications, Ontario 1991 Ontario Heritage Bridge Program, Information Package. Page, H. R. 1875 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Wentworth. Rayburn, Alan.

1997 Place Names of Ontario. University of Toronto Press, Toronto. Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth (RMHW)

1989 Gateway East: A Study of Centennial Parkway from Confederation Park to Queenston Road. Planning and Development Department.

Scott, David E.

1997 Ontario Place Names. The Historical, Offbeat or Humorous Origins of More Than 1,000 Communities. Edmonton: Lone Pine Publishing.

Smith, W.H. 1846 Smith’s Canadian Gazetteer. Toronto: H. & W. Rowsell. SNC-Lavalin Incorporated

2010 Structure Evaluation Report – CN Rail Underpass at Centennial Parkway, City of Hamilton (DRAFT)

Stantec Consulting Limited 2009 Ontario Structure Inspection Manual - Inspection Form. Van Nostrand, John C.

1983 “The Queen Elizabeth Way: Public Utility Versus Public Space” in Urban History Review, Vol. XII (2)

Winearls, Joan.

1991 Mapping Upper Canada 1780-1867. An Annotated Bibliography of Manuscript and Printed Maps. Toronto: University of Toronto Press


APPENDIX A:

Photographic Plates

Plate 1: South elevation, from east side of Centennial Parkway.

Plate 2: Oblique view of the south elevation.


Plate 3: North elevation from the east side of Centennial Parkway.

Plate 4: North elevation from the west side of Centennial Parkway.


Plate 5: North elevation.

Plate 6: South elevation from the west side of Centennial Parkway.


Plate 7: South elevation.

Plate 8: Detail of date stamp above central pier, steel hand railings, and decorative, recessed lines/boxes in south fascia of bridge deck.


Plate 9: Detail of date stamp above central pier and decorative, recessed lines/boxes in north fascia of bridge deck.

Plate 10: Detail of pier with decorative recessed lines on south face, and three arched openings. View from the southeast.


Plate 11: Detail of pier with decorative recessed lines on the north face, and three arched openings. View from the northwest.

Plate 12: Detail of southwest wing wall and decorative recessed lines.


Plate 13: Detail of west abutment. Note the date stamp underneath the bridge deck and decorative recessed lines.

Plate 14: View of bridge soffit.


Plate 15: View of high embankments to either side of Centennial Parkway at the subject bridge, looking north.

Plate 16: View of CN Mainline, looking west across the bridge. (ASI 2011).


Plate 17: Looking north from the bridge.

Plate 18: Looking south from the bridge.


APPENDIX B:

Selected Drawings

www.snclavalin.com

SNC-Lavalin Inc.

195 The West Mall.

Toronto, Ontario

M9C 5K1 Canada

Tel.: (416) 252-5311

Fax: (416) 231-5356

CITY OF HAMILTON · The City of Hamilton ... centrelines of abutment and pier bearings are 8.70 m,...

Documents

Transcript of CITY OF HAMILTON · The City of Hamilton ... centrelines of abutment and pier bearings are 8.70 m,...