Appendix 23: Environmental Class Assessment Appendix 23
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Appendix 23: Environmental Class Assessment Appendix 23 Figure 18: Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Planning and Design Process, shows the workflow necessary to meet the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment requirements that are applicable to this Pedestrian Mobility Plan study. The overall approach to the Pedestrian Mobility Plan reflects the following key principles of successful Environmental Assessment planning1: • “Consultation with affected parties early in and throughout the process” • “Consideration of a reasonable range of alternatives” • “Identification and consideration of the effects of each alternative on all aspects of the environment” • “Systematic evaluation of alternatives in terms of their advantages and disadvantages to determine their net environmental effects” • “Provision of clear and complete documentation of the planning process followed, to allow 'traceability' of decision‐making with respect to the project”. Phase 1 identifies the problems and opportunities associated with the City's pedestrian mobility network. Phase 2 develops alternative solutions to address the identified problems and opportunities, with consideration for the existing environment and input from the public and regulatory agencies. The workflow incorporates one discretionary and two mandatory points of contact with the public. The public are invited to participate and submit comments on this study through various mediums, including on‐line mapping, surveys, and Public Information Centres. In the end, a Plan document is prepared for a minimum 30‐day public review period. A Notice of Study Completion will be advertised in the Hamilton Spectator and local community newspapers to announce the 30‐day review period. Part II of the Environmental Assessment Act refers to the Ministry of Environment’s review and approval for individual environmental assessments. The Class Environmental Assessment provision that enables the public to request the Minister of Environment to order the City to comply with Part II of the Environmental Assessment Act is not applicable to this Pedestrian Mobility Plan study. This Pedestrian Mobility Plan recommends a process for selecting toolbox solutions and policy changes versus a list of individual projects for implementation. Future projects that are initiated as a result of this process may require further Class Environmental Assessment review for which separate public review periods will be completed. 1 Municipal Engineers Association., “Municipal Class Environmental Assessment”, October 2000, as amended in 2007, pg. A‐2. HAMILTON PEDESTRIAN MOBILITY PLAN 1 of 32 Appendix 23 This section describes the evolution of transportation improvements from pre‐European settlement to the present emphasizing pedestrian activity. It concludes with a summary of existing pedestrian conditions that forms the basis for the assessment of the Pedestrian Mobility Plan. Movement in the City of Hamilton is defined by valleys, rivers, Cootes Paradise/Hamilton Harbour/Lake Ontario, and Niagara Escarpment. Aboriginal communities developed an elaborate network of trails for traditional harvesting purposes around and through these features. Early European settlement clustered around Escarpment waterfalls which generated energy to power gristmills. These waterfall communities were often interconnected and accessed by trails. Some of these trails were incorporated into streets and highways (parts of Main Street and #8 Highway). As more settlers arrived, land was surveyed into grids with county and township roads constructed in a manner prescribed by early legislation and maintained by early settlers, township, county and colonial governments. Many surveys began along Cootes Paradise, Hamilton Harbour and Lake Ontario with lots and roads organized in grids surveyed from these shores. Dundas and Hamilton developed ports accessed by the Desjardins and Burlington Canals. Rail service began in the 1800’s, while urban radial passenger services and inclines in Hamilton and on the Escarpment moved people and goods in and through this emerging industrial centre. Commercial ferries moved people from Hamilton to the Beach Strip recreational facilities, Burlington and beyond. Significant pedestrian activity was associated with rail and ferry services. Residential neighbourhoods were organized so pedestrians could access work and services on foot or in combination with public transit, especially in the older City located south Bay Front Park and in Dundas. As the City grew, the Chedoke Spencer Creek and Red Hill Valleys, the Harbour and Niagara Escarpment framed transportation facilities development as both scenic background and physical barriers. The automobile helped transcend these barriers. In the 1920’s, the car became the preferred transportation mode and new and older streets and highways were designed to facilitate vehicular movement. The Queen Elizabeth Way (QEW) was built in the HAMILTON PEDESTRIAN MOBILITY PLAN 3 of 32 Appendix 23 1930s under the direction of Hamilton’s Thomas McQuesten, Provincial Minister of the Department of Transportation. Highways 6, 8, 20 and 403, as well as mountain accesses, the high level bridge and the lift bridge/skyway spanned the Desjardins and Burlington Canals. Before and after the First World War, the Hamilton Parks Board set aside many of Hamilton’s scenic amenities as parks (i.e. Kings Forest, Gage Park). Cootes Paradise was set aside as a wildlife preserve. Special attention was given to roadways, trails and parks on the Niagara Escarpment, to be coordinated with civic facilities (i.e., a hospital and public arenas) solidifying recreation/leisure and walking linkages. Highway #2, on Burlington Heights, was the main entrance to the City. McQuesten, then a member of the Hamilton Board of Parks Management, advocated acquiring and cleaning up Burlington Heights. The Heights were transferred to the Parks Department and a design competition was held for a new bridge and landscape restoration. Teams lead by Carl Borgstrom and John Lyle won this competition. Their designs integrated pedestrian and vehicle movement between Cootes Paradise/Hamilton Harbour, and public lands on the Heights and Royal Botanical Gardens. While their original bridge design wasn’t implemented in the depression, a scaled down version was built. Today, pedestrian access between the public lands on the Heights and Harbour and Cootes Paradise proposed so many years ago has been provided recently. The balance between public rail/streetcar transit, automobile and truck and pedestrian modes began to shift as the automobile gained dominance. In the late 40’s, the first Hamilton Official Plan recommended removing street cars and rail lines from City streets to enable faster vehicle movement and in higher volumes. Pedestrian activity associated with radial rail service declined. For example, Westdale village was serviced by electric trolley service until the early 50’s when this infrastructure was removed. The QEW replaced #2 Highway and Burlington Heights as the major City access. The advance of the automobile culminated in a transportation plan by C. C. Parker (a Hamilton engineering firm) and Parsons, Brinkerhoff (a New York City engineering firm). This innovative plan used traffic computer modeling software and recommended the Lincoln Alexander and Red Hill Creek Parkways and other major traffic facilities. It HAMILTON PEDESTRIAN MOBILITY PLAN 4 of 32 Appendix 23 focused on vehicular movement with public transit playing a secondary role. However, no mention is made of pedestrian movement and cycling. Hamilton’s downtown renewal incorporated pedestrian designs providing for elevated pedestrian corridors: separating walking from street levels and vehicular traffic. Some of these corridors remain (i.e., the walkway between Jackson Square and the Convention Centre and Art Gallery across King Street and the open plazas above Jackson Square). Buildings turned their backs to speeding one way traffic on adjoining streets. Recent Art Gallery renovations providing street level access have addressed in part these architectural designs. Not all designs work as intended. In the late 1950’s and 1960s a system of one way streets and signalling along major east/west and north/south streets in the lower City was implemented. At the time, several transportation awards were issued to the City for the manner in which these expedited traffic in an efficient manner. Some of the streets have reverted back to two way flows in order to focus more attention and encourage a livelier street life. Physical Environment Physiography Information regarding the City of Hamilton’s physiography was taken from the Nature Counts Project Hamilton Natural Areas Inventory (2003) and The Soils of Wentworth County (Report No. 32 of the Ontario Soil Survey). The City of Hamilton’s physiography is largely represented by the following landform features:2 1. Western Lake Ontario Shoreline and Hamilton Harbour embayment; 2. Niagara Escarpment cuesta which generally runs parallel to and is set back, approximately 2km from the shoreline. Elevations at the escarpment range from 150m to 335m above sea level3; and 3. Dundas Valley which is described as a major, partially buried bedrock valley in the shoreline and Escarpment. 2 Dwyer, Jill, and Jay Lindsay, and Brian McHattie, and Cathy Plosz., “Nature Counts: Hamilton Natural Areas Inventory Summary Report” in Nature Counts Project Hamilton Natural Areas Inventory, 2003 , pg. I. 3 Present, E. W., and R. E. Wicklund, and B.