DOWNTOWN TRANSPORTATION TERMINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT REPORT
McCormick Rankin Corporation In association with DTAH
July 2008
City of Hamilton Downtown Transportation Terminal Environmental Project Report
Table of Contents
1.1.1. INTROINTRODUCTION DUCTION AND BACKGROUBACKGROUNDNDNDND...... 1...... 111 1.1 the rationale for the transit terminal expansion project...... 1 1.2 project description...... 2 1.3 preferred method of project delivery ...... 5 2.2.2. LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS ...... 6...... 666 2.1 natural environment...... 6 2.1.1 Existing Conditions ...... 6 2.2 Socio-economic environment...... 9 2.3 Transportation system...... 10 3.3.3. SELECTION OF PREFERRPREFERREDED TERMINAL DEVELOPMDEVELOPMENTENT ALTERNATIVE 121212 3.1 Description of technical investigations...... 12 3.1.1 Downtown transportation master plan (DTMP) ...... 12 3.1.2 Investigation of design alternatives ...... 13 4.4.4. DESCRIPTION OF REQUIREQUIREDRED APPROVALS AND PEPERMITSRMITS ...... 222222 5.5.5. DESCRIPTION OF PUBLIPUBLICC CONSULTATION RECORRECORDDDD...... 222222 5.1 Stakeholder interviews: February 2007...... 22 5.2 stakeholder consultation: 16 May 2007...... 23 5.3 Public information centre: 29 May 2008 ...... 26 5.4 indian and northern affairs canada ...... 27
TABLES
TABLE 1 - SUMMARY OF IMPACT ASSESSMENT: DESIGN ALTERNATIVES
FIGURES
Figure 1 – Existing Gore Park Transit Terminal Figure 2 – Existing HSR MacNab Street Terminal Figure 3 – Existing GO Hamilton terminal Figure 4 – City of Hamilton Core Area figure 5 – MacNab/hunter hybrid (Option a) Figure 6 – MacNab Street terminal (option b)
APPENDICES
A - DESCRIPTION OF THE TERMINAL PROGRAM ELEMENTS B - REFERENCES NATURAL ENVIRONMENT APPRAISAL C - LIST OF HERITAGE FEATURES`WITHIN STUDY AREA D - STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS: 23 FEBRUARY 2007 E - PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE DISPLAY PANELS F - NOTICE OF STUDY COMMENCEMENT G - STAKEHOLDER CONTACT LIST H - PIC COMMENT SHEETS I - AGENCY RESPONSES
McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION July 2008 Page i City of Hamilton Downtown Transportation Terminal Environmental Project Report
1.1.1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1.1 The rationale for the transit terminal expansion project The City of Hamilton has adopted an aggressive program to revitalize the core area of the City. A key initiative is introducing an enhanced human scale to the downtown, placing a greater emphasis and priority on pedestrian and cyclist amenities and the attractiveness of public transportation. Several recent investigations have been undertaken to assist in quantifying the programs necessary to achieve the vision. The specific guidelines for this investigation are provided in the report released in 2001, Putting People First: Downtown Transportation Master Plan (DTMP). The 5-Year Review of the Downtown Transportation Master Plan completed in July 2008 confirmed the need to enhance the core area transit terminal facilities. The effects of the implementation of the adopted Transportation Plan on the downtown environment are anticipated to be positive as the plan brings about a more equitable balance between providing good access for motorists and other measures that promote walking, cycling and the use of public transit. A key element of the adopted plan includes a strategy to improve to the Gore Park environment and the transit passenger amenities. The present arrangement lacks adequate passenger conveniences and creates difficulties for passengers transferring between routes. In addition, the Gore Park terminal has become further removed from large recent developments in the core area.
Figure 1 – Existing Gore Park Transit Terminal
McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION July 2008 Page 1 City of Hamilton Downtown Transportation Terminal Environmental Project Report
1.2 Project description The project incorporates the expansion of the existing Hamilton Street Railway (HSR) MacNab Street Terminal with the increased use of the GO Hamilton Terminal in order to meet the projected program requirements.
Figure 2 – Existing HSR MacNab Street Terminal
Figure 3 – Existing GO Hamilton terminal
McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION July 2008 Page 2
City of Hamilton Downtown Transportation Terminal Environmental Project Report
The relationship of the two sites is illustrated in Figure 4. The program requirements for the transit terminal were developed by the City of Hamilton Department of Public Works (HSR). The geometric standards and space planning criteria were prepared with reference to Canadian Transit Handbook and recent similar facilities introduced in Toronto, Mississauga, Kitchener and St. Catharines. The selected elements are provided in Appendix A. The key determinant of the terminal program is the provision of 13 bus platforms and the provision of an enclosed passenger and operations facility approximately 300m2 in area. However, in addition to the physical requirements, the terminal development objectives included an emphasis on passenger safety by minimizing pedestrian circulation conflicts with vehicle traffic. Security features will be included such as CCTV, emergency telephones and enhanced lighting. Connecting the terminal to the surrounding pedestrian network was a major consideration as the provision of a safe, comfortable and convenient pedestrian environment is a key factor in increasing the use of public transportation. Full accessibility will be provided as necessary by the provision of vertical circulation devices and high platforms to allow direct entry to the transit vehicles. Accessibility features will be incorporated for physically, visually and hearing impaired customers. The facilities will be provided to enhance the passenger environment including canopies along platforms, a heated/air conditioned waiting area, ticket sales, bicycle storage and lockers, a concession area, washrooms, service information, benches, litter containers, newspaper boxes, public telephones, electronic information displays and a public address system. High quality, low maintenance materials and finishes will be used that are durable, hard wearing, colourfast and easily replaced. The proposed expansion of the MacNab Street terminal and the location of the additional HSR platforms within the GO Hamilton terminal is illustrated in Figure 5.
McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION July 2008 Page 3
City of Hamilton Downtown Transportation Terminal Environmental Project Report
Figure 4 – City of Hamilton Core Area
McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION July 2008 Page 4
City of Hamilton Downtown Transportation Terminal Environmental Project Report
1.3 Preferred method of project delivery The core of the contracting plan for the project relates to the civil infrastructure, utility relocation and municipal services installations. Maintaining local access to the HECFI facilities, the CIBC tower employee parking facility, the Hamilton Place parking facility and the below grade truck tunnel serving Jackson Square represents a critical element in the construction plan. Given the number and the complexity of the construction phasing, a realistic and cost effective construction plan is required to minimize impacts to traffic operations and local access. In addition, it is critical that the interface between the civil works, the terminal infrastructure and landscape architectural details be carefully managed. Under these circumstances, the City should maintain control of the design and construction planning in order to negotiate a consensus on an acceptable approach with the various stakeholders. The city intends to implement the project utilizing the conventional design-bid-build approach.
McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION July 2008 Page 5
City of Hamilton Downtown Transportation Terminal Environmental Project Report
2.2.2. LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
2.1 Natural environment A field investigation was completed to evaluate the vegetation and wildlife species and habitat within the Study Area bounded on the west by MacNab Street, on the north by King Street, on the east by John Street and on the south by the CPR Hamilton Subdivision. Field data was collected using standard procedures and a photo inventory was compiled. The results of the survey are highlighted in the remainder of this section. Appendix B provides a list of the reference material included in the literature search.
2.1.1 Existing Conditions
Designated natural features (including environmentally significant areas) Based on a review of the Hamilton-Wentworth Official Plan, the MNR National Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) database and consultation with MNR Guelph District, there are no designated natural features within the Study Area. Geology and topography The bedrock geology of the Study Area is classified as the Queenston Formation (Chapman and Putnam 1984). The Study Area is located between the Niagara Escarpment and Lake Ontario known as the Iroquois Plain (Chapman and Putnam 1984). This physiographic region stretches along the shoreline of Lake Ontario from Niagara-on-the-Lake to Trenton. This is a gently sloping area that was once covered by the glacial Lake Iroquois. The physiography within the Study Area is clay plain. The existing topography of the Study Area has been heavily influenced by human development. The entire Study Area is developed and most of it is paved. No unique physiographic features were noted in the Study Area. Species of conservation concern For the purpose of this report Species of Conservation Concern include federally (COSEWIC) and provincially (COSSARO) designated species at risk (including any that may be legally listed and protected), provincially rare (Srank 1, 2, 3, X, H) species, and regionally rare species (Goodban 2003). A review of the Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) website (NHIC 2008) and consultation with the Guelph District MNR indicates that there are seven species of conservation concern potentially recorded within the Study Area. Some of these records are very old and do not have precise descriptions of where the species was observed (i.e. observed in ‘Hamilton’ and therefore could have been observed anywhere within several kilometers of the Study Area). Based on this review there is only one species of conservation concern which is potentially present in the Study Area.
McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION July 2008 Page 6
City of Hamilton Downtown Transportation Terminal Environmental Project Report
Aquatic features and surface drainage Based on a review of the Ontario Base Maps, aerial photography and a field survey, fish and fish habitat are not present in the Study Area. All former watercourses and fish habitat have been removed. Water is now conveyed in a subsurface storm water system. Vegetation communities There are no residual natural areas or natural vegetation communities within the study limits. Vegetation within the Study Area is limited to manicured grass, areas landscaped with ornamental species and planted trees (mainly street trees and individual trees on residential lawns). Vascular plants There are several hundred trees in the Study Area. All of these trees are street trees adjacent to local streets, in landscape plantings and residential yards. The vast majority have been planted. A total of 28 tree and shrub species were recorded during the January 23rd field review (22 were identified to species and 6 were identified to genus). All of the plants identified to genus were planted species and most are likely ornamental varieties and cultivars. Of the plants identified to species, 14 are introduced (Goodban 2003) and/or exotic (NHIC 2008) species. The high proportion of introduced species is indicative of the disturbed and urban nature of the Study Area. According to NHIC’s provincial rarity ranks (Sranks), almost all native species recorded in the Study Area are ranked S5, meaning that they are common and secure in Ontario (NHIC 2008). There is one species (Honey Locust, Gleditsia triacanthos) that has a Srank of S2, meaning that it is considered imperilled in Ontario (NHIC 2008). However, all the Honey Locust trees present in the Study Area were planted and therefore would not be considered rare in Ontario. The Hamilton rarity rank identifies this species as introduced to the Hamilton area and is therefore not considered rare. Honey Locust is commonly used in landscape plantings and the nursery industry produces several cultivars and varieties. Although the species list is not exhaustive given the single season field visit, it is considered to be representative of the vegetation features within the project limits. The two potential transit locations were observed in greater detail. MacNab site (bound by MacNab St. King St. W, James St. S, and Main St. W) At the MacNab site, there were only 3 plant species observed (Honey Locust, London Plane-tree ( Platanus x acerifolia) , and Siberian Elm ( Ulmus pumila) ). All Honey Locust and London Plane-trees were planted street trees. The Siberian Elm was growing through a crack in the concrete. All 3 species are introduced to Hamilton.
McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION July 2008 Page 7
City of Hamilton Downtown Transportation Terminal Environmental Project Report
Hunter Site (boundy by James St. S, Hunter St. E, John St. S, and approximately 25 m south of Beckley St) At the Hunter site there were several ornamental plantings with Maiden-hair Tree ( Gingko biloba ), Honey Locust, Serviceberry ( Amelanchier sp.), Winged Spindle-tree ( Euonymus alata ), Red-osier Dogwood ( Cornus stolonifera ), with several other unidentified ornamental shrubs. All trees and shrubs were planted as street trees or ornamental plantings. Wildlife All wildlife and general signs observed during the field surveys were recorded and consisted of 3 bird species (all non-native) and 1 mammal. These species are listed below. • Rock Dove ( Columba livia ) – several large flocks observed perched and flying between buildings • House Sparrow ( Passer domesticus ) – 1 group observed in shrubs in front of GO station • European Starling ( Sturnus vulgaris ) – 1 group observed flying between trees behind GO station • Grey Squirrel ( Sciurus carolinensis ) – several individuals observed across Study Area As previously described, the Study Area is in a mature, fully developed downtown environment with no natural vegetation features. As such, wildlife habitat quality and quantity is very limited. The existing vegetation does not provide Significant Wildlife Habitat as defined by the OMNR Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000). Trees and buildings can provide a resting place for birds and squirrels, and may provide nesting opportunities for common, urban adapted species such as the species listed above and also American Robin ( Turdus migratorius ), and Barn Swallow ( Hirundo rustica ). This may include migratory species which are protected by the Migratory Birds Convention Act. It is expected that additional common, urban adapted wildlife are present within the Study Area. This could include House Mouse ( Mus musculus ), Norway Rat ( Rattus norvegicus ), Eastern Chipmunk ( Tamias striatus ), Little Brown Bat ( Myotis lucifugus ), Big Brown Bat ( Eptesicus fuscus ), Virginia Opossum ( Didelphis virginiana ), Racoon ( Procyon lotor ), and Striped Skunk (Mephitis mephitis ). These species are common and expected for the area given the surrounding land uses and the disturbed nature of the vegetation. None of these species is designated as a species of conservation concern at either the federal, provincial or regional level. Potential sensitivities There are no designated natural features including Environmentally Significant Areas within the Study Area. There are no unique geological features or fish habitat in the Study Area. There are no natural areas or natural vegetation communities. Vegetation is limited to manicured grass, landscaped areas, and
McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION July 2008 Page 8
City of Hamilton Downtown Transportation Terminal Environmental Project Report planted trees. There area has no nationally, provincially or regionally rare plant species. All species are common and the majority was introduced into the Hamilton area. One nationally and provincially rare animal species was recorded within the Study Area; Peregrine Falcon. The nesting site of the Peregrine Falcon is approximately 120 m from the MacNab site and 18 storeys high. Since this species selected this urban environment to nest, has returned there for twelve years and successfully raised young, despite the high levels of human disturbance, it is not anticipated that disturbance from the construction and operation of the new transit facility will adversely affect this species. There is potential for migratory bird species to nest on buildings or vegetation within the Study Area. Mitigation may be required due to protection under the Migratory Birds Convention Act however this is not expected to be a significant constraint. Conclusion The entire Study Area is located in a mature downtown urban environment. As such, little if anything remains of natural environmental features. The vegetation is highly managed and consists of manicured grassed areas landscaped with ornamental species and planted street trees. The plants recorded include a high proportion of non-native species and ornamental cultivars. The plants and wildlife present in the Study Area are disturbance tolerant and adapted to urban environments. 2.2 Socio-economic environment The Downtown Core has many strong attractions and features. Two of its main streets intersect at the core of the downtown and serve as prime retail and pedestrian spines. The area south of King and west of James and the Jackson Square area form the centre of the new downtown development. The land use within the core area includes a mix of commercial retail, office buildings, institutional development and residential uses similar to other city centres of comparable size. Downtown Hamilton has been exposed to the same series of stresses that have threatened other urban core areas in Canada in the past 50 years. The changes in retailing and the population shift toward suburban development have undermined the traditional role of the core area. A list of the designated heritage features with the core area is provided in Appendix C. Given the proposed construction is restricted within the existing road allowances and the GO Hamilton bus platform area, no impacts on the heritage features will result from the facility construction. The City of Hamilton has introduced a number of policy initiatives designed to restore the prominence of the core area within the urban area. The policies build upon similar themes:
McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION July 2008 Page 9
City of Hamilton Downtown Transportation Terminal Environmental Project Report
• increasing residential population; • creating pedestrian-friendly streetscapes; • preserving heritage buildings; and • using public projects as catalysts for redevelopment. A series of targeted actions have been implemented with success. The relocation of the present bus operations from Gore Park and consolidation at the MacNab Street location is viewed as a key element in the adopted strategy. 2.3 Transportation system The transportation system in downtown Hamilton is comprised of the following major elements: • the street network; • the public transit system (Hamilton Street Railway and GO Transit); • pedestrian networks; • parking and loading areas; and • cycling facilities. For the purposes of this investigation, the implications of the proposed relocation of the HSR terminal facilities on the other elements of the transportation network represented the focus of the analysis. A description of these various elements is provided in Section 2.4 of the Downtown Transportation Master Plan (DTMP) prepared in 2001. The HSR operates a system of 27 routes serving a population of 450,000 (2007) residents within its service area. The system carried 21,200,000 revenue passengers in 2006 with a total annual operating cost of $55.8M. The core area of the City is the focal point for the HSR system with 20,000 passengers of the estimated 70,000 daily revenue passengers either destined to or transferring within the core area to other HSR routes. Overall transit ridership has grown approximately 15% in the 2002-2005 period, while transit trips to and from the downtown have increased by approximately 12%. Trips into/out of the downtown account for more than 50% of all HSR ridership. The DTMP included an evaluation of alternative solutions using a defined set of guiding principles and evaluation criteria was undertaken to determine the preferred changes as they relate to the movement of vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, transit users, and parking policies. These changes form the basis of the Downtown Transportation Master Plan.
Key elements of the plan include:
• conversion of some primary and secondary streets from one-way operation to two-way operation; • identification of street sections with excess lane capacity that can be used for improvements to the pedestrian environment;
McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION July 2008 Page 10
City of Hamilton Downtown Transportation Terminal Environmental Project Report
• modifications to streets that will encourage commuter and recreational cycling; • opportunities for improvements to the Gore Park area and transit system by consolidating bus terminal operations at an expanded MacNab terminal area; and • parking policies designed to influence mode choice (auto vs. bicycle, transit, and walking) and encourage short-term high turnover parking for business / retail trips and discourage all-day commuter parking. Following the adoption of the DTMP by Council in 2001, the initial phases of the two-way operation conversion program were introduced on James Street and John Street. The update of the 2001 DTMP was completed in 2008. The findings of the update relevant to this project are summarized below. The 2001 problem statement is generally valid, except that issues around excess parking have lessened as parking supply has remained largely unchanged and occupancy has increased. This does not negate the directions of the Downtown Secondary Plan which states that “ Implementing the parking strategy from the Downtown Transportation Plan will be the first major step towards addressing the downtown parking issues and working to take underutilized land to its highest and best use”. The 2001 preferred solution included changes to:
o the street network, including one-way to two-way conversions; o the walking environment and cycling network, primarily consisting of changes to lane designations and pavement widths; o the relocation of the downtown transit terminal; and o parking policies.
The 2001 preferred solution is therefore considered still valid, except there is now a greater desire for pedestrian improvements and the potential for rapid transit is more immediate, impacting James Street, Main Street and King Street.
McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION July 2008 Page 11
City of Hamilton Downtown Transportation Terminal Environmental Project Report
3.3.3. SELECTION OF PREFERRED TERMINAL DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE
3.1 Description of technical investigations
3.1.1 Downtown transportation master plan (DTMP) The Downtown Transportation Master Plan (DTMP) assessed six alternative locations for the new terminal in comparison with the existing combination of Gore Park and MacNab Street. The options which were generally combinations or variations of the existing locations include the following: • reallocation of all routes to Gore Park; • reallocation of most routes to MacNab Street; • reallocation of all routes to an extended MacNab Street terminal; • creation of a terminal at the former inter-city bus terminal at Rebecca Street and John Street; • development of a terminal adjacent to the GO Transit bus/rail terminal; and • an on-street arrangement where services would focus on key stops and transfer locations in the downtown core and then proceed to designated layover locations at the periphery of the downtown. The concentration of the transit system within the Downtown at the MacNab Street location was preferred given its adjacency to the major core area destinations, flexibility in access and egress, and the site permits Mountain routes to use King Street to proceed to MacNab Street and provides enhanced transfer convenience to westbound Route 5, 10 and 51 services to McMaster. However, the DTMP analysis indicated that it would not be possible to accommodate the full terminal program at this location without expanding the terminal footprint into the adjacent parking lot on the east side of MacNab Street. Accordingly, the preference was to incorporate the adjacent parking lot. The proposal also included the former Royal Bank building property adjacent to the MacNab Street parking lot to allow additional flexibility in the design and permit future growth in the scale of the operation. The bank building has since been removed. From the DTMP investigation, consideration of a terminal near the GO Hamilton terminal was not deemed appropriate for the following reasons: • this location is already well served by the Mountain routes and accordingly the benefit to be derived from the further integration with the rest of the HSR network would appear marginal; • the walking distances from the downtown core are significant, in the order of 0.5km, and beyond the desirable 5-minute walking time to the major concentration of employment/commercial development and major east/west transit services within the Main/King corridor. Diversion of the east/west services and the extension of the Barton, Cannon, Bayfront services south to a location adjacent to the GO Hamilton terminal was considered cost prohibitive;
McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION July 2008 Page 12
City of Hamilton Downtown Transportation Terminal Environmental Project Report
• suitably sized land parcels and/or roadway right-of-ways to accommodate the projected program requirements are not readily available; and • full closure of Hunter Street to general traffic and the exclusion of the existing on-street parking and passenger drop off areas would create significant adverse impacts on local access and traffic circulation. Accordingly, it was concluded that there was sufficient grounds to eliminate this option from further consideration. However, the possible use of Hunter Street between John Street and James Street in combination with the MacNab Street site to provide additional flexibility in meeting the terminal program requirements was retained in the development of the short-listed alternatives.
3.1.2 Investigation of design alternatives Based on the DTMP analysis, the design alternatives for the terminal development were reduced to two options. The first alternative (Option A) is restricted to the MacNab Street road allowance in the development of the bus platforms and passenger/operations facilities. The remaining bus platforms (5) would be located with the GO Transit facility on Hunter Street. The second design alternative (Option B) assumes the acquisition of the private property adjacent to the east property line of MacNab Street that extends through to James Street South to provide sufficient area to allow the provision of the full terminal development requirements in this location. Both options include the provision of a passenger terminal building in the order of 300m2. The facility would include canopies along platforms, a heated/air conditioned waiting area, ticket sales, bicycle storage and lockers, a concession area, washrooms, service information, benches, litter containers, newspaper boxes, public telephones, electronic information displays and a public address system. Details of these design alternatives are highlighted in the remainder of this section. Option A – MacNab/Hunter Hybrid (figure 5) This option represents a concept which could meet the adopted program requirements while minimizing the amount of private property acquisition. A total of 9 platform locations would be provided at the MacNab Street location using a split island platform arrangement to allow all Mountain routes to circulate southbound on MacNab Street and avoid additional operating costs in reaching southbound James Street. The access to the surface parking lot from MacNab would be closed to allow construction of a new passenger terminal building and operations centre on a portion of the road allowance. Access to the CIBC underground parking would be via King Street however the design would allow inadvertent southbound traffic to exit to Main Street. The current access to HECFI would remain unchanged. To meet the required 13-platform program, four platforms would be developed within the GO Hamilton terminal. The expectation is that the King, Cannon, Bayfront and Barton routes would operate south on James Street to Main Street, east on Main Street, south on John Street and to return northbound on James Street.
McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION July 2008 Page 13
City of Hamilton Downtown Transportation Terminal Environmental Project Report
Figure 5 – MacNab/Hunter Hybrid (option a) MacNab Street Site
McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION July 2008 Page 14
City of Hamilton Downtown Transportation Terminal Environmental Project Report
Figure 5 – MacNab/Hunter Hybrid (option a) GO Hamilton Terminal Site
McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION July 2008 Page 15
City of Hamilton Downtown Transportation Terminal Environmental Project Report
The proposed MacNab Street reconfiguration would require modifications to the access ramps serving the truck tunnel and the underground HECFI parking facility. The truck tunnel exit to Main Street is currently 7.0m curb to curb in width. This ramp is the primary exit for trucks, and a secondary exit for the underground car parking areas, but the traffic volumes using the ramp do not require a two-lane exit. However, a ramp width of 5m will be retained to accommodate a disabled vehicle plus sufficient room for another vehicle to pass. Therefore, a 2m narrowing of the ramp was possible to provide additional space at street level. The exit ramp from the underground parking to King Street is currently 6.7m curb to curb in width. This ramp is one of several serving the underground parking for Hamilton Place and the Convention Centre, and it was originally configured when cashiers were located at every exit location. Cashiers are no longer used and the ramp to King Street does not need to be two lanes in width for capacity reasons. As there are several alternatives to the use of this exit ramp available, a single-lane ramp of 3.7m would be sufficient. Therefore, a 3m narrowing of the ramp was assumed possible to provide additional space at street level. Access to the ramp leading to the private underground parking (card pass only – not open to the public) located under the CIBC towers was retained. At the south side of the CIBC towers, there is an east-west access driveway leading to fire doors for each tower and to a filler cap for diesel fuel for the emergency generators. The tower owners indicated that vehicular access to this area must be maintained. Several options could accomplish this requirement: maintain the existing access to the southbound lane on MacNab Street and permit service vehicles to access the driveway; or, arrange for access from the privately owned public parking lot south of the CIBC towers, which would require some grading and access modifications. Option B – Expanded Macnab Street terminal (figure 6) Under this option, the full terminal program requirements would be accommodated at an expanded MacNab Street location. Access to the Convention Centre would be retained but completely separated from the flow of HSR vehicles. Similarly, access to the CIBC underground parking facility would be retained as presently configured. The property presently being used for surface parking would be transformed to a large island platform providing nine positions for HSR vehicles. The passenger terminal building would be situated within the footprint of the island platform. The remainder of the required platforms would be provided within the revamped MacNab Street road allowance. The allocation of the 14 platform positions will be the subject of more detailed operational planning by HSR staff. However, HSR staff indicated that the proposed arrangement will not increase operating costs.
McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION July 2008 Page 16
City of Hamilton Downtown Transportation Terminal Environmental Project Report
Figure 6 – Expanded MacNab Street terminal (option b)
McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION July 2008 Page 17
City of Hamilton Downtown Transportation Terminal Environmental Project Report
Impact Assessment of Design Alternatives The review of the alternatives includes the potential effects and associated mitigation measures. From experience, it is reasonable and consistent with EA procedures to screen out those elements that have little or no influence on the comparative assessment of the alternatives to select a preferred alternative. In this way, the elected representatives, the stakeholders and the general public have a clear understanding of the basis for determining the preferred alternative. The objective is to identify the potential net environmental impacts of each alternative design. The proposed methodology was developed to reflect the current policies related to the redevelopment of Downtown Hamilton, the issues raised at the Stakeholder Workshop held May 16, 2007 and the direction provided by the Technical Steering Committee. In addition, reference was made to the recently approved Municipal Class EA: Part D – Municipal Transit Projects to ensure compliance with the suggested key considerations in the impact assessment of the alternatives. The factors have been selected to identify potential effects under the major headings of Transportation Considerations, Land Use Planning, Natural Heritage Features, Cultural Environment, Social Environment, Economic Environment and Technical (Program Requirements), Preliminary Cost Estimate. The detailed impact assessment approach is summarized in Table 1.
McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION July 2008 Page 18
City of Hamilton Downtown Transportation Terminal Environmental Project Report
TABLE 1 --- SUMMARY OF IMPACT ASSESSMENT: DESIGN ALTERNATIVES
ImpacImpactt Assessment Option A: Option B; MacNab Factor MacNab/Hunter Expanded Hybrid
Transportation/transit • effects on transit • no projected increase • no projected increase operations in annual operating in annual operating costs costs • compatible with RT • compatible with RT proposals proposals • effects on road • very minor effects on • very minor effects on network traffic circulation traffic circulation • effects on fire, police • no impact identified • no impact identified and emergency services • potential effects on • reduced • reduced pedestrian movements pedestrian/vehicle pedestrian/vehicle conflicts conflicts • potential effects on • no impact identified • no impact identified cycling paths/lanes/routes
Land use • relationship to • in compliance with • in compliance with municipal policies policies policies • impact on existing • no private property • $2,700,000 without properties required (non- injurious affection residential)
Natural heritage features • landforms • Mature downtown • Mature downtown • groundwater environment with environment with • surface water and little natural little natural fisheries environmental environmental • terrestrial vegetation features. The plants features. The plants (urban trees) and wildlife are and wildlife are disturbance tolerant disturbance tolerant • wildlife habitat and adapted to the and adapted to the environment. No environment. No impact forecast. impact forecast.
McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION July 2008 Page 19
City of Hamilton Downtown Transportation Terminal Environmental Project Report
TABLE 1 --- SUMMARY OF IMPACT ASSESSMENT: DESIGN ALTERNATIVES
Social Environment • property required • no residential • no residential property required property required • potential effects to • elimination of access • impact of elimination property access to parking lot on of access included in MacNab but mitigation acquisition cost provided from James Street • potential effects to • improved transfers, • improved transfers, transit users convenience, security convenience, security • noise impacts • marginal change • potential increase in predicted noise adjacent to Condominium • air quality • no change predicted • no change predicted • visual intrusion • no change predicted • possible improvement due to replacement of surface parking lot
Cultural Environment • archaeology • no potential effects • no potential effects identified identified • built heritage • no potential effects • no potential effects features on identified heritage on identified heritage features features
Economic Environment • change in annual • no change in costs • no change in costs transit operating predicted predicted costs • preliminary • $7,700,000 (2008) • $10,800,000 (2008) construction costs • preliminary property • nil • $2,700,000 costs • minor • minor • impact on businesses
Other • site contamination • site contamination • no potential site under investigation contamination required
McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION July 2008 Page 20
City of Hamilton Downtown Transportation Terminal Environmental Project Report
In examining the impact assessment analysis, Option B provides definite improvements in the passenger amenities and enhanced supervision of operations through the consolidation of services in a larger central location. However, the cost of Option B is significantly higher and its development can be expected to be resisted by the adjacent landowners. In addition, concerns have been raised as to whether the long term use of the private property for a transit terminal represents the highest and best use. Given the expected greater resistance to this proposal compared to Option A , it can also be anticipated that the schedule for implementation will be extended. Given the above, it was recommended that the City pursue the implementation of Option A . This alternative meets the terminal program requirements and significantly enhances passenger convenience. The implications on adjacent properties and development are considered minor and construction disruption can be managed. It is anticipated that it could be implemented within 18 months of approval to proceed. Importantly, the selection of Option A does not preclude the long term development of Option B . Given the current RT initiatives underway, it would seem prudent to reflect on these proposals prior to making the decision to proceed with this major expenditure.
McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION July 2008 Page 21
City of Hamilton Downtown Transportation Terminal Environmental Project Report
4.4.4. DESCRIPTION OF REQUIRED APPROVALS AND PERMITS The proposed expansion of the terminal facilities comprising the preferred alternative was reviewed in relation to the recently approved revision to Municipal Class EA to include municipal transit projects. Under the Municipal Class EA, the expansion of existing transit terminal facilities are categorized as the A+ projects and are considered pre-approved. A Project File Report will be prepared for public review as an A+ project. As the project will not be subject to a Part II Order, the City may proceed without following the procedures set out in the Class EA. As the project includes a building structure, it would be subject to the local Building by-laws and a permit would be required to proceed with construction.
5.5.5. DESCRIPTION OF PUBLIC CONSULTATION RECORD The preferred Alternative Option A would be considered a Schedule A+ project under the Transit chapter of the Municipal Class EA. The A+ projects are a new schedule, introduced through the 2007 amendment, and require public notice prior to implementation. Schedule A and A+ projects are not subject to Part II Orders. Even with this change to the Municipal Class EA, staff continued with the public consultation component of this project to fulfil the intent of the City’s commitment to consult with the Public. This Environmental Project Report was prepared for public review as an A+ project however is not subject to a Part II Order request. The purpose of the consultation program was to: • inform the public about the study process, goals and timelines; • provide information on relevant studies, processes and occurrences which have led to the creation of the preliminary options; • review comparable transit terminal and on-street transit solutions of other cities as a means of understanding relationships, impacts and trade-offs associated with each system relative to important evaluation criteria including transit use, transit access and visibility, impacts to economic development, perceived/real public benefit, urban design improvements and costs; • present and discuss the merits of each transit option following established evaluation criteria; and • determine the range of options to undergo further analysis.
5.1 Stakeholder interviews: February 2007 The stakeholders included the local business associations, adjacent property owners and residents, municipal Departments and elected representatives. Prior to the meeting, all stakeholders were interviewed individually in August 2006 to gain an insight into the potential issues. A summary of the comments received is provided Appendix D.
McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION July 2008 Page 22
City of Hamilton Downtown Transportation Terminal Environmental Project Report
5.2 stakeholder consultation: 16 May 2007 The purpose of the workshop was two fold, firstly to share with workshop participants and convey a high level of understanding about the process and outcomes of the Downtown Multi-Modal Transportation Terminal Work Session held February 23 rd involving municipal staff, Councillors and consultant staff. This work session resulted in the identification of two of six potential transit terminal alternatives which met the broadest range of preliminary evaluation criteria and were deemed the most appropriate alternatives to undergo further investigation and analysis. The remaining four alternatives were not selected as reasonable alternatives measured against preliminary evaluation criteria. Secondly, through a facilitated dialogue, the group focused on potential benefits and concerns of the two remaining transit alternatives: the expanded MacNab Street terminal, and the Hunter Street terminal. The intent was to capture additional perspectives and assist the Project Team to focus further analysis. In general, workshop participants were supportive of the initiative to develop a multi-modal transit terminal in the downtown. Participants favored the MacNab site over the Hunter location for the following reasons: • the location is central in the downtown core; and • a terminal at this location will have minimal impacts to the existing transit system and minimal impacts to the existing downtown transportation network. Participants agreed that, while the location was suitable, the proposed open platform terminal configuration was deemed inappropriate for the MacNab site. It was felt that impacts to adjacent uses from an open platform bus terminal would be significant. In addition, it was generally felt that the open platform terminal configuration represented a significant underutilization of a prime downtown site and a missed opportunity to contribute to city building by integrating the transit terminal functions into a mixed use facility. Participants felt that the Hunter location was removed from the downtown core and would have implications on the bus routing network, possibly increase travel time and transit operating costs and divert traffic flow in the vicinity of the site. Participants generally felt that combining GO Transit with bus transit at the Hunter location would have positive overall benefit to transit use, however the City would be limited in terms of future expansion or potentially the ability to remain on the site as they would be in a leasing situation with GO Transit. The following summarizes participant observations with respect to the comparative benefits and concerns associated with the two alternatives. Expanded MacNab Terminal Workshop participants expressed support for the expanded MacNab location however their main concern was the urban design and land use compatibility of the proposal:
McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION July 2008 Page 23
City of Hamilton Downtown Transportation Terminal Environmental Project Report
“If the MacNab terminal is designed and integrated within a mixed use development, it could be a landmark development that is a great addition to the downtown, supporting downtown revitalization, filling in the gap on James Street and would be far more compatible with adjacent existing residential and employment uses.” Many participants felt that a terminal at the MacNab location would have a positive impact on the downtown core. Some of the noted benefits include: • improves Gore Park by removing the buses and associated impacts such as noise, exhaust, litter and odour; • this core location will most effectively encourage transit use and creates the best opportunity to integrate with future rapid transit development in the downtown; • will help to strengthen the downtown and encourage renewed interest in the downtown supporting local business and civic events; and • the location provides an opportunity to build the terminal as a landmark development in the downtown core which is appropriate and compatible to the mix of uses in the downtown. Workshop participants felt that as presented, the open platform terminal design was not appropriate for the following reasons: • incompatibility with adjacent residential and employment uses; • potential effects related to safety, personal and building security, loitering and vandalism of the area especially at night; • negative impact to adjacent landowners including view, odour, noise, and exhaust causing deterioration in building condition; and • from an urban design perspective, the gap on James Street would remain. In addition, participants raised concerns with the high capital cost associated with this alternative in comparison to a lower cost for the Hunter alternative. However, it was also stated that the high capital cost could be reduced significantly if a joint public/private venture was pursued for a mixed use development on the site. In general, participants agreed that most of their concerns for the MacNab site could be mitigated if the terminal design was integrated within a compatible mixed use format suitable to surrounding residential and employment uses and urban design of the terminal facility contributed to enhancing the site, the downtown and city building. “We are interested in a terminal solution that is right for the downtown core, and if necessary we are prepared for this to take longer.” Full Hunter Street Terminal Workshop participants felt that the location of the Hunter Street terminal was less ideal to the MacNab Street location because it is removed from the downtown core. Additionally, participants felt that although the Hunter Street location provides an opportunity to share the existing facilities with GO Transit, thereby reducing capital costs and creating opportunity for intermodal connections, many expressed concerns that a shared use agreement would limit
McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION July 2008 Page 24
City of Hamilton Downtown Transportation Terminal Environmental Project Report the City causing potential problems for terminal expansion in the future. Participants felt that the main benefit of the Hunter Street location is shared facilities with GO Transit for the following reasons: • provides intermodal and interregional connection potential; and • lower capital costs The overall concern regarding the Hunter Street alternative was its removed location with relation to the downtown core, which contributed to the following concerns: • limited potential of revitalizing the downtown core. • pulling pedestrian transit activity away from the heart of the downtown causing a ‘Ghost town’ feeling in the downtown core. • the negative impact may be greater for evening events due to concerns over safety; • the Hunter Street location is not as attractive for mixed use or joint development potential as the MacNab Street location; • traffic caused by the closure or reduced capacity of Hunter Street will impact traffic on Hunter, James, and John Streets. In addition, the bike lane and drop off area will be impacted; • rerouting to the Hunter Street location would require additional buses in the future increasing operating costs; • the Hunter Street option has less potential to connect to the planned BRT system than the MacNab Street location; and • potential perceived and real concerns from adjacent landowners. There were also concerns expressed over the constraints of the existing facility for future growth and the City’s dependence on a shared use agreement with GO Transit. Specific concerns included: • the City would not have complete control of the facilities in a shared use agreement with GO Transit; and • the existing GO Transit terminal may not meet growth demand in the future and an additional site may be required. During the comparative discussion, participants articulated the following recommendations for further research and analysis for a more comprehensive and detailed evaluation of the two alternatives: • add evaluation criteria that address: urban design elements; land use compatibility; consistency with the goals and objectives of the Downtown Transportation Master Plan and Secondary Plan; and contribution to the economic development of the downtown core; • quantify the possible transfer inconvenience if the Mountain routes were assigned to the Hunter Street location; • detail the magnitude of operational cost impacts; • determine the most likely assignment of routes to a Hunter Street terminal; • quantify recent employment growth patterns in the City of Hamilton;
McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION July 2008 Page 25
City of Hamilton Downtown Transportation Terminal Environmental Project Report
• reflect the BRT Ridership Growth Plan proposal in the impact assessment; and • research possible reduction in capital costs by phasing of the MacNab Street terminal.
5.3 Public information centre: 29 May 2008 Following the Stakeholder Workshop, the City proceeded to investigate the details of the two options based on the direction provided. It became clear that full closure of Hunter Street to provide sufficient space for additional bus platforms was not feasible due to the loss of local access and the impact on road network traffic capacity. The acquisition of private property adjacent to Hunter Street was not a reasonable option due to the anticipated high acquisition costs. As a result, the City developed a “hybrid” option using the MacNab Street road allowance in combination with the expanded HSR use of the GO Hamilton terminal to meet the terminal program requirements. The implications of this alternative were assembled and carried forward for comparison with the expanded MacNab Street alternative. The PIC was held at the Hamilton Convention Centre located adjacent to the existing MacNab Street transit terminal between 6:00 and 8:00 PM. The Notice of Study Commencement and Invitation of Comment was advertised in two separate issues of the Hamilton Spectator (At Your Service) on May 16 and May 23, 2008. The information displays provided a description of the project background, the basis for the development of the terminal requirements, a description of the alternatives considered and the basis for the selection of the preferred alternative. Members of the Project Team were available to respond to questions. The attendance totalled 20 individuals representing the adjacent businesses, local residents and the general public. A summary of comments received is outlined in the next section. Summary of public comment: 29 May 2008 The general consensus was in strong support for the creation of enhanced transit passenger facilities within the core area. The verbal comments were to encourage the City to move quickly to implement the facility to improve the passenger amenities and enhance the appearance of Gore Park both for pedestrians and businesses. A total of 12 Comment Sheets were submitted. A summary of the specific comments is provided below. • important to provide weather protection, ticket kiosk and washrooms for transit passengers. These amenities are lacking at the existing passenger terminals in Gore Park and MacNab Street; • split terminal concept can work if all downtown routes pass both locations;
McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION July 2008 Page 26
City of Hamilton Downtown Transportation Terminal Environmental Project Report
• removal of buses from Gore Park viewed as a positive initiative to improve pedestrian and business environment in the core area; • all street furniture must be “graffiti resistant”; • provide HSR personnel on site during initial operations to provide information to passengers; • important to expand HSR operations at the GO Hamilton terminal to improve connections with regional transit services; and • provision of high quality pedestrian linkages from the MacNab terminal to the various downtown business communities, institutions and major employment locations is imperative.
5.4 Indian and northern affairs Canada In correspondence dated 10 July 2008, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada advised that their inventory of claims did not include any active litigation in the vicinity of the proposed site for the terminal expansion.
McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION July 2008 Page 27
Appendix A– DESCRIPTION OF THE TERMINAL PROGRAM ELEMENTS City of Hamilton Downtown Transportation Terminal Environmental Project Report
APPENDIX A --- Description of Terminal Program Elements Passenger Safety and Convenience i. passenger safety is paramount in the design of the facility and features to minimize pedestrian circulation conflicts with vehicle traffic will be incorporated. Security features will be included such as CCTV, emergency telephones and enhanced lighting;
ii. emphasis will be placed on connecting the terminal to the surrounding pedestrian network as the provision of a safe, comfortable and convenient pedestrian environment is a key factor in increasing the use of public transportation. The DTMP report recommended restricting traffic on MacNab Street between Main and King to local traffic accessing the Convention Centre and the CIBC Building. This was considered to be a desirable feature in the development of the options in order to improve the performance of the operation and to increase the space available for the program requirements.
iii. the facility will comply with all building code requirements regarding fire and security alarm systems; Accessibility iv. full accessibility will be provided as necessary by the provision of vertical circulation devices and high platforms to allow direct entry to the transit vehicles. Accessibility features will be incorporated for physically, visually and hearing impaired customers; Passenger Environment v. facilities will be provided to enhance the passenger environment including canopies along platforms, a heated/air conditioned waiting area, ticket sales, bicycle storage and lockers, a concession area, washrooms, service information, benches, litter containers, newspaper boxes, public telephones, electronic information displays, a public address system and a photo identification booth;
vi. noise attenuation and ventilation systems to effectively deal with vehicle emissions will be incorporated into the facility design; Bus Platforms Requirements vii. There are currently five regular routes that use the MacNab Street terminal (1-King, 2-Barton, 3-Cannon, 4-Bayfront and 8-York) and nine Mountain routes using the Gore Park terminal at eight platforms as the Upper Kenilworth and the Sanatorium routes use a common stop. Prior to finalizing the program requirements for the new transit terminal, the possible implications of rationalizing present routes were considered in determining the scale of the platform requirements.
McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION July 2008 Page A-1
City of Hamilton Downtown Transportation Terminal Environmental Project Report
The result was a terminal program providing 13 bus platforms to meet forecast HSR requirements. The allocation of the HSR platforms is summarized below. The requirements of GO Transit, DARTS and Burlington Transit were investigated and, if possible, accommodation for DARTS and Burlington Transit will be reflected in the program requirements.
Corridor No. of Routes Platforms
Mountain 6 4
James-John 3 2 North/East
Inner City Local 4 2 Routes
King-Main East 2 2
King-Main West 3 3
TOTAL 18 13
viii. The design vehicle(s) will include both 12m and 18m vehicles. The number of bays by type will be 10 bays for 12m vehicles and 3 bays for 18m vehicles; Quality of Materials and Equipment ix. high quality, low maintenance materials and finishes will be used that are durable, hard wearing, colourfast and easily replaced; Support Facilities x. support facilities for operations personnel (washrooms, lunchroom, supervisor’s office, janitorial closet, electrical/ mechanical room, fire detection and alarm, emergency lighting supply);
xi. access for service vehicles to perform routine service and maintenance without interrupting normal terminal operations;
xii. provisions to allow easy replacement of terminal equipment;
xiii. if sufficient space is available, a maintenance/service bay to undertake interim repairs for transit vehicles will be included;
xiv. the facility will examine the potential to incorporate taxi stalls;
McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION July 2008 Page A-2
City of Hamilton Downtown Transportation Terminal Environmental Project Report
Urban Design Objectives The “ Putting People First: The New Land Use Plan For Downtown Hamilton ” provides clear direction regarding the urban design objectives relevant to the development of a new downtown transportation terminal. xv. improvements to municipal facilities and public spaces will be used to stimulate property values and investment in adjacent private properties through an emphasis on landscaping and pedestrian amenities;
xvi. new development will respect and reflect the design of the surrounding buildings and open space in terms of design, scale, massing, setbacks, height, integration with the built form and use;
xvii. new development will eliminate street level parking lots and vacant properties along major streets
xviii. incorporate LEED principals where cost effective to capitalize on opportunities for stormwater management, green roofs and energy efficiency.
McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION July 2008 Page A-3
Appendix B– REFERENCES NATURAL ENVIRONMENT APPRAISAL City of Hamilton Downtown Transportation Terminal Environmental Project Report
Appendix B: RRReferencesReferences natural environment appraisal
Bakowsky, W.D. 1996. Natural Heritage Resources of Ontario: Vegetation communities of southern Ontario. Natural Heritage Information Centre, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough, Ontario.
Chapman, L. J., and D. F. Putnam. 1984. The Physiography of Southern Ontario. Ontario Geological Survey, Special Volume 2. Government of Ontario, Ontario.
COSEWIC. 2000. Update COSEWIC Status Report on the Spotted Wintergreen Chimaphila maculata in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 6pp.
COSEWIC. 2006. Update COSEWIC Status Report on the American Columbo Frasera caroliniensis in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 21pp.
Goodban, A. 2003. The Vascular Plants of Hamilton Region. in Nature Counts Project Hamilton Natural Areas Inventory. Edited by J. K. Dwyer. Hamilton Naturalists Club. Hamilton, Ontario.
Hamilton Community Peregrine Project. 2007. History of the Hamilton Community Peregrine Project and FalconWatch. Available online at http://www.hamiltonnature.org/hamfalcam.html
Lee, H.T., W.D. Bakowsky, J. Riley, J. Bowles, M. Puddister, P. Uhlig and S. McMurray. 1998. Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario: First Approximation and Its Application. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Southcentral Science Section, Science Development and Transfer Branch. SCSS Field Guide FG-02.
Natural Heritage Information Centre. 2008. Natural Heritage Information Centre Website. http://nhic.mnr.gov.on.ca/nhic_.cfm . Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
Newmaster, S.G., A. Lehela, P.W.C. Uhlig, S. McMurray and M.J. Oldham. 1998. Ontario Plant List. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario Forest Research Institute, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Forest Research Information Paper No. 123, 550 pp. + appendices.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2000. Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide. Fish and Wildlife Branch, Wildlife Section. Science Development and Transfer Branch, Southcentral Science Section. 151p. + appendices.
Presant, E. W. and R. E. Wicklund. 1965. The Soils of Wentworth County. Report No. 32 of the Ontario Soil Survey. Canadian Department of Agriculture (Ottawa, Ontario) and Ontario Department of Agriculture (Toronto, Ontario).
McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION July 2008 Page B-1
City of Hamilton Downtown Transportation Terminal Environmental Project Report
Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth. June 2005. Hamilton Wentworth Official Plan: Towards a Sustainable Region. Hamilton, Ontario.
McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION July 2008 Page B-2
Appendix C– LIST OF HERITAGE FEATURES WITHIN STUDY AREA City of Hamilton Downtown Transportation Terminal Environmental Project Report
Appendix C --- List of hhheritageheritage features within study area
Volume 1: List of Designated Heritage Properties and Heritage Conservation Easements under the Ontario Heritage Act : Part IV Individually Designated Heritage Properties
42 James Street South – Sun Life Building 47 James Street South – Landed Banking and Loan Company Building 52 James Street South – Bank of Montreal 64 James Street South – St. Paul’s Presbyterian Church 96 James Street South – James Street Baptist Church
Hamilton’s Heritage Volume 2 – Inventory of Buildings of Architectural and/or Historical Interests
40 Bay Street South 152 King Street West 60 Bay Street South 10 MacNab Street South 62 Bay Street South 41 MacNab Street South 6 James Street South 105 MacNab Street South 8 James Street South 107 MacNab Street South 10 James Street South 109 MacNab Street South 12 James Street South 111 MacNab Street South 14 James Street South 1 Main Street East 16 James Street South 6 Main Street East 29 James Street South 8 Main Street East 63 James Street South 18 Main Street East 2 King Street West 1 Main Street West 15 King Street West 3 Main Street West 17 King Street West 5 Main Street West 33 King Street West 7 Main Street West 35 King Street West 17 Main Street West 55 King Street West 24 Main Street West 71 King Street West 31 Main Street West 73 King Street West 38 Main Street West 75 King Street West 40 Main Street West 96 King Street West 44 Main Street West 98 King Street West 50 Main Street West 100 King Street West 59 Main Street West 102 King Street West 61 Main Street West 104 King Street West 65 Main Street West 110 King Street West 67 Main Street West 114 King Street West 71 Main Street West 116 King Street West 73 Main Street West 120 King Street West 75 Main Street West 121 King Street West 100 Main Street West 122 King Street West 114 Main Street West 124 King Street West 123 Main Street West
McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION July 2008 Page C-1
Appendix D– STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS, 23 FEBRUARY 2007 City of Hamilton Downtown Transportation Terminal Environmental Project Report
Appendix ddd ––– SSStakeholderStakeholder comments: 23 February 2007 The following provides a consolidated summary and record of individual Stakeholder perspectives regarding the Downtown MacNab Street Transportation Terminal. Stakeholders in the immediate vicinity of the Downtown MacNab Street Multi-modal Transportation Terminal Functional Assessment Study Area participated in one-on-one interviews with the project team on August 23, 24 and 28, 2006, as a first step in understanding their perspectives on the location and development of the Multi-Modal Transit Facility. A total of 7 interviews were completed. Participants included property owners and managers or their representatives, as well as representatives from the nearby condominium corporation. The intent of the interviews was to: • Inform stakeholders about the study process, goals and timeline; • Provide information on relevant background studies and processes which have led to this initiative, and to the preferred location for the Transit Terminal including the initial phases of a Class Environmental Assessment, the Downtown Hamilton Transportation Master Plan, and the Functional Assessment Study; • Review the geography of the study area and review the preferred conceptual functional configuration for transit terminal development; • Discuss and record stakeholder views on the initiative, including concerns, issues and opportunities which stakeholders felt were important to address through the process or which were relevant to the preferred functional configuration; • Outline next steps in the process, including additional opportunities or workshop events in which stakeholders would be able to provide input and feedback into the study. Detailed summaries of individual stakeholder interviews follow the consolidated summary and these contain detailed comments from each stakeholder relative to specific sites and issues. Consolidated Summary of Stakeholder Interview Outcomes Support/Opposition to the Proposal In general, stakeholders who participated in the interviews are supportive of the Downtown MacNab Street Multi-modal Transportation Terminal; however, there were many general and site-specific concerns on the current functional configuration and many questions concerning the type and nature of urban design aspects of the proposal, such as the extent of public realm improvements, the incorporation of way finding and the clear delineation of defined pedestrian routes . Representatives of 1 King West expressed support for the idea of a downtown transportation terminal, but object to the project in its current location, indicating that this location is more appropriate for Class A office development at some time in the future. HECFI also opposes the current proposal due to potentially serious consequences arising from reduced loading and off loading capacity, and the removal of the through lane connection to King Street which will force truck and unwitting vehicles into the internal
McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION July 2008 Page D-1
City of Hamilton Downtown Transportation Terminal Environmental Project Report loading facility, seriously compromising operational capacity. Residents of the Piggott building oppose the transit terminal use in favor of office or additional residential development on the site. Benefits “Its an opportunity to do something really unique at this pedestrian hub location, the terminal could be a really great addition to the downtown, with clear way finding, interesting open space design and great architecture.” Many participants felt that the terminal would have a positive impact on the area. Some of the noted benefits include: • Improves Gore Park by removing the buses and their emissions, may even provide opportunities to expand the park through road removal • The downtown location will most effectively encourage transit use • Creates benefits for building owners, office and retail tenants and residents, i.e. provides a good travel to work option, attracts consumers of retail services • Creates opportunities to enhance the pedestrian environment and create clear pedestrian routes and open space amenities • Significant marketing and sales opportunities for HECFI events due to high visibility and high pedestrian use • Will help to strengthen renewal and interest in the downtown and support local business Concerns The interviewed stakeholders identified a variety of concerns related to the proposed functional configuration of the facility, environmental impacts, and raised questions concerning the nature of and extent of urban design elements. Many of the comments were specific to individual properties and facilities and these components are clearly recorded in the individual stake holder summaries. There were also requests for more information on the frequency of buses and other operational questions, whether the site could accommodate additional uses such as office or residential uses to better integrate the facility within its context, and suggestions to define more clearly pedestrian connections and routes through the terminal facility, and other physical design elements such as open space development and the treatment of the building gap on James Street Common concerns included: • Reduced environmental quality due to bus noise and emissions • Negative impacts for access and egress to adjacent buildings • Potential issues created from the project related to safety, personal and building security, loitering and vandalism of the area especially at night • Traffic flow problems which may result from the proposal of closing MacNab to vehicular traffic and parking/loading lane reductions • Negative view impacts overlooking the terminal property
McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION July 2008 Page D-2
City of Hamilton Downtown Transportation Terminal Environmental Project Report
• Lack of a clear understanding of the nature of urban design elements or improvements which could be achieved but are not shown on the current functional configuration. Site specific concerns included: • Potential negative impacts arising through the reconfiguration of the access and egress to the parking garage of 1 & 21 King Street West and the potential for unwitting vehicles to mistake this access for a through connection, utilize the access drive and block the carded garage access door without ability to turn around • Serious impacts of the proposal on the access, delivery, off loading functions and tour bus parking at HECFI, impacting overall loading operations and the ability to mount and host multiple functions simultaneously • Need for more information on pedestrian movement to/from the terminal, particularly to Jackson Square • Concern that proposed site is one of the only locations appropriate for a “Class A” Office that is a good size, in the right office location and is not encumbered by issues of land assembly. • Need a single point of contact for resident concerns (i.e. Piggott Building Residents) Recommended Follow up • Re-examine the parking, loading, movement function and building access configurations of the current proposal. Given the Concerns raised with the proposed reconfiguration of parking Garage Access to 1 and 21 King Street West, as well as the concerns raised by HECFI concerning movement and loading proposed along MacNab Street, the current configuration should be re-examined and a more suitable alternative should be developed in consultation with the Technical Committee. • Establish a follow-up set of meetings prior to the workshop to convey changes or revisions to the current proposal which address the concerns of 1 King Street West, 21 King Street West, and HECFI Suggestions for the Workshop • Clearly identify the relevant background studies and processes, including the Class EA Downtown Transportation Master Plan which identified the current site as the preferred Transportation Terminal location • Demonstrate why the preferred site is superior in comparison to other considered locations and outline short comings • Outline all consultation events associated with the determination of the preferred terminal location • Provide a relatively in-depth overview of functional operational features of the transit terminal, such as number of buses per day, frequency, staffing and operational considerations, security, route information, etc
McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION July 2008 Page D-3
City of Hamilton Downtown Transportation Terminal Environmental Project Report
• Issues related to emission and noise must be mitigated by demonstrating alternatives for the urban design of the site, and where possible, examples of the expected noise and emission levels should be clearly conveyed through president examples that many of the participants will recognize. • Urban design, planning issues and environmental concerns raised by the stakeholders should be addressed through the development of 2 to 3 conceptual development scenarios for the site, utilizing the revised preferred alternative as a common base. These concepts should be vetted and supported by the municipality and the technical committee and indicate, built form, uses, public realm and streetscape improvements both agencies would be prepared to accept potentially as an interim and final build out condition. These concepts should be modeled utilizing 3 dimensional architectural foam on a sketch drawing illustrating public realm improvements to clearly demonstrate how issues can be addressed, resolved or mitigated though site development. For example: • Consider identifying clear pedestrian routes that orients pedestrians toward key destinations in the immediate vicinity • Look for opportunities to create new green spaces on lands not needed for buses, particularly on the Yale property (Piggott residents expressed an interest in purchasing property for open space) • Consider enclosing the entire facility or making it part of a larger building (build office or residential on top). Also consider putting parking below the surface, and adding a green roof to improve views over the facility • Consider 5 minute lay-by parking areas for passenger pick up • The 2 to 3 conceptual scenarios should be presented at the workshop, with participants having an opportunity to review critique and change or add features to each to achieve the best contextual fit while preserving terminal function. Participants will present their review of the scenarios and express a preference for the one which best mitigates issues or areas of concern. Individual Stakeholder Perspectives Note: Throughout the document stakeholder comments are shown regular text with key ideas shown in bold, responses from the project team are shown in italics. Property Manager, Commerce Place, 21 King Street West (West CIBC Tower) General Comments, Questions and Team Responses to Preferred Functional Configuration These questions and comments are useful to the municipality and the planning team in preparing for the future workshop and providing a broad overview and understanding of the initiative, functional issues and background.
McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION July 2008 Page D-4
City of Hamilton Downtown Transportation Terminal Environmental Project Report
• Is the terminal just for local transit? No, additional transit service from other municipalities will utilize the terminal and the potential and frequencies of these integrated routes will be determined in the future. • Will two way vehicular movements on MacNab be removed to create a dedicated transit only street? Correct • Will we require an easement or some other agreement with the City to permit continued access on MacNab to the parking garage entry and to the service lane to the south of our building to permit diesel delivery for our emergency generators? This lane is also the location of emergency exists from two stairwells. The team will examine this issue; however, it is clear that access needs to be retained for service vehicles, emergency service vehicles, and in the event of fire and building evacuation. • Does the proposal include widening the asphalt on the east side of MacNab Street and reducing the sidewalk width? The current proposal does not envision changing the location of the sidewalk at this location. • Places where pedestrians will cross MacNab street should be clearly shown • Who will be responsible for garbage and maintenance of MacNab Street the Terminal? - HSR – these details will be determined as the study proceeds. • What is the timing and frequency of buses during the day and during peak hour use? During peak frequency buses are anticipated to arrive at a frequency of 3 to 4 minutes Stakeholder Perspectives on the Benefits of the Initiative • It is positive to get the buses out of Gore Park. • This initiative may encourage people to take the bus, and will likely benefit some of our tenants • There is an opportunity to enhance the pedestrian environment in the vicinity of the transit terminal. Stakeholder Perspectives on Issues or Areas of Concern about the Initiative • Need to preserve and maintain the existing laneway and emergency exits to the south of the building. This area is also used for diesel delivery and services 1 King West. • Need to ensure that transit users are separated from this south service lane and do not interfere with deliveries or emergency building exits. • General concern with keeping transit users away from the building to ensure the building’s and tenants’ security • Building vandalism is a concern with late night transit use. • Concern over the aesthetics of the terminal. o What will tenants look down and see? Will the facility be covered or will tenants see all the buses? This building is a tower and all the tenants on the south side will be subjected to the view below.
McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION July 2008 Page D-5
City of Hamilton Downtown Transportation Terminal Environmental Project Report
There are windows on the south side of the building from the 3 rd floor up. • It is important to ensure continued access to 126 spaces underground spaces which are leased to tenants and not available to the public. The entrance is card access only • The parking garage entry at MacNab and King seems confusing - tenants will need to access and exit from King – and the buses will enter from here as well. Concern that non-tenants or visitors mistake this for a public road and get stuck in front or our card access garage doors? This configuration looks like it needs more work. • There should be a strong emphasis on landscaping and greening the area and potentially an examination of green roof technology on any roof or terminal shelter. • Noise and emissions are a very big concern • Need to demonstrate how pedestrians will move across the site – there should be a clear pedestrian route that orients pedestrians to key destinations in the immediate vicinity. • How do we get more information about the study and who do we contact? Municipal contact information as well as website information was provided. Recommended Follow Up Brief follow-up meeting is recommended to outline additional changes to the tenant parking access and egress prior to hosting the workshop. This stakeholder is interested in attending the workshop Property Manager, Wilson Blanchard Management Inc, 25 Main West and other local properties General Comments, Questions and Team Responses to Preferred Functional Configuration • Pleased to be invited to share perspectives on the initiative given the extent of ownership or management in the vicinity of the study area • Generally, very pleased with the prospect of transit terminal development as a positive step for the downtown and business, and to enhance the Gore Park Environment • Wilson Blanchard owns and/or manages the following properties − Gowlings – Law firm establishment − All properties on the south side of Main Street between MacNab and James including 25 Main Street West and Gowlings, former bank of Montreal − The Mercantile Bank building and 37 to 39 James Street South − The ground and second floors of the Piggott/sun life building − 9 to 15 Main Street East − 4 and 20 Houghson − 23 Main Street East − 25 Main street East − 18 to 40 King Street East
McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION July 2008 Page D-6
City of Hamilton Downtown Transportation Terminal Environmental Project Report
− Wilson Blanchard are currently contracted to manage the Piggott/sun life building on behalf of the Condominium corporation Stakeholder Perspectives on the Benefits of the Initiative • It is positive to get the buses out of Gore Park. • Many of the outdoor dining establishments fronting Gore Park will likely benefit from reduced noise and emissions resulting from Transit Terminal Development. • It should be possible to remove the bus access road to the south of Gore Park and expand the park and pedestrian environment • There is an opportunity to enhance the pedestrian environment in the vicinity of the transit terminal and Gore Park Stakeholder Perspectives on issues or areas of concern about the Initiative • There is a general concern with noise and emission levels associated with terminal development. Impacts are likely to be somewhat less on the commercial properties of the Piggott /Sun Life building than the residential uses above, as windows are not present that can be opened on floors 1 to 3 of the Piggott building. • Lands not needed to accommodate the bus turning loop on the Yale Property should be utilized to create a green landscape area or buffer between the Piggott /Sun Life and Centenary Church Buildings and the Transit Terminal, and provide an East West open space linkage between James Street and the North South MacNab Linkage • There is a need to ensure that the terminal area is appropriately staffed, or policed, to ensure that it does not become a place for transients, street people and loitering which would not have a positive effect on transit use. Design and staffing of the facility will both be important in this regard. • The stakeholder suggested that the residents of the Piggott /Sun Life building might be the biggest challenge to development of the initiative. • There is a need to develop and appropriate beautification response on James Street which examines landscaping, potential buildings or other solutions to improve the gap between Commerce Place and the Piggott /Sun Life building, while ensuring that transit is accessible, but potentially not immediately visible.
Recommended Follow up None at present. This stakeholder is interested in attending the workshop CEO, HECFI, as well as representatives from Marketing, Operations and Event Planning General Comments, Questions and Team Responses to Preferred Functional Configuration
McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION July 2008 Page D-7
City of Hamilton Downtown Transportation Terminal Environmental Project Report
• The HECFI delegation raised significant concerns regarding the proposed current functional configuration and expressed opposition to proceeding further unless the following issues were addressed:
o The proposed reduction of the current two lane configuration (one travel lane and one parking/loading lane excluding the bus lane) on MacNab to the east of the existing transit platform to create the proposed configuration of one north bound travel lane which terminates at the access door to the internal loading area beneath the provincial office tower and routes trucks truck and unwitting motorists through the internal building loading having serious consequences to loading and delivery activities. o We are strongly opposed to the proposed configuration for operational and functional reasons. o A through lane connection from Main to King is necessary to permit trucks and other vehicles to leave MacNab Street without having to travel through the internal loading area under the provincial office building and to permit continued access to King Street o The existing parking lane is required in its current configuration to accommodate large truck stacking of off-loading when the internal loading bays are full or at capacity, which is the case for significant large events which can take in the order of 1 to 3 days to fully load or unload. o The existing parking lane is also required for performing artist concert tour buses and other tour buses. The availability and proximity of concert tour bus parking is often specified and required in the contract to secure various entertainment acts. The parking lane extends the capacity of the facility to accommodate multiple events occurring simultaneously at the facility. Reducing the parking/stacking/off-loading lane would limit loading capacity and severely restrict the functional capacity of the facility and impact negatively its ability to compete for and mount large events.
• What is the number and frequency of busses over a 24 hour period? Estimates of this nature could be provided for the workshop. During peak frequency busses are anticipated to arrive at a frequency of 3 to 4 minutes. • Could you clarify of the term, ‘multi-modal’, as this typically refers to bus to rail or bus to subway terminal connection? The terminal would accommodate pedestrian, cycle and vehicular connections to the bus and would permit connections to other municipally operated bus service routes. • Will there be bus operator facilities included in the development? Yes, these would be provided along with ticketing outlets, routing information, washrooms, etc. • What is the proposed development timeframe? The City of Hamilton would like to begin this project in 2008.
McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION July 2008 Page D-8
City of Hamilton Downtown Transportation Terminal Environmental Project Report
Stakeholder Perspectives on the Benefits of the Initiative • The visibility and high pedestrian use of the proposed transit terminal creates significant marketing and sales opportunities related to events and activities. Suggest a marquee, digital signage board or bill board publicizing events and planned events visible from the Transit Terminal would be of significant benefit to HECFI operations, sales and marketing. Request that the City consider and formalize the types of marketing and sales opportunities it would consider appropriate. • The potential for marketing on digital signage space within the transit terminal building is a second marketing opportunity. HECFI welcome an opportunity to discuss this marketing opportunity with HSR and the City, and the possibility of not having to pay for marketing time or space Stakeholder Perspectives on issues or areas of concern about the Initiative • There is a great concern with the functional logistics of the current proposal as outlined above. Request an additional meeting once changes to the configuration have taken place to address HECFI’s loading and event logistical issues. HECFI was informed that there concerns were significant a second meeting would be established to discuss alternative solutions prior to the workshop • There is concern about the nature and location of pedestrian access and flows - the current diagram does not convey how people will use, access or be oriented to the facility from the various locations from which they might arrive. Suggest that this be demonstrated at the workshop. • The air intakes are located on the east wall of Hamilton Place at and above the second level. There is great concern with potential degradation in air quality within the buildings if bus stops are moved closer to the building Recommended Follow up Further meeting required - Given the concerns raised by HECFI concerning their logistical operations, some revisions to the current functional configuration should be considered in consultation with the Technical Committee, and ensuing changes should be discussed at a second meeting with HECFI prior to the workshop. This stakeholder is interested in attending the workshop. Property Manager, Yale Properties, Owner of Stelco Tower and Jackson Square General Comments, Questions and Team Responses to Preferred Functional Configuration • What happens with the existing bus stop at Jackson Square? It is beneficial to our operation to have this at our location. Some existing stops in the vicinity of the transit terminal will be removed and consolidated at the new facility. The extent of stop relocation is
McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION July 2008 Page D-9
City of Hamilton Downtown Transportation Terminal Environmental Project Report
not currently confirmed, however, the majority of stop locations will be those which currently occur in Gore Park • There is a need to ensure clear pedestrian flow along MacNab to ensure people can access Jackson Square. • Is there an ability to accommodate North and South bound vehicular movement on MacNab? The current functional configuration does not contemplate this. • The transit terminal is somewhat hidden from view, this is both good and not so good. We want people to easily arrive at and find Jackson Square. • Need to ensure good pedestrian flow and access to Jackson Square, this is especially important for visitors using the transit terminal who may not be familiar with the downtown, and not so important in terms of downtown employees who are familiar with what the downtown offers. • Have you considered the inclusion of 5 minute lay-by parking areas for passenger pick up? This might be important to many people and might increase transit use. This is not considered in the current configuration, but potentially could become an addition and there are a number of passenger pick-up opportunities nearby in parking bays and at meters • Is weather protection contemplated along the transit loop, or just on MacNab Street? Currently weather protection is contemplated for all bus stop locations on MacNab and on the proposed new loop. It may be possible to extend this in some way to other locations within the terminal. • Can the entire facility be covered or become part of a building? Will consider this idea, it may be possible in conjunction with a development of partnership agreement. • Are there operational and or construction issues which arise due to the presence of the underground truck tunnel which services Jackson Square and the Market? The current configuration does not anticipate construction issues, and operational issues are considered minor or benign in nature. • Is it possible to create a large underground public parking lot beneath the transit terminal ? The current configuration does not contemplate this potential; however, the municipality does have an interest in locating a new public parking facility in the general area east of Main and James at some time in the future. Stakeholder Perspectives on the Benefits of the Initiative • There is an opportunity to do something really unique at this pedestrian hub location, and it should include architectural and design excellence. There is an opportunity to improve the back of the CIBC building, the appearance of the HECFI building from MacNab Street, and make MacNab a really interesting and attractive pedestrian connection.
McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION July 2008 Page D-10
City of Hamilton Downtown Transportation Terminal Environmental Project Report
• The facility should be a really great addition to the downtown, with clear way finding, interesting open space design and great architecture. Stakeholder Perspectives on issues or areas of concern about the Initiative • Concern that the terminal will become a hang out for teenagers, street people and loiterers. The facility must look good, be properly staffed with security personnel to ensure it is appreciated and used by the general public. This involves good design and good operation Recommended Follow up None. This stakeholder is interested in attending the workshop Centenary United Church General Comments, Questions and Team Responses to Preferred Functional Configuration • The recent addition to the rear of the Church has been designed structurally to accept another story at some time in the future, which might accommodate administrative, and office expansions or program space. • The Church has an interest in understanding what will occur between the Bus Loop and the rear of the Church, and in potentially preserving this space as landscaped open space to provide an access or arrival space to a potential new rear building entrance. • The Church needs to potentially reconsider entrances, exists and internal space to create a logical entry or frontage which can address the Transit Terminal or open space which might be developed just north of the church and Piggott /Sun Life Building. • Our congregation does utilize the Yale Parking lot, however, there are other lots in the vicinity and removal of the Yale lot will not impact our operations. Stakeholder Perspectives on the Benefits of the Initiative • There is an opportunity to remove the buses from Gore Park • This initiative will help to strengthen renewal and interest in the downtown. It is an important and beneficial amenity and will better enable members of the community and our congregation to participate in ongoing church and community programming. • There is an opportunity to create an attractive green open space between James and MacNab, south of the transit loop, which could also function as an entry space to our facility and provide a focus for a future north entry to the church. This would be an important improvement and would enhance the physical surrounds of our facility, which is not possible on Main Street due to the lack of space. This would complement the many functions hosted at the church and improve user comfort and access to our facility. • The transit terminal is a good location for Blue Line Taxi/WheelTrans access and DARTS , and other specially outfitted
McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION July 2008 Page D-11
City of Hamilton Downtown Transportation Terminal Environmental Project Report
vehicles to centrally service the needs of physically challenged persons within the downtown. Our mandate is to service the community, and some of our congregation has need of transportation for the mobility disadvantaged. Permitting this function close in proximity to our Church and its programming is beneficial to the parishioners we service. • There is a need for affordable housing within the downtown. The potential for overbuilding the James Street frontage with affordable housing units should be considered. Stakeholder Perspectives on issues or areas of concern about the Initiative • There is a concern with exhaust and emission levels associated with terminal development. • There is concerned interest with the type and nature of development between the Transit Loop and the rear of the Church. Recommended Follow up None. This stakeholder is interested in attending the workshop Vice President, and Property Manager, Effort Trust Company, Commerce Place, 1 King Street West (CIBC Tower) General Comments, Questions and Team Responses to Preferred Functional Configuration • It is a mistake to build the Transit Terminal in this location adjacent to the two best “Class A” office towers in the City. This site is appropriate for a “Class A” office building and represents the only site of such prime location and size that is not encumbered by issues of land assembly. • While the current “Class A” office leasing rates do not permit the development of a new office building at this location, this potential or eventuality should be protected so that office development can take place on this site in the future. • If the transit terminal has to go here, the municipality should consider how this can co-exist and be integrated with future “Class A” office development even if this is 20 years from now. • In the interim, our company would prefer to have the site banked as a parkette until the office market has returned. • Effort Trust Company Owns and/or manages a number of properties in the downtown area including Effort Square at Main and Catherine, the Canada Trust Building at King and Hughson, and other properties Stakeholder Perspectives on the Benefits of the Initiative • The initiative is important; however the choice of location is a mistake. Stakeholder Perspectives on issues or areas of concern about the Initiative
McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION July 2008 Page D-12
City of Hamilton Downtown Transportation Terminal Environmental Project Report
• There is a concern with the reconfiguration of the CIBC Parking Garage access and egress configuration. It is confusing and non- tenants will likely mistakenly turn in the garage entry lane and become stuck at the carded parking access gate impeding tenant access. This configuration must be reconsidered. • There is concern that MacNab will be closed to vehicular traffic and this will add to congestion forcing traffic on King to Caroline as the next alternative southbound access to Main Street. This is identified as inconvenient for tenants. There is a clear preference for allowing some vehicular traffic on MacNab as an important North South connector between King and Main. • There is concern with noise and emission levels and the impacts this will have on a glass tower building. For example - Will the windows need to be washed more frequently, and who will absorb these costs? • There is significant concern with tenant safety, building security and potential acts of vandalism, broken windows and graffiti associated with terminal operation, particularly at night. • There is concern that the transit terminal building may attract and provide refuge for street people and transient individuals which is a significant security concern. Recommended Follow up Additional Meeting Recommended. Given the concerns raised concerning CIBC parking Garage access and egress, and concerns over vehicular traffic re- routing, some revisions or reconsideration of the current functional configuration should be considered in consultation with the Technical Committee, and ensuing changes should be discussed at a second meeting with stakeholder prior to the workshop. This stakeholder expressed an interest in sending a representative to the workshop. Condominium Association Board President, Piggott /Sun Life Building General Comments, Questions and Team Responses to Preferred Functional Configuration • Generally, surprised that the site identified as the preferred transit terminal location had been selected without consultation between the Piggott Building residents the City. The team noted that the Class EA process had been followed for the Transportation Master Plan, including several rounds of public involvement and notice. • During the Downtown Transportation Master Plan Study, it was understood from City representatives that the final location would likely be the least likely for development of the transit terminal. • Disappointed about the lack of consultation with Piggott building residents concerning the James/John two way street conversion. Stakeholder Perspectives on the Benefits of the Initiative • There is an opportunity to remove the buses from Gore Park which may result in increased support for local business in the area.
McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION July 2008 Page D-13
City of Hamilton Downtown Transportation Terminal Environmental Project Report
• The Condominium Association has expressed an interest in purchasing part of the Yale property holdings, approximately a 10 to 12 foot width immediately adjacent to the North length of the Piggott Building for development as open recreational space for condominium owners. The offer was rejected by Yale Properties. There is interest on the part of the Condominium Association to discuss potential purchase of Yale Property should the City acquire the property in the future, or some alternative use agreement which would permit open space use by building residents. Stakeholder Perspectives on issues or areas of concern about the Initiative • There is great concern with noise and emissions and resulting impacts to: o The ongoing maintenance of the building, given it is constructed of soft limestone and is a designated Heritage building. There is concern regarding the potential increased deterioration of the heritage building through increased emissions and pollution o The heritage status of the building and the appropriateness of locating such a facility adjacent to a heritage building and the consistency of this initiative with the official policy framework relative to heritage policies. The suggestion is that the facility is not an appropriate contextual addition in keeping with the importance and prominence of the historic Piggott building. The stakeholder raised the issue of the importance of heritage policies within the Official Plan/ Downtown Secondary Plan and suggested that this initiative should be in keeping with these policies. o The ability of residents to reasonably continue to enjoy living next to the transit terminal site and enjoy opening windows fronting onto the terminal site and expect a reasonably quiet environment in the evening when residents are trying to sleep. • There is great concern with the potential negative impacts to condominium property values • There is great concern with regard to the quality of the view looking over the Terminal site. It is interesting to note that when individual units where originally purchased, the Royal Bank Building essentially blocked all windows and views looking north to approximately the 10 th floor of the Piggott Building. The current view is thus relatively new and not part of the original state of purchase for many of the units. • There is concern with the compatibility of existing and proposed land uses. The stakeholder indicated that 80% of residents (total 110 units) of the Piggott building oppose the transit terminal use in favor of office or additional residential development on the site. The stakeholder expressed an interest in the possibility of combining the transit terminal with these types of uses to better integrate the facility within the downtown and improve the contextual relationship to the Piggott building.
McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION July 2008 Page D-14
City of Hamilton Downtown Transportation Terminal Environmental Project Report
• There is great concern regarding individual and building security and the suggestion is that the transit terminal will lead to increased loitering and disturbances by youth and transient individuals which may result in increased unlawful break and entering. • There is concern over the idling of buses and the stakeholder inquired whether the busses would be subjected to the City’s current idling bylaw. The stakeholder was informed that the team would have this information available at the workshop • There is general concern about the number and frequency of busses at the terminal. The stakeholder was informed that during peak frequency busses are anticipated to arrive every of 3 to 4 minutes and that additional information would be available at the workshop • There is concern that once constructed and in operation, there may not be a single point of contact at HRS to effectively and immediately deal with condominium owner concerns and it was suggested that this would be important in alleviating resident concerns. Recommended Follow up None. The stakeholder expressed interest in attending the workshop with 3 to 4 other residents of the condominium.
McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION July 2008 Page D-15
Appendix E– PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE DISPLAY PANELS City of Hamilton Downtown Transportation Terminal Environmental Project Report
Appendix E ––– PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE DISPLAY PANELS
Downtown Transit Terminal EA Investigation Public Information Centre No.#1 Date: May 29, 2008 DOWNTOWN TRANSIT TERMINAL EA INVESTIGATION
WELCOME
DOWNTOWN HAMILTON TRANSPORTATION TERMINAL MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT INVESTIGATION
PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE MAY 29, 2008
PLEASE SIGN IN
MEMBERS OF THE PROJECT TEAM ARE AVAILABLE TO DISCUSS THE PROJECT WITH YOU. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO ASK QUESTIONS AND PROVIDE YOUR COMMENTS.
Capital Planning & Implementation Division Environmental Planning Section www.hamilton.ca/cpi
Downtown Transit Terminal EA Investigation Public Information Centre No.#1 Date: May 29, 2008 PURPOSE OF THIS PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE
• To outline the findings of the investigation to develop an expanded public transit terminal for HSR passengers; • To hear your views on the proposal; and • To outline the next steps in the implementation of the project
Please follow the information panels provided, ask the Project team members for clarification as required and record your opinion on the comment form provided before you leave.
website: www.hamilton.ca/transit terminal e mail: [email protected]
Capital Planning & Implementation Division Environmental Planning Section www.hamilton.ca/cpi
McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION July 2008 Page E-1
City of Hamilton Downtown Transportation Terminal Environmental Project Report
Downtown Transit Terminal EA Investigation Public Information Centre No.#1 Date: May 29, 2008 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM
• the present Gore Park terminal does not provide the customer amenities consistent with the City’s objectives to retain and increase HSR ridership;
• the operation of the present Gore Park passenger terminal is in conflict with the adjacent business and commercial operations;
• the location of the present passenger terminal is a barrier to the revitalization of the core area and the removal of HSR operations from Gore Park is seen as a short term priority;
• the relocation of the HSR core area from Gore park must recognize the implications to HSR operating and financial performance: – the system carries 70,000 passengers daily; 20,000 trips into or through the core area; – transfers between routes must be convenient; and – route extensions which increase running time and increase operating costs should be avoided
Capital Planning & Implementation Division Environmental Planning Section www.hamilton.ca/cpi
Downtown Transit Terminal EA Investigation Public Information Centre No.#1 Date: May 29, 2008 THE APPROACH TO FINDING A SOLUTION
• The Environmental Assessment Framework • Problem Definition; • Alternative Planning Solutions; • Alternative Design Concepts for the Preferred Solution; • Environmental Report; and • Implementation
• The Downtown Transportation Master Plan examined the Problem and various Planning Solutions and recommended the MacNab Street location
Capital Planning & Implementation Division Environmental Planning Section www.hamilton.ca/cpi
McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION July 2008 Page E-2
City of Hamilton Downtown Transportation Terminal Environmental Project Report
Downtown Transit Terminal EA Investigation Public Information Centre No.#1 Date: May 29, 2008 THE APPROACH TO FINDING A SOLUTION
• Functional Assessment Investigation; July 2006 – detailed the terminal program requirements; – assessment of the design concepts for the MacNab Street location; – stakeholder interviews, August 2006 – Identification of public concerns, schedule, property acquisition, implications on adjacent properties and the capital costs
• EA Submission Investigation; Current – further review of on street alternatives using MacNab Street, Hunter Street or a combination of these road sections to address concerns – Stakeholder workshops were held May 2007 to obtain reaction – Public Information Centre May 29, 2008
Capital Planning & Implementation Division Environmental Planning Section www.hamilton.ca/cpi
Downtown Transit Terminal EA Investigation Public Information Centre No.#1 Date: May 29, 2008 REVISED EA APPROVAL FOR TRANSIT PROJECTS
In September 2007, the Provincial Government approved an amendment to the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment to add municipal transit projects. The result was to provide a pre approved planning procedure to plan and implement transit projects in accordance with the project classification.
Each project has been categorized on the basis of the expected magnitude of the environmental impact. Transit terminals have been classified as an A+ Project being:
“ the expansion, improvement and modification of an existing station not in or adjacent to residential land uses or an environmentally sensitive area”
An A+ project is pre approved and the City may proceed without obtaining approval under the Municipal Class EA. However, while streamlining the approval procedure, the assessment of environmental effects and public consultation will continue to be included.
Capital Planning & Implementation Division Environmental Planning Section www.hamilton.ca/cpi
McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION July 2008 Page E-3
City of Hamilton Downtown Transportation Terminal Environmental Project Report
Downtown Transit Terminal EA Investigation Public Information Centre No.#1 Date: May 29, 2008 DEVELOPMENT OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
Description of the Selected Program Elements
– off street bus terminal development preferred – 13 bus platforms – desirable passenger amenities: • weather protection; • full accessibility; • island platforms with clockwise circulation; • passenger information, fare sales, lost & found; • public washrooms; • safety and security; and • vandal resistant finishes – operator facilities
Capital Planning & Implementation Division Environmental Planning Section www.hamilton.ca/cpi
Downtown Transit Terminal EA Investigation Public Information Centre No.#1 Date: May 29, 2008 TRANSIT TERMINAL EXAMPLES : MISSISSAUGA
Capital Planning & Implementation Division Environmental Planning Section www.hamilton.ca/cpi
McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION July 2008 Page E-4
City of Hamilton Downtown Transportation Terminal Environmental Project Report
Downtown Transit Terminal EA Investigation Public Information Centre No.#1 Date: May 29, 2008 TRANSIT TERMINAL EXAMPLES : MISSISSAUGA
Capital Planning & Implementation Division Environmental Planning Section www.hamilton.ca/cpi
Downtown Transit Terminal EA Investigation Public Information Centre No.#1 Date: May 29, 2008 TRANSIT TERMINAL EXAMPLES : KITCHENER
Capital Planning & Implementation Division Environmental Planning Section www.hamilton.ca/cpi
McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION July 2008 Page E-5
City of Hamilton Downtown Transportation Terminal Environmental Project Report
Downtown Transit Terminal EA Investigation Public Information Centre No.#1 Date: May 29, 2008 TRANSIT TERMINAL EXAMPLES : GO TRANSIT
Capital Planning & Implementation Division Environmental Planning Section www.hamilton.ca/cpi
Downtown Transit Terminal EA Investigation Public Information Centre No.#1 Date: May 29, 2008 TRANSIT TERMINAL EXAMPLES : WINDSOR
Terminal Under Construction
Capital Planning & Implementation Division Environmental Planning Section www.hamilton.ca/cpi
McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION July 2008 Page E-6
City of Hamilton Downtown Transportation Terminal Environmental Project Report
Downtown Transit Terminal EA Investigation Public Information Centre No.#1 Date: May 29, 2008 DESCRIPTION OF DESIGN CONCEPTS
MacNab Street design Concept
• Use of MacNab Street road allowance and acquisition of surface parking lot adjacent to fully meet program requirements • Access retained to Hamilton Place and CIBC tower • No modifications of parking ramps to King Street and Main Street required • Northbound traffic movement from MacNab Street South of the Main Street eliminated
Capital Planning & Implementation Division Environmental Planning Section www.hamilton.ca/cpi
Downtown Transit Terminal EA Investigation Public Information Centre No.#1 Date: May 29, 2008 MACNAB STREET DESIGN CONCEPT
Capital Planning & Implementation Division Environmental Planning Section www.hamilton.ca/cpi
McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION July 2008 Page E-7
City of Hamilton Downtown Transportation Terminal Environmental Project Report
Downtown Transit Terminal EA Investigation Public Information Centre No.#1 Date: May 29, 2008 DESCRIPTION OF DESIGN CONCEPTS
MacNab/GO Hunter Street “Hybrid” Option • Use of MacNab Street road allowance to create 9 bus platforms and construct a passenger terminal building • Modify existing parking ramps to allow passenger platform development • Access retained to Hamilton Place and CIBC tower • Use of the GO transit terminal to use excess capacity to provide a minimum of 5 platforms for HSR on Hunter Street • Northbound traffic movement from MacNab Street South of the main street eliminated
Capital Planning & Implementation Division Environmental Planning Section www.hamilton.ca/cpi
Downtown Transit Terminal EA Investigation Public Information Centre No.#1 Date: May 29, 2008 MACNAB/GO HUNTER HYBRID
MacNab Street GO Location
Capital Planning & Implementation Division Environmental Planning Section www.hamilton.ca/cpi
McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION July 2008 Page E-8
City of Hamilton Downtown Transportation Terminal Environmental Project Report
Downtown Transit Terminal EA Investigation Public Information Centre No.#1 Date: May 29, 2008 MACNAB/GO HUNTER HYBRID
Hunter Street GO Location
Capital Planning & Implementation Division Environmental Planning Section www.hamilton.ca/cpi
Downtown Transit Terminal EA Investigation IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF Public Information Centre No.#1 Date: May 29, 2008 ALTERNATIVE DESIGN CONCEPTS
Capital Planning & Implementation Division Environmental Planning Section www.hamilton.ca/cpi
McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION July 2008 Page E-9
City of Hamilton Downtown Transportation Terminal Environmental Project Report
Downtown Transit Terminal EA Investigation SELECTION OF THE TECHNICALLY Public Information Centre No.#1 Date: May 29, 2008 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
The project team recommends the development of the “Hybrid” Option for the following reasons:
• meets all the program requirements • minimal implications on adjacent properties and traffic operations • relatively short implementation time • lower capital cost with no impact on transit operating costs • good support for urban design objectives
Capital Planning & Implementation Division Environmental Planning Section www.hamilton.ca/cpi
Downtown Transit Terminal EA Investigation Public Information Centre No.#1 Date: May 29, 2008 NEXT STEPS
Following this public information centre, the following action will be taken in implementation:
• The project team will review the comments and undertake refinements to the selected concept as required – Preliminary design to update scope and costs – Urban design features, landscaping, pedestrian linkages • Submission of a report to the City of Hamilton Public Works Committee • Prepare EA submission as necessary • If approved, commence design and construction of the facility
Capital Planning & Implementation Division Environmental Planning Section www.hamilton.ca/cpi
McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION July 2008 Page E-10
Appendix F– NOTICE OF STUDY COMMENCEMENT City of Hamilton Downtown Transportation Terminal Environmental Project Report
Appendix fff ––– NOTICE OF STUDY COMMENCEMENT
CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NOTICE OF STUDY COMMENCEMENT AND INVITIATION FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
Downtown Multi-Modal Transportation Centre
THE STUDY
The City of Hamilton’s Downtown Transportation Master Plan Class Environmental Assessment identified the need to build an expanded transit terminal in the downtown core. The study demonstrated a need to better service transit users and to reduce the environmental impacts of buses where they currently circulate at Gore Park. The plan suggested that the most practical location for the terminal is MacNab Street between King Street West and Main Street West in consolidation with the existing MacNab on street facility.
The City of Hamilton has accordingly initiated the Class Environmental Assessment (EA) process to review this proposal in more detail.
THE PROCESS
This project is being planned as a Schedule A+ project under the Municipal Engineers Association’s Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (June 2000, as amended in 2007). At the completion of this study there will be an Environmental Report made available for public review.
Staff has reviewed different design options and alternatives to accommodate a Downtown Multi-Modal Transportation Centre. The Options are as follows:
Option A - MacNab on street (building, redesigned platforms, directional changes) along with Hunter Street
Option B - Expanded MacNab Street (includes existing MacNab Street and vacant land & parking lot between CIBC building and Pigott building
Based on the evaluation the preferred option is Option A.
McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION July 2008 Page F-1
City of Hamilton Downtown Transportation Terminal Environmental Project Report
PUBLIC COMMENTS INVITED
The following Public Information Centre will be held to provide background on the issues that have been addressed to this point and to receive public input:
DATE: May 29, 2008 TIME: 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. LOCATION: Hamilton Convention Centre, Albion Room 1 Summers Lane, Hamilton
PUBLIC COMMENTS INVITED
There is an opportunity at any time during this process for interested persons to review outstanding issues and bring concerns to the attention of the Project Managers. If you have any questions or comments or wish to be added to the study mailing list, please contact:
Lorissa Skrypniak, MCIP RPP Dale Turvey Sr. Project Manager Project Manager Capital Planning & Implementation McCormick Rankin Corporation Public Works, City of Hamilton 2655 North Sheridan Way 77 James Street North, Ste 320 Mississauga, Ontario Hamilton, Ontario L5K 2P8 L8R 2K3 Ph. 1-905-823-8500 Ph. 905-546-2424 ext. 2732 Fax 1-905-823-8503 Fax 905-546-4435 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]
Information will be collected in accordance with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. With the exception of personal information, all comments will become part of the public record.
This Notice issued on May 16, 2008 and May 23, 2008.
McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION July 2008 Page F-2
Appendix G– STAKEHOLDER CONTACT LIST City of Hamilton Downtown Transportation Terminal Environmental Project Report
Appendix GGG ––– STAKEHOLDER CONTACT LIST
Last Name First Name Organization Slattery Barbara Environmental Assessment & Planning Co-ordinator Assembly of First Nations Assembly of First Nations Bastien Heather Huron Wendat First Nation Bomberry Lonny Director, Lands and Resources Boswell Don Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Brennan Jane The Metis Nation of Ontario Chiblow Sue Council of Ontario Chiefs Donnelly David Patent and Trademark Agents Elijah Rolanda Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians General David M. Six Nations General Paul Six Nations Eco-Centre Gros-Louis Max Huron Wendat First Nation Harris Barb Six Nations of the Grand River Territory Hartley Elyse Metis Women’s Circle Hill Leroy Haudeno Science Resource Centre LaForme Bryan Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation Lainé Luc Huron Wendat First Nation Maracle Sylvia Ontario Federation of Indian Friendship Montour William K. Chief, Six Nations Nahrgang Kris Cultural Explorers Roy Franklin Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Sault Margaret Mississaugas of New Credit First Nation St.Clair Jacqueline Canadian Geographical Names Database Staats Cathy Hamilton Regional Indian Centre Union of Ontario Indians Nipissing First Nation Trepanier Louise Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Wedge Grant Ministry of the Attorney General Wheaton Pam Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs Wright Marilyn De dwa da dehs nyes Aboriginal Health Centre
Bradford Anna Community Services Bratina Bob City of Hamilton Browett Brent Emergency Services Clark Brad City of Hamilton DiDomenico Jennifer Public Works Duvall Scott City of Hamilton Eisenberger Fred City of Hamilton Everson Neil Economic Development Ferguson Lloyd City of Hamilton Hazell Marty Planning & Economic Development Hull Don Public Works Jackson Tom City of Hamilton
McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION July 2008 Page G-1
City of Hamilton Downtown Transportation Terminal Environmental Project Report
Mallard Paul Planning & Economic Development Maloney Eileen Planning & Economic Development Marini Ron Downtown Renewal Division McCarthy Margaret City of Hamilton McHattie Brian City of Hamilton Merulla Sam City of Hamilton Mitchell David L. City of Hamilton Morelli Bernie City of Hamilton Mullan Brian Hamilton Police Services Norman Robert Open Space Development Paparella Guy Planning & Economic Development Pasuta Robert City of Hamilton Pearson Maria City of Hamilton Powers Russ City of Hamilton Shynal Bryan Public Works Soldera Jane Community Services Solomon Hart Operations & Maintenance Whitehead Terry City of Hamilton Strugar Steve Horizon Utilities Corporation Bassindale Maggie Hydro One Greco Enzo Union Gas Hayes Janice Cogeco Cable Inc. Hunter John Hamilton Utilities Corporation
McCORMICK RANKIN CORPORATION July 2008 Page G-2
Appendix H – PIC COMMENT SHEETS
Appendix I – AGENCY RESPONSES