CATARAQUI RIVER THIRD CROSSING EA Landscape Analysis Background Report. October 23, Corush Sunderland Wright Limited

Transcription

1 October 23, 2009 Corush Sunderland Wright Limited

2 INTRODUCTION The City of Kingston has initiated an Environmental Assessment (EA) to assess the need for, and the feasibility of, implementing additional transportation capacity across the Cataraqui River. The EA study area extends along the shoreline and lands adjoining the Cataraqui River from the LaSalle Causeway Highway 2 corridor in the south to Highway 401 in the north. The EA is proceeding as a Schedule C undertaking in accordance with the requirements of the Ontario Municipal Class EA. Phases 1 and 2 of this EA process involve an assessment of the potential positive or negative social, cultural, economic and environmental impacts of the following options: 1. Retain the status quo, or do nothing ; 2. Increase the capacity of the LaSalle Causeway; 3. Increase the capacity of Highway 401 from Kingston Road 15 to Montreal Street; or 4. Construct an additional crossing of the Cataraqui River between Highway 401 and the LaSalle Causeway by a bridge or tunnel. For the purposes of evaluating the EA study alternatives, the EA study area has been subdivided into six sub areas identified as alternative crossing corridors, as shown on Figure 1. This landscape analysis report is organized into descriptions of cycling connections, paths and trails, protected views and landscape character, as they relate to the planning framework for each of the possible crossing corridors. It is based on a review of: 1. The current Official Plan for the former Township of Pittsburgh (2004 consolidation) and former City of Kingston (2006 consolidation); 2. The Cycling and Pathways Study, prepared by Victor Ford and Associates Ltd. (2003); 3. The Kingston Transportation Master Plan, prepared by Dillon Consulting Ltd. (2004); 4. The Downtown and Harbour Architectural Guidelines Study, prepared by Baird Sampson Neuert Architects (2007); and 5. The new City of Kingston Official Plan (2009), which at the time of writing this report, had been adopted by City Council but not yet approved by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs& Housing. Page 2

3 Each section of the report identifies the implications of the landscape analysis on the various possible crossing locations. Figure 1: Alternative Crossing Corridor Locations 1. CYCLING CONNECTIONS Proposed and Existing cycling connections in the City of Kingston are separated as recreational cycling and utilitarian cycling (commuter) as shown in Figure 2. The utilitarian plan sets out north-south routes on both sides of the Cataraqui River via the planned Wellington Street Extension and Montreal Street on the west side of the Cataraqui River with east-west links along John Counter Boulevard and Benson Street in the north and William, Johnson and Queen Streets in the south. These Page 3

4 southerly networks further utilize the La Salle Causeway to provide an east-west link to Highway 2 and a north-south link along Kingston Road 15 on the east side of the Cataraqui River. Figure 2: Enlarged portion of Utilitarian Cycling Focus (Map 5), from The Cycling and Pathways Study. EA Study Alternatives Status Quo The existing LaSalle Causeway provides continuity, but does not provide dedicated cycling lanes. The impacts of the status quo on the quality of the existing commuter Page 4

5 and recreational cycling on both sides of the Cataraqui River should also be noted, given that the LaSalle Causeway currently offers the only central east-west community linkage in light of the location of Highway 401 further north. Crossing Corridors 1-6 The following assessments refer to surface (bridge or causeway) alternatives rather than tunnel alternatives as it is assumed that cyclists would not be allowed to use a tunnel. AREA 1 (LaSalle Causeway Expansion): Further to the above, expanding the LaSalle Causeway would allow improved width to accommodate a cycling lane and separation from traffic. This would improve the cycling facility as a conduit to networks in the downtown and as part of the planned Wellington Street Extension but would not expand the overall network by providing a mid-city east-west corridor. AREA 2: A new crossing in Area 2 would offer no real improvement to the existing network in terms of mid-city east-west linkages. A short loop would be created for recreational cycling via the LaSalle Causeway in the south as well as the planned Wellington Street Extension and Kingston Road 15 on the west and east sides of the Cataraqui River, respectively. AREA 3: A new crossing in Area 3 would provide a more central east-west connection across the Cataraqui River than what exists today, given its northerly location in relation to the LaSalle Causeway in the south and potential links to the planned Wellington Street Extension and Kingston Road 15 on the west and east sides of the Cataraqui River, respectively. It also offers a good recreational cycling loop of the Inner Harbour. AREA 4: A new crossing in Area 4 would provide the optimum east-west connections, given its more northerly location in relation to the LaSalle Causeway in the south and direct links to the northern terminus of the planned Wellington Street Extension at John Counter Boulevard and Kingston Road 15 on the west and east sides of the Cataraqui River, respectively. It also offers a good recreational cycling loop along both sides of the Cataraqui River. Page 5

6 AREA 5: A new crossing in Area 5 would be a marginal improvement to east-west connections as it is north of the urban area and its existing and planned transportation networks. This location would provide a good recreational cycling loop along both sides of the Cataraqui River. AREA 6 (Highway 401 Expansion): Expanding Highway 401 would link recreational paths or trails at the riverbank level, but would be of little utility to commuter cycling, as it is furthest north of the urban area and its existing and planned transportation networks in comparison to the other crossing corridor areas noted above. 2. PATHS AND TRAILS Proposed and Existing paths and trails are shown on Figure 3 and include: 1. an east-west route extending from the downtown, across the LaSalle Causeway, around Royal Military College and Fort Henry and continuing along Highway 2; 2. a north-south route extending from the downtown / LaSalle Causeway along the west shoreline of the Cataraqui River and continuing (i) northwest through City Centre Business Park and north of John Counter Boulevard as part of the City s K & P trail network; and (ii) around Belle Park Fairways and ending north of John Counter Boulevard at Weller Avenue; 3. a north-south route extending through the Point St. Mark Drive subdivision and along the eastern shoreline of the Cataraqui River to and beyond Highway 401; and 4. routes internal to Barriefield Village as well as the Grenadier Village and Greenwood Park subdivisions east of Kingston Road 15. A gap between Highway 2 to Limeridge Drive indicates a possible route from Highway 2 along Main Street, which must then use Kingston Road 15 to link to Limeridge Drive. An edge of roadway route north is also proposed through the Barriefield community to Kingston Road 15, but this is discontinuous, leaving a gap from Bartlett Court to Point St. Mark Drive. An edge of road link is possible north from Point St. Mark Drive to Kenwood Circle, with an informal trail continuing north to Highway 401. Page 6

7 Figure 3: Enlarged portion of Pedestrian Focus (Map 3), from The Cycling and Pathways Study. Note the gap in pathways along the east bank of the Cataraqui River opposite Belle Island. EA Study Alternatives It is possible to provide continuous paths or trails each side of the Cataraqui River from the LaSalle Causeway to Highway 401. An additional crossing of the Cataraqui River would also improve the paths and trails system as it would provide both shorter loops along the riverbank and improved east-west connections. Page 7

8 Status Quo There would be no effective difference with respect to the existing LaSalle Causeway providing network continuity. Crossing Corridors 1-6 The following assessments refer to surface (bridge or causeway) alternatives rather than tunnel alternatives as it is assumed that recreational cyclists and pedestrians would not be allowed to use a tunnel. AREA 1 (LaSalle Causeway Expansion): Expanding the LaSalle Causeway would not improve existing system continuity, but could improve the quality in terms of path width and separation from traffic. AREA 2: A new crossing in Area 2 would connect well to the paths along the planned Wellington Street Extension, but would not necessarily link directly west into the community. Connections in Area 2 on the east bank could connect to the Barriefield neighbourhood streets, but would have to link to Kingston Road 15 to make connections north or west to the Grenadier Village or Pont St. Mark neighbourhoods. AREA 3: A possible crossing in Area 3 is attractive in terms of providing a loop around the Inner Harbour, connecting well to the paths along the planned Wellington Street Extension, and changing the Belle Island trail from a dead end to part of a larger system. Connections to the west would also work well in this area. While a connection on the east side of the Cataraqui River would not improve the quality of experience along Kingston Road 15, a bridge connection would presumably arrive at road level, and eliminate the need to change grade from the river level as would be inherent in Areas 2 or 3. AREA 4: A new crossing in Area 4 would not only provide a good location for a loop each side of the Cataraqui River to the south, but would provide the best east-west connections in a mid-city location of any of the prospective crossing corridor areas, given its direct links to the northern terminus of the planned Wellington Street Page 8

9 Extension at John Counter Boulevard and Kingston Road 15 on the west and east sides of the Cataraqui River, respectively. AREA 5: A new crossing in Area 5 would complete a loop of each side of the Cataraqui River to the south, but would not facilitate direct east-west connections as it is north of the urban centre. Its length also begins to transform the loop from an extended walk to a hike. AREA6 (Highway 401 Expansion): A new crossing in Area 6 would complete a loop on each side of the Cataraqui River to the south, but the length changes it from an extended walk to a hike. This location would not provide useful east-west connections for the urban neighbourhoods to the south but could provide a much better experience than crossing immediately beside Highway 401 and allow the path or trail to stay at riverbank elevation. 3. PROTECTED VIEWS In certain cases, heritage protection extends beyond the boundaries of an identified heritage site to include views to and from the site, or between related heritage sites. Within the EA study area, protected views are identified for the Rideau Canal and several national historic sites, the Barriefield Conservation District and municipal designations. These are incorporated into City-endorsed planning frameworks and include, as shown on Figures 4 and 5: 1. Viewscapes between the various Kingston Fortifications; 2. Views of the Rideau Canal from the Kingston-Frontenac Library at 80 Gore Road; 3. Viewscapes from Barriefield; 4. Views of St. Mark s Church; 5. Views from Molly Brant Point; 6. Views from Barrack Street and Queen Street to Kingston Harbour; 7. Views of the City Hall cupola 8. Views across the Inner Harbour, and 9. All development overlooking the Rideau Canal. Page 9

10 Crossing options south of the LaSalle Causeway and north to a line extending from River Street across the Inner Harbour would certainly impinge on established protected views. However, a location north of this area might be acceptable depending on a more detailed assessment of the proposed design s visual impact on such established protected views as the Rideau Canal and the Kingston-Frontenac Library at 80 Gore Road. Figure 4: Enlarged portion of Heritage Areas, Features and Protected Views (Schedule 9), from the new City of Kingston Official Plan (2009). Page 10

11 Figure 5: Views to the Cupola of City Hall, from the Downtown & Harbour Area Architectural Guidelines Study. Note the views from the LaSalle Causeway. 4. LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AND VISUAL IMPACT In broad terms, there are two landscape character types along the banks of the EA study area. South of Belle Island is predominately urban, with views of the City, the La Salle Causeway and landmark buildings such as the Royal Militarily College and Fort Henry. The riverbanks are hardened or manicured parkland with open views under canopy trees. From the south sides of Belle Island to Highway 401 the riverbanks are natural, or in the case of Belle Park Fairways seemingly natural, with the minor exception of a few homes set back from the riverbank and the Rideau Marina near Point St. Mark Drive. Page 11

12 The implications of these landscape character areas lie in the assumption that the landscape treatment of the riverbank connection associated with a potential crossing structure should be sensitive to the context. Should the crossing be proposed in the Inner Harbour zone, a park-like landscape of grass and canopy trees is likely appropriate. From Belle Island north, the riverbank interface would be more appropriate as a seemingly natural, soft, edge. This might include a littoral zone of shallow water and emergent aquatic plants, near continuous overhanging tree canopy and shrub understory. Expansion of the LaSalle Causeway crossing would not affect the intent of the view protection areas. One consideration would be that views from vehicles crossing a new facility would probably be interrupted due to the height of vehicular barriers. Design solutions utilizing steel picket type barriers might allow for views from a new structure and satisfy Bridge Code requirements. North of River Street the Cataraqui River is visually divided between the Inner Harbour to the south and the cattail portion of the Greater Cataraqui Marsh to the north by Belle Island and Belle Park Fairways. Analysis of visual impact in this part of the EA study area takes into account two perspectives: views from the shoreline and views from the water. The Inner Harbour is urban in its context than the reach north of Belle Island with the presence of buildings visible along the riverbanks. From a visual perspective, a crossing in the vicinity of Belle Island would not only be less visible from both east and west riverbanks, but potentially, be perceived as a gateway punctuating the Rideau Canal Waterway and Kingston s Inner Harbour. Crossing options between River Street and Belle Island could also serve as a gateway, and while the structure would be prominent, it might be perceived as more acceptable in this urban context than the north reach. The context north of Belle Island is more natural in character, given the steep banks to the east and the cattail portion of the Greater Cataraqui Marsh to the north. While several tall apartment buildings are visible on the west bank, generally the views of the Cataraqui River and from the water do not reveal the presence of urban development along this reach. Page 12

13 Figure 6: View to the east bank of Cataraqui River from Belle Island. Note the vegetated shoreline. Figure 7: View of the west Rideau Canal waterway channel in the foreground with Belle Island to the left of frame. Page 13

14 Anticipating the potential for a crossing structure to stay low to the water for much of its western length, its silhouette would be below the tree line when viewed from the water, except when rising above the navigable channel close to the east bank. This east bank is generally steep and well wooded, so again the silhouette of a structure when viewed obliquely would be below the tree line. While less desirable a location than at the Belle Island narrows, a crossing structure north of Belle Island could potentially define a gateway to the Rideau Canal Waterway as well. Tunnel crossing alternatives would be, to a large extent, invisible as they relate to views both to and from the water, but of course, the entry portals and any vent structures would require integration into the context of their locations. It is assumed that any tunnel portals would be set back from the water s edge due to the length of slope transition between existing grade on each riverbank and the driving surface within the tunnel. The implication is that the riverbank is unlikely to be affected, except for construction, which could be remediated, and that the portals would be located well back of shoreline. Figure 8: View west from the Department of National Defense property north of Highway 2. The LaSalle Causeway is to the left of frame. Page 14

15 Figure 9: View south from Orchard St. Park. Note the park-like riverbank condition. Figure 10: View northeast from Belle Island to the Cataraqui River. Page 15

16 Figure 11: View south from Belle Park. Note the natural riverbank condition. EA Study Alternatives Status Quo There would be no impact on the existing landscape character. Crossing Corridors 1-6 AREA 1 (LaSalle Causeway Expansion): The protected views have been established to prevent blocking lines of sight from the land, however the character of an expanded LaSalle Causeway in Area 1 could detract or compliment the heritage context of Market Square and Barriefield Heritage Districts depending on the design. AREA 2: A new crossing structure in Area 2 would have less contextual relationship with adjacent form than in Area 1, but still have a significant visual profile. Locations to the south of this area would seem to bisect the Inner Harbour, while locations closer to Bell Island would be far less obtrusive. Page 16

17 Integration of tunnel portals into the west side of the Cataraqui River could be fairly innocuous if the tunnel curved its alignment to be parallel with the Wellington Street Extension. The east side could also be accommodated if the tunnel were to align with Kingston Road 15, although the elevation of the road relative to a tunnel beneath the Cataraqui River would likely locate it further north or south of the actual crossing location. AREA 3: A new crossing structure in Area 3 would be the least obtrusive location, and could potentially create a gateway for the Rideau Canal Waterway. A tunnel portal could be integrated at the west edge of Belle Park Fairways, or a surface road along the south edge of the park could be sufficiently set back from the water s edge so that it would be marginally visible from the water and well landscaped on the landside. The west side could also be accommodated if the tunnel were to align with Kingston Road 15, although the elevation of the road relative to a tunnel beneath the Cataraqui River would likely locate it further north or south of the actual crossing location. AREA 4: A new crossing structure in Area 4 would have the most visual impact of the possible locations. A new structure in this area would be very long and could appear to bisect this reach of the Cataraqui River. Integration of tunnel portals into the west side of the Cataraqui River could be fairly innocuous given the relatively undeveloped nature of this area. The west side could also be accommodated if the tunnel were to align with Kingston Road 15, although the elevation of the road relative to a tunnel beneath the Cataraqui River would likely locate it further north or south of the actual crossing location. AREA 5: A new crossing structure in Area 5 would have most of the visual impact behind Area 4, and have an intrusive presence in this seemingly natural landscape. If placed low to the water through the Greater Cataraqui Marsh, much of the length of a structure could be visually mitigated with a higher elevation and visual profile related to the buoyed channel of the Rideau Canal Waterway. Page 17

18 Integration of tunnel portals into the west side of the Cataraqui River could be fairly innocuous given the relatively undeveloped nature of this area. The west side could also be accommodated if the tunnel were to align with Kingston Road 15, although the elevation of the road relative to a tunnel beneath the Cataraqui River would likely locate it further north or south of the actual crossing location. AREA 6 (Highway 401 Expansion): A new structure would have marginal impact in area six as the crossing would be at a higher elevation. A structure could define a gateway to the Rideau Canal Waterway in this location. Page 18