Rebuilding the Bathurst Street Bridge

Since our founding in 1994, the Friends of Fort York have always made a priority of long term planning for the lands within and around the Fort York National Historic Site. Thus it was when, after much study and discussion, Fort York: Setting It Right was published in June, 2000, it identified the pathway connections under Bathurst Street as important for city-building and for linking the fort to the east side of Bathurst, where the former Garrison Creek once entered Lake Ontario.

Again a year later, the wide, cathedral-like area under the Bathurst Bridge was seen as a vital link in the landmark report, Fort York and Garrison Common Parks and Open Space Plan, prepared for the City’s Policy & Development, Planning and Culture divisions, with input from the Friends. Both reports were warmly received and endorsed by City Council.

Finally, the continuity of the historic site under the bridge was recognized by the Government of Canada in designating the bounds of Fort York in 2003, and by Toronto City Council in 2004 in passing a bylaw enlarging the boundaries of the municipal Heritage District at Fort York to coincide with those of the national site.

The Bathurst Bridge itself seemed an enduring fixture in the landscape, the northern steel-truss portion having been built in 1903 to span the Humber and moved to its present vicinity in 1916; the southern steelplate and concrete section dating from 1929-30 and having been designed to carry Bathurst Street, newly-extended between Front and Fleet, over the tracks into the rail yards. As of 2004 neither part of the bridge was near the end of its structural life, though maintenance on both—CN looks after the steel-truss; the City the steel-and-concrete viaduct—was wanting.

Therefore, it was with surprise and concern that we learned in June, 2005, that an Environmental Assessment (EA) Review aimed at extending Fort York Blvd. a few blocks east of Bathurst (it had been completed from Bathurst to Lakeshore Blvd. in 2002) was to be expanded to look into rebuilding the southern section of the Bathurst Bridge.

The bridge-rebuilding was proposed by the TTC as a corollary of its providing streetcar service along Fort York Blvd. in fulfillment of the City’s Official Plan. To permit streetcars to turn 90 degrees at Bathurst, the intersection there would need to be rebuilt to a more level configuration, which would lead in turn to a lowering of the south end of the bridge and a decrease in vertical clearance underneath from 4.6 metres (15 ft +) to 3.1 metres (10 ft. +). As well, the bridge deck would be widened by half as much again from 20m. to 30m. to allow for dedicated transit lanes. If steps weren’t taken to mitigate such changes, we believed future pedestrian and cycling paths below the bridge might be neither pleasant nor secure.

While the Friends would prefer bus service on Fort York Blvd. because it would better serve visitors to the fort and not require rebuilding either the intersection or bridge, we reckoned our modest resources were better spent where our interests are vital, rather than in trying to reverse the Official Plan or the TTC’s preference for streetcars. Hence, we chose to concentrate on (1) protecting the significant archaeological resources under and adjacent to the bridge; (2) ensuring good sightlines and generous headroom there for safe passage by pedestrians and cyclists; and (3) requiring excellence in the design of any new bridge, since it will lie almost entirely within the National Historic Site and municipal Heritage Conservation District.

The headroom issue goes to the heart of whether or not pedestrians’ interests are taken seriously by the City. Travel surveys it undertook in 2001 among residents of the Kings and Waterfront neighbourhoods showed a remarkable 44-45% of them walked to work in the downtown while only 32-33% took transit and 2% used a bicycle. Transit and private cars came into their own when people had to travel further afield. The Friends believe a large proportion of the 7500 residents projected to live in the Fort York Neighbourhood will choose to walk to destinations in the city core. Moreover, for many years yet the only primary schools serving the area will be east of Bathurst Street and children walking to school may use the underpass to avoid crossing at grade. Both foot-commuters and kids deserve their walks to be safe and pleasant experiences.

Given TTC operating requirements, the only options to maintain the present 4.6 metres (15 feet) of headroom at the south end of the bridge are either to remove some of the sterile fill overlying the archaeological resources we expect to find there, or to design a lighter, structurally more progressive bridge than might be built otherwise, or both. The TTC has supported investigating how much fill might be removed under the south end of the bridge by funding archaeological test trenching, due to get underway this Fall. And when the City comes to design the bridge in detail, perhaps in 2007, the Friends will be advised by Prof. Paul Gauvreau, the present NRC Chair in Design Engineering in the Urban Environment at the U of T.

Meeting on Sept. 11 the City’s Works Committee adopted and sent to Council for its approval the EA Study Report supporting a Preferred Option. The Report acknowledged a new bridge would affect views to and from the fort and that a wider and lower structure would impact on the future pedestrian-cyclist link beneath the bridge. But it went on to say, “Consideration will be given to the aesthetics of the bridge and its impacts on the heritage and cultural landscape in the detailed design phase,” scheduled to occur in 2007.

Happily, the Works Committee went further, and passed unanimously two important, modifying motions. The first, recommended by the Council-appointed Roundtable on a Beautiful City, required the proposed design of the new bridge to be reviewed by a three person panel including the Chief Planner and the Administrator of Fort York for appropriateness to its historic location, suitable aesthetic considerations, and the degree to which it enhances pedestrian and bicycle connections. The second motion the Committee adopted was based on a request from the city’s Pedestrian Committee. It directed senior City and TTC staff to consult with the Friends of Fort York and others throughout the design process to examine all possible ways to maximize vertical clearance under the bridge and, in addition, to create a safe, functional and attractive environment for pedestrians and cyclists.

We’ll keep you posted as plans for the new bridge become clearer.

[From Fife & Drum, Sept. 2006]