HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-110-87
.,,~ u,.~~~, w
Its: Counci 1
TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
REPORT
DATE: Monday, April 13, 1987
T #: PD-110-87 FILE #:
CT: PROPOSED REPLACEMENT OF SUPERSTRUCTURE
MILL STREET BRIDGE
NEWCASTLE VILLAGE, TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PD-110-87 be received; and
File #
Res. #
By-Law #
2. THAT Canadian National Railway and the Canadian Transport Commission Railway
Transport Committee be advised that the Town of Newcastle has no objection to the
proposed reconstruction of the bridge superstructure, Mi11 Street bridge, File:
286.1, Kingston Subdivision, Town of Newcastle.
BACKGROUND AND COMMENT:
At the Council Meeting of March 9, 1987 Council received correspondence from Mr. J.
Jeronimus, P.Eng., Regional Engineer, Bridges and Structures of Canadian National Railway.
Said correspondence indicated that the Railway was proposing the replacement of the
superstructure of the Mill Street bridge located in Newcastle Village. This
correspondence was referred to the Directors of Planning and Public Works for review and
report.
In that regard we would note that the proposed reconstruction involves simply the
replacement of the bridge deck to bring its strength and ride qualities up to current
standards. As Council is, no doubt, aware this structure provides the only grade
l~.'- o~~''.
...2
REPORT NU.: PD-110-87
Page 2
separated access to the Bond Head Marina and the proposed residential
development south of the C.N.R. line.
In 1981, as part of our consideration of the proposed redevelopment of this
area, a Traffic Impact Analysis was commissioned by the development
proponents in order to identify traffic impacts upon the Mill Street C.N.R.
underpass. Based upon the conclusions of that study, it was determined that
in order to allow for proper flow of two-way traffic through the C.N.R.
underpass, a minimum 24 foot road cross-section should be provided with
allowance for 5 foot wide sidewalks on either side of the road. This would
result in a 34 foot cross-section requirement. In addition, it was
recommended that a 14 foot minimum vertical clearance height also be
established. The existing width is 2U feet and the proposed works do not
include the necessary widening. The works will, however, increase the
vertical clearance to the recommended minimum.
Based upon our review of the traffic analysis, Staff concur with the opinion
that this structure should be upgraded in order to accommodate development
south of the C.N.R. line. The proposed reconstruction of the bridge deck
provides an opportunity for additional work to be undertaken to upgrade the
structure. However, discussions with Staff of C.N. have indicated that this
expansion of the proposed works would be considered a complete reconstruction.
The cost of same would be well in excess of a million dollars and of this,
only 12.5% up to a maximum of $156,250. would be payble by C.N. Although the
Rail Transport Commission has, in the past, contributed to the cost of such
replacements, i t i s our understanding that funds are limited and allocations
priorized according to need. C.N. Staff have indicated that in the absence of
such allocation, the balance of the costs must be borne by the municipality.
They also indicated that should development of the harbour area be proceeding
soon, there would be some merit in delaying the project to coincide with a
complete reconstruction.
...3
REPORT NO.: PD-110-87 Page 3
In view of the costs related to this project the Town would need some
guarantee of funding since the works would primarily benefit a development
proposal and are not considered of general public benefit. The traffic
analysis suggested an interim control measure to permit development to
proceed, however, this was stressed as interim. Past agreements with
Windsweep required payment of a special levy to cover the cost of this
project. We would recommend similar agreements be sought from the present
owners.
In the absence of available funding and a firm commitment from the developer,
Staff see no merit in objecting to the proposed replacement of the
superstructure at this time. At such time as development agreements are
executed with the present owners of the marina lands, the issue of timing and
cost sharing requirements for the necessary reconstruction can be determined.
Staff have discussed this approach with the consultant for the developer and
he concurs with same.
Respectfully submitted,
Recommended for presentation
to the Committee
__~
_. _ _,
- ~~ ~ ,
~~~ _ ~ ~~
~. (` `
~' ~ ' , f
~. dwards, M.C.I.P.
-L wrence E Kotsef
Director of Planning Chief 'n''strative Office r
.~~ s~
ug ng.,
Director of Public Works
TTE*j i p
*Attach.
April 2, 1987