This summer, I found myself at the Naval Marine Archive - The Canadian Collection on Main Street in Picton. Surrounded by surely every ship title known to mankind - commercial, sail, motor, ocean liners, high seas and Great Lakes, I happened to find and purchase a copy of the Marine Museum of the Great Lakes' excellent publication Fresh Water - Volume 4, 1989. Scanning the table of contents, I found the original article by noted Kingston historian Brian Osborne, "The Long and Short of It: Kingston As The Foot-Of-The-Great-Lakes-Terminus". Having been long-interested in this rather involved but quite obscure scheme, I was happy to find a copy of the original article, elements of which were later reproduced in the book Kingston - Building on the Past by Brian S. Osborne and Donald Swainson.
In this post, I'll include elements of a previous post profiling this potential scheme that never came to be, along with new, expanded accounts from Brian Osborne's article. I'll also include scans of the excellent maps accompanying the article, produced by the author's colleagues in the Queen's Geography Department.
KINGSTON'S LOCATION
Kingston's location made it a central node for marine transportation early in Kingston's history, not only in the French and British eras, but from time immemorial as an indigenous trading centre:
- to the West - route to the Great Lakes bringing forth much of North America's interior drainage
- to the Northeast - Great Lakes draining to the St. Lawrence River thence the Atlantic Ocean and European ports
- to the Southwest - cross-lake commerce to the Erie Canal thence New York City
- to the North - the Rideau waterway with echoes of its strategic role
In fact, Kingston supported many harbour sites along its waterfront:
- Fort Frontenac - French, 1673-1758
- Fort Frontenac - British, 1783
- Point Frederick/Navy Bay - British 1788-1834
- Lake Ontario/Outer Harbour
- Inner Harbour - north of the causeway toward Kingston Mills
- Hatter's Bay/Portsmouth - an auxiliary outport
- Elevator Bay/Cataraqui Bay
- Foot-Of-The-Lakes Terminal - planned but never realized.
DETERMINANTS OF KINGSTON'S ROLE
At the nexus of lake and river, there was always an obvious need for trans-shipment, and several geopolitical forces that had an impact on the role of Kingston and its harbour:
- control of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence corridor by the British during a century of tension and conflict with the Americans
- demilitarization of the Great Lakes under the Rush-Bagot Agreement of 1817 with minor flare-ups until the 1870s
- British mercantile policy of taking resources from colonies, returning processed goods back to colonies
- competition with Erie Canal traffic due to free-trading diminishing Kingston's break-bulk role
- geography and history favoured Kingston, but the technology of canals and shipping would militate against it
- improvements to the Welland and Sault canals brought larger ships to the Lower Lakes, thereby enhancing and maintaining Kingston's break-bulk function
- improvements to the St. Lawrence seaway allowed larger ships downriver, again enhancing Kingston's break-bulk function but also requiring harbour improvements or additional sites for harbour activity
Kingston's harbour presented several challenges at the same time:
- the Outer Harbour was only somewhat sheltered from southwesterlies, at least adequate for sail and early steam vessels
- Kingston was unable to scale up in the face of increased traffic volumes and increased vessel size
- Kingston could not evolve through the sail to steam transition, and was not able to provide more specialized harbour facilities
- harbour navigation, dock facilities and shoals continued to present challenges to ever-larger vessels.
DEMANDS FOR IMPROVEMENT
During Kingston harbour's heyday, tonnage handled continued to increase despite the aforementioned factors:
- 1848 - 511 sailing vessel arrivals; 500 steamer arrivals
- 1880 - 1.1 million tons handled
- 1894 - 1.4 million tons handled
- 1900 - 864 sailing vessel arrivals; 1,924 steamer arrivals.
Sailing vessels could not negotiate the narrow St. Lawrence channel, and steam vessels also had a difficult time there due to shoals, islands and a narrow channel. In 1900, the St. Lawrence canals maintained only a nine-foot draught, therefore trans-shipment was still a necessity west of there. At the time, Kingston boasted adequate harbour capabilities:
- the 250,000-bushel Richardson elevator
- the 800,000-bushel Montreal Transportation Co. elevator
- three major forwarding companies: Montreal Transportation Co., Kingston & Montreal Forwarding Co. and the St. Lawrence & Chicago Forwarding Co.
Combined, the companies rostered 80 barges with a 5-million bushel throughput during the navigation season. So by 1900, Kingston was handling $1.6 million in trade per year, compared to Hamilton's $7.7 million and Toronto's much larger $41.3 million.
Thereby emerged a movement to shift the growing grain-handling operations to the Inner Harbour which had already been recognized as a viable harbour site by the French and the British. At the same time, talk of Welland Canal development enhanced Kingston's chances as the site of a needed Foot-Of-The-Lakes terminal, since even if Upper Lakers could sail as far as Kingston, they could not negotiate the St. Lawrence east of there.
THE FOOT-OF-THE-LAKES TERMINAL PLAN TAKES SHAPE
In May of 1911, The Cataraqui Bridge Co. had conveyed its dilapidated, 1828-built Penny Bridge to the city, who in turn ceded title to the Department of Public Works (DPW) in June, 1912. Begun in 1826, bridge shares were sold for $100 to raise the $24,000 needed for its construction. At 25 feet wide and 1,800 feet long, the bridge opened for traffic in 1829, charging a penny per pedestrian. It continued to be an impediment to then use of the Inner Harbour though, so the shift in its ownership to the DPW was seen as important for Inner Harbour development.
The only way to achieve an equal footing with major lake ports Midland, Port Arthur and Toronto, and allowing the passage of 600-foot Upper Lakers of a 16,500-ton capacity such as Canada Steamship Line's Lemoyne, Gleneagles, Ashcroft and Stadacona would be substantial government funding. The city requested dredging of the Inner Harbour to a depth of 22 feet, connection of Belle Island to the mainland with the dredged sludge, and replacement of the old Cataraqui Penny Bridge. This would open up the Inner Harbour to lake shipping. The Inner Harbour was at the time only eight feet deep, though the Lower Harbour was only 15 feet, save for a channel dredged to the Montreal Transportation Company elevator of 18 feet.
The Department of Public Works submitted a $1.8 million plan to the city in 1912 (above - Kingston Daily Standard clipping published May 8, 1912). The plan included a new rolling-lift bridge with 125-foot vertical clearance and dredging ($157,000) to open up the Inner Harbour via a new Lasalle Causeway. The Causeway’s bridge, 950 feet of dock and 1,700 feet of roadway ($230,000) were the initial steps in a grandiose plan to make the Inner Harbour a true Great Lakes Terminal! Further funds would be required for the envisioned five million-bushel grain elevator ($1,224,690) with further expansion to forty million bushels and fifty-car long loading tracks, coal-handling plant, docks, freight shed and a 500-car freight yard!
The proposed Inner Harbour basin, its 53 acres dredged to 25 feet to accommodate 15,000-ton lakers, with an additional four acres dredged to 16 feet for canallers of 2,000 tons would also host 600 x 60-foot freight sheds adjacent to Belle Island. Wintering facilities for lake vessels would also be built. A pier constructed on the west side of the basin would house the grain elevator.
A map of the planned terminal, from Kingston - Building on the Past by Brian S. Osborne and Donald Swainson (below) raises some questions about the trackage and arrangements therein. Notice the loop track on 'Bell Island'. Since the docks were oriented for lake vessels, the tracks approached from the west shore 'backhand' and would have to negotiate a tight loop track to reach the docks, reminiscent of a similar wheel-and-spoke track plan in New York City! The CN-CP labelling of inbound tracks at top left should just read CN. One also has to question the downgrade to the Future Railroad Yard, and whether long cuts of cars could negotiate the grade up from water level. Moreover, it's unclear that many 600-foot lakers ever entered the Inner Harbour and whether this type of traffic was sustainable through a bridge that could become a bottleneck with limited navigable water in the Inner Harbour for vessel handling.
Another drawing of C. D. Howe's plans from 1919, as published in a Whig article:
However, aside from dredging the approach channel for 1,200 feet beyond the Causeway in 1920-1922 at a cost of $12,000, little else happened! The trunnion-type bascule bridge built by Hamilton Bridge Co. officially opened on April 16, 1917.
A renewal of the original 1911 efforts was made in 1919, with the city's Board of Trade appointing a special committee on Harbour Improvements. The efforts recounted in the article included the original dredging the Inner Harbour to a depth of 22 feet; depositing the dredged material between Bell’s Island (the present Belle Island) and the city; and constructing a bridge between (Belle) Island and Pittsburgh Township to replace the old wooden Cataraqui bridge (the present LaSalle Causeway).
Some of the history of the city's official applications to the federal government to improve the harbour facilities were discussed in this January 25, 1919 Daily British Whig (below).
PROBLEMS WITH THE PLAN
Disagreements between the DPW and the Department of Railways & Canals (DRC) centred on responsibilities and future plans. The DPW claimed responsibility for harbour improvements, favouring Kingston. The DRC claimed responsibility for co-ordinating downstream improvements with Welland Canal improvements, and favoured Prescott. Kingston promised earlier (farther west) trans-shipment with no river navigation required, no subsequent higher marine insurance rates, and no possible delays in construction.
The late-1920s saw the imminent implementation of the Welland Canal, more than doubling the dimensions of its locks from 253-foot length, 45-foot width and 14-foot draught to 600 feet in length!
A 1927 report on Welland Canal grain traffic, totalling 300 million bushels in the 1924-26 season, showed:
- 50% shipped by lake and rail to US ports
- 12% shipped by lake and rail to Montreal
- 38% shipped by lake and canal to Montreal.
A wider search ensued for a Foot-Of-The-Lakes trans-shipment terminal, with ten far-flung potential sites: Cobourg, Port Hope, Deseronto, Bath, Parrott Bay, Collins Bay, Kingston, Gananoque, Jones Creek and Prescott. Kingston was discounted, and Prescott favoured due to co-operative improvements with the U.S. required for the navigational channel from Prescott to the lake.
In 1928, discussions with the DPW regarding both sites resulted in Kingston and Prescott both to get their own grain elevators. C.D. Howe again studied Kingston sites include Tete du Port, the Kingston Yacht Club and Elevator Bay. The latter had space for navigation, room for a breakwater to mitigate against the southwesterlies, and potential for a 3-mile spur to the CNR main line.
A NEW WESTERN SITE EMERGES
A municipal bond was raised to buy right-of-way for the CNR spur, land for the elevator and wharfage area was acquired from city-owned Lake Ontario Park and the Kingston Golf and Country Club, and the location was technically 1 mile west of city limits, in Kingston Township! The Canada Steamship Lines elevator was completed on September 15, 1930. The completed Kingston elevator was able to intercept the grain trade before Prescott, handling two to four-times the tonnage of Prescott from 1930-1936.
However, neither Kingston nor Prescott would be able to withstand commercial pressure from the newly-opened St. Lawrence Seaway, with its locks' capacious dimensions of 766-feet length, 80-foot width and 36-foot draught! Traffic to both elevators declined demonstrably:
- 1955 - Kingston handled 30 million bushels, Prescott 43 million
- 1959 - Kingston handled 18 million bushels, Prescott 21 million
- 1964 - Kingston handled 8 million bushels, Prescott 19 million
ONE LAST TRY
A final swipe at boosting Kingston's importance as an important and still-relevant deepwater port came in the late 1950s. Plans were floated to:
- lengthen the dry dock from 379 to 525 feet
- re-route Highway 2 north to Bell Island
- dredge the Outer and Inner Harbours to 27 feet and fill in the area around Bell Island
- highlight the presence of marine businesses like Canadian Dredge & Dock, Pyke Salvage, chandlery, boiler repair and machine shops, and the presence of CN and CP trackage
- construct 2,000 feet of breakwater
DECLINE AND CHANGE IN KINGSTON'S HARBOUR
But optimistic rhetoric stayed on paper. The main Seaway shipping channel went south of Wolfe Island, and Kingston's shipping facilities and services atrophied.
Kingston's harbour eventually transitioned to less-commercial uses:
- sailing and marinas
- Pump House Steam Museum
- Marine Museum of the Great Lakes and dry dock
- Richardson Coal dock became apartments
- CP freight yards became Confederation Park
- Ontario Street became lined with new hotels, condominium buildings, stores and restaurants.
Despite trans-shipment at Elevator Bay, the rest of the Foot-Of-The-Lakes Terminal plans would remain only a long-lost dream.
