DOCSLIB.ORG

Lesson's Learned

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

What’s Up Up North!!! Lesson’s Learned Sustainable Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management in Canada in the 21st Century © 2014 HDR, all rights reserved. Background Key Projects Key Lessons Learned Summary BACKGROUND BY THE NUMBERS Population: ~35 million (1/10 the US) about approximately the size of California Landmass: ~ 9.9 M sq km (slightly larger than the US) 13 Provinces and Territories Approximately 90% of the population is concentrated within 160 km (100 mi) of the US border Generates ~ 25 million tonnes per year ( ~ 27 M tons) WASTE MANAGEMENT IN CANADA KEY CANADIAN PROJECTS KEY PROJECTS City of Toronto Regions of Durham/ York City of Edmonton Southern Alberta Energy from Waste Alliance City of Surrey This image cannot currently be displayed. CITY OF TORONTO Over 4 million inhabitants Generates over 1,000,000 tonnes per year Separate collection of Recyclables and Organics Key City Owned Facilities: o Dufferin Creek AD Plant – 27,500 tons per year o Disco Road AD Plant – 83,000 tons per year o Green Lane Landfill (out-of-City) – capacity to 2040 TORONTO’S WASTE STRATEGY VISION Reduce the amount of waste generated, reuse what they can, and recycle and recover the remaining resources to reinvest back into the economy. Embrace a waste management system that is user friendly with programs and facilities that balance the needs of the community and environment with long term financial sustainability. Ensure a safe, clean, beautiful and healthy City for the future. EVALUATING LONG TERM OPTIONS EVOLUTION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT IN DURHAM REGION Durham Region was established in 1974. It relied on neighbours for waste disposal. Landfill locations included: • Brock West - Pickering: Late 1970s to 1997. • Keele Valley - Vaughan: 1997 to 2002. • IWMA proposals for Adams Mine, Ontario: early 1990s. • Pine Tree Acres – Michigan: to Jan. 1, 2011. In early 1990’s Regional Council made the decision not to consider a “new” landfill for the Region and to look for a local solution. THE LOCAL SOLUTION In December 1999, the Region of Durham adopted a "Long Term Waste Management Strategy Plan: 2000 to 2020". The main goals of the waste plan were: o To divert at least 50 per cent of the residential waste from disposal by 2007 or earlier. o To secure an alternate source for the disposal of residential waste, when the City of Toronto's Keele Valley Landfill Site is closed. o To implement an integrated residential waste management system for the collection, processing and disposal of: Blue Box recyclables Food and yard waste compostables Residual garbage wastes Special wastes – HHW, Bulky goods, E waste o To consider an "energy-from-waste" facility for the disposal of residual garbage waste. INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS MADE IN DURHAM REGION Material Recovery Facility (MRF) opened Dec. 2007 $14.5 million Organics Processing facility opened Fall 2006 Remediation of old landfill sites started 2007: • Brock $10.5m complete 2014 approx. • Oshawa $2.2m complete 2013 approx. • 5 small landfill sites in Region $1.7m ongoing DURHAM YORK ENERGY CENTRE • First Greenfield EFW Facility in Canada in over two decades • DBOM Procurement - Covanta • 140,000 tonne (metric) per year (~500 short tons per day) • Stringent Emission Standards – Best of E.U. and A-7 • Major Milestones: • EA approved in Nov. 2010 • Groundbreaking August, 2011 • Commercial Operations January, 2016 EDMONTON’S INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT CENTRE • 550 acres • Twelve waste processing facilities • Two major research facilities Recycled 20% Composted 40% • Closed Landfill Biofuels 30% 2• Sewage biosolids storage/recycling Landfill 10% lagoons 4 Waste diversion = 90% 3 1 1 Integrated Processing and Transfer Facility 2 Recycling center 3 Composting center 4 ENERKEM biorefinery 90% WASTE DIVERSION GOAL UNIQUE PARTNERSHIP WITH THE CITY OF EDMONTON Leader in waste management practices Edmonton Waste Management Centre • North America’s largest collection of modern, sustainable waste processing and research facilities • 233-hectare site Enerkem selected as part of a thorough selection process involving over 100 technology providers BRINGING THE ENERKEM MODEL TO REALITY Rigorous path to commercialization MODULAR COMMERCIAL BIOREFINERIES WESTBURY FACILITY UNIVERSITY OF SHERBROOKE SHERBROOKE PILOT Syngas Methanol Ethanol Full-scale commercial Laboratory Pilot Demo Demo Demo production SOUTHERN ALBERTA STATUS The Southern Alberta Energy-from-Waste Association is considering the development of an approximate 200,000 TPY Energy from Waste facility Association consists of 14 waste authorities responsible for delivery of solid waste management services for 72 municipalities Initial Feasibility Study was completed in 2012. Currently working on detailed Business Plan, including seeking funding from P3 Canada. CITY OF SURREY BIOFUELS FACILITY The City is in the process of implementing the second phase of the Rethink Waste Program, an organic waste biofuel processing facility. This facility will process the City’s organic waste into a 100% renewable natural gas (RNG) to be used in collection and service vehicles and a source of renewable fuel for a new district heating system. The facility will also produce a high end compost product that will be used in agricultural and landscaping applications. It will be capable of processing upward of 115,000 tonnes of organic waste per year. The majority of this waste will come from Surrey's residential curbside collection program The biofuel facility is a public private partnership with Orgaworld. P3 Canada approved Surrey’s Application to fund up to 25% of the capital cost of the facility. CITY OF SURREY STATUS Facility groundbreaking was held in February, 2015. Currently under construction KEY LESSONS LEARNED KEY LESSONS LEARNED City of Toronto’s Long Term Plan • Communication is Key • You are in for the Long Haul Durham York Energy Centre • Right Sizing is Critical, • Continuous Outreach Political Champion Key City of Edmonton and the Enerkem Alberta Biofuels Facility. • Great Example of an Integrated System Southern Alberta Energy from Waste Alliance; • Key Ingredients for Implementing Regional Change City of Surrey’s AD/Biofuel Facility: • Look for Proven Technologies COMMON THEMES • Waste is a resource • There is no “away” o Options for “disposal” are land, sea or air • We need to treat residuals responsibly o Close to the source of generation o Consider impacted communities (Environmental Justice) COMMON PROJECT CHALLENGES : Aligning the priorities of the Federal. Provincial/State, Regional and municipal governments. Engaging a strong commitment from all parties involved in the project. Developing public trust built on an “open-and-transparent” process. Developing and maintaining a solid financial strategy. LESSONS LEARNED Know your waste stream Make sure that the Facility is “right sized” Communicate, communicate, communicate! Find the right site - Location, Location, Location! Identify a Political Champion Establish a process that will withstand several election cycles 31 SUMMARY WHAT MAKES A SUSTAINABLE WASTE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM A balanced system recognizing that no one size/system fits all- All Waste is Local!!! Continued need for education at all levels on potential impacts and benefits. Open Transparent Long Term Planning Process Recognition of the 5R’s- Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, Recover and Residuals Cooperation/Support amongst all levels of government WHAT DOES THE FUTURE HOLD? Continued push for greater Diversion from landfill Increased use of alternative delivery approaches, public private partnering and creative funding mechanisms/alternative sources of capital Continued Pressure on Commodity Markets will impact Project Revenues in short term (starting to improve) Enhancement of 3Rs and expansion of organics programs The role of new and emerging technologies will evolve Continued changes and uncertainty in the regulatory environment complicates progress on facility design 34 Thanks Bruce Howie Bruce. [email protected] (914) 993-2062.
Recommended publications
  • As Toronto Finds Distant Holes for Its Waste, the 905 Sees Incineration in a New, Appealing Light July 30, 2007

    As Toronto Finds Distant Holes for Its Waste, the 905 Sees Incineration in a New, Appealing Light July 30, 2007

    Toronto Star As Toronto finds distant holes for its waste, the 905 sees incineration in a new, appealing light July 30, 2007 Phinjo Gombu STAFF REPORTER Despite skepticism and some opposition, Durham Region is deeply committed to building the GTA's first garbage incinerator in 15 years, says the region's works commissioner. "Years ago, there was a fundamental commitment by Durham Region that there would be no new landfills established (here)," says Cliff Curtis. "And council seems to have bought into the concept that we need to look after our own waste." That seems to be a unique position in the GTA, where disposing of trash in one's own backyard tends to stink politically. Sustainable self-sufficiency, with acceptance of some risk, is a goal other regions seem to be avoiding. Toronto and Peel have signed long-term deals to use landfills outside the GTA, though Peel already incinerates half its waste. York plans to turn some of its garbage into pellets to be burned somewhere else. For the time being, Halton has decided to continue to use a Milton landfill. After the province promised Michigan legislators that Ontario would stop shipping garbage to landfills in the state by 2010, councils across the GTA scrambled to find alternatives. Most have taken a step back from incineration, long fraught with concerns about emissions. Halton Region decided to defer considering an energy-from-waste incinerator for five years. Peel signed a long-term deal with a landfill near Sarnia for half of its trash, despite the fact its Algonquin Power plant in Brampton, built in 1992, already burns almost 140,000 tonnes of garbage a year and is undergoing a retrofit so it can dispose of more.
  • Solid Waste Management Services Staff Recommended 2020 Operating Budget 2020 – 2029 Capital Budget & Plan

    Solid Waste Management Services Staff Recommended 2020 Operating Budget 2020 – 2029 Capital Budget & Plan

    Solid Waste Management Services Staff Recommended 2020 Operating Budget 2020 – 2029 Capital Budget & Plan Budget Briefing to Budget Committee November 15, 2019 While we aim to provide fully accessible content, there is no text alternative available for some of the content within these pages. If you require alternate formats or need assistance understanding our charts, graphs, or any other content, please contact us at 416-392-7896 or [email protected]. Overview Overview and Highlights 2020 Staff Recommended Operating Budget and Plan 2020 – 2029 Staff Recommended Capital Budget and Plan Rate Changes 2 Overview and Highlights 3 Solid Waste Management Services – What We Do Solid Waste Management Services (SWMS) is an Integrated System and is responsible for: Integrated Waste Management System City Beautification Collection & Processing & Education & Residual Transfer Transport Enforcement Management SWMS manages 7 Transfer Stations, 2 Organics Processing Facility with one under expansion, 3 Collection Yards and 1 Litter Collection Yard, Green Lane Landfill + 160 Closed Landfills, 1.5 million residential bins and operates approximately 750 vehicles and pieces of equipment with an asset value of $700M . 4 Solid Waste Management Services – What is Seen After Raptors Parade / After SWM Parks and Curbside Collection 5 Solid Waste Management Services – How It’s Done Litter Management Collections Transfer Stations Haulage Open and Closed Landfill Mgmt. Recycling Processing Recycling Marketing Organics Processing in Renewable Natural Gas Special Waste Handling Anaerobic Digesters Development Community Outreach Policy & Research Customer Experience Circular Economy Asset Mgmt. & Capital Delivery Facility Maintenance Technology / Smart City Innovation Education Business Services 6 Solid Waste Management Services - Highlights • Completed an organizational realignment • New Safety Strategy and Program Initiated • Negotiated contracts for D2 collections, Disco Org.
  • Toronto Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management ("TIRM") Process - Request for Proposals for Disposal Services

    Toronto Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management ("TIRM") Process - Request for Proposals for Disposal Services

    Toronto Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management ("TIRM") Process - Request for Proposals for Disposal Services (City Council on June 7, 8 and 9, 2000, amended this Clause by deleting from the recommendation of the Works Committee, after the words “Emergency Services”, the words “a verifiable environmental”, and inserting in lieu thereof the words “an environmental”, and adding to such recommendation the words “verifiable to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services”, so that the recommendation of the Works Committee shall now read as follows: “The Works Committee recommends that TIRM Respondents offering disposal services be required to have in place at the time of contract implementation, or an implementation schedule acceptable to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, an environmental management system for their disposal, operations and applicable transportation systems, verifiable to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.”) The Works Committee recommends that TIRM Respondents offering disposal services be required to have in place at the time of contract implementation, or an implementation schedule acceptable to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, a verifiable environmental management system for their disposal, operations and applicable transportation systems. The Works Committee reports, for the information of Council, having received presentations by the following Respondents to the TIRM Request for Proposals for Disposal Services: - Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority, represented by: - Mr. Todd R. Pepper, General Manager, Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority. (A copy of the aforementioned presentation was submitted to the Committee.) - Green Lane Landfill, represented by: - Ms. Anne Hiscock, Green Lane Landfill. (A copy of the aforementioned presentation was submitted to the Committee.) - Onyx North America Corporation (formerly Browning Ferris Industries), represented by: - Mr.
  • Canadian-American Environmental Relations: a Case Study of the Ontario-Michigan Municipal Solid Waste Dispute

    Canadian-American Environmental Relations: a Case Study of the Ontario-Michigan Municipal Solid Waste Dispute

    Canadian-American Environmental Relations: A Case Study of the Ontario-Michigan Municipal Solid Waste Dispute by Taylor Ann Heins A thesis presented to the University of Waterloo in fulfillment of the thesis requirement for the degree of Master of Environmental Studies in Environment and Resource Studies Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2007 ©Taylor A. Heins 2007 I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this thesis. This is a true copy of the thesis, including any required final revisions, as accepted by my examiners. I understand that my thesis may be made electronically available to the public. ii Abstract Canada and the United States are faced with many cross-border environmental issues and therefore must negotiate potential solutions with one another. Complicating such negotiations is the fact that both countries are federal systems which require negotiations and decision-making interactions amongst various levels of government domestically which, in turn, influence and are influenced by bilateral relations. Therefore, this study focuses on governmental relations both within each country (intergovernmental relations) and between the two countries (bilateral/international relations). Using the Ontario-Michigan Municipal Solid Waste dispute (1996-2006) as a case study, this thesis advances an organizational framework for the examination of the role of formal and informal interactions in shaping bilateral environmental policy. Through application of this framework, it is revealed that both formal and informal federal level relations in the U.S. prevented sub-national and local level authorities from effectively developing a solution to the dispute. Future studies which apply the organizational framework used in this thesis to other cross-border environmental issues are needed in order to determine whether such conclusions hold true in the case of all cross border disputes.
  • Solid Waste Management Services 3

    Solid Waste Management Services 3

    OPERATING PROGRAM SUMMARY CONTENTS Overview 1: 2017 – 2018 Service Overview and Plan 5 2: 2017 Operating Budget by Service 15 3: Issues for Discussion 31 Appendices: 1. 2016 Performance 36 2. 2017 Operating Budget by Expenditure Category 37 Solid Waste Management Services 3. 2017 Organization Chart 38 2017 OPERATING BUDGET OVERVIEW 4. Summary of 2017 Service Solid Waste Management Services is responsible for collecting, Changes 39 transporting, processing, composting and disposal of municipal and 5. Summary of 2017 New & some private sector waste. This includes garbage, Blue Bin Enhanced Service Priorities 40 recyclables, Green Bin organics, litter, yard waste, oversized and metal items, as well as household hazardous waste and electronic waste. 6. Inflows/Outflows to / from Reserves & Reserve Funds 41 SWMS' goal is to be a leader in providing innovative waste management services within the City of Toronto in a safe, efficient, and 7. 2017 User Fee Rate courteous manner, creating environmental sustainability, promoting Changes 44 waste diversion and maintaining a clean city. 2017 Operating Budget Highlights The total cost to deliver these services to Toronto residents, businesses and visitors is $378.292 million gross with a $19.831 million net reserve contribution as shown below. 2016 2017 (in $000's) Change Budget Budget $ % Gross Expenditures 368,463.2 378,292.4 9,829.2 2.7% Gross Revenues 388,938.4 398,123.7 9,185.3 2.4% Net Contribution (20,475.2) (19,831.3) 643.9 (3.1%) For 2017, $19.7 million in opening budget pressures were identified arising from operating requirements including contract services increases, inflation and provision to support the SWMS Capital program.
  • GGR 381 H1F: Field Course in Environmental Geography COURSE SCHEDULE and READINGS | FALL 2016

    GGR 381 H1F: Field Course in Environmental Geography COURSE SCHEDULE and READINGS | FALL 2016

    GGR 381 H1F: Field Course in Environmental Geography COURSE SCHEDULE AND READINGS | FALL 2016 Course Schedule Overview Tues. Sept. 6 In-class Session Introductory Session and Field Trip and trip to High Park (9:30 a.m. – 4 p.m.) Meet at Sid Smith, Room 5017A at 9:30 a.m. Following class, meet at the north gates of High Park at 1:30 p.m. The gates are at the intersection of Colborne Lodge Drive and Bloor St. West, near the High Park TTC Station. Wed. Sept. 7 Field Trip The Port Lands (8:45 a.m. – 4 p.m.) Meet at the Ashbridges Bay Wastewater Plant (9 Leslie St., south of Lakeshore Blvd. East) at 8:45 a.m. In the afternoon we will be visiting the Portlands Energy Centre (470 Unwin Ave.) Thu. Sept. 8 Field Trip Food in the City (8:15 a.m. – 4 p.m.) Meet at the Ontario Food Terminal (165 The Queensway, east of Park Lawn Rd.) at 8:15 a.m. In the afternoon we will be visiting Black Creek Community Farm (4929 Jane St.) Fri. Sept. 9 Field Trip Mines and Airports (7:15 a.m. – 4:30 Meet at the Huron St. entrance to Sid Smith Hall, p.m.) 100 St George St. at 7:15 a.m. We will be traveling by bus and leaving at 7:30 a.m. sharp. We will be visiting the Aberfoyle Sand and Gravel Pits in the morning and Pearson International Airport in the afternoon. Fri. Sept. 16 In-class Session Sid Smith, Room 2101 (12 – 2 p.m.) Fri.
  • Statement of Claim, As Required by the Proceedings Against the Crown Act

    Statement of Claim, As Required by the Proceedings Against the Crown Act

    Archived Content Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats by contacting us. Contenu archivé L'information archivée sur le Web est disponible à des fins de consultation, de recherche ou de tenue de dossiers seulement. Elle n’a été ni modifiée ni mise à jour depuis sa date d’archivage. Les pages archivées sur le Web ne sont pas assujetties aux normes Web du gouvernement du Canada. Conformément à la Politique de communication du gouvernement du Canada, vous pouvez obtenir cette information dans un format de rechange en communiquant avec nous. UNDER THE UNCITRAL ARBITRATION RULES AND SECTION B OF CHAPTER Ii OF TIlE NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN: VITO G. GALLO Investor v GOVERNMENT OF CANADA (“Canada”) Party STATEMENT OF CLAIM A. NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE PARTIES CLAIMANT! INVESTOR: Vito G. GallooAc) ENTERPRISE: 1532382 Ontario Inc. 225 Duncan Mill Road Suite 101 Don Mills, Ontario M3B 3K9 Canada PARTY: GOVERNMENT OF CANADA Office of the Deputy Attorney General of Canada Justice Building 239 Wellington Street Ottawa, Ontario KIA 0H8 Canada 1. The Investor alleges that the Government of Canada has breached, and continues to breach, its obligations under Chapter 11 of the NAFTA, including, but not limited to: (i) Article 1105, The Minimum Standard of Treatment (ii) Article 111 0, Expropriation and Compensation 2.
  • Claimant Post-Hearing Submission (Redacted)

    Claimant Post-Hearing Submission (Redacted)

    UNDER THE UNCITRAL ARBITRATION RULES AND SECTION B OF CHAPTER 11 THE NORTH AMERICAN TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN: VITO GALLO Claimant /Investor v. GOVERNMENT OF CANADA ("Canada") Respondent/Party CLAIMANT'S POST -HEARING BRIEF RE: OWNERSHIP OF THE INVESTMENT REDACTED April8, 2011 BENNETT GASTLE Professional Corporation Lawyers 36 Toronto Street, Suite 250 Toronto, ON M5C 2C5 Charles M. Gastle Tel: 416.361.3319ext.222 Fax: 416.361.1530 MURDOCH R. MARTYN Barrister and Solicitor 33 Hazelton Avenue, Suite 94 r.rr.nTr- ON M5R 2E3 the Investor Tel: 416.433.2890 Fax: 416.964.2328 Of counsel, TODD WEILER UNDER THE UNCITRAL ARBITRATION RULES AND SECTION B OF CHAPTER 11 OF THE NORTH AMERICAN AGREEMENT BETWEEN: VITO G. GALLO Investor V. GOVERNMENT OF CANADA ("Canada") Party CLAIMANT'S POST -HEARING BRIEF 1. The issue before the Tribunal is whether Mr. Vito Gallo ("Gallo") owned or controlled 1532382 Ontario Inc. (the "Enterprise") prior to the introduction of the Adams Mine Lake Act ("AMLA") into the Ontario legislature on April 51h, 2004. The Claimant met his burden of proof by placing the Enterprise's Minute Book into the evidentiary record and by proving how Ontario law the applicable law under NAFTA Article 11 17 - recognizes that Gallo has controlled the Enterprise since its incorporation in 2002. The Minute Book contained both the original shareholders' register and the original share certificates. None of the evidence adduced at the hearing suggested otherwise. Instead, the forensic evidence and the viva voce evidence support and verify the authenticity of the documents. no answer this prima claim. All of hopes were tests, the of which only strengthened the Claimant's prima facie case.
  • Arbitration Under Chapter Eleven of the Nafta and the Uncitral Arbitration Rules

    Arbitration Under Chapter Eleven of the Nafta and the Uncitral Arbitration Rules

    ARBITRATION UNDER CHAPTER ELEVEN OF THE NAFTA AND THE UNCITRAL ARBITRATION RULES BETWEEN VITO G. GALLO Claimant AND GOVERNMENT OF CANADA Respondent PROCEDURAL ORDER NO. 2 [Amended] 10 February 2009 ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL Professor Juan Fernández-Armesto (President) Professor Jean-Gabriel Castel J. Christopher Thomas, Q.C. CONSIDERING 1. The documentary requests filed by each party on 15 October 2008, numbered GAL 13 and CAN 11, and the objections to the counterparty’s documentary requests of 12 January 2009, numbered GAL 15 and CAN 12. 2. That further to these communications, the parties submitted GAL 17 and CAN 16 as short rebuttals, and Canada presented CAN 17 dealing with the additional production of document pertaining to requests nos. 73, 77, 78, 60(n) and 80. 3. That, according to Procedural Order no. 1, the Arbitral Tribunal may, in its discretion, order one disputing party to communicate to the other documents or limited categories of documents. In the exercise of its discretion, the Arbitral Tribunal will have regard to the specificity of the request, the relevance of the requested documents, the fact that they are in the possession, power or control of the disputing party, any applicable privileges, and all surrounding circumstances. The Arbitral Tribunal issues this PROCEDURAL ORDER NO. 2 This Procedural Order rules on the documentary requests (I) clarifying preliminary issues raised by the parties and (II) deciding on each of the disputed documentary requests. I. Preliminary Issues 1. Each party has claimed that (a) the documents so far produced by the other party are, to a large extent, unorganised; (b) privilege has been asserted over an unspecified number of documents; (c) some of the requested documents are not in its possession, but rather in the possession of third parties; and (d) there is a possibility of late production.
  • Zero Waste Toronto a Vision for Our City Now Is the Time

    Zero Waste Toronto a Vision for Our City Now Is the Time

    ZERO WASTE TORONTO A VISION FOR OUR CITY NOW IS THE TIME. February 2016 green jobs, all while dramatically Right now, we are facing a major cutting our greenhouse gas decision that will affect our emissions and conserving natural environment, our economy and resources. It means more support our city. In the next six months, for the innovative businesses and City Councillors and Torontonians community groups that are already will discuss, debate and decide demonstrating the success of zero what Toronto’s Long Term Waste waste strategies. Management Strategy will be. This sets us on a path for how The good news is that the City of we will deal with our city’s waste Toronto has taken some important for the next 50 years. The path steps towards a zero waste future. we choose reflects the vision we share for our future. In this report, we celebrate the waste-free steps we have already This report outlines a vision for zero taken in our city and we identify the waste - a future where there is no steps we still need to take towards waste, where everything is designed a zero waste future. Using examples to be reused or to become the from our own communities and materials and resources to create from other leaders around the something new. This vision world, this report points out key is about eliminating waste and opportunities and wrong turns we taking responsibility for our actions. need to avoid. Around the world and right here This report provides innovative in Canada, communities are adopting ideas and concrete examples that zero waste.
  • Ontario Infrastructure Projects/ Toronto

    Ontario Infrastructure Projects/ Toronto

    Date Modified: 2009-10-23 Ontario Infrastructure Projects / Toronto Location Project Federal Toronto GO Transit $250,000,000 Toronto Toronto York Subway Extension $697,000,000 Toronto Sheppard East Light Rail Transit Line $333,000,000 Toronto Revitalization of Union Station $133,000,000 Toronto Yonge-Dundas Square Permanent Storage Facility $66,667 Toronto Todmorden Mills Heritage Museum and Arts Centre $423,000 Toronto Sidewalks $2,666,667 Toronto Don Valley Parkway Resurfacing $333,333 Toronto Lakeshore Resurfacing $103,635 Toronto Gardiner Resurfacing $563,032 Toronto Deanewood Pedestrian Bridge Rehabilitation $206,897 Toronto Bloor-Islington Bridge Rehabilitation $344,828 Toronto Mount Pleasant Bridge Rehabilitation $413,793 Toronto Gardiner Road Bridge Rehabilitation $206,897 Toronto Gardiner-Bathurst/Strachan Bridge Rehabilitation $827,586 Toronto Steeles Avenue Resurfacing $5,000,000 Toronto Major Road Reconstruction/ Resurfacing Finch Ave E $168,667 Toronto Major Road Reconstruction / Resurfacing - Eglinton Ave E $38,000 Toronto Major Road Reconstruction / Resurfacing - Leslie St $177,667 Toronto Major Road Reconstruction/ Resurfacing - Don Mills Rd $19,333 Toronto Major Road Reconstruction / Resurfacing Finch Ave 2 $321,333 Toronto Major Road Reconstruction / Resurfacing - Yonge St $557,000 Toronto Major Road Reconstruction / Resurfacing - Empress Ave $19,000 Toronto Major Road Reconstruction / Resurfacing - Lawrence Ave $556,333 Toronto Major Road Reconstruction / Resurfacing - Millwood Rd $142,667 Toronto Major Road Reconstruction
  • Automated Cart Recycling: a Study of Municipal Collection and Operations in Ontario

    Automated Cart Recycling: a Study of Municipal Collection and Operations in Ontario

    Automated Cart Recycling: A Study of Municipal Collection and Operations in Ontario CIF Project 888 V2 Updated June 2016 Automated Cart Recycling: Study of Ontario Municipalities – January 2016 – CIF Project 888 © 2016. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, recorded or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photographic, sound, magnetic or other, without advance written permission from the owner. This Project has been delivered with the assistance of the Continuous Improvement Fund (CIF), a fund financed by Ontario municipalities. Notwithstanding this support, the views expressed are the views of the author(s) and the CIF. CIF partners accept no responsibility for these views. Disclaimer This report is provided as opinion for discussion only and is not designed to replace qualified engineering, architectural or legal advice in any way. Municipalities are cautioned to obtain qualified advice and certified/approved drawings and plans prior to undertaking or adopting any recommendations that may affect programs or facilities. Project Team Acknowledgements This guide was developed with the contributions, expertise and guidance of the following team of industry experts: Report Authors: Janet Robins, www.robinsconsulting.ca Laurie Westaway, E: [email protected] CIF Tech Advisors: Gary Everett and Mike Birett Municipal Survey: Phil Jensen, www.ch2m.com Automated Cart Recycling: Study of Ontario Municipalities – January 2016 – CIF Project 888 Table of Contents 1 Introduction 3 2 Study Overview