DOCSLIB.ORG

Commission Report Macro

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Commission Report Macro TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER’S REPORT AUGUST 2013 UPDATE TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1. TTC MONTHLY SCORECARD 2 2. COMMENTARY AND CURRENT ISSUES 5 3. CUSTOMER MEASURES AND IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROGRESS 17 4. FINANCIAL COMMENTARY 20 5. CRITICAL PROJECTS 23 1 TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION – MONTHLY SCORECARD Key Performance Latest Current Indicator Description Frequency Measure Current Target Status Trend Ref. # CSS Customer Satisfaction Survey Quarter Q2 79% TBD 2.2 Customer Journeys Customer Trips Period P6 50.389M 50.391M 2.3 Punctuality – Subway and Scarborough Rapid Transit (SRT) P6 92.0% 96.0% Yonge-University-Spadina Headway + 3 minutes Period 2.4.1 Headway + 3 minutes P6 97.5% 97.0% Bloor-Danforth Period 2.4.1 Headway + 3 minutes P6 99.4% 98.0% Sheppard Period 2.4.1 Headway + 3 minutes P6 98.8% 96.0% SRT Period 2.4.2 Punctuality – Bus, Streetcar, and Wheel-Trans Bus Headway +/- 3 minutes Period P6 64.4% 65.0% 2.5.1 P6 69.0% 70.0% Streetcar Headway +/- 3 minutes Period 2. 5.2 Wheel-Trans Within 10 minutes of schedule Period P6 81.6% 90.0% 2.5.3 Safety and Security Lost Time Injuries Injuries / 100 Employees Period P6 5.21 TBD 2.6.1 Customer Injuries Injury incidents / 1M Vehicle Boardings Period P5 2.20 NA 2.6.2 Behavioural Safety Index Safety Focused Behaviour Period TBD 2.6.3 Offences against Customers Assault, theft, other Period P6 40 NA 2.6.4 Offences against Staff Assault, threat, other Period P6 32 NA 2.6.5 People Attendance Employee Absence Period P6 6.39% < 6.50% 2.7.1 Operator Hires Actual vs. Budget Period P6 46 46 2.7.2 2 TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION – MONTHLY SCORECARD Key Performance Latest Current Indicator Description Frequency Measure Current Target Status Trend Ref. # Device Availability Elevators % Elevators Available Period P6 98.6% 98.0% 2.8.1 Escalators % Escalators Available Period P6 97.0% 97.0% 2.8.2 Fare Purchase Opportunity % TVM’s / PVM’s Available Period P6 98.3% 96.0% 2.8.3 Mystery Shopping and Audits Station Cleanliness Cleanliness Audit Score Quarter Q2 71.9% 75.0% 2.9.1 Vehicle Cleanliness Cleanliness Audit Score Quarter Q2 63.1% 75.0% 2.9.2 Information MSS Customer Announcements Score Quarter TBD 2.9.3 Staff Helpfulness MSS Welcoming Staff Score Quarter TBD 2.9.4 Financials TTC Revenue Actual vs. Budget Period P1-6 $573.3M $578.5M 4.1 TTC Operating Expenditure Actual vs. Budget Period P1-6 $763.5M $779.4M 4.1 Wheel-Trans Revenue Actual vs. Budget Period P1-6 $2.9M $2.8M 4.2 W-T Operating Expenditure Actual vs. Budget Period P1-6 $51.9M $52.3M 4.2 Capital Expenditure – Base Actual vs. Budget Period P1-6 $211.1M $389.2M 4.3 Capital Expenditure – TYSSE Actual vs. Budget Period P1-6 $170.6M $374.0M 4.3 3 Key to Symbols On target Positive up from last Target at risk at current trend Positive down from last Off target Negative up from last Negative down from last No change from last Note: The black arrows in the top right corner of the accompanying charts in this report indicate the favourable direction of the Key Performance Indicator (KPI): Higher (or increasing) values for the KPI are favourable Lower (or decreasing) values for the KPI are favourable 4 Part 2 – Commentary and Current Issues 2.1 – Chief Executive Officer’s Commentary This month, the TTC is closing Pape Station for a 12-day period to help hasten construction and modernization work currently under way at the station. This closure is an excellent example of two elements of our Vision and Corporate Plan. First, the work being undertaken at Pape Station is another important element of our Station Modernization Program. Second, the decision to close this station was based on feedback we sought from our customers and local residents and businesses on several options for speeding up construction work. This reflects our commitment to be more accessible and responsive to our customers and communities, to listen to them, and to engage them in the TTC’s initiatives. Customer journeys (ridership) were negligibly below target in Period 6. The year-end outlook is that ridership and passenger revenues will fall slightly below target, primarily due to the combined effects of several severe winter storms, the rainstorm and flood aftermath in early July, and decreases in the average fare that mostly stem from ongoing monthly pass sales growth. Subway punctuality on the Bloor-Danforth and Sheppard lines continued ahead of target. Punctuality on the Yonge- University-Spadina line continued below target. The recently established “Task Forces” to address root causes of delay are beginning to show positive effect with improvement to off-peak punctuality. SRT punctuality continued ahead of target. Bus, streetcar, and Wheel-Trans punctuality were each below target, but this is typical in the summer months when construction hits surface transit hard. Employee absence increased but remained below target for the fourth consecutive period. The overall trend continues to be encouraging with period results consistently lower than the comparable prior-year period. Elevator, escalator, and TVM/PVM availability were each above target. On the financial side, total year-to-date TTC revenues were below budget, primarily due to 1.3 million fewer customer journeys than planned and a lower average fare than budgeted. This was offset by operating under-expenditures so at the present time, no major variance from the year-end budget is being projected. Capital expenditures were below budget for a host of reasons (see Section 4.3). 2.2 – Customer Satisfaction Survey The Q2 2013 Customer Satisfaction Survey shows an overall customer satisfaction rating of 79%. This represents a 4% improvement in overall customer satisfaction compared to Q1 2013 (75%) and a 7% increase compared to Q4 2012 (72%). The survey also demonstrated positive trends for customer perceptions of wait times for vehicles, duration of trips for bus and streetcars, and the cleanliness of subway vehicles. The Q2 results are encouraging and are more consistent with the improvements in punctuality, vehicle and station cleanliness, escalator availability, and various “quick wins” that have been delivered in recent months. The expectation is that with continued focus on those issues that are important to customers, the customer satisfaction scores will continue to improve over time. The detailed results of the Q1 and Q2 2013 Customer Satisfaction Survey will be presented to the Board at the September meeting. 5 2.3 – Customer Journeys 60 There were 50.389M customer journeys (ridership) taken during Period 6 2013, which was 50 1.162M (+2.4%) more than the 49.227M journeys taken during Period 6 2012. 40 The annual number of customer 30 journeys to the end of Period 6 2013 was 519.542M, which was 12.752M (+2.5%) more than the 20 506.790M annual journeys taken to the end of Period 6 2012. Customer Journeys (Millions) Journeys Customer 10 0 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 Financial Periods 7/2011 to 6/2013 Actual 12 Month Moving Average 60 There were 50.389M customer journeys taken during Period 6 2013, which was 0.002M 50 (-0.004%) less than the budget of 50.391M journeys. 40 The number of customer journeys taken year-to-date to 30 the end of Period 6 2013 was 268.173M, which was 1.296M (-0.5%) less than the budget of 20 269.469M journeys. Customer Journeys (Millions) Journeys Customer 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Financial Periods 1/2013 to 12/2013 2013 Budget 2013 Actual 6 2.4 – Punctuality – Subway and Scarborough Rapid Transit (SRT) 2.4.1 – Subway Yonge-University-Spadina Line 100 Performance decreased in in 99 Period 6. This was attributable to an increase in workforce shortages 98 related to an imbalance between spareboard levels, vacation 97 quotas, and forecasted crewing numbers. These shortages mainly 96 affected late evening route 95 performance. 94 This issue will persist into Period 7 but subsequently ease as 93 additional trained workforce % On Time (Headway + + 3 Minutes) (Headway % Time On becomes available. Changes will 92 be pursued to existing operating 91 regulations which move open work into evening periods. 90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 In addition, a number of weather Financial Periods 1/2012 to 6/2013 related incidents had a negative Actual Target 12 per. Mov. Avg. (Actual) impact on overall punctuality. Bloor-Danforth Line 100 Performance remained above 99 target in Period 6. Delays involving Passenger Assistance 98 Alarm (PAA) incidents and track- 97 level fires and incidents were slightly higher than the 24-month 96 moving average. 95 94 93 % On Time (Headway + + 3 Minutes) (Headway % Time On 92 91 90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 Financial Periods 1/2012 to 6/2013 Actual Target 12 per. Mov. Avg. (Actual) 7 Sheppard Line 100 Performance continued well 99 above target in Period 6. 98 97 96 95 94 93 % On Time (Headway + + 3 Minutes) (Headway % Time On 92 91 90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 Financial Periods 1/2012 to 6/2013 Actual Target 12 per. Mov. Avg. (Actual) 2.4.2 – SRT 100 The SRT continues to perform well, albeit at a constrained performance profile due to its 95 age.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Transit City Etobicoke - Finch West LRT
    Delcan Corporation Toronto Transit Commission / City of Toronto Etobicoke-Finch West Light Rail Transit Transit Project Assessment Environmental Project Report - Appendices Transit City Etobicoke - Finch West LRT APPENDIX M – Consultation Record March 2010 March 2010 Appendix M Delcan Corporation Toronto Transit Commission / City of Toronto Etobicoke-Finch West Light Rail Transit Transit Project Assessment Environmental Project Report - Appendices 3.0 List of Interested Persons Participating in the Consultations 1.0 Introduction This appendix documents in detail the consultations carried out with the technical agencies, the public, Consultation was carried out to encourage technical agencies to provide input during the course of the and the First Nations communities. study. The following agencies were invited to be involved and provide comment on the TPAP study for the EFWLRT: 2.0 Description of Consultations and Follow-up Efforts The general public, government agencies and various interest groups were provided opportunities to Government Review Agencies Technical Agencies Canadian Environmental Assessment All Stream review and comment on this project during the course of the study. The City of Toronto Public Agency Consultation Team was involved in the overall public consultation process. They offered a wide range Environmental Canada MTA All Stream Inc. of communication methods to the public, including project web site, dedicated telephone number, fax, Department of Fisheries and Oceans Telus and email address for contacting the project team. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada Enwave Energy Corporation (INAC) Transportation Canada-Ontario Region Group Telecom/360 Network Technical agencies, including federal, provincial, municipal agencies, utilities, and potential interested Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs Hydro One Network Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Noise and Vibration Projects
    Frontop Engineering Limited 101 Amber Street, Unit 1, Markham Ontario, Canada, L3R 3B2 Telephone: (905) 947-0900; Fax: (905) 305-9370 Website: www.frontop.ca; Email: [email protected] List of Our Ongoing Noise and Vibration Monitoring Projects Project 1: Name of Project: Geotechnical Instrumentation and Monitoring Plan- Segment 1- Keelesdale Station Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada Client: Metrolinx-Eglinton Crosstown Light Rapid Transit (ECLRT) Project Main project features: Geotechnical Instrumentation and Monitoring, Noise and Vibration Monitoring Activities performed: install and monitoring following instrument Prepared and installed six (6) real-time vibration stations and five (5) real-time noise monitoring station. And weekly attendant two (2) noise and two (2) vibration stations monitoring. Project 2: Name of Project: Geotechnical Instrumentation and Monitoring Plan- Segment 1- Mt Dennis Station Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada Client: Metrolinx-Eglinton Crosstown Light Rapid Transit (ECLRT) Project Main project features: Geotechnical Instrumentation and Monitoring, Noise and Vibration Monitoring Activities performed: install and monitoring following instrument Prepared and installed four (4) real-time vibration stations and four (4) real-time noise monitoring station. And weekly attendant two (2) noise and two (2) vibration stations monitoring Project 3: Name of Project: TTC Wilson Yard Track and Structure Building Renovation (Contract AW1-3) Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada Client: TTC Main project features: Track and Structure Building Renovation Activities performed: Prepared and installed the one (1) real-time noise monitoring station and one (1) real- time vibration monitoring station. Project 4: Name of Project: TTC Hillcrest Complex Surface Way Facility Replacement, and Harvey Shop Loading Deck (Contract M7-2 & M1-91) Client: TTC Main project features: Surface Way Facility Replacement Activities performed: Prepared and installed the two (2) real-time noise monitoring station and two (2) real- time vibration monitoring station.
    [Show full text]
  • Route Period / Service Old New Old New Old New Old
    Service Changes Effective Sunday, March 29, 2020 Route Period / Service M-F Saturday Sunday Headway R.T.T. Vehicles Headway R.T.T. Vehicles Headway R.T.T. Veh Old New Old New Old New Old New Old New Old New Old New Old New Old New Where running times are shown as "A+B", the first part is the scheduled driving time and the second part is the scheduled recovery/layover usually provided to round out the trip time as a multiple of the headway. Vehicle Types: F: Flexity B: Bus AB: Artic Bus T: Train Keele Station Bus Roadway Reconstruction 30 High Park / 80 Queensway Interlined due to construction at Keele Station AM Peak 80 Sherway to Keele Station 30' 68+22 3B 30' 56+4 2B 80 Sherway to High Park Stn via Parkside 20' 70+10 4B 20' 58+2 3B 30 High Park Stn to Runnymede 20' 20' 14+6 14+6 1B 1B 20' 20' 14+6 14+6 1B 1B M-F Midday 80 Sherway to Keele Station 30' 68+22 3B 24' 70+2 3B 24' 70+2 3B 80 Sherway to High Park Stn via Parkside 20' 70+10 4B 20' 72+8 4B 20' 72+8 4B 30 High Park Stn to Runnymede 20' 20' 14+6 14+6 1B 1B 20' 20' 14+6 16+4 1B 1B 20' 20' 14+6 16+4 1B 1B PM Peak 80 Sherway to Keele Station 30' 75+15 3B 24' 70+2 3B 24' 70+2 3B 80 Sherway to High Park Stn via Parkside 20' 77+3 4B 20' 72+8 4B 20' 72+8 4B 30 High Park Stn to Runnymede 20' 20' 16+4 16+4 1B 1B 20' 20' 16+4 16+4 1B 1B 20' 20' 16+4 16+4 1B 1B Early Evening 80 Sherway to Keele Station 24' 56+16 3B 30' 56+4 2B 30' 56+4 2B 80 Sherway to High Park Stn via Parkside 20' 58+2 3B 20' 58+2 3B 20' 58+2 3B 30 High Park Stn to Runnymede 20' 20' 13+7 13+7 1B 1B 20' 20' 14+6 14+6 1B
    [Show full text]
  • Yonge Subway Extension Transit Project Assessment
    Yonge Subway Extension Transit Project Assessment Councillors Briefing January 22, 2009 inter-regional connectivity is the key to success 2 metrolinx: 15 top priorities ● On November 28, 2008 Regional Transportation Plan approved by Metrolinx Board ● Top 15 priorities for early implementation include: ¾ Viva Highway 7 and Yonge Street through York Region ¾ Spadina Subway extension to Vaughan Corporate Centre ¾ Yonge Subway extension to Richmond Hill Centre ¾ Sheppard/Finch LRT ¾ Scarborough RT replacement ¾ Eglinton Crosstown LRT 3 …transit city LRT plan 4 yonge subway – next steps TODAY 5 what’s important when planning this subway extension? You told us your top three priorities were: 1. Connections to other transit 2. Careful planning of existing neighbourhoods and future growth 3. Destinations, places to go and sensitivity to the local environment were tied for the third priority In addition, we need to address all the technical and operational requirements and costs 6 yonge subway at a crossroads ● The Yonge Subway is TTC’s most important asset ● Must preserve and protect existing Yonge line ridership ● Capacity of Yonge line to accommodate ridership growth a growing issue ● Extension of Yonge/Spadina lines matched by downstream capacity ● Three major issues: 1. Capacity of Yonge Subway line 2. Capacity of Yonge-Bloor Station 3. Sequence of events for expansion 7 yonge-university-spadina subway – peak hour volumes 8 yonge subway capacity: history ● Capacity of Yonge line an issue since early 1980s ● RTES study conclusions (2001) ¾
    [Show full text]
  • Framework Planning
    PORT LANDS PLANNING FRAMEWORK Purpose / Elements of the Planning Framework The Purpose of the Port Lands Planning Framework is to: Elements of the Planning Framework: • Integrate the other planning initiatives currently underway • An overall vision for the Port Lands and development objectives • A connections plan which will identify: • Update and refresh the vision for the Port Lands o Major and intermediate streets o Major pedestrian and cycling facilities • Provide a comprehensive picture of how the area should redevelop over the long-term and o A transit plan that also addresses City Council direction reconcile competing interests • Generalized land use direction • Provide a flexible/adaptable planning regime • Identification of character areas • A parks and open space plan which will define: • Ensure sustainable community building o Green corridors o District / Regional parks • Ensure that public and private investments contribute to the long-term vision and have o Water’s Edge Promenades lasting value • A heritage inventory and direction for listing/designating heritage resources • Provide the basis for Official Plan amendments • Urban design principles and structure plan: o Built form and building typologies • Resolve Ontario Municipal Board appeals of the Central Waterfront Secondary Plan o Special sites (catalyst uses) o Relationship of development to major public spaces o Urban design context for heritage features o Identification of major views • A high -level community services and facilities strategy • Implementation and phasing direction PROCESS WE ARE HERE PHASE 2: PHASE 1: PHASE 3: Vision / Background Recommendations Alternatives CONSULTATION Public Meeting | November 28, 2013 PORT LANDS PLANNING FRAMEWORK Port Lands Acceleration Initiative Plan (PLAI) EASTER N AV.E DON VALLEY PARKWAY EASTERN AVENUE Don River DON RIVER NOD RI REV STREET LESLIE KRAP LAKE SHORE BOULEVARD EAST Port Lands Acceleration Initiative (PLAI) TRLYA DRS The PLAI was initiated in October 2011 to: New River Crossing DON ROADWAY CARLAW AVE.
    [Show full text]
  • Traffic and Transportation Report
    Appendix A5 Ontario Line Project Exhibition Station Early Works – Final Traffic and Transportation Early Works Report Metrolinx Traffic and Transportation Early Works Report Ontario Line Exhibition Station Early Works Prepared by: AECOM Canada Ltd. 105 Commerce Valley Drive West, 7th Floor Markham, ON L3T 7W3 Canada T: 905.886.7022 F: 905.886.9494 www.aecom.com Date: February 2021 Project #: 60611173 Metrolinx Ontario Line Exhibition Station Early Works – Traffic and Transportation Early Works Report Statement of Qualifications and Limitations The attached Report (the “Report”) has been prepared by AECOM Canada Ltd. (“AECOM”) for the benefit of the Client (“Client”) in accordance with the agreement between AECOM and Client, including the scope of work detailed therein (the “Agreement”). The information, data, recommendations and conclusions contained in the Report (collectively, the “Information”): § is subject to the scope, schedule, and other constraints and limitations in the Agreement and the qualifications contained in the Report (the “Limitations”); § represents AECOM’s professional judgement in light of the Limitations and industry standards for the preparation of similar reports; § may be based on information provided to AECOM which has not been independently verified; § has not been updated since the date of issuance of the Report and its accuracy is limited to the time period and circumstances in which it was collected, processed, made or issued; § must be read as a whole and sections thereof should not be read out of such context; § was prepared for the specific purposes described in the Report and the Agreement; and § in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, may be based on limited testing and on the assumption that such conditions are uniform and not variable either geographically or over time.
    [Show full text]
  • Attachment 4 – Assessment of Ontario Line
    EX9.1 Attachment 4 – Assessment of Ontario Line As directed by City Council in April 2019, City and TTC staff have assessed the Province’s proposed Ontario Line. The details of this assessment are provided in this attachment. 1. Project Summary 1.1. Project Description The Ontario Line was included as part of the 2019 Ontario Budget1 as a transit project that will cover similar study areas as the Relief Line South and North, as well as a western extension. The proposed project is a 15.5-kilometre higher-order transit line with 15 stations, connecting from Exhibition GO station to Line 5 at Don Mills Road and Eglinton Avenue East, near the Science Centre station, as shown in Figure 1. Figure 1. Ontario Line Proposal (source: Metrolinx IBC) Since April 2019, technical working groups comprising staff from the City, TTC, Metrolinx, Infrastructure Ontario and the Ministry of Transportation met regularly to understand alignment and station location options being considered for the Ontario 1 http://budget.ontario.ca/2019/contents.html Attachment 4 - Assessment of Ontario Line Page 1 of 20 Line. Discussions also considered fleet requirements, infrastructure design criteria, and travel demand modelling. Metrolinx prepared an Initial Business Case (IBC) that was publicly posted on July 25, 2019.2 The IBC compared the Ontario Line and Relief Line South projects against a Business As Usual scenario. The general findings by Metrolinx were that "both Relief Line South and Ontario Line offer significant improvements compared to a Business As Usual scenario, generating $3.4 billion and $7.4 billion worth of economic benefits, respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix C3. Public Engagement Record: December 2019
    Appendix C3 Public Engagement Record: December 10, 2019 to September 16, 2020 Public Engagement Record: December 10, 2019 to September 16, 2020 • Website Screenshots Public Engagement Record: December 10, 2019 to September 16, 2020 • Ask-A-Question Submissions Ask A Question – January 23 to September 16, 2020 Comment title Comment body Response Future Is the western terminus of the line to be built so that it would be able to be We are currently advancing plans for the line between Exhibition/Ontario expansion extended north west at a later date? Thank you Place and the Ontario Science Centre. However, these plans don’t preclude future expansions that may be presented to improve access and meet demand. Thorncliffe Park Where is the station in relation to Overlea Blvd Teams are analyzing the 15 stations identified in the Initial Business Case to Station determine whether or not they should be built, looking at factors like the potential number of users, ease of construction, and cost, to name a few. Findings will be presented in the Preliminary Design Business Case, which we are aiming to complete by summer 2020.By using the GO corridor and building bridges across the Don River instead of tunneling underneath it, a route that is approximately twice the length of the Relief Line South can be built at a similar cost. Also, using the GO corridor will allow people to more easily connect between GO and TTC services that will both be accessible by street level, saving time compared to connections that would lead people into deep underground stations.
    [Show full text]
  • Rapid Transit in Toronto Levyrapidtransit.Ca TABLE of CONTENTS
    The Neptis Foundation has collaborated with Edward J. Levy to publish this history of rapid transit proposals for the City of Toronto. Given Neptis’s focus on regional issues, we have supported Levy’s work because it demon- strates clearly that regional rapid transit cannot function eff ectively without a well-designed network at the core of the region. Toronto does not yet have such a network, as you will discover through the maps and historical photographs in this interactive web-book. We hope the material will contribute to ongoing debates on the need to create such a network. This web-book would not been produced without the vital eff orts of Philippa Campsie and Brent Gilliard, who have worked with Mr. Levy over two years to organize, edit, and present the volumes of text and illustrations. 1 Rapid Transit in Toronto levyrapidtransit.ca TABLE OF CONTENTS 6 INTRODUCTION 7 About this Book 9 Edward J. Levy 11 A Note from the Neptis Foundation 13 Author’s Note 16 Author’s Guiding Principle: The Need for a Network 18 Executive Summary 24 PART ONE: EARLY PLANNING FOR RAPID TRANSIT 1909 – 1945 CHAPTER 1: THE BEGINNING OF RAPID TRANSIT PLANNING IN TORONTO 25 1.0 Summary 26 1.1 The Story Begins 29 1.2 The First Subway Proposal 32 1.3 The Jacobs & Davies Report: Prescient but Premature 34 1.4 Putting the Proposal in Context CHAPTER 2: “The Rapid Transit System of the Future” and a Look Ahead, 1911 – 1913 36 2.0 Summary 37 2.1 The Evolving Vision, 1911 40 2.2 The Arnold Report: The Subway Alternative, 1912 44 2.3 Crossing the Valley CHAPTER 3: R.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Responsive Buildingsiwb INTERNATIONAL CHARRETTE Address 230 Richmond Street East, Toronto on M5A 1P4 Canada
    FEBRUARY 2014 RESPONSIVE BUILDINGSIwB INTERNATIONAL CHARRETTE ADDRESS 230 Richmond Street East, Toronto ON M5A 1P4 Canada MAILING ADDRESS Institute without Boundaries, School of Design, George Brown College P.O. Box 1015, Station B, Toronto ON M5T 2T9 Canada Tel.: +1.416.415.5000 x 2029 © 2014 THE INSTITUTE WITHOUT BOUNDARIES No part of this work may be produced or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system without written permission from the publisher except for a brief quotation (not exceeding 200 words) in a review or professional work. WaRRANTIES The information in this document is for informational purposes only. While efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy and veracity of the informa- tion in this document, and, although the Institute without Boundaries at George Brown College relies on reputable sources and believes the informa- tion posted in this document is correct, the Institute without Boundaries at George Brown College does not warrant the quality, accuracy or complete- ness of any information in this document. Such information is provided “as is” without warranty or condition of any kind, either express or implied (including, but not limited to implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose), the Institute without Boundaries is not respon- sible in any way for damages (including but not limited to direct, indirect, incidental, consequential, special, or exemplary damages) arising out of the use of this document nor are liable for any inaccurate, delayed or incomplete information, nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon.
    [Show full text]
  • ROUTE: 35 - JANE SERVICE: SATURDAY SCHEDULE NO: PAGE: 1 TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION DIVISION: ARRW REPLACES NO: EFFECTIVE: Jan 9, 2021
    ROUTE: 35 - JANE SERVICE: SATURDAY SCHEDULE NO: PAGE: 1 TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION DIVISION: ARRW REPLACES NO: EFFECTIVE: Jan 9, 2021 SERVICE PLANNING-RUN GUIDE SAFE OPERATION TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER TIMES SHOWN ON THIS SCHEDULE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DOWN FROM: -- PIONEER VILLAGE STATION MU MURRAY ROSS PKWY & STEELES AVE.W JS JANE ST. & STEELES AVE. W. SJ SHOREHAM DR. & JANE ST. FJ FINCH AVE. W. & JANE ST. SH SHEPPARD AVE. W. & JANE ST. LW LAWRENCE AVE. W. & JANE ST. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UP FROM: -- JANE STATION LW LAWRENCE AVE. W. & JANE ST. JA JANE ST. & WILSON AVE. SH SHEPPARD AVE. W. & JANE ST. FJ FINCH AVE. W. & JANE ST. SJ SHOREHAM DR. & JANE ST. PK PETER KAISER GT. & STEELES AVE.W JS JANE ST. & STEELES AVE. W. MU MURRAY ROSS PKWY & STEELES AVE.W ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RUN | | | | | 4| 3| 4| 8| 5| 2| 2| 2| 6| 10| 2| @ |IM* 2|IM |AR | |TOTAL |DOWN | | | 427a| 555a| 728a| 859a|1039a|1231p| 231p| 431p| 631p| 817p|1006p|1140p| 112x| 119x| 248x| 302x| | 80 | UP | 414a| 424a| 512a| 646a| 816a| 947a|1137a| 135p| 335p| 535p| 725p| 910p|1056p|1230x| | 206x| | | |22:48 | |AR |PK | 2| 7| 4| 4| 6| 9| 9| 9| 2| 5| 7| 7| |JN 2| | | | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    [Show full text]
  • 831, 833, and 837 Glencairn Avenue and 278, 280 and 282 Hillmount Avenue – Zoning By-Law Amendment and Rental Housing Demolition Applications Final Report
    REPORT FOR ACTION 831, 833, and 837 Glencairn Avenue and 278, 280 and 282 Hillmount Avenue – Zoning By-law Amendment and Rental Housing Demolition Applications Final Report Date: November 15, 2019 To: North York Community Council From: Director, Community Planning, North York District Wards: Ward 8 - Eglinton-Lawrence Planning Application Number: 18 185562 NNY 15 OZ Rental Housing Application Number: 18 209677 NNY 15 RH SUMMARY This report reviews and recommends approval of the applications to amend the City's Zoning By-law 569-2013 and Zoning By-law 7625 for the former City of North York for the property at 831, 833 and 837 Glencairn Avenue and 278, 280 and 282 Hillmount Avenue to permit the construction of a 10 storey (30 metre, excluding mechanical penthouse) mixed use residential and commercial building with a total gross floor area (GFA) of 16,876 square metres and a floor space index (FSI) of 4.55 times the area of the lot. A Rental Housing Demolition application was submitted under Chapter 667 of the Toronto Municipal Code to demolish a total of 11 residential dwelling units, five of which were last used for residential rental purposes, located within six buildings at 831, 833, and 837 Glencairn Avenue and 278, 280 and 282 Hillmount Avenue. The building would have 218 residential units including two live-work units and 367 square metres of retail uses on the ground floor along Marlee Avenue. A total of 190 vehicle parking spaces are proposed, of which 5 spaces would be on the surface at the rear of the building and the remainder in two underground levels.
    [Show full text]