Toronto's Dockwalls

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Dockwalls What the Toronto Port Authority is doing Toronto’s The Toronto Port Authority (TPA) owns less than As a steward of Toronto's waterfront, the Toronto Port Authority (TPA) is committed 20 per cent of the dockwalls in the Toronto Harbour. to working in partnership with other shoreline stakeholders to maintain dockwalls and develop solutions for the enjoyment of Torontonians and visitors who spend Dockwalls We routinely maintain all the dockwalls we own. time on our waterfront. Here are some of the things we have done: Several different parties including federal, provincial and municipal authorities have ownership of the • We worked with the City so Waterfront Toronto could build HTO Park at the foot remaining dockwalls. of Maple Leaf Quay (Rees Street) • We maintain and repairs dockwalls that fall within our purview, working Dockwall ownership and maintenance is complex. collaboratively with our partners to keep dockwalls safe and in good repair For example, while a dockwall owner may own the • We saved the City of Toronto $1.5 million in maintenance expenses by picking land on which the dockwall sits, another stakeholder up the cost to own and repair the City-owned dockwall at the base of Eireann may be responsible for maintenance of the dockwall Quay (foot of Bathurst Street) and the promenade on the dockwall. Toronto Administration Port Portuaire Authority de Toronto 60 Harbour Street, Toronto, Ontario M5J 1B7 Tel: (416) 863-2000 Fax: (416) 863-4830 LEGEND Toronto Port Authority City of Toronto TPLC Waterfront Toronto Provincial Private LANDMARKS Rogers Centre Harbourfront Centre Redpath Sugar Disclaimer The Information provided herein is for informational purposes. The Toronto Port Authority does not warrant or represent that the information provided herein is accurate, current or complete and shall not be relied upon on that regard. The Toronto Port Authority shall not be liable for any losses or damages, claims, liabilities, costs or obligations arising from the reliance, use or misuse of the information contained herein..

Copy Link

Recommended publications

3. Description of the Potentially Affected Environment
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 3. Description of the Potentially Affected Environment The purpose of Chapter 3 is to present an overview of the environment potentially affected by the SWP to create familiarity with issues to be addressed and the complexity of the environment likely to be affected by the Project. All aspects of the environment within the Project Study Area (see Figure 2- 1 in Chapter 2) relevant to the Project and its potential effects have been described in this chapter. The chapter is divided into three sections which capture different components of the environment: 1. Physical environment: describes the coastal and geotechnical processes acting on the Project Study Area; 2. Natural environment: describes terrestrial and aquatic habitat and species; and, 3. Socio-economic environment: describes existing and planned land use, land ownership, recreation, archaeology, cultural heritage, and Aboriginal interests. The description of the existing environment is based on the information from a number of studies, which have been referenced in the relevant sections. Additional field surveys were undertaken where appropriate. Where applicable, future environmental conditions are also discussed. For most components of the environment, existing conditions within the Project Area or Project Study Area are described. Where appropriate, conditions within the broader Regional Study Area are also described. 3.1 Physical Environment Structures and property within slopes, valleys and shorelines may be susceptible to damage from natural processes such as erosion, slope failures and dynamic beaches. These processes become natural hazards when people and property locate in areas where they normally occur (MNR, 2001). Therefore, understanding physical natural processes is vital to developing locally-appropriate Alternatives in order to meet Project Objectives.
[Show full text]
3131 Lower Don River West Lower Don River West 4.0 DESCRIPTION
Lower Don River West Environmental Study Report Remedial Flood Protection Project 4.0 DESCRIPTION OF LOWER DON 4.1 The Don River Watershed The Don River is one of more than sixty rivers and streams flowing south from the Oak Ridges Moraine. The River is approximately 38 km long and outlets into the Keating Channel, which then conveys the flows into Toronto Harbour and Lake Historic Watershed Ontario. The entire drainage basin of the Don urbanization of the river's headwaters in York River is 360 km2. Figure 4.1 and Figure 4.2, on the Region began in the early 1980s and continues following pages, describe the existing and future today. land use conditions within the Don River Watershed. Hydrologic changes in the watershed began when settlers converted the forests to agricultural fields; For 200 years, the Don Watershed has been many streams were denuded even of bank side subject to intense pressures from human vegetation. Urban development then intensified settlement. These have fragmented the river the problems of warmer water temperatures, valley's natural branching pattern; degraded and erosion, and water pollution. Over the years often destroyed its once rich aquatic and during the three waves of urban expansion, the terrestrial wildlife habitat; and polluted its waters Don River mouth, originally an extensive delta with raw sewage, industrial/agricultural marsh, was filled in and the lower portion of the chemicals, metals and other assorted river was straightened. contaminants. Small Don River tributaries were piped and Land clearing, settlement, and urbanization have buried, wetlands were "reclaimed," and springs proceeded in three waves in the Don River were lost.
[Show full text]
Acoustic Telemetry in Toronto Harbour: Assessing Residency, Habitat Selection, and Within-Harbour Movements of Fishes Over a Five-Year Period
Acoustic telemetry in Toronto Harbour: assessing residency, habitat selection, and within-harbour movements of fishes over a five-year period Jonathan D. Midwood1, Andrew M. Rous2, Susan E. Doka1, and Steven J. Cooke2 1Central and Arctic Region Fisheries and Oceans Canada 867 Lakeshore Road Burlington, ON L7S 1A1 2Carleton University Department of Biology 1125 Colonel By Dr. Ottawa, ON, K1S 5B6 2019 Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 3331 1 Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences Technical reports contain scientific and technical information that contributes to existing knowledge but which is not normally appropriate for primary literature. Technical reports are directed primarily toward a worldwide audience and have an international distribution. No restriction is placed on subject matter and the series reflects the broad interests and policies of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, namely, fisheries and aquatic sciences. Technical reports may be cited as full publications. The correct citation appears above the abstract of each report. Each report is abstracted in the data base Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts. Technical reports are produced regionally but are numbered nationally. Requests for individual reports will be filled by the issuing establishment listed on the front cover and title page. Numbers 1-456 in this series were issued as Technical Reports of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada. Numbers 457-714 were issued as Department of the Environment, Fisheries and Marine Service, Research and Development Directorate Technical Reports. Numbers 715-924 were issued as Department of Fisheries and Environment, Fisheries and Marine Service Technical Reports. The current series name was changed with report number 925.
[Show full text]
Volume 5 Has Been Updated to Reflect the Specific Additions/Revisions Outlined in the Errata to the Environmental Project Report, Dated November, 2017
DISCLAIMER AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY This Revised Final Environmental Project Report – Volume 5 has been updated to reflect the specific additions/revisions outlined in the Errata to the Environmental Project Report, dated November, 2017. As such, it supersedes the previous Final version dated October, 2017. The report dated October, 2017 (“Report”), which includes its text, tables, figures and appendices) has been prepared by Gannett Fleming Canada ULC (“Gannett Fleming”) and Morrison Hershfield Limited (“Morrison Hershfield”) (“Consultants”) for the exclusive use of Metrolinx. Consultants disclaim any liability or responsibility to any person or party other than Metrolinx for loss, damage, expense, fines, costs or penalties arising from or in connection with the Report or its use or reliance on any information, opinion, advice, conclusion or recommendation contained in it. To the extent permitted by law, Consultants also excludes all implied or statutory warranties and conditions. In preparing the Report, the Consultants have relied in good faith on information provided by third party agencies, individuals and companies as noted in the Report. The Consultants have assumed that this information is factual and accurate and has not independently verified such information except as required by the standard of care. The Consultants accept no responsibility or liability for errors or omissions that are the result of any deficiencies in such information. The opinions, advice, conclusions and recommendations in the Report are valid as of the date of the Report and are based on the data and information collected by the Consultants during their investigations as set out in the Report. The opinions, advice, conclusions and recommendations in the Report are based on the conditions encountered by the Consultants at the site(s) at the time of their investigations, supplemented by historical information and data obtained as described in the Report.
[Show full text]
Land Use Study: Development in Proximity to Rail Operations
Phase 1 Interim Report Land Use Study: Development in Proximity to Rail Operations City of Toronto Prepared for the City of Toronto by IBI Group and Stantec August 30, 2017 IBI GROUP PHASE 1 INTERIM REPORT LAND USE STUDY: DEVELOPMENT IN PROXIMITY TO RAIL OPERATIONS Prepared for City of Toronto Document Control Page CLIENT: City of Toronto City-Wide Land Use Study: Development in Proximity to Rail PROJECT NAME: Operations Land Use Study: Development in Proximity to Rail Operations REPORT TITLE: Phase 1 Interim Report - DRAFT IBI REFERENCE: 105734 VERSION: V2 - Issued August 30, 2017 J:\105734_RailProximit\10.0 Reports\Phase 1 - Data DIGITAL MASTER: Collection\Task 3 - Interim Report for Phase 1\TTR_CityWideLandUse_Phase1InterimReport_2017-08-30.docx ORIGINATOR: Patrick Garel REVIEWER: Margaret Parkhill, Steve Donald AUTHORIZATION: Lee Sims CIRCULATION LIST: HISTORY: Accessibility This document, as of the date of issuance, is provided in a format compatible with the requirements of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA), 2005. August 30, 2017 IBI GROUP PHASE 1 INTERIM REPORT LAND USE STUDY: DEVELOPMENT IN PROXIMITY TO RAIL OPERATIONS Prepared for City of Toronto Table of Contents 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose of Study ..................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Background .............................................................................................................
[Show full text]
Peer Review EA Study Design Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport BBTCA
Imagine the result Peer Review – EA Study Design Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport (BBTCA) Runway Expansion and Introduction of Jet Aircraft Final Report August 2015 BBTCA Peer Review of EA Study Design Report ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ii 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 Background 1-1 1.2 Current Assignment 1-3 2.0 PEER REVIEW APPROACH 2-1 2.1 Methodology 2-1 3.0 FINDINGS OF PEER REVIEW OF AECOM’S DRAFT STUDY DESIGN REPORT 3-1 3.1 EA Process and Legislation 3-1 3.2 Public Consultation & Stakeholder Engagement 3-1 3.3 Air Quality 3-2 3.4 Public Health 3-5 3.5 Noise 3-6 3.6 Natural Environment 3-10 3.7 Socio-Economic Conditions 3-11 3.8 Land Use & Built Form 3-14 3.9 Marine Physical Conditions and Water Quality 3-15 3.10 Transportation 3-15 3.11 Archaeology & Cultural Heritage 3-18 4.0 SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS 4-1 APPENDIX A Presentation Given to the Working Group (22 June 2015) B Presentation of Draft Phase I Peer Review Report Results (13 July 2015) i BBTCA Peer Review of EA Study Design Report ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AERMOD Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling System ARCADIS ARCADIS Canada Inc. BBTCA Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport CALPUFF Meteorological and Air Quality Monitoring System CCG Canadian Coast Guard CEAA Canadian Environmental Assessment Act CO Carbon Monoxide COPA Canadian Owners and Pilots Association dBA Decibel Values of Sounds EA Environmental Assessment EC Environment Canada GBE Government Business Enterprise GWC Greater Waterfront Coalition HEAT Habitat and Environmental Assessment Tool INM Integrated Noise Model Ldn Day-Night
[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]
History of Toronto from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia the History of Toronto, Ontario, Canada Begins Several Millennia Ago
History of Toronto From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The history of Toronto, Ontario, Canada begins several millennia ago. Archaeological finds in the area have found artifacts of First Nations settlements dating back several thousand years. The Wyandot people were likely the first group to live in the area, followed by the Iroquois. When Europeans first came to Toronto, they found a small village known as Teiaiagon on the banks of the Humber River. Between visits by European explorers, the village was abandoned by the Iroquois, who moved south of Lake Ontario and the Mississaugas, a branch of the Ojibwa settled along the north shore of the lake. The French first set up trading posts in the area, including Fort Rouillé in 1750, which they abandoned as the British conquered French North America. In 1788, the British negotiated the first treaty to take possession of the Toronto area from the Mississaugas. After the United States War of Independence, the area north of Lake Ontario was held by the British who set up the province of Upper Canada in 1791. See also: Name of Toronto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DavenportBathurstSoutheast.jpg Davenport Road, as shown here in 1914, does not follow Toronto's standard street grid pattern, as it originated as a First Nations travel route between the Humber River and the Don Valley named Gete-Onigaming, Ojibwe for "at the old portage."[1] Toronto is located on the northern shore of Lake Ontario, and was originally a term of indeterminate geographical location, designating the approximate area of the future city of Toronto on maps dating to the late 17th and early 18th century.
[Show full text]
The Fish Communities of the Toronto Waterfront: Summary and Assessment 1989 - 2005
THE FISH COMMUNITIES OF THE TORONTO WATERFRONT: SUMMARY AND ASSESSMENT 1989 - 2005 SEPTEMBER 2008 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to thank the many technical staff, past and present, of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and Ministry of Natural Resources who diligently collected electrofishing data for the past 16 years. The completion of this report was aided by the Canada Ontario Agreement (COA). 1 Jason P. Dietrich, 1 Allison M. Hennyey, 1 Rick Portiss, 1 Gord MacPherson, 1 Kelly Montgomery and 2 Bruce J. Morrison 1 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, ON, M3N 1S4, Canada 2 Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Lake Ontario Fisheries Management Unit, Glenora Fisheries Station, Picton, ON, K0K 2T0, Canada © Toronto and Region Conservation 2008 ABSTRACT Fish community metrics collected for 16 years (1989 — 2005), using standardized electrofishing methods, throughout the greater Toronto region waterfront, were analyzed to ascertain the current state of the fish community with respect to past conditions. Results that continue to indicate a degraded or further degrading environment include an overall reduction in fish abundance, a high composition of benthivores, an increase in invasive species, an increase in generalist species biomass, yet a decrease in specialist species biomass, and a decrease in cool water Electrofishing in the Toronto Harbour thermal guild species biomass in embayments. Results that may indicate a change in a positive community health direction include no significant changes to species richness, a marked increase in diversity in embayments, a decline in non-native species in embayments and open coasts (despite the invasion of round goby), a recent increase in native species biomass, fluctuating native piscivore dynamics, increased walleye abundance, and a reduction in the proportion of degradation tolerant species.
[Show full text]
Billy Bishop Airport Master Planning Process Takes Off with First Public Meeting Scheduled for February 7 from 5:00 P.M
Billy Bishop Airport Master Planning Process Takes Off with First Public Meeting Scheduled for February 7 from 5:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. Meeting to include topic tables, formal presentation and Q&A Toronto (January 15, 2018) – Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport (Billy Bishop Airport) will hold its first public meeting in association with updating its Master Plan on February 7, 2018. The planning process for the Billy Bishop Airport 2018 Master Plan will include a robust public consultation process that will include the public, neighbourhood community groups, airport stakeholders, government agencies, and first nations communities. The first public meeting is scheduled for: Wednesday, February 7, 2018 Metro Toronto Convention Centre – North Building Level 200 – East Meeting Rooms 205 & 206 5:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. Format: 5:00 to 6:30 p.m. – Open House with topic tables set up for small group discussion and Q&A. Topics will include: master plan process, noise management, wildlife management, ground transportation, emergency services, security and public safety, infrastructure, and environmental sustainability. 6:45 to 7:15 p.m. – Formal Presentation of Master Plan process and objectives 7:15 to 8:30 p.m. – Group Q&A Background: The primary purpose of an airport Master Plan is to establish an orderly development concept for the airport that establishes priorities and options for the airport’s operation and development over an extended period of time, while at the same time allowing the airport to avail itself of new opportunities to serve the needs of the community and operators.
[Show full text]
Sec 2-Core Circle
TRANSFORMATIVE IDEA 1. THE CORE CIRCLE Re-imagine the valleys, bluffs and islands encircling the Downtown as a fully interconnected 900-hectare immersive landscape system THE CORE CIRLE 30 THE CORE CIRLE PUBLIC WORK 31 TRANSFORMATIVE IDEA 1. THE CORE CIRCLE N The Core Circle re-imagines the valleys, bluffs and islands E encircling the Downtown as a fully connected 900-hectare immersive landscape system W S The Core Circle seeks to improve and offer opportunities to reconnect the urban fabric of the Downtown to its surrounding natural features using the streets, parks and open spaces found around the natural setting of Downtown Toronto including the Don River Valley and ravines, Lake Ontario, the Toronto Islands, Garrison Creek and the Lake Iroquois shoreline. Connecting these large landscape features North: Davenport Road Bluff, Toronto, Canada will create a continuous circular network of open spaces surrounding the Downtown, accessible from both the core and the broader city. The Core Circle re- imagines the Downtown’s framework of valleys, bluffs and islands as a connected 900-hectare landscape system and immersive experience, building on Toronto’s strong identity as a ‘city within a park’ and providing opportunities to acknowledge our natural setting and connect to the history of our natural landscapes. East: Don River Valley Ravine and Rosedale Valley Ravine, Toronto, Canada Historically, the natural landscape features that form the Core Circle were used by Indigenous peoples as village sites, travelling routes and hunting and gathering lands. They are regarded as sacred landscapes and places for spiritual renewal. The Core Circle seeks to re-establish our connection to these landscapes.
[Show full text]
2017 Annual Report
Annual Report 2017 Investing Today for Tomorrow AVAILABLE IN THESE FORMATS PRINT WEBSITE MOBILE © Toronto Port Authority 2018. All rights reserved. To obtain additional copies of this report please contact: 60 Harbour Street, Toronto, ON M5J 1B7 Canada PortsToronto The Toronto Port Authority, doing business as Communications and Public Affairs Department PortsToronto since January 2015, is a government 60 Harbour Street business enterprise operating pursuant to the Toronto, Ontario, M5J 1B7 Canada Marine Act and Letters Patent issued by Canada the federal Minister of Transport. The Toronto Port Phone: 416 863 2075 Authority is hereafter referred to as PortsToronto. E-mail: [email protected] 2 PortsToronto | Annual Report 2017 Table of Contents About PortsToronto 4 Mission and Vision 5 Message from the Chair 6 Message from the Chief Executive Officer 8 Corporate Governance 12 Business Overview Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport 14 Port of Toronto 18 Outer Harbour Marina 22 Real Estate and Property Holdings 24 Four Pillars 26 City Building 27 Community Engagement 30 Environmental Stewardship 40 Financial Sustainability 44 Statement of Revenue and Expenses 45 Celebrating 225 years of port activity 46 About PortsToronto The Toronto Port Authority, doing business as and hereinafter referred to as PortsToronto, is a federal government business enterprise that owns and operates Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport, Marine Terminal 52 within the Port of Toronto, the Outer Harbour Marina and various properties along Toronto’s waterfront. Responsible for the safety and efficiency of marine navigation in the Toronto Harbour, PortsToronto also exercises regulatory control and public works services for the area, works with partner organizations to keep the Toronto Harbour clean, issues permits to recreational boaters and co-manages the Leslie Street Spit site with partner agency the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority on behalf of the provincial Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry.
[Show full text]