DOCSLIB.ORG

Appendix 2A Smarttrack Station

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

MILLIKEN SmartTrack station area profile Milliken Station is near major shop- 1 Pacific Mall CITY OF MARKHAM ping destinations in Markham that 2 Splendid China could attract significant ridership to Mall this station from residents of down- 3 Future Remington town Toronto, which are currently not Centre easily accessible without a car. 4 Mary Ward MILLIKEN The station area has long-term rede- Catholic 3 1 Secondary School STATION velopment potential on shopping mall 53 Steeles sites with large surface parking lots. 2 The station could provide some degree of trip diversion potential from routes operating on Steeles Avenue to the Yonge subway line. Anticipated impacts are minimal. There are no Neighbourhoods imme- 500m diately around the station, the area 5 min walk is built up with industrial uses, and contains an existing GO Rail station. 43 Kennedy Notable Features: • Area of Archaeological Potential Available Land: existing daily TTC surface • Existing GO Rail Station south of 9,300 57 Midland transit ridership at station location Steeles < 4 Social Equity Land Use People Jobs 7% m 100k 500 50k Low High A higher score indicates that there are 10k greater social inequities within the station area. 15 indicators are 93% within 500m considered in determining the level of social equity. 5k Neighbourhood Improvement Areas: None • Neighbourhoods Employment Land 1k 2011 Source: City of Toronto City Planning Division FINCH EAST SmartTrack station area profile Finch East Station has limited devel- 1 Sir William Osler < 1 opment potential. Employment Areas High School to the north could be intensified with 2 L’Amoureaux employment uses in the longer term. Community Centre The station would address the lack 57 Midland 43 Kennedy of higher-order rapid transit in the northeast part of Scarborough. It could provide alternative route to downtown Toronto, potentially reducing demand on the Yonge Subway. Notable Features: • Area of Archaeological Potential 39 Finch Available Land: FINCH EAST • Low-density industrial, vacant lot, STATION north of Finch 500m 5 min walk 2 13,900 existing daily TTC surface transit ridership at station location Social Equity Land Use People Jobs m 100k 500 3% 50k 45% Low High A higher score indicates that there are 10k greater social inequities within 52% the station area. 15 indicators are within 500m considered in determining the level of social equity. 5k Neighbourhood Improvement Areas: • None Neighbourhoods Employment Land 1k Utilities & Transportation 2011 Source: City of Toronto City Planning Division AGINCOURT SmartTrack station area profile Agincourt Station has some mixed- 1 Agincourt Mall use redevelopment potential within 2 Tam O’Shanter 800m of the station, but not immedi- Golf Club ately around the station site. 3 Agincourt 2 The station could provide an alterna- Collegiate 57 Midland Institute 43 Kennedy tive for transit riders using the Shep- pard East bus to access the Sheppard 4 Agincourt 3 Community and Yonge subway lines for trips Services destined downtown. Association 1 Anticipated impacts are moderate as AGINCOURT this is an existing GO Rail station, but STATION the station is close to existing Neigh- 85 Sheppard bourhoods. 4 Notable Features: • Area of Archaeological Potential • Proximity to Natural Heritage System Available Land: • Existing GO Rail station north of 500m Sheppard 5 min walk 9,300 existing daily TTC surface transit ridership at station location Social Equity Land Use People Jobs m 100k 500 2% 8% 1% 50k Low High 62% A higher score indicates that there are 22% 10k greater social inequities within the station area. 15 indicators are within 500m considered in determining the level of social equity. 5k 5% Neighbourhood Improvement Areas: • None Neighbourhoods Parks & Open Space 1k Apartment Employment Neighbourhoods Land Mixed Use Utilities & Transportation 2011 Source: City of Toronto City Planning Division ELLESMERE SmartTrack station area profile Ellesmere Station has some 1 Centennial development potential; however, the College – majority of parcels around the station Progress Campus 3 1 > have been recently developed, or are 2 Leisure World unlikely to redevelop soon. 3 Kennedy 57 Midland Commons Mall 43 Kennedy The extension of Ellesmere BRT route from Scarborough Centre to this sta- tion would better integrate this station into the broader transit network. Anticipated impacts are minimal. There are no Neighbourhoods immedi- 2 ately around the station, and the area 95 York Mills is built up with industrial uses. Ellesmere ELLESMERE Notable Features: STATION • Area of Archaeological Potential • Close to Highland Creek • Close to Natural Heritage System Available Land: • City public works yard north of 500m Ellesmere 5 min walk • Scarborough RT Station south of Ellesmere 10,000 existing daily TTC surface transit ridership at station location Social Equity Land Use People Jobs 1% 1% 1% m 100k 500 28% 3% 50k Low High A higher score indicates that there are 10k greater social inequities within the station area. 15 indicators are within 500m considered in determining the level of 67% social equity. 5k Neighbourhood Improvement Areas: • Ionview (500m) Neighbourhoods Parks & • Eglinton East (800m) Open Space 1k Apartment Employment Neighbourhoods Land Mixed Use Utilities & Transportation 2011 Source: City of Toronto City Planning Division LAWRENCE EAST SmartTrack station area profile Lawrence East Station has the great- 1 Centennial est development potential of all pro- College Midland posed new stations in Scarborough. Campus 2 Winston Churchill Official Plan land use policies (mixed Collegiate Use Areas along an Avenue) already Institute 57 Midland support growth around station. 43 Kennedy 3 McGregor 4 The station area has a high number of Park Library & soft sites within 500m. Recreation Centre 4 Bendale Business Notable Features: & Technical • Area of Archaeological Potential Institute 1 5 • Close to Highland Creek 8 5 Royal Institute 54 Lawrence 6 7 • Close to Natural Heritage System of International < 3 Studies 9 Available Land: 2 LAWRENCE EAST • City public works yard north of 6 Operation STATION Lawrence Springboard, AK Centre for Youth • Private open space (residential tower) south of Lawrence 7 Redemption Integration • Lawrence East RT Station services • Toronto Police site north of 500m Lawrence 8 Scarborough Housing Help 5 min walk Centre 10,400 existing daily TTC surface 9 Hellenic Home for transit ridership at station location the Aged Social Equity Land Use People Jobs 3% m 100k 500 11% 50k 31% Low High 20% A higher score indicates that there are 10k greater social inequities within the station area. 15 indicators are within 500m considered in determining the level of 36% social equity. 5k Neighbourhood Improvement Areas: • Ionview (500m) Apartment Parks & • Eglinton East (800m) Neighbourhoods Open Space 1k Mixed Use Employment Land Utilities & Transportation 2011 Source: City of Toronto City Planning Division KENNEDY SmartTrack station area profile Kennedy Station is designated a 1 Kennedy/Eglinton Mixed Use Area by the Official Plan, Public Library and Eglinton Avenue East is desig- 2 Don Montgomery nated as an Avenue with potential for Community adjacent development. Recreation Centre 57 Midland 3 Jean Vanier 43 Kennedy The station area has good develop- Catholic 3 ment potential with high number of Secondary School underutilized soft sites. Kennedy station is a Mobility Hub that provides an opportunity for connec- 12 Kingston Rd tions to the Bloor-Danforth subway 1 21 Brimley and the future Eglinton Crosstown 34 Eglinton E 86 Scarborough LRT; improved transfer facilities may 113 Danforth KENNEDY 116 Morningside be required. 2 STATION 131 Nugget Available Land: 198 UofT Scarborough • Existing GO Rail station south of Eglinton 500m 5 min walk 54,100 existing daily TTC surface transit ridership at station location 57 Cliffside Social Equity Land Use People Jobs m 100k 500 49% 50k 14% Low High A higher score indicates that there are 10k greater social inequities within the station area. 15 indicators are within 500m considered in determining the level of 35% social equity. 5k 2% Neighbourhood Improvement Areas: • Kennedy Park (500m) Neighbourhoods Mixed Use • Ionview (500m) 1k • Eglinton East (800m) Apartment Utilities & Neighbourhoods Transportation 2011 Source: City of Toronto City Planning Division SCARBOROUGH SmartTrack station area profile Scarborough Station is designated 1 Pine Hills as Employment Lands by the Official Cemetery Plan. 2 Resthaven Memorial Gardens Although Kingston Road, which is designated as an Avenue, passes near 57 Midland the outer edges of the station area, 113 Danforth 16 McCowan the lands surrounding the station area are underutilized. The only key destinations, a cemetery and memorial gardens, are minor ridership generators. 1 St Clair E Available Land: 9 Bellamy 102 Markham Rd • Existing GO Rail station south of SCARBOROUGH 2 St Clair STATION 500m 5 min walk 8,300 existing daily TTC surface transit ridership at station location 12 Kingston Rd Social Equity Land Use People Jobs 5% m 100k 500 50k 12% Low High 57% A higher score indicates that there are 10k greater social inequities within 20% the station area. 15 indicators are within 500m considered in determining the level of social equity. 5k Neighbourhood Improvement Areas: 6% • Kennedy Park (500m) Neighbourhoods Parks & Open Space 1k Mixed Use Employment Land Utilities & Transportation 2011 Source: City of Toronto City Planning Division DANFORTH SmartTrack station area profile
Recommended publications
  • Routing Changes - Junction Area Study Update

    Routing Changes - Junction Area Study Update

    For Action Routing Changes - Junction Area Study Update Date: July 10, 2018 To: TTC Board From: Chief Customer Officer Summary The TTC bus network is very mature. In order to ensure that the network continues to reflect the way our customers travel across the city, staff has developed a program to review different segments of the city over time. This report provides an update on the status of the Junction Area Study. The objective of the study is to improve transit travel for customers by restructuring the bus route network in the Junction Area. In spring 2017, the TTC began the study with a customer survey to better understand customer travel patterns in the Junction Area. Feedback was also collected on existing services to identify key concerns for customers. Three key issues were identified: • No continuous transit service along Dundas Street West between Dundas West Station and Kipling Station; • No continuous transit service along St Clair Avenue West between Gunn's Loop (Weston Road) and Scarlett Road; and, • Need to extend the 80 Queensway from its current eastern terminus at Humber Loop to Keele Station via Parkside Drive in the late evening and on Sundays and holidays. Based on this feedback, staff prepared and proposed a preliminary transit network to reflect the data collected and address concerns raised by customers. The new transit network includes a number of service proposals that include restructuring and rationalizing existing services and improving periods of service on routes. In May 2018, the TTC held public information sessions at Runnymede, High Park, and Dundas West stations, and Gunn’s Loop to share the proposed transit network with customers and to collect feedback on the proposals.
  • Draft Delineations for the Protected Major Transit Station Areas Within the Downtown Secondary Plan and Draft Citywide MTSA Policy Directions

    Draft Delineations for the Protected Major Transit Station Areas Within the Downtown Secondary Plan and Draft Citywide MTSA Policy Directions

    REPORT FOR ACTION Draft Delineations for the Protected Major Transit Station Areas within the Downtown Secondary Plan and Draft Citywide MTSA Policy Directions Date: March 30, 2021 To: Planning and Housing Committee From: Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning Wards: Ward 10 - Spadina-Fort York; Ward 11 - University Rosedale and Ward 13 - Toronto Centre SUMMARY In June 2020, City Planning initiated the Growth Plan Conformity and Municipal Comprehensive Review ("the MCR") which includes the delineation of 180+ Major Transit Station Areas (MTSAs) to meet Provincial intensification requirements by July 2022. The introduction of Protected Major Transit Station Areas (PMTSAs) is part of the MCR. An equity lens is being applied to this work program that prioritizes the delineation of PMTSAs to enable the implementation of inclusionary zoning as an affordable housing tool, where market conditions could support it. This report presents the policy approach for advancing the implementation of Major Transit Station Areas and Protected Major Transit Station Areas, and the proposed delineations within the Downtown Secondary Plan. This report is intended as the basis for consultation of the draft Official Plan Amendment (OPA) that includes 16 Site and Area Specific Policies (SASPs) that delineate Protected Major Transit Station Areas (PMTSAs) within the Downtown Secondary Plan area. The draft policy directions for the introduction of a new Chapter 8 of the Official Plan will be refined following consultation and brought forward as part of the final Official Plan Amendment. The 16 PMTSA delineations included in this draft OPA would implement the Minister approved Downtown Plan and address the requirements of the A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020) (the "Growth Plan") and Section 16(15) of the Planning Act.
  • General Manager Subway Construction Date

    General Manager Subway Construction Date

    TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION REPORT NO. S7 Meeting Date June 4, 1968 From: General Manager Subway Construction Date: June 3, 1968 QUEEN STREET SUBWAY FOR STREETCAR OPERATION The Commission, at its meeting of February 8, 1966, approved advising the City of Toronto that it was prepared to co-operate in the study of a "transit facility in the downtown section of Queen Street" and approved advising the Metropolitan Council that the Commission proposes to undertake this study at a cost of $30,000.00, it being understood that the cost involved would form part of the capital cost of the project when approved. The General Secretary transmitted the above approval of the Commission to the City Clerk in a letter dated February 22, 1966, a copy of which is attached. In a letter dated November 2, 1966, a copy of which is attached, the Commission was advised by the Metropolitan Clerk that Metropolitan Council had adopted Clause No. 2 of Report No. 16 of the Transportation Committee, headed "Proposed Queen Street Subway", as amended. The recommendation of Clause No. 2 reads as follows, "It is recommended that the Metropolitan Council formally request the Toronto Transit Commission to complete their study of the physical aspects of the Queen Street tunnel as outlined in the Commission's letter of February 22, 1966, on the understanding that the required expenditure of $30,000.00 will form part of the capital cost of the project." The amendment to Clause No. 2 reads as follows, "The matter of the Queen Street tunnel being considered in relation to the question of the Queen-Greenwood Subway." In accordance with all the foregoing, plans were developed for a "transit facility in the downtown section on Queen Street", and in addition to this a preliminary examination was made of the downtown section in relation to it becoming part of the Queen-Greenwood Subway.
  • Appendix C3. Public Engagement Record: December 2019

    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.
  • Rapid Transit in Toronto Levyrapidtransit.Ca TABLE of CONTENTS

    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.
  • TTC Typography History

    TTC Typography History

    With the exception of Eglinton Station, 11 of the 12 stations of The intention of using Helvetica and Univers is unknown, however The Toronto Subway Font (Designer Unknown) the original Yonge Subway line have been renovated extensively. with the usage of the latter on the design of the Spadina Subway in Based on Futura by Paul Renner (1928) Some stations retained the original typefaces but with tighter 1978, it may have been an internal decision to try and assimilate tracking and subtle differences in weight, while other stations subsequent renovations of existing stations in the aging Yonge and were renovated so poorly there no longer is a sense of simplicity University lines. The TTC avoided the usage of the Toronto Subway seen with the 1954 designs in terms of typographical harmony. font on new subway stations for over two decades. ABCabc RQKS Queen Station, for example, used Helvetica (LT Std 75 Bold) in such The Sheppard Subway in 2002 saw the return of the Toronto Subway an irresponsible manner; it is repulsively inconsistent with all the typeface as it is used for the names of the stations posted on ABCabc RQKS other stations, and due to the renovators preserving the original platfrom level. Helvetica became the primary typeface for all TTC There are subtle differences between the two typefaces, notably the glass tile trim, the font weight itself looks botched and unsuitable. wayfinding signages and informational material system-wide. R, Q, K, and S; most have different terminals, spines, and junctions. ST CLAIR SUMMERHILL BLOOR DANGER DA N GER Danger DO NOT ENTER Do Not Enter Do Not Enter DAVISVILLE ST CL AIR SUMMERHILL ROSEDALE BLOOR EGLINTON DAVISVILLE ST CLAIR SUMMERHILL ROSEDALE BLOOR EGLINTON DAVISVILLE ST CLAIR SUMMERHILL ROSEDALE BLOOR The specially-designed Toronto Subway that embodied the spirit of modernism and replaced with a brutal mix of Helvetica and YONGE SUBWAY typeface graced the walls of the 12 stations, progress.
  • Bus Bridging Decision-Support Toolkit: Optimization Framework and Policy Analysis

    Bus Bridging Decision-Support Toolkit: Optimization Framework and Policy Analysis

    Bus Bridging Decision-Support Toolkit: Optimization Framework and Policy Analysis by Alaa Itani A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Applied Science Department of Civil and Mineral Engineering University of Toronto © Copyright by Alaa Itani 2019 Bus Bridging Decision-Support Toolkit: Optimization Framework and Policy Analysis Alaa Itani Master of Applied Science Department of Civil and Mineral Engineering University of Toronto 2019 Abstract Bus Bridging is the strategy most commonly applied in responding to rail service interruptions in North America and Europe. In determining the required number of buses and source routes, most transit agencies rely on ad-hoc approaches based on operational experience and constraints, which can lead to extensive delays and queue build-ups at affected stations. This thesis developed an optimization model, to determine the optimal number of shuttle buses and route allocation which minimize the overall subway and bus riders delay. The generated optimal solutions are sensitive to bus bay capacity constraints along the shuttle service corridor. The optimization model is integrated with a previously developed simulation tool that tracks the evolution of system queues and delays throughout the bus bridging process. A set of bus bridging policy guidelines were developed based on further analysis of the optimization model outputs using a Classification and Regression Tree (CART) model. ii Acknowledgments First, I would like to thank my parents and for their continuous support and trust in my abilities. Although they were thousands of miles away, they were always supportive, I couldn’t have made it here without their presence.
  • Mobility Hubs December 2008

    Mobility Hubs December 2008

    Mobility Hubs December 2008 1. Introduction This is one in a series of backgrounders that have been produced by Metrolinx to provide further explanation and clarification on the policies and directions of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The RTP is available for downloading at www.metrolinx.com. This backgrounder should be read as an accompaniment to Strategy 7 of the RTP. It is intended to provide additional detail on the mobility hub policies of the RTP and clarification of the terms and definitions used in the RTP with respect to mobility hubs. Metrolinx wishes to acknowledge the invaluable contribution of Urban Strategies Inc. and IBI Group to the preparation of this backgrounder. 2. What is a Mobility Hub? The mobility hub policies of the RTP build on the overall policy framework established in the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, particularly those related to major transit station areas. The Growth Plan defines major transit station areas as the area within a 500m radius (10 minute walk) of any existing or planned higher order transit station within a settlement area or around a major bus depot in an urban core. Major transit station areas that are particularly significant for the regional rapid transit system are recognized as mobility hubs in the RTP. Mobility hubs are major transit station areas with significant levels of transit service planned for them in the RTP, high development potential, and a critical function in the regional transportation system as major trip generators. They are places of connectivity where different modes of transportation — from walking to high- speed rail — come together seamlessly and where there is an intensive concentration of employment, living, shopping and/or recreation.
  • Assessment of Provincial Proposals Line 2 East Extension

    Assessment of Provincial Proposals Line 2 East Extension

    EX9.1 Attachment 5 – Assessment of Provincial Proposals Line 2 East Extension As directed by City Council in April 2019, City and TTC staff have assessed the Province’s proposed 3-stop Line 2 East Extension. The details of this assessment are provided in this attachment. 1. Project Summary 1.1 Project Description The Line 2 East Extension (L2EE), as proposed by the Province, is an approximately 8 kilometre underground extension of Line 2 Bloor-Danforth from Kennedy Station that will have three stations – at Lawrence and McCowan, Scarborough Centre and Sheppard and McCowan, as shown in Figure 1. The Province's plan for the L2EE is similar to what was being planned by the City and TTC prior to 2016. Figure 1 - Line 2 East Extension Reference Map Note: Map produced by City/TTC based on current understanding of project Attachment 5 – Assessment of Line 2 East Extension Page 1 of 9 As proposed, the extension will be fully integrated with the existing Line 2 and have through service at Kennedy Station. A turn-back may be included east of Kennedy Station to enable reduced service to Scarborough Centre, subject to demand and service standards. The extension will require approximately seven additional six-car, 138-metre-long trains to provide the service. The trains would be interoperable with the other trains on Line 2. With the station at Sheppard and McCowan supporting storage of up to six trains, there is sufficient storage and maintenance capacity existing at the TTC’s Line 2 storage and maintenance facilities to accommodate this increase in fleet size.
  • Toronto-Ontario Transit Update

    Toronto-Ontario Transit Update

    EX9.1 Attachment 3 STATUS OF PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS Background In April 2019, City Council considered a supplementary report from the City Manager on Toronto's Transit Expansion Program- Update and Next Steps (EX4.1d). This report included an attachment which contained a series of preliminary technical questions for the Province related to the four transit projects identified in the 2019 Ontario Budget, released in April. Throughout Q2 and Q3 2019, City and TTC staff have met with Provincial staff for the purposes of carrying out the technical assessment of the Province’s transit proposal as directed by Council. Through this process, City and TTC staff have received information and insight that informs the responses below, and is reflective of the various stages of design of the Province's priority projects. In some instances, further work and due diligence will be required as planning and design development progresses. Further information on the projects as well as more detailed technical information on the staff assessment can be found Attachment 4- Assessment of Ontario Line and Attachment 5- Assessment of Line 2 East Extension. # Question and Status of Current Answer Transit Planning and Design 1 At what stage in the project lifecycle is each project, relative to either the City/TTC project lifecycle map (in EX4.1) or the Metrolinx Benefits Management Framework? Based on the information provided by the Province through the Ontario-Toronto Transit Expansion Technical Working Group, the City and TTC have assessed that the projects
  • Feeling Congested?" – Update on Progress to Date

    Feeling Congested?" – Update on Progress to Date

    STAFF REPORT ACTION REQUIRED "Feeling Congested?" – Update on Progress to Date Date: May 26, 2014 To: Planning and Growth Management Committee From: Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning Division Wards: All Reference P:\2014\ClusterB\PLN\PGMC\PG14076 Number: SUMMARY The current review of the Official Plan's transportation policies has been divided into two approval streams. One set of policy amendments is proceeding towards final approval within this term of Council, while the remainder continue under review with a target approval date of early 2015. This latter set of policies comprises four important transportation planning areas, namely: Rapid Transit Evaluation Framework (RTEF); Surface Transit Network; Cycling Policy Framework; and Street Related Maps and Schedules. This report provides an update on the progress being made on the ongoing review of these four transportation policy areas. RECOMMENDATIONS The Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning Division recommends that: 1. The Planning and Growth Management Committee receive this report for information Financial Impact There are no financial impacts resulting from the adoption of this report. Staff report for action on "Feeling Congested?" Update Report 1 DECISION HISTORY Section 26 of the Planning Act requires each municipality to conduct a review of its Official Plan within five years of it coming into force. At its meeting in May, 2011, the Planning and Growth Management Committee adopted, with amendment, the Chief Planner’s recommendations regarding the general work programme and public consultation strategy for the City’s Five Year Official Plan Review and Municipal Comprehensive Review contained in PG5.2 Five Year Review of the Official Plan and Municipal Comprehensive Review.
  • 1600 Bloor Street West for Sale & for Lease

    1600 Bloor Street West for Sale & for Lease

    1600 BLOOR STREET WEST FOR SALE & FOR LEASE ALEX PROTOMANNI* FRANK PROTOMANNI** BROCK MEDDICK RYAN BOBYK* Sales Associate Senior Vice President Sales Representative Sales Associate T +1 416 495 6284 T +1 416 495 6299 T +1 416 815 2305 T +1 416 495 6200 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] *Sales Representative **Broker N 1600 BLOOR STREET WEST 29 STOREY MIXED AUTO BLDG USE CONDO AND MOCA AT THE OFFERING BY TRINITY LOWER JCT BY CASTLEPOINT DUFFERIN STATION DEVELOPMENT CBRE Limited is pleased to offer for sale 1600 Bloor Street West, GROUP INC. AND HOWARD PARK GREYBROOK Toronto. This two-storey building has a mix of retail and two RESIDENCES BY renovated apartment units. The property is located in the City’s LANSDOWNE STATION TRIUMPH WEST TWNS AT CHOICE DEVELOPMENTS well-known High Park North neighbourhood, just west of the LOWER JARVIS PROPERTIES intersection of Bloor Street West and Dundas Street West. BLOOR BY CASTLEPOINT STATION DEVELOPMENT FOR AND A MAJOR MIXED USE RONCESVALLES The Site is currently improved with 4,006 sq. ft. of building including GREYBROOK CENTRE INCLUDING LOFTS BY THE RONCY BY 24 STOREY 2,600 RESIDENTIAL the basement, and 17.08 ft. of frontage along Bloor Street West. TRIUMPH WORSLEY URBAN RENTAL UNITS The two-storey property is currently vacant, giving purchasers DEVELOPMENTS DEVELOPMENT BY unparalleled flexibility and an opportunity to achieve above market LORMEL HOMES DUNDAS WEST STATION rents. The property has a renovated 2-bedroom apartment on the second floor with a rooftop patio and a renovated 1-bedroom V6 BY OLD STONEHENGE apartment below grade.