DOCSLIB.ORG

Rail Deck Park Engineering and Costing Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rail Deck Park Engineering and Costing Study Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. 1 1.0 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................... 8 1.1 Purpose ..................................................................................................................... 8 1.2 Alignment with Other Initiatives ................................................................................. 8 1.3 Project Team ............................................................................................................. 9 City of Toronto.................................................................................................. 9 Build Toronto.................................................................................................... 9 WSP Canada Group Limited............................................................................ 9 2.0 STUDY METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................. 10 2.1 Study Area............................................................................................................... 10 2.2 Data Gathering ........................................................................................................ 10 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS............................................................................................... 12 3.1 Topography & Landforms........................................................................................ 12 3.2 Geotechnical & Hydrogeological ............................................................................. 13 3.3 Archaeological Considerations................................................................................ 14 Existing Site Conditions & Identified Archaeological Potential....................... 14 4.0 RAIL CORRIDOR CONSIDERATIONS ......................................................................... 16 4.1 Existing Rail Infrastructure & Services .................................................................... 16 Existing Rail Service ...................................................................................... 17 4.2 Capital Works in the Rail Corridor ........................................................................... 18 Signalling Systems Upgrades ........................................................................ 19 Switch Machine Replacement........................................................................ 19 Corridor Electrification.................................................................................... 19 Track Clearances ........................................................................................... 21 Electromagnetic Fields................................................................................... 21 4.3 North Bathurst Storage Yard ................................................................................... 22 4.4 Planned Spadina-Front GO Station......................................................................... 22 5.0 REFERENCE DESIGN CONCEPT................................................................................ 24 Build Toronto i Rail Deck Park ~ Engineering and Costing Study 5.1 General Approach ................................................................................................... 24 5.2 Presentation of Design Concept.............................................................................. 25 Conceptual Layout Plans ............................................................................... 25 Analytical Area Summary Plans..................................................................... 26 Cross Sections ............................................................................................... 26 3-Dimensional Model(s) ................................................................................. 26 5.3 Major Considerations for the Design Concept......................................................... 27 5.4 Foundations............................................................................................................. 27 Foundation Types .......................................................................................... 28 Hydrogeological Considerations .................................................................... 29 5.5 Structural Design..................................................................................................... 29 Spans & Structural Systems .......................................................................... 29 Above-Deck Design Assumptions & Loads.................................................... 31 5.6 Utilities..................................................................................................................... 31 Stormwater Management............................................................................... 31 Watermains .................................................................................................... 32 Sanitary Sewers ............................................................................................. 33 Toronto Hydro ................................................................................................ 33 Telecommunications ...................................................................................... 33 5.7 Topographic Integration .......................................................................................... 33 5.8 Noise & Vibration..................................................................................................... 35 5.9 Below-Deck Safety Systems ................................................................................... 36 General & Emergency Lighting Systems ....................................................... 36 Air Quality & Ventilation Systems................................................................... 37 Emergency Access & Egress......................................................................... 38 Other Emergency Systems ............................................................................ 38 6.0 AUTHORITIES HAVING JURISDICTION & APPROVALS............................................ 40 6.1 General Municipal Approvals & Permits.................................................................. 40 6.2 General Provincial Approvals & Permits.................................................................. 40 6.3 Rail Corridor Access, Work, & Safety Requirements .............................................. 40 6.4 Federal Approvals & Permits................................................................................... 42 ii 6.5 Environmental Assessment..................................................................................... 42 7.0 BUILDING RAIL DECK PARK ....................................................................................... 44 7.1 Construction Steps .................................................................................................. 44 Early Works.................................................................................................... 44 Foundations ................................................................................................... 45 Primary Structures ......................................................................................... 45 Secondary Structures..................................................................................... 45 Systems ......................................................................................................... 46 Decking .......................................................................................................... 46 Park Development.......................................................................................... 46 7.2 Construction Methodology....................................................................................... 47 Construction Islands....................................................................................... 48 Staging Areas................................................................................................. 50 7.3 Phasing ................................................................................................................... 51 8.0 COST ESTIMATES........................................................................................................ 52 8.1 Notes & Assumptions .............................................................................................. 53 8.2 Cost Categories....................................................................................................... 53 Hard Costs ..................................................................................................... 53 Construction Management Fee...................................................................... 53 General Requirements ................................................................................... 53 Work Restrictions ........................................................................................... 54 Contingencies & Allowances.......................................................................... 54 8.3 Exclusions ............................................................................................................... 55 9.0 PROJECT RISKS........................................................................................................... 56 Appendix A | Analytical
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Rail Deck Park Executive Summary
    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background The proposal for Rail Deck Park (RDP) comprises the construction of a decking structure over the rail corridor in downtown Toronto between Blue Jays Way and Bathurst Street to facilitate the development of approximately 20 acres of new parkland with associated pedestrian / cycle connections as shown in Figure 1. (Potential inclusion of the Metrolinx- owned property at the southwest corner of Spadina Avenue and Front Street increases the size to 21 acres.) In 2017, an Engineering and Costing Study for Rail Deck Park was undertaken by Build Toronto and consultants WSP and McMillan Associates Architects, in consultation with the City of Toronto. This document provides a high-level summary of the findings from that study. Figure 1 - Rail Deck Park Study Area The purpose of the study was to produce a comprehensive reference design concept for RDP with a specific focus on the technical aspects of the site and surrounding areas including: • Topography, landforms and physical features; • Rail corridor and yard operations, initiatives and constraints; • Geotechnical and hydrogeological conditions; • Structural solutions; • Archaeological considerations; • Construction methodologies; Executive Summary – Rail Deck Park Engineering & Costing Study Report Page 1 of 10 • Vibration and sound attenuation; • Utilities; • Traffic and transportation; and • Permits and approvals. The study did not involve specific design or programming for the park itself. Instead it incorporated assumptions concerning potential future park design elements to inform the requirements for the decking structure. Reference Design Concept The reference design concept for RDP was developed from the “bottom up” utilizing data that was collected from various sources. The design concept was informed by a tabletop review of existing conditions that was undertaken at the onset of the study.
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation on the Minneapolis Riverfront
    RAPIDS, REINS, RAILS: TRANSPORTATION ON THE MINNEAPOLIS RIVERFRONT Mississippi River near Stone Arch Bridge, July 1, 1925 Minnesota Historical Society Collections Prepared by Prepared for The Saint Anthony Falls Marjorie Pearson, Ph.D. Heritage Board Principal Investigator Minnesota Historical Society Penny A. Petersen 704 South Second Street Researcher Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Hess, Roise and Company 100 North First Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 May 2009 612-338-1987 Table of Contents PROJECT BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY ................................................................................. 1 RAPID, REINS, RAILS: A SUMMARY OF RIVERFRONT TRANSPORTATION ......................................... 3 THE RAPIDS: WATER TRANSPORTATION BY SAINT ANTHONY FALLS .............................................. 8 THE REINS: ANIMAL-POWERED TRANSPORTATION BY SAINT ANTHONY FALLS ............................ 25 THE RAILS: RAILROADS BY SAINT ANTHONY FALLS ..................................................................... 42 The Early Period of Railroads—1850 to 1880 ......................................................................... 42 The First Railroad: the Saint Paul and Pacific ...................................................................... 44 Minnesota Central, later the Chicago, Milwaukee and Saint Paul Railroad (CM and StP), also called The Milwaukee Road .......................................................................................... 55 Minneapolis and Saint Louis Railway .................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • DART+ South West Technical Optioneering Report Park West to Heuston Station Area Around Heuston Station and Yard Iarnród Éireann
    DART+ South West Technical Optioneering Report Park West to Heuston Station Area around Heuston Station and Yard Iarnród Éireann Contents Chapter Page Glossary of Terms 5 1. Introduction 8 1.1. Purpose of the Report 8 1.2. DART+ Programme Overview 9 1.3. DART+ South West Project 10 1.4. Capacity Increases Associated with DART+ South West 10 1.5. Key infrastructure elements of DART+ South West Project 11 1.6. Route Description 11 2. Existing Situation 14 2.1. Overview 14 2.2. Challenges 14 2.3. Structures 15 2.4. Permanent Way and Tracks 17 2.5. Other Railway Facilities 19 2.6. Ground Conditions 19 2.7. Environment 20 2.8. Utilities 20 3. Requirements 22 3.1. Specific requirements 22 3.2. Systems Infrastructure and Integration 22 3.3. Design Standards 25 4. Constraints 26 4.1. Environment 26 4.2. Permanent Way 27 4.3. Existing Structures 27 4.4. Geotechnical 27 4.5. Existing Utilities 28 5. Options 29 5.1. Options summary 29 5.2. Options Description 29 5.3. OHLE Arrangement 29 5.4. Permanent Way 30 5.5. Geotechnical 31 5.6. Roads 31 5.7. Cable and Containments 31 5.8. Structures 31 5.9. Drainage 31 6. Options Selection Process 32 6.1. Options Selection Process 32 6.2. Stage 1 Preliminary Assessment (Sifting) 32 6.3. Preliminary Assessment (Sifting) 32 6.4. Stage 2: MCA Process – Emerging Preferred Option 33 DP-04-23-ENG-DM-TTA-30361 Page 2 of 40 Appendix A - Sifting process backup 35 Appendix B – Supporting Drawings 36 Tables Table 1-1 Route Breakdown 11 Table 2-1 Existing Retaining Walls 17 Table 5-1 Options Summary 29 Table 6-1 Sifting
    [Show full text]
  • Creating Connections in Burlington
    CREATING CONNECTIONS IN THE CITY OF BURLINGTON PETER ZUK, CHIEF CAPITAL OFFICER, METROLINX LESLIE WOO, CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER, METROLINX BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 30, 2017 CONGESTION COSTS OUR ECONOMY • The average commute in the GTHA is up to 60 minutes. That means the average commuter spends nearly an extra work day a week sitting in their car, stuck in traffic. Congestion is costing the GTHA between $6 BILLION - $11 BILLION A YEAR in lost economic activity. 2 METROLINX CAPITAL PROJECTS GROUP: FOCUS ON THE BUILD PLAN BUILD • Design • Environmental Assessment • Property Acquisition OPERATE • Procurement process • Contract Award • Construction 3 WHAT WE ARE BUILDING METROLINX PLANNED CAPITAL SPEND ASSETS TODAY OVER 10 YEAR PROGRAM $19.5 Billion* over $43 Billion** *March 2017, Audited **Metrolinx 17/18 Business Plan 4 Concrete Ties on the Stouffville Corridor, August 2017. AN INTEGRATED NETWORK 5 RER AND RT – NO SMALL TASK 6 GO RAIL EXPANSION 150 kilometers of new dedicated GO track will allow for more uninterrupted service New electric trains will travel faster for longer and reduce travel times Bridges and tunnels that eliminate intersections with rail and road traffic will provide more reliable GO train service New and improved stations will make your journey more comfortable, from start to finish New electrified rail infrastructure will allow Metrolinx to deliver faster, more frequent service 7 INFRASTRUCTURE 8 RER: NEW AND IMPROVED GO STATIONS As part of the RER Program, Metrolinx will modify and improve a large number of existing stations, build 12 new GO stations on the existing network, and 7 new stations on extensions.
    [Show full text]
  • 2015 Feasibility Report (PDF)
    Feasibility Report on Proposed Amtrak Service Chicago-Milwaukee-LaCrosse-Twin Cities-(St. Cloud) M.W. Franke Senior Director State Government Contracts W.L. Lander Principal Officer – Corridor Planning B.E. Hillblom Senior Director – State Partnerships R. J. Rogers Business Planning and Analysis Manager Amtrak Chicago, Illinois May 6, 2015 Chicago-Milwaukee-Twin Cities-(St. Cloud) - Table of Contents - Page I. Introduction and Background 3 II. Study Purpose and Nature of Feasibility Study 3 III. Corridor Characteristics 4 III.A. Route Overview 4 III.B. Demographics and Transportation Alternatives 11 III.C. Route Inspection 12 IV. Station Facilities 13 V. Crew Labor 13 VI. Schedules 14 VII. Ridership/Revenue Forecast 17 VIII. Rolling Stock and Maintenance 17 IX. Operating Expense/Subsidy Requirement 19 X. Proposed Capital Infrastructure Improvements 19 XI. Mobilization Costs (one-time expense) 23 XII. Summary Table of Key Numbers 24 Tables Table 1 – Track Ownership Table 2 – MSA and Populations Table 3 – Schedules Table 4 -- Locomotive & Equipment Acquisition Table 5 – Financial Summary by Scenario Table 6 – Infrastructure Capital Projects Exhibits Exhibit 1 – Amtrak Task Schedule for Feasibility Studies Exhibit 2 – Stations and Routes Exhibit 3 – Corridor Photographs - Set 1 Exhibit 3 – Corridor Photographs - Set 2 2 I. Introduction and Background This report was prepared by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) in response to a study request from the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) in May 2012. The study’s purpose was to determine the feasibility of adding a “Second Frequency” intercity passenger train service between Chicago Union Station (CUS) and the Minnesota Twin Cities Area, including St.
    [Show full text]
  • (BRES) and Successful Integration of Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) May 24, 2016
    Bolton Residential Expansion Study (BRES) and Successful Integration of Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) May 24, 2016 The purpose of this memorandum is to review the professional literature pertaining to the potential develop- ment of a Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) in the Bolton Residential Expansion Study area, in response to the Region of Peel’s recent release of the Discussion Paper. The Discussion Paper includes the establishment of evaluation themes and criteria, which are based on provincial and regional polices, stakeholder and public comments. It should be noted that while the Discussion Paper and the Region’s development of criteria does not specifi- cally advocate for TOD, it is the intent of this memorandum to illustrate that TOD-centric planning will not only adequately address such criteria, but will also complement and enhance the Region’s planning principles, key points and/or themes found in stakeholder and public comments. In the following are research findings related to TOD generally, and specifically, theMetrolinx Mobility Hub Guidelines For The Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (September 2011) objectives. Additionally, following a review and assessment of the “Response to Comments Submitted on the Bolton Residential Expansion Study ROPA” submission prepared by SGL Planning & Design Inc. (March 15, 2016), this memorandum evaluates some of the key arguments and assumptions made in this submission relative to the TOD research findings. Planning for Transit-Oriented Developments TOD policy and programs can result in catalytic development that creates walkable, livable neighborhoods around transit providing economic, livability and equitable benefits. The body of research on TODs in the United States has shown that TODs are more likely to succeed when project planning takes place in conjunction with transit system expansion.
    [Show full text]
  • Pdfs/2000874-Equitable-Development- Environmentalists and EJ Advocates (See Sandler & Pezzullo, 2007)
    Cities xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Cities journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cities “We're not in the business of housing:” Environmental gentrification and the nonprofitization of green infrastructure projects ⁎ Alessandro Rigolona, , Jeremy Némethb a Department of Recreation, Sport and Tourism, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA b Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Colorado Denver, USA ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: Environmental gentrification, or the influx of wealthy residents to historically disenfranchised neighborhoods Environmental gentrification due to new green spaces, is an increasingly common phenomenon around the globe. In particular, investments in Environmental justice large green infrastructure projects (LGIPs) such as New York's High Line have contributed to displacing long- Urban green space term low-income residents. Many consider environmental gentrification to be an important environmental Park nonprofits justice issue, but most of this research has focused on distributional justice; that is, quantifying whether LGIPs Sustainability have indeed contributed to gentrifying neighborhoods around them. Limited work has focused on procedural justice in the context of environmental gentrification, or how planning processes can shape project outcomes. This is a particularly critical oversight because many LGIP planning processes are led by nonprofits, a govern- ance model that has already raised important equity concerns in the context of planning and maintenance of smaller neighborhood parks. Yet less is known about the impacts of park nonprofits leading LGIPs. To address these gaps, we study the planning process of the 606, a rails-to-trails project located in Chicago, U.S. that contributed to environmental gentrification.
    [Show full text]
  • Train Station Models Building Guide 2018
    Building Guide for Season’s Greenings: All Aboard! 1 Index of buildings and dioramas Biltmore Depot North Carolina Page 3 Metro-North Cannondale Station Connecticut Page 4 Central Railroad of New Jersey Terminal New Jersey Page 5 Chattanooga Train Shed Tennessee Page 6 Cincinnati Union Terminal Ohio Page 7 Citrus Groves Florida Page 8 Dino Depot -- Page 9 East Glacier Park Station Montana Page 10 Ellicott City Station Maryland Page 11 Gettysburg Lincoln Railroad Station Pennsylvania Page 12 Grain Elevator Minnesota Page 13 Grain Fields Kansas Page 14 Grand Canyon Depot Arizona Page 15 Grand Central Terminal New York Page 16 Kirkwood Missouri Pacific Depot Missouri Page 17 Lahaina Station Hawaii Page 18 Los Angeles Union Station California Page 19 Michigan Central Station Michigan Page 20 North Bennington Depot Vermont Page 21 North Pole Village -- Page 22 Peanut Farms Alabama Page 23 Pennsylvania Station (interior) New York Page 24 Pikes Peak Cog Railway Colorado Page 25 Point of Rocks Station Maryland Page 26 Salt Lake City Union Pacific Depot Utah Page 27 Santa Fe Depot California Page 28 Santa Fe Depot Oklahoma Page 29 Union Station Washington Page 30 Union Station D.C. Page 31 Viaduct Hotel Maryland Page 32 Vicksburg Railroad Barge Mississippi Page 33 2 Biltmore Depot Asheville, North Carolina built 1896 Building Materials Roof: pine bark Facade: bark Door: birch bark, willow, saltcedar Windows: willow, saltcedar Corbels: hollowed log Porch tread: cedar Trim: ash bark, willow, eucalyptus, woody pear fruit, bamboo, reed, hickory nut Lettering: grapevine Chimneys: jequitiba fruit, Kielmeyera fruit, Schima fruit, acorn cap credit: Village Wayside Bar & Grille Wayside Village credit: Designed by Richard Morris Hunt, one of the premier architects in American history, the Biltmore Depot was commissioned by George Washington Vanderbilt III.
    [Show full text]
  • Proposed Rapid Transit Systems
    HAMILTON THE IMPACT OF TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS ON HOUSING VALUES IN THE HAMILTON AREA Don R Campbell, Senior Analyst Melanie Reuter, Director of Research Allyssa Epp, Research Analyst WWW.REINCANADA.COM AUTHORS Don R. Campbell, President Melanie Reuter, Manager of Research Allyssa Epp, Research Analyst © 2011 Real Estate Investment Network TM Cutting Edge Research Inc. #87 - 5855 Mt. Lehman Road Abbotsford, BC V4X 2P7 2nd Edition - May 2011 BC Tel #: (604) 852-2825 AB Tel #: (403) 208-2722 Toll Free: 1-888-824-7346 Fax (403) 241-6685 E-Mail: [email protected] Web Page: www.realestateinvestingincanada.com Important Disclaimer: This report, or any seminars or updates given in relation thereto, is sold, or otherwise provided, on the understanding that the authors – Don R. Campbell, Melanie Reuter, Allyssa Epp, Cutting Edge Research Inc and Real Estate Investment Network™ and their instructors, are not responsible for any results or results of any actions taken in reliance upon any information contained in this report, or conveyed by way of the said seminars, nor for any errors contained therein or presented thereat or omissions in relation thereto. It is further understood that the said authors and instructors do not purport to render legal, accounting, tax, investment, financial planning or other professional advice. The said authors and instructors hereby disclaim all and any liability to any person, whether a purchaser of this Report, a student of the said seminars, or otherwise, arising in respect of this Report, or the said seminars, and of the consequences of anything done or purported to be done by any such person in reliance, whether in whole or part, upon the whole or any part of the contents of this report or the said seminars.
    [Show full text]
  • MTA Board Update: 2021 Commitment & Completion Goals
    Photo: Robot Drill in the Rutgers Tunnel MTA Board Update: 2021 Commitment & Completion Goals February 18, 2021 MTA Capital Program Funding Federal Formula & Flexible Grants 14% 2020-24 Capital Program Funding Sources B&T Program Total Program: $54.8b Funding 6% Other Funded Funding Sources Sources 20% 80% As we ended 2020, Federal Funding was a primary source through which capital work was advanced due to the COVID-19 related impacts on the MTA budget and revenue sources. 2 Numbers have been rounded MTA Capital Program Funding Federal Formula & Flexible Grants 14% 2020-24 Capital Program Funding Sources B&T Program Total Program: $54.8b Funding 6% Other Funded Funding Sources Sources NY State Funding 26% 74% 6% 3 Numbers have been rounded MTA Capital Program Funding Federal Formula & Flexible Grants 14% 2020-24 Capital Program Funding Sources B&T Program Total Program: $54.8b Funding 6% Other Funded Funding Sources Sources NY State Funding 32% 68% 6% NY City Funding 6% 4 Numbers have been rounded MTA Capital Program Funding Federal Formula & Flexible Grants 14% 2020-24 Capital Program Funding Sources B&T Program Total Program: $54.8b Funding 6% Other Funded Funding Sources Sources NY State Funding 50% 50% 6% NY City Funding 6% Capital from New Revenue Sources 18% 5 Numbers have been rounded MTA Capital Program Funding Federal Formula & Flexible Grants 14% 2020-24 Capital Program Funding Sources B&T Program Total Program: $54.8b Funding 6% Other Funded Funding Sources Sources NY State Funding 55% 45% 6% NY City Funding 6% Capital from
    [Show full text]
  • Rail Deck Park
    The Opportunity of Rail Deck Park Graham Haines and Claire Nelischer November 27, 2017 On November 28th, the City of Toronto’s Executive parkland shortfall and serve the immediate needs of Committee will consider a report on the feasibility downtown’s growing population, while also building a and implementation of Rail Deck Park: a proposal to park of regional significance. deck over the rail corridor between Bathurst Street This paper examines the challenges the City has and Blue Jays Way to create a new 20-acre urban faced in providing parkland downtown, and the park. The estimated total cost of the park is $1.665 opportunity presented by Rail Deck Park. billion—less than the cost of acquiring 20 acres of land in downtown Toronto. The $1.665 billion includes the cost of acquiring air rights. City Average Downtown Downtown Toronto already has less parkland— on both an area and per person basis—than the city-wide average. With downtown growing faster than the rest of the city, this differential will only be exacerbated. The high (and rising) cost of land downtown necessitates creative solutions, such as Rail Deck Park. 2 2 Rail Deck Park offers the City its last opportunity 28 m 4.2 m to access a large, contiguous piece of parkland in the core. The park would help address downtown’s Figure 1: Toronto parkland provision rates per person (2016 Census population) 1 RYERSON CITY BUILDING INSTITUTE Key findings: with an additional $200 million anticipated by 2021. These funds, in combination with other 1. A park-starved core: Parkland comprises only revenue tools and value capture tools, could 6.9% of all land downtown, with only 7 parks cover a significant portion of Rail Deck Park’s larger than 5 hectares in size.
    [Show full text]
  • PB-31-19 Recommendation Report
    Page 1 of Report PB-31-19 SUBJECT: Recommendation report for official plan and zoning by-law amendments for 1085 Clearview Ave., 1082, 1086 and 1090 St. Matthew’s Ave. TO: Planning and Development Committee FROM: Department of City Building - Planning Building and Culture Report Number: PB-31-19 Wards Affected: 1 File Numbers: 520-02/19 and 505-01/19 Date to Committee: July 9, 2019 Date to Council: July 15, 2019 Recommendation: Refuse the application for official plan and zoning by-law amendments submitted by MHBC Planning Limited, 442 Brant St. Suite 204, Burlington, ON L7R 2G4, on behalf of LIV Communities for the properties located at 1085 Clearview Ave., 1082, 1086 and 1090 St. Matthew’s Ave. for the development of a 6-storey, 162-unit residential building. Purpose: The purpose of this report is to provide a recommendation to refuse this development application. The following objectives of Burlington’s Strategic Plan (2015-2040) apply to the discussion of this application: A City that Grows: Intensification 1.2.b - Mobility hubs are developed near each GO Station and in the downtown. 1.2.e - Older neighbourhoods are important to the character and heritage of Burlington and intensification will be carefully managed to respect these neighbourhoods. The application proposes a 6-storey apartment building with 162 dwelling units in close proximity to the Aldershot GO Station and an established residential neighbourhood. Focused Population Growth Page 2 of Report PB-31-19 1.3.a - Burlington is an inclusive and diverse city that has a growing proportion of youth, newcomers and young families and offers a price range and mix of housing choices.
    [Show full text]