DOCSLIB.ORG

Union Station 2031 Opportunities and Demands Study Union Station 2031 Demands and Opportunities Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Union Station 2031 Opportunities and Demands Study Union Station 2031 Demands and Opportunities Study UNION STATION 2031 DEMANDS AND OPPORTUNITIESUNION STATION STUDY2031 OPPORTUNITIES AND DRAFTDEMANDS FINAL STUDY Fall 2012 March 2011 Union Station 2031 Demands and Opportunities Study Union Station 2031 Demands and Opportunities Study Fall 2012 Prepared for: Prepared by: Metrolinx Halcrow Consulting Inc 20 Bay Street, Suite 901 207 Queen’s Quay W Suite 550 Toronto ON M5J 2N8 Toronto, ON M5J 1A7 +1 416 363 8123 www.halcrow.com i Union Station 2031 Demands and Opportunities Study Contents 1 Introduction ............................................................................................. 1 1.1 Background .................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose and Scope ........................................................................................................ 2 1.3 Related Initiatives .......................................................................................................... 3 2 Study Design Overview........................................................................ 5 3 Existing and Future Rail Travel Market Analysis ............................ 9 3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 9 3.2 A.M. Peak Period GO Rail Ridership by GO Lines ..............................................10 3.3 A.M. Peak Period GO Rail Market Destined to PD 1 by Origin Regions ........11 3.4 A.M. Peak Period Passenger Egress Characteristics from Union Station ..........11 3.5 Historical Land Use Growth .....................................................................................13 3.6 Historical GO Rail Ridership Growth .....................................................................15 3.7 Future Land Use and Travel Market Analysis ........................................................18 3.8 Key Conclusions ..........................................................................................................25 4 Precedent Analysis .............................................................................. 27 4.1 Toronto Context .........................................................................................................27 4.2 Case Studies ..................................................................................................................32 4.3 Madrid – Intermodal Exchange Stations (IES) ......................................................33 4.4 Melbourne – Downtown Rail Loop .........................................................................38 4.5 Montreal –Physical Integration .................................................................................44 4.6 Sao Paulo – Metro-Commuter Rail Integration .....................................................48 4.7 Findings/Implications for Toronto and Union Station ........................................55 5 Model Development and Base Case Model Analysis .................... 58 5.1 Model Development ...................................................................................................58 5.2 Base Case Analysis ......................................................................................................64 i Union Station 2031 Demands and Opportunities Study 5.3 Assignment Review .....................................................................................................69 5.4 Screenline Analysis ......................................................................................................71 5.5 System Analysis Process .............................................................................................72 6 Transportation System Option Development ................................. 74 6.1 Overview.......................................................................................................................74 6.2 Transportation System Option Workshop .............................................................75 6.3 Summary of Workshop Discussion ..........................................................................82 7 Transportation System Options Screening Assessment ............. 84 7.1 Overview.......................................................................................................................84 7.2 Screening Assessment .................................................................................................85 7.3 Carry Forward Transportation System Options Short List ..................................85 8 System Option Evaluation .................................................................. 91 8.1 Overview.......................................................................................................................91 8.2 Definition of Themes for Detailed Analysis ...........................................................91 8.3 Analysis and Evaluation .............................................................................................97 8.4 Transportation System Option Evaluation Summary ........................................ 104 9 Final Network Assessment .............................................................. 109 9.1 Overview.................................................................................................................... 109 9.2 Transportation System Option 4B ........................................................................ 109 9.3 Transportation System Option 5A-2 .................................................................... 112 9.4 Transportation System Option 6B ........................................................................ 113 10 Findings/Conclusions and Recommendations ............................ 116 10.1 Overview of Problem – Future Union Station Demand Levels ....................... 116 10.2 Alternative Options to Offload 2031 Passenger Demands at Union Station 117 10.3 Screening Evaluation of Base Transportation System Options........................ 119 10.4 Transportation System Options Evaluation ........................................................ 121 10.5 Final Network Assessment ..................................................................................... 124 ii Union Station 2031 Demands and Opportunities Study 10.6 Next Steps ................................................................................................................. 125 iii Union Station 2031 Demands and Opportunities Study List of Figures Figure 1 - Overview of Study Process ..................................................................................... 7 Figure 2 - Union Station Transit Service ................................................................................. 9 Figure 3 - Distribution of GO Train Passengers from Union Station (a.m. Peak Period) .......................................................................................................................................12 Figure 4 - PD 1 Employment Trend, 2001-2009 ...............................................................15 Figure 5 - GO Rail Catchment Areas ....................................................................................16 Total Transit Market Share, all trips to PD 1, 6-9am Figure 6 - Total Transit Market Share ...................................................................................21 75% 70% 65% 60% percentage 55% 50% 45% 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 year Barrie-Bradford 905 area total Georgetown 905 area total Lakeshore East 905 area total Lakeshore West 905 area total Milton 905 area total Richmond Hill 905 area total Stouffville 905 area total Total GO catchment area in 905 region Figure 7 - Proportion of GO Rail to Total Transit .............................................................21 Figure 8 - Focus Area and Destination GO Trips (2006) ..................................................24 Figure 9 - Employment Growth by Zones and Potential Interceptor Stations ..............25 Figure 10 - Location of Planning District 1 within the City of Toronto .........................28 Figure 11 - Early Toronto Rapid Transit Plan .....................................................................29 Figure 12 - City of Toronto: 2006 Employment Densities (jobs/1,000m2) ....................30 Figure 13 - Existing Locations of Intermodal Integration .................................................31 Figure 14 - Aluche Station .......................................................................................................35 Figure 15 - Map of MMA Road Network and IES Stations ..............................................36 Figure 16 - Moncloa Station ....................................................................................................37 Figure 17 - Schematic of MURL Project (as built) and 3D View of Downtown Melbourne ..................................................................................................................................41 Figure 18 - Vendome Station Physical Integration ..............................................................45 Figure 19 - Map of Sao Paulo City and Metropolitan Area ........................................49 Figure 20 - Population Density Plot – Sao Paulo Metropolitan Region ..........................49 Figure 21 - Photo of Sao Paulo City ......................................................................................50 Figure 22 - Current Sao Paulo Rapid Transit Network ......................................................51 iv Union Station 2031
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The California High Speed Rail Proposal: a Due Diligence Report
    September 2008 THE CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL PROPO S AL : A DUE DILIGENCE REPOR T By Wendell Cox and Joseph Vranich Project Director: Adrian T. Moore, Ph.D. POLICY STUDY 370 Reason Citizens Against Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Foundation Government Waste Foundation reason.org cagw.org hjta.org/hjtf Reason Foundation’s mission is to advance Citizens Against Government Waste Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Foundation a free society by developing, applying and (CAGW) is a private, nonprofit, nonparti- (HJTF) is devoted to promoting economic promoting libertarian principles, including education, the study of tax policy and san organization dedicated to educating the individual liberty, free markets and the rule defending the interests of taxpayers in the American public about waste, mismanage- of law. We use journalism and public policy courts. research to influence the frameworks and ment, and inefficiency in the federal govern- The Foundation funds and directs stud- actions of policymakers, journalists and ment. ies on tax and economic issues and works opinion leaders. CAGW was founded in 1984 by J. Peter to provide constructive alternatives to the Reason Foundation’s nonpartisan public Grace and nationally-syndicated columnist tax-and-spend proposals from our state policy research promotes choice, competi- Jack Anderson to build support for imple- legislators. tion and a dynamic market economy as the HJTF also advances the interests of mentation of the Grace Commission recom- foundation for human dignity and progress. taxpayers in the courtroom. In appro- mendations and other waste-cutting propos- Reason produces rigorous, peer-reviewed priate cases, HJTF provides legal repre- research and directly engages the policy als.
    [Show full text]
  • Guard Rail – Lansdowne Avenue
    ----------rrJillTORDNTD- May 19th, 2021 Toronto and East York Community Council Toronto City Hall 100 Queen Street West Toronto, Ontario M5H 2N2 Dear Chair and Members, RE: New Business Item – Guard Rail – Lansdowne Avenue BACKGROUND: Residents in the Earlscourt neighbourhood have contacted my office with concerns about vehicles travelling at high and unsafe speeds along Lansdowne Avenue, especially where there is a bend in the road. This corner is located near the entrance of Earlscourt Park. Following a motorist losing control of their vehicle and crashing into fencing in the park, a guard rail was installed at this corner, on the inside of the sidewalk, to deflect and slow down errant vehicles from leaving the roadway. However, the placement of the guard rail does not protect the outside sidewalk and leaves pedestrians exposed. I reached out to Traffic Operations and asked them for guidance on these issues and to make recommendations to address them. As a result, and after having consulted with area residents, I am recommending that we move to report back on and investigate the feasibility of their request to have an outside guard rail installed as outlined below. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Toronto and East York Community Council direct the General Manager, Transportation Services, to investigate the feasibility and impact of relocating the existing guard rail system on Lansdowne Avenue, located approximately 100 metres to 140 metres north of Davenport Road, from between the Tennis Courts and the sidewalk to between the sidewalk and the road. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Ana Bailão Deputy Mayor Councillor, Ward 9 – Davenport IJ anabailaoTO W'@anabailaoTO @ anabailao.ca COMMITTED TO OUR COMMUNITY Toronto City Hall: 100 Queen St.
    [Show full text]
  • Table 31 Kitchener.Indd
    Kitchener CONTACT US Route number 30-31-33 Numéro du trajet Kitchener GO Train and Bus Schedule/ Gormley v: 202009 1 2 3 4 5 6 MISSISSAUGA / BRAMPTON 7 8 9 * 0 # 1-888-438-6646 Horaire des trains et des autobus GO 31 31A 31B 30 Maple 416-869-3200 31E 31F 31H 31 31B 31E 7 0 4 31J 31M Y 31H 31L 31N W RICHMOND H HILL TTY/ATS: 33 33A 33B 31N 31 31E 31H York Mills Richmond Hill 33D 33E Bramalea 1-800-387-3652 Transit 31L 31N Rutherford B R R Terminal A D M A D L IR E Etobicoke North Yorkdale A A V R Langstaff O D 31 31A 31B B Main St. N @ Bramalea Malton Barrie H 31M KT 30 31 33 U 31E 31F Richmond Bovaird Dr. W R O TORONTO N Hill T A R 33 33B 33D T M IO VAUGHAN R I A S S Weston Old Cummer F S T A I 33E 33F 33G L S G S TORONTO A A Steeles Ave. E @ First UGulf Blvd. / R G York gotransit.com/schedules R D A 33 33A 33B Brampton Steeles Ave. E @ RutherfordR Rd. S Kitchener D University Oriole Union Stn – 33E 1 31 31A 31B 40 Shopper’s Y H See Mississauga/Brampton inset Downsview HW W GO Bus Term. Kitchener World B Park 31E 31F 31H R York Mills A Hurontario St. @ Hwy 407 Y M A 7 L 0 Keele St. @ Bus Terminal 31J P E 4 Park & Ride 4 A Y R D W Hwy 401 2 R H T D Bloor S 33 33A 33B 33 33A 33B 7 D Etobicoke IR N A E V North Yorkdale E 33E O U 33E B Bus Terminal Q @GOtransitKT Guelph E 31 31A 31B 33 33C 33D Mount Weston TORONTO V 31 31A 31B A Pleasant S 31E 31F 31M 33E 33F 33G Union Stn – E 31M 31F Kitchener L T E S H Milton GO Bus Term.
    [Show full text]
  • Authority: Public Works and Infrastructure Committee Item PW15.11, As Adopted by City of Toronto Council on October 5, 6 and 7, 2016
    Authority: Public Works and Infrastructure Committee Item PW15.11, as adopted by City of Toronto Council on October 5, 6 and 7, 2016 CITY OF TORONTO BY-LAW No. 980-2016 To amend City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 950, Traffic and Parking, respecting Adelaide Street West, Gerrard Street East, Lansdowne Avenue, Spadina Crescent East and Spadina Crescent West. The Council of the City of Toronto enacts: 1. Municipal Code Chapter 950, Traffic and Parking, is amended as follows: A. By deleting from Schedule XIII (No Parking) in § 950-1312, the following in alphabetical order by street name: (From (From (From (From Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Highway) Side) Between) Prohibited Times and/or Days) Adelaide Street North Bathurst Street and a point Anytime West (south 22.9 metres west roadway) B. By inserting in Schedule XIII (No Parking) in § 950-1312, the following in alphabetical order by street name: (In (In (In (In Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Highway) Side) Between) Prohibited Times and/or Days) Lansdowne Avenue East Bloor Street West and a point Anytime 15 metres north of Wade Avenue Lansdowne Avenue East Paton Road and a point Anytime 36.6 metres north Lansdowne Avenue East Wallace Avenue and a point Anytime 93 metres north Lansdowne Avenue West Bloor Street West and Wade Anytime Avenue Spadina Crescent East A point 91.5 metres north of Anytime East Russell Street and the northerly limit of Spadina Crescent East 2 City of Toronto By-law No. 980-2016 (In (In (In (In Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Highway) Side) Between) Prohibited Times and/or Days) Spadina Crescent East The southerly limit of Spadina Anytime East Crescent East and a point 72.5 metres south of Russell Street Spadina Crescent West Russell Street and the southerly 9:30 a.m.
    [Show full text]
  • Staff Report
    STAFF REPORT April 12, 2006 To: Works Committee From: Gary Welsh, General Manager, Transportation Services Subject: Potential to increase the Number of Taxi Stands Adjacent to TTC Subway Stations (All Wards) Purpose: To respond to a request from City Council for a report on the feasibility of increasing the number of Taxi Stands in the vicinity of Subway Stations. Financial Implications and Impact Statement: The funds associated with the introduction of the appropriate regulatory signage are contained in the approved Transportation Services Division 2006 Operating Budget. Recommendations: It is recommended that: (1) the following 26 new Taxi Stands as described in Attachment #1, be established in the vicinity of Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) Subway Stations; and (2) the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto, including the introduction in Council of any bills that may be required. Background: City Council, at its meeting held on May 17, 18 and 19, 2005, in adopting Consolidated Clause 16 (j) in Works Committee Report 5, requested that Transportation Services staff report to the Works Committee on the feasibility of increasing the number of Taxi Stands around TTC Subway Stations, and further that representatives of the Taxi industry, in particular Ms. Souter, General Manager of Beck Taxi, be invited to depute on the item. - 2 - Comments: The issue of designating Taxi Stands in the vicinity of Subway Stations was last dealt with by the former Metropolitan Toronto Council in February, 1992. At that time, the former area municipalities were requested to implement designated Taxi Stands at Subway Station locations.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • “Toronto Has No History!”: Indigeneity, Settler Colonialism, and Historical Memory in Canada’S Largest City
    Document généré le 2 oct. 2021 00:00 Urban History Review Revue d'histoire urbaine “Toronto Has No History!” Indigeneity, Settler Colonialism, and Historical Memory in Canada’s Largest City Victoria Freeman Encounters, Contests, and Communities: New Histories of Race and Résumé de l'article Ethnicity in the Canadian City En 1884, au cours d’une semaine complète d’événements commémorant le 50e Volume 38, numéro 2, printemps 2010 anniversaire de l’incorporation de Toronto en 1834, des dizaines de milliers de gens fêtent l’histoire de Toronto et sa relation avec le colonialisme et URI : https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/039672ar l’impérialisme britannique. Une analyse des fresques historiques du défilé de DOI : https://doi.org/10.7202/039672ar la première journée des célébrations et de discours prononcés par Daniel Wilson, président de l’University College, et par le chef de Samson Green des Mohawks de Tyendinaga dévoile de divergentes approches relatives à la Aller au sommaire du numéro commémoration comme « politique par d’autres moyens » : d’une part, le camouflage du passé indigène de la région et la célébration de son avenir européen, de l’autre, une vision idéalisée du partenariat passé entre peuples Éditeur(s) autochtones et colons qui ignore la rôle de ces derniers dans la dépossession des Indiens de Mississauga. La commémoration de 1884 marque la transition Urban History Review / Revue d'histoire urbaine entre la fondation du village en 1793 et l’incorporation de la ville en 1834 comme « moment fondateur » et symbole de la supposée « autochtonie » des ISSN colons immigrants. Le titre de propriété acquis des Mississaugas lors de l’achat 0703-0428 (imprimé) de Toronto en 1787 est jugé sans importance, tandis que la Loi d’incorporation 1918-5138 (numérique) de 1834 devient l’acte symbolique de la modernité de Toronto.
    [Show full text]
  • Heritage Property Research and Evaluation Report
    ATTACHMENT NO. 10 HERITAGE PROPERTY RESEARCH AND EVALUATION REPORT WILLIAM ROBINSON BUILDING 832 YONGE STREET, TORONTO Prepared by: Heritage Preservation Services City Planning Division City of Toronto December 2015 1. DESCRIPTION Above: view of the west side of Yonge Street, north of Cumberland Street and showing the property at 832 Yonge near the south end of the block; cover: east elevation of the William Robinson Building (Heritage Preservation Services, 2014) 832 Yonge Street: William Robinson Building ADDRESS 832 Yonge Street (west side between Cumberland Street and Yorkville Avenue) WARD Ward 27 (Toronto Centre-Rosedale) LEGAL DESCRIPTION Concession C, Lot 21 NEIGHBOURHOOD/COMMUNITY Yorkville HISTORICAL NAME William Robinson Building1 CONSTRUCTION DATE 1875 (completed) ORIGINAL OWNER Sleigh Estate ORIGINAL USE Commercial CURRENT USE* Commercial * This does not refer to permitted use(s) as defined by the Zoning By-law ARCHITECT/BUILDER/DESIGNER None identified2 DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION Brick cladding with brick, stone and wood detailing ARCHITECTURAL STYLE See Section 2.iii ADDITIONS/ALTERATIONS See Section 2. iii CRITERIA Design/Physical, Historical/Associative & Contextual HERITAGE STATUS Listed on City of Toronto's Heritage Register RECORDER Heritage Preservation Services: Kathryn Anderson REPORT DATE December 2015 1 The building is named for the original and long-term tenant. Archival records indicate that the property, along with the adjoining site to the south was developed by the trustees of John Sleigh's estate 2 No architect or building is identified at the time of the writing of this report. Building permits do not survive for this period and no reference to the property was found in the Globe's tender calls 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Amador County Short Range Transit Development Plan 2014
    Amador County Short Range Transit Development Plan For Years 2014 through 2019 Final Plan Prepared for the Amador County Transportation Commission Prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. AMADOR COUNTY SHORT RANGE TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, 2014 Final Plan Prepared for Amador County Transportation Commission 117 Valley View Way Sutter Creek, California 95685 209 • 267-2282 Prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2690 Lake Forest Road, Suite C P.O. Box 5875 Tahoe City, California 96145 530 • 583-4053 June 19, 2014 LSC #137410 Chapter 8 Amended March 25, 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS ............................................................................................ 3 Amador County Background and Setting .............................................................. 3 Existing Land Use ............................................................................................... 3 Employment ....................................................................................................... 7 Historic and Current Population ........................................................................... 8 3 EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SERVICES ..................................................................21 Amador Transit ..................................................................................................21 Other Transportation Services in Amador County
    [Show full text]
  • Municipal Class Environmental Assessment On
    Attachment 4 IE19.11 Part 2 Gerrard Street to Edward Street Gerrard Street to Walton Street — Recommended Design Concept from One-Way Driving Access Northbound Elm Street to Gould Street Walton Street to Elm Street — Pedestrian Priority Elm Street to Edward Street — Elm Street One-Way Driving Access Southbound Gerrard Street West Gerrard Street East Future Future Development Development Walton Street O’Keefe Lane O’Keefe Gould Street Ryerson Student Centre Typical cross section between Gerrard Elm Street Street and Edward Street P Gould Street Ryerson Pedestrian Zone Future Development Edward Street P N Legend: Street furniture/Greenery Pedestrian / Cycle only Curbside Activity Direction of travel Loading bay No right turn P Parking garage No left turn P Parking garage (private) No straight through Pedestrian zone Traffc signals Gate Cycle Track Pedestrian only No Entry Sharrow 19 Gerrard Street to Edward Street Gerrard Street to Walton Street One-Way Driving Access — Northbound local access has been added to the recommendation for this block during the day to provide more support for deliveries and ride hailing on Walton Street and Yonge Street. The volume and speed of vehicles using this block would be very low to support a pedestrian friendly atmosphere. The character of this section would be similar to the pedestrian priority zones. The southbound lane won’t have any Mariahilfer Strasse, Vienna cars or trucks during the day and can be used for cycling. Wide sidewalks and furnishing zones to support cafés, planting, and seating remain. Artist rendering of Yonge Street between Walton Street and Elm Street looking north.
    [Show full text]
  • Board of Directors Meeting
    Board of Directors Meeting Agenda and Meeting Book THURSDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2019 FROM 08:30 AM TO 11:30 AM WATERFRONT TORONTO 20 BAY STREET, SUITE 1310 TORONTO, ON, M5J 2N8 Meeting Book - Board of Directors Meeting Agenda 8:30 a.m. 1. Motion to Approve Meeting Agenda Approval S. Diamond 8:35 a.m. 2. Declaration of Conflicts of Interest Declaration All 8:40 a.m. 3. Chair’s Opening Remarks Information S. Diamond 8:50 a.m. 4. Consent Agenda a) Draft Minutes of Open Session of the October 10 and 24, 2019 Board Approval All Meeting - Page 4 b) Draft Minutes of Open Session of the October 31, 2019 Board Approval All Meeting - Page 11 c) CEO Report - Page 15 Information G. Zegarac d) Finance Audit and Risk Management (FARM) Committee Chair's Information K. Sullivan Open Session Report - Page 44 e) Human Resources, Governance and Stakeholder Relations (HRGSR) Information S. Palvetzian Committee Chair's Open Session Report - Page 47 f) Investment, Real Estate and Quayside (IREQ) Committe Chair's Open Information M. Mortazavi Session Report - Page 48 9:00 a.m. 5. Port Lands Flood Protection (60% Design Stage Gate Status Approval D. Kusturin Update) Cover Sheet - Page 49 Presentation is attached as Appendix A to the Board Book 9:15 a.m. 6. Waterfront Toronto Priority Projects - Construction Update Information D. Kusturin Cover sheet - Page 50 Presentation is attached as Appendix B to the Board Book 9:30 a.m. 7. Motion to go into Closed Session Approval All Closed Session Agenda The Board will discuss items 8, 9 (a), (b), (c), (d) & (e) , 10, 11 and
    [Show full text]
  • AECOM Report 1.Dot
    Environmental Assessment chapter 3. description of the potentially affected environment 3. Description of the Potentially Affected Environment This chapter is divided into four different sections which describe different components of the baseline or existing environmental conditions. The first section describes the river characteristics which will influence the development of alternatives. This information has been separated from the remaining description of the natural environment such that some emphasis can be given to those aspects of the existing environment that are driving the development of alternatives for the DMNP. The second section describes the remaining components of the natural environment: fish and fish habitat, terrestrial vegetation, and wildlife. The third section addresses components related to soils and groundwater contamination. The final section describes socio-economic components: land use, air quality and noise, archaeology, aboriginal interests, and built heritage. 3.1 River Characteristics in the Project and Impact Assessment Study Areas The Don Watershed possesses a dendretic drainage pattern that flows southward for 38 kilometres (as the crow flies) from the Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM) to the Inner Harbour of Toronto. The Don possesses two major branches (the East and West Don), each consisting of many smaller sub-watershed systems, such as but not limited to Taylor Massey Creek, Wilket Creek, Patterson Creek and Pomona Creek. The confluence of the East and West Branches occurs approximately 6 kilometres upstream of the Impact Assessment Study Area. Downstream from the confluence, the sub-watershed is known as the Lower Don and includes all of the Don Narrows until reaching the Keating Channel. The entire watershed area or drainage basin of the Don River is approximately 360 square kilometres (Figure 3−1).
    [Show full text]