DOCSLIB.ORG

Appendix C3. Public Engagement Record: December 2019

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Appendix C3. Public Engagement Record: December 2019 Appendix C3 Public Engagement Record: December 10, 2019 to September 16, 2020 Public Engagement Record: December 10, 2019 to September 16, 2020 • Website Screenshots Public Engagement Record: December 10, 2019 to September 16, 2020 • Ask-A-Question Submissions Ask A Question – January 23 to September 16, 2020 Comment title Comment body Response Future Is the western terminus of the line to be built so that it would be able to be We are currently advancing plans for the line between Exhibition/Ontario expansion extended north west at a later date? Thank you Place and the Ontario Science Centre. However, these plans don’t preclude future expansions that may be presented to improve access and meet demand. Thorncliffe Park Where is the station in relation to Overlea Blvd Teams are analyzing the 15 stations identified in the Initial Business Case to Station determine whether or not they should be built, looking at factors like the potential number of users, ease of construction, and cost, to name a few. Findings will be presented in the Preliminary Design Business Case, which we are aiming to complete by summer 2020.By using the GO corridor and building bridges across the Don River instead of tunneling underneath it, a route that is approximately twice the length of the Relief Line South can be built at a similar cost. Also, using the GO corridor will allow people to more easily connect between GO and TTC services that will both be accessible by street level, saving time compared to connections that would lead people into deep underground stations. We will be hosting another round of consultations in spring 2020 where we hope to share some more information from our findings. Meeting I would love to attend the Ontario Line event, but the time frame does not work Thanks for your feedback - we will share this with our project team. Our Accessibility for my schedule. I imagine that an evening time slot is difficult for commuters Metrolinx Engage portal is designed to give the community an opportunity to and parents who are responsible for preparing dinner for their families and ask questions and also review the same materials that were shared with childcare. Having a webinar for events such as these would make the communities at the Open Houses. You can find a digital version of the conversation more accessible to a wider range of Torontonians. Can we display boards on this website under the Ontario Line section. Feel free to consider adding a live webinar option and a moderator responsible for leave us more questions on Metrolinx Engage and we'll be happy to answer. answering questions that come from online participants? Thank you! You can also reach us directly at [email protected] or 416-202- 5100. Overlea Blvd Why is an elevated structure being built right outside residential buildings and Current plans for the line on Overlea Boulevard include at-grade or elevated Elevated condos on Overlea Blvd with no regard to the noise factor and view for tracks. The precise alignment of the Ontario Line will evolve throughout the Structure residential owners? This kind of structure does not belong in a residential design and procurement process as teams gather more information, community. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the meeting at the Science including details on ground conditions, community and environmental Centre and would love to receive some details on this plan. impacts. We will work with communities to ensure a comprehensive array of measures are in place to address any noise or vibration impacts and to ensure designs are sensitive and respectful of communities. All the boards from the Ontario Science Centre Open House are available on the Metrolinx Engage portal by going to the Ontario Line section and clicking Get Ask A Question – January 23 to September 16, 2020 Engaged -> Open Houses. Ontario Line . Why are you using Overlea as the route? The precise alignment of the Ontario Line will evolve throughout the design Route through If you can put the maintenance yard behind a Costco why not the train? and procurement process as teams gather more information, including Thorncliffe Park Or the hydro green? Or An elevated line done the DVP median or on the side? details on ground conditions, community and environmental impacts, and Or the North Go train line that cuts through ET Seton park already? potential for partnering with developers. We will continue to refine the exact Overlea is already overly trafficked.it is the only exit out of Thorncliffe Park and alignment as more planning work is done as part of the Preliminary Design entrance to the DVP. We are very well served by buses. The construction alone Business Case. We will work with communities to ensure a comprehensive will destroy a high needs neighbourhood struggling to keep itself from becoming array of measures are in place to address any noise or vibration impacts a ghetto. The local merchants who mostly reside here will be ruined. We cannot and to ensure designs are sensitive and respectful of communities. get a dime for a decent community centre with the highest numbers of children in Canada but we are getting a subway light rail line along Eglinton’s high end neighbourhood and another transit line just one block south but this one will be an above ground or ground level rail. How does this make any sense? Station stops How was King Street and Bathurst Street chosen for a Subway Station? Why would Metrolinx not choose City Place and Liberty Village for Subway Stations? Why would you have the subway raised going through Leslieville and Riverdale? Pape and What are your plans for the houses near the proposed bridge that will cross the We understand that residents and businesses want specific details about Minton DVP? Will you be expropriating homes on Minton? What can we expect by way impacts to their properties, and we will reach out individually to impacted of compensation in that event? What about the effect of the noise and vibration property owners once we have a firm understanding of what’s needed. We on the remaining homes? Homeowners here are frustrated by the lack of expect to have more detailed information to share in the coming months, information and consultation to date, given how directly we will be affected by when we will have completed further design work. By utilizing the rail your proposed plans. This is a quiet residential area (mature homes, big trees, corridor that already exists in the Leslieville area, we will be able to deliver older people, young families), which will be potentially devastated by the line. the Ontario Line quicker while reducing capital costs and serving even more Please involve us in the process. The Information Sessions held this week were communities. The precise alignment of the Ontario Line will evolve not informative at all; beyond "feedback forms", there was no chance to have throughout the design and procurement process as teams gather more one's voice heard. A more democratic forum is needed for involving information. We will continue to refine the exact alignment as more planning homeowners whose properties are on the line (pun intended). work is done as part of the Preliminary Design Business Case, which will in turn help us determine property requirements. Previously identified and newly affected property owners will be notified and advised of any property impacts, including owners of properties that were identified in the Relief Line South Environmental Report that are no longer required. We are consolidating all the feedback we've received and will be sharing it with our Ask A Question – January 23 to September 16, 2020 project team. Bridge over Can you please share with the public any work you have done to date to assess We know that residents have many questions about the future look and feel DVP at Minton the impact that building a bridge across the DVP and and a tunnel exit would of the line as well as their neighbourhoods, and we will share updates and have on the Pape and Minton area. The residents in the neighbourhood have seek feedback throughout the development of the project. There will be not been consulted and requests to Metrolinx for a consultation with residents many opportunities for people to provide input and learn more about what have thus far been ignored. the project means for them throughout its lifecycle. We will be sharing environmental studies and reports for review and comment throughout the formal EA process, as well as conducting many other engagement events outside of that process. We plan on hosting more Open Houses this spring where we'll be able to share some more information from our findings and solicit community feedback. A great deal of information is uncovered as a project evolves from the early analysis phase to the planning and design phase, through procurement, and onward to the delivery and operations phases. We use all the facts we have to update and improve evidence- based decisions about the project. The findings from our Initial Business Case can be found on our website at www.metrolinx.com/OntarioLine What happens How will Metrolinx address all the public comments? We are consolidating all the feedback we receive at our Open Houses and to our input? online. All the feedback will be shared with our project team. Answers to "At the top of this page it says ""We’ll post an answer to your question in 48 questions hours." Yet no questions have been answered including ones that were posted 5 days ago. Above Ground Can you share more details on the decisions around making certain parts of the Any decisions we make on alignment and station location are in the interest Portions of the Line above ground? Specifically, where the line comes above ground at the of improving the customer experience, increasing access to transit, Line Gerrard station and going south through a rich vibrant neighbourhood full of maximizing ridership, achieving travel time savings, and creating better families? Could it be underground? Could it be routed more East so that the access to jobs.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • EX18.7 Appendix a Part 3
    INTRODUCTION EXPO ANALYSIS SITE ANALYSISEX18.7EXPO MASTERPLAN AppendixTRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE A Part & OVERLAY 3 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE LEGACY 1 8 3 1 2 8 2 3 6 2 1 5 5 8 6 5 5 6 5 5 Fig. 4.2: Expo Site - Illustrative Masterplan TORONTO EXPO 2025 Site Analysis, Masterplan, Transport and Infrastructure - October 2016 - Final 45 INSERT NEW IMAGE BY PER Fig. 4.3: © September 2016 - ARUP - Expo 25 Toronto - Rights Reserved TORONTO EXPO 2025 46 Site Analysis, Masterplan, Transport and Infrastructure - October 2016 - Final TORONTO EXPO 2025 Site Analysis, Masterplan, Transport and Infrastructure - October 2016 - Final INTRODUCTION EXPO ANALYSIS SITE ANALYSIS EXPO MASTERPLAN TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE & OVERLAY IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE LEGACY PLOT AREA FOOTPRINT PLOT EFFICIENCY BUILDING ESTIMATED NUMBER DESCRIPTION TOTAL PLOT AREA FOOTPRINT (m2) GFA (m2) PER UNIT (m2) (PLOT BUILDABILITY) FOOTPRINT (m2) OF FLOORS EXPO SITE AREA 3 Plaza Entrances approx. 16,500 50,000 100% N/A N/A 50,000 1 Expo Center 25,000 25,000 80% 20,000 2.0 40,000 1 Theatre 15,000 15,000 80% 12,000 1.0 12,000 1 Educational Center 10,000 10,000 70% 7,000 2.0 14,000 1 Media Center 20,000 20,000 80% 16,000 1.0 14,000 EXHIBITION PAVILIONS – COUNTRIES (55 COUNTRIES) 18 Small 500 9,000 60% 5,400 TBD TBD 22 Medium 2,500 55,000 60% 33,000 TBD TBD 15 Large 4,500 67,500 60% 40,500 TBD TBD EXHIBITION PAVILIONS – HOST COUNTRY AND CITY 1 Host Country 15,000 15,000 70% 10,500 3.0 31,500 4 Host City / Province (Toronto & Ottawa-Ontario, approx.
    [Show full text]
  • Smarttrack Ridership Analysis: Project Final Report
    SMARTTRACK Research Report RIDERSHIP ANALYSIS Project Final Report Eric J. Miller, James Vaughan, Monika Nasterska June 2016 SMARTTRACK RIDERSHIP ANALYSIS PROJECT FINAL REPORT Prepared for the City Manager, City of Toronto by: Eric J. Miller, Ph.D. Professor, Department of Civil Engineering Director, Transportation Research Institute Research Director, Travel Modelling Group University of Toronto James Vaughan & Monika Nasterska Travel Modelling Group, University of Toronto Transportation Research Institute June, 2016 i Executive Summary Project Objectives On December 11, 2014, City Council directed the City Manager in consultation with the Province/Metrolinx to develop a work plan to undertake an accelerated review of the SmartTrack and RER plans. Council also directed the City Manager to retain the specialized services of the University of Toronto Transportation Research Institute (UTTRI) to support the planning analysis and required transit ridership modelling as a component of the overall review.1 On February 10, 2015, City Council considered the report EX2.2 SmartTrack Work Plan (2015- 2016), and approved the accelerated work plan for the review of SmartTrack.2 The UTTRI component of this work was to provide transit ridership estimates and other key network performance measures using the City’s new Regional Travel Demand Model (GTAModel Version 4.0) developed at the University of Toronto by UTTRI. As detailed in the final Terms of Reference for the UTTRI work, this work included: • Confirming the integrated RER and SmartTrack Service Concept to be modelled. • Completion and validation of a new travel demand model system to be used by the City of Toronto in this and similar studies of transit ridership and travel demand.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Design Review Panel Minutes of Meeting #50 Wednesday, June 8Th, 2011
    Waterfront Design Review Panel Minutes of Meeting #50 Wednesday, June 8th, 2011 Present: Regrets: Bruce Kuwabara Brigitte Shim George Baird Greg Smallenberg Paul Bedford Jane Wolff Peter Busby Peter Clewes Recording Secretary: Claude Cormier Melissa Horwood Betsy Williamson Designees and Guests: Christopher Glaisek Robert Freedman WELCOME The Chair welcomed the Panel and provided an overview of the agenda. The Chair then invited Christopher Glaisek to provide his report. REPORT FROM THE VP PLANNING AND DESIGN Christopher Glaisek, Waterfront Toronto’s Vice President for Planning and Design, provided a summary of project progress. Don River Park The pavilion structure is substantially complete. The berm is under construction, and topsoil will be put down soon. Underpass Park Block 19 and 20 are currently underway, but we will require an extra $2M to finish Block 18. The benches are currently being put in. Sherbourne Common Testing of the fountain is complete and should be running by the second week of July 2011. George Brown College Currently under construction. 1 York Quay Currently one third of the way through excavation. Portland’s Water’s edge Widening of the promenade is underway and there are new sheet piling walls. Storm water Management Facility Construction is under way for the tunnel. GENERAL BUSINESS The Chair stated that there is a lot of speculation and uncertainty surrounding the Queens Quay project, given recent news stories of the TTC moving ahead on its own. The Chair stated that this committee needs to understand the lay of the landand if the Panel is actually reviewing something that has a reality base.
    [Show full text]
  • Attachment 4 – Assessment of Ontario Line
    EX9.1 Attachment 4 – Assessment of Ontario Line As directed by City Council in April 2019, City and TTC staff have assessed the Province’s proposed Ontario Line. The details of this assessment are provided in this attachment. 1. Project Summary 1.1. Project Description The Ontario Line was included as part of the 2019 Ontario Budget1 as a transit project that will cover similar study areas as the Relief Line South and North, as well as a western extension. The proposed project is a 15.5-kilometre higher-order transit line with 15 stations, connecting from Exhibition GO station to Line 5 at Don Mills Road and Eglinton Avenue East, near the Science Centre station, as shown in Figure 1. Figure 1. Ontario Line Proposal (source: Metrolinx IBC) Since April 2019, technical working groups comprising staff from the City, TTC, Metrolinx, Infrastructure Ontario and the Ministry of Transportation met regularly to understand alignment and station location options being considered for the Ontario 1 http://budget.ontario.ca/2019/contents.html Attachment 4 - Assessment of Ontario Line Page 1 of 20 Line. Discussions also considered fleet requirements, infrastructure design criteria, and travel demand modelling. Metrolinx prepared an Initial Business Case (IBC) that was publicly posted on July 25, 2019.2 The IBC compared the Ontario Line and Relief Line South projects against a Business As Usual scenario. The general findings by Metrolinx were that "both Relief Line South and Ontario Line offer significant improvements compared to a Business As Usual scenario, generating $3.4 billion and $7.4 billion worth of economic benefits, respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • How Understanding a Railway's Historic Evolution Can Guide Future
    College of Engineering, School of Civil Engineering University of Birmingham Managing Technical and Operational Change: How understanding a railway’s historic evolution can guide future development: A London Underground case study. by Piers Connor Submitted as his PhD Thesis DATE: 15th February 2017 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. Managing Technical & Operational Development PhD Thesis Abstract The argument for this thesis is that patterns of past engineering and operational development can be used to support the creation of a good, robust strategy for future development and that, in order to achieve this, a corporate understanding of the history of the engineering, operational and organisational changes in the business is essential for any evolving railway undertaking. It has been the objective of the author of this study to determine whether it is essential that the history and development of a railway undertaking be known and understood by its management and staff in order for the railway to function in an efficient manner and for it to be able to develop robust and appropriate improvement strategies in a cost-effective manner.
    [Show full text]
  • Presentation 7:20 Questions of Clarification 7:30 Facilitated Open House 8:30 Adjourn
    Waterfront Transit “Reset” Phase 2 Study Public Information & Consultation Meetings September 18 & 26, 2017 Agenda 6:00 Open House 6:30 Agenda Review, Opening Remarks and Introductions 6:40 Study Overview and Presentation 7:20 Questions of Clarification 7:30 Facilitated Open House 8:30 Adjourn 2 Project Study Team • A Partnership of: • The project study team is led by a joint City-TTC- Waterfront Toronto Executive Steering Committee • Metrolinx, City of Mississauga and MiWay have also provided input on relevant aspects of the study 3 What’s the Purpose of this Meeting? • Present the waterfront transit network travel demand considerations to 2041 • Present and gather feedback on options assessment for transit improvements in key areas of the network, including: – Union Station – Queens Quay Connection – Humber Bay Link – Bathurst - Fleet - Lake Shore – Queens Quay Intersection • Report the overall draft findings of the Phase 2 Study, priorities, and draft directions for further study prior to reporting to Executive Committee and Council 4 Study Timeline 5 Phase 1 Recap To view the Phase 1 Report and other background material, please visit the City’s website: www.toronto.ca/waterfronttransit 6 Vision Provide high quality transit that will integrate waterfront communities, jobs, and destinations and link the waterfront to the broader City and regional transportation network Objectives Connect waterfront communities locally and to Downtown with reliable and convenient transit service: • Promote and support residential and employment growth
    [Show full text]
  • Rapid Transit in Toronto Levyrapidtransit.Ca TABLE of CONTENTS
    The Neptis Foundation has collaborated with Edward J. Levy to publish this history of rapid transit proposals for the City of Toronto. Given Neptis’s focus on regional issues, we have supported Levy’s work because it demon- strates clearly that regional rapid transit cannot function eff ectively without a well-designed network at the core of the region. Toronto does not yet have such a network, as you will discover through the maps and historical photographs in this interactive web-book. We hope the material will contribute to ongoing debates on the need to create such a network. This web-book would not been produced without the vital eff orts of Philippa Campsie and Brent Gilliard, who have worked with Mr. Levy over two years to organize, edit, and present the volumes of text and illustrations. 1 Rapid Transit in Toronto levyrapidtransit.ca TABLE OF CONTENTS 6 INTRODUCTION 7 About this Book 9 Edward J. Levy 11 A Note from the Neptis Foundation 13 Author’s Note 16 Author’s Guiding Principle: The Need for a Network 18 Executive Summary 24 PART ONE: EARLY PLANNING FOR RAPID TRANSIT 1909 – 1945 CHAPTER 1: THE BEGINNING OF RAPID TRANSIT PLANNING IN TORONTO 25 1.0 Summary 26 1.1 The Story Begins 29 1.2 The First Subway Proposal 32 1.3 The Jacobs & Davies Report: Prescient but Premature 34 1.4 Putting the Proposal in Context CHAPTER 2: “The Rapid Transit System of the Future” and a Look Ahead, 1911 – 1913 36 2.0 Summary 37 2.1 The Evolving Vision, 1911 40 2.2 The Arnold Report: The Subway Alternative, 1912 44 2.3 Crossing the Valley CHAPTER 3: R.C.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Cincinnati's Hard-Won Modern Tram Revival
    THE INTERNATIONAL LIGHT RAIL MAGAZINE www.lrta.org www.tautonline.com NOVEMBER 2016 NO. 947 CINCINNATI’S HARD-WON MODERN TRAM REVIVAL InnoTrans: The world’s greatest railway showcase Russian cities’ major low-floor orders Stadler and Solaris join for tram bids Doha Metro tunnelling is complete ISSN 1460-8324 £4.25 Berlin Canada’s ‘Radial’ 11 Above and below the Exploring Ontario’s streets of the capital Halton County line 9 771460 832043 LRT MONITOR TheLRT MONITOR series from Mainspring is an essential reference work for anyone who operates in the world’s light and urban rail sectors. Featuring regular updates in both digital and print form, the LRT Monitor includes an overview of every established line and network as well as details of planned schemes and those under construction. POLAND POZNAŃ Tramways play an important role in one of of the main railway station. Poland’s biggest and most historic cities, with In 2012 a line opened to the east of the city, the first horse-drawn tramline opening in 1880. with an underground section containing two An overview Electrification followed in 1898. sub-surface stations and a new depot. The The network was badly damaged during World reconstruction of Kaponiera roundabout, an A high-quality War Two, resuming operations in 1947 and then important tram junction, is set for completion in of the system’s only east of the river Warta. Service returned to 2016. When finished, it will be a three-level image for ease the western side of the city in 1952 with the junction, with a PST interchange on the lower development, opening of the Marchlewski bridge (now named level.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]