DOCSLIB.ORG

GO Transit Expansion

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
GO Transit Expansion GO Transit Expansion Public Meeting #2 Guildwood to Pickering Transit Project Assessment Process May 2016 Building More Transit to Get You Moving GO Transit Expansion is bringing more train trips to every GO rail corridor to make moving around the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA) and surrounding communities faster and easier. This means electric trains running in both directions, 7 days a week, on GO-owned corridors and significant service increases across the entire network. In your community, improving existing transit options means all-day, two-way service and 15-minute service or better between Union Station and Oshawa GO Station. We look forward to working with you, and being a part of the transformation in your community. A Region Under Pressure The GTHA and its surrounding communities “suffer from traffic congestion problems, poorly integrated transit services and relatively underdeveloped transport infrastructure” Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Territorial Review, 2010. Average commute time per . Results in $11 billion in . Over 500,000 tonnes of person, per day is 82 travel costs and lost annual greenhouse gas minutes. productivity every year. emissions is due to . Projected to increase to 109 . By 2031, this number could traffic congestion. minutes in the next 25 years. increase to $15 billion. Transit Project Assessment Process 2015 Spring 2016 Summer 2016 Fall 2016 Fall 2016 Late 2016 Early 2017 Guildwood to Pickering Project Area Proposed Grade Separations Scarborough Golf Club Road Galloway Road Morningside Avenue Other At-Grade Crossings Poplar Road Manse Road Beechgrove Drive Chesterton Shores Road City of Rodd Avenue Pickering Rail Bridges Highland Creek Bridge City of Rodd Avenue Rouge River Bridge Toronto GO Stations Guildwood Station Rouge Hill Station Chesterton Pickering Station Shores Beechgrove Drive Morningside Avenue Manse Road Poplar Road Galloway Road Scarborough Golf Club Road What We Are Doing To Get There Legend Go Track New 3rd Track Freight Track Proposed improvements from Guildwood to Pickering: . Operational ‘bottleneck’ between Guildwood and Pickering GO Stations where 3 tracks reduce to 2 tracks . Addition of 3rd Track . 3 Grade Separations (Scarborough Golf Club Road, Galloway Road and Morningside Avenue) . Modifications to 2 Rail Bridges (Rouge River and Highland Creek) . Electrification enabling works (track and grading design to include provision for future electrification, i.e. Overhead Catenary System (OCS) pole bases, electrical conduits) What we have done since March 2015 . Briefed and engaged with local elected officials, community groups and stakeholders such as City of Toronto, City of Pickering, etc. Completed the following draft studies: – Natural Environment and Tree Inventory – Air Quality – Noise and Vibration – Socio-Economic and Land Use – Traffic – Cultural Heritage – Archaeology . Advanced preliminary design for grade separations and track alignment Road Rail Crossings . The safety of road rail crossings remains a priority and they are equipped with regulatory and best practice or better measures . Road crossing improvements are a joint effort and typically led by the municipality that has jurisdiction over the local road . We continue to assess all crossings across the network to identify further improvements where possible, including the 8 road rail crossings between just west of Guildwood and Pickering GO stations Road Rail Crossing Improvements Considerations in determining improvements: Data: Impacts: . Collision history . Safety . Sight lines . Capacity . Geometry . Operations . Volume and type of vehicle . Proximity to GO Stations Other Considerations . Cost of implementation . Impacts on the Natural Environment . Impacts on the Social and Economic Environment Road Rail Crossing Review The Process . Metrolinx is completing an analysis of road rail crossings on a network-wide basis . Options considered include: – Maintain at-grade crossing – Crossing improvements – Road closure – Road overpass – Road underpass – Rail overpass – Rail underpass All road rail crossings on the Lakeshore East corridor have been removed except for the section between just west of Guildwood and Pickering GO stations Planned Grade Separations . Grade Separations (road underpasses) are planned for Scarborough Golf Club Road, Galloway Road, and Morningside Avenue. – Funding from the federal and provincial government was announced in the summer of 2015. – Feasibility and traffic studies have shown that these at-grade crossings support the need for the construction of a grade separation. High volume of traffic and active at grade crossing at these locations make a grade- separation the best option for replacing the at-grade crossings. – These were also selected in consultation with the City of Toronto. The remaining 4 road rail crossings will be reviewed as part of the network wide review: – Poplar Road – Manse Road – Beechgrove Drive – Rodd Avenue PLANNED GRADE SEPARATIONS Morningside Avenue Scarborough Golf Club Road Galloway Road • Two Existing Tracks • Three Existing Tracks • Two Existing Tracks • Proposed Road Underpass • Proposed Road Underpass • Proposed Road Underpass • Third highest • Highest average volume of • Second highest average average volume of vehicular traffic volume of vehicular traffic vehicular traffic Scarborough Golf Club Road Grade Separation Scarborough Golf Club Road Grade Separation Galloway Road Grade Separation Galloway Road Grade Separation Morningside Avenue Grade Separation Morningside Avenue Grade Separation Traffic Review Morningside Avenue and Galloway Road Scarborough Golf Club Road Situation . Morningside will be reduced to 2 • Closed for at least 2 years during lanes during construction. construction. Scarborough Golf Club Road will • Construct after grade separating be realigned to the east of the Scarborough Golf Club Road and work zone and remain as 2 lanes during construction. Morningside Avenue. Potential . Minimal traffic effects during . Closure during construction will result Effects construction. in traffic detours to Poplar Road. Will not impact traffic at other . Traffic may choose to use completed nearby intersections. grade separation at Morningside and Scarborough Golf Club Road. TTC bus service will continue on . Morningside during construction. Queues not expected to impact traffic at other nearby intersections. Mitigation . Implement a Traffic Staging and Management Plan during construction. Work with City of Toronto Transportation staff to review traffic calming measures to support the new grade separations. Potential Road/Rail Crossing Closures Poplar Road . Exploring option of closing Poplar road at the rail/road intersection. Low traffic volume * [46 Northbound/60 Southbound] . Close to proposed grade-separated routes. Potential for pedestrian/cycling tunnel or bridge will be discussed with the City of Toronto. Potential Road/Rail Crossing Closures Chesterton Shores Increased pedestrian/ cyclist safety concern Proposed 3rd track due to: 1. Increase in train frequency 2. Increased number of high speed train trips 3. Wider crossing with more tracks Park users will be able to access the park at a new Rouge Hill GO Station pedestrian tunnel. Change to island platform Assessment of Other Road/Rail Crossings Beechgrove Manse Road Drive Proposed Modifications – Manse Road & Beechgrove Drive: . Additional track planned across existing crossings. Crossings provide access to East Point Park, local industries and City of Toronto services. Low volume of traffic does not warrant grade separation. Road/rail crossing safety enhancements will be made. Assessment of Other Road/Rail Crossings Rodd Avenue Proposed Modifications – Rodd Avenue: . Additional track planned across existing crossing. Provides access to residential community and recreational/conservation area. Low volume of traffic does not warrant grade separation. Cannot be closed as it is the only access point. Road/rail crossing safety enhancements will be made. Rouge River Bridge Modifications Proposed Modifications: . Adding new bridge deck south of existing bridge . Remove old bridge and replace with new bridge . New bridge will be ballasted deck with metal truss Rouge River Bridge Modifications Highland Creek Bridge Modifications Proposed Modifications: . Adding two new bridge deck on either side of existing bridge . Widening centre pier to support new bridge decks . New bridges will be ballasted deck with metal truss Highland Creek Bridge Modifications Port Union Waterfront Park Modifications . Addition of the third track requires engineering solutions e.g. expanded embankments, retaining walls . Property requirements and treatment of new infrastructure in this location will be developed during detailed design in consultation with key stakeholders including the City of Toronto, TRCA and Parks Canada . Engineering solutions to enhance park user experience through design excellence/ landscaping The Assessment Process This project is being assessed under the Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP). The first step in project planning is determining the need for an assessment, which examines potential environmental effects of a project and how to address or mitigate any potential effects. In the context of this study, the definition of “environment” is broad, it includes: . Natural (e.g. vegetation, wildlife) . Socio-Economic (e.g. air, noise, land use) . Cultural (e.g. heritage, archaeological) Next Steps TPAP Notice of Commencement • Begin
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • Rouge River Rouge River
    Rouge River State of the Watershed Report Surface Water Quantity Goal: Surface waters of a quantity, volume and naturally variable rate of flow to: $ protect aquatic and terrestrial life and ecological functions; $ protect human life and property from risks due to flooding; $ contribute to the protection of Lake Ontario as a domestic drinking water source; $ support sustainable agricultural, industrial, and commercial water supply needs; $ support swimming, fishing and the opportunity to safely consume fish; and $ contribute to the removal of Toronto from the Great Lakes list of Areas of Concern. Surface Water Quantity Key Findings: The Main Rouge subwatershed has been subject to significant urbanization with an approximate total impervious cover of 18% as of 2002. Several studies suggest that the maximum impervious cover that a watershed can withstand before experiencing severe hydrologic changes and consequent geomorphic and ecological impacts is approximately 10%. There has been significantly less urbanization in the Little Rouge subwatershed and impervious surfaces make up only 2% of the subwatershed area. As a result, hydrologic impacts and related effects are much less severe than on the Main Rouge River. Average annual flows in the Main Rouge River show a long-term increasing trend of over 1.3% per year in the past 40 years. This rate of increase is significantly greater than that on the Little Rouge River or nearby rural watersheds and is indicative of the effect of urbanization on the hydrologic cycle. The Rouge River has become flashy and now generates high flows in response to rainfall events that caused almost no response in the river prior to widespread development.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume 5 Has Been Updated to Reflect the Specific Additions/Revisions Outlined in the Errata to the Environmental Project Report, Dated November, 2017
    DISCLAIMER AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY This Revised Final Environmental Project Report – Volume 5 has been updated to reflect the specific additions/revisions outlined in the Errata to the Environmental Project Report, dated November, 2017. As such, it supersedes the previous Final version dated October, 2017. The report dated October, 2017 (“Report”), which includes its text, tables, figures and appendices) has been prepared by Gannett Fleming Canada ULC (“Gannett Fleming”) and Morrison Hershfield Limited (“Morrison Hershfield”) (“Consultants”) for the exclusive use of Metrolinx. Consultants disclaim any liability or responsibility to any person or party other than Metrolinx for loss, damage, expense, fines, costs or penalties arising from or in connection with the Report or its use or reliance on any information, opinion, advice, conclusion or recommendation contained in it. To the extent permitted by law, Consultants also excludes all implied or statutory warranties and conditions. In preparing the Report, the Consultants have relied in good faith on information provided by third party agencies, individuals and companies as noted in the Report. The Consultants have assumed that this information is factual and accurate and has not independently verified such information except as required by the standard of care. The Consultants accept no responsibility or liability for errors or omissions that are the result of any deficiencies in such information. The opinions, advice, conclusions and recommendations in the Report are valid as of the date of the Report and are based on the data and information collected by the Consultants during their investigations as set out in the Report. The opinions, advice, conclusions and recommendations in the Report are based on the conditions encountered by the Consultants at the site(s) at the time of their investigations, supplemented by historical information and data obtained as described in the Report.
    [Show full text]
  • Land Use Study: Development in Proximity to Rail Operations
    Phase 1 Interim Report Land Use Study: Development in Proximity to Rail Operations City of Toronto Prepared for the City of Toronto by IBI Group and Stantec August 30, 2017 IBI GROUP PHASE 1 INTERIM REPORT LAND USE STUDY: DEVELOPMENT IN PROXIMITY TO RAIL OPERATIONS Prepared for City of Toronto Document Control Page CLIENT: City of Toronto City-Wide Land Use Study: Development in Proximity to Rail PROJECT NAME: Operations Land Use Study: Development in Proximity to Rail Operations REPORT TITLE: Phase 1 Interim Report - DRAFT IBI REFERENCE: 105734 VERSION: V2 - Issued August 30, 2017 J:\105734_RailProximit\10.0 Reports\Phase 1 - Data DIGITAL MASTER: Collection\Task 3 - Interim Report for Phase 1\TTR_CityWideLandUse_Phase1InterimReport_2017-08-30.docx ORIGINATOR: Patrick Garel REVIEWER: Margaret Parkhill, Steve Donald AUTHORIZATION: Lee Sims CIRCULATION LIST: HISTORY: Accessibility This document, as of the date of issuance, is provided in a format compatible with the requirements of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA), 2005. August 30, 2017 IBI GROUP PHASE 1 INTERIM REPORT LAND USE STUDY: DEVELOPMENT IN PROXIMITY TO RAIL OPERATIONS Prepared for City of Toronto Table of Contents 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose of Study ..................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Background .............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Cross-Boundary Transit Service Integration Pilot Project
    9.8 Date: May 25, 2021 Originator’s files: To: Chair and Members of General Committee From: Geoff Wright, P.Eng, MBA, Commissioner of Meeting date: Transportation and Works June 9, 2021 Subject Cross-Boundary Transit Service Integration Pilot Project Recommendation 1. That the report to General Committee entitled “Cross-Boundary Transit Service Integration Pilot Project” dated May 25, 2021 from the Commissioner of Transportation and Works be received for information. 2. That Phase 1 of the Service Integration Pilot Project recommendations for enhanced cross-boundary travel be received for information. Executive Summary The Ministry of Transportation has convened a Fare and Service Integration (FSI) Provincial-Municipal Table that includes representatives of all transit agencies and aims to improve connections and the customer experience for inter-municipal transit travel. The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) has engaged a consultant team to develop an agency-driven FSI model to present to the Provincial-Municipal Table in partnership with surrounding transit agencies including MiWay. Currently MiWay, along with several other 905 agencies, are prohibited from providing local service within City of Toronto, resulting in TTC providing duplicate service for their residents. In addition, transit fares are not integrated between the TTC and MiWay. In partnership with the TTC, the Burnhamthorpe Road corridor has been selected for a transit service integration pilot project in the near-term (targeting fall 2021). 9.8 General Committee 2021/05/25 2 Background For decades, transit service integration has been discussed and studied in the Greater Toronto Hamilton Area (GTHA). The Ministry of Transportation’s newly convened Fare and Service Integration (FSI) Provincial-Municipal Table consists of senior representatives from transit systems within the Greater Toronto Hamilton Area (GTHA) and the broader GO Transit service area.
    [Show full text]
  • DS-20-60 City Comments on Metrolinx's Draft Environmental Project Report for the New Track and Facilities Project
    Public Report To: Development Services Committee From: Warren Munro, HBA, RPP, Commissioner, Development Services Department Report Number: DS-20-60 Date of Report: June 3, 2020 Date of Meeting: June 8, 2020 Subject: City Comments on Metrolinx’s Draft Environmental Project Report for the New Track and Facilities Project File: B-7000-0020 1.0 Purpose The purpose of this report is to: a) Provide a high level overview of the information contained in Metrolinx’s Draft Environmental Project Report (“Draft E.P.R.”) for the New Track and Facilities Transit Project Assessment Process (T.P.A.P.); b) Highlight the information provided in the Draft E.P.R. that is specific to the work proposed in the City of Oshawa at the Oshawa GO Station at 915 Bloor Street West; and, c) Obtain Council’s approval of City comments on Metrolinx’s Draft E.P.R. for the New Track and Facilities T.P.A.P. Metrolinx has requested that comments on the Draft E.P.R. for the New Track and Facilities T.P.A.P. be submitted by May 29, 2020. However, City staff have confirmed with staff at Metrolinx that the submission of City comments after the requested deadline is acceptable and appropriate, in order that staff’s comments may be considered by the Development Services Committee at its regularly scheduled meeting of June 8, 2020 and submitted to Metrolinx for consideration, followed by the subsequent related resolution of Council. Attachment 1 is a copy of a letter erroneously dated April 27, 2019 and received in May of 2020, from Metrolinx providing a high-level overview of the information in the Draft E.P.R.
    [Show full text]
  • The Fish Communities of the Toronto Waterfront: Summary and Assessment 1989 - 2005
    THE FISH COMMUNITIES OF THE TORONTO WATERFRONT: SUMMARY AND ASSESSMENT 1989 - 2005 SEPTEMBER 2008 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to thank the many technical staff, past and present, of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and Ministry of Natural Resources who diligently collected electrofishing data for the past 16 years. The completion of this report was aided by the Canada Ontario Agreement (COA). 1 Jason P. Dietrich, 1 Allison M. Hennyey, 1 Rick Portiss, 1 Gord MacPherson, 1 Kelly Montgomery and 2 Bruce J. Morrison 1 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, ON, M3N 1S4, Canada 2 Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Lake Ontario Fisheries Management Unit, Glenora Fisheries Station, Picton, ON, K0K 2T0, Canada © Toronto and Region Conservation 2008 ABSTRACT Fish community metrics collected for 16 years (1989 — 2005), using standardized electrofishing methods, throughout the greater Toronto region waterfront, were analyzed to ascertain the current state of the fish community with respect to past conditions. Results that continue to indicate a degraded or further degrading environment include an overall reduction in fish abundance, a high composition of benthivores, an increase in invasive species, an increase in generalist species biomass, yet a decrease in specialist species biomass, and a decrease in cool water Electrofishing in the Toronto Harbour thermal guild species biomass in embayments. Results that may indicate a change in a positive community health direction include no significant changes to species richness, a marked increase in diversity in embayments, a decline in non-native species in embayments and open coasts (despite the invasion of round goby), a recent increase in native species biomass, fluctuating native piscivore dynamics, increased walleye abundance, and a reduction in the proportion of degradation tolerant species.
    [Show full text]
  • Rouge River Rouge River
    Rouge River State of the Watershed Report Cultural Heritage Goal: Recognition, preservation, and celebration of cultural heritage in the Rouge River watershed to increase awareness and understanding of past human relationships with the environment . Cultural Heritage Key Findings: • For 10,000 years, the Rouge River Watershed has been used by humans in some way, beginning with aboriginal hunters and farmers, explorers, traders, men of God, soldiers, surveyors, and finally settlers. • Over 1,360 archaeological and heritage sites located in the Rouge River watershed and historical accounts reveal the watershed is rich in heritage value. Knowledge gained from these sites and many more potential sites can provide an appreciation of past human relationships with the environment. • Early aboriginal inhabitants were nomadic hunters and later farmers and villagers with the introduction of agriculture about AD 700. The 3 acre Milroy site, overlooking Little Rouge River, is an example of a Late Woodland Iroquoian longhouse village, and one of a dozen such sites in the watershed. • European settlement began in Markham Township in the eighteenth century with the German-speaking Berczy settlement. Settlement in other parts of the watershed was slower due to absentee owners. • By 1861 there were 54 mills on the River. • Over 22 architectural styles lend a unique identity to the 19 th century Rouge River landscape. This array of architecture has arisen due to the sophistication and complexity of its Euro-Canadian settlers. • The 2001 Canadian census showed that in the Rouge River watershed people of Canadian or British heritage make up 31% of the population, with the remainder being Chinese (21%), East Indian (9%) and over 35 other cultures.
    [Show full text]
  • New Track and Facilities
    Public Meeting #1 Welcome to the GO Expansion OnCorridor Program GO Expansion – New Track & Facilities TPAP Scan here to visit project site Proposed Layover & Train Storage Additional layover/storage yard facilities are required to accommodate service expansion. Layover/storage yards are strategically located throughout the rail network. Layover and storage facilities are necessary to achieve the targeted GO Expansion service levels by: • Reducing long-distance non-revenue trips. 3 • Accommodating train storage during off-peak hours. • Allowing trains to be routinely serviced and cleaned. Train Wash Facility • Providing flexibility for trains to operate more seamlessly across the network. A structure for cleaning the 4 5 exterior of trains, similar to a 2 drive-thru car wash. Progressive Maintenance Facility • A sheltered 400 metre long garage for train maintenance. 1 Exterior Interior Example of the Willowbrook Layover Facility, City of Toronto Layovers Facilities typically include: 3) Waste Management 1) Train Storage 4) Crew Services 2) Cleaning and Servicing 5) Track, Switches and Utilities Lincolnville Layover Facility GO Expansion – New Track & Facilities TPAP Scan here to visit project site Proposed Beach Layover Facility - City of Burlington To meet increasing service levels, the Beach Layover Facility is required for: • Storing trains during the day and night. • Reducing rail congestion on the Lakeshore West Corridor. • Serving as the terminus of electrification of the corridor. Existing Site Proposed Site Design Elements: Surrounding
    [Show full text]
  • Information on Proposed Transfer of Trca and Zoo Lands to Rouge National Urban Park
    INFORMATION ON PROPOSED TRANSFER OF TRCA AND ZOO LANDS TO ROUGE NATIONAL URBAN PARK Parks Canada, Toronto Zoo and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority are responding to public statements made by interest groups concerning proposed revised boundaries of the Toronto Zoo’s lease with TRCA and the City of Toronto, as well as the subsequent transfer of TRCA lands to Parks Canada for Rouge National Urban Park. As a result of some misleading and inaccurate statements, there is a need and obligation to respond to ensure that accurate information is shared on the proposed boundary changes jointly planned and agreed to in principle by the Toronto Zoo, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and Parks Canada for the Rouge National Urban Park. Parks Canada: Created in 1911, Parks Canada is the world’s first and oldest national park service and manages one of the finest and most extensive systems of protected areas in the world, including 47 national parks, 171 national historic sites, four national marine conservation areas and, since 2015, Rouge National Urban Park. In 2017, the Government of Canada passed amendments to the Rouge National Urban Park Act to prioritize ecological integrity in the management of the park, while also providing long-term certainty for the park's farmers. The amendments ensure the Rouge Valley will have the strongest ecological protections in its history, while affirming the role of park farmers so they can continue to provide food for Canadians as they have been doing for centuries. Once fully established, Rouge National Urban Park will span 79.1 km2 in the heart of Canada's largest and most diverse metropolitan area, overlapping the cities of Toronto, Markham and Pickering and the Township of Uxbridge.
    [Show full text]
  • RESILIENT FOOD SYSTEMS, RESILIENT CITIES: a High-Level Vulnerability Assessment of Toronto’S Food System
    HL28.03Section 3 | Extreme Weather Attachment Events and Impact Areas in Toronto 1 RESILIENT FOOD SYSTEMS, RESILIENT CITIES: A High-Level Vulnerability Assessment of Toronto’s Food System Kimberly Zeuli, Austin Nijhuis and Zachary Gerson-Nieder July 2018 Resilient Food Systems, Resilient Cities | 0 Acknowledgements This report was prepared for Toronto Public Health (TPH). It benefited from a partnership between TPH and the Environment & Energy Division. The Initiative for a Competitive Inner City (ICIC) and Meister Consultants Group (MCG) would like to thank Toronto Public Health, the Project Advisory Committee, and Project Manager Ronald Macfarlane, for their leadership and insight. We are grateful for the valuable contributions provided by Project Advisory Committee members David T. MacLeod, Taryn Ridsdale, Brian Cook, and Barbara Emanuel. We also want to thank the public and private sector stakeholders from Toronto who shared expertise with us through interviews and meetings. The strength of the report is due to the contributions of our partners and the authors claim responsibility for all errors and omissions. For inquiries about this report, please contact Kim Zeuli at [email protected]. Project Team Kim Zeuli, Austin Nijhuis and Zachary Nieder at ICIC, in partnership with the Project Advisory Committee, led the study. The Project Advisory Committee included Ronald Macfarlane (Project Manager), Barbara Emanuel, David T. MacLeod, Taryn Ridsdale, and Brian Cook. Kathryn Wright, Julie Curti and Joyce Lam at Meister Consultants Group supported the study. The Initiative for a Competitive Inner City (ICIC) ICIC is a national, nonprofit research and advisory organization focused on driving urban economic development since 1994.
    [Show full text]
  • By-Law No. 2A
    BY-LAW NO. 2A METROLINX (the “Corporation”) A by-law to establish the fares that shall be charged for transit services and establish the approximate routes, locations and frequencies of the transit services provided BE IT ENACTED as a by-law of the Corporation as follows: By-law No. 2A of the Corporation is hereby repealed and the by-law contained herein shall become the by-law of the Corporation with respect to the subject matter contained herein. 1. DEFINITIONS 1.1 In this by-law and in all other by-laws of the Corporation, unless otherwise defined or the context otherwise requires: (a) “Child” or “children” means a person or group of persons who individually have not yet reached thirteen (13) years of age; (b) “Convenience Fee” means, with respect to the UP Express contactless payment program and subject to section 2.5, the $2.00 processing fee charged in addition to the base fare where an acceptable contactless payment media user fails to validate their ticket; (c) “Inspection Fare” means, with respect to the UP Express contactless payment program, the base fare for one-way travel between Union and Pearson stations, plus the Convenience Fee (d) “Max Fare” or “Maximum Fare” means the base fare amount that may be charged to a PRESTO electronic fare card and acceptable contactless payment media for one- way travel on the transit system within the Tariff of Fares enumerated zones and represented by the furthest distance on the train line or bus route on which the journey was initiated, which amounts may be further set out on the Corporation’s Public Websites (e) “Minor” means a child who has not yet reached six (6) years of age; (f) “Tariff of Fares” means the Tariff of Fares attached hereto, setting out the amount to be paid for single one-way travel on the transit system within the enumerated zones, as determined by the Corporation from time to time in accordance with By-law 2A, approved by the Board of Directors the 26th of November, 2020 with effect as of January 1st, 2021 pursuant to Subsection 8.1(3) of the Metrolinx Act, 2006.
    [Show full text]