toronto transit commission public meeting · ttc ashbridges bay lrv fleet, maintenance and storage...

t: 416.410.3888· f: 416.536.3453 515 Consumers Road - Suite 201 Toronto, Ontario M2J 4Z2, Canada [email protected] · www.lura.ca

Toronto Transit Commission

Public Meeting

Ashbridges Bay LRV Fleet Maintenance and Storage Facility

April 8, 2010 Summary Report

Prepared by Lura Consulting

April 2010

This summary report was prepared by Lura Consulting. Lura is providing third-party consultation management services as part of the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) and the City of Toronto Transit City projects. This summary captures the key comments submitted during the noted Public Meeting. It is not intended as a verbatim transcript. If you have any questions or comments regarding the summary, please contact:

Lito Romano Community Liaison Officer Strategic Partnerships, Transit City Toronto Transit Commission 416-397-8699 [email protected]

Lisa Josephson Project Manager Lura Consulting Phone: 416-410-3888 x 4 [email protected]

i

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1

2. Public Notification ........................................................................................................................... 2

2.1. TTC Mailings / Notifications ....................................................................................................................... 2

3. Comment Summary .......................................................................................................................... 3

3.1. Top Comments and Concerns ........................................................................................................................... 3

4. Comments Received from the Public Meeting ................................................................................ 4

4.1. Routing Options ................................................................................................................................................... 4 4.1.1. Leslie St. Routing Option ........................................................................................................................... 4 4.1.2. Connaught Ave. Routing Options ............................................................................................................ 5 4.1.3. Coxwell Ave. / Lake Shore Blvd. Routing Option ................................................................................ 5 4.1.4. Cherry St. / Commissioners St. Routing Option ................................................................................... 6 4.1.5. Eastern Ave. Routing Options .................................................................................................................. 6 4.1.6. Pape Ave. / Eastern Ave. / Leslie St. Routing Option ........................................................................ 6 4.1.7. Carlaw Ave. / Lake Shore Blvd. Routing Option .................................................................................. 6 4.1.8. Alternative Suggestions for Routing Options ......................................................................................... 6 4.1.9. General Routing Comments ...................................................................................................................... 7

4.2. Maintenance and Storage Facilities.................................................................................................................... 7 4.2.1. Lake Shore and Leslie Location ................................................................................................................ 7 4.2.2. Russell / Connaught Yard ......................................................................................................................... 7 4.2.3. Other Site Location Suggestions ............................................................................................................... 8

4.3. New Streetcars / Light Rail Vehicles (LRVs) and Platforms ........................................................................ 8 4.3.1. Design ........................................................................................................................................................... 8 4.3.2. Accessibility .................................................................................................................................................. 9

4.4. Other Concerns .................................................................................................................................................... 9 4.4.1. Ashbridges Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant ......................................................................................... 9 4.4.2. Consultation, and Facilitation Suggestions .............................................................................................. 9 4.4.3. Project Assessment and Analysis ............................................................................................................ 10 4.4.4. Environment and Health ......................................................................................................................... 11 4.4.5. Traffic Management .................................................................................................................................. 11 4.4.6. Safety ........................................................................................................................................................... 12 4.4.7. Noise and Vibration .................................................................................................................................. 12 4.4.8. Alternative Technology ............................................................................................................................ 12 4.4.9. Service ......................................................................................................................................................... 12 4.4.10. Construction Methods and Impacts ....................................................................................................... 12 4.4.11. City Services ............................................................................................................................................... 13 4.4.12. Cost .............................................................................................................................................................. 13 4.4.13. Parking ........................................................................................................................................................ 13 4.4.14. Other ........................................................................................................................................................... 13

5. Appendices ..................................................................................................................................... 13

A. Copy of the Public Meeting Booklet B. Summary of Public Meeting Introductions and Questions and Answers C. Public Notifications D. Meeting Notice to all Potential Routes E. Stakeholder Communications

ii

(This page meant to be blank)

TTC ASHBRIDGES BAY LRV FLEET, MAINTENANCE AND STORAGE FACILITY APRIL 8, 2010 PUBLIC MEETING SUMMARY REPORT

Page | 1

1. Introduction Background New maintenance and storage facilities must be added to Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) operations to accommodate new streetcars and enhance transit service for the community. One of those facilities will be in the City’s southeast end so streetcars can access it from the Queen Street East streetcar tracks. In December, 2009 Toronto City Council approved a settlement with the Toronto Port Authority to transfer ownership of the selected Ashbridges property to the City for TTC use and the TTC (Commission) approved the use of this property for streetcar maintenance and storage facility. One hundred new streetcars will be stored at the Ashbridges Bay Fleet Maintenance and Storage Facility to be built at the south east corner of Lake Shore Boulevard and Leslie Street. The Ashbridges storage and maintenance facility is to be completed in 2013 in time for the delivery of the first 36 streetcars. The new storage facilities will be built to Toronto Green Development Standards, and staff will follow environmentally friendly practices to ensure the site is energy efficient and environmentally friendly.

Public Meeting

The City of Toronto and the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) hosted a Public Meeting on April 8th at the EMS Academy (895 Eastern Avenue, Toronto), to discuss the route to be taken by the new streetcars from the Queen Street East tracks to the Ashbridges Facility. The Public Meeting was a follow-up to the June 2009 Open Houses on site options and the Public Open House held on February 18th, 2010 to gather feedback on alternative design options for the Ashbridges Bay Facility and connection track to link the facility to the existing streetcar network. The February Open House also introduced the proposed Maintenance and Storage Facility project, including potential layouts, existing site conditions and criteria to be used in the future Transit Project Assessment process. Concerns were expressed by local residents - particularly residents of Leslie Street-- on Feb 18th and following the open house regarding the use of Leslie for the connection track. Specific objection was also raised towards the use of a dedicated right of way for the streetcars. Following Feb 18th, TTC undertook analysis of a number of alternative routes with the streetcars operating in mixed traffic and dropped the dedicated right-of-way design for any of the route options.

Jim Faught, Director of Community Engagement with Lura Consulting, was retained by the TTC to provide neutral third party facilitation for the Public Meeting. Following brief introductions by Councillors Bussin and Fletcher, MPP Peter Tabuns and TTC Chair Adam Giambrone, as well as a PowerPoint presentation by Bill Dawson (TTC - Director of Route and System Planning), the floor was opened to the public for questions. Members of the TTC, the City of Toronto, and the project team were available to provide answers. During the Public Meeting and up-to and including April 20, 2010, participants were invited to write down their ideas and opinions on comment forms, located within a booklet that was distributed to the public as they arrived to the meeting. The booklet detailed information on the project such as: project overview, new vehicles (noise reduction methods: wheels, wheel-axle assembly, and suspension), site selection process and routing options. For a copy of the booklet, please see Appendix A. The comments were submitted at the registration table or by email, fax or post. In addition to the comment forms, Lura


Page | 2

staff recorded the questions and answers as they arose throughout the meeting. For a summary of welcoming remarks, and question and answer period, please see Appendix B. This report summarizes the comments received through the Public Meeting and other communication channels up to and including April 20th, 2010. Over the course of the Public Meeting, a total of 257 (signed in) participants attended the meeting and 59 comment forms were submitted. Since then, the public was also able to provide comments online or via telephone. Between April 8 and 20, TTC received 35 comments via email and telephone, many of which were questions, comments and/or requests to be added to the mailing list. For a summary of top comments and concerns, refer to Section 3. For a summary of all comments received between April 8th and 20th, refer to Section 4.

2. Public Notification The following section lists the methods used to notify stakeholders and the public about the Ashbridges Bay Maintenance and Storage Facility Public Meeting held on April 8th. A copy of the newspaper ad/flyer is provided at the end of the document in Appendix C.

2.1. TTC Mailings / Notifications Notifications

• On March 23, 2010: o 18,141 notices (English and Chinese) were delivered within the area of Kingston

Rd. to Gerrard St. to the north, Lee Ave. to the east, Logan Ave to the west, and south to the lake.

o 400 notices were mailed and/or emailed to all who had expressed interest to date. • On March 31 and April 1, 2010: E-mail and door to door delivery of additional

Meeting Notice with the Alternative Route Map (English and Chinese) to all potential routes and project e-mail list.

Newspaper Ads

• The Beaches Mirror March 25, 2010 • The Metro on Tuesday, March 30th.

Community Postering

• On March 24, 2010: Meeting Posters (English and Chinese) were distributed on Queen St. East from Pape to Coxwell.

Meeting Notices Mailed to All Potential Routes

• On March 26, 2010: a total of 2470 meeting notices were mailed to all potential routes (see Appendix D).


Page | 3

3. Comment Summary A summary of the top issues and comments raised between April 8 and 20, 2010 are presented below, with detailed comments provided in Section 4.

3.1. Top Comments and Concerns • Routing Options

o Many comments were opposed to the Leslie Street and Connaught Avenue routing options. Opposition was due to various factors such as: traffic management, safety concerns, residential disturbances, noise and vibration levels from transit vehicles and loss of parking/front yard impacts (which are specific to the Connaught option).

o Those who favoured the Leslie Street routing option included the following: less residential disturbance compared to other routes, cost effective and a useful passenger/revenue route.

o Other favourable routing options included the Coxwell Avenue and Commissioners Street routing options. Reasons were: less residential disturbance compared to other routes, better TTC access to the Beaches. Also, specific to Commissioners Street, many comments urged TTC to find a solution to going over Cherry Street lift-bridge at Keating Channel as this would be a good option.

o In general, comments indicated that the route with the least impacts to residents makes the most sense.

• Maintenance and Storage Facility Location o Many comments were opposed to the Lake Shore and Leslie location. The main reason

indicated that the opposition was due to the residential setting. o Many comments indicated that the site should be located somewhere on Unwin Street.

• Consultation and Project Analysis o In regards to project analysis, project thinking is short-term, but it requires a long-term

vision. o Many people indicated that they were unsatisfied with the consultation process,

believing their concerns were going unheeded. (Note: the facilitated public meeting format on April 8th was arranged in direct response to resident comments asking for this specific type of consultation.)

o Creativity is necessary to find an optimal solution. o Assessment is not objective but is rather being conducted to suit the TTC’s plans. o Justifications for project decisions are weak, since they seem to be dictated only by

costs. • Environment and Safety Concerns

o Many felt that access to the waterfront parks and bike trail would be obstructed and that the TTC should not use green space for a TTC yard.

o Concerns regarding pedestrian and cyclist safety at Leslie and Lake Shore. • Traffic and Other Concerns

o Traffic congestion concerns due to increased streetcar traffic. o Noise and vibration concerns.

• Support o Although there are no optimal solutions, the project is important for the greater public

good. o General praise for LRV design.


Page | 4

4. Comments Received from the Public Meeting A summary of all comments received is presented below, beginning April 8 and ending April 20, 2010. The comments are grouped by topic, and type of comment. One asterisk (*) illustrates comments mentioned between 2 – 4 times. Two asterisks (**) illustrates comments mentioned between than 5 – 9 times. Three asterisks (***) illustrates comments mentioned 10 or more times. Letters submitted by stakeholders can be found in Appendix E.

4.1. Routing Options A large number of individuals objected to the Leslie St. routing option (section 4.1.1) and all of the Connaught Ave. routing options (section 4.1.2), voicing their concerns through comment forms, emails, a form letter, and a petition. Eight form letters were submitted to the TTC from the residents opposing the Leslie St. routing option, and an additional nineteen were received prior to the February 18 Open House, for a total of twenty-seven. Eight Connaught Ave. residents submitted petitions opposing all Connaught routing options. For a sample of both form letter and petition, please refer to Appendix E.

4.1.1. Leslie St. Routing Option

o Opposed to Leslie Street routing option. *** o Traffic management is a major concern. *** o Concern for loss of parking. *** o Noise levels of transit vehicles will be too great. *** o Potential decrease in property values. ** o Concerns about noise and disruption from track construction. ** o Concern regarding safety. ** o Residential disturbance will be too impactful. ** o Access to commercial operations will be too difficult. * o May lead to sleep depravation and health problems. * o Potential negative impact on quality of life. * o The sharp turn makes it difficult to keep noise at an acceptable level. o Concern regarding damage to older houses due to vibration. o Homeowners would have to be compensated through the TTC’s property

protection plan. o Homeowners will not stop fighting to oppose this option, and therefore a

class action lawsuit is possible. o In favour of Leslie Street routing option. ***

o Less residential disturbance compared to other routes. ** o Cost effective. * o Useful passenger / revenue route. * o Already a throughfare. * o Most efficient route option. * o Those opposed are displaying NIMBYism. * o Impact on Leslie Street would not be severe. o Less expectation for quiet on Leslie. o If Leslie and Lake Shore is chosen as the location for the maintenance and

storage facility, the wastewater treatment plant should be improved upon. o Motor vehicles can find alternative routes.


Page | 5

4.1.2. Connaught Ave. Routing Options

o Opposed to Connaught Avenue routing options. *** o Residential disruptions will be too great. ***

“[Track] expansion will kill a vibrant community.” “I don’t want to see my home equity obliterated.”

o Connaught Avenue would be more negatively impacted than other proposed streets. ***

o The Avenue is too small for large new streetcars. *** o Expropriation of land is outrageous and expensive. *** o Removal of trees is a concern. * o Although currently used for streetcars, traffic would increase substantially.

*** o Routes would also adversely affect residents on Woodfield Rd. and Eastern

Ave. *** o Concern regarding loss of parking. * o Heritage significance of the area would be diminished.

“The corner of Queen Street East and Connaught Avenue is a historic junction for the City of Toronto and the residents of Leslieville. The Ashbridge Estate is located directly opposite this corner, and to route streetcars down this road would ruin the architectural and historic significance of this corner.”

o Hydroelectric lines would have to be moved at a great cost. o Pedestrian and cyclists would be negatively impacted. o The route is inefficient because there are too many turns. o Dust from streetcar braking systems would penetrate the houses and affect

the air quality. o The safety of children at play along this Avenue would be jeopardized.

o In favour of Connaught Avenue routing option. * o Minimized residential disruption. * o Cost effective. o Connaught Ave. should be resurfaced with the new rubber mounted tracks

as soon as possible as it is in bad condition. Question: o Who put Connaught up as an option?

4.1.3. Coxwell Ave. / Lake Shore Blvd. Routing Option

o In favour of the Coxwell Avenue routing option. *** o Less residential disturbance compared to other routes. ** o Better TTC access to the Beaches. * o Already a thoroughfare. o Useful passenger / revenue route. o Less expectation for quiet along Coxwell Ave. o Good option, but wary of traffic. o Fewer impacts to parking than other routes. o Less property required compared to other routes.


Page | 6

o Less noise disruption compared to other routes.

4.1.4. Cherry St. / Commissioners St. Routing Option

o In favour of the Commissioners Street routing option. *** o Find a solution to going over Cherry Street lift-bridge at Keating Channel.

** o Commissioners Street makes sense given the future residents and

businesses that will be in the area. * o The bridge crossing could be facilitated by a design competition. o The bridge location could be moved to coincide with the Don Spillway

redevelopment. o Given the reduced residential impacts, it is likely that taxpayers would not

mind paying for a new bridge. o Two dredging machines, one on each side of the bridge, could be used so

that the bridge does not have to be a lift-style bridge. o This route has less traffic. o Commissioners Street is designated as a “high order transit corridor”. o This route could be a revenue-generating route. o This route could connect with Queens Quay. o Cherry Street provides access to a popular concert venue, Cherry Beach, a

new sports field facility, and a soon to be constructed four pad ice rink. o Commissioners Street could be accessed using Lake Shore and Don

Roadway.

4.1.5. Eastern Ave. Routing Options

o Opposed to the Eastern Avenue routing option. o Traffic management along Eastern Ave. will be difficult due to the number

of large employers along Eastern Avenue.

4.1.6. Pape Ave. / Eastern Ave. / Leslie St. Routing Option

o Opposed to the Pape Avenue routing option. o Residential disruption will be too great. *

4.1.7. Carlaw Ave. / Lake Shore Blvd. Routing Option

o In favour of Carlaw / Lake Shore routing option if existing rails down the centre of Lake Shore are used.

4.1.8. Alternative Suggestions for Routing Options

o Build a new, dedicated route below ground. ** o Build a new, dedicated route above ground. * o If the entrance to the Ashbridges Bay Facility were placed on the east instead of the

west, other currently less desirable routes would become considerably shorter. * o Build a bridge from Russell / Connaught Yard over Eastern Avenue leading directly

into the new facility. o Use Broadview Avenue to Eastern Avenue. o Use Woodward Avenue:


Page | 7

o It is closer and less costly than some other routes. o It would have a minimal impact on residents o It can be widened by expropriating park space on the west side.

o Use Lake Shore as a throughway to connect Queen’s Quay and Cherry Street. o Use the existing railroad track behind Canadian Tire to avoid Leslie Street. o Have more than one facility entrance and exit to distribute streetcar traffic and its

inconvenience to residents.

4.1.9. General Routing Comments

o Any route that least impacts residents makes the most sense. ** o Running a route along Lake Shore Boulevard between Woodbine or Coxwell and

Union Station would combine with the Queen Street route to create a loop that would carry people quickly and allow for more options should a streetcar breakdown.

o Request for dates when the site and route are confirmed, to sell house if necessary. o Too many routing options. o Pick a street with the fewest taxpayers.

4.2. Maintenance and Storage Facilities

4.2.1. Lake Shore and Leslie Location

o Opposed to the Lake Shore and Leslie location. *** o Due to residential setting. ** o “The proposed facility's location will now re-industrialize an area that

focused on recapturing industrialized land, new low rise shopping, new bike trails, new sidewalks, decommissioning of the Hearn generating station, etc. making it more pleasant to the Martin Goodman trail users, the Beach residents, and the Eastern Beaches visitors/users of all Toronto.”

o Data were collected and interpreted in such a way as to support the TTC’s decision to use Leslie.

o The Ashbridges site is too far south considering where the routes LRVs will be running.

o Surprised that a large-scale industrial project is being planned for the waterfront.

o No change to land use at Lake Shore and Leslie should be made until every option has been thoroughly and creatively explored.

o In favour of Lake Shore and Leslie location. *

Questions: o Why are the options only being presented in relation to the Ashbridges Bay facility? o Will the facility be LEED certified?

4.2.2. Russell / Connaught Yard

o Streetcar access between Queen St E and Eastern Ave does not necessarily have to use two sets of tracks on Connaught Ave.

o Suggestion to alter the yard and avoid using Connaught at all. * o Suggestion to alter the yard and keep one set of tracks on Connaught.

o TTC should sell the site. *


Page | 8

o Site should be closed and replaced with a public space. * o Expand Ashbridges and/or Roncesvalles sites and close Russell / Connaught Yard. o In favour of using Russell / Connaught Yard for new LRVs. o Map of Russell / Connaught Yard used in TTC presentation is incorrect.

Questions: o What is the future of the Russell / Connaught Yard? **

o Will it be renovated, and if so, how? * o What will the routing around the yard be like?

4.2.3. Other Site Location Suggestions

o Locate the site in the Portlands. *** o Locate site somewhere on Unwin Street. *** o Do not locate the site on Unwin Street, since it is a desirable location better

suited to other projects. o Locate site somewhere on Commissioners Street. ** o “The site on Commissioners at the end of Logan would be ideal to connect

to: don't have a bridge to go over; don't have train tracks; builds a true commercial facility on commercial lands and not in an area affecting residences on mixed-use lands (i.e., Ashbridges).”

o Locate site on industrial land: Canada Metal Plant; Victoria Soya Mill. o Locate the site on Eastern Avenue at Booth Avenue. **

o A location on Eastern Avenue should be considered only if residential impacts are smaller than at Lake Shore and Leslie.

o Do not locate the site on Eastern Avenue, since it is designated employment land and is therefore useful for other projects.

o Locate the site at the Hillcrest Complex. o Move the buses that are currently housed there to another location and

expand it for the new streetcars. o Redesign the yard as necessary. o A cost-benefit analysis may show that increased north-south distances as a

result of using this site are offset by shorter east-west distances. o Costs may be lower compared to building a brand new Ashbridges facility.

o Consider review of other neighbourhoods. * o Have smaller and more maintenance and storage facilities around the city. * o Locate the site by the Queensway near the Food Terminal. o Do not re-open the site selection process. Question: o How will a proposed power generating station that was rumoured to be placed in the

Portlands area affect the overhead tracks?

4.3. New Streetcars / Light Rail Vehicles (LRVs) and Platforms

4.3.1. Design

o General praise for LRV design. ** o Appreciation for capacity increase. *


Page | 9

o Vehicle seats look too small. o Vehicle seats should face forward, not towards the interior. o Bigger is not necessarily better.

4.3.2. Accessibility

o Interest expressed in increased accessibility of new LRV fleet. o Access for strollers will improve, thereby incenting use.

Question: o Will a motorized wheelchair be able to pass another motorized wheelchair on the LRV

platforms?

4.4. Other Concerns

4.4.1. Ashbridges Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant

o The new Maintenance and Storage Facility will: o Impede treatment plant expansion. ** o Reduce treatment plant efficiency. * o Remove existing berms that protect the area from a potential chlorine

explosion at the treatment plant. * o Impede stormwater treatment. o Infract on the 1999 Mediated Agreement.

o Concerns about the need for an Environmental Report on the Ashbridges Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant. **

o The lack of an expert on the Ashbridges Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant at the Public Open House demonstrates that the site location is a mistake.

Question: o How will the City of Toronto cope with need for increased sewage treatment and plant

expansion if the TTC maintenance and storage facility is placed at Lake Shore and Leslie? (Note: Toronto Water GM spoke directly to the treatment plant issues at the Ashbridges Bay Neighbourhood Liaison Committee Public Meeting, held on April 19, 2010.)

4.4.2. Consultation, and Facilitation Suggestions

o Consultation: o Unsatisfactory consultation. *** o Well-facilitated public meeting. * o Need more consultation with residents on Connaught Avenue. * o Refusal to answer questions directly results in reduced TTC credibility. o Talking about the new streetcars was a diversion from the real issue of

affecting the local community. (Note: many concerns were raised about noise and vibration from new vehicles and requests for more info was made at previous consultation).

o The decision matrix should have been included in the workbook, since it was difficult to see on screen.


Page | 10

o Some information presented from the June Public Open House was incorrect.

o Consultation report from the June Public Open House makes it clear that participants did not prefer the Ashbridges site.

o Need for better moderating of unruly public meeting participants. o Disappointed that there was no discussion of route options at previous

Public Open Houses. o Previously used Public Open House format not conducive to asking good

questions. o Potential contractors should be in attendance at meetings. o Lack of timely communication. o Answers should address concerns directly. o Promises that cannot be kept should not be made. o Public Meeting venue should have a rear entrance and exit.

o Facilitation Suggestions: o Facilitator was not always listening actively. o Facilitator should know and use the name of the person speaking. o Paraphrasing concerns, comments, and questions can help clarify issues

and expedite meetings. o Certain audience opinions can be gauged using a “show of hands”. o Inappropriate to have the neutral facilitator answer questions.

4.4.3. Project Assessment and Analysis

o Project thinking is short-term, but it requires a long-term vision. *** o Creativity is necessary to find an optimal solution. *** o Assessment is not objective but is rather being conducted to suit the TTC’s plans.

** o Justifications for project decisions are weak, since they seem to be dictated only

by costs. ** o Request for a full Environmental Assessment in order to provide a full analysis. *

“TTC has made a very poor presentation defending what appears to be a totally impractical proposal, lacking: life cycle costing (if we are supposed to be green); a traffic study; issues around safety; environmental impact, sand, dirt, etc. A full environmental assessment would answer these questions.”

o Project is being forced upon local community. * o Learn from examples of European transit projects. * o TTC’s own needs seem to be more highly valued than that of its riders or the

local community. * o Sense that expediency is valued more than good planning. * o Faulty analysis was presented during the Public Meeting, resulting from not

counting residences correctly. * o Project assessment suffers from a lack of honesty from the project team. o Guiding project principle should be: first do no harm. o Disillusioned with City Council and the TTC for their lack of judgment. o Impact of the project could be devastating. o TTC has a history of ignoring community concerns.


Page | 11

o TTC “put the cart before the horse” by ordering the new streetcars before figuring out how to get them to a maintenance and storage facility.

o Analysis presented needs further clarification. o Offer put forth to help consultants count single family dwellings on all routes. o Good technical analysis and rating. o Process should be sped up. o The formation of a joint committee should be considered, comprising members

from the City of Toronto, TTC, and citizens. o TTC Executives should be willing to try living on whatever route is chosen. o Make it more attractive for people to use the TTC. o Subsidize Leslie Street residents with sound proof glass on their front windows. o Project should fit in with the City of Toronto’s waterfront planning.

4.4.4. Environment and Health

o Disruption to waterfront park and bike trail access. ** o Should not use park space for TTC yard. ** o Air pollution concern due to dust particles from vehicle braking systems. * o Support for emission-free streetcars. * o Contaminated soil may be churned up during construction. * o Disruption to bird nesting. o The TTC should commission an independent report on environmental impacts. o Any route that negatively impacts residents’ health through sleep deprivation violates

the 1999 Mediation Agreement.

Questions: o What mitigation measures will be used to minimize effects of contaminated soil

removal? * o What preventative measures will be used to minimize environmental impact? o What are the impacts of the project on wildlife, soil, water, and air? o How are TTC employees going to be protected from the health hazards associated with

working close to a wastewater treatment plant? o What material will be emitted from the maintenance and storage facility? o How much and what sort of material shedding from the new vehicles’ wheels will be

released on the route?

4.4.5. Traffic Management

o Traffic congestion concerns due to increased streetcar traffic. *** o Concerns regarding potential obstruction due to out-of-service LRV. * o Lake Shore traffic will be hindered no matter which route is chosen. o Concerns from potential traffic build-up due to accessibility ramps from new LRVs. o Exacerbation of holiday weekend traffic will only impede route chosen. o Traffic congestion due to unscheduled maintenance trips. o Traffic patterns should be recorded using cameras and analyzed. o The TTC should commission an independent report on traffic flows.


Page | 12

Questions: o How long will streetcars take to leave yard at morning rush hour? o What effect will TTC employees driving to the yards have on traffic? o Can and will TTC employees use transit to get to the facility? o What traffic control mechanisms will be employed? o What extra measures will be taken at the launch of the new facility?

4.4.6. Safety

o Concerns regarding pedestrian and cyclist safety at Leslie and Lake Shore. ** o Concern regarding children safety due to increased LRV traffic. o Traffic control devices should be utilized to protect passengers exiting the vehicles. o Concerns regarding potential safety hazard due to accessibility ramps from new LRVs. o Concerns regarding the size of vehicles (x 2): “I do have concerns about the length of

[the streetcars] – specifically regarding blockage of car/truck traffic (i.e., frustrated drivers [may] aggressively pass streetcars after the doors close). This is a major hazard to pedestrians, cyclists, and riders, and will only be exacerbated by larger streetcars.”

o Routing should allow users of Martin Goodman Trail to cross safely.

4.4.7. Noise and Vibration

o Noise and vibration concerns. ** o Support for noise-reduction features on LRVs and tracks. * o Negative impact to residents, especially from early morning noise. * o Noise affected by human behaviour; faster streetcars are louder. o Concern regarding the movement and work in the carhouse at all times of the night.

4.4.8. Alternative Technology

o Subways preferred over LRVs. * o Opposed to using streetcars. * o “Double Decker” vehicles preferred over LRVs. Question: o Are streetcars being used because they are the best option?

4.4.9. Service

o Ridership along proposed routes does not justify the scale of project. * o Concern that the length of the vehicle will hinder service frequency. o Wasteful for large LRVs to service few passengers at off-peak times.

4.4.10. Construction Methods and Impacts

o Construction should not occur 24 hours a day. o Concerns about construction must be addressed prior to construction, not after. o A construction situation like the one on Bathurst Street when the streetcar tracks were

replaced is undesirable.


Page | 13

4.4.11. City Services

o The LRVs will negatively impact garbage pickup. o Concern that LRVs and tracks will impact road maintenance and snow removal.

4.4.12. Cost

o The project is a waste of money. * o The cost of vehicles is not justified by their life expectancy. o Changes to track grades and the use of standard LRVs would have been less costly in

the long-term compared to buying customized LRVs.

4.4.13. Parking

o Concern regarding potential loss of parking in the neighbourhood.

4.4.14. Other

o Although there are no optimal solutions, the project is important for the greater public good. *

5. Appendices

A. Copy of the Public Meeting Booklet

B. Summary of Public Meeting Introductions and Questions and Answers

C. Public Notifications • Ashbridges Bay LRV Fleet, Maintenance and Storage Facility Ad/flyer

D. Meeting Notice to all Potential Routes

E. Stakeholder Communications


APPENDIX A

Copy of the Public Meeting Booklet

Ashbridges Bay TTC Facility for Improved Streetcars

www.ttc.ca

ljosephson

Text Box

Public Meeting Workbook

Please submit your comments this evening or by April 20, 2010 to:

Lito Romano TTC Community Liaison 5160 Yonge Street, 13th Floor Toronto, ON M2N 6L9 Tel: 416-397-8699

Email: [email protected]: www.toronto.ca/involved/projects/lrv

12 1

ljosephson

Text Box


11

Project Overview Purpose of Project

A new transit facility at Ashbridges Bay will make the following transit improvements possible:

• Accessible, low-fl oor streetcars

• Enhanced access for people with disabilities, seniors, families with strollers

• Multiple doors to signifi cantly speed boarding times

• Proof of payment system to reduce line-ups

• Accommodation for bicycles

• Air conditioning in the summer to enhance passenger comfort

In order to provide these service improvements, a new Maintenance and Storage Facility is necessary to store and maintain the new streetcars. One hundred of the 204 new streetcars will be stored at the Ashbridges Bay Facility.

Q: Why is a new facility needed?

A: Roncesvalles and Russell (Connaught) facilities cannot fully accommodate the new vehicles. Both are over 80 years old, and have insuffi cient space within the existing buildings to service and store the new, longer streetcars. Furthermore, in order to create enough space at these facilities, rebuilding and expanding into adjacent residential neighbourhoods would be required. These two facilities are large enough to store only 52 new streetcars at each site out of the 204 total.

Q: Are other maintenance and storage facilities being planned in Toronto?

A: Yes! In order to enhance transit in Toronto, new facilities are imperative to support the vehicle needs. Transit improvements cannot be made without new infrastructure. Facilities are planned across the City, including on Sheppard, Eglinton and Finch Avenue.

Overview

Q1 Do you have any other comments, recommendations or questions about the project?

2

ljosephson

Text Box


10

New VehiclesFeatures and Enhancements

Q: What are the key improvements of the new streetcars to be used on existing lines?

A: The new streetcars will be accessible. They are about twice the length of the existing shorter streetcars and have more seats and room for standing passengers. Additional new features include highly visible LED destination signs, air conditioning, interior accommodation for bicycles, large windows, and passenger assistance alarms.

Measures to Reduce Noise and Vibration

The new streetcar will be designed to minimize noise and vibration

• The TTC will follow a comprehensive noise and vibration control plan.

• Specifi ed noise and vibration levels will be achieved by careful selection, design, location, and installation of components on the new streetcar.

• Noise and vibration levels will be predicted with simulation software before the new streetcars are built.

• The fi rst three new streetcars will be tested on Toronto streets for 9 months to ensure the established criteria has been achieved.

• Several components of the new streetcar will be designed to minimize noise and vibration. Some examples are listed below.

Vibration Reducing Components:

• Wheels

• Wheel-Axle Assembly

• Suspension

Routing Options

Q1: What do you like/dislike about the routing option(s)?

Q2: Do you have any comments/recommendations on any specific route?

3

ljosephson

Text Box


9

WheelsTypical Semi-Soft Wheel Advanced Softer Wheel

• Most rail vehicles use stiff wheels.

• Typical European streetcars use semi-soft wheels.

• TTC will use advanced softer wheels on the new streetcar.

• Softer wheels tend to transmit less vibrations into the ground than other wheel types.

Wheel-Axle Assembly• Unsuspended mass hung

on the wheel-axle assembly has a major impact on vibration.

• Vibration levels can be minimized by reducing this mass.

• Efforts are being made to minimize this mass on the new streetcar and it will be less than that of existing TTC streetcars.

Comments & QuestionsNew Streetcars (Light Rail Vehicles/LRVs)

Q1: Do you have any comments/recommendations regarding the new streetcars?

4

ljosephson

Text Box


8

SuspensionIn addition to softer wheels and reduced wheel-axle assembly mass, the new streetcar has two sets of suspension to minimize vibration.

Primary Suspension Secondary Suspension

Rubber Spring Hydraulic Damper Coil Spring

Vehicle Consultations - www.ttc.ca/LRV

Additional consultations specifi c to the new vehicles will be taking place starting later in April. We’d like to get additional feedback to assist with the detailed design of the vehicles. We will be launching a project website (www.ttc.ca/LRV), as well as hosting a series of public meetings and a number of focus groups.

Routing Options

5

ljosephson

Text Box


6 7

Site Selection Process:How did we get here?

What?

In August 2009, the TTC awarded a contract to Bombardier for the purchase of 204 modern and accessible streetcars to replace its existing vehicle fl eet. A new maintenance and storage facility (MSF) is required to maintain and store the new vehicles.

Why?

In addition to routine maintenance activities, the new Ashbridges facility will store 100 vehicles and provide fl eet repair services to up to 20 vehicles at a time. The current streetcars are 15 metres in length, each new streetcar will be double the size at 30 metres and will provide additional capacity and increase service reliability.

Features & Benefits

The new Maintenance and Storage Facility will be a state-of-the-art

complex designed to Toronto Green Building Standards which will result in measurable improvements to air and water quality; increase energy and water effi ciency, reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The surrounding area will include green space and a parkette located at the North West corner of the site.

How was the Ashbridges site selected?

A city-wide property search for sites for the proposed Maintenance and Storage Facility was initiated in February 2009 and was based on the following criteria:

• Property requirement approximately 22 acres

• Close proximity to existing streetcar network

• Minimal relocation of existing business and facilities

• Minimize crossing of existing rail road tracks

In total, 14 sites were evaluated and six sites that met the criteria were identifi ed. Site evaluations for the six fi nalists were assessed based on: property size, community considerations, operational issues, cost, and potential for site to be developed and in service in time for delivery of the new streetcars.

In June 2009, public consultations were held to inform the public of a shortlisted group of the three sites which met operational needs: Eastern Avenue site, TEDCO Unwin Avenue site and the Ashbridges site. 200 members of the public provided feedback on the sites and the Ashbridges Bay site and Unwin sites received support. In December 2009 Toronto City Council approved a settlement with the Toronto Port Authority to transfer ownership of the selected property to the City for TTC use and the TTC Commission approved the use of this property for an streetcar maintenance and storage facility.

The Unwin site was dropped for multiple reasons, such as: additional capital cost for extra connection tracks (longer distance), need for construction of a new bridge on Unwin (to replace one lane bridge), additional operational cost for the added 1km between Commissioners and the Unwin site. Tracks for this option would cross the railway tracks twice in travels from Commissioners. Concerns and community opposition from residents and the Film Industry in particular was expressed towards the Eastern Avenue option. The Eastern Avenue option would require acquisition and demolition of a building that would extend the construction completion by 1-2 years.

ljosephson

Text Box


8

SuspensionIn addition to softer wheels and reduced wheel-axle assembly mass, the new streetcar has two sets of suspension to minimize vibration.

Primary Suspension Secondary Suspension

Rubber Spring Hydraulic Damper Coil Spring

Vehicle Consultations - www.ttc.ca/LRV

Additional consultations specifi c to the new vehicles will be taking place starting later in April. We’d like to get additional feedback to assist with the detailed design of the vehicles. We will be launching a project website (www.ttc.ca/LRV), as well as hosting a series of public meetings and a number of focus groups.

Routing Options

5

ljosephson

Text Box


9

WheelsTypical Semi-Soft Wheel Advanced Softer Wheel

• Most rail vehicles use stiff wheels.

• Typical European streetcars use semi-soft wheels.

• TTC will use advanced softer wheels on the new streetcar.

• Softer wheels tend to transmit less vibrations into the ground than other wheel types.

Wheel-Axle Assembly• Unsuspended mass hung

on the wheel-axle assembly has a major impact on vibration.

• Vibration levels can be minimized by reducing this mass.

• Efforts are being made to minimize this mass on the new streetcar and it will be less than that of existing TTC streetcars.

Comments & QuestionsNew Streetcars (Light Rail Vehicles/LRVs)

Q1: Do you have any comments/recommendations regarding the new streetcars?

4

ljosephson

Text Box


10

New VehiclesFeatures and Enhancements

Q: What are the key improvements of the new streetcars to be used on existing lines?

A: The new streetcars will be accessible. They are about twice the length of the existing shorter streetcars and have more seats and room for standing passengers. Additional new features include highly visible LED destination signs, air conditioning, interior accommodation for bicycles, large windows, and passenger assistance alarms.

Measures to Reduce Noise and Vibration

The new streetcar will be designed to minimize noise and vibration

• The TTC will follow a comprehensive noise and vibration control plan.

• Specifi ed noise and vibration levels will be achieved by careful selection, design, location, and installation of components on the new streetcar.

• Noise and vibration levels will be predicted with simulation software before the new streetcars are built.

• The fi rst three new streetcars will be tested on Toronto streets for 9 months to ensure the established criteria has been achieved.

• Several components of the new streetcar will be designed to minimize noise and vibration. Some examples are listed below.

Vibration Reducing Components:

• Wheels

• Wheel-Axle Assembly

• Suspension

Routing Options

Q1: What do you like/dislike about the routing option(s)?

Q2: Do you have any comments/recommendations on any specific route?

3

ljosephson

Text Box


11

Project Overview Purpose of Project

A new transit facility at Ashbridges Bay will make the following transit improvements possible:

• Accessible, low-fl oor streetcars

• Enhanced access for people with disabilities, seniors, families with strollers

• Multiple doors to signifi cantly speed boarding times

• Proof of payment system to reduce line-ups

• Accommodation for bicycles

• Air conditioning in the summer to enhance passenger comfort

In order to provide these service improvements, a new Maintenance and Storage Facility is necessary to store and maintain the new streetcars. One hundred of the 204 new streetcars will be stored at the Ashbridges Bay Facility.

Q: Why is a new facility needed?

A: Roncesvalles and Russell (Connaught) facilities cannot fully accommodate the new vehicles. Both are over 80 years old, and have insuffi cient space within the existing buildings to service and store the new, longer streetcars. Furthermore, in order to create enough space at these facilities, rebuilding and expanding into adjacent residential neighbourhoods would be required. These two facilities are large enough to store only 52 new streetcars at each site out of the 204 total.

Q: Are other maintenance and storage facilities being planned in Toronto?

A: Yes! In order to enhance transit in Toronto, new facilities are imperative to support the vehicle needs. Transit improvements cannot be made without new infrastructure. Facilities are planned across the City, including on Sheppard, Eglinton and Finch Avenue.

Overview

Q1 Do you have any other comments, recommendations or questions about the project?

2

ljosephson

Text Box


Please submit your comments this evening or by April 20, 2010 to:

Lito Romano TTC Community Liaison 5160 Yonge Street, 13th Floor Toronto, ON M2N 6L9 Tel: 416-397-8699

Email: [email protected]: www.toronto.ca/involved/projects/lrv

12 1

ljosephson

Text Box


Ashbridges Bay TTC Facility for Improved Streetcars

www.ttc.ca

ljosephson

Text Box



APPENDIX B

Summary of Public Meeting Introductions and Questions and Answers

1 | P a g e

TTC Ashbridges Bay LRV Fleet Maintenance and Storage Facility April 8, 2010 Public Meeting Notes: Welcoming Remarks and Q & A

On April 8th, 2010, the TTC held a public meeting from approximately 6:30 – 9:00 p.m. regarding proposed routing options for the Ashbridges Bay LRV Fleet Maintenance and Storage Facility. The meeting was held at the EMS Academy (895 Eastern Avenue, Toronto) to discuss routing options to be taken by new streetcars travelling from the Queen Street East tracks to the Ashbridges and Connaught storage yards. Jim Faught, Director of Community Engagement for Lura Consulting facilitated the evening meeting. The meeting began with welcoming remarks from various political representatives in attendance, followed by a presentation conducted by the TTC, and concluded with a period of time for questions and answers. Below is a summary of the Public Meeting. This summary report was prepared by Lura Consulting, providing third-party consultation management services for this project.1

1. Welcoming Remarks, Comments and Presentation

Councillor Sandra Bussin, City of Toronto (Ward 32: Beaches-East York)

Councillor Bussin welcomed meeting attendees and explained the purpose of the meeting: to discuss the proposed storage facility for new streetcars in Toronto and routing options between the Queen Street East tracks and the new facility. Ms. Bussin explained that City Council selected Ashbridges Bay as their preferred location. The TTC and the City are integrating community input to examine and optimize potential routing options. Ms. Bussin explained that the meeting presentation will give a detailed overview of the proposed routing options and encouraged anyone to contact her directly to discuss this issue in more detail.

TTC Chair and Councillor Adam Giambrone (Ward 18: Davenport)

Chair Giambrone thanked the two local Councillors for sharing the concerns of the Ashbridges community with the TTC about the proposed LRV storage facility. The Chair went on to explain that the TTC cares about this issue and that a number of senior staff members from the TTC were in attendance to discuss the project proposal. The concerns of residents are important, and workshop attendees were encouraged to provide their comments to the TTC about the proposed facility and routing options. This project is part of the City’s commitment to expand public transit across Toronto. The expansion of the storage facilities is essential for the new larger streetcars. The project team has been studying various locations for the large facility for four years. New streetcars will be added to the transit network in small numbers in 2011 and in larger numbers in 2013. The TTC needs to move forward in implementing this project so that transit services can be expanded around the city, providing much needed increased services.

1 This summary captures welcoming remarks and key questions during the noted Public Meeting. It is not intended as a verbatim transcript. If you have any questions or comments regarding the summary, please contact:

Lito Romano, Community Liaison Officer, Strategic Partnerships, Transit City, Toronto Transit Commission, 416-397-8699 or [email protected]; or Lisa Josephson, Project Manager, Lura Consulting, 416-410-3888 x 4 or [email protected]

Ashbridges Bay LRV Fleet Maintenance and Storage Facility April 8, 2010 Public Meeting Notes: Welcoming Remarks and Q & A

2 | P a g e

Councillor Paula Fletcher, City of Toronto (Ward 30: Toronto-Danforth)

Councillor Fletcher thanked everyone for attending and reminded attendees that this meeting was a follow-up to the previous Public Open House TTC hosted in February. The presentation tonight will highlight alternative routes for the movement of streetcars between the storage facilities and Queen Street East. Ms. Fletcher encouraged attendees to read through the new workbook for the evening meeting and to provide their comments about the proposed storage facility and routing options. The new streetcars will be fully accessible, meeting the needs of new mothers, the elderly, and the disabled. Ms. Fletcher admitted that hard choices will need to be made in regards to this project; however, by working together at this meeting and in the future, an appropriate solution can be found.

MPP Peter Tabuns, Toronto-Danforth

MPP Tabuns agreed that the community and neighbourhoods around the proposed storage site have difficult issues that they are forced to address each year. Reviewing the various health concerns due to poor air quality faced by the community, Mr. Tabuns supported the idea of affordable, reliable, and comfortable rapid transit as a way to fight this problem. As the NDP critic on energy and the environment, Mr. Tabuns fully supports rapid transit and wants to support the community in getting better transit. He acknowledged that this community has fought and won many issues related to air quality, and as a community, everyone should work together to move forward on transit expansion. Presentation on the overall project Bill Dawson, Director of Service Planning TTC

Mr. Dawson provided an overview of the project using a PowerPoint presentation. The twenty minute presentation highlighted how TTC arrived at this point and covered such items as the site selection process, community consultations and the route options. A complete copy of the presentation is available on the project website at: http://www.toronto.ca/involved/projects/lrv/

2. Question & Answer Period

Following welcoming remarks, the meeting attendees were given the opportunity to ask the project team and political representatives questions (indicated by a ‘Q’), which were followed by an answer (indicated by an ‘A’). Note: questions are grouped by topic and do not appear in the order that they were asked. Maintenance and Storage Facility

Ashbridges Bay

Q1: Why has TTC chosen to build its facility on the greenspace at Ashbridges? Why not choose a site on another large park? A1: During the site selection process TTC identified properties that had as little impact as possible as possible. All parks count. TTC did the best it could in trading off and identifying sites in our assessment that had the least impact on communities in the city.

Q2: Why are you considering building on or near the waterfront? A2: This area is an industrial and commercial area based on municipal plans put in place.


3 | P a g e

Q3: There are berms outside to protect the community from potential chlorine explosions at the Ashbridges Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant. How could taking them down as part of this project help protect our community and make it a better place for the future? A3: TTC will talk with Toronto Water about this issue. To the best of our knowledge, there is no plan in place which requires the berms to stay in place. Q4: Should you not have facilities closer to the routes that are being serviced by the vehicles? A4: Other lines have their own facilities. The Ashbridges site is the third of six facilities that will store the LRVs within the City. Q5: Would TTC commit to a full Environmental Assessment for this site? A5: We will proceed under the provincial requirements for transit projects. That involves this kind of community input and comments and prioritizing input through council. Q6a: How often are these vehicles maintained? Do they require daily maintenance? A6a: The vehicles have light maintenance every evening and are thoroughly inspected each month. Q6b: If they only need monthly maintenance, why does storage and maintenance need to occur at the same site? A6b: 100 vehicles will be stored at the Ashbridges Bay Facility, however all 204 will be maintained at the facility a month.

Other Options and Ideas

Q7: Could you locate the maintenance and storage facility at Commissioners St. and Victory Ave.,away from where people live and work? A7: The freight lines on the north side make this option unfeasible. Q8: Why not locate the site on the Lake Shore, under the Gardiner? A8: This was one of the sites TTC looked at in the site evaluation process but the information is not here describing why it was not selected. Q9: Why was the CNE site not proposed? A9: It was too small. Q10: There will be too much streetcar traffic in the area due to the large storage facility. Why not have more and smaller facilities spread throughout the city? A10: The TTC has facilities located in other regions of the City to service lines in different areas. However, there are no available alternative sites for this storage facility. Q11: Can TTC have multiple sites? A11: The TTC currently has three downtown maintenance and storage facilities. Having more than four sites to service the same number of vehicles would make this option cost prohibitive. We can go back and examine that information which was presented at the February Open House.


4 | P a g e

Q12: Have you considered expanding the Hillcrest Yard on Bathurst St.? A12: The Hillcrest Yard is a large site and it is where all the heavy maintenance is done. There is no spare space. If TTC could store the new vehicles there, we would; but it is impossible. Q13: Have you considered two-level storage? A13: These vehicles are very large and extremely heavy. The costs associated with building a second storey to hold vehicles would be too high. Routing Options

Leslie St.

Q14a: How did you get your analysis numbers for residential units? A14a: TTC counted the residences on the streets and the number of units, not the people. Sixty-three units and ninety-three townhouses were counted. Q14b: Do you realize your numbers are wrong? A14b: TTC has a specific list of the numbers and residences which can be provided and commented on. Q15: How is residential impact on Leslie St. the lowest, considering most dwellings are located on this street, as well as a senior’s home? Why not put the facility in the Portlands? A15: TTC’s assessment is not based solely on residential impacts as we recognize that there are residences on both Leslie St. and in the Portlands. Overall, Leslie St. is the best routing option because of other factors identified in the presentation.

Connaught Ave.

Q16: Why is Connaught Ave. on your plan if it is residential? A16: TTC had to find a way to connect the existing network to the site in the area. Connaught Ave. was examined because at the February 18th meeting, the community asked that we explore this option. Q17: Due to the narrow width of the street, why is Connaught Ave. even being considered? A17: Connaught is on the list because it was suggested at the February meeting as one that we should examine. However, we do not recommend it on a technical basis. Q18: Will any routes require expropriation of residential properties? A18: Expropriation of land is not necessary except on Connaught Ave. because it is such a narrow road. However, only on street parking will be removed (not residential or commercial land). Q19: What will the impact of the Connaught Ave. option be on parking? A19: Two streetcar routes will eliminate all on street parking, impacting residents. The only alternative is to widen the street for parking (on top of TTC lines running through), requiring an additional 6 metres of land. If chosen, TTC would have to take away front yards, which is why this option is rated poorly. Q20: Using Connaught Ave. as a route would completely alter the “feel” of the street, and we have therefore petitioned against this option. Residents of Connaught Ave. would like to be consulted sooner and in more detail than has been the case for this project. A20: TTC walked door to door on Connaught Ave. to distribute public notices, and did receive the petition.


5 | P a g e

Q21a: Will there be any consideration of the residents on Connaught Ave.? A21a: We looked at the issues on Connaught Ave. as serious and significant; therefore, TTC is not using this routing option. Q21b: Will there be construction at the Connaught Yard? A21b: Yes, there will be construction at the Connaught Yard to retrofit the facility, but the renovations are more modest so there will be less construction impacts there than at the Ashbridges Bay Site. TTC wants to work with the community on how to minimize those impacts. Crossing the Keating Channel

Q22: If a solution is found to cross the Keating Channel to get to Commissioners Street (e.g. use of existing bridge), you could use two potential sites on that street. Rather than using the Ashbridges Bay land, why not figure out a way to get over the channel? A22: TTC has looked at that options in some detailed; however it is technically difficult to implement because there is no easy way to provide overhead power across the bridge. In addition, TTC has looked at the lower Don for that purpose and it is extremely difficult to implement. Q23a: Did you say that in serving the future Portlands area that TTC would be building a permanent bridge across the Keating Channel? A23a: The long term plan has the LRT going across the Don River. That plan will take place many years in the future. Currently, it is too expensive and there is no funding for that project. Q23b: Given that the Provincial government will stretch their funding over a number of years, why not build for the long term (e.g. a bridge over Keating Channel) rather than the short term? Especially given the possible need for the Ashbridges Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant to expand in the future? A23b: The TTC and City have been in discussion about land. Toronto Water does not need land from the proposed Ashbridges Bay yard. Q24: Why do you require a short-term solution to the City’s transit needs? A24: This is the long term plan and future of the light rail vehicles in Toronto. TTC is not looking at short-term solutions. The question of building a bridge over to the Don River for the Portlands development is a long term objective. We need something for now that will also work well in the long-term. Q25: Would tunneling under the Keating Channel be more or less expensive than removing the contaminated soil from the Ashbridges Bay site? A25: It is an order of magnitude because all areas will require some soil remediation and clean up. Tunneling would be more expensive and not feasible.

Other

Q26: If the vehicle entrance to the storage facility was moved to the east end, Leslie would not necessarily be the best option. A26: In that scenario, the streetcars would have to make more turns, which would have a greater impact on the community. Alternatively, we could tunnel under the Lake Shore; however, tunneling is extremely expensive and requires a lot of land.


6 | P a g e

Community Impact

Parking

Q27: Where in your analysis are issues related to the removal of parking? A27: In terms of parking and access to parking, the routing options do not restrict on-street parking except on Connaught Ave. Also, access points were brought into the assessment in order to address your concerns from the previous meeting. All of the routing options are in mixed traffic, meaning there will be no raised curbs.

Traffic

Q28: How will traffic be impacted at Lake Shore and Leslie, where it is already very congested? A28: All the routing options that TTC looked at have to cross Lake Shore Blvd. Although congested, the effect of the new streetcars on traffic will not be as high because they will operate at off-peak times. Q29: How will traffic on Leslie St. be affected by vehicle maintenance schedules? A29: Maintenance will occur during the mid-day period (typically 9 a.m. to 3 p.m.), not during the middle of the night. TTC has looked at automobile traffic on Lake Shore Blvd. and Leslie St. and typically there will be one vehicle going through every other traffic signal, so the impact will not be large. Q30: Why are you only looking at mixed-traffic options? A30: TTC recommended mixed-traffic because it would have the least amount of impact to the community. A right-of-way would have a greater impact on traffic and require more property.

Light Rail Vehicles

Vehicle Type

Q31: Have you considered phasing out streetcars and bringing in buses or electric buses? A31: We have considered phasing out streetcars periodically over the 40 years and currently, there is no way to effectively replace the vehicle. Buses are not large enough and have a capacity issue. Q32: I have many concerns about the new vehicles. How will my concerns be addressed? A32: There will be full consultation about the new streetcar vehicles in the future.

Accessibility and Accessing Vehicles

Q33: How will chips in the pavement (curb cuts) for accessibility to the new vehicles affect street parking? A33: Curb cuts will not affect parking and on street parking. The double doors at the rear are where mobility devices will enter and exit vehicles. Q34: Leslie and Lake Shore Blvd. intersection is extremely dangerous to drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians. How much life will be lost at that corner due to increased traffic and streetcar riders walking between the vehicles and the sidewalk? A34: The vehicles will be operated similarly to how streetcars operate today. People will come out from the roadway to enter and exit the streetcars, and there will be curb cuts in sidewalks to insure full accessibility.


7 | P a g e

Mediated Agreement

Q35: How will this project coincide with the City meeting its obligations to the 1999 Ashbridges Bay land Mediated Agreement? A35: The City will meet obligations under the Agreement. The City has the final say over the determination of the land use; therefore, City council will make a final decision based on the agreement and determination under the settlement. The issue will be discussed further with the community liaison group. Consultation

Q36: How will I know that you have considered the comments you receive from this meeting? A36: A summary of comments of this meeting will be put online for you to review. Q37: How can we be assured that you are not disregarding everything we are saying tonight? A37: TTC has worked hard to get these routing options to connect with Queen St. and TTC wants to hear what you have to say related to routing, so please give us your input. Q38: Is TTC willing to sit down with a citizens committee to hear our input? A38: This Public Meeting is TTC’s version of a citizen’s committee. TTC wants to hear your input as was done at the February Open House as well as at this meeting tonight.


APPENDIX C

Public Notification

Improving Transit with Modern New Streetcars The City of Toronto and TTC have ordered 204 new streetcars which will provide users with a more customer friendly transit experience.

• The new streetcars will be accessible, so parents pushing strollers and people using wheelchairs will have step-free access into the streetcar

• They will hold almost double the number of passengers as the current streetcars and have more doors to enter the vehicle

• The vehicles will use a proof-of-payment system so that more people can move quickly during rush hour

• The new streetcars will provide a quieter ride and, during the summer months, offer air conditioned comfort

Notice of Public Consultation Meeting

New maintenance and storage facilities must be added to TTC operations to accommodate the new streetcars and enhance transit service for the community. One of those facilities will be in the City’s southeast end so streetcars can access it from the Queen Street East streetcar tracks. In December 2009 the City acquired the Ashbridges Bay site for the TTC facility. 100 new streetcars will be stored at the Ashbridges Bay Fleet Maintenance and Storage Facility to be built at the south east corner of Lake Shore Boulevard and Leslie Street. The Ashbridges storage and maintenance facility is to be completed in 2013 in time for the delivery of the first 36 streetcars. The new storage facilities will be built to Toronto Green Development Standards, and staff will follow environmentally friendly practices to ensure the site is energy efficient and environmentally friendly. The TTC is holding a public consultation to discuss the new streetcars and the route they will travel from the Queen Street tracks to the Connaught and Ashbridges yards: Date: April 8, 2010 Time: 6:30pm to 9:00pm Location: Toronto EMS and Fire Academy 895 Eastern Avenue

For more information contact: Lito Romano TTC Community Liaison Officer 5160 Yonge Street, 13th Fl Toronto ON M2N 6L9 Tel: 416-397-8699 E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.toronto.ca/involved/projects/lrv

http://home.ttc/�

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.toronto.ca/involved/projects/lrv

ljosephson

Text Box

Public Notification/Flyer - English

用新型現代化電車提升公交服務水準

Traduction en français sur demande 多倫多市政府和多倫多交通委員會（TTC）訂購了 204 台新電車，將為乘客提供更為友好的乘車體驗。

• 新車不設上車臺階，便於推著嬰兒車的父母和坐輪椅的人士乘車。

• 新車的載客量幾乎為現有車輛的兩倍，車門也比較多，便於乘客上車。

• 新車將安裝一種付費憑證系統，讓更多乘客在高峰時段也能夠快速出行。

公眾諮詢會議公告

TTC 的運營需要幾個新的車輛維護和堆放中心，以便接收新車，並提升社區交通服務水準。將在多倫多東南角建設這樣一個中心，便於電車從皇后東街駛入。2009 年 12 月，市政府購買了灰橋灣（Ashbridges Bay）的一塊地，作為 TTC 的維護和堆放中心。100 輛新車將堆放於擬建在湖濱大道（Lake Shore Boulevard）和萊斯利街（Leslie Street.）東南角的灰橋灣弗利特維護和堆放中心（Ashbridges Bay Fleet Maintenance and Storage Facility）。灰橋堆放和維護中心將於 2013 年落成，趕得上接收首批 36 輛車。新的堆放中心將符合多倫多綠色發展標準。建設工人將遵循環保實踐，確保交付一個高效節能和環保的堆放中心。 TTC 將舉辦一場公共諮詢，討論新電車，討論它從皇后街至康諾特（Connaught）和灰橋堆放中心的行車路線。

日期：2010 年 4 月 8 日

時間：晚上 6 點半至 9 點

地點：多倫多 EMS 和消防學院（Toronto EMS and Fire Academy） 895 Eastern Avenue 欲知詳情，請聯絡

Lito Romano TTC 社區聯絡官 5160 Yonge Street, 13th Fl Toronto ON M2N 6L9 電話： 416-397-8699

電郵：[email protected]

網址：www.toronto.ca/involved/projects/lrv

http://home.ttc/�

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.toronto.ca/involved/projects/lrv

ljosephson

Text Box

Public Notification/Flyer - Chinese

Improving Transit with Modern New StreetcarsThe City of Toronto and TTC have ordered 204 new streetcars which will provide users with a

more customer friendly transit experience.

new streetcars will be accessible, so parents pushing strollers and people using wheelchairs will have step‐free access into the streetcar

They will hold almost double the number of passengers as the current streetcars and have more doors to enter the vehicle

The vehicles will use a proof‐of‐payment system so that more people can move quickly during rush hour

The new streetcars will provide a quieter ride and, during the summer months, offer air conditioned comfort

Notice of Public Consultation Meeting

New maintenance and storage facilities must be added to TTC operations to

accommodate the new streetcars and enhance transit service for the

community. One of those facilities will be in the City’s southeast end so

streetcars can access it from the Queen Street East streetcar tracks. In

December 2009 the City acquired the Ashbridges

Bay site for the TTC

facility. 100 new streetcars will be stored at the Ashbridges

Bay Fleet

Maintenance and Storage Facility to be built at the south east corner of

Lake Shore Boulevard and Leslie Street.

The Ashbridges

storage and maintenance facility is to be completed in 2013

in time for the delivery of the first 36 streetcars. The new storage facilities

will be built to Toronto Green Development Standards, and staff will follow

environmentally friendly practices to ensure the site is energy efficient and

environmentally friendly.

The TTC is holding a public consultation to discuss the new streetcars and

the route they will travel from the Queen Street tracks to the Connaught

and Ashbridges

yards:

Date: April 8, 2010 Time: 6:30pm to 9:00pm

Location: Toronto EMS and Fire Academy

895 Eastern Avenue

For more information contact:

Lito Romano TTC Community Liaison Officer5160 Yonge

Street, 13th Floor Toronto ON M2N 6L9

Tel: 416‐397‐8699

E‐mail: [email protected]: www.toronto.ca/involved/projects/lrv

用新型現代化電車提升公交服務水準多倫多市政府和多倫多交通委員會（TTC）訂購了 204 台新電車，將為乘客提供更為友好

的乘車體驗。

公眾諮詢會議公告TTC 的運營需要幾個新的車輛維護和堆放中心，以便接收新

車，並提升社區交通服務水準。將在多倫多東南角建設這樣一

個中心，便於電車從皇后東街駛入。2009 年 12 月，市政府購

買了灰橋灣（Ashbridges

Bay）的一塊地，作為 TTC 的維護和堆

放中心。100 輛新車將堆放於擬建在湖濱大道（Lake Shore

Boulevard）和萊斯利街（Leslie Street.）東南角的灰橋灣弗利特

維護和堆放中心（Ashbridges

Bay Fleet Maintenance and Storage

Facility）。

灰橋堆放和維護中心將於 2013 年落成，趕得上接收首批 36 輛

車。新的堆放中心將符合多倫多綠色發展標準。建設工人將遵

循環保實踐，確保交付一個高效節能和環保的堆放中心。

TTC 將舉辦一場公共諮詢，討論新電車，討論它從皇后街至康

諾特（Connaught）和灰橋堆放中心的行車路線。

日期：2010 年 4 月 8 日

時間：晚上

6 點半至 9 點

地點：多倫多 EMS 和消防學院（Toronto EMS and Fire Academy）

895 Eastern Avenue

欲知詳情，請聯絡

Lito Romano

TTC 社區聯絡官5160 Yonge

Street, 13th Fl

Toronto ON M2N 6L9

電話： 416‐397‐8699

電郵：[email protected]網址：www.toronto.ca/involved/projects/lrv

新車不設上車臺階，便於推著嬰兒車的父母和坐輪椅的人士乘車。

新車的載客量幾乎為現有車輛的兩倍，車門也比較多，便於乘客上車。

新車將安裝一種付費憑證系統，讓更多乘客在高峰時段也能夠快速出行。

ljosephson

Text Box

Poster - English/Chinese


APPENDIX D

Meeting Notice to All Potential Routes

UTM Zone 17N, NAD 83

Don Valley Pky N

Don Valley Pky S

F G Gardiner Expy E

F G Gardiner Expy W

Don Valley Pky N

Don Vall

ey Pky

S

Queen St E

Dundas St E

Eastern Ave

Bayview

Ave

Leslie St

King St E Eastern Ave Divers

Rive

r St

Lk Shore Blvd E

Eastern Ave DiversEastern Ave Divers

River St

Eastern Ave

F G Gardiner Expy W

Lk Shore Blvd E

Carlaw Ave

Unwin Ave

Commissioners St

Mill St

Pape Ave

Broadview Ave

Booth Ave

Leslie St

Jones Ave

Gerrard St E

Woodfield Rd

Front St E

Victor Ave

First Ave

Coxwell Ave

Morse St

Alton Ave

Basin St

Villiers St

Langley Ave

Riverdale Ave

Simpson Ave

Boulton AveDe G

rassi St

Galt Ave

Curzon St

Craven Rd

Hamilton St

Cherry St

Greenw

ood Ave

Ashdale Ave

Rhodes Ave

Hiltz Ave

Knox Ave

Carroll St

Withrow Ave

Shuter St

Sears St

Boston Ave

Heward Ave

Munro St

Trinity St

Bayview Ave

Hertle Ave

Saulter St S

Highfield Rd

Kent Rd

Lewis St

Marjory Ave

Coady Ave

Bouchette St

Brooklyn Ave

Kerr Rd

Hastings Ave

Billings Ave

Mc G

ee St

Don Rdwy

Eastern Ave

Logan Ave

Bertmount Ave

Bain Ave

War

dell

StAllen Ave

Empire Ave

West Ave

Memory Lane

Saulter St

Hiawatha Rd

Caroline Ave

Colgate Ave

Laing St

Grant St

Berkshire Ave

Winnifred Ave

Thompson St

Austin Ave

Tiverton Ave

Winchester St

Natalie Pl

Sproat Ave

Larchmount Ave

Rushbrooke Ave

Bright St

Davies Ave

Munition St

Mark St

Endean Ave

Kintyre Ave

Busy St

Dagmar Ave

Cornwall St

Mosley St

Mallon Ave

Sword St

Ashland Ave

Wascana Ave

Robbins Ave

Cypress St

Verral Ave

Battenberg Ave

Overend St

Howie Ave

Minto St

Badgerow Ave

Connaught Ave

Sumach St

Labatt Ave

Ble

vins

Pl

St Paul St

Woodw

ard Ave

Bel

shaw

Pl

Oak St

Athletic Ave

St Matthew

s Rd

Thackeray St

Stanton Ave

Audley Ave

Dibble St

Fee Pl

Marigold Ave

Louvain Ave

Maughan Cres

Graham Pl

Paisley Ave

Don Jail Rdwy

Strange St

River St

Cherry Nook Gdns

East

ern

Ave

Logan Ave

Langley Ave

Badgerow Ave

Sumach St

Cherry St

Cherry St

Hastings Ave

633000

633000

634000

634000

635000

635000

4834

000

4834

000

4835

000

4835

000

4836

000

4836

000

1:11,500

Map

Doc

umen

t: (N

:\pro

ject

s\0-

aeco

m\1

1185

3\20

10\F

inal

\GIS

Spa

tial\M

XDs\

Wor

king

MX

Ds\

Ash

brid

ges\

1118

53Tr

ackC

onne

ctio

ns.m

xd)

03/3

0/20

10 --

9:5

9:52

AM

Figure 1

TTC Ashbridges Bay Maintenance & Storage Facility Study

March 2010Project 60118979

This drawing has been prepared for the use of AECOM’s client and may not be used, reproduced or relied upon by third parties,except as agreed by AECOM and its client, as required by law or for use by governmental reviewing agencies. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to any partythat modifies this drawing without AECOM’s express written consent.

Basemapping from Ontario Ministry of Natural ResourcesOrthophotography: 2007

0 100 200 300 40050

m

Alternative Routes to future Ashbridges FacilityCoxwell Ave / Lake Shore Blvd (1.95 km)Connaught Ave / Eastern Ave / Leslie St (1.47 km)Connaught Ave / Eastern Ave / Woodfield Rd / Lake Shore Blvd (1.65 km)Connaught Ave / Eastern Ave / Knox Ave (0.82 km)Leslie St (0.81 km)Carlaw Ave / Commissioners St (1.94 km)Carlaw Ave / Lake Shore Blvd (1.70 km)Pape Ave / Eastern Ave / Leslie St (1.60 km)Cherry St / Commissioners St (3.71 km)Existing Streetcar ServiceFuture LRV Maintenance & Storage Facility

Alternative Routes to future TTC Ashbridges Facility

前往日後 Ashbridges Bay 廠房的其他通道


APPENDIX E

Stakeholder Communications

ljosephson

Rectangle

ljosephson

Rectangle

ljosephson

Text Box

Form letter submitted by residents

ljosephson

Rectangle

ljosephson

Text Box

Petition submitted by residents

toronto transit commission public meeting · ttc ashbridges bay lrv fleet, maintenance and storage...

Documents