La lecture en ligne est gratuite
Le téléchargement nécessite un accès à la bibliothèque YouScribe
Tout savoir sur nos offres

Partagez cette publication

Bremner Blvd. extension Class EA
Public Meeting Minutes April 29, 2004
City of Toronto
Page 1 of 6
SNC-Lavalin Engineers & Constructors Inc.
Bremner Boulevard Extension
Intersection Modification and Bridge Rehabilitation
Class Environmental Assessment Study
Public Meeting and Open House #1
Thursday, April 29, 2004
The Blue Barracks, Historic Fort York
100 Garrison Road
6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
This public meeting and open house was the first public consultation in this Municipal Class
Environmental Assessment (EA), Schedule C. It fulfils the requirement of step 5, Phase 2 in the
EA process. The purpose of this EA is to develop and assess infrastructure improvement
options to support planned development in the Railway Lands West area.
The purpose of the meeting was to provide the public with information about the study’s
background and purpose, the various alternatives to address the study’s purpose, and the
technical evaluation of the alternatives to date. Stakeholders were invited to comment following
a presentation of the materials, and were encouraged to submit written comments on comment
forms provided. Five written comments were submitted.
Public Notification
The following media were used to notify the public of the meeting:
Advertisement in Now Magazine – April 15 and 22.
Distribution of notice by A & R Distribution Company to all residences and business in the
study area.
Distribution of notice by Canada Post to the mailing list of identified interested stakeholders.
Attendance
City of Toronto:
Judy Tse
Works & Emergency Services(WES), Infrastructure Planning (Study
Project Manager)
Helen Noehammer
WES, Infrastructure Planning
Nhat Nguyen
WES, Development Engineering
David Dunn
WES, Pedestrian & Cycling Infrastructure
Danny Budimirovic
WES, Traffic Operation
Liora Zion Burton
WES, Public Consultation & Community Outreach
David Nagler
WES, Public Consultation & Community Outreach
Melanie Melnyk
Urban Development Services (UDS), Community Planning
Paul Croft
UDS, Transportation Planning
Jo Ann Pynn
Economic Development, Culture & Tourism (EDCT), Fort York
Bremner Blvd. extension Class EA
Public Meeting Minutes April 29, 2004
City of Toronto
Page 2 of 6
SNC-Lavalin Engineers & Constructors Inc.
Toronto Transit Commission (TTC):
Jim Sinikas
Service Planning, Project Engineer
Consultants:
Steve Keen
SNC Lavalin Engineers & Constructors, Manager
Ian Upjohn
SNC Lavalin Engineers & Constructors, Principal Planner
Richard Unterman
Unterman McPhail Associates Heritage Resource Management
Consultants, Principal
Public Attendance:
23 members of the public signed the optional sign-in sheets. Several attendees chose not to
sign in.
Information presented
Detailed information was presented on display boards for public viewing throughout the
meeting. Judy Tse summarised the information during her presentation. Copies of the slide
presentation were distributed to participants at the meeting, and remain available upon request
to Liora Zion-Burton (416-392-3358 or lzion@toronto.ca).
Format
6:00 p.m.
Open House: Displays describing the study were presented for public viewing.
Staff were available to explain the study and answer questions.
7:00 p.m.
Judy Tse gave a presentation detailing the project’s background and purpose, as
well as the justification for the recommended alternative solution to extend
Bremner Blvd. She also discussed some design considerations and presented
preliminary design concepts.
7:30 p.m.
Question and Answer (Q&A) session
Summary of Public Comments/Questions
The following summarises the questions and comments received after the presentation by Judy
Tse, as well as the responses given by staff.
Attendee Comments/Questions
Staff Comments
What is meant by preferred solution?
It is technically preferred, but
is not yet chosen, until we
have heard the public input.
Bremner Blvd. extension Class EA
Public Meeting Minutes April 29, 2004
City of Toronto
Page 3 of 6
SNC-Lavalin Engineers & Constructors Inc.
Are only two solutions up for discussion (extend Bremner &
TDM)?
No, those are what we are
recommending, but we
welcome discussion on all
the alternative solutions.
What is the status of Front St. extension and does it have an
impact on this project?
The status is unclear at this
time. Out traffic analysis
shows the Front St.
extension will have no
significant impact on the
need for Bremner Blvd.
Why do all the options have a transitway?
These options preclude a bicycle lane.
Not all options have a
transitway. We are looking at
a range of cross-section
options. We recognize the
importance of a continuous
bicycle network. There are
options with transitway and
bicycle lanes.
Is there potential for on-street parking in off-peak hours in the
various cross-section options?
We have not looked at that
detail yet, but it will depend
on which cross-section is
ultimately chosen.
What do brackets mean on the traffic flow board?
The numbers not in brackets
are AM peak hour; the
numbers in brackets are PM
peak hour.
The traffic forecasts for the development appear to be very
low. Through traffic will increase considerably when Bremner
Blvd. is continuous.
The comment is noted.
When has TDM been successfully applied in this area?
TDM is applied to all new
developments coming on
stream in Toronto and in
particular each block that is
developed in the Railway
Lands Development area.
The City should focus on TDM for existing development.
The comment is noted.
What impacts will there be on the heritage bridge.
The bridge has recently
been rehabilitated. The
proposed works are not
expected to impact the
heritage bridge.
How far do the exclusive transitway options extend?
This is being reviewed.
Previous plans have
included a route into Union
Station.
Bremner Blvd. extension Class EA
Public Meeting Minutes April 29, 2004
City of Toronto
Page 4 of 6
SNC-Lavalin Engineers & Constructors Inc.
Would left turns be banned on Bremner Blvd. if a transitway
is preferred? This would go against providing access to the
local development.
The cross-section options
we show indicate a left-turn
lane next to the transitway.
Why is the transitway not shown east of Spadina and west of
Bathurst?
These sections are outside
our immediate study area.
Why don't aren’t non-transitway options included?
The first option shown was a
non-transitway option.
What is the existing Bremner Blvd. cross-section east of
Spadina Avenue?
4 basic traffic lanes plus turn
lanes (2 lefts at Spadina
Ave.).
The cross-section between
Spadina and Dan Leckie
Way is still being worked on.
Does the establishment of the number of traffic lanes on
Bremner Blvd. require further public consultation?
Not through the planning
process. However, the
options will be reviewed as
part of this EA. Whatever
comes out of this EA
process will tie in to what
happens east of Dan Leckie
Way.
Where else in the City does traffic drive to the left of a
streetcar (context is the possible left turn separation from the
streetcars on Bathurst Street).
Bathurst at Fleet, Queen at
Kingston and several
instances on one-way
streets such as Wellington
and Adelaide.
There are 10,000 residential units planned for the Railway
Lands West and Fort York Neighbourhoods. How many are
currently being actively planned?
Only a few active
applications are in right now.
A transitway is not a good idea for such a narrow road. It is
incompatible with commercial/pedestrian activity and does
not allow for on-street parking access to the proposed shops.
Noted the failure on Queens Quay.
Comment is noted.
Is the large amount of traffic being generated by the
development being considered in terms of the impacts the
transitway will have on it, e.g. at intersections?
This will be considered.
Is the steep slope of Bathurst Street being reviewed?
Yes, options will be
developed to flatten this
slope somewhat.
A diagonal footpath up the Garrison Creek valley existed
many years ago for Fort York between Queens Wharf and
Fort York. Can this be established in the plan for this area?
Can it be made into a bicycle/pedestrian path?
We will look into this issue.
The Bathurst Heritage bridge existed in 1931 as a railway
Comment is noted.
Bremner Blvd. extension Class EA
Public Meeting Minutes April 29, 2004
City of Toronto
Page 5 of 6
SNC-Lavalin Engineers & Constructors Inc.
viaduct, it should be protected.
Is it planned to put commercial fronts on the buildings along
Bremner Blvd?
Not necessarily at first, but in
the long term, commercial
activities on the ground floor
are envisaged. A high
standard of streetscaping is
also envisaged.
Can a streetcar be implemented on Fort York Blvd. as it is
currently configured?
This is being studied.
What kind of development is anticipated at street level for
Bremner Blvd? What type of streetscape is anticipated?
(Suggested broader sidewalks.)
Commercial/retail primarily.
It does also allow for
residential – some flexibility
has been allowed.
Bicycle lanes left of parked cars do not always work. Can we
consider something different, e.g. bicycle lanes mixed with
pedestrians?
We will examine this.
Garrison Creek is trying to re-emerge. Can it be enhanced
and restored and perhaps continued down to the lake? This
is also relevant from a heritage point of view because Fort
York was built on the water.
We will look into this issue.
A May 13
th
meeting will be held at Fort York to review the Fort
York Archaeological Landscape Plan.
Noted for information.
Will Bathurst St. heritage bridge be rehabilitated?
Will the heritage bridge be widened?
No, it has already been
done. We will be looking at
some of the other bridges
further south of the heritage
bridge, and we may impact
them.
No widening is anticipated.
Are there plans to extend Fleet Street to the east of Bathurst
Street?
No, such a plan was not
developed in the
neighbourhood planning
exercise.
Is the building in the way of the Bremer Blvd. Extension a
heritage building?
No. It will be demolished.
Bremner Blvd. should be built not just for cars, but also for
curbside parking in off-peaks, it should not be wider than the
existing sections of Bremner Blvd. It should be a typical
commercial frontage street.
Comment is noted.
For pedestrians, it is important to have a pleasant sidewalk
with trees for shade and an enhanced environment. It should
be a typical downtown street, like, for example, Queen Street.
Comment is noted.
Why not drop some of Gardiner traffic onto Bremner Blvd.
instead of Front Street extension?
Bremner Street is not
designed to handle large
Bremner Blvd. extension Class EA
Public Meeting Minutes April 29, 2004
City of Toronto
Page 6 of 6
SNC-Lavalin Engineers & Constructors Inc.
volumes of through traffic.
Please plan for continuity of bike-lanes. (Look not only at
east-west improvements, but also diagonal improvements).
Comment is noted.
Consider Fort York Blvd. as a precedent for Bremner Blvd.
Comment is noted.
Having a 6-lane Bremner Blvd. would be incompatible with
the 4-lane sections east and west of it and would cause traffic
problems.
Comment is noted.
There will be a linear park adjacent to the railway corridor.
Comment is noted.
Look to St. Lawrence as an example of a commercial
frontage street. Look at the Esplanade East as an example of
a commercial frontage street.
Comment is noted.
You will have to plan for speed bumps on Bremner Blvd, in
anticipation of the residents being concerned about traffic
volumes and speed.
Comment is noted.
What was the City's decision on the ultimate number of lanes
for Front Street?
4 lanes.
The following summarises the comments received following the meeting:
Create a “gateway” to Bremner Blvd. from Bathurst Street to signify the entrance to a
community and to discourage the use of Bremner as a thoroughfare.
Include indented on-street parking on Bremner.
Include bike lanes on Bremner.
Include a tree-lined median on Bremner.
Look for opportunities to integrate the area’s heritage into the design by, for example,
incorporating a walkway/bikeway based on the historic footpath.
Continue the cutaway street plan of Fort York Blvd. onto Bremner.
Do not build a dedicated transit right-of-way on Bremner; it is not appropriate for this type of
road. Rather use buses on Bremner, and put transit-dedicated routes in the railway belt.
Conclusion
The project team will review the public input and incorporate it into the selection of a preferred
solution and into the early design stages for the preferred solution. The next round of public
consultation is anticipated for autumn 2004. Further notification will be distributed once the next
round of public consultation has been scheduled.
Un pour Un
Permettre à tous d'accéder à la lecture
Pour chaque accès à la bibliothèque, YouScribe donne un accès à une personne dans le besoin