Comment from attendee

Keens

Description

Bremner Blvd. extension Class EA Public Meeting Minutes April 29, 2004Bremner Boulevard ExtensionIntersection Modification and Bridge RehabilitationClass Environmental Assessment StudyPublic Meeting and Open House #1Thursday, April 29, 2004The Blue Barracks, Historic Fort York100 Garrison Road6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.This public meeting and open house was the first public consultation in this Municipal ClassEnvironmental Assessment (EA), Schedule C. It fulfils the requirement of step 5, Phase 2 in theEA process. The purpose of this EA is to develop and assess infrastructure improvementoptions 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’sbackground and purpose, the various alternatives to address the study’s purpose, and thetechnical evaluation of the alternatives to date. Stakeholders were invited to comment followinga presentation of the materials, and were encouraged to submit written comments on commentforms provided. Five written comments were submitted.Public NotificationThe 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 thestudy area. Distribution of notice by Canada Post to the mailing list of identified interested stakeholders.AttendanceCity of ...

Informations

• Publié par: Unji
• Nombre de lectures: 109
• Langue: English

Extrait

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 [e-mail]).

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.