The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutJune 2, 2008 Planning & Development Committee Agenda Monday, June 2,2008 7:30 pm Council Chambers Chair: Councillor Dickerson 7:15 PM Main Committee Room (I) CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS PAGES 1. Applications of Altridge Properties Inc. Appeal of Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2005-03 and Zoning By-law Amendment A 34/05 Under Separate Cover 7:30 PM Council Chambers PART "A" PLANNING INFORMATION MEETING No statutory public information reports scheduled PART "8" PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORTS 1. Director, Planning & Development, Report PO 04-08 Sidewalk Installation on Wharf Street, West of Liverpool Road City of Pickerinq 1-9 RECOMMENDATION 1. That Report PO 04-08 of the Director, Planning & Development, regarding sidewalk installation on Wharf Street, west of Liverpool Road, be received; 2. That Council authorize the construction of a sidewalk on the south side of Wharf Street (Option #2) from the east side of the entrance to DCC #184 (Frenchman's Bay Village), to the west side of the entrance to 1289 Wharf Street (Port restaurant); Planning & Development Committee Agenda Monday, June 2, 2008 7:30 pm Council Chambers Chair: Councillor Dickerson 3. That this project be funded through Account 5321-Development Projects (Development Charge Funded) (Project 07-5321-001-12 Roads), as provided in the Council Approved 2007 Capital Budget; and 4. Further, that the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions to give effect thereto. 2. Director, Planning & Development, Report PD 19-08 Thickson Developments Ltd. Plan of Subdivision 40M-1703 1 0-18 Thickson Developments Ltd. Plan of Subdivision 40M-1704 884396 Ontario Inc. Plan of Subdivision40M-1710 Thickson Developments Ltd. Plan of Subdivision 40M-1711 Final Assumption of Plans of Subdivision RECOMMENDATION 1. That Report PD 19-08 of the Director, Planning & Development regarding the Final Assumption of Plans of Subdivision 40M-1703, 40M-1704, 40M-1710 and 40M-1711 be received; 2. That the highways being Aspen Road and Pebble Court within Plans 40M- 1703, 40M-1710 and 40M-1711 be assumed for public use; 3. That the services required by the Subdivision Agreements relating to Plans 40M-1703, 40M-1704, 40M-1710 and 40M-1711, which are constructed, installed or located on lands dedicated to, or owned by the City, or on lands lying immediately adjacent thereto, including lands that are subject to easements transferred to the City, be accepted and assumed for maintenance, save and except from Block 8, Plan 40M-1703, Blocks 8 and 9, Planning & Development Committee Agenda Monday, June 2, 2008 7:30 pm Council Chambers Chair: Councillor Dickerson Plan 40M-1704, Blocks 9 and 12, Plan 40M-1710 and Block 16, Plan 40M- 1711 ; 4. That the Subdivision Agreements and any amendments thereto relating to Plans 40M-1703, 40M-1704, 40M-1710 and 40M-1711, save and except from Block 9, Plan 40M-1710, be released and removed from title; and 5. That Council enact a By-law to dedicate Block 6, Plan 40M-1703, Block 11, Plan 40M-1710 and Blocks 14 and 15, Plan 40M-1711 as public highways. 3. Director, Planning & Development, Report PO 22-08 Rockwood Drive Extension -Road Dedication and Naminq By-laws 19-25 RECOMMENDATION 1. That Report PO 22-08 of the Director, Planning & Development regarding the naming and dedication, as public highway, of certain lands lying within Pickering be received; 2. That By-laws be enacted to: a) dedicate and name certain parts of Lots 3 and 4, Registrar's Compiled Plan 282, Pickering, being Parts 38, 40, 41,44,46,48,50,54,57,58, 62, 70,71,74,75 and 76, Plan 40R-25121 and Blocks 31 and 32, Plan 40M-2164 as Rockwood Drive in accordance with Land Division Application LD 109/07 (the "subject lands"); and b) dedicate and name certain parts of Lots 3 and 4, Registrar's Compiled Plan 282, Pickering, being Parts 37, 39, 59,60,61,67 and 68, Plan 40R-25121 as Rockwood Drive in accordance with Land Division Applications LD 040-041/08 and LD 056-058/08 (the "reserves"). 4. Director, Planning & Development, Report PO 23-08 26-36 Proposed Size and Location of Urban Growth Centres in the Greater Golden Horseshoe, prepared by the Ontario Growth Secretariat, Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal, Sprinq 2008 Planning & Development Committee Agenda Monday, June 2, 2008 7:30 pm Council Chambers Chair: Councillor Dickerson RECOMMENDATION 1. That Report PO 23-08 of the Director, Planning & Development, regarding the Technical Paper Proposed Size and Location of Urban Growth Centres in the Greater Golden Horseshoe, released Spring 2008, by the Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal, be received; 2. That the comments contained in Report PO 23-08 on the Technical Paper Proposed Size and Location of Urban Growth Centres in the Greater Golden Horseshoe, be endorsed, and that the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal be requested to: a) finalize the size and location of the Pickering Downtown Urban Growth Centre as set out in the Technical Paper; b) revise the method of calculating the density in Pickering's Urban Growth Centre to allow exclusion of the controlled access freeway and railway corridor; and c) revise the profile for Pickering's Urban Growth Centre to more accurately reflect its current mix of uses, and location, as set out in Section 2.4 of this Report; 3. That the Ministers of Public Infrastructure Renewal, and Municipal Affairs and Housing be requested to identify a predictable funding program to provide needed infrastructure and related municipal facilities to foster the growth of Urban Growth Centres, including Downtown Pickering; and 4. Further, that a copy of Report PO 23-08 be forwarded to the Region of Durham and the Ministers of Public Infrastructure Renewal and Municipal Affairs and Housing. 5. Director, Planning & Development, Report PO 24-08 White Paper 1 - Vision, Goals and Objectives, May 2008 White Paper 2 - Preliminary Directions and Concepts, May 2008 Metrolinx 37-74 RECOMMENDATION Planning & Development Committee Agenda Monday, June 2,2008 7:30 pm Council Chambers Chair: Councillor Dickerson That Report PD 24-08 of the Director, Planning & Development regarding the draft White Papers 1 & 2, dated May 2008, prepared by Metrolinx, be received for information. (II) OTHER BUSINESS (III) ADJOURNMENT Cilil (J~ REPORT TO PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Report Number: PO 04-08 Date: June 2,2008 '! 1 t i ) From: Neil Carroll Director, Planning & Development Subject: Sidewalk Installation on Wharf Street, West of Liverpool Road City of Pickering Recommendation: 1. That Report PO 04-08 of the Director, Planning & Development, regarding sidewalk installation on Wharf Street, west of Liverpool Road, be received; and 2. That Council authorize the construction of a sidewalk on the south side of Wharf Street (Option #2) from the east side of the entrance to DCC #184 (Frenchman's Bay Village), to the west side of the entrance to 1289 Wharf Street (Port restaurant); and 3. That this project be funded through Account 5321-Development Projects (Development Charge Funded) (Project 07-5321-001-12 Roads), as provided in the Council Approved 2007 Capital Budget; and 4. Further, that the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions to give effect thereto. Executive Summary: An existing marina, located at the western terminus of Wharf Street, has recently been redeveloped to accommodate a restaurant (Port), marina and marina office. While the new restaurant provides on-site parking, it is also anticipated to draw significant pedestrian traffic from the surrounding neighbourhood, Waterfront Village, and the Waterfront Trail. Currently sidewalks are not provided on Wharf Street, presenting a pedestrian safety concern. The City's Official Plan, Liverpool Road Waterfront Guidelines, and sustainability objectives encourage the introduction of sidewalks to improve the pedestrian environment and promote healthy lifestyles. With the increased pedestrian activity anticipated for Wharf Street, it is important that a safe and functional sidewalk be introduced. Staff has evaluated locational options for a sidewalk and recommends installation on the south side of Wharf Street. This location best serves pedestrian traffic, provides the most direct route, and can be installed within approved budget provisions. Report PD 04-08 June 2, 2008 Subject: Sidewalk Installation on Wharf Street Page 2 . . {'\ !. Financial Implications: Installation of the sidewalk on the south side of Wharf Street is estimated to cost approximately $21,000. This sidewalk is identified as a Development Charge Project, and the 2007 Council approved capital budget provides funding for this project in the amount of $25,000 (External Subdivision Works account 07-5321-001-12 Roads - the cost is shared with 25 percent from Development Charges and the remaining 75 percent from the City). Sustainability Implications: Installation of a sidewalk on Wharf Street will improve pedestrian connections which assist in promoting a healthy and safe environment. Background: 1.0 Introduction The Council adopted Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines, provide direction to establish a well connected network of open spaces and streets, which exhibit a high level of streetscape design and quality, further reinforcing the character of the Nautical Village and to provide pedestrian friendly spaces. During the review of the site plan application for the Marshall Homes townhouse development known as "Frenchman's Bay Village", staff recommended that the developer be required to install a sidewalk on the south side of Wharf Street to implement the vision of the Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines and to provide for pedestrian safety on a road used by a working marina (see Attachment #1 - Location Map). However, at that time, plans to redevelop the Marina for a substantial restaurant use had not been submitted, and Marshall Homes preferred not to introduce a sidewalk across the eight townhouse units fronting Wharf Street. Consequently, the registered subdivision agreement made the installation of a sidewalk conditional upon the concurrence of three of the eight affected property owners. The eight landowners were later polled and the required level of support was not achieved. Consequently, the sidewalk was not installed and the developer's security related to the sidewalk installation was released. 2.0 Discussion 2.1 Recent redevelopment of the Wharf Street Marina has generated the need to provide a safe and appropriate pedestrian connection The redevelopment of the marina located at 1289 Wharf Street for a restaurant (Port), marina, and marina office has prompted a review of the pedestrian connections in this area. The new restaurant will supply its own parking in accordance with the zoning by-law, however it is anticipated that the restaurant will draw pedestrian traffic from the surrounding neighbourhood, the Waterfront Village and users of the Waterfront Trail. Report PD 04-08 June 2,2008 Subject: Sidewalk Installation on Wharf Street Page 3 z, --) The Liverpool Road Waterfront Node guidelines identify that Wharf Street is to remain a "working" street for marina activities. Marina functions and activities are proposed to remain with the introduction of the Port restaurant. With the introduction of this additional commercial use, it is important to provide safe pedestrian access for the users of the restaurant and area residents walking within the neighbourhood. Consequently, it is necessary that a sidewalk be introduced along Wharf Street. 2.2 Staff recommend a sidewalk be installed on the south side of Wharf Street (Option #2) Planning & Development and Municipal Property & Engineering staff considered various locational options for the introduction of a sidewalk, and recommend that the most appropriate location is the south side of Wharf Street. The south side location best serves anticipated pedestrian traffic flow and provides the most direct route. The majority of available public parking in this area is located south of Wharf Street on Liverpool Road (both on-street and in the municipally owned parking lot). Pedestrians coming to the restaurant from the area north of Wharf Street using Liverpool Road, could cross to the south side of Wharf Street at the controlled intersection, and access the sidewalk. Design options for the sidewalk on both the north and south side of Wharf Street are identified on Attachment #2 to this report. The recommended sidewalk design on the south side of Wharf Street was developed with the objective to locate the sidewalk as close as possible to the curb in order to minimize disturbance to the parking area of the eight existing townhouses, and to minimize disturbance to the landscaping that some landowners have completed at the end of their driveways (within the City-owned portion of the street). The introduction of a sidewalk on the south side will reduce the depth of the driveway currently available for resident vehicle parking. Our calculations indicate that the resultant driveway depth (from garage to sidewalk) will vary from 9.24 metres at the most westerly townhouse to 10.18 metres at the most easterly townhouse. A depth of just under 10.0 metres is required to accommodate two mid-size sedan automobiles in tandem. Consequently this design will be tight to fit two vehicles in the driveway, but depending on vehicle type, it may be possible. It is important that the sidewalk not be blocked by parked vehicles, and such blockage is not permitted by City by-laws. It should be noted that the zoning by-law provision applicable to these units requires two parking spaces for each townhouse, one of which is located within the attached garage. Townhouses internal to this project provide driveway depths capable of accommodating only one vehicle in front of the garage. Report PD 04-08 June 2,2008 Subject: Sidewalk Installation on Wharf Street Page 4 n '+ ~,) \ A portion of the boulevard on the south side of Wharf Street was improved by Marshall Homes with the introduction of a parking area associated with their office. Therefore the cost of the sidewalk installation on the south side is less than the north side, as a portion of sidewalk has already been completed. The cost to install a sidewalk on the south side of Wharf Street is estimated at $24,057. This includes sidewalk installation, adjustments to existing utilities, and adjustments to the existing landscape features installed by the property owners (see Attachment #4 - Cost Estimate Wharf Street Option #2 - South Side). 2.3 Alternative to install sidewalk on north side (Option #1) is feasible but not recommended An alternative design was considered for locating the sidewalk on the north side of Wharf Street (see Attachment #2 - Option #1). The design mirrors the treatment recommended in Option #2. This design option does not impact existing residents to the same magnitude as the south side option due to the fewer number of lots affected and the greater amount of lot area available to accommodate vehicle parking. The north side design cost estimate is $25,350, being marginally more expensive than the south side, given the greater length of improvement required (see Attachment #3 - Cost Estimate Wharf Street Option #1 - North Side). The north side installation is less desirable as it provides an indirect route for pedestrians and will likely not be used by the majority of pedestrians. It is unlikely that pedestrians originating from the Waterfront Village and Waterfront Trail will cross Wharf Street to access a sidewalk on the north side of the street, knowing that they will have to cross back a short distance later to access the restaurant. We anticipate that pedestrians would walk on the south side of the Wharf Street, in conflict with traffic, even if a sidewalk was installed on the north side of the street. Further, we anticipate that pedestrians originating from the north will cross Wharf Street at their earliest convenience and travel along the road to the restaurant. Report PO 04-08 June 2,2008 Subject: Sidewalk Installation on Wharf Street Page 5 ~ r- :i ,J Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Proposed Concrete Sidewalk Options 1 & 2 3. Cost Estimate Wharf Street Option #1 - North Side 4. Cost Estimate Wharf Street Option #2 - South Side Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Tyler Barnett Senior Planner - Site Planning Neil Carr II, P, RPP Director, Planning & Development Approved/Endorsed By: TB:ld Attachments / / G Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Directors Recommended for the consideration of PiCkenn,9 City rnci\ .... .'" . ."i ".,?'~~J j, r;(I//2- Thom~s J. Quin : RDMFt, CMMiU' Chief Administ~ ive Officer -'.,.,<.., / N , , <...:i' I I I '-\ IU \ I , i i r J \ \ I 0 L <C I " 0 \\ r-- 0:::: mmmmm.mm._n I ........... -....- .............- THE y, RT REST AU RANTl, [I~\- /1 il ..........----- \ .m...... ........................ ........n.............. FRENCHMAN'S l""" BAY L ':~-~~'~0l~~ PICKERING HARBOUR COMPANY(P.H.C.) M7'; \" CITY ~ OF PICKERING 0.... ----~ PARKING '.. 0.. m ----~ r~':;~ .. ------ ---...-..........,-"~ ""- -""""'-, ......,'....... . -0. [ -....:, -~ -. 0.0 -"'-"'~...,- ~-~ '......,'--."... --'-..-. "_m .. .. o~ '--............. ~ ' "'..,' ~~~-- " " ,.~ City of Pickering Planning & Development Department PROPERTY DESCRIPTION N/A l' OWNER VARIOUS DATE DEC. 18, 2007 DRAWN BY JB FILE No. N/A SCALE 1 :2000 CHECKED BY TB ~a~~r~~eu;c;~~erpr;ses Inc. and its suppliers. All rights Reserved. Not a plan of :survey. PN-3 2005 MPAC and its !luppliers. All rililhts Reserved. Not 0 plan of Survey. I I I I I I I I I I I I I J I I I I I I I I I I I I OPTION #1 f NORTH SIDE I PROPOSED FUTURE CURCi PROPOSED FUTURE SIDEWALK EXISTING SOD BLVD. EXISTING SOD BLVD. ! 4.ym EXISTING SOD BLVD. EXISTING SOD BLV~. " ." ..... ".:'~' ..'. .. .:~ .:: ~ "'.\.:':..~<;.:~'.,'~~~<: ~<:~.""~ ;'." ,'. ,", .::".. .\,"~: l... :...~.:. ..... ." I:,:;. - ~:~'>..., .-." r CUT EXISTING CURB FOR DEPRESSION (FOR OPTION #1) .. ;,;" mWM", "CCOWm {DEPENDS ON LANDSCAPING OPTION ',C!' ~ ,'.l ",..: ... PROP. UNILOCK HOLLANDSTONE DAm PROP. 1.5m CONC. SIDEWALK ADJUST VALVE r RELOCATE EXISTING UTILITIES r PROP. UNILOCK HOLLANDSTONE DAm r PROP. 1.5m CONC. SIDEWALK STREeT I I I I I I I I I I I I I OPTION #2 - SOUTH SIDE I OPERA TraNS & EMERGENCY SERVICES DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL PROPERTY & ENGINEERING DIVISION PROPOSED CONCRETE SIDEWALK OPTIONS 1 & 2 WHARF STREET Utq "I " ~ NTS NOV 26/2007 o <( o n::: .-J o o 0- n::: W > .-J r~ ~ -.J I 'I I II (~ UL '___ J ,TO ;.""',n', "0 O~ ()8 -, U't.ir) i Y '... . - ._ ~..o_~.. Operations & Emergency Services Municipal Property & Engineering Cost Estimate Sidewalk Construction Wharf Street Option #1 - North Side Date: November 27/2007 (after meeting) Item Description No. Actual Tender Unit Total _ __ __ __ _ql:l~_~!~~:( _ _ _ _ g~_~~_~i~y_ __ .l}_,:,~! _ _.. ..~.r.i~~..... __.. _ _. ..~.C?::>_tm _ _.. Excavation and Removals 1.02 Excavation and Gradina 1.02.01 Earth Excavation, grading 53 55 m3 $30.00 $1,650.00 (Sod 200mm = 23.6m3 Pavers 21 Omm = 8.4m3 Sidewalk 130mm = 21 m3) 1.03.21 Cut Existing Curb for Depression 2 2 ea $250.00 $500.00 Total - Excavation & Removals $2,150.00 Roadworks and Storm Sewers 1.07 Alternative Surface Treatments 1.07.01 Interlocking Paving Stone 40 42 m2 $150.00 $6,300.00 (including 150mm depth of Granular 'A') 1.14 Adiustments to Existina Utilities 1.15.58 Adjust Manholes, Catch Basins and/or Water Main Valve Chambers (max. 300mm) ea $300.00 $300.00 1.19 Sidewalks 1.19.02 Concrete Sidewalk (130mm depth) 162 165 m2 $75.00 $12,375.00 (154m2 + 8m2) 1.20 SoddinQ/SeedinQ 1.20.01 Unstaked Sodding (1.0m width) 118 120 m2 $8.00 $960.00 (107m2 + 5.5m2 + 5.5m2) 1.20.04 Screened Imported Topsoil (150mm depth) 118 120 m2 $8.00 $960.00 Total - Roadworks & Storm Sewers $20,895.00 Total Value of Work 10% Contingency $23,045.00 $ 2,304.50 Total Estimate $25,349.50 Page 1 of 1 >-ill ;, u Operations & Emergency Services Municipal Property & Engineering Cost Estimate Sidewalk Construction Wharf Street Option #2 - South Side ! '.' 9 u. Date: February 21/2008 (Revised) Item Description Actual Tender Unit Total ~~'__ _ _ __ _ _ _ ___ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _9.....~_~~~~~ ____g~_~~_~i~y. _ _ _U_':1!~_ _ _ _ _ _ _~_r_i~~_ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _<;:_C?~_~_____ Excavation and Removals 1.02 Excavation and GradinQ 1.02.01 Earth Excavation, grading (Sod 200mm = 8.5m3 Pavers 21 Omm = 4.5m3 Sidewalk 130mm = 12m3) 1.03.21 Cut Existing Curb for Depression 36 40 m3 ea $30.00 Total - Excavation & Removals $250.00 Roadworks and Storm Sewers 1.07 Alternative Surface Treatments 1.07.01 Interlocking Paving Stone (including 150mm depth of Granular 'A') 21 23 1.14 Adiustments to ExistinQ Utilities 1.14.30 Relocate Bell Pedestal (By Others) 1.14.40 Relocate Rogers Pedestal (By Others) 1.19 Sidewalks 1.19.02 Concrete Sidewalk (130mm depth) (80m2 + 12m2 + 17m2 + 18m2) 1.20 SoddinQ/SeedinQ 127 130 1.20.01 Unstaked Sodding (1.0m width) 42.5 45 1.20.04 Screened Imported Topsoil (150mm Depth) 42.5 45 6.2 Adiustments to ExistinQ Landscape Features 6.20.04 Adjust Existing Interlock Driveway Borders / Walls and Corner Feature m2 ea ea m2 m2 m2 Is $150.00 $750.00 $750.00 $75.00 $8.00 $8.00 $5,000.00 Total - Roadworks & Storm Sewers Total Value of Work 10% Contingency Total Estimate Page 1 of 1 $1,200.00 $250.00 $1,450.00 $3,450.00 $750.00 $750.00 $9,750.00 $360.00 $360.00 $5,000.00 $20,420.00 $21,870.00 $ 2,187.00 $ 24,057.00 eil/{ o~ I . '1 Ii l) REPORT TO PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Report Number: PD 19-08 Date: June 2, 2008 From: Neil Carroll Director, Planning & Development Subject: Thickson Developments Ltd. Plan of Subdivision 40M-1703 Thickson Developments Ltd. Plan of Subdivision 40M-1704 884396 Ontario Inc. Plan of Subdivision 40M-1710 Thickson Developments Ltd. Plan of Subdivision 40M-1711 Final Assumption of Plans of Subdivision Recommendation: 1. That Report PD 19-08 of the Director, Planning & Development regarding the Final Assumption of Plans of Subdivision 40M-1703, 40M-1704, 40M-1710 and 40M-1711 be received; 2. That the highways being Aspen Road and Pebble Court within Plans 40M-1703, 40M-1710 and 40M-1711 be assumed for public use; 3. That the services required by the Subdivision Agreements relating to Plans 40M-1703, 40M-1704, 40M-1710 and 40M-1711, which are constructed, installed or located on lands dedicated to, or owned by the City, or on lands lying immediately adjacent thereto, including lands that are subject to easements transferred to the City, be accepted and assumed for maintenance, save and except from Block 8, Plan 40M-1703, Blocks 8 and 9, Plan 40M-1704, Blocks 9 and 12, Plan 40M-1710 and Block 16, Plan 40M-1711; 4. That the Subdivision Agreements and any amendments thereto relating to Plans 40M-1703, 40M-1704, 40M-1710 and 40M-1711, save and except from Block 9, Plan 40M-1710, be released and removed from title; and 5. That Council enact a By-law to dedicate Block 6, Plan 40M-1703, Block 11, Plan 40M-1710 and Blocks 14 and 15, Plan 40M-1711 as public highways. Report PD 19-08 June 2, 2008 Subject: Final Assumption of Plans of Subdivision 40M-1703, 40M-1704, 40M-1710, and 40M-1711 Page 2 1 1 Executive Summary: The City entered into Subdivision Agreements with the above-noted developers for the development of Plans 40M-1703, 40M-1704, 40M-1710 and 40M-1711. As all works and services within these plans have been completed to the satisfaction of City staff, it is appropriate to assume the roads and services within these plans under the jurisdiction of the City and release the developers from the provisions of the Subdivision Agreements. Financial Implications: There are no new financial implications to the City as a result of this recommendation. Sustainability Implications: The final assumption of these plans of subdivision is an administrative process that legally concludes the City's acquisition of necessary roads and other infrastructure. It does not directly impact the City's sustainability initiatives. Background: The City entered into Subdivision Agreements with the above-noted developers for the development of Plans 40M-1703, 40M-1704, 40M-1710 and 40M-1711. As the developers have now completed all works and services to the satisfaction of City staff, it is appropriate to assume the roads and services within these Plans, save and except from: Plan 40M-1703 1. Block 8 In the ownership of the Region of Durham. Plan 40M-1704 1. Blocks 8 and 9 In the ownership of the Region of Durham. Plan 40M-1710 1. Block 9 Future development block; and 2. Block 12 Reserve. Plan 40M-1711 1. Block 16 In the ownership of the Region of Durham. It should be noted that the road fronting the lots within Plan 40M-1704 lie within an adjacent Plan of Subdivision. Accordingly, for the purposes of this report, authorization is being requested to release and remove the Subdivision Agreement from title only. Report PO 19-08 June 2, 2008 Subject: Final Assumption of Plans of Subdivision I .' '1 2 40M-1703, 40M-1704, 40M-1710, and 40M-1711 Page 3 Further, it is also appropriate to release the developers from the provisions of their respective Agreements with the City as follows: 1. Plan 40M-1703 Subdivision Agreement dated June 29, 1992 and registered as Instrument No. L T615958; 2. Plan 40M-1704 Subdivision Agreement dated May 4, 1992 and registered as Instrument No. LT618180; 3. Plan 40M-171 0 Subdivision Agreement dated October 5, 1992 and registered as Instrument No. L T627777 save and except from Block 9; and 4. Plan40M-1711 Subdivision Agreement dated October 19, 1992 and registered as Instrument No. L T627134. Attachments: 1. Location Map - Plan 40M-1703 2. Location Map - Plan 40M-1704 3. Location Map - Plan 40M-1710 4. Location Map - Plan 40M-1711 5. Draft By-law to dedicate Block 6, Plan 40M-1703, Block 11, Plan 40M-171 0 and Blocks 14 and 15, Plan 40M-1711 as public highways Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: l.J .;J. (") . Ul/-'C-" Denise Bye, $upervisor Property & Development Services , IP, RPP anning & Development DB:bg Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Report PO 19-08 June 2, 2008 Subject: Final Assumption of Plans of Subdivision 40M-1703, 40M-1704, 40M-1710, and 40M-1711 Page 4 1 ~~ Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council '1 .\ , / ~ (.')/ () ), """y/ / "" ""-, ---------- Recommendation approved: Chief Administrative Officer - , J)l h~ (~) l "~x (/((1/ Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Director, Office of Sustainability Director, Operations & Emergency Services Director, Planning & Development City Clerk ~~I~= ~== ~. ill~~., -~e-.~ D,ARWIN ~ (~-- _NOlI~~= 5=- ~ I ----- - >- --- --- =-- ~U=;/ COGNAC f I fu . SWAN1 q=- /j --., FINCH AVENUE FINCH =-= 0 --<\\ '/ / ij rr~ - AVENUE ~ =~-'_-J~~ ~D ~~~' ~ I ,Jct=, -~~- -==- ,-- --:- ~ f--=- ~ _, == ~ARKSIDE 1m DRIVE -- ~ ~-: ~~~\. NIPISSING 8~ .1 ~ ~ --- I - ~~~'~, 1- Cf f-- " ~ 0 --- -- -.---- ~ ~:- iITIT III IIII IIQJt ~ Cc""\ V I I RO^~_~~ --I ~ '; GRACEL^[" II II cirlllllll1r ~~i :-=~\l cour;~--Joc- ___ == I-- ROAD ST MARY __ ':'j I--- 1/ IlK \ I \ PARK I-.- ---- --= ~- ~'-". \ f'J ~ "'" \ ) SUBJECT / f---- __,. CANDATSET/ACON ~ SUBDIVISION 1--- ~ -- PUBLIC SCHOOL / /r--' x-\ --::1------1 ER1AMOSA ~ :==-=:: ~~ i~ J. McPHERSON -V \== ~~ T!:o~~[ ~ ===~:\ PARK HIGH SCHOOL ~ G00 f--.L---:::: C RES C E N T .;y Ol---v- II I <(;;0 f~=v' . ~ ,~ HIGHVIEW ROAD \... rn ~ ~ r-_... '--f\ \ NEW )>~, I ~~~~~~illJlIl 11 ;J;l-~~_O===f-=I:= I bt p - 'f oD::'L.-. _ Q: _ ~ VJ~I-- cruL.....-- - ~ -I-- \W L -I-- W -I-- 12i l ,=i= ~ == CRESCENT r=:i= ;j === I--~ W / 1---.- > -- - -J f--- 1--- 1---- _ U '--- '--- Q: \ i i f-- ARCADIA SQUARE - u " . if--: II I11Ili11 - ~ CRESCENT ==== t= ~I r -- Ez~~~ - City of Pickering I I PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 40M-1703 I OWNER VARIOUS I FILE No. SUBDIVISION COMPLETION AND ASSUMPTION 1 ,4 i'~1/..:'.\.~ t!__~TO kJiH t PC- 1<1 - '0'6 - f--- !----- w o VJ Y: f---- ~ f--- f--- Q. MILLBANK ROAD STREET ~ F- =~mI]~~~ - Q: Q: -r----- -"--- UNA S:- II \\~=t:J~' I ~-~ WOODRUFF ~ = VJ ~~.. 1./ ~~.(8~ ~ I! -r+ \J,~~ -I ('I~;;v 0 ~Y;Y Planning & Development Department 11'- AI if -I DATE JAN. 18,2008 ! DRAWN BY JB I I SCALE 1 :5000 : ~o 7~"'~::el...i/c;~~erD"i5efJ Inc. ond ita suppliers, All ...-iQhtll Reserved. r-.ot 0 pion of svrvey. ~ 2005 MPAC O'1C ita suppliers. All rir;;lhts Re:served. Not 0 plar, o~ Survey. I CHECKED BY DB i PN-11 " " "'1 T ," i i.f,,__~_.. u FL_._J5..:_~~___ ,- '-, ....) "~ ;:-= / COCNA^ .~~ ~ rmlllmrrrP:k.~... '~'~,~~~::-.: r![GAL :=J;c" I C I \ \) ~,siillIUirrID =;L ~/ FINCH AVENUE ~-INCH ""'-- ~'o=l\\ /~ I~ ~ II! I]]IIIIII.U[ a --~- \~ -- I ar z === 1- TIIIII I II III /lUll ~ ~~~--- I I ROAD_ ~- ~~ ~ GRACELAND co,u1"111'1TI :::-c::., I" \,/ 0 I-=\-\ ' J 'n =1 II II IIII ~::C" CDUR] ~ "'1 ~ ~D SC MARY _ == =-~~i= ~ _.' tl ~ \ " '\ ;";';/fJ ECT / ~= /. -,. it :..:. CANDA IVTlACON ;:::' ':: ..:....1 ~ ERAMOSA SUBDIVISION =- ~ = PUBLIC sa/OOL ~ ;~j I ~ == ~~ ~ J MCPHERSON-- -- 1 -v ~~n-~~~~ ~ ==== ~i' . PARK ):5 --Ii , f-- HIGH SCHOOL GO [f) - Y:f----_ ~ CRESCENT ~ IX -- , r~:/: q~~ - MILLBANK, ROAD if-- ", I HIGHVIEW ROAD r ,1* I , I ~. r---. NEW STREET ~ r-----j ---j o~~8~lrm II I---- ~ rT7',. ~ ;J )>- - <{'--et::f---""""" ~ I I---- ~ ~W-V~ J ~ = ~D::: ;:=: ii? ~== to t= == I ~ t=: ii? ii? f-2:: ~ D:::UL -- e--- ~I---- iI: L == t5 == UNA t::--f-- )0 l --- <{ -- ~ I '- ---- 1/ CRESCENT == ~== == Lj 1 \\~= f-w ~ _ -- -- - u V1 _ '--:c:::-:- ~~ D::, 1'1 w I' \ , II - ARCADIA SQUARE r--- u i = ~ ' "" \ I, i-I I II I I i I II1I ~ WOODRUFF - ---4-- ~"RESCENT ~ i3===J I~~I ('> -- ! = Y I Ii. -- I ~ I .; ,I . .' {)\ ,-- I -_-z------z\\It=,. ~ 1111///1/ \,:0 I --7 ~ - ==:J r'RLC:J.{ ~ / /. -z-. ---i City of Pickering Planning & Development Department I I I I L PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 40M-1704 --- I -"1\", [ i OWNER VARIOUS I DATE JAN. 18, 2008 DRAWN BY JB I I' I i I I i I FILE No. SUBDIVISION COMPLETION AND ASSUMP_TION I SCALE 1 :5000 CHECKED BY DB i_I aT~r:;::::tI'C;~~c",-p'-ia"8 Inc. Q.....d ite l!Iupp~;e.r8. Al~ r:Qhta Reserveo. I\;Ol c pIon of eurvey. I, PN-11 I 20C~ MPAC and :t~ !!lUDplic!l!I_ A:- r-i9ht~ Reserv~o Net c; plan o' Sur....ey. ~ j (, ~IniJ- --- We--__ . ~--- .N IC E-- Lu __ ~ M \ . 0 la :- 5'-~ - >-m == ~ ~e=</ I rOGNA/I..11fu FINCH h ~ 0 ==t\ / / I n ._f75"I ~6~ ~ \J v~ ~~~ t=DC~1~~_~ 0 S \ -l--~~ .~ 1.0.\ r- u ;:== .1- ~ ~ NIPISSING - cte-- -\~ . ~ 11I1E ill 'I !/fI llllllill DC ~ ~ GRAcfirl",l n ell r~Trmrrr AVENUE ROAD ST. MARY ~ 11 '\ ~ \ I \ ~ ERAMO SA ~. '-- I--- ~ CRESCENT 01--- ../ , %-\/J ~- .. I--- PARK SUBJECT SUBDIVISION, ST. MARY CA THOLlC HIGH SCHOOL HIGHVIEW ROAD H r-...---. ---1 o~~8 =-10 \~ )>- -<(--DC-~ P 'I c5~1-- DC __ (f)~~ esU~t-- == wt== ,m L - - Cl ~ _ _ '0 L -- <(~- CRESCENT == jC= ff -- ;;: >--- '--- - - C-.__ '-- ~- \ = ARCADiA SQUARE ~ CRESCENT - I I 1111 T I I 1111 ~ RII I t= z !--;~ ~ II City of Pickering PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 40M-1710 ..~ i C1 .. o:;S r---__ f-- - \-/---- ~9JIU;~ j =-r= ~ -u DARWIN -. -----~ --- --- ~ I I f ~- ~ ~ ----- , ~~_- f--~L'-r IT I mffifITD-~ ," ~ / liECAL SWAN fOI ACE =-.~'~ ~-1// / - - ~OillJlill[ill1JlIJlO ~=-~1 ~ / --- J- FINCH AVENUE DRIV, jj4~ ~ ~rnillmTl== ._-= --.J illUIIJ- -- -----1 ..cr'D^':=:~~ll~J[_ . __I _....~ " \1 "\ ~UJJI -_. -- - --.- 1-.-- 1---- PARKSIDE -- -- -- - .. t== -= ~-== C/ -1 ~- =- I--~ '\ J --- 7~ == I-f-.._ f---- I- f--- F= f--- -- - - .- - -~ COURT ~ I =='-- - lj- ~---gs- w_ Q. -- I--- e-- \-- ---- GANDA TSET/AGON PUBLIC SCHOOL UJ (f) <( - J..---- - ~ ~ ~r!?ri'-- J. M::RSON ~ =:- (j x:_ ~<:.,. I S!i -1---- ~ Q. I Q~ ~ MILL;~NK , [ROAD I NEW I-- STREET ~ ~ - d I-- o~o~ ~ f- 6 c3~ ~ f- 0:: o::e--_ I 1--- J UNA ~- , T I\\~~~ ~ I! I t;j B1 I I e-- 0::: I I ,II I---~ I WOODRUFF c--- UJ I I ~~ 118\1 ~ ~--I 1--'--- ~ I: II~. i>a;;. \ '" I I ~ 1111//,/ ~ I - . r r,/~ / -t. -- I Planning & Development Department i 11' I I I N I I PN.11 II ~ .-w -...1 _U f--- 0:: U I--- f--- f--- I--- .-1 FILE No. SUBDIVISION COMPLETION AND ASSUMPTION I OWNER VARIOUS I I I bate :so....rC8B_ e Teronct En~e,.pr;5es Inc. and ita suppliera. AI! ...i~.,t. Reserved. No!. 0 plan of .....,.yay. ~ 2005 MDAC 0'20 its suppl;er~, AI: ,.jghta Reserved. Not 0 Olof'" Of Survey DATE JAN. 18,2008 I DRAWN BY JB i SCALE 1 :5000 I CHECKED BY DB Lf IC; - C8' 'I ') ! I - 'qlJJJg-~_of~i;wIN" 1 ~J~r~;~~\~LAIP ~. III IllillillJ -~== -~/l I AVENUE FINCH ~~ ~ ~i,\\ '/ / II \ AVENUE ____ ~~~~~! I" "c JE::JL ~lllrmI1WIj~~~- ~ ~~\ M~8= 0 == IillIL~nlJlrrrnm I_=-~_n ~ Z- NIPISSING ~ - 0 - -- JJJOIill r UlIlJ ~=---- ----j Im-= ~ == \~ III I' II I flrlll ~ ~-=:==- rWAD =-=Jl ~ GR^C~LllU' cbluRr lW, I~= \ n o=-j~'-_ ~ \- -I ~ ':: III III 11111rIT( ~ ~o~ . cDURr-~ / \ -\ ~,i rWAD 57 MARY _0_ "J __ ~ '\ \. \ 1/ II \ '} PARK == t= - ~~:.: ~ ---\ ~I f'J , \. SUBJECT:-- -- r--~ GANDA TSU/AGON ~ ERAMOSA SUBDIVISION -- i5 - PUBLIC SCHOOL - ~- 9 ~-:\ I fo~7::~L~[ ~ Sf ~~S, 8- J. M::R50N ~ == - ~ ~ HIGH SCHOOL G ,/ If) ~ __-j CRESCENT ~<v Ei - f----- O~~ 0'<Y <(- ~-----\ /j I ~ Q-- " / (( ~ MILLBANK ROAD ~ ~ I HIGHVIEW ROAD I R ~ r-r--- NEW. STREET ~ F- ?5~\~-~~g~~ II =~mJj~~8 pR~i5cr ,\=o::l=f=lf)=~ I ~ _0:: 0::-_ \ cru 1-- f---!-- -c-- - __ , \~ L I=~ t5 == UNA .:....-- )'0 l 1--- <( -- -,~ I ' ---- CRESCENT '== ;;! 1== - w I \\~ - / ' --- > f---- -- -1 I \ \ - f- ~ I I : i;: ~IDli~I~~~Ji~fll ~ ~ wltUF~== ~ I @ ~RE\cr:iL === ~ ~~ Ilj~I~~\~ -+-- r-- z -i ~r--: - - ~ ~~~ ___ City of Pickering Planning & Development Department ~~'-~ CT -- _____~ f-_-= d f--~ Ul f---'-- .-'"'"'"\" (~_N o~~c _~ 5~:: -- >- -- ~/ I __ =----= ~~!=I COGNAC I I lfu FINCH v L PROPERTY DES~RIPTION 40M-1711 i OWNER VARIOUS f- ! FILE No, SUBDIVISION COMPLETION AND ASSUMPTION i ,- I DATE JAN. 18,2008 i DRA'NN BY I I SCALE 1 :5000 I I CHECKED BY I JB j I I DB ! l' ^' bore; ~ou~celll: Ie' .e"-or>el Ll"'torprie"ll Inc. O"G ita !l,-,ppliera. All r'9hta Re.e...."ed, 1\;0\ a pion C' ~05 MPAC 0<10 as sUDpi;er~ AI, r,-;,",ts Res~rved. Not c _.;:tlor; of Survey Bl.J,<-vey PN-11 5 18 -o<;Z THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING BY-LAW NO. Being a By-law to dedicate certain roads within the City of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham as public highways. WHEREAS The Corporation of the City of Pickering is the owner of certain lands lying within Pickering and wishes to dedicate them as public highways. NOW THEREFORE, the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. Block 6, Plan 40M-1703, Pickering is hereby dedicated as public highway. (Pebble Court) 2. Block 11, Plan 40M-1710, Pickering is hereby dedicated as public highway. (Aspen Road) 3. Block 14, Plan 40M-1711, Pickering is hereby dedicated as public highway. (Pebble Court) 4. Block 15, Plan 40M-1711, Pickering is hereby dedicated as public highway. (Aspen Road) BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 16th day of June, 2008. David Ryan, Debi A. Wilcox, City Clerk Roadded.493 Citlf (1~ REPORT TO PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Report Number: PD 22-08 Date: June 2, 2008 9 From: Neil Carroll Director, Planning & Development Subject: Rockwood Drive Extension - Road Dedication and Naming By-laws - File: D0507/ROADDED.498 Recommendation: 1. That Report PD 22-08 of the Director, Planning & Development regarding the naming and dedication, as public highway, of certain lands lying within Pickering be received; 2. That By-laws be enacted to: a) dedicate and name certain parts of Lots 3 and 4, Registrar's Compiled Plan 282, Pickering, being Parts 38, 40, 41, 44, 46, 48, 50, 54, 57, 58, 62, 70,71,74,75 and 76, Plan 40R-25121 and Blocks 31 and 32, Plan 40M-2164 as Rockwood Drive in accordance with Land Division Application LD 109/07 (the "subject lands"); and b) dedicate and name certain parts of Lots 3 and 4, Registrar's Compiled Plan 282, Pickering, being Parts 37, 39, 59, 60, 61, 67 and 68, Plan 40R-25121 as Rockwood Drive in accordance with Land Division Applications LD 040-041/08 and LD 056-058/08 (the "reserves"). Executive Summary: The northerly portion of Rockwood Drive was constructed through Plan 40M-2068 and the southerly portion of Rockwood Drive through Plan 40M-2164 leaving the central 160 metres (approximately) to be constructed. The City has acquired the connecting lands required to complete the construction of Rockwood Drive and has entered into an Agreement with the developer of adjacent lots for its construction. Once the construction is complete, the appropriate by-law should be enacted and registered to name and dedicate the subject lands as a public highway (Rockwood Drive). Further, the final approval of severance applications LD 040-041/08 and LD 056-058/08 is contingent upon the reserves fronting the newly created lots being dedicated as public highway. When construction of the road over the subject lands (Rockwood Drive) is complete, the road is dedicated, and the applicants have fully complied with their conditions of severance, it will then be appropriate to dedicate the reserves fronting the newly created lots as public highway. Report PO 22-08 June 2, 2008 Su.Pj~ct: Rockwood Drive Extension Page 2 Financial Implications: Legal Fees and Disbursements Developers/Applicant's Cost Sustainability Implications: The dedication of these lands is an administrative process that legally concludes the construction of this portion of Rockwood Drive. It does not directly impact the City's sustainability initiatives. Background: The northerly portion of Rockwood Drive was constructed through Plan 40M-2068 and the southerly portion of Rockwood Drive through Plan 40M-2164 leaving the central 160 metres (approximately) to be constructed. Through severance application LD 109/07, the City acquired the connecting lands to complete the construction of Rockwood Drive and entered into an Agreement with Grant Morris Associates Ltd. for its construction. Once the road construction is complete, the appropriate by-law should be enacted and registered to name and dedicate the subject lands as a public highway (Rockwood Drive). It is also appropriate to lift the 0.3 metre reserves at the south limit (Blocks 31 and 32, Plan 40M-2164) of the newly constructed Rockwood Drive thereby permitting legal access to it. Further, the final approval of severance applications LD 040-041/08 and LD 056-058/08 is contingent upon the reserves (which were also acquired through LD 109/07) fronting the newly created lots being dedicated as public highway. When the construction of the road over the subject lands (Rockwood Drive) is complete, the road is dedicated as public highway, and the applicants have fully complied with their conditions of severance, it will then be appropriate to dedicate the reserves fronting the newly created lots as public highway, thereby permitting legal access to the lots. Staff is seeking enactment of these by-laws at this time as it is anticipated that the extension of Rockwood Drive will be completed during Council's summer recess. The registration of the by-law depicting: (a) the subject lands (LD 109/07) will not be effected until such time as the construction inspection of the newly constructed portion of Rockwood Drive has been finalized and is to the satisfaction of the City; and (b) the reserves (Land Divisions LD 040-041/08 and LD 056-058/08) will not be registered until Rockwood Drive has been dedicated as public highway and all severance conditions have been complied with. Report PO 22-08 June 2, 2008 Subject: Rockwood Drive Extension Page 3 "j 'j Attachments: 1. Road Dedication and Naming Location Map - Subject Lands 2. Road Dedication and Naming Location Map - Reserve Lands 3. Draft Road Dedicating and Naming By-law - Subject Lands 4. Draft Road Dedicating and Naming By-law - Reserve Lands Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: A / ----. " xJ ~/--e Denise Bye, Supervisor Property & Development Services /,/' /. ~,..",,, Neil CarlrO , P, RPP Director~ ning & Development DB:bg Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Coun.~1 II i 'r , tr~'" I) 2 ~d. -c 8 DETAIL INSET 1 I SCALE N.T.S. --. --.----------- I I f----- -- PART 76 40R-25121----- <Xl C') I- BLOCK 32 a: :; 40M-2164 <( \ BLOCK 31 a. I- 40M-2164 i-- a: -..- t 0 <( <3" a. I- a: I <( I----._--_._._~..- a. - --_._--~_.~_._-- - <3" <3" I- a: ROCKWOOD DRIVE <( 0 a. It> ~ I- ~-----~---_._--_.._~~-,_.__.~-~_.- a: (l) <( <3" a. I- a: <( a. - ,- _. -1- -SUBJECT - <Xl <3" <3" I- -1- a: It> <( I- a. a: <( a. <Xl It> J LANDS - I- - a: 40R-25121 <( ,,~ a. !1:\ I--- ql>' f-.-.. -- . J_ _ __ ..__'_ PART 62 I_ ;::: 0 I'- l- I- a: a: <( <( a. a. --- .. <3" It> I'- l- I'- a: I- <( a: a. <( "- __"_m__._ n. )ART 76 .- QI n,..v ~1 & 32 40M- 1 64 _4jJJ?-25121~ SEE ;f1 S T1 WI...... ""WI'" I I ----.-----...- City of Pickering Planning & Development Department PROPERTY DESCRIPTION PARTS 38, 40, 41,44,46,48,50,54,57,58,62,70,71,74,75 & 76, 40R-25121 l' AND BLOCK 31 & 32, 40M.2164 (THE SUBJECT LANDS) OWNER CITY OF PICKERING DATE MAY 14, 2008 DRAWN BY JB FILE No. ROADDED. #498 SCALE 1 :5000 CHECKED BY DB IV lC<:li~r;~~t"-c~~~erpri~e:"l Inc. and its supplier:"!. All right!!! Reserved Not a pion of :"Iur-vey PN-11 2005 MPAC and its suppliers. All rights Reserved. Not 0 plcr of Survey. 7- .~C" (:1 ~ ,} ~ ROCKWOOD DR VE /' --- I I I I I PART 37 I .. I 40R-25121 I I I I LO 040 - 041/08 I I - I I I I PART 39 I I 40R-25121 .. I I I I I 1-___ -- I ---t~-. -_.._._-~- -._----_...~ -- I I I I I I I I I I I I ------+-- I I I I I I I I I I I I r, I -- I I I () I I I f) I I I I L I I ._-. ...- ---~---~..__.__.._--._--- ---'---"~-'---'-~ b PART 59 ~ ... 40R-25121 - ~ PART 60 .. 40R-25121 ~ ----- I ~ I cr:: I PART 61 I 0 ... 40R-25121 I LO 056 . 058/08 I I I - I 0 I I 0 L__ I I I 0 I PART 67 I S I ... 40R-25121 I , 'Y I I U , I 0 PART 68 I I .. 40R-25121 +--- cr:: ._--~ -_.~~ -- I I I I I I I I I I I I --I . - ~_._--_._---- I ~- - -------~--_._--- -- -~------_~-=-_____=r= ROCKWOOD DR ------ City of Pickering Planning & Development Department PROPERTY DESCRIPTION PARTS 37, 39, 59, 60, 61,67 & 68, 40R.25121 (THE RESERVES) l' OWNER CITY OF PICKERING DATE MAY 14, 2008 DRAWN BY JB FILE No_ ROADDED. #498 SCALE 1 :5000 CHECKED BY DB a Q 'Sources: PN-11 Tercnet Enterp...i~es Inc. and ibs suppliers. All rights Reserved. Not a plan of survey. 2005 MPAC and its suppllers. All rights Reser-ved. Not 0 plan of Survey. ) ,11 .' ,.f r~~! ' "'1 fI J TO ... .......2~?-=-_Q~._ THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING BY-LAW NO. Being a by-law to dedicate parts of Lots 3 and 4, Registrar's Compiled Plan 282, Pickering, being Parts 38,40,41,44,46,48,50,54,57,58,62,70,71,74, 75 and 76, Plan 40R-25121 and Blocks 31 and 32, Plan 40M-2164 as public highway (Rockwood Drive). WHEREAS The Corporation of the City of Pickering is the owner of certain lands lying within Pickering and wishes to dedicate them as public highway. NOW THEREFORE, the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. Those parts of Lots 3 and 4, Registrar's Compiled Plan 282, Pickering, being Parts 38, 40, 41, 44, 46, 48, 50, 54, 57, 58, 62, 70, 71, 74, 75 and 76, Plan 40R-25121 and Blocks 31 and 32, Plan 40M-2164 are hereby dedicated as public highway (Rockwood Drive). BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 16th day of June, 2008. David Ryan, Mayor Debi A. Wilcox, City Clerk Roadded 498 4- ':):i:"-;Sz :? ') THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING BY-LAW NO, Being a by-law to dedicate parts of Lots 3 and 4, Registrar's Compiled Plan 282, Pickering, being Parts 37, 39, 59, 60, 61, 67 and 68, Plan 40R-25121 as public highway (Rockwood Drive). WHEREAS The Corporation of the City of Pickering is the owner of certain lands lying within Pickering and wishes to dedicate them as public highway. NOW THEREFORE, the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 2. Those parts of lots 3 and 4, Registrar's Compiled Plan 282, Pickering, being Parts 37, 39, 59, 60, 61, 67 and 68, Plan 40R-25121 are hereby dedicated as public highway (Rockwood Drive), BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 16th day of June, 2008, Debi A Wilcox, City Clerk Roadded.498 ~) () REPORT TO PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Report Number: PD 23-08 Date: June 2, 2008 From: Neil Carroll Director, Planning & Development Subject: Comments on the Technical Paper Proposed Size and Location of Urban Growth Centres in the Greater Golden Horseshoe, prepared by the Ontario Growth Secretariat, Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal, Spring 2008 Recommendations: 1. That Report PD 23-08 of the Director, Planning & Development, regarding on the Technical Paper Proposed Size and Location of Urban Growth Centres in the Greater Golden Horseshoe, released Spring 2008, by the Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal, be received; 2. That the comments contained in Report PD 23-08 on the Technical Paper Proposed Size and Location of Urban Growth Centres in the Greater Golden Horseshoe, be endorsed, and that the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal be requested to: a) finalize the size and location of the Pickering Downtown Urban Growth Centre as set out in the Technical Paper; b) revise the method of calculating the density in Pickering's Urban Growth Centre to allow exclusion of the controlled access freeway and railway corridor; and c) revise the profile for Pickering's Urban Growth Centre to more accurately reflect its current mix of uses, and location, as set out in Section 2.4 of this Report; 3. That the Ministers of Public Infrastructure Renewal, and Municipal Affairs and Housing be requested to identify a predictable funding program to provide needed infrastructure and related municipal facilities to foster the growth of Urban Growth Centres, including Downtown Pickering; and 4. Further, that a copy of Report PD 23-08 be forwarded to the Region of Durham and the Ministers of Public Infrastructure Renewal and Municipal Affairs and Housing. Report PD 23-08 June 2, 2008 Subject: Proposed Size and Location of Urban Growth Centres in the Greater Golden Horseshoe Page 2 ?7 Executive Summary: Downtown Pickering is identified as an Urban Growth Centre (UGC) by the Provincial Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. As one of the implementation steps under the Growth Plan, the Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal released a Technical Paper titled Proposed Size and Location of the Urban Growth Centres in the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Extracts of the Paper are provided as Attachment #1. The Technical Paper shows the proposed size and location for each growth centre. The map for Downtown Pickering's growth centre is found on Page 45 of the Paper and is included in Attachment #1. The Technical Paper also: restates the overall objectives for urban growth centres; identifies guiding principles for them; provides key statistics and a descriptive profile about each; and suggests principles to improve each urban growth centre. Comments on the Technical Paper were requested by the end of May 2008. Staff supports the size and location of Downtown Pickering's urban growth centre, proposed in the Technical Paper. However, we continue to disagree with the Ministry's requirement to use a "gross" land area for monitoring the density. In Pickering's growth centre, Highway 401 and Canadian National's main railway corridor comprise almost 20% of the total land area. These lands are not redevelopable. The Growth Plan sets the density target for Downtown Pickering at 200 jobs and persons per gross hectare. If the Highway 401 and CN lands remain in the calculation of the growth centre area, then the remaining lands must be developed at significantly higher densities Uust under 250 jobs and persons per hectare), which in our view is contrary to the intent of the Growth Plan. The Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal is requested to allow controlled access highways and rail corridors to be excluded from the density calculations. In addition, the Province is requested to provide long-term predictable funding for the infrastructure and municipal facilities necessary to serve the Downtown Pickering Urban Growth Centre. Financial Implications: None Sustainability Implications: The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Growth Plan), along with the Greenbelt Plan, are key to the Province directing a more sustainable urban growth pattern across the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Defining Urban Growth Centres is one of several key elements of the Growth Plan. The proposed size and location of Pickering's Urban Growth Centre will accommodate significant new growth with high intensity, mixed uses, and vibrant, pedestrian-oriented development. The centre will achieve a sufficient size and density to effectively support public transit as an alternative transportation mode. Report PO 23-08 June 2, 2008 Subject: . ., i f, !) I: (; Proposed Size and Location of Urban Growth Centres in the Greater Golden Horseshoe Page 3 1.0 Background 1.1 The Ministry invited comments on its Technical Paper on the Size and Location of Urban Growth Centres On June 16, 2006, the Ontario government released the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006, which established a twenty-five year vision and set of policies for the development of more complete and vibrant communities, with an appropriate mix of housing, jobs and community services. The Growth Plan identifies twenty-five Urban Growth Centres (UGC) throughout the Greater Golden Horseshoe and establishes specific policies and minimum density targets for these centres. The Downtown Pickering UGC, along with the others adjacent to Toronto, are to achieve a density of 200 jobs and residents per hectare by 2031. To implement the Growth Plan, the Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal (MPIR) is working to identify the general size and location of the urban growth centres. The Ministry has requested comments be provided by May 30,2008, on the recently released Technical Paper titled Proposed Size and Location of Urban Growth Centres in the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Among other matters, the Paper contains conceptual mapping for each UGC to guide municipalities through Growth Plan conformity. 2.0 Discussion 2.1 The Proposed Boundary for the Downtown Pickering Urban Growth Centre is generally supported The Technical Paper envisions the Pickering UGC as a focal point for investment in institutional, recreational, commercial, cultural and entertainment uses, and as a location for higher density residential and employment opportunities that enable walking, cycling and higher order transit service. This vision is consistent with City's objectives for Downtown Pickering. The Technical Paper's proposed size and location for the Downtown Pickering UGC is appropriate to foster an appropriately sized and situated centre for the City. The map for Pickering reflects City and Regional staff recommendations to date on this matter. The boundary will be precisely delineated in the Pickering Official Plan through the City's Growth Plan conformity amendment. Staff's comments to MPIR were provided to Council in June 12, 2007, through CAO correspondence respecting Comments to Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal on a Draft Boundary for the Pickering Urban Growth Centre. Report PD 23-08 June 2, 2008 Subject: Proposed Size and Location of Urban Growth Centres in the Greater Golden Horseshoe Page 4 , ,~, ; U Attachment #1 is an extract from the Technical Paper. It contains key statistics, a description of the current Pickering Downtown, suggested objectives, and a map showing the proposed size and location of the Downtown Pickering UGC. The Proposed Downtown Pickering Urban Growth Centre boundaries are: · eastern boundary - the west edge of the Hydro right-of-way; · northern boundary - north side of Kingston Road, westerly from Hydro right-of-way to include the west corner of Liverpool Road; · western boundary - Pine Creek; and, · southern boundary - north side of Bayly Street, from Liverpool Road to the Hydro right-of-way. 2.2 The Ministry's requirement that Highway 401 and CN Railway lands be included in calculating intensification targets goes against one of the guiding principles for Urban Growth Centres and is not supported The first two Guiding Principles for Urban Growth Centres proposed in the Technical Paper are: · An urban growth centre should be one contiguous area; and, · An urban growth centre should have opportunities for intensification and redevelopment that complement existing urban form. MPIR staff have indicated that required densities within Urban Growth Centres must be calculated for all lands within the UGC boundaries. While the guiding principles are supported, achievement of one principle should not frustrate achievement of other principles. Retention of a contiguous boundary for the Pickering UGC meets the principle that the UGC be one contiguous area. However, inclusion of non-developable Highway 401 and CN rail lands in the density calculations for the UGC frustrates the achievement of the second principle that a UGC have opportunities for intensification and redevelopment that complement existing urban form. The Growth Plan sets the density target for Downtown Pickering at 200 jobs and persons per gross hectare. The Growth Centre proposed by MPIR comprises a gross area of approximately 140 hectares, approximately 19% of which is occupied by the Highway 401/CN corridor. While it is appropriate to include local and regional roads in the grow area calculation, inclusion of the wide 401/CN corridor will significantly impact Growth Plan implementation. Report PD 23-08 June 2, 2008 Subject: ~ Proposed Size and Location of Urban Growth Centres in the Greater Golden Horseshoe Page 5 The inclusion of the Highway 401/CNR lands means the remaining lands in the Pickering UGC must achieve a density of approximately 245 jobs and persons per gross hectare, being an increase of approximately 23%. None of the other GTA UGC's have similar large areas of undevelopable lands within their UGC boundary. For the Pickering UGC, either the Highway/Railway lands should be mainly excluded from the UGC boundary at the Official Plan conformity amendment step of implementing the Growth Plan, or the Minister should agree to not count these lands for intensification monitoring purposes. 2.3 The density of Pickering's Urban Growth Centre has increased since the 2001 Census information used in the Technical Paper The Technical Paper indicates a density for the Pickering UGC of about 50 jobs and residents per hectare. This is based on 2001 census information. Based on an update of the development that has occurred since 2001, staff suggests the density of Pickering's UGC, in mid 2007, has increased to about 85 jobs and residents per hectare. 2.4 The profile for Downtown Pickering should include more specific information The profile for Downtown Pickering should indicate that the downtown centre contains recreational facilities in addition to institutional and cultural facilities. It should also specify that Downtown Pickering is located along the Highway 401/GO transportation corridor. 2.5 To date, the Ministry has consulted with municipal staff on technical aspects of implementing the Growth Plan Since the release of the Growth Plan in June 2006, the Ministry has consulted with staff several times on the matters related to identifying the boundary of the built-up area, and the scale and scope of the Urban Growth Centres. In each case, comments on methodology and mapping were provided directly to MPIR staff given the short time frames for commenting. Although the current Technical Paper is available on the MPIR website, and was sent to municipalities and other key stakeholders, there has been no broad public involvement program by MPIR. The Places to Grow Act requires that municipalities (both the Region and the City) amend their official plans to conform to the policies of the Growth Plan by June 16, 2009. The Region of Durham is undertaking a Growth Plan Implementation Study with the intent to complete a conforming amendment to the Durham Regional Official Plan by the end of 2008, with adoption anticipated by June 2009. The Pickering Official Plan Review includes a Growth Plan conformity amendment as a workplan deliverable in 2009. Report PO 23-08 June 2, 2008 Subject: Proposed Size and Location of Urban Growth Centres in the Greater Golden Horseshoe Page 6 7 '1 ..) 2.6 Consideration of the 'conformity' amendment to the Pickering Official Plan will provide an opportunity for Council and public input to implementation of the Growth Plan The opportunity for local public input on the Pickering Downtown Urban Growth Centre boundary will occur through the City's process to amend its Official Plan to conform with the Growth Plan. At that time, minor changes to the boundary from that set out by the Province can be considered. However, should major changes to the size and location be recommended, the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal must be consulted. 3.0 Related Growth Plan Implementation Matters 3.1 The Final Built Boundary has been delineated by the Minister This spring, MPIR also issued a document titled Built Boundary for the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006. This document gives the final principles and the detailed mapping of the delineated built up areas for Durham Region, and the other Growth Plan areas. The Built Boundary will be used to monitor the intensification target of the Growth Plan. The Plan requires that 40% of the Region's future residential growth should be located within the Built Boundary, by 2015, and each year thereafter. For Pickering, the Built Boundary identified by MPIR basically follows the CP Rail line. Staff concurs that this boundary reflects the built up areas of Pickering as of June 2006 and incorporates almost all of the recommendations made by City and Regional staff. 3.2 Financial tools available to municipalities are not adequate to provide infrastructure and municipal facilities necessary to support the intensified development envisioned for the Urban Growth Centre The City supports the overall objective of transforming the Pickering's Downtown into a more vibrant urban growth centre, with intensive, mixed-use, transit and pedestrian oriented development. However, the financial tools to upgrade the public infrastructure are not sufficient. The financial tools provided by amendments to the Planning Act and related legislation over the past several years are minimal in their ability to stimulate private sector development. They are mainly aimed at municipal governments waiving fees or providing subsidies. No significant assistance has been identified to stimulate the development market and pay for large scale infrastructure and municipal/public facilities that will be needed to serve the increased jobs and people. Confirmation of a multi-year, predictable funding source for infrastructure and other municipal facilities to support urban growth centres is needed. Report PO 23-08 June 2, 2008 Subject: . ., t Z,0\ ..J L Proposed Size and Location of Urban Growth Centres in the Greater Golden Horseshoe Page 7 Accordingly, it is recommended that Council request the Provincial Government to identify a predictable funding program to provide needed infrastructure and related municipal facilities to foster the growth of a Downtown Pickering Urban Growth Centre. 3.3 The Provincial Growth Plan also provides an intensification in areas outside the Downtown Urban Growth Centre In addition to Urban Growth Centres, the Growth Plan includes policies to achieve intensification in major transit station areas and intensification corridors. Major transit station areas include lands within an approximate 500 metre radius of higher order transit stations, such as the Pickering GO station. Intensification corridors include areas along major roads, arterials or higher order transit corridors. The policies require official plans to designate lands to achieve increased residential and employment densities and a mix of residential, office, institutional and commercial development, where appropriate, around major transit station areas and intensification corridors. Implementation of the major transit station area and intensification corridor policies will provide opportunities for intensification along such arterial roads as Kingston Road and Bayly Street and at nodes along these corridors. These other opportunities will be reviewed and established through the City Official Plan Review process and the conformity amendment required to implement the Growth Plan. Attachments: 1. Downtown Pickering Urban Growth Centre - Key Statistics, Objectives and Map (Extracts from Technical Paper - Proposed Size and Location of Urban Growth Centres in the Greater Golden Horseshoe) Report PD 23-08 June 2, 2008 Subject: Proposed Size and Location of Urban Growth Centres in the Greater Golden Horseshoe Page 8 .~..5 Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: 1~J1~ . Steve Gaunt Senior Planner Catherine Rose, MeIP, R Manager, Policy SG:jf Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering Cit'tCounci ~... O' :;:. /1 ...~) ~, I '~..J-of PlACES TO GROW l BETTER CHOICES" BRIGHTER FUTU REm"mJ Proposed Size and Location of Urban Growth Centres in the Greater Golden Horseshoe Tech n ica I Pa per Spring 2008 Prepared by Ontario Growth Secretariat Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal f'~ t? Ontario Downtown Pickering Urban Growth Centre Key Statistics Approximate Area 140 hectares Approximate Density, 2001 * 50 jobs and residents per hectare ~based on Statistics Canada data on an area closely corresponding to the proposed size and location. 44 .",. _..~..,.;,..,.,,: hv'.....-______.., or C) i'....:?S..:s? ~" 35 Growth Plan Density Target 200 jobs and residents per hectare Pickering is an emerging centre located in the eastern portion of the Greater Golden Horseshoe and is one of two urban growth centres in Durham Region. The centre is generally focused on the downtown core area, in the area northeast of the intersection of Liverpool Road and Bayly Street. Pickering is a vibrant and active community that offers a variety of recreational, leisure and cultural activities for all ages and abilities. The downtown serves as a commercial and civic centre for the City of Pickering and surrounding communities. The centre c.ontains institutional and cultural facilities and is a key retail shopping and service hub. Downtown Pickering is well connected to both local and regional transit, and is located along a major transportation corridor. In planning for the Downtown Pickering urban growth centre, the City of Pickering is encouraged to consider: . Supporting existing and planned transit investments through residential, employment and institutional intensification. . Ensuring walkability and pedestrian- oriented development. Supporting the achievement of a complete community with a vibrant mix of uses. Proposed Size and Location of Urban Growth Centres in the Greater Golden Horseshoe Technical Paper Spring 2008 f ;<3 o~ \ \ \ \ lr "\ \: \ \ ~-y4~ .~ j , .x-X '" '<4 Legend Urban Growth Centre, Proposed Size and Location Frenclllllon's Bay . Major Highway _ Regional/Municipal Boundary Open Space (includes public and private parks, cemeteries, golf courses, and utility corridors) Source: MinIstry of Public Infrastructure Renewal 0.5 I t. 0.25 0.5 Km I This proposed size and location mapping is being released for use in implementing the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006. An urban growth centre boundary is not a land use deSignation and its delineation will not confer any new land use designations. nor alter existing land use designations. Any development on lands within the proposed urban growth centre boundary is still subject to the relevant provincial plans and provincial and municipal land use planning policies and approval processes. The Province of Ontario assumes no responsibility or liability for any consequences of any use made of this map. Proposed Downtown Pickering Urban Growth Centre Proposed Size and Location of Urban Growth Centres in the Greater Golden Horseshoe Technical Paper Spring 2008 .~ (::; 45 REPORT TO PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Report Number: PD 24-08 Date: June 2, 2008 .) I From: Neil Carroll Director, Planning & Development Subject: White Paper 1- Vision, Goals and Objectives, May 2008 White Paper 2 - Preliminary Directions and Concepts, May 2008 Metrolinx Recommendation: 1. That Report PD 24-08 of the Director, Planning & Development regarding the draft White Papers 1 & 2, dated May 2008, prepared by Metrolinx, be received for information. Executive Summary: In June 2006, the Province created the Greater Toronto Transportation Authority (GTTA) to develop and implement a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) for the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA). In early 2008, a series of Green Papers were released as a first step to developing the RTP. The Green Papers addressed such topics as sustainable transportation, mobility hubs, transportation demand management, moving goods and delivering services, highways and roads, and transit. Possible programs, policies and infrastructure investments were also considered. Due to the tight timeframe for municipal comments and Council's meeting schedule, staff comments were provided directly to Metrolinx (see copy of letter, Attachment #1). In May 2008, Metrolinx released two White Papers. The vision, goals, objectives and possible indicators contained in White Paper 1 provide direction to developing the RTP. White Paper 2 presents programs and policies that address the issues identified in the Green Papers and fulfill the goals and objectives listed in White Paper 1. White Paper 2 also analyzes three transportation infrastructure test concepts to the year 2031. These concepts support the objectives of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and are based on the MoveOntario 2020, official plans, and transportation plans. Annual capital investments relating to the test concepts over the next 25 years are projected to be between $2.4 and $3.8 billion annually, well beyond the business-as-usual estimate of $1.0 billion annually. In addition, White Paper 2 discusses implementation activities and issues including coordination and collaboration activities, as well as the preparation of a transportation investment strategy. The White Papers provide an intermediate step between the Green Papers and the draft RTP. Input on the White Papers will assist in the development of the draft RTP that will be released for public comment and broad consultation in July 2008. Report PD 24-08 June 2, 2008 Subject: White Papers 1 & 2 - Consultation 2008 I II I 1, n Page 2 Financial Implications: None to adopt the recommendation of this Report to Council. Sustainability Implications: Metrolinx is preparing a long-term plan for an integrated multi-modal regional transportation system. Metrolinx is basing the plan on three sustainable lenses: people, environment and economy. This initiative is consistent with the City's five sustainable objectives of a healthy environment, society, economy, responsible development and responsible consumption. 1.0 Background: 1.1 The Province created the Greater Toronto Transportation Authority (GTTA) in June 2006 In June 2006, the Province created the GTTA to develop and implement a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) for the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA). The GTHA encompasses the City of Toronto, four surrounding regional municipalities of Durham, Halton, Peel and York and the City of Hamilton. The GTT A has adopted Metrolinx as its name to reflect its mandate to improve the coordination and integration of all modes of transportation in the region. 1.2 Seven RTP Green Papers were released as a first step to developing a Regional Transportation Plan Between December 2007 and March 2008, Metrolinx released for comment a series of Green Papers as a first step to developing a transportation plan. The Green Papers addressed such topics as sustainable transportation, mobility hubs, transportation demand management, moving goods and delivering services, highways and roads, and transit. Given the tight timeframe imposed by Metrolinx for municipal comments and Council's meeting schedule, staff comments were provided directly to Metrolinx (see Attachment #1). 1.3 White Papers 1 and 2 were released as the second step to developing a Regional Transportation Plan The White Papers build upon the foundation established by the Green Papers. Input on the White Papers will assist in the development of the draft RTP that will be released for public comment and broad consultation in July 2008. Copies of the White Papers are available for viewing in the Planning & Development Department or on line at www.metrolinx.com. Report PD 24-08 June 2, 2008 Subject: White Papers 1 & 2 - Consultation 2008 Page 3 (; '" 2.0 Discussion 2.1 Highlights of the two White Papers are provided below: White Paper 1 - Visions, Goals and Objectives This paper presents the vision, and a series of goals and objectives for the GTHA transportation system which, along with a range of possible indicators, will form the basis for developing, evaluating and ultimately shaping the RTP. A set of possible indicators that will help measure the progress towards achieving the RTP's vision, goals and objectives are presented. Some of the indicators can be estimated by traditional transportation modeling such as travel times or congestion levels, while others are more difficult to measure such as obesity rates or greenhouse gas emissions (see Attachment #2 - White Paper 1). White Paper 2 - Preliminary Directions and Concepts This paper presents potential policy and program directions to address the issues identified in the Green Papers, and to fulfill the goals and objectives detailed in White Paper 1: Vision, Goals and Objectives. It also includes a preliminary analysis of the costs and benefits of four infrastructure system concepts. The Paper includes a series of preliminary directions that could be undertaken to achieve a new and expanded transportation system. These directions are based on the content and feedback received on the Green Papers. The preliminary directions presented in the paper are wide ranging and include matters such as educational and promotional programs, a comprehensive regional parking strategy, a convenient transit fee payment, and planning for improved integration between transportation and office and residential development. To determine how different transportation systems would address the present and future transportation needs of the GTHA (looking forward 25 years), three concepts were developed and tested against the goals and objectives identified in the White Paper 1. The following concepts including a business-as-usual concept were tested. . Business-As-Usual (BAU) Concept - includes all current and committed transportation projects, not including MoveOntario 2020 projects announced in 2007. . Linear Test Concept A: Linear - based primarily on the MoveOntario 2020 projects with some additions and enhancements to complete connections, fill system gaps, and address growth beyond 2020. . Test Concept B: Radial - builds on Test Concept A by strengthening several major transit corridors radiating from Union Station with Regional Express lines providing a high-frequency and high-speed (average 80 km/h or more) service by electrified railways or other higher-order technologies. Report PD 24-08 June 2, 2008 Subject: White Papers 1 & 2 - Consultation 2008 Page 4 j i i t II ('i · Test Concept C: Web - provides enhanced radial service to and from Union Station, as in the Radial Test Concept, but also adds major new east-west higher-order transit lines that connect most of the urban growth centres in the GTHA. The estimated capital costs for the BAU Concept and for each of the Concepts A, B and C are shown in the table below and assume a 25-year investment period. Table: Order of Magnitude Capital Cost Estimates (billions of 2006 dollars) Business- Test Concept Test Concept Test Concept As-Usual A - linear B - Radial C - Web Rapid and Local Transit 5 40 60 80 Regional Roads and 15 20 15 15 Provincial Highways Total * 20 60 75 95 Annual ** 1.0 2.4 3.0 3.8 Per capita 135 324 405 514 (in 2006 dollars per year) * Road and transit capital costs for expansion. ** Annual cost assumes a 25-year investment period. Source: Metrolinx, White Paper #2, dated May 2008, page 48 The above estimates indicate significant cost differences between the concepts. A more complete analysis will be carried out by Metrolinx for input into the draft RTP. A section on implementing the RTP is briefly described in the Paper. Although Metrolinx is preparing and coordinating transportation delivery in the GTHA, it is also advocating roles for upper and lower-tier municipalities to implement the RTP. In addition, there are roles for provincial ministries and transportation agencies to plan and provide elements of the regional transportation infrastructure. Further, the public, non-government organizations and other partners also have important roles in the plan's implementation (see Attachment #3 - White Paper 2 Executive Summary). 3.0 Comment City staff supports the role of the Metrolinx to develop and implement a regional transportation plan for the GTHA. The information provided to-date has been comprehensive and addressed issues at a very high level. In meeting and providing comments to Metrolinx, staff has, and will continue to stress the importance of a mobility hub in Downtown Pickering, the need to develop GO service and a GO station in Seaton, and the need for reliable funding sources for major transportation infrastructure. However, detailed comments are more appropriately provided once the draft RTP has been released. Report PD 24-08 June 2, 2008 Subject: White Papers 1 & 2 - Consultation 2008 Page 5 Major infrastructure funding will be required to support the Plan's implementation. In this regard, Metrolinx is developing an investment strategy, in parallel to the regional transportation plan process that would identify sustainable funding sources, financial tools and partnership models to implement the RTP. At the time of writing this report, the investment strategy had not yet been released. Without effective financial tools and revenue sources from all levels of government, the objective of an integrated, sustainable transportation system for the GTHA will not be achieved. 4.0 Next Steps Metrolinx is meeting with staff from Durham Region and the area municipalities to provide an overview of and obtain comments on the White Papers on May 22, 2008. In addition, City staff is attending a stakeholder consultation workshop in Oshawa on May 26, 2008, arranged by Metrolix. The purpose of this workshop is to discuss regional transportation issues and solutions. In September 2008, following the release of the draft RTP, Metrolinx will be holding a series of open houses and public meetings across the GTHA. Staff will review the draft RTP and prepare comments for Council's consideration later this year. Attachments: 1. Director, Planning & Development, letter to Joe Perrotta, Director, Policy & Planning, Metrolinx, dated May 2,2008 2. White Paper 1 3. White Paper 2 Executive Summary Report PD 24-08 June 2, 2008 Subject: White Papers 1 & 2 - Consultation 2008 , ., /.l ) Page 6 Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: , ~. , RPP anning & Development ".l__\' , .' ('l"' Grant McGregor, MCIP, R P Principal Planner-Policy" ~f~ Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Manager of Policy GM:ld Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council , , y .J Thomas'oJ. Quinn, RD , C~1H., ,/ Chief Administrative Officer \ .,.",.~ .. ~ L,' 'If "I) d~ .u_(.. I ~ -~~ ~~ k\,~~~1I[fifE;~ PICKERING I L+-(8 jVIC ':omPlex One ;'he Espia~ade Pickering, Ontario Canada L1 V 6K7 Direct Access 905.420.4660 Toll Free 1.866.683.2760 citvofpickering.com PLA.'\INI.'\IG & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTME0JT Deoa,tment 905.420.4617 Facsimile 905.420.7648 plan &devl@city.pickering.on.ca ;i 'Z ,~ ...) May 2, 2008 Joe Perrotta Director, Policy and Planning Metrolinx 20 Bay Street, Suite 901 Toronto, ON M5J 2N8 Subject: Green Papers Metrolinx Thank you for meeting with City staff and representatives from the Region of Durham and Durham's local municipalities in April to discuss the Green Papers. At the meeting, City staff indicated that we would not be able to obtain Council's endorsement of staff comments given your tight timeframe for municipal comments and our Council meeting schedule. However, staff is providing these comments on the Green Papers for your consideration. City staff supports the role of the Metrolinx to develop and implement a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) for the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area based on three sustainable lenses - people, the environment and the economy. The Green Papers provide background information and discuss a range of issues such as sustainable transportation, mobility hubs, transportation demand management, moving goods and delivering services, highways and roads, and transit. Also, in parallel to the regional transportation plan process, we understand that Metrolinx is developing an investment strategy being developed that would identify sustainable funding sources, financial tools and partnership models to implement the Regional Transportation Plan recommendations. We look forward to receiving a copy of the strategy that will offer financial options to assist municipalities in implementing the RTP. Our comments are focused on Paper Nos. 2, 3, and 6: Paper #2 - Mobility Hubs Mobility hubs are important components of urban growth centres. Mobility hubs are the point of contact not only between transit lines, but also between transit and the surrounding city. These hubs must be supported by appropriate land use planning and design, including a vibrant public realm with a concentration of density and activities (e.g. jobs, shops, and recreation) within convenient access by walking, cycling and transit. Green Papers (Metrolinx) ,. 1 " i' '. I ," . . (' L'-f -(c. May 2, 2008 , ! i . Page 2 The paper identifies Pickering's Urban Growth Centre and a possible future Pickering airport as potential Mobility Hubs. Durham Region's Official Plan designates a Transportation Hub in Pickering's downtown. In addition, the paper indicates a planned GO rail serlice to the possible future Pickering Airport along the Havelock line, in support of a Mobility Hub on the airport lands. However, Pickering Council does not support a future airport at this time. The identification of a mobility hub in Pickering's urban growth centre is consistent with the City's des,ire to build a sustainable downtown that encourages higher transit use by intensifying development within a new emerging centre. The current GO train station and its surroundings will evolve into a regional-scale centre. and destination for residents, business and visitors. This is in keeping with. the goals of the Growth Plan that urban growth centres are to have higher concentrations of jobs and housing, as well as other destinations and attractions. The Central Pickering Development Plan designates a GO train station in the Seaton' community. We support the early introduction of rail services to Seaton and therefore, recommend that Metrolinx support Seaton as a priority for transportation investments necessary to realize the community objectives of the Central Pickering Development Plan. . Further consideration should also be given to identifying the Seaton GO train station as 'a potential mobility hub that will be planned to accommodate a higher concentration of people and jobs in concert with sustainable active transportation initiatives. We view the large amount of surface parking at the GO rail station as a redevelopment opportunity that will assist the City in achieving the Growth Plan's intensification target of 200 people/jobs/hectares as. well as focusing on enhanced local transit connections and providing active transportation connections such as walking and biking to and from the station. Also, there are adjacent Ministry of Transportation Ontario (MTO) lands that require consideration. The City has expressed to MTO on several occasions a variety of . transportation improvements/investments' needed to support downtown redevelopment such as: . upgrading the Highway 401 intersection at Liverpool Road from a partial to a full interchange to accommodate .eastbound traffic while reducing congestion on other . eastbound ramps in Pickering; . pursuing the use of MTO-owned lands at the northwest corner of Liverpool Road and Highway 401 for employment-generating uses (we understand that the lands were identified earlier by MTO to support only commuter/carpool parking); . investing in the City's planned enclosed pedestrian bridge crossing Highway 401 and linking the Pickering GO Station to our downtown core; At the April 10, 2008 meeting, you indicated that Metrolinx was proposing to initiate a pilot project to evaluate specific mobility hubs in the GTHA. We reiterate our recommendation that Pickering's mobility hub be considered as one of the candidate sites for this project. Green Papers (Metrolinx) I "1'_/9, "'- "'.....-L- May 2,2008 Page 3 ,- ~} We view this work as a catalyst to guiding the transformation of our higher-order transit station into a mobility hub with substantial mixed-use, transit-oriented development surrounding the station. Also, this study would align with the City's downtown intensification review that is about to commence. This work includes ongoing community engagement, research and visioning for Pickering's downtown. Paper #3 - Active Transportation We agree that the use of active transportation such as walking and cycling does realize benefits for residents in terms of health, happiness, reduces travel cost, and that this form of travel produces no pollution, benefiting the environment. At the same time, it helps to address current and growing infrastructure deficit at minimal cost, minimizes the need for costly, space-intensive infrastructure, and reduces road congestion. To this end, the City's sustainable objectives include the support of walking, cycling and other environmentally sustainable modes such as in-line skating or skateboarding in the community. To promote active transportation modes, the City is reviewing its Trails and Bikeway Master Plan to meet current and future requirements and enhancing bicycle and pedestrian connections to the GO train station in downtown Pickering. Also, the Central Pickering Development Plan requires the preparation of a pedestrian and bicycle system for the Seaton Community that will integrate with south Pickering's bike and trail plan. While we support the use of official plan policies and marketing, promotion and awareness programs to help stimulate active transportation, infrastructure to support this activity is very costly and will require Provincial partnerships involving local, regional and provincial levels of government to ensure a sustainable funding model. To support active transportation, the City currently leases Hydro One I.ands for non-motorized modes of transportation. The infrastructure costs to support walking and cycling are significant. In addition to capital and operating costs relating to trail and walkway development on Hydro One lands, these properties are taxable and the City is charged to recover tax costs through its lease agreements with Hydro One. To assist in reducing City costs, we recommend that Metrolinx request the Province exempt from taxation any land leased by lower-tier municipalities from the Province or its Crown Corporations! Crown Agencies for active transportation uses. Further, the Region's current policy does not provide for on-road cycling facilities such as bike lanes, paved shoulders and signed-only bike routes on Regional roads. Off-road boulevard bikeways and sidewalks are permitted beyond by paved surface in Regional road rights-of-way but are implemented and paid for by local municipalities. These costs typically are significant for Pickering as the works are primarily funded from general tax revenue. As part of the City's comments on the Regional Cycling Plan Study, staff is supportive of Durham being responsible for implementing a cycling and pedestrian plan along Regional roads. For the most part, most of Pickering's key attractions and destinations are located along regional roads. However, we are cognizant that infrastructure and program costs associated with implementing the Regional Cycling Plan is significant and therefore are recommending that Metrolinx identify and evaluate funding opportunities from the senior levels of government as well as the private sector to assist upper and lower-tier governments. Green Papers (Metrolinx) / ,'-~i - May 2,2008 ;(T b Page 4 Paper #6 - Roads and Highways We agree that our roads need to be more efficient and have a variety of transportation choices (auto, transit, cycling, walking) to encourage the use of more sustainable and higher higher-capacity rrodes of travel rather than single occupant automobile. We also realize there are issues with respect to road and highways, including the need to resolve outstanding operation problems and network gaps - across interregional boundaries and physical barriers, accommodating public transit needs, optimizing the use of existing infrastructure and establishing a viable and sustainable funding mechanism. In this regard, the City supports the expansion/enhancement of Liverpool Road and Highway 401 interchange to provide for additional if not full directional access. To ensure that a more efficient transportation system is created that supports Pickering's urban growth centre, we recommend that Metrolinx support this enhancement. We also recognize that there are gaps in the GTHA road system as identified by Durham Region in its Report No. 2008-J-9 regarding the Rouge Valley being a major physical barrier to east-west connections and the 'bottleneck' at the west end of Taunton Road at the Durhamrroronto boundary (Le. Steeles Avenue). We support the Region's request for Metrolinx to resolve the above matters, by engaging the various stakeholders. At the meeting, we advised you that the Province is presently undertaking a DurhamrrorontolYork (DTY) Transportation Study which aims to identify not only the sustainable transportation plan for the eastern GT A but also concentrates on the assessment of transportation infrastructure including transit network needs. The Province retained Totten, Sims, Hubicki (TSH) as their consultant to conduct this exercise. Different land use studies and growth assumptions are being considered including the Central Pickering Development Plan. In the Final Draft Report; dated February 21, 2007, TSH suggested that the existing transportation network lacks capacity resulting in major traffic congestion which heavily impacts the efficient operation of regional and inter regional seNices. General conclusions regarding the existing transportation network in Pickering are as follows: . Brock Road and Highway 7: This captioned section has a large impact of traffic flow resulting into a significant congestion in traffic because of Highway 407 being terminated at Brock Road and merging into Highway 7. The Province has already taken initiative in extending the Highway 407 East through Durham Region as it is a key structural element in the existing transportation network; . Highway 401: TSH recommends that the existing east-west corridors of Highway 401 falling in Pickering jurisdiction bear capacity deficiencies throughout the day that prevent efficient transportation movement; Green Papers (Metrolinx) May 2,2008 Z Lf -c-.f. Page 5 II '7 r.,i / . GO Transit: GO Transit has future plans to provide additional capacity on the existing Lakeshore GO Rail Corridor and as indicated in the consultant's report, opportunities exists to expand service on Stouffville line as well as to provide service on the Havelock Subdivision to Peterborough and the Belleville Subdivision (that traverses the central Pickering Development Area) but presently the GO has no plans to commit into any expansion on either line, However, we recognize that the rail-transitlrail-passenger service plays a major role in accommodating riders especially for those who choose transit for their planned trips to avoid traffic congestion. Therefore, we recommend that Metrolinx be engaged in GO future plans as a participating member to look into future developments and their implementation; In recognition of Pickering as the eastern gateway into the GT A, the extension of Highway 407 east and the anticipated marketing of the Seaton employment lands by ORC, we recommend that Metrolinx be engaged in the Provincial Transportation Study as a participating member. In this way, Metrolinx can incorporate the Study results as a part of comprehensive submission of required improvements to the transportation system for Treasury Board consideration, Finally, we note that the only public meeting in Durham Region on the two white papers is in the City of Oshawa on May 22, 2008, It is critical that meaningful consultation take place on the draft RTP. We therefore request that a more robust consultation program be undertaken to enable full input by Durham stakeholders. Such consultations should comprise of public open houses, municipal meetings, key stakeholder and business forums, and feedback surveys. If you have questions or require further clarification, please contact me at extension 2025. Neil C , MCIP, RPP Director, Planning & Development GM:ld J:\\gmcgregor\metrorinx\comments.doc Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Director, Operations & Emergency Services Director, Office of Sustainability Manager, Policy - ------.--~,.-..------ '"_ 'F.' " --"_ _"',;"<~......,~........~~_~.""'''''-''''__,, ; 2- i>1 - /1 ?~ VISION, GOALS TOWARDS AND 0 BJ E CT I V ES TRANSPORTATION metrolinx LINKING PEOPLE TO PLACES · ON Y VA /1 () t / A Message From the Chair May 2008 Rob MacIsaac Chair, Metrolinx As we look towards the future of transportation in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA), the pichI re is starting to become much clearer. Now, we want to bring it into sharp focus. With the release of two White Papers, Metrolinx is taking the next major step towards a plan to dramatically change and improve transportation choices across the entire region. The White Paper you arc now reading sets out the vision, goals and objectives for a comprehensive Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). White Paper 2 provides preliminary directions and concepts on specific steps that could be taken to get the results we want. In the 16 months since Metrolinx was formed, we have undertaken a very broad, very detailed examination of transportation issues which affect this region. We released seven Green Papers to foster discussion around key topics. We studied other jurisdictions to help determine best practices and learn about ilU10vative projects. We conducted extensive consultations with a wide range of stakeholders. And we have encouraged broad-based input both through our interactive website and through meetings with stakeholders. All of this has given us a strong sense of direction together with some very specific ideas about how we might proceed. White Paper 1 deals with the 'big picture' of transportation's role in our region. Before we start making decisions about what and where to build, we need a clear sense of direction. There is an old adage that says, 'Vision without action is a daydream. Action without vision is a nightmare.' This White Paper sets out our proposed overarching vision for the RTI~ guiding our decisions as we move forward. It also suggests ways to measure our success, to ensure we stay on the right course. The input we receive from both White Papers will feed into a Draft RTf', which will be released for public and stakeholder consultations in late July. Our plan is to hold a series of Open Houses and Public Meetings across the region in September, giving everyone an opportunity to comment on every aspect of the Draft RTP. Based on these consultations, and further discussions with the public on how the recommendations could be paid for and implemented, we will make the appropriate revisions and release the final RTP this Fall. We will continue to welcome comments on our website and by other means throughout the process. 1 am very excited about the progress we have made. And J must say, this is long overdue. Visinn, Goals and Objectives metrolinx -----""-~~...""__~"'___i""''''. LI' ( ~.. i-~ ju Decades ago, prior generations built subways, rail lines, and a grid of 400-series highways which supported prosperity for those who followed. It is our turn to step up to the plate. We need to build a new transportation system using the principles of sustainability and mobility for those who will follow us. Thank you for taking the time to read the White Papers. We look forward to hearing your thoughts, concerns and suggestions. And we look forward to moving boldly ahead, creating a transportation system befitting a first-class city-region. Rob MacIsaac Chair, Metrolinx Vision, Coals and Obll'ctivl's Illl'trolinx -I ;~ '1 ,,' 1. Background . 1.1 The Metrolinx Mandate 1.2 The Regional Transportation Plan 1.3 Developing the Regional Transportation Plan 1.4 Purpose and Structure of This Paper 1.5 Current and Future Challenges 2. Vision . 3. Goals and Objectives . 4. Possible Indicators . 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Objectives and Possible Indicators 5. Next Steps . Vision, Coals and Objl'cti\'l's ll1l'trulinx ;.;' :-: '2 1 Background 1.1 The Metrolinx Mandate Metrolinx was created by the Government of Ontario to develop and implement an integrated multi-modal transportation plan for the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA) - the metropolitan region encompassing the City of Toronto, the four surrounding regional municipalities (Durham, Halton, Peel and York) and the City of Hamilton. Its mandate includes providing seamless, coordinated transportation throughout this region, which is Canada's largest and among North America's most rapidly growing. Metrolinx operates within the legislative framework of the CreateI' Toronto Tranc;portatioll Authority Act, 2006. Figure 1.1 The Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area "'if " YORK PEEL TORONTO HALTON HAMILTON 1.2 The Regional Transportation Plan An immediate priority for Metrolinx is to create a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), a long-term strategic plan for an integrated multi-modal regional transportation system. Triple bottom-line goals and objectives - people, environment, and economy - arc guiding the RTP development, evaluation and recommendations. The RTP's vision, goals and objectives for transportation in this region will assist decision-making in the day-to-day planning, coordination and implementation of the transportation system. It will set out priorities, policies and programs for a future of complete mobility. The plan will also be a touchstone by which we can monitor and regularly check to ensure that we arc moving closer to the vision for a region that is supported by a high quality of life, prosperity and a healthy environment. This region is rapidly changing and the rest of the world to which we are connected continues to change as well. Having a clear vision with specific goals and objectives that influence decisions is critical to a steady path forward. Visinn, Coals and Objectives mctrolinx ___._'_____.______._~__~_~________~_~__~~.,.c,_"'__._,.-~-._~_,.,~_~'............______~______~_"","'.~___,~'"'<A~;<,~.'=,_~=_"'__~,""'~.__....~~...._~"""',..;.,."","'_~<"'''''._.___''''".'__'''''''',,'''-''" -."/ .:. 1.3 Developing the Regional Transportation Plan ., ..) t'j During the period between December 2007 and March 2008, Metrolinx published seven Green Papers, as the first step towards developing the Regional Transportation Plan. These Green Papers presented key trends, challenges and opportunities for the GTHA transportation system for public discussion and showcased best practices from around the world. A wide range of pu bJ ic comments has been received on the Green Papers, and this feedback has informed the development of two companion White Papers. White Paper 1: Visions, Coals and Objectil'cs presents the vision for the GTHA transportation system, and a series of goals and objectives which, along with a range of possible indicators, form the basis for developing, evaluating and ultimately shaping the IU!'. Figure 1.2 The RTP Consultation and Development Process I White Papers ) Dee '07- Mar '08 May'08 Late July '08 => Online Consultations White Paper 2: Preliminary Directions and Concepts draws together the two key aspects of the plan: transformational policy programs and tools; and well-integrated and functional infrastructure. The paper sets out a preliminary analysis of several test concepts including a Business-As-Usual (BAU) concept for the transportation infrastructure system for a preliminary performance/cost comparison. The White Papers have been published as interim reports to provide a basis for ongoing consultations with stakeholders and the public. Input on the White Papers will help to inform the development of the Draft RTP that will be released in conjunction with a Draft Investment Strategy for public comment and broad consultation in late July. The Investment Strategy will set out a suite of potential dedicated revenue sources and funding tools to expand, maintain and operate the regional transportation system in a financially sustainable way over the next 25 years and beyond. The final Regional Transportation Plan will be released in Fall 2008. 2 Visiun, Guals and Objcctivcs mclrolinx ",'1-( E J- 11 ::) cl 1.4 Purpose and Structure of This Paper As Lewis Carroll observed, 'If you don't care where you are going, any road will get you there'. A bold vision with understandable goals and objectives is critical as a guide and common reference point for decision-making, The following Green Papers are available for review and comment at www.metrolinx.com or by calling 416-874-5900. . Green Paper 1: Towards Sustainable Transportation (December 2007) . Green Paper 2: Mobility Hubs (February 2008) . Green Paper 3: Active Transportation (February 2008) . Green Paper 4: Transportation Demand Management (February 2008) . Green Paper 5: Moving Goods and Delivering Services (February 2008) . Green Paper 6: Roads and Highways (March 2008) . Green Paper 7: Transit (March 2008) In this paper, we present a vision as well as goals, and objectives for the region's transportation system. They describe how the transportation system will rest on a foundation of the three pillars of people, the environment and the economy. They are far-reaching and reflect the bold and ambitious objectives of the RTP. Some of the objectives are almost entirely within the scope of the transportation system to address, such as reducing crowding and improving customer service, Others are affected by many factors, of which transportation is just one, such as greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and obesity rates. While some objectives are easy to measu re and quantify, others are much more qualitative in nature. All are critical to meeting our ultimate vision. In Section 4 of this paper, we present a preliminary set of indicators by which progress towards the achievement of the RTP's vision, goals and objectives could be measured. Values of some quantitative indicators can be estimated by traditional transportation modelling, while others require measurement through surveys of actual future conditions. While some possible indicators are quantitative and can be modelled and used for the performance/cost comparisons of transporta tion system concepts, many require baseline measurements to provide benchmarks for future evaluation. Those used in the model arc described more fully in White Paper 2. Definitions for the italicized terms found in this paper are provided in the Glossary of Terms found in Appendix A of White Paper 2. Vision, Goals and Objectives mctrolinx 3 ;f tJ r' 1.5 Current and Future Challenges r ,- :) As described in Green Paper 1, transportation supply, demand and performance trends over the past two decades have been deteriorating. A projection of these trends to the year 2031 shows continuing decline unless significant improvements arc made. In the Green Papers, these trends and challenges were explored in detail and some key conclusions emerged. · Our system for planning and financing transportation and our individual travel behaviours are unsustainable. · The transportation system must be improved to meet the needs of current residents, and also the millions more who will call this region their home in the future. Our population and employment forecasts show an increase of 2.5 million people and 1.3 million jobs across the GTHA by the year 2031, which will place increasing demands on our transportation system. · Existing infrastructure is being used inefficiently, with far too milny trips being taken in single-occupant motor vehicles and far too few trips being taken by transit, bicycle or foot. Average automobile occupancy rates are only 1.2 persons/vehicle. · There is little choice for travellers. Most feel they need to depend on cars for getting around, or are limited by how far they are able to walk or how well their neighbourhood is served by transit. The average percentage of trips taken by car across the GTHA is currently 75 per cent. · Transportation infrastruchne and operations require predictable and reliable revenue sources. Funding for transportation infrastructure has not kept pace with the needs of a growing population, thereby reducing our productivity and increasing the cost of our goods and services. · The true cost of travel is not reflected in the prices that users pay for different options. · The cost of operating an automobile in the region will continue to rise as a result of increasing fuel, insurance and other associated operating costs. · There is a lack of awareness of the impacts of individual travel behaviour. · The system is out of balance and in many instances seems designed for cars instead of people. Priority is generally given to car travel over other means, such as transit or active transportation. · Land use planning and transportation planning are not being well-integrated. Low-density land use patterns, particularly in the suburban areas of the region, do not adequately support the provision of improved, competitive transit service. · The transportation system is not adequately integrated and coordinated across boundaries, or across modes. · Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) efforts are under-funded and therefore not used to their potential across the GTHA. Current efforts are not coordinated or integrated to maximize their effectiveness. · More emphasis and resources arc required to improve overall transit customer service (e.g. vehicle cleanliness, personal safety, real-time travel updates, etc.). In order to be transformational, the RTP must address these challenges with a broad range of tools; improvements to infrastructure alone will not be sufficient. Changes to legislation, educational and promotional programs, and supportive policies must also be designed and implemented. These pieces must work together to provide an improved experience within the transportation system, encourage a significant change in travel behaviour, and deliver a robust and convenient transportation network. A Strong Foundation Some important and foundational work is already in place, making the way forward promising. The province of Ontario and municipalities are implementing the Growth PlanftJr the Greater Golden Horseshoe that will direct growth in a way that makes transit and active transportation increasingly viable options. The Greenbelt Plan protects rural, natural and agricultural 4 Vision, ellals and Objectives 1l1drolinx ~~___,_"",c.-""""'_""'~""";':'_"""___~-=-___.".",..~___~~.,.".._",~.""",,'-........,~ (' . ( ." :') () areas that are important to the ecological health of the region. In addition, all levels of government arc recognizing the importance of programs, policies and legislation which create an environment that promotes more sustainable practices in travel behaviour. The RTI' will build on this work, marking the beginning of a journey towards a vastly improved, more sustainable transportation system. We have little choice but to change. Our current transportation system is quickly becoming dysfunctional. Space and cost considerations limit our ability to increase the capacity of major highways and arterial roads. We need to rely more on transit and active transportation. This means transforming land use, road use, goods movement and demand management policies. It means a bold plan and financial commitment to infrastructure over the long-term. It means a changed culture and behavioural shifts to address how we get around the region. This plan will be a guide to a future that offers complete mobility. It will set the foundation for a sustainable transportation system and more sllstainable communities. This plan will be key for the GTHA to become one of the world's most attractive and successful regions. Have a Say! Help Shape the GTHA's Transportation Future Whether we walk to the corner store, take transit to work, drive to the hospital, cycle to school, or rely on the movement of goods for our business, we all have opinions about how the GTHA's transportation system is performing. Many of us have thoughts on how it could be improved. Whatever your transportation situation, Metrolinx wants to hear from you as we develop the Regional Transportation Plan for the GTHA. The more people we hear from, the more inclusive and effective the Plan will be. Visit www.metrolinx.col1l to participate in our online public consultations or contact us at 416-874-5900 to find out how YOll can get involved. Vision, Coals and Objectives Illetrolinx 5 ~--""~"----'--~-""""""""~"''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''~,""..,~>."."",--~~""","~-"'''"'''':'_-'''''"'''''"'''''_''~~'='''''''-.~",..~,-".,-~.,.<" I .1- 2 Vision '-,7 AN INTEGRATED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FOR OUR REGION THAT ENHANCES PROSPERITY, SUSTAINABILlTY AND QUALITY OF LIFE. A generation from now, the nine million residents of the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area will use a well-integrated transportation system that supports: A high quality of life. A high quality of life for all people in this region will be our greatest motivator. Our cities, towns, suburbs and rural areas will be more liveable, with more options for getting around the whole region conveniently, comfortably and safely. A thriving, healthy and protected environment. We will plan, establish and maintain a transportation system that conserves resources and leaves a legacy of a healthy and clean environment for our children and grandchildren. A strong, prosperous and competitive economy. At the heart of Canada's economy, ollr region will be competitive with the strongest regions in the world, based on an efficient and convenient transportation system. It will help attract and retain the best and the brightest, and make the shipping of goods and delivery of services efficient. This vision of complete mobility means that all of our diverse needs will be satisfied through a transportation system that is focussed on the customer and that seamlessly links people to places. All modes of transport will link together a system of mobility hubs that are well-designed and attractive - providing seamless service that allows people to easily connect from one mode of transportation to another. Public transit will compete effectively with the automobile because it will be convenient, comfortable, safe, reliable and valued by its users. Walking and cycling will be logical choices for a healthier public. People will have timely and complete information on transportation schedules, cost and impacts so that they can make informed choices about how they use the transportation system. We will be proud of our transportation system. 6 Visiull, Coals dlld Objcctivcs metrolinx t '. t< 3 Goals and Objectives Table 3.1 Goals and Objectives for a High Quality of Life _____~__________w___ __I"_________~~__________ OBJECTIVES ---- --- .J A high quality of life for all residents in this region will be our greatest motivator. Our cities, towns, suburbs and rural areas will I be more liveable, with more options _fill' getting around the whole region conveniently, comfiJrtably and safely. I _____________ nw________________~~~ 1. Improved transportation experience and travel time i reliability i GOALS A HIGH QUALITY OF LIFE A. Comfort and Convenience: There will be a strong emphasis on the user. Getting around will be more convenient with coordinated information, facilities, operations and pricing; a more comfortable and less crowded experience; and the highest standard of customer service across the system. B. Travel Time Reliability: Uncertainty regarding travel times and delays will be reduced. c Transportation Choices: People will have a wide range of options available to them for getting around regardless of age, means or (dis)ability, including walking, cycling, public transit and automobiles. D. Attractive Places: The transportation system will hel p us create valuable, beautiful and attractive places. Roads, streets, transit lines and stations will be designed to benefit both travellers and local residents. Negative impacts of transportation - related noise and poor air quality - will be minimized. E. Balanced: The need to increase existing established transit markets will be balanced with the need to grow new markets for transit. F. Fit and Healthy Lifestyles: It will be easily accessible for all, including children and seniors, to walk and cycle as part of their daily lives and maintain a healthy lifestyle. G. Safe and Secure Mobility: Getting around will be safer and more secure. Parents will feel comfortable letting their children walk, cycle or take public transit 2. Less crowding on transit 3. Decreased need for vehicular travel, particularly over long distances and at rush hour 4. Increased transportation options for accessing a range of destinations 5. Region-wide integrclted fare structure and collection, and schedule coordination 6. Improved information, including real-time information, available to people to plan their trips 7. Reduced impacts of air quality on human health 8. Reduced transportation-related noise 9. More transit- and pedestrian-friendly streetscapes, and improved walking and cycling amenities 10. Increased daily levels of exercise from walking and cycling 11. Continued progress towards zero casualties and injuries on all transportation modes, including walking 12. Improved real and perceived traveller safety 13. Improved accessibility for seniors, children and the disabled Visillll, Coals and Objectives mdrolinx 7 C'_~''';''''''''~'''''''''''''''''''_''-~'''''''~''''-''''"'''''_='''''-''''''''''''~''''"'''''''''''''''~_''''''~'_'''''~'''"""~__'''''_''''''''''"'_'__--''''''''''''''''~"",..,,,,,",,,-,-_,,~,,,,,~.,.,,~._.,_. ~.. ,(,.. r. ,""'\ ,~ GOALS OBJECTIVES to school. All users and operators will feci safe when using the transportation system. 14. Increased engagement in the planning of the transportation system by a diverse group of citizens H. Fairness and Transparency: Citizens will playa role in shaping the future transportation system. Decisions will be transparent. 8 Vi"iull, Coal" and Objective" l11l'trolinx (0 Table 3.2 Goals and Objectives for a Thriving, Healthy and Protected Environment ~~AL~~~__~_____ _..__~______________ ___ -....~._~ L~~!~~~_I_~=~_~__.___~~ A THRIVING, HEALTHY AND PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT lll,J -, ! ---.~--1 We will plan, establish and maintain a transportation system that conserves resources and leaves a legacy of a healthy and clean environment for our children and grandchildren. iI. A Smaller Carbon Footprint and Redu~ed Dependence on Non-Renewable Resources: Our transportation system will operate sustainably within the constraints of - and in balance with - ecosystems_ Decisions about our transportation system will take into account its potential to impact air, land and water quality; human, plant and animal life; social, cultural and economic conditions; and the built environment. · We will reduce CHGs - our carbon footprint - and other harmful emissions and discharges related to transportation to sustainable levels_ . We will reduce our dependence on non-renewable resources like fossil fuels and man-made chemicals that accumulate in the environment. . We will use recyclable materials, for example, in construction materials and vehicles. Ii 15. 16. Decreased use of non-renewable resources Increased recycling rate of transportation-related construction mater"ials and vehicles J. Reduced Land Consumption for Urban Development: The transportation system itself will 22. use less space, help curb sprawl, and help promote and sustain more compact and efficient urban forms. 17_ Reduced and stabilized transportation-related GHG emissions as per the provincial Go Green: Ontario's Action Plan _fill' Climate Change: reductions of six per cent by 2014, 15 per cent by 2020, and 80 per. cent by 2050 K. Adopt the Precautionary Principle and an Ecosystem Approach: In planning the transportation system of the GTHA, the precautionary principle will be applied to ensure that the environment is protected, conserved and wisely managed. 18. Improved air quality 19_ Reduced car use 20_ Improved energy efficiency 21. Reduced consumption of land for urban development Reduced ecological impact to our agricultural and natural systems 23. Increased awareness of how travel choices impact the environment Vision, Goals and ObjectiVl's l1letrolinx 9 "'/ {'F' 1 !J I Table 3.3 Goals and Objectives for a Strong, Prosperous and Competitive Economy G~A=~________ ~~~_J OBJECTI~~_~____~~~_~ A STRONG, PROSPEROUS AND COMPETITIVE ECONOMY -----l ---j At the heart of Canada's economy, our region will be competitive with the strongest regions in the world based on a cost-effective and affordable transportation system that will help attract and retain the best and the brightest, and make the shipment of goods and delivery of services efficient. Lower average trip time for people and goods 24. 25. Greater reliability of the freight and passenger systems L. Prosperity and Competitiveness: The transportation system will be designed to respond efficiently and equitably to the needs of the Ontario economy; it will create opporhmities for greater prosperity throughout the region. Deliveries, imports and exports will be faster and more reliable thanks to a more efficient, integrated and coordinated transportation system. Residents will be able to get to a greater number of jobs. 26. Managed congestion M. Foundation of a Well-Functioning Region: The transportation system will be a cornerstone of city building, creating a region that is a destination of choice for new residents and businesses. Great infrastructure will create new transit-oriented development opportunities. Transportation services, particularly transit, will not lag behind urban growth. 27. Increased productivity of the transportation system N. Multi-Modal Integration: The transportation system will be fully integrated. It will be easy to make a decision on how to get somewhere or ship something thanks to seamless integration, accurate and timely information, and logical and transparently determined prices. 28. Improved transportation and land use integration O. Interconnectedness: The GTHA transportation system will be well-connected to surrounding regions, the rest of Canada and the world. 29. Reduced delays, damage and costs in transferring goods from one mode to another, and more seamless region-wide services for travellers and service-providers P. Resilience: By reducing our oil dependence, we will better withstand volatility in energy supply and prices, and have more flexibility to switch to new fuels and technologies. We will strive to anticipate the impacts of climate change on infrastructure. 30. Improved real-time information about transportation choices, their speeds and costs Efficiency and Fiscal Responsibility: The transportation system will be designed to optimize the use of resources and provide better value to households, businesses and governments. 31. Improved connections and service within the GTHA and to/from inter-regional, inter-provincial, and international terminals and facilities 32. Increased financial self-sufficiency of the transportation infrastructure and projects 33. Reduced use of out-of-province energy sources 34. Increased prevalence of Transportation Demand Management practices 35. Improved value of transportation investment and spending for households, businesses, governments and other users 36. Better reflect the cost of transportation services in the prices paid by users 37. Competitive shipping cost structure 10 Vision, Coals and Objectives n1l'trolinx ZLf-(E~ ~ 2 b .- GOALS OBJECTIVES R. Fiscal Sustainability: Funding for transportation will 3R. be sufficient, reliable and predictable. Transparent and fairly allocated passenger transportation costs, across modes I S. Safety and Security: The transportation system will I 39. Fair and effective fiscal treatment of various modes be designed to improve safety and security. 40. Optimized use of all travel rights-of-way by commercial vehicles through a range of incentives and disincentives 41. Minimized direct and indirect economic losses due to accidents Vision, Coals and Objectives I1lctrolinx 11 ( of 4 Possible Indicators 4.1 Introduction z '.l ,J A clear set of indicators is needed to help us measure progress towards the goals and objectives presented in Section 3. In this section, we present a set of possible indicators for discussion and feedback. Some of these indicators are easily quantifiable, and can be easily modelled. Others arc more qualitative, and more difficult to model. For some of the indicators, the transportation system is the most significant contributor. Examples would be travel times or congestion levels. For other indicators, the transportation system is just one of many contributing factors, such as obesity rates or GHGs. In some cases, the same indicators are repeated in the table, reflecting their fulfilment of multiple objectives. These indicators will be further amended and refined based on feedback received on this paper, and then presented for further discussion as part of the Draft RTP consultations. 4.2 Objectives and Possible Indicators Table 4.1 Goals and Possible Indicators for a High Quality of Life OBJECTIVES A HIGH QUALITY OF LIFE 1. Improved transportation experience and travel time reliability 2. Less crowding on transit 3. Decreased need for vehicular . travel, particularly over long distances and at rush hour . . . 4. Increased transportation . options for accessing a range . of destinations . . . -----..- POSSIBLE INDICATORS . On-time performance, measured as variability of travel time Number and duration of major blockagesjdelays-per-year on roads and transit Change in people-moving capacity (as opposed to vehicular capacity) of the transportation system generally, and in specific areas Customer satisfaction measuresjindex . . . . Average load factors by transit mode Size of activity area or area within which people conduct most of their daily acti vities Total motorized and mechanized travel Average trip length from home to work Per cent of trips that are taken at rush hour Per cent of trips taken by transit and active transpurtatiun Jobs and variety of uses within 30 minutes and 45 minutes of one's home- by active transportatiun, transit and auto Time spent travelling per day by mode (per capita) Per cent of commuters who can get to work within 30 minutes and 45 minutes via transit, active transportation and car Average trip duration via transit, active transportation and auto (system-wide and for sample trips) 12 Vision, Coals and Obll'ctiws ml'trolinx -1 - \-' /- II fJ L+ OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . 5. Region-wide integrated fare . structure and collection, and schedule coordination . . 6. Improved information, . real-time . available to to plan their trips . impacts of air . quality on human health . 8. Reduced . transportation-related noise 9. More transit and . pedestrian-friendly . streetscapes; Improved . walking and cycling . amenities . . . . 10. Increased daily levels of . exercise from walking and . cycling . . . i · I POSSIBLE INDICATORS Per cent of population and jobs, and density of population and jobs within 500 metres (m), one, two and five kilometres (km) of rapid transit Proximity to rapid transit for neighbourhoods where dependence on transit is particularly high Proximity of major trip generators, urban growth centres, corridors and dense areas to higher-order transit infrastructure Seat-kilometrejsquare kilometre capacity available via each type of transit mode Average service frequency by transit mode Per cent of residents with a monthly or annual transit pass Travel speeds for selected major origin-destination pairs, compared by mode Rate of congestion growth on roads (per cent/year) Participation by transit providers in fare integration and regional fare collection, weighted by ridership Degree of schedule integration Number of transit service discontinuities at municipal boundaries Availability of a complete mobility trip planner Per cent of transit stops with availability of "next bus" information; per cent of users able to access information with mobile devices Number and per cent of drivers using dynamic route optimization tools Hospital admissions related to air quality; rates of asthma in children and adults Number of premature deaths related to air quality Per cent of population regularly exposed to excessive noise (from transportation) Km of gaps in active transportation infrastructure networks Per cent of transit stops with shelters, schedules and route maps Active transportation modal split Per cent of population within 30() m of a bicycle lane or trail via neighbourhood streets Per cent of transit stations with bicycle storage, weighted by ridership Per cent of streets with sidewalks on both sides Km of pedestrian ways and bikeways Km of sidewalks per km of new roads Average minutes spent walking and cycling per person per day Per cent of children walking or cycling to school Obesity rates (children and adults) Type II Diabetes rates Hypertension rates Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) rates Vision, Coals and Objcctivcs I1lctrolinx 13 L.~ "1_( f- ',1 :) OBJECTIVES 11. Continued progress zero casualties and on all transportation including walking 12. Improved real and perceived . traveller safety . 13. Improved accessibility for . seniors, children and the disabled . . . 14. Increased engagement in the . planning of the transportation system by diverse groups of citizens INDICATORS of collisions, casualties and injuries by mode, particularly involving (total, per million residents, million person-km; per million per year) Number of breaches of personal safety within the transportation system Per cent of travellers who perceive danger to personal safety on various modes of transportation Per cent of universally accessible transit vehicles and stations, as well as information on transportation services (to Accessibilit,ll.fillo Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) standard) Index of cllstomer satisfaction with special needs transportation services Per cent of seniors and people with disabilities within 300 m of transit via continuous, fully accessible sidewalks and protected crosswalks Per cent of the region accessible by specialized transit Number and per cent of citizens participating in consultation processes 14 Vision, Coals and Objectives metrolinx ,- __LI ( (- 66 Table 4.2 Goals and Possible Indicators for a Thriving, Healthy and Protected Environment ~~-- ---- - ---- OBJECTIVES POSSIBLE INDICATORS -----~~----- - ~-- ------ - - ---~-~----------~ -------~~------- ------ A THRIVING, HEALTHY AND PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT 15. Decreased use of non-renewable resources 16. Increased recycling rate of . transportation construction . materials and vehicles . 17. Reduced and stabilized . transportation-related CHC emissions as per the provincial Go Green: Ontario's Action PlanfiJr Climate Change: reductions of six per cent by 2014, 15 per cent by 2020, and 80 per cent by 2050 18. Improved air quality . . ] 9. Reduced car use 20. Improved energy efficiency . I . I · . 21. Reduced consumption of . land for urban development . . . . 22. Reduced ecological impact . to our agricultural and natural systems 1 . Total transportation-related energy use by type Total annual fuel and energy consumption Average energy consumption per tonne-km transported Salt and organic or mineral-based me Iter use . . . Tire recycling rates Construction materials recycling rates (from transportation infrastructure) Vehicle recycling rates CHC emission levels per person-km and total emissions/year Number of smog days per year Common air pollutants/smog precursors (NOx, SOx, CO, VOCs, PMI0 and PM2.5 values) emissions per person-km, total emissions/year, and localized concentrations . Vehicle-km travelled (VKT) (total and per capita) Average number of weekday person trips by car Number of vehicles per household Average trip length from home to work . I · I . Average passenger fleet, commercial truck fleet and locomotive fuel Energy use per tonne and passenger transported per km Ratio of cost of transportation energy use to Gross Domestic Product (COP) Per cent of transit stations designed to high "green architecture" standards such as LEED Cold Hectares of land dedicated to transportation infrastructure Amount of urbanized space per capita Per cent of development in existing built-up areas Density of development in greenfield areas Density of development in urban growth centres Impact on wetlands, biodiversity, farmland, terrestrial and aquatic habitats, groundwater, lakes and watercourses Visinn, Gnals and Objl'ctivcs mdrolinx 15 ../ I r" v- , '7 b i OBJECTIVES INDICATORS 23. Increased awareness of travel choices impact the environment of quantifiable measures and impacts on various choices to users through trip-planning tools 16 Vi:-;ion, Coal:-; and Objcctivc:-; l11l'trolinx 6B :: 4- ~L Table 4.3 Goals and Possible Indicators for a Strong, Prosperous and Competitive Economy - '--=E --- OBJECTIVES POSSIBLE INDICATORS -_...~~_._~._._----~"~---~-,~~~ ---------~ -.---.-------- A STRONG, PROSPEROUS AND COMPETITIVE ECONOMY n___~ Average vehicle speed and travel time by auto, transit and rapid transit I Per cent of arterials and expressways experiencing cOngestK)!1.------- ! Average time to clea~~l collision __ _ I On-time performance, measured as variability of truck and rail travel times ! 24. Lower average trip time for . people and goods . . -------------- 25. Greater reliability of the . freight and passenger system 26. Managed congestion 27. Increased productivity of the . transportation system . . . . I. I I I · ! . 28. Improved transportation and . land use integration . . I · I I . . . 29. Reduced delays, damage and . costs in transferring goods from one mode to another . and more seamless region-wide services for I I I I i . Per cent of vehicle km travelled in congestion Total hours of delay (autos and transit) Costs resulting from congestion . . Utilization rate of roads (volume/capacity) Transportation costs as per cent of GDP Average number of passengers per vehicle; per cent of vehicles with a single dri vel' Number and per cent of vehicles equipped with dynamic route optimization tools Per cent of dead-heading trucks (i.e. a truck travelling without cargo), or average loading ratios Per cent of shipments processed with route optimization, loading optimization Per cent of shipments with a destination in the GTHA processed through a consolidated logistics centre Per cent of trucks centrally managed with localization technology I Policies il1 pl~~~~~-direct development - incl:d~;~~pllblicl~ui~l~d~dfacilities I - to areas well-served by transit , Per cent of resident and workers in large trip generators within walking , distance of a rapid transit station Satisfaction of functional objectives at mobility hubs (connectivity, amenities, type and amount of development, etc.) Policies to coordinate large-scale logistics facilities in adequate areas with minimal imposition from incompatible uses Availability and use of walking and cycling urban design standards Number of non-residential parking spaces over number of jobs (GTHA and by area or project) Per cent of length of existing and new roads and streets that fulfil the "complete streets" concept Benchmarking of design, construction, maintenance and operational costs tied to satisfaction metrics Cost per passenger/km and tonne/km for roads Vision, Goals and Objectives metrolinx ]7 L. "l-{ (. travellers and service-providers Improved real-time . information about . transportation choices, their . speeds and costs 31. Improved connections and . service within the GTHA and to/from inter-regional, inter-provincial and international terminals and facilities 32. Increased financial self-sufficiency of the transportation and projects 33. Reduced use of out-of-province energy sources 34. Increased prevalence of Transportation Demand Management practices 35. Improved value of . transportation investment . and spending for households, businesses, governments and other users 36. Better reflect the cost of . transportation services in the prices paid by users shipping cost . and fairly passenger (-} 6 INDICATORS Availability of a complete mobility trip-planner Availability of "next bus" information Availability of flexible, real-time information for choosing a travel route, including inside vehicles Improvements to connectivity within and beyond the region Per cent of transportation system capital and operating costs recovered from user fees . Expenditure on imported energy for transportation . Per cent of large employers (100+) with a Transportation Demand Management plan Transportation costs as per cent of CDI' (relative to other benefits) Average annual transportation expenditures per household as a per cent of inCOlTle (relative to other benefits) Per cent of transportation system capital and operating costs recovered from user fees Average transportation cost as a per cent of the cost of end-products compared to competing jurisdictions . Average user transportation costs per year (weighted and average by mode) 18 Visioll, Coals ,1Ild Objectives mdrolillx L'~LI-( f '7 iJ OBJECTIVES POSSIBLE INDICATORS transportation costs, across modes . Total transit and road transportation capital costs for 2006 - 2031 expansion Net revenues from transportation user-fees . 39. Fair and effective fiscal . treatment of various modes I. Fair treatment under provincial fiscal policies Engagement of federal government 40, Optimized use of all travel . rights-of-way by commercial vehicles through a range of incentives and disincentives Measure of balanced use of parallel corridors by commercial 41. Minimized direct and . indirect economic losses due to accidents Direct and indirect economic costs of accidents, by mode and area Vision, Coals and Objc>ctives mC'tro!illx 19 '7 '1 5 Next Steps The vision, goals, objectives and possible indicators are presented in this White Paper as a basis for discussion, review and comment by stakeholders and the public. This White Paper 1 should be read with White Paper 2: Preliminary Direction;; and Concept;;. Feedback from both papers will inform the development of the Draft RTf', which will be released for consultation in late July 2008. A final RTP will be released in Fall 2008. You can send your comments on this paper to: I i I I I I i I I - GTHA Regional Transportation Plan c/o Metrolinx 20 Bay Street, 9th Floor, Suite 901 Toronto, ON M5J 2N8 Fax: 416-874-5901 E-mail: RTPCa)metrolinx.com You can also participate in our online consultations at www.metrolinx.com. For copies of this paper, please visit our website or call Metrolinx at 416-874-5900. 20 Vision, Goals and Objectives l11L'trolinx , , -, ft-:.\ TO ',_,,,,';1 t Pl'_ ..)Lf -.(' Y .__ '72 PRELl M I NARY DIRECTIONS TOWARDS AND CONCEPTS TRANSPORTATION metrolinx LINKING PEOPLE TO PLACES · ON Y VA P, ACHMENT I REPORT # PO -J ,:J TO 24 -Dt? '7 ,~ Executive Summary White Paper 2 builds on the foundation of the seven Green Papers prepared earlier by Metrolinx and the responses received to them. It recognizes that a successful plan for a future transportation system is a combination of two key elements: i) ambitious policies and programs; and ii) well-integrated and functional infrastructure. Together they can create a bold, transformational transportation system. This paper presents potential policy and program directions to address the issues identified in the Green Papers, and to fulfil the goals and objectives detailed in White Paper 1: Vision, Goals and Objectives. It also includes a preliminary analysis of the costs and benefits of four infrastructure system concepts. This paper is intended to generate further discussion and input to the process of creating a Regional Transportation Plan (RTI') for the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA). Preliminary Directions The preliminary directions presented in this paper include policies, programs, regulatory tools and other measures that would facilitate a major shift in attitudes and choices related to mobility in the GTHA: · A system of complete mobility through improved road and transit connectivity, strong Transportation Demand Management (TOM), heightened attention to active trall.',portation and seamless inter-regional and local service connections; . A system of mobility hubs and other land use measures to ensure land use and transit service integration and the creation of a strong sense of place; . Excellent customer service; . Sustainable funding; . Innovation through ongoing research; and . Strong partnerships and effective decision-making. Test Concepts The paper also describes and analyzes four preliminary transportation system test concepts: . Business-As-Usual (BAU) - The current transportation structure and committed transportation projects. . Test Concept A: Linear- MoveOntario 2020 projects with some additions and enhancements to improve inter-regional connecti vity. . Test Concept B: Radial-Includes elements of the "Linear" concept, plus strengthens several major radial corridors from Union Station with lines providing very high levels of rail service. . Test Concept C: Web - Includes "Linear" and "Rad ial" routes strengthened by additional east-west regional express connectivity. In Appendix E, additional variations in road capacity are further tested against some of the concepts to assess the effect of road capacity on the performance of the overall system. The four preliminary transportation system test concepts were modelled to determine their relative performance, and evaluated in the context of the vision, goals and objectives set out for the Regional Transportation Plan in White Paper 1. Among the preliminary results of the modelling exercise: . Projected modal shares for transit and active transportation across the GTHA increase from the current 25.5 per cent to 32.5 per cent for Test Concept A, 36 per cent for Test Concept B, and 40 per cent for Test Concept C. . Percentage of people, on average in the region, who live within walking distance of a rapid transit line increases from 11 per cent in 2006 to 25 per cent under Test Concept A, 30 per cent under Test Concept B, and 35 per cent under Test Concept C. Preliminary Directions and Concepts metmlinx -"" q 1 i , I · Energy consumption for transportation decreases as each test concept increases investment in transit infrastructure, maintaining high levels of mobility in an energy-efficient manner. Under the BAD scenario energy consumption increases 22 per cent. Test Concept A yields energy consumption increases of 22 per cent, Test Concept B gives 1B per cent, and Test Concept C results in energy consumption of 16 per cent over current levels. · As population increases, congestion costs are estimated to increase in the future from the current estimate of $2.2 billion per year, although these increases are significantly lower when transit investments are introduced. The BAD scenario results in congestion costs of $4.2 billion per year, whereas Test Concept A results in $3.1 billion per year, Test Concept B results in $2.7 billion per year, and Test Concept C results in $2.5 billion per year. Two important caveats must be considered when interpreting the results of the modelling exercise. First, the model used in the preparation of this paper, like all models, has limitations. For example, it may underestimate the impacts of new modes and policies for which there is no observed behaviour from which to extrapolate. Also, it is not sensitive to chimges in non-quantifiable measures, such as comfort, cleanliness and image of transit. Second, the preliminary transportation system test concepts are exactly that - concepts. They were developed and assessed merely to serve as a basis for discussion, review and comment by stakeholders and the public. Preliminary Findings Caveats notwithstanding, preliminary findings of the research-to-date include the following: · Significant progress towards achieving the economic, social and environmental goals outlined in White Paper 1 can only be achieved through a combination of bold transit investment, coordinated transportation and land use planning, and supporting policies. . Transit ridership increases are most significant when improved service is combined with aggressive land use intensification in transit corridors and at mobility hub". · The benefits in terms of transit use and efficiency are much greater when development is concentrated around a small number of mobility hub,;, rather than when it is distributed over a more dispersed area. · An Expre,;s Rail system would greatly enhance mobility for longer trips and is a viable new transportation option. · Metro improvements (e.g. subway) should be considered in higher-density areas to maximize transit market share, as the transformative potential of Light Rail and Bus Rapid Tran,;it is more limited. . Feeder bus and paratransit fleets will need to double or quadruple in suburban areas to support the rapid transit network under any future scenario. . Implementation of the transportation system test concepts outlined in this paper would not be sufficient by itself to meet provincial targets to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. A whole suite of supporting programs and policies would be required. Further Jnalysis will be performed to identify the steps and investments needed to meet these targets. Implementing the Plan This paper Jcknowledges the need for more reliable funding of transportation in the GTHA. It JIso outlines the need to better reflect the true costs of transportation choices and send appropriate price signals to travellers to encourage efficient use of the transportation system. Also acknowledged is the need for ongoing dialogue and partnerships across municipal and other administrative boundaries that involves well-informed citizens as full and active participants. Finally, the need for an ongoing program of research is identified to improve our understanding of transportation issues and the factors that will affect our region's success. II Preliminary Directions and Concepts metrolinx