c6. tac meeting minutes
TRANSCRIPT
C6. TAC MeetingMinutes
Minutes
Minutes prepared by AECOM
CITY OF TORONTO TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING – LAKESHORE EAST RAIL CORRIDOR EXPANSION TPAP (DON RIVER
TO SCARBOROUGH GO STATION)
MEETING DATE: February 11, 2016
TIME: 9:00am to 11:00pm
LOCATION: East Tower, 23rd Floor, City Hall
PRESENT:
Victor Gottwald
John Lam
Michael Popik
Nigel Tahair
Anson Yuen
Marko Oinonen
Andre Rudnicky
Angela Stea
Shalin Yeboah
Nasim Norouzi
Stewart McIntosh
Alex Shevchuk
Deanne Mighton
Allen Wu
Ann Khan
Michael McLellan
Jacqueline Darwood
James Hartley
Katie Bright
Andre Marois
Garnet Greatrix
Manuel Pedrosa
Phil Herbeson
Alan Macdougall
James Jarrett
City of Toronto
City of Toronto
City of Toronto
City of Toronto
City of Toronto
City of Toronto
City of Toronto
City of Toronto
City of Toronto
City of Toronto
City of Toronto
City of Toronto
City of Toronto
City of Toronto
City of Toronto
City of Toronto
TTC
Metrolinx
Metrolinx
Metrolinx
Metrolinx
Metrolinx
Metrolinx
AECOM
AECOM
REGRETS: David Brutto
Thomas Schwerdtfeger
Michelle Reid
Jeff Dea
City of Toronto
City of Toronto
City of Toronto
City of Toronto
Minutes prepared by AECOM
Martin Keen Metrolinx [email protected]
DISTRIBUTION: All present and regrets
NOTES:
Item No.
Description
1. Introduction:
Metrolinx introduced the project – the expansion of the Lakeshore East Rail Corridor from 3 to 4 tracks broadly between the Don River and Scarborough GO station.
City explained that every division has a contact assigned to Metrolinx projects. This contact then determines which staff should be present at meetings depending on the nature of the subject. Any questions regarding City staff participation should be directed to Shalin Yeboah.
Metrolinx explained that two separate environmental assessments are being completed for segments of the corridor. Both will follow the Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP):
- Segment 3 (Guildwood to Pickering) is at the draft Environmental Project Report (EPR) phase and has been submitted to the City for comment.
- Segment 1 (Don River to Scarborough GO Station) is commencing with the draft EPR anticipated to be available Fall 2016 for City review.
The TPAP will address a Preliminary Design level of detail; however, Metrolinx is advancing Detail Design.
TAC meetings with the City will be ongoing and feedback will be documented and considered.
2. Presentation:
Metrolinx delivered a presentation on key aspects of the project (see presentation provided).
Project Overview:
The project is required to support increased service under Regional Express Rail (RER) and enhance service reliability.
From the Don River the additional track will be on the south side of the existing corridor and will transition to the north side between Gerrard Street and Pape Avenue.
A number of other planning studies are currently underway in the area and Metrolinx will seek to coordinate efforts where feasible.
Structures:
At Warden Avenue and Woodbine Avenue the rail bridges will be widened on the north side
- It was confirmed that the structure will be contained within the Metrolinx owned right of way (ROW) but that additional property may be required for associated works and this will be confirmed in detail design.
At Danforth Avenue the bridge will also be widened on the north side.
At Birchmount Road the new fourth track will be introduced under this road bridge between
Minutes prepared by AECOM
Item No.
Description
the north pier and abutment.
It is anticipated that bridges over 40 years old will be subject to a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER). [Post-Meeting Note: the warrant for CHERs will be determined through a Cultural Heritage Screening Report]
City asked if any impacts were anticipated at Victoria Park Avenue
- Metrolinx confirmed no bridge works are expected as the existing structure has sufficient width.
Danforth GO:
The Main Street Bridge will not be modified.
The additional track will be accommodated by changes to the platform layout under the bridge.
A Station Feasibility Study will be undertaken to determine a conceptual design and multi-modal accessibility.
A Station Planning Study will be undertaken to assess costs and benefits associated with station options including consideration of: transportation, land use, connection with the Main Street TTC Station and conceptual development plans.
Culverts:
Three culverts will be extended in this section of the corridor to accommodate the 4th track.
Retaining Walls:
Approximately 3.8km of retaining walls are required; ~2km of which will be public facing.
Design of any significant (i.e. high public visibility – e.g. at a park) public facing retaining walls will be reviewed by the Metrolinx Design Review Panel (MDRP).
- City confirmed that they have a street art program that should be taken into consideration.
Utilities:
Consultation with third parties has started and Metrolinx will also consult with the City.
TPAP:
Metrolinx is currently in the pre-planning phase which will include stakeholder consultation.
This will be followed by the submission of the Draft EPR and TPAP Notice of Commencement
TPAP is anticipated to be complete in 2017 with construction in 2018. Detail design will commence in April 2016.
City asked when the Notice of Commencement would be issued
- Metrolinx indicated there is no firm date but likely will be late 2016/early 2017.
3. Q&A:
City asked if any heritage structures have been identified
- Metrolinx responded that a Cultural Heritage Screening Report (CHSR) is underway.
Minutes prepared by AECOM
Item No.
Description
City asked if an arborist report will be prepared
- A Natural Environment Report will first be prepared which will identify requirements for an arborist report.
- City flagged sensitivity related to trees on adjacent private property
- Metrolinx confirmed that a tree compensation protocol (general approach, not project specific) will be discussed with the City and TRCA.
City asked if there are any parks in the corridor
- Metrolinx confirmed there are several parks which will be identified through the land use characteristics report. [Post-Meeting Note: Metrolinx has shared notes of the parks and school yards along the study area corridor with consideration for where the new fourth track is proposed (south or north side of existing tracks) along with preliminary notes re: where works may extend outside of the existing rail corridor right-of-way and/or a retaining wall could be required. Further City review and discussion will occur once Preliminary Design plates are available.]
City asked about wider station analysis work and how it aligns with the TPAP
- Metrolinx confirmed that any new stations are not included in the scope of this TPAP and are anticipated to be covered under a separate study. This TPAP is only for the additional track and associated modifications to the Danforth GO Station. [Post-Meeting Note: the list of new station locations being considered is available at: www.metrolinxengage.com]
- Metrolinx also confirmed that a future fifth track is a possibility but that there are no current plans or requirements for this as a result of RER.
City raised the importance of coordinating with other studies in the area (e.g. Broadview Ave. extension, Gardiner East EA)
- Metrolinx concurs and such meetings will be scheduled to support coordination discussions.
City asked if any road ROW will be required from the City
- Metrolinx is still working through this and will consult with the City further as the project progresses.
City asked if there are any issues with vertical clearances
- Metrolinx confirmed that there may be issues at Birchmount Road to accommodate electrification under this bridge but that certain minimum standards will be met and confirmed in detail design. It is noteworthy that a separate TPAP process is underway for Electrification.
- An EA for electrification is also being undertaken and will confirm requirements.
City asked if there are any issues for roadway vertical clearances at subways and Metrolinx advised this should not be an issue, they will follow the existing clearances.
City asked when landowners would be consulted
- Metrolinx explained that confidence is first required over what lands are needed and that affected landowners will be consulted before the general public.
- City indicated that councillors should be consulted first and Metrolinx confirmed that is
Minutes prepared by AECOM
Item No.
Description
standard practice.
TTC asked whether there will be impacts to their service and noted that they require early notification of construction works to determine if extra service is required
- Impacts to TTC service are anticipated to be limited to temporary construction related impacts.
- Metrolinx committed to consulting with TTC during construction meetings.
City asked why the additional track cannot be accommodated on the existing Woodbine Avenue bridge
- AECOM confirmed that there is not the required space on the north side. The north side is preferred throughout this stretch of the corridor from Gerrard Street-Pape Avenue eastward.
- City raised the possibility of requiring extra lighting under bridges after widening; Metrolinx confirmed this will be considered in detail design.
Metrolinx confirmed that no bridge replacements are anticipated.
The City noted that development applications should be considered in the context of the proposed works. As is standard practice, Metrolinx review of development applications will be coordinated by Adam Snow.
4. Other:
Katie Bright (Metrolinx) will be the City’s primary contact for this TPAP.
Adjournment:
Meeting was adjourned at 10:30am by Katie Bright.
The foregoing represents the writer’s understanding of the major items of discussion and the decisions reached and/or actions required. Any errors, omissions, or concerns regarding the minutes captured should be brought to the attention of the undersigned individual within 48 hours of receiving these minutes.
Prepared By: James Jarrett (AECOM)
Reviewed By: Katie Bright (Metrolinx)
Minutes
CITY OF TORONTO TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING – LAKESHORE EAST RAIL CORRIDOR EXPANSION TPAP (DON RIVER
TO SCARBOROUGH GO STATION)
MEETING DATE: May 17, 2016
TIME: 1:00pm to 3:00pm
LOCATION: East Tower, 23rd Floor, Boardroom 23E
PRESENT:
Michael McClellan
Christine Oldnall
Allen Wu
Philip Greer
Amelia Mazaharally
John Lam
William He
Mike Jacobs
Victor Gottwald
Tom Schwerdtfeger
City of Toronto
City of Toronto
City of Toronto
City of Toronto
City of Toronto
City of Toronto
City of Toronto
City of Toronto
City of Toronto
City of Toronto
Nigel Tahair City of Toronto [email protected]
Alan Filipuzzi City of Toronto [email protected]
Anson Yuen City of Toronto [email protected]
Nancy Lowes
Alex Shevchuk
Marko Oinonen
Diana Birchall
Fiona Chapman
Angela Stea
Jennifer Hyland
Deanne Mighton
Shalin Yeboah
Katie Bright
Paul Atkinson
Renée Pettigrew
Philip Herbeson
Manuel Pedrosa
Alan Macdougall
Marian Tibor-McMahon
City of Toronto
City of Toronto
City of Toronto
City of Toronto
City of Toronto
City of Toronto
City of Toronto
City of Toronto
City of Toronto
Metrolinx
Metrolinx
Metrolinx
Metrolinx
Metrolinx
AECOM
AECOM
REGRETS: David Brutto
Edmund Wu
Stewart McIntosh
Jacqueline Darwood
City of Toronto
City of Toronto
City of Toronto
TTC
Minutes prepared by AECOM
Mark Mis
James Hartley
Andre Marois
Garnet Greatrix
Martin Keen
Georgina Collymore
James Jarrett
TTC
Metrolinx
Metrolinx
Metrolinx
Metrolinx
Metrolinx
AECOM
DISTRIBUTION: All present and regrets
NOTES:
Item No.
Description
Action by
1.0 Introduction
Roundtable introductions were completed.
City explained that moving forward these Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meetings will be established similar to the Davenport project, where there will be a point of contact from relevant City departments. The point of contact will identify the department representative that will attend the meeting. It is expected that this will reduce the number of City staff attending each TAC meeting. Any questions about this should be directed to Shalin Yeboah.
2.0 TAC#1 Recap
Metrolinx provided a summary of what was discussed at TAC#1. Topics of discussion included: project overview, Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP), specialist studies, project schedule, consultation approach and next steps.
3.0 Meetings Since TAC#1
Since TAC#1 in February, project coordination focused discussions took place including: 1) a meeting with City of Toronto, Waterfront Toronto, Toronto Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA) and Metrolinx to discuss Port Lands and South of Eastern Transportation Servicing Master Plan on February 18, 2016; and
2) a meeting with City of Toronto, Waterfront Toronto, and Metrolinx to discuss the Gardiner East Environmental Assessment on March 10, 2016.
4.0 Brief Project Overview
Metrolinx provided a brief project overview – Lakeshore East Rail Corridor Expansion from Don River to Scarborough GO Station.
City asked if there will be any implications on the proposed Gardiner works specifically in the vicinity of the Don Rail Bridge where the Gardiner East EA identifies bridge widening. Metrolinx explained that the proposed 4th track can be accommodated by the existing bridge structure – i.e. it is the Gardiner works that would impact the rail infrastructure given the proposed bridge widening. Metrolinx has provided comments to the Gardiner East EA Team (City and Waterfront Toronto) including a number of key design
Minutes prepared by AECOM
Item No.
Description
Action by
considerations, constraints and requirements.
5.0 Review of Draft Preliminary Design Plates Retaining Walls:
Retaining walls are required in some locations given the topography in the area and consideration for adjacent land uses. The draft preliminary design plates circulated in advance of this meeting show ~3.8km in retaining walls (~30% of the study area corridor); ~2km of retaining walls will be public facing.
City asked if the retaining walls will be connected to noise walls and/or corridor fencing. Metrolinx indicated they are not necessarily connected. A Noise and Vibration (N&V) assessment will be conducted which will inform any need for noise attenuation. Appropriate design consideration will be given should noise walls be located alongside retaining walls.
The current focus is to determine where the retaining walls will be located. City asked how a retaining wall is deemed to be public facing. Metrolinx explained that if the retaining wall is facing the corridor, it is a corridor facing wall; if the retaining wall is facing public or private property, it is a public facing wall. A public facing retaining wall is viewed as a significant public facing wall if it is notably visible to residential areas/park lands.
City asked about the height of retaining walls shown on the plans. Metrolinx explained that the profile is not reflective of the final requirements as this is a preliminary design. AECOM explained that in Preliminary Design the areas where a retaining wall is anticipated are simply identified for more detailed work. At this level of design engineering has not yet considered detailed cross sections or differentiation of how the wall changes as it progresses. Sizing of walls will be addressed as part of the detailed design. It was also noted that the length of each retaining wall is currently relative to a typical cross-section in any given area of the corridor.
Although retaining walls are located within the existing or future rail corridor, construction may require temporary access and result in impacts to adjacent properties (vegetation removal to be mitigated).
City asked if retaining walls normally have fences on top of the walls. Metrolinx explained that the corridor will be fenced to control access and that during detailed design due consideration will be given to fence design/placement and safety (e.g. fall arrest).
City noted that some corridor facing retaining walls may be notable from a public realm perspective and correspondingly due consideration should be given to the design (i.e. similar to public facing retaining walls). Metrolinx will take this under advisement and review the visibility of corridor facing walls.
General:
Four bridge widenings are currently proposed to accommodate the fourth track – Woodbine Ave., Warden Ave., Danforth Ave., Birchmount Rd (pending coordinated review with Electrification). Metrolinx anticipates there will be minimal impacts to city infrastructure with impacts focused on temporary construction related impacts.
Minutes prepared by AECOM
Item No.
Description
Action by
City asked about how the City will be involved in the review of wall (retaining and noise) design. Significant public facing retaining walls will be reviewed by the Metrolinx Design Review Panel (MDRP). Metrolinx will engage the City through the design review process.
City commented that areas with public visibility and access (e.g. Woodrow Avenue Pedestrian Overpass) should be assessed cumulatively, especially if there are noise barriers and retaining walls in these same areas.
City indicated that an arborist report is required in support of addressing the City’s tree by-laws, particularly in areas where impacted trees are outside of the Metrolinx right-of-way. Metrolinx confirmed that a tree inventory and an arborist report are part of the scope of work and will reflect by-law requirements as appropriate. City noted that works within the provincial rail corridor are not subject to the City’s tree by-laws. Metrolinx explained that trees impacts and associated mitigation will be coordinated with the Electrification Project and in consultation with the City and TRCA.
City asked about the setback requirements for adjacent land redevelopment. It was noted that the residential set-back is a minimum of 30m. Metrolinx to circulate a copy of the Metrolinx - GO Transit Adjacent Development Guidelines. [Post-Meeting Note: Metrolinx-GO Transit Adjacent Development Guidelines are appended to these meeting notes] AECOM explained that the standards are from the boundary of the property line to allow for the corridor to expand within its boundaries.
City commented that with the corridor facing walls, there is potential of water pooling in some areas as a result of the retaining wall barrier competing with a ditch. Metrolinx indicated that this will be reviewed and addressed during detailed design and a stormwater management assessment will be conducted.
Property acquisition noted on the plans is preliminary and subject to further review. City noted that where property takings are proposed consideration should be given to implications for future property development.
City asked if the park polygons (green) shown on drawings will be refined. Metrolinx explained that the park areas shown on the plates were very rough and added simply to help orient where parklands are generally located. The mark-up version of the plates circulated prior to the meeting is only to support meeting discussions and will not be used further. For public review purposes the plates will be cleaned up and with an aerial photo base added. The City offered to provide exact park boundaries. [Post-Meeting Note: As follow up to this, through email on May 27, 2016 K. Bright (Metrolinx) requested that S. McIntosh (City) provide Metrolinx the corresponding park boundary GIS file(s)]
City commented that in general bridges have a barrier screen to stop objects being thrown onto electrification wires. City asked if there will be something similar on this corridor. Metrolinx indicated that this is being addressed through the Electrification EA.
City asked how this project is being coordinated with Metrolinx’s Electrification project – specifically related to assessing noise. Metrolinx indicated that the projects are coordinated as appropriate and the same service levels (train volumes) are being considered. The ultimate mitigation scenario is viewed to
Metrolinx
(completed)
City
Minutes prepared by AECOM
Item No.
Description
Action by
be the impacts associated with Electrification. City questioned if in some areas this may result in noise barriers not being implemented where a barrier would be warranted for diesel but not for electrified future operations (i.e. an interim “gap”). Metrolinx explained that due consideration will be given to the technical, economic and administrative feasibility for noise attenuation mitigation where noise attenuation warrants are identified through the N&V assessment.
City inquired about the scenarios to be considered when assessing noise. Metrolinx indicated that the N&V assessment will compare existing conditions (future without project scenario) with future conditions (future with project scenario). For this project the existing conditions scenario is the same as the future without project scenario as the additional infrastructure (4th track) is required prior to increasing service.
Metrolinx noted that Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports will be completed for a number of structures – this is being coordinated with the Electrification EA.
DWG. No.: C-060 (Woodrow Park / Pedestrian Overpass): The proposed fourth track is not anticipated to impact the Woodrow Avenue
Pedestrian Overpass. Metrolinx is giving consideration to potential impacts associated with Electrification (e.g. where required, implications of safety barriers).
DWG. No.: C-062 (Birchmount Road):
City commented that this corridor facing retaining wall could be visible to the public from Birchmount Road and due consideration should be given to design/aesthetics. Further to discussion earlier in the meeting, Metrolinx indicated that they will put together a list of the ‘significant’ retaining walls warranting design review.
DWG. No.: C-063 (Birchmount Road):
City asked if any existing retaining walls are attached to or in close proximity to the Birchmount Road Bridge. Metrolinx anticipates that there will be no impacts to existing retaining walls.
DWG. No.: C-064 (Public facing retaining wall)
City inquired if the land acquisition impacts part of a road right-of-way. Metrolinx to confirm existing land use but noted a belief that what looks to be a roadway may be part of an industrial/commercial property. [Post-Meeting Note: The area in question is in use by a manufacturer and the impacted area appears to be a paved component of that property, see Google Map aerial view: https://goo.gl/4aqiSD]
DWG. No.: C-065 (Danforth Ave. Bridge)
Metrolinx confirmed that the widening will be on the north side and there will be impacts to park land. At this time Metrolinx is unsure of how far the grading will extend. City noted that if Open Space is impacted an Official Plan Amendment may be required.
City asked about the widths of the retaining wall and cross-section under the bridge and associated ability to accommodate reasonably sized
Metrolinx
Metrolinx (completed)
Minutes prepared by AECOM
Item No.
Description
Action by
sidewalks and bike lane. Metrolinx explained that the existing road profile would be maintained as part of the bridge widening. There will not be additional roadway space created as a result of the bridge widening (“widening” is from the perspective of the rail corridor and not the roadway).
City asked for confirmation of the new abutment placement in relation to the existing abutments. The abutments will be staggered and placed behind the existing abutments to minimize the overall footprint of the structure.
City asked if existing utility infrastructure will be impacted. AECOM indicated that has yet to be detailed. AECOM is of the opinion that current infrastructure should not be impacted; however, additional information is required to determine the impacts to utilities.
City asked if the property to be acquired on south side of Danforth Ave. is for a sloping curve. AECOM confirmed this.
City asked about any impacts to traffic turning movements at Medford Ave. following the bridge widening. Metrolinx indicated that crash barriers may go out further at this location. Metrolinx does not anticipate there being any issues at this location but will review. [Post-Meeting Note: Currently left turns are not permitted to/from Medford Ave. at Danforth Ave. – as a result, the bridge widening will not impact existing turning movements.]
DWG. No.: C-066 (Warden Ave.)
City commented that from a development perspective the northwest corner of the rail corridor and Warden Ave. contains a substandard parcel. If Metrolinx is taking more land from this parcel, it will be much smaller than it currently is. Metrolinx indicated they will take this into consideration and look into property ownership. [Post-Meeting Note: As detailed design progresses Metrolinx will review the impact to the land further. At this time this is a preliminary estimation and requires further refinement.]
City asked if the elevation of road will stay the same as well as the tracks on the same level as existing tracks. AECOM noted that this is generally true; however, if the track needs to be raised, it will be done so slightly. AECOM noted that it would be difficult to have two tracks at significant different elevations. AECOM noted they would try to get the last couple of centimetres (cm) to ensure maintaining existing road clearance. The existing road clearance at Warden Ave. is shown on the draft General Arrangement that was circulated prior to the February 11, 2016 TAC meeting [Post-Meeting Note: the draft General Arrangement indicates an existing bridge clearance of 4.496m and the widened portion of the bridge having a proposed clearance of 4.8m] If the track has to be raised significantly, it will be worked out during detailed design phase.
City asked if the grading is shown on the drawing in the vicinity of the proposed public facing retaining wall is an existing berm. Metrolinx explained that this is a treed slope (rail corridor grade notably higher than adjacent residential properties) and the retaining wall is proposed to reduce impacts, although temporary construction related impacts will extend beyond the proposed retaining wall.
City asked about sightlines along Warden Avenue. Metrolinx will review roadway and driveway sightlines during detailed design.
Metrolinx (completed)
Metrolinx (to be
addressed in detailed
design)
Metrolinx (to be
addressed in detailed
Minutes prepared by AECOM
Item No.
Description
Action by
DWG. No.: C-067 (Oakridge Park)
City expressed concern regarding the public facing retaining wall at Oakridge Park. Metrolinx indicated that temporary construction impacts are anticipated. City noted that the proposed public facing retaining wall in the vicinity of Oakridge Park is of interest given the grade differential (rail corridor grade notably higher than adjacent residential properties). Metrolinx explained that the retaining wall is proposed to reduce impacts, although temporary construction related impacts will extend beyond the proposed retaining wall.
City asked if there will be noise impacts at this location. Metrolinx indicated that this will be determined once the noise assessment has been completed. City commented that a noise wall would aid in mitigating noise impacts. Metrolinx noted that warrants for noise attenuation will be considered.
DWG. No.: C-068 (Kenworthy Park)
City noted the existing ground versus proposed ground, and that it is 1m higher across the design plate; however, retaining wall stops half way. Metrolinx noted that they will investigate further at this location.
City sought clarification as to certain locations of the retaining wall. Metrolinx explained the reasons may vary but some areas it could be the bottom of a ditch to protect the drainage in the area.
DWG. No.: C-069 (Victoria Park Ave.)
City noted that there is a watermain being replaced along Victoria Park Ave. AECOM noted that the bridge structure will not be changed at Victoria Park Ave. and that a retaining wall will be installed behind the building in the northeast quadrant. City expressed concern for watermain and the lack of space for it in this location as this is a tight area for utilities. City noted that the watermain is part of the long term capital plan, where there are reserves for property for tunnelling. City to provide Metrolinx with drawings of the watermain.
City asked if the design will encroach on City road right-of-way. AECOM indicated that this will be confirmed during detailed design phase.
DWG. No.: C-072 (Danforth GO station – East Toronto Athletic Field)
Metrolinx confirmed that retaining walls are not proposed in this location.
Metrolinx explained that Main Street Bridge has been viewed as a constraint. City asked if the bridge at this location will be maintained. Metrolinx confirmed that the bridge will not be impacted (no widening required).
Metrolinx noted that the fourth track design in the vicinity of Danforth GO Station is currently under review.
DWG. No.: C-075 (Woodbine Ave., Oakcrest Park)
City asked about the narrow double line is on this design plate. Metrolinx and AECOM indicated that a ditch has been identified. This will be refined during detailed design phase.
City asked if Woodbine Bridge will be modified. Metrolinx indicated that the
design)
City
Minutes prepared by AECOM
Item No.
Description
Action by
bridge will be widened on the north side to accommodate the fourth track. There will not be additional roadway space created as a result of the bridge widening (“widening” is from the perspective of the rail corridor and not the roadway). City indicated interest to widen the bridge to provide additional roadway space and accommodate bike lanes. Without additional space future plans have the bridge being a network pinch point. There was some discussion as to whether the location of desired widening is at the Woodbine Ave. Bridge or the Coxwell Ave. Bridge. City to confirm the bridge of interest and share additional details regarding proposed works.
DWG. No.: C-076 (Merrill Bridge Road Park)
Metrolinx noted that visual and vegetation will be reviewed in the vicinity of Merrill Bridge Road Park. Metrolinx understands that there are sensitivities at this location due to the park land in the area and that there will be construction impacts within the Metrolinx rail corridor. The rail corridor grade is higher than the adjacent park and there is a treed slope within the Metrolinx rail corridor. A retaining wall is proposed to reduce impacts, although temporary construction related impacts will extend beyond the proposed retaining wall.
City noted that to the west side of Merrill Bridge Road Park there appears to be a trail extending under the rail corridor linking park lands on both sides of the corridor. City asked for confirmation. Metrolinx to confirm. [Post-Meeting Note: There is a culvert crossing for Smalls Creek. The detailed design of the corridor expansion will determine if the culvert requires extension or if it is of sufficient length.]
DWG. No.: C-080 (Greenwood Ave.)
Metrolinx indicated that the TTC Greenwood Yard is located in this area, with no direct track access to the rail corridor. Metrolinx indicated that a corridor facing retaining wall is proposed at this location.
DWG. No.: C-081 (Leslie St.)
Metrolinx indicated that a corridor facing wall is proposed, which is within the rail corridor right-of-way.
DWG. No.: C-082 (Jones Ave.)
Metrolinx indicated that a public facing retaining wall is proposed at this location.
City asked what the land use is in the vicinity of the proposed retaining wall. Metrolinx explained that there will be a socio-economic and land use assessment conducted that will assess the land use. [Post-Meeting Note: the proposed retaining wall is adjacent to Blake Street Public School]
DWG. No.: C-083 (Pape Ave.)
Metrolinx explained that the pedestrian bridge is not impacted by the rail corridor widening and that no retaining walls are proposed at this location.
City inquired about potential impacts to the pedestrian bridge associated with barriers for Electrification. This will be addressed through the Electrification EA.
DWG. No.: C-084 (Gerrard-Carlaw Parkette)
City noted that the park lands (green polygons) are not shown in the correct locations on the plan. The only park land in this area is the Gerrard-Carlaw
City
Metrolinx (completed)
Minutes prepared by AECOM
Item No.
Description
Action by
Parkette located to the south of the rail corridor and west of Carlaw Avenue.
DWG. No.: C-085 (Dundas St. E. and Logan Ave.)
Metrolinx indicated that a public facing wall is proposed near Logan Ave.
DWG. No.: C-086 (Jimmie Simpson Park)
Metrolinx noted that no bridge works are required at this location; the 4th track can be accommodated on the south side.
DWG. No.: C-087 (Eastern Ave.)
Metrolinx noted that no bridge works are required at this location; 4th track can be accommodated on the south side.
Metrolinx noted that two public facing retaining walls are proposed on the south side of the rail corridor.
DWG. No.: C-088 (east of the Don Valley Parkway)
Metrolinx noted that a public facing retaining wall is proposed on the south side of the rail corridor west of Eastern Avenue.
7.0 Project Schedule, Consultation Milestones and Next Steps Metrolinx explained that the Project is currently in the Pre-TPAP planning
phase with numerous specialist studies being conducted to inform the environmental assessment.
It is anticipated that pre-TPAP public meetings will be held this Fall (dates, format and venues TBD). A TAC meeting will be held and local elected officials will be briefed prior to the public meetings.
The draft Environmental Project Report is scheduled to be available for City review this Fall. It will be important to receive review feedback and this will be coordinated through the TAC and Shalin Yeboah.
The Notice of Commencement is currently anticipated to be released in early 2017.
Adjournment:
Meeting was adjourned at 2:52pm pm by Katie Bright.
The foregoing represents the writer’s understanding of the major items of discussion and the decisions reached and/or actions required. Any errors, omissions, or concerns regarding the minutes captured should be brought to the attention of the undersigned individual within 5 business days of receiving these minutes.
Prepared By: Marian Tibor-McMahon, AECOM
Reviewed By: Metrolinx
Email: [email protected]
Date: May 25, 2016
Metrolinx - GO Transit Adjacent Development Guidelines
Document Approval Information Document Effective Date Approved By
Adjacent Development Guidelines
01 April 2013 Grant Bailie
RAILWAY CORRIDORS CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT
RC-0401-01
Section
Proximity Guidelines
Subject
Adjacent Development Guidelines
Issue Date
January 21, 2013
Page
2 of 15
Document Approval History Version # Date Approved By Description
1.0 10 January 2013 Grant Bailie
Document Revision History Version # Date Revised By Description
1.0 10 January 2013 Jeff Bateman Final
2.0 01 April 2013 Jeff Bateman Updated - new corridor purchase
Document Details
Issuing Department GO Railway Corridors
Document Owner Director, Railway Corridors, Operations
Update Authority Director, Railway Corridors, Operations
Intended Audience Division Personnel and External Stakeholders
Original Issue Date 01 April 2013
Effective Date 01 April 2013
Expiry Date 01 April 2018
Document Status Final Version
Review Cycle Five-Year
File Name Railway Corridor Management Office Adjacent Development Guidelines
File Location Railway Corridors
RAILWAY CORRIDORS CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT
RC-0401-01
Section
Proximity Guidelines
Subject
Adjacent Development Guidelines
Issue Date
January 21, 2013
Page
3 of 15
1. Introduction
GO Transit manages approximately 288 kilometres of Metrolinx-owned railway corridors, corresponding to about 68 per cent of the total railway network that GO Trains regularly operate over. By properly managing and maintaining these corridors and the nearly 535 kilometres of track they contain, GO Transit’s Railway Corridors division helps to ensure that, every week, approximately one million train passengers travel to their destinations, safely and reliably. The Railway Corridors Management Office (RCMO) resides within the GO Transit, Railway Corridors Division. The RCMO supports safe and reliable train service through a variety of initiatives that include, but are not limited to, trespassing prevention, vegetation management (siteline preservation), anti-whistling initiatives, and general landlord responsibilities, such as debris and graffiti management. To achieve these goals, the RCMO oversees the railway right-of-way maintenance contractor and liaises with the municipalities our corridors pass through and other government agencies such as Transport Canada. In addition, the RCMO reviews and provides comments on various development related applications for projects located within 300 metres of GO Transit managed railway corridors (including railway yards), to ensure a safe and reliable system and to minimize conflicts between proposed developments and current or planned GO Transit rail services.
2. Purpose
One of the key objectives of this document is to communicate relevant information to interested parties so that they may understand the implications of undertaking a development project in proximity to a GO Transit managed rail corridor and, as necessary, incorporate appropriate standards and “best practices” into their development plans. The GO Transit adjacent development review process is in place in order to safeguard the integrity of the railway corridor and ensure that all development proceeds in a safe manner and that construction activities do not interfere with the maintenance or operations of GO Transit, nor obstruct future expansion of rail facilities. GO Transit is committed to providing advice and support to proponents who are planning activities that interface with GO Transit managed railway corridors. As such, the RCMO is the first point of contact for all parties wishing to carry out new construction, repairs, and maintenance or demolition activities on any property adjacent to the railway corridor. Proponents are encouraged to contact GO Transit early in the development approvals process to discuss how these guidelines may be applicable to their project.
RAILWAY CORRIDORS CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT
RC-0401-01
Section
Proximity Guidelines
Subject
Adjacent Development Guidelines
Issue Date
January 21, 2013
Page
4 of 15
GO Transit’s rail corridors are a critical component of the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area’s (GTHA) urban fabric and pass through a diverse range of communities comprised of residential, commercial/industrial, and agricultural uses, as well as vacant lands. GO Transit has an established history of reviewing and commenting on applications for development sites along its respective corridors and has adopted a set of standards and “best practices” intended to enhance safety and compatibility between railway corridors and adjacent development activities. 3. Planning Framework
Land use decisions along railway corridors are generally fragmented and no single level of government has sole jurisdiction to address adjacent development issues. Under the Provincial Planning Act (RSO2006 – through Ontario Regulations 543/06, 544/06 and 545/06), municipal planning departments must notify railway companies regarding proposed development activity within a 300 metres zone of influence adjacent to railway corridors. Through this process GO Transit has provided comments on a wide range of municipal land development matters including:
• Official Plan Amendments; • Zoning By-Law Amendments; • Plans of Subdivision; • Site Plan Control Applications; and • Minor Variance or Consent Applications.
The standards or “best practices” referenced in this document are intended to inform and influence municipal land development approval processes and provide a consistent framework for land use decisions made in proximity to GO Transit operated railway corridors. The measures have been developed through years of technical analyses and operational experience, and have been implemented by other rail operators such as CN and CP Rail. While GO Transit’s railway corridors play a critical role from a commuter transportation perspective, they can also serve as physical barriers within a land development context. As communities mature on opposite sides of the corridor, pedestrian desire lines may be created (e.g., between a residential community on one side of the corridor and a school on the other side) and informal connections arise when holes are cut in fencing and pedestrians become trespassers on railway lands. As such, GO Transit will also provide comments on various land development applications to discourage the creation of new desire lines across rail corridors and pursue formal (grade separated) connections to ensure that safe conditions are maintained, rail activity is not interrupted, and transit services are easily accessible. This approach complements the wider Metrolinx strategy of creating integrated mobility, as well as contributing to the development of higher quality infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists and providing safer and more pleasant environments.
RAILWAY CORRIDORS CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT
RC-0401-01
Section
Proximity Guidelines
Subject
Adjacent Development Guidelines
Issue Date
January 21, 2013
Page
5 of 15
It is acknowledged that past planning decisions and administrative practices have resulted in a multitude of development circumstances on properties adjacent to GO corridors, some of which are not consistent with the practices set out in this document and which may consequently be regarded as ‘legal non-conforming’ development. GO Transit’s intent is to ensure that all new development incorporates the measures identified herein. When considering re-development proposals for non-conforming properties, the existing rights will be considered, but any modifications extending beyond the established rights will not be permitted without the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures. GO Transit may appeal any potential land use compatibility issue to the Ontario Municipal Board, within the legislative appeal period, for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments, Plans of Subdivision, and Minor Variance of Consent applications. Site Plan applications not associated with the above-noted planning applications are not subject to appeal. 4. GO Transit Operated Corridors Map
Figure 1 provides an overview of all GO Transit managed railway corridors. It should be noted that some of these corridors are currently owned by other operators, such as CN and CP Rail and as such, they are the primary commenting agencies for adjacent development activities along their lines. The principles set out in this document are also upheld by these operators.
RAILWAY CORRIDORS CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT
RC-0401-01
Section
Proximity Guidelines
Subject
Adjacent Development Guidelines
Issue Date
January 21, 2013
Page
6 of 15
Figure 1: GO Transit Managed Railway Corridors
RAILWAY CORRIDORS CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT
RC-0401-01
Section
Proximity Guidelines
Subject
Adjacent Development Guidelines
Issue Date
January 21, 2013
Page
7 of 15
5. GO Transit Land Use Guidelines
A list of general safety measures, technical studies, and legal agreements typically considered for developments adjacent to the rail corridor are presented in Table 1, with each organized on the basis of the applicable land use. The majority of these measures are to be considered for development located immediately adjacent (with direct exposure) to rail corridors. However, certain measures (such as noise studies and environmental easements) are applied within a zone extending 300 metres from the rail corridor. These measures are also primarily directed at Principal Main Line applications, where train volumes generally exceed 5 trains per day, higher train speeds may be observed, and crossings, gradients and other factors may increase normal railway noise and vibration. All GO Transit corridors are considered Principal Main Lines. GO Transit considers the measures identified for residential development to be mandatory and may refer cases that fail to incorporate these requirements to the Ontario Municipal Board. Measures identified for other (non-residential) land uses are recommended and final decisions regarding their applicability are to be established by the local municipal staff together with the proponent. In a case where the proposed development incorporates mixed uses, including residential, the more stringent (residential) requirements would apply. The general safety measures identified in Table 1 are discussed in section 6 of this report; technical studies are identified in section 7, and warning clause and legal agreements are reviewed in section 8.
Table 1: GO Transit Land Use Guidelines - Standard Measures and Studies for Adjacent Development *Protection for certain uses (e.g., parking garages) may be desirable – to be determined at the discretion of the proponent/municipality.
RAILWAY CORRIDORS CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT
RC-0401-01
Section
Proximity Guidelines
Subject
Adjacent Development Guidelines
Issue Date
January 21, 2013
Page
8 of 15
6. General Safety Measures
6.1 Building Setback Requirements Building setback requirements are established to provide a buffer zone that contains the impacts associated with a potential train derailment; permits dissipation of rail-oriented emissions, vibration, and noise; and accommodates a safety barrier. As indicated in Table 1, setback distances vary by land use and occupancy status. The following provides an overview of building setback requirements and conditions:
• The minimum building setback distance is measured from the mutual property line to the building face. The mutual property line is always the reference point for building setbacks, regardless of area conditions.
• Under typical conditions, the setback is measured as a straight-line horizontal distance. Figure 2 below provides an illustration of a typical setback and berm installation for residential construction.
• Where circumstances dictate (e.g. spatially constrained urban sites), the building setback distance may be measured as a combination of horizontal and vertical distances, as long as the horizontal and vertical value add up to meet the 30m requirement (illustrated in Figure 3).
Figure 2: Typical Building Setback and Berm for Residential Construction Source: Earthtech Canada, “Final Report; Proximity Guidelines and Best Practices”, RAC/FCM Proximity Guidelines
Figure 3: Building Setback - Spatially Constrained Site
RAILWAY CORRIDORS CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT
RC-0401-01
Section
Proximity Guidelines
Subject
Adjacent Development Guidelines
Issue Date
January 21, 2013
Page
9 of 15
• When the adjacent rail line is located in a cut measuring in the order of 4.0 metres deep or greater, the slope may be included as part of the building setback (measured from the toe of the slope).
• Low occupancy land uses (such as parking, storage, open space) do not require a specific setback and are acceptable uses within the setback zone of another use.
• The mutual property line may be redefined in cases where rail corridor expansion is required and the minimum setback distance would be measured from the new property line.
• Existing building setbacks may vary by location and do not set the precedent for new development.
6.2 Safety Barrier Requirements Safety Barriers in the form of a berm or crash wall are required to absorb the impacts of a possible derailment and provide physical protection for adjacent properties. As indicated in Table 1, safety barrier requirements vary by land use and occupancy status. The following provides an overview safety barrier requirements and conditions: Berm:
• Where full building setbacks can be provided, safety barriers are constructed as berms. Setbacks and berms are to be provided together in order to afford a maximum level of mitigation (refer to Figure 2).
• In the absence of intervening uses, safety barriers are required for lands within up to 120 metres from the railway corridor, with the required barrier height diminishing with distance.
• Berm heights (measured from the property line elevation) may vary by land use (refer to Table 1).
• Alternate berm designs (e.g., using retaining walls) may be considered for spatially constrained locations. The intent is to provide a level of energy absorption equivalent to that of a standard berm. Such designs will be subject to review/approval by GO Transit’s Third Party Project consultant (refer to Section 9.0)
• Berms are to be located adjoining and parallel to the railway property line, entirely on the adjacent private property.
• Returns are to be provided at the ends of the berms, with placement subject to site specific conditions, such that buildings with direct exposure to the rail corridor are suitably protected.
• When the adjacent rail line is located in a cut measuring in the order of 4.0 metres or deeper, no supplemental safety barrier is required.
RAILWAY CORRIDORS CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT
RC-0401-01
Section
Proximity Guidelines
Subject
Adjacent Development Guidelines
Issue Date
January 21, 2013
Page
10 of 15
Crash Wall:
• Where circumstances dictate (e.g. for spatially constrained urban sites), a crash wall may be required (refer to Figure 3).
• Crash wall specifications are set out in the Crash Wall Guidelines document prepared by GO Transit’s Third Party project consultant. The proponents engineer must demonstrate that the crash wall will afford a level of protection at least equivalent to a standard berm (with a higher level of protection if no setback will be provided and the subject land use involves a high level of human occupancy). Such designs will be subject to review and approval by GO Transit’s Third Party Project consultant (refer to Section 9.0).
• Low occupancy uses (such as parking, storage, passive parks) may not require a safety barrier, although the proponent/area municipality may wish to provide such protection for insurance or other purposes.
6.3 Fencing Requirements
Fencing is established to define railway property and discourage trespassing onto the railway corridor. As indicated in Table 1, new fencing installations are required irrespective of the land use and occupancy status. The following provides an overview of fencing requirements and conditions:
• For all new developments adjacent to the rail corridor, an appropriate fencing type along the
boundary line is required to be installed by the property developer as a condition of subdivision/site plan approval.
• The current minimum standard is a 1.83 m high chain link fence. GO Transit also reserves the right to advise the developer whether a higher security fencing type is required. All costs for fencing associated with new developments are paid in full by the property developer.
• In the case of private fencing (residential, commercial, industrial, institutional etc.), the adjacent landowner is responsible for the continued maintenance and upkeep of fencing systems along the mutual property line.
• Noise attenuation and crash barriers are acceptable substitutes for standard fencing installations, although additional standard fencing may be required in any location with direct exposure to the rail corridor.
RAILWAY CORRIDORS CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT
RC-0401-01
Section
Proximity Guidelines
Subject
Adjacent Development Guidelines
Issue Date
January 21, 2013
Page
11 of 15
• If the selected fencing is comprised of a solid surface, efforts should be made to discourage graffiti –
for example, through the use of visually appealing landscaping that prevents direct access to the barrier face.
7. General Technical Studies
7.1 Noise and Vibration Studies
Noise and vibration studies may be required to ensure, through an analysis of the surrounding environment, that suitable measures are introduced to mitigate rail oriented noise and vibration impacts. As indicated in Table 1, noise and vibration study requirements vary by land use and occupancy status. The following provides an overview of noise and vibration study requirements and conditions:
• Noise standards are to be applied to residential development within 300 metres of the rail corridor.
• Acoustical analysis is recommended for other non-residential uses where there may be sensitivity to
noise (e.g., day care centres, offices with sensitive equipment etc.).
• Noise attenuation barriers may be required for projects (primarily residential) that include outdoor amenity areas. These barriers shall be located adjoining and parallel to the railway right-of-way, having returns at the ends and a minimum total height of 5.5 metres above top-of-rail.
• Other measures (e.g. provision of air conditioning, enhanced windows and building materials, etc.) may also be recommended by a qualified acoustical consultant.
• Trees and standard fencing are not acceptable substitutes for noise barriers.
• Warning Clauses are mandatory for residential units within 300 metres of the rail corridor and may suitably address noise concerns for other non-residential forms of development.
• Special considerations may apply at locations where trains are stored and/or operate at reduced speed/idle, as well as in areas with unique operating characteristics (e.g. use of snow blowers, specialized machinery, etc.).
• Vibration standards are to be applied to development within 75 metres of the rail corridor.
• Isolation measures will be required where vibration levels exceed the established standards.
RAILWAY CORRIDORS CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT
RC-0401-01
Section
Proximity Guidelines
Subject
Adjacent Development Guidelines
Issue Date
January 21, 2013
Page
12 of 15
7.2 Drainage and Other Technical Studies Drainage and other studies may be required to ensure, through an analysis of the surrounding environment, that the rail corridor is not adversely affected by, or does not adversely affect area development.
The following provides an overview of drainage and other study requirements and conditions:
• Any proposed alterations to the existing rail corridor drainage pattern (i.e., into and/or out of) must
receive approved by GO Transit and be substantiated by a drainage report completed by a Geotechnical Engineer.
• Any development related changes to drainage patterns must be addressed using infrastructure and/or other means located entirely within the confines of the subject development site.
• Other technical studies may be required depending on the characteristics and location of the subject project. For example, additional studies are typically required for properties within the vicinity of the Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) due to the heavy rail traffic volumes and spatial constraints in that area. Typical studies may include: Air Quality Study; Micro Climate (Wind/Snow Accumulation) Study; Structural Engineering Report; and Pedestrian Management Plan
Drainage studies and other technical studies may be subject to review and approval by GO Transit’s Third Party Project consultant (refer to section 9) depending on the prevailing circumstances.
8.0 Warning Clause and Development Agreements
A Warning Clause is required and may be delivered together with other legal agreements to formalize owner rights and responsibilities with respect to the purchase and development of lands in the vicinity of railway corridors. The need for and nature of development agreements will vary depending on the characteristics and location of the subject project. The proponent is responsible for all costs related to the preparation and negotiation of the agreements.
RAILWAY CORRIDORS CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT
RC-0401-01
Section
Proximity Guidelines
Subject
Adjacent Development Guidelines
Issue Date
January 21, 2013
Page
13 of 15
8.1 Warning Clause To advise new or prospective property owners of the potential adverse impacts resulting from the adjacent railway operations, a Warning Clause will be pursued by GO Transit. The Warning Clause will be inserted in all Development Agreements, Offers to Purchase, and Agreements of Purchase and Sale or Lease for any new residential dwelling unit within 300 metres of the railway corridor (as well as for other non-residential development projects with noise-related issues). The following is the current version of the warning clause:
Warning: Metrolinx, carrying on business as GO Transit, and its assigns and successors in interest has or have a right-of-way within 300 metres from the land the subject hereof. There may be alterations to or expansions of the rail facilities on such right-of-way in the future including the possibility that GO Transit or any railway entering into an agreement with GO Transit to use the right-of-way or their assigns or successors as aforesaid may expand their operations, which expansion may affect the living environment of the residents in the vicinity, notwithstanding the inclusion of any noise and vibration attenuating measures in the design of the development and individual dwelling(s). Metrolinx will not be responsible for any complaints or claims arising from use of such facilities and/or operations on, over or under the aforesaid right-of-way.
Other warning clauses may be applied depending on prevailing circumstances. 8.2 Development Agreements In cases where a new development is located immediately adjacent to a railway corridor, the property owner will be required to enter into a Development Agreement with Metrolinx stipulating how GO Transit’s interests will be protected throughout the lifetime of the project (from construction start to on-going building occupation). GO Transit’s interests typically focus on ensuring that the applicable safety and noise/vibration mitigation measures are suitably provided and maintained.
The Development Agreement will also include an Easement for Operational Emissions, to be registered on title over all associated development property within 300 metres of the rail corridor. In the event that the subject property does not extend to the rail corridor, the easement can be registered through the use of an abbreviated agreement document. Additional Development Agreements may be necessary on a short-term (e.g. during construction) or on an ongoing basis depending on the nature of the project and the proximity to the rail corridor. Examples of such agreements include: Crane Swing Agreement; Temporary Hording or Fencing Agreement; Tiebacks/Shoring Agreement; Required Maintenance Agreement; and Access Easements
RAILWAY CORRIDORS CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT
RC-0401-01
Section
Proximity Guidelines
Subject
Adjacent Development Guidelines
Issue Date
January 21, 2013
Page
14 of 15
9.0 Third Party Project Approval
The Third Party Project approval process is in place to safeguard the integrity of the railway corridor and ensure that all work proceeds in a safe manner and that does not interfere with the maintenance or operations of GO Transit, nor obstruct future expansion of rail facilities. What may appear to be a corridor of land with rail lines running along it may in fact be a corridor of complex, tightly packed, high-tech communication and other public and private infrastructure that must be carefully managed. Proponents of Adjacent Developments should also reference the GO Transit Third Party Approval Process Guidelines for more information. 9.1 Role of Third Party Consultant In October 2012, GO Transit/Metrolinx awarded a new contract for management of all Third Party Projects to AECOM Canada Ltd. (RQQ-2012-RCM-019). Under the terms of this contract, it is AECOM’s responsibility, under the direction of the RCMO, to protect the interests of GO Transit for all proposed works within and, in some cases, immediately adjacent to the railway corridor. Funding is obtained through the proponent to cover AECOM’s review and coordination of services. There are different types and levels of analysis, approvals, consultation and timelines that can be expected depending on the nature of the project(s) in question. An overview of the types of projects and activities that will require AECOM’s services as part of the approval process for adjacent development, as well as details pertaining to AECOM’s typical role in relation to each case, is provided below. Drainage Review: AECOM’s role typically includes:
• reviewing drainage and grading plans/reports to ensure that post development flows do not increase and adversely impact the integrity of the railway corridor and that suitable infrastructure is in place to accommodate site-related drainage;
Crash Wall Analysis: AECOM’s role typically includes:
• providing applicable guidelines to the proponent for reference (refer to Appendix A); and • reviewing crash wall designs and plans to ensure compliance with railway standards and structural
guidelines. Structural Analysis: AECOM’s role typically includes:
• reviewing structural (shoring/tieback) plans for any proposed structure(s) that could impact GO Transit facilities or infrastructure.
Access for Working within or Adjacent to the Railway Right-Of-Way: AECOM’s role typically includes:
• reviewing and commenting on the scope of work proposed including type of construction activity and machinery to be utilized in order to protect the integrity of the railway and ensure that all operational and safety requirements of GO Transit are strictly followed;
RAILWAY CORRIDORS CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT
RC-0401-01
Section
Proximity Guidelines
Subject
Adjacent Development Guidelines
Issue Date
January 21, 2013
Page
15 of 15
• ensuring there are no objections or conflicts to the proposed work; • issuing a “Work Permit” on behalf of GO Transit when all requirements are satisfied.
Railway Orientation/Security Awareness Course - Right-Of-Way Work: AECOM’s role typically includes:
• ensuring all persons performing work at track level have the necessary training to do such work: personnel must display the appropriate hard hat sticker or carry proof of training such as a wallet card and adhere to applicable rules and regulations at all times while within the rail corridor. AECOM also arranges for appropriate flagging protection for the subject work.
AECOM may also be required to review various studies including air quality and micro climate (wind/snow accumulation) studies or pedestrian management plans. 10. Role of Other GO Transit / Metrolinx Departments RCMO coordinates internal GO Transit/Metrolinx review, comments and approvals as well as coordinating the execution of any required agreements or real estate related issues (e.g. easements, sale of property) as required. The following internal stakeholders may be consulted as part of the adjacent development review process: Realty Services – provides direction on all property-related issues and is the primary business lead for utility crossing agreements, easements and other land transactions (e.g. sale of property) as required. Legal Services – facilitates the execution of all legal matters including new and amended development agreements, crossing agreements, temporary use agreements (e.g. crane swing or tieback/shoring agreements) and land transactions. Risk Management – provides direction for all liability and insurance requirements. Construction Management Office (CMO) – conducts reviews and provides approvals for any construction or access requirements where GO Transit is the Constructor to ensure that work proceeds in accordance with Occupational Health and Safety best practices. CMO will also provide training to all construction personnel accessing the GO construction zone and coordinate with other contractors working in GO construction zones, and advise of conflicts if any. Corporate Infrastructure – provides direction to ensure that existing and planned GO Transit infrastructure projects are coordinated with and, most importantly, not adversely affected by adjacent development activities. Policy Planning and Innovation – provides direction on issues pertaining to GO Transit Service expansion plans and Mobility Hub development initiatives.
Minutes
CITY OF TORONTO TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING #3 – LAKESHORE EAST RAIL CORRIDOR EXPANSION TPAP (DON
RIVER TO SCARBOROUGH GO STATION)
MEETING DATE: September 23, 2016
TIME: 1:30pm to 3:30pm
LOCATION: City Hall (100 Queen St. W) – 4th Floor, Large Boardroom
PRESENT:
Mike Jacobs City of Toronto [email protected]
Nasim Norouz City of Toronto [email protected]
Marko Oinonen City of Toronto [email protected]
Anson Yuen City of Toronto [email protected]
Alex Shevchuk
Daniel Woolfson
Matt Davis
Shalin Yeboah
Katie Bright
Renée Pettigrew
Garnet Greatrix
Philip Herbeson
Manuel Pedrosa
Martin Keen
Andre Marois
Alan Macdougall
Tiffany Lobb
City of Toronto
City of Toronto
City of Toronto
City of Toronto
Metrolinx
Metrolinx
Metrolinx
Metrolinx
Metrolinx
Metrolinx
Metrolinx
AECOM
AECOM
REGRETS: TAC members from other City departments
Mark Mis
Matt Scoular
City of Toronto
TTC
AECOM
DISTRIBUTION: All present and absent (Shalin Yeboah to forward to City departments not in attendance)
Minutes prepared by AECOM
NOTES:
Item No.
Description
Action by
1.0 Introduction
Roundtable introductions were completed.
2.0 TAC#2 Recap
Metrolinx provided a summary of what was discussed at TAC#2. Topics of discussion included: project overview, review of preliminary design plates, project schedule, consultation approach and next steps.
3.0 Meetings Since TAC#2
Since TAC#2 in May, discussions regarding the following took place: 1) The Don Yard – Unilever on June 8, 2016 and August 5, 2016 with
Metrolinx, the City of Toronto, Waterfront Toronto and First Gulf. 2) Metrolinx project briefings in advance of Fall public meetings with
elected officials, business improvement areas and community groups (ongoing).
4.0 Project Overview
Metrolinx provided a Project overview on the Lakeshore East Rail Corridor Expansion from Don River to Scarborough GO Station including the following:
o Information regarding the four (4) corridor segments o Study Area map o Proposed works including the addition of a fourth track, widening of
four (4) bridges, three (3) culvert extensions, retaining walls and Danforth GO Station layout changes
o Why a fourth track is needed and the location of the fourth track o Property taking requirements o Bridge widenings (Woodbine Avenue, Warden Avenue, Danforth
Avenue and Birchmount Road) – including consideration of pedestrians, cyclists and heritage
o Retaining walls – preliminary design and Metrolinx Design Review Panel (MDRP) details for significant public facing walls and structures.
o Utilities o City infrastructure and lands o TTC operations o Community concerns o Studies to support impact assessment o Transit Project Assessment Process o Consultation Milestones o Fall Public Meetings
City asked if a joint Design Review Panel could be assembled instead of the Metrolinx Design Review Panel (MDRP). Metrolinx stated that consideration will be given to the approach to engaging the City in design review.
City asked if all property takings had been confirmed. Metrolinx is just starting the detailed design assignment for this segment and this will take some time to finalize property needs in this area. Separately, Metrolinx is working with the City to determine the need for a Smart Track Station in this vicinity. A particular property of interest is 354 & 358 Pape Avenue.
Minutes prepared by AECOM
Item No.
Description
Action by
Metrolinx responded to a City feedback request regarding that property and recommended that any further planning/approvals for this site be put on hold until plans for the Gerrard station are further advanced.
Metrolinx noted that the two (2) Action Items from TAC#2 in May were still outstanding from the City. Drawings of the new watermain at the Victoria Park Avenue grade separation had not yet been provided and GIS mapping files for City parks adjacent to the rail corridor between Don River and Scarborough GO Station. The City will address these action items shortly.
City expressed desire to review an updated plan of the design plates that were presented at TAC#2 and also to review the design plates for the public right-of-way (ROW) and bridge specifications such as height. Metrolinx stated that the Draft Environmental Project Report (EPR), planned to be available for City and agency review November 4, 2016, will include design plates (similar detail as the plate included in the EPR for the Lakeshore East Rail Corridor Expansion from Guildwood to Pickering) and addition design details will be available during detailed design. Metrolinx also noted that the preliminary general arrangements for the bridge widenings were shared at TAC#2. Conceptual structure designs should be available in early 2017.
Metrolinx noted that the focus of TAC#4, scheduled for November 4, 2016, will be release of the draft EPR for review. The City expects that their review of the Draft EPR will take six (6) weeks.
City identified that they were looking for road widening at Woodbine Bridge. Metrolinx advised that as they are extending the bridge one (1) track width north, they will not be widening the road surface through this bridge.
City
5.0 Danforth GO Station Planning Study
Metrolinx provided an overview of the Danforth GO Station Planning Study that will assess the strategic and economic costs and benefits associated with station options within a 250 metre (m) radius around the current station.
City inquired about the timeline for the Danforth GO Station Planning Study and asked which details would be included as part of the rail corridor expansion Environmental Assessment. Metrolinx noted that the EPR will include track and platform changes to the station itself and new station location. Connection between the Danforth GO Station and Main Street TTC Station will not be addressed or approved through the EPR. Metrolinx reiterated that the EPR would be available to the City of Toronto in early November and more planning details around connection to the station should be drafted and available by the end of 2016 and completed in early 2017.
6.0 Community Concerns
Metrolinx provided a list of anticipated community concerns regarding the Project including the removal of trees, noise and vibration, air quality, safety and overall construction impacts. Additional information will be available in support of the Fall Public Meetings.
7.0 Project Schedule, Consultation Milestones and Next Steps
Metrolinx explained that the Project is currently in the Pre-TPAP planning
Minutes prepared by AECOM
Item No.
Description
Action by
phase with numerous specialist studies being conducted to inform the EA. The Project schedule is on track to complete the TPAP and detailed design in 2017 and begin construction activities in 2018.
It is anticipated that pre-TPAP public meetings will be held in early November 2016. The anticipated meeting venues will be located in the following three (3) areas:
o Broadview / Unilever / Leslieville o Main / Danforth GO Station o Warden / Scarborough GO Station
Public communications materials will be provided to TAC members and local elected officials prior to the public meetings.
The draft EPR is scheduled to be available for City review by the next TAC meeting on November 4, 2016. It will be important to receive TAC review feedback and this will be coordinated through Shalin Yeboah.
The Notice of Commencement is currently anticipated to be released in 2017.
City wished to reiterate support in attending future Project meetings to keep updated on Project processes. Metrolinx thanked City for participation and noted that they would keep in touch.
Adjournment:
Meeting was adjourned at 2:20 pm by Katie Bright.
The foregoing represents the writer’s understanding of the major items of discussion and the decisions reached and/or actions required. Any errors, omissions, or concerns regarding the minutes captured should be brought to the attention of the undersigned individual within 5 business days of receiving these minutes.
Prepared By: Tiffany Lobb, AECOM
Reviewed By: Metrolinx
Email: [email protected]
Date: September 26, 2016
Minutes
CITY OF TORONTO TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING #4 – LAKESHORE EAST RAIL CORRIDOR EXPANSION TPAP (DON
RIVER TO SCARBOROUGH GO STATION)
MEETING DATE: November 4, 2016
TIME: 1:30pm to 3:30pm
LOCATION: City Hall (100 Queen St. W) – 4th Floor, Large Boardroom
PRESENT:
John Lam City of Toronto [email protected]
Nasim Norouz City of Toronto [email protected]
Nigel Tahair City of Toronto [email protected]
Anson Yuen City of Toronto [email protected]
Deanne Mighton
Thomas Schwerdtfeger
Jennifer Hyland
Diana Birchall
Nancy Lowes
Matt Davis
Shalin Yeboah
Scott Haskill
Renée Pettigrew
Garnet Greatrix
Philip Herbeson
Manuel Pedrosa
Alan Macdougall
Tiffany Lobb
City of Toronto
City of Toronto
City of Toronto
City of Toronto
City of Toronto
City of Toronto
City of Toronto
TTC
Metrolinx
Metrolinx
Metrolinx
Metrolinx
AECOM
AECOM
REGRETS: TAC members from other City departments
Mark Mis
Matt Scoular
Ayhem Sadie
Katie Bright
Andre Marois
Gregory Pereira
City of Toronto
TTC
AECOM
AECOM
Metrolinx
Metrolinx
Metrolinx
mark,[email protected]
DISTRIBUTION:
All present and absent (Shalin Yeboah to forward to City departments not in attendance)
Minutes prepared by AECOM
NOTES:
Item No.
Description
Action by
1.0 Introduction
Roundtable introductions were completed.
2.0 TAC#3 Recap
Metrolinx provided a summary of what was discussed at TAC#3. Topics of discussion included:, meetings since TAC#2, Project overview, review of the Danforth GO Station Planning Study, review of community concerns, project schedule, consultation milestones and next steps.
3.0 Project Overview
Metrolinx provided a Project overview on the Lakeshore East Rail Corridor Expansion from Don River to Scarborough GO Station including the following:
o Map of the four (4) corridor segments o Proposed works including the addition of a fourth track, widening of
four (4) bridges, three (3) culvert extensions, retaining walls and the Danforth GO Station layout changes
o Fourth track location o City infrastructure & Lands o TTC operations
City Infrastructure
Metrolinx is developing this EA with a horizon of 20 years +/-. The track needs has been determined to be four tracks over this section, operationally, Metrolinx is looking at what the train service would look like in the future. If a station is in this location, it will not change the planned operations.
City stated that there are many items of construction planned in this EA and asked how Metrolinx is planning this construction. Metrolinx stated that the detailed design will develop the construction plan and take into consideration the impact they may have on City roads. Metrolinx will continue this conversation with the City as plans for construction develop.
City asked about the expansion around Gerrard Street. City stated that Gerrard Square is located in this area as well as a social housing project and expressed concern that the tracks will be even closer than today. City asked if the setback conditions will change in this location. Metrolinx stated that retaining walls will be considered during detailed design to enable the fourth track to be retained within the rail corridor. AECOM explained that expanding on the north side enables the use of empty railway bridge spans which cross the roads and minimizes the amount of construction at these road crossings. AECOM also indicated that the goal was to utilize existing infrastructure and rail road beds to minimize overall impact. An example of this kind of reuse of rail infrastructure is at Greenwood Ave. The TTC stopped bringing in subway cars by heavy rail and let their siding from the rail corridor be removed. This Project will reoccupy this rail road bed and the bridge deck over Greenwood Ave to carry the new fourth track. City asked how TTC vehicles get into their rail yard now if the siding has been removed. TTC stated that their vehicles are now trucked into the TTC Greenwood Yard.
Minutes prepared by AECOM
Item No.
Description
Action by
City Lands
City reminded Metrolinx that they previously agreed to review rail corridor ROW encroachment onto City road allowances further and provide a detailed list to the City. Metrolinx outlined that this is still under design review as they have just hired a detailed design consultant and will be provided this detail once this consultant gets underway.
POST MEETING NOTE: Garnet Greatrix emailed Shalin Yeboah 11/7/2016
TTC Operations
TTC asked if Metrolinx anticipates the need for full road closures during construction. Metrolinx confirmed that no complete road closures are anticipated as part of the Project at this time. TTC confirmed that they support this plan but will require continued engagement throughout the process to keep updated.
4.0 Fall Public Meetings and Consultation Milestones
Metrolinx provided an overview of the plans for fall public meetings including a focus on existing conditions, the website link to the public notice and the locations and times of the public meetings within the Study Area.
Metrolinx provided the three milestones of consultation including:
o Pre-TPAP (Fall 2016)
o Notice of Commencement (2017)
o Notice of Completion (2017)
City noted that the information being presented for Segment 1 Public Meetings seems scaled back from electrification presentations. Metrolinx agreed and stated that this is because the TPAP Project must be introduced to members of the public as this is a first round public meeting for Segment 1. Metrolinx confirmed that more details will be provided during the second round of consultation.
5.0 Draft Environmental Project Report – City Review
Metrolinx provided the sections and details that will be covered in the Environmental Project Report (EPR) and also listed the studies to support impact assessment in the draft EPR including: Natural Environment Effects Assessment; Socio-Economic and Land Use Effects Assessment; Traffic Impact Study; Cultural Heritage Screening; and, Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment (AA).
Metrolinx noted that the Noise and Vibration Assessment and Air Quality Assessment are underway and will be provided when ready.
Metrolinx noted the Draft EPR will be provided to the City on November 4, 2016 and City comments are required by December 2. City stated they will need six (6) weeks, making this reply date December 16, 2016.
City asked how much information is overlapped in the EPR between the Electrification Project and the LSE Segment 1 EA. Metrolinx stated that the Projects are in the same study limits, however, the studies conducted are different and produce different results. Noise and Vibration have the same
Minutes prepared by AECOM
Item No.
Description
Action by
modelling and air approach for both EAs.
City also asked what the relationship is between the EA and detailed design. Metrolinx stated that the EA covers preliminary design and the detailed design phase will refine the design. City asked what happens if Metrolinx discovers they need more space or properties during detailed design. Metrolinx stated that, in the case of requiring more property, they would approach the property owner first to gain their thoughts and/or approval. If something did need to be done that refines the EA findings, Metrolinx would need to go through a formal amendment process and submit an amendment to the EA. The TPAP process is required to produce an addendum if changes are significant during detailed design. Addendums are not required for smaller changes, such as design refinements.
6.0 Project Schedule and Next Steps
Metrolinx explained the Draft EPR is now ready for Agency review and the TAC review is due December 16, 2016.
Metrolinx explained that stakeholder consultation is ongoing.
Metrolinx provided Katie Bright’s contact information for further questions and comments.
City asked if Metrolinx has advanced design improvements for the Danforth GO Station. Metrolinx stated that an RQQ for a detailed designer has just gone public today for this station. Once this designer is ready, Metrolinx will discuss this further with the City.
City asked what the anticipated hot button issues will be for next week’/s public meetings. Metrolinx confirmed that Electrification details will be included in all public meetings to inform all local communities of the proposed works. Metrolinx stated that this will probably cause concern for topics such as trees, noise and visual impacts.
City asked if the public versus private trees were identified. Metrolinx stated they will be shown that the public meeting on the roll plans.
City stated that, in terms of compensation for trees, the City’s primary goal will be on-site compensation and that the City will be looking for Metrolinx to work with property owners to replace the trees that must be removed. Metrolinx agreed but also stated that some homeowners do not want new trees on their properties.
City stated that, as a working principal, the wholesale export of the tree canopy should be avoided. Metrolinx stated that they will be talking with the City and all surrounding municipalities as well. The mitigation identified in the EPR is just preliminary and will be discussed in further detail during detailed design.
City asked how consultation with homeowners is happening. Metrolinx stated that they have held sessions with community associations and the TRCA .
Adjournment:
Meeting was adjourned at 2:45 pm by Renée Pettigrew.
Minutes prepared by AECOM
The foregoing represents the writer’s understanding of the major items of discussion and the decisions reached and/or actions required. Any errors, omissions, or concerns regarding the minutes captured should be brought to the attention of the undersigned individual within 5 business days of receiving these minutes.
Prepared By: Tiffany Lobb, AECOM
Reviewed By: Metrolinx
Email: [email protected]
Date: November 4, 2016
Minutes
CITY OF TORONTO TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING #5 – LAKESHORE EAST RAIL CORRIDOR EXPANSION TPAP (DON RIVER
TO SCARBOROUGH GO STATION)
MEETING DATE: February 9, 2017
TIME: 1:00pm to 3:00pm
LOCATION: City Hall (100 Queen St. W) – 4th Floor, Large Boardroom
PRESENT:
Tom Schwerdtfeger City of Toronto [email protected]
Erika Richmond City of Toronto [email protected]
Deanne Mighton City of Toronto [email protected]
Nasim Narouzi City of Toronto [email protected]
Shalin Yeboah
John Lam
Sherif Samaan
Michael McClellan
Nima Nouri
Philip Herbeson
Renee Pettigrew
Mirjana Osojnicki
Ayhem Sadie
Matt Scoular
Marian Tibor-McMahon
City of Toronto
City of Toronto
City of Toronto
City of Toronto
Metrolinx
Metrolinx
Metrolinx
Metrolinx
AECOM
AECOM
AECOM
REGRETS: TAC members from other City departments
Garnet Greatrix
Andre Morais
Manuel Pedrosa
Georgina Collymore
Gregory Pereira
City of Toronto
Metrolinx
Metrolinx
Metrolinx
Metrolinx
Metrolinx
DISTRIBUTION: All present and absent (Shalin Yeboah to forward to City departments not in attendance)
Minutes prepared by AECOM
NOTES:
Item No.
Description
Action by
1.0 Introduction
• Roundtable introductions were completed.
2.0 Purpose of Meeting
• Metrolinx indicated that the purpose of TAC#5 is to discuss the City’s comments on the Draft Environmental Project Report (EPR). The Draft EPR was circulated in November 2016 and the City provided comments in January 2017. Metrolinx indicated that they would like to work with the City to resolve any issues that the City may have before the Notice of Commencement is issued.
• Metrolinx indicated that Mirjana Osojnicki is the new Metrolinx Environmental Project Manager for the project.
• Metrolinx indicated that the meeting will be organized by key themes.
3.0 EPR Comments
General
• Metrolinx clarified that the project will not be implemented through the Design/Build model. Metrolinx will lead Detailed Design and will continue to engage the City.
• City indicated that the language in the Draft EPR suggests that Metrolinx will have Metrolinx Design Review Panel (MDRP). Metrolinx noted that there will be municipal representation involved in MDRP.
Culvert, Structural and Bridge Design
• Metrolinx noted that the level of detail provided in the Draft EPR identifies the potential need for culvert related work and Detailed Design will further confirm required culvert work. Metrolinx noted that not all culverts listed in the EPR will require modifications, but will be looked at in greater detail during Detailed Design.
• City asked at what point during design the City will be engaged. Metrolinx indicated that the City will have an opportunity to comment on the public facing retaining walls. Metrolinx would like to develop a holistic view on retaining wall specifications, such as texture, wall feature, etc. as early as possible. Metrolinx indicated that their Design Excellence team will engage with the City to exchange information, ideas and direction going forward.
• City asked when the Toronto Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) will be contacted regarding the culvert extensions. Metrolinx indicated TRCA has been engaged and they have provided comments on the Draft EPR.
Bridge Widening
• Metrolinx explained that the rationale for expanding the tracks to the north side is to minimize the extent of modifications to structures.
• City asked about the coordination with the station at Danforth Avenue. Metrolinx indicated that this EPR documents the track expansion. Metrolinx noted that the track expansion has necessitated the need to reconstruct the station and that both planning groups (for Danforth Station and Don River to Scarborough GO) are working together. City indicated
Minutes prepared by AECOM
Item No.
Description
Action by
that they would like to be engaged particularly in regards to the need for modifications to streets, blocks and connection points. Metrolinx indicated that Metrolinx and City planning are fully engaged as it relates to the cities Danforth Avenue planning study and the Metrolinx work around the station.
Forestry and Impacts
• Metrolinx noted that the tree impacts discussed in the EPR is high level. During Detailed Design, a tree inventory will be completed to support the Arborist Report.
• City asked if there will be tree impacts from the Electrification Program and if the Electrification team will do their own assessment. Metrolinx indicated that tree removal and injury applications for this project and the Electrification will be coordinated.
• Metrolinx noted that a compensation protocol is being developed in partnership with TRCA. This was communicated to the public during the Public Information Centres (PICs) held in November 2016.
• City asked if the compensation protocol will be publically accessible. Metrolinx confirmed that it will be.
Retaining Walls
• Metrolinx indicated that Shalin Yeboah will provide City contacts to be part of discussions regarding retaining walls.
• Metrolinx noted that it is not anticipated that retaining walls will be on park land. City indicated that parks are not labeled on the design plates as there are a few areas that may be impacted (e.g. Raleigh Parkette). Metrolinx noted that retaining walls will be on Metrolinx property. Metrolinx will work with the City on public facing walls and that impacts will be determined during Detailed Design.
City Planning
• City raised a concern regarding Kimridge Avenue as the road is adjacent to the corridor and whether property will be required in order to accommodate the expanded ROW. Metrolinx noted that property impacts will be assessed and confirmed during Detailed Design. City asked if a noise barrier is required in this area and Metrolinx noted that this will be assessed during Detailed Design.
• City asked when they can review design elements. Metrolinx noted that the retaining walls and noise mitigation requirements will be developed and reviewed during Detailed Design.
• City asked if there is a need for noise walls on bridges to be widened. Metrolinx noted that it is not the intent to put walls on top of structures and that Electrification will look at bridge barriers.
Air Quality
• The EPR examined electrification versus using diesel trains and used an electrification scenario for the assessment.
Noise and Vibration
• Metrolinx stated that through the technical studies completed for the draft Electrification EPR, areas potentially impacted by vibration have been identified. If there is exceedance of the provincial standards, Metrolinx will
Minutes prepared by AECOM
Item No.
Description
Action by
implement track technology to mitigate impacts. During Detailed Design, mitigation refinements will be made.
• City asked if there will be a Noise Action Plan similar to the one developed for Guildwood to Pickering Project. Metrolinx noted that the Noise Action Plan is for future retrofitting or compensation for neighbourhoods and areas not subject to the MOECC noise protocol. Metrolinx is working on the Action Plan to address key communities moving forward. The EPR will include noise and dust suppression mitigation plan which will tie into the traffic management plan and other management plans, as required.
Dust
• City asked if the EPR will address dust impacts. Metrolinx noted that the Contractors will be required to implement an Air Quality Management Plan.
• City asked about synergies between construction dust impacts and tree planting. Metrolinx indicated that this is a construction impact and that trees will not be planted during construction activities. Metrolinx noted that there will be a dust complaint system and response protocol.
• City asked if there are tree planting buffer zones. Metrolinx indicated that the City will be engaged to determine where trees are to be planted.
• City inquired about where staging areas will be located and if they will be the same for corridor expansion and electrification. Metrolinx indicated that there is a 10 year plan for enabling works, bridge staging, timing and works before electrification. Metrolinx noted that laydown areas are being examined in greater detail.
Transportation Services
• Metrolinx noted that Kimridge Avenue may be impacted. City indicated that there will be an interest in that area. Metrolinx noted that homeowners in the area will be engaged early.
• Metrolinx indicated that murals, abutments, wing walls are currently being assessed. The Community Relations group looking at the integrity of murals and Metrolinx will work with the City. Metrolinx indicated that ideas related to the retaining wall will be discussed during a working group.
Utilities
• Metrolinx noted that utility relocations are unknown at this time and that design work will consider City of Toronto Guidelines.
• City indicated that widening of a bridge will affect sewers. Metrolinx indicated that pier extensions may impact a watermain; however, this is not investigated in detail in the EPR. Metrolinx intends to go with the existing clearance.
• City indicated that meetings are required if there will be realignment of sewers and that these meetings should occur at the outset and not during Detailed Design. Metrolinx indicated that preliminary design is not complete yet.
Forestry and Parks
• Metrolinx indicated that there will be construction along the corridor in parks.
• City noted that there are some areas that seem impossible for retaining
Minutes prepared by AECOM
Item No.
Description
Action by
walls to be constructed. Metrolinx indicated that in such instances, alternative construction methods will be explored (i.e. auger or blocked wall).
• Metrolinx noted that the pedestrian bridge (Raleigh Avenue to Woodrow Avenue and underpass to Monarch Park) will be assessed and discussed in the Electrification EPR. City asked for confirmation that the pedestrian bridge will not be impacted. Metrolinx indicated that as part of the track expansion there are no impacts anticipated, however, there may be modifications to the structure as a result of electrification.
**Post meeting note: Draft EPR for Electrification was provided to City for review the week of January 19/17 which provide details on modifications to pedestrian bridges for that project.
Other Comments
• City inquired if the revised EPR will be circulated for review and comment prior to Notice of Commencement. Metrolinx indicated that City comments were well received and Metrolinx is working with key stakeholders. The intent is to issue Notice of Commencement, with another PIC during the 120-day TPAP period; followed by a 30-day public review period, a 35-day Minister review and then issue the Notice of Completion.
4.0 Next Steps
• Metrolinx outlined next steps. Metrolinx will coordinate with Shalin Yeboah when a date has been set for Notice of Commencement and the next PIC. A TAC meeting will be scheduled prior to the next PIC to discuss information that will be presented to the public. Metrolinx will be working on addressing all stakeholder comments to finalize the EPR.
MX/CoT
Adjournment:
Meeting was adjourned at 2:15 pm by Renee Pettigrew.
The foregoing represents the writer’s understanding of the major items of discussion and the decisions reached and/or actions required. Any errors, omissions, or concerns regarding the minutes captured should be brought to the attention of the undersigned individual within 5 business days of receiving these minutes.
Prepared By: Marian Tibor-McMahon, AECOM
Reviewed By: Metrolinx
Email: [email protected]
Date: February 15, 2016
H352477-RR-313-0010, Rev. 0 Page 1
Minutes of Meeting H352477
July 7, 2017
Metrolinx
Lakeshore East Corridor Expansion
Distribution
Those present
City of Toronto Technical Advisor Committee Meeting #6
Meeting Date: June 27, 2017 Location: City Hall, 100 Queen Street West, East Tower, 4th Floor Large Boardroom Present: Michael Johnston, Metrolinx
Philip Herbeson, Metrolinx Houtan Moravej, Metrolinx Irfan Ahmad, Metrolinx Greg Pereira, Metrolinx Renee Pettigrew, Metrolinx Mirjana Osojnicki, Metrolinx
Shalin Yeboah, City of Toronto John Lam, City of Toronto Sherif Samaan, City of Toronto Erika Richmond, City of Toronto Deanne Mighton, City of Toronto Oscar Florez, Hatch Collin Bower, Hatch Kyesia O’Neale, Hatch
Purpose: The purpose of this meeting is to provide an update on the study since TAC #5 and a
discussion of next steps a we transition from EA to Detail Design. Item Action By Due Date
1. TPAP Study Update
1.1 Metrolinx (MX) is currently updating the draft EPR and
technical reports with comments received from the City of
Toronto (CoT) and applicable Ministries’ comments. A revised
version of the EPR and technical reports is anticipated in
August.
Metrolinx August 2017
1.2 TPAP Schedule
1.2.1 MX is aiming to complete the Transit Project Assessment
Process (TPAP) by September 14th. Upon completion, the 30-
Day Public Review period will commence from September 15th
to October 16th.
Metrolinx September 14, 2017
1.2.2 After the Public Review, the Minister’s (MOECC) review will
follow. The Statement of Completion is anticipated at the end
of November, 2017.
Metrolinx November 20,
2017
H352477-RR-313-0010, Rev. 0 Page 2
Item Action By Due Date
1.3 Public Meetings
1.3.1 Public meetings were held on June 6th, 8th and 15th and they
were well attended.
Metrolinx -
1.3.2 Most of the issues were related to the retaining walls, noise
and vibration walls, and project schedule. Comments are
being received until July 10th.
Info July 10, 2017
1.3.3 Members of the MX team will be attending meetings with
smaller local groups in the coming weeks.
Metrolinx -
2. Detail Design
2.1 Retaining Walls
2.1.1 The 30% detail design identifies the height and location of the
retaining walls. The type of retaining wall will be identified in
the 60% design package after the geotechnical investigation
and report is completed.
Info -
2.1.2 The geotechnical investigation / report will be completed in
roughly three (3) months. The report will identify the type of
wall (structurally) required throughout the corridor. The façade
will depend on the type of retaining wall required.
Info -
2.1.3 MX will provide an outline of the retaining wall regions that are
public facing vs corridor facing.
Metrolinx -
2.1.4 Interface between Noise Wall and Sound Barrier will be
coordinated during the 60% detailed design and once the
geotechnical investigation and report is completed.
Info -
2.1.5 MX Electrification will review the design package and
incorporate Design Excellence and City of Toronto Standards
into the design of the retaining walls. MX Electrification will be
responsible for the coordination and interfacing between all
parties.
Metrolinx -
2.1.6 The MX Design Excellence will have a separate meeting
regarding the retaining wall facades with the CoT. John Potter
will represent the MX Design Excellence Team.
Info -
2.1.7 CoT would like to avoid Gabion Basket Walls and would like to
avoid the installation of tiebacks. Tiebacks are required at
Birchmount Road Bridge.
Info -
H352477-RR-313-0010, Rev. 0 Page 3
Item Action By Due Date
2.1.8 Merrill Bridge Road Park
2.1.8.1 MX will be meeting with the local group to discuss the
Lakeshore East (LSE) Expansion.
Metrolinx -
2.1.9 Stormwater Management (SWM) Report
2.1.9.1 The retaining wall height and location will vary upon
completion of the Stormwater Management (SWM) Report.
Info -
2.1.9.2 No water will be added to CoT flow. It will be consistent with
existing conditions.
Info -
2.1.9.3 MX asked if the CoT can help provide information regarding
the topography of the area and contour lines to help expedite
the study.
City of Toronto
-
2.1.9.4 CoT Home Page – OpenData will have some contour lines,
topography. Greg will provide this information to MX.
Metrolinx / City of
Toronto -
2.2 Access Locations for Construction
2.2.1 Construction is expected to start in late 2018, early 2019. Info -
2.2.2 CoT would like construction staging plans in advance of
meetings. Note that a meeting will be required if there are any
street closures that will be longer than thirty (30) days
Metrolinx
2.2.3 CoT asked that all access locations are captured in the 60%
detailed design for both construction / maintenance. All access
points currently being proposed are existing, with only one
access requiring expansion at Dawes Road.
Metrolinx -
2.2.4 CoT wants to ensure the aesthetics of residential areas will not
be impacted by construction. If required, landscaping must be
used to mitigate the construction impact.
Info -
2.2.5 Property Lease
2.2.5.1 MX has identified the triangle are between Danforth Avenue
and Warden Avenue as an area they would like to lease from
the CoT.
Metrolinx / City of
Toronto -
2.3 Bridge Structures
2.3.1 Warden Avenue and Danforth Avenue
2.3.1.1 Warden Avenue and Danforth Avenue bridges will be
discussed at a later date and through a separate design
package. This work was completed by a different consultant.
Info -
H352477-RR-313-0010, Rev. 0 Page 4
Item Action By Due Date
2.3.1.2 MX will provide CoT with Warden Avenue and Danforth
Avenue general arrangement drawings and the geotechnical
investigation report.
Metrolinx -
2.3.2 Birchmount Road
2.3.2.1 A lagging pile wall with tiebacks and micropiles will be used at
Birchmount Road. All work will be completed underneath the
bridge to avoid any road closures.
Info -
2.3.2.2 CoT suggested 24/7 monitors / sensors that can be placed
behind the abutment. CoT will provide past sensor applications
that they would prefer. These applications will be included in
the specifications.
City of Toronto
-
2.3.2.3 MX to provide the CoT with the geotechnical reports for the
bridges.
Metrolinx -
2.3.2.4 CoT to confirm settlement requirements for the bridge. City of
Toronto -
2.3.2.5 Hatch to confirm life span of the underpinning of the road. Hatch -
2.3.2.6 CoT asked MX to consider requesting a life cycle cost analysis
of the existing structure to determine if the underpinning
structure is the best option.
Metrolinx / City of
Toronto -
2.3.2.7 MX to confirm why the underpinning retaining wall was the
preferred option (confirm with AECOM).
Metrolinx -
2.3.3 Woodbine Avenue
2.3.3.1 Hatch is maintaining the existing road clearance at Woodbine
Avenue and will not be reprofiling the road.
Info -
2.3.3.2 Due to the widening of the bridge, additional lighting
underneath might be required. Hatch is maintaining and / or
matching existing conditions, including lane widths, sidewalk
widths, clearances, etc.
Info -
2.3.3.3 Pedestrians may need to be diverted during construction, but
flow for both traffic and pedestrian will be maintained
Info -
2.3.3.4 Construction staging will be provided in the 60% detailed
design package.
Info -
2.4 Municipal Utility Infrastructure
2.4.1 MX is conducting a SUE investigation to confirm all utilities,
and identify any conflicts.
Info -
2.4.2 There is a watermain at Birchmount Road that will need to be
relocated.
Info -
H352477-RR-313-0010, Rev. 0 Page 5
Item Action By Due Date
3. Other
3.1 Detailed Design Package
3.1.1 MX to detail in a cover letter what is included in the design
packages submitted to the CoT
Metrolinx -
3.1.2 MX to provide a comment log template to the CoT. The CoT
will provide comments within four (4) weeks.
Metrolinx / City of
Toronto -
3.1.3 MX will package the AECOM and Hatch Contract Packages
together.
Metrolinx -
3.1.4 CoT Parks would like to include the landscape architect before
the 90% detailed design. MX noted that it will likely be an
iterative process.
Info -
3.1.5 Hatch can provide an FTP Site to transfer larger files, if
required.
Info -
3.2 TRCA Regulated Areas and Boundaries
3.2.1 Hatch to incorporate TRCA regulated areas and boundaries
within the detailed design package to clearly identify
constraints areas, especially in the ravine areas and near
Merrill Bridge Road Park.
Hatch -
3.2.2 MX Environmental Team will coordinate with the TRCA as
detail design progresses.
Metrolinx -
3.3 Corridor Fencing and Security
3.3.1 Fencing on the south side of the corridor is the responsibility of
MX Electrification. MX will ensure the corridor is secure.
Info -
3.4 Smart Track Connection
3.4.1 Smart Track connection will be located north of Gerrard
Station, if and/or when the relief line is built.
Info -
Kyesia O'Neale
KO:ko Attachment(s)/Enclosure Lakeshore East Corridor Infrastructure – West Corridor Expansion – 30% Design Review