TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES

AND OTHER COMMITTEES

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on October 1 and 2, 1998

URBAN ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

REPORT No. 11

1Prince Edward (Bloor Street) Viaduct: Measures to Deter Suicide Attempts- Selection of Preferred Design.

2Idling Control By-law.

3Toronto Transit Commission: Park 'N' Ride Metropass.

4Litigation in Relation to the Province's Proposal to Put Slot Machines at Woodbine Racetrack.

5Ontario Municipal Board Hearings.

6Appeal of Planning Application(Committee of Adjustment) Fees.

7Amendments to Existing By-laws that Delegate Planning Powers to Staff of Former Metropolitan Toronto Municipalities.

8Toronto Pedestrian Committee: Proposed Terms of Reference.

9Proposal for a Joint City of Toronto/City of Mississauga Project for a Bicycle/Pedestrian Path from the Waterfront to Eglinton Avenue West.

10Removal of Trees from the Sheppard Avenue and Bayview Avenue Rights-of-Way.

11Proposed Installation of Traffic Control Signals:Royal York Road and Newcastle Street.

12Proposed Installation of Traffic Control Signals: Overlea Boulevard and the East York Town Centre.

13Proposed Installation of Traffic Control Signals: Lawrence Avenue East and Charlottetown Boulevard/Bridgeport Drive.

14Proposed Installation of Traffic Control Signals: Ellesmere Road and Dolly Varden Boulevard.

15Traffic Regulations at the Intersection of Kingston Road, Eastern Avenue and Queen Street East.

16Proposed Amendment to Parking Regulations: Weston Road, Both Sides, Between Damask Avenue and Bradstock Road.

17Proposed Amendment to Parking Regulations: Kingston Road, South Side, BetweenValhalla Boulevard and Kildonan Road.

18Amendments to Parking Regulations on Keele Street, Between Bloor Street West and Dundas Street West.

19Amendments to Parking Regulations on the North Side of Eglinton Avenue East,in the Vicinity of No. 368.

20Proposed Driveway Closure: 34 Progress Avenue.

21Proposed Introduction of WestboundLeft-Turn Prohibition at the Southerly Access to 3309 Dufferin Street

22Proposed Introduction of Turn Prohibition onYonge Street at the Access to 6365 Yonge Street.

23Various Amendments to Former Metropolitan Traffic By-laws.

24Toronto Transit Commission: Request for Provincial Subsidy in Support of Data Management Group.

25Other Items Considered by the Committee.

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 11

OF THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

(from its meeting on September 8, 1998,

submitted by Councillor Joe Pantalone, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on October 1 and 2, 1998

1

Prince Edward (Bloor Street) Viaduct:

Measures to Deter Suicide Attempts

- Selection of Preferred Design.

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted the following recommendations embodied in the report dated September 2, 1998, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

"It is recommended that:

(1)the design submitted by Dereck Revington Studio, with Yolles Partnership Inc. as Consulting Engineers, be adopted as the preferred design for the Prince Edward (Bloor Street) Viaduct;

(2)Dereck Revington Studio, with Yolles Partnership Inc. as Consulting Engineers, be retained to prepare the detailed design and tender documents, as well as to provide project management and site supervision services throughout the design, tender and construction stages in accordance with terms and conditions satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the City Solicitor;

(3)the appropriate City of Toronto officials be directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto; and

(4)City Council express its appreciation to the design teams and members of the Selection Committee for their work on this project.")

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits, without recommendation, the report (September 2, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, having set up a Working Group, comprised of Councillors Adams, Bossons, Layton, McConnell and Moeser:

(a)to examine the recommended design in greater detail in order to determine why it was chosen as the preferred option;

(b)to listen to, and evaluate, any concerns expressed by Heritage Toronto;

(c)to host an open house prior to October 1, 1998, in order to receive input from members of the public;

(d)to submit its recommendations with regard to the preferred design directly to City Council, for consideration with this matter on October 1, 1998; and

(e)to monitor the implementation phase of the project to avert suicides on the PrinceEdward (Bloor Street) Viaduct.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following report (September 2, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to submit the recommendation of the Project Steering Committee for the selection of a preferred design which will introduce measures to deter suicide attempts from the Prince Edward (Bloor Street) Viaduct.

This report is to be read in conjunction with Report No. 2(a) on this same agenda of the Urban Environment and Development Committee.

Funding Sources and Requirements:

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee on June 25, 1998, recommended that the following recommendations of the Budget Committee be adopted:

(1)an adequate expenditure be allocated from the Corporate Contingency Account to undertake the project to avert suicides on the Bloor Street Viaduct and that the cost be no more than $1.5 million; and

(2)the recommendation of the Urban Environment and Development Committee be brought back to the Budget Committee in the fall for the final allocation of funding.

City Council approved these recommendations at the July 8, 9 and 10, 1998 meeting.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the design submitted by Dereck Revington Studio, with Yolles Partnership Inc. as Consulting Engineers, be adopted as the preferred design for the Prince Edward (Bloor Street) Viaduct;

(2)Dereck Revington Studio, with Yolles Partnership Inc. as Consulting Engineers, be retained to prepare the detailed design and tender documents, as well as to provide project management and site supervision services throughout the design, tender and construction stages in accordance with terms and conditions satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the City Solicitor;

(3)the appropriate City of Toronto officials be directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto; and

(4)City Council express its appreciation to the design teams and members of the Selection Committee for their work on this project.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Background information for this project is contained in Report No. 2(a) on this same agenda of the Urban Environment and Development Committee.

Discussion:

Following notification to architectural and engineering firms in Ontario, 16 Stage 1 Expressions of Interest were received. These submissions came from firms and teams representing a range of multi-disciplinary expertise. The Project Steering Committee met on July 30, 1998, and selected four qualified firms/teams to compete in Stage II of the design competition. The firms/teams were as follows:

-Brown and Storey Architects,

in association with Yolles Engineering Inc., studio blackbox, Gary Michael Dault, RolloMeyers and Anne Michaels;

-Dereck Revington Studio,

in association with Yolles Partnership Inc. Strategic Engineering Consultants;

-E.R.A. Architect Inc.,

in association with David Dennis, Judith Schwarz, Adams and Associates and Read Jones Christoffersen Ltd.; and

-Montgomery and Sisam Architects,

in association with Delcan - Structural Division and Golden Eichenberg Art/Design.

Four design submissions were received on August 27, 1998, and the Project Steering Committee (comprising both the Selection Committee and advisors) met on August 28, 1998, to review the schemes.

The members of the Selection Committee were as follows:

Al BirneySchizophrenia Society of Ontario;

Adrian DiCastriB. Arch., Chair, Public Art Commission;

Les KelmanWorks and Emergency Services;

Ellis KirklandM. Arch. (representing Toronto Urban Planning and Development Services);

Karen LetofskyCouncil on Suicide Prevention and the Toronto Distress Centre;

Dr. Isaac SakinofskyClarke Institute of Psychiatry; and

Carol StimmellBoard Member, Heritage Toronto.

Members of the Selection Committee for the Prince Edward Viaduct (Bloor Street) design competition were impressed by the range of ideas and thoughtful approaches demonstrated by the four Stage II submissions.

Foremost throughout the deliberations was the question of functionality, and the need to save lives. This requirement demanded that the successful scheme eliminate, to the greatest degree possible, opportunities to overcome the protective barrier. While the issue of functionality was the central concern, there was extensive discussion of the need for a high quality design solution, worthy of being added to this heritage architectural/engineering landmark.

Following detailed analysis and discussion, the Selection Committee is recommending the scheme submitted by Dereck Revington Studio in association with Yolles Partnership Inc. The majority of Selection Committee members agreed that this scheme meets the competition criteria to the closest degree, and that it provides an acceptable solution from a functional, structural and design perspective.

Conclusion:

The Design Competition succeeded in delivering a design for the Prince Edward (Bloor Street) Viaduct that meets the functional and heritage design requirements defined for this project.

Adoption of the recommended design and approval of the design team will enable the staff of the Works and Emergency Services Department to proceed as quickly as possible into the implementation stage.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Mr. Les Kelman, Director, Transportation Systems, 392-5372.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following report (August 24, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to provide the Urban Environment and Development Committee with a status report on this project. The Project Steering Committee is scheduled to select a preferred design during the week of August 31 to September 4, 1998 and will be submitting a recommendation to the Urban Environment and Development Committee at its meeting on September 8, 1998.

Due to the tight schedule, the report containing the recommendation on the selection of a preferred design may only be distributed to Committee Members at the meeting. This "advance" report provides information on the selection process to date in preparation for the Committee meeting on September 8, 1998.

Funding Sources and Requirement:

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee on June 25, 1998, recommended that the following recommendations of the Budget Committee be adopted:

(1)an adequate expenditure be allocated from the Corporate Contingency Account to undertake the project to avert suicides on the Bloor Street Viaduct and that the cost be no more than $1.5 million; and

(2)the recommendation of the Urban Environment and Development Committee be brought back to the Budget Committee in the fall for the final allocation of funding.

City Council approved these recommendations at the July 8, 9 and 10, 1998 meeting.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Urban Environment and Development Committee on June 15 and 16, 1998, recommended to the Budget Committee that it recommend to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council, that up to $1.5 million be allocated from the Corporate Contingency Account to undertake the project to avert suicides on the Bloor Street Viaduct.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommended to Council the adoption of the report (May 28, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation.

The report dated May 28, 1998 recommended that:

(1)the Urban Environment and Development Committee support in principle the introduction of measures, as outlined in this report, to deter suicide attempts from the Bloor Street Viaduct;

(2)a Request for Proposals be issued, as outlined in this report, to solicit proposals for design concepts and full architectural services, with the submissions being evaluated by a Project Steering Committee comprised of representatives from:

-the Schizophrenia Society of Ontario;

-the Council on Suicide Preventions;

-the Toronto Historical Board/Heritage Toronto;

-Architecture and Civic Improvements, City Planning;

-the Transportation Division, Works and Emergency Services Department; and

-the Public Art Policy Advisory Committee;

(3)a further report be submitted to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on the selection of a preferred design, the detailed budget requirements and a project schedule; and

(4)the appropriate City of Toronto officials be directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Discussion:

On July 11, 1998, an advertisement was placed in the Ontario edition of The Globe and Mail (theArts Section) calling for Expressions of Interest from multidisciplinary design firms for the PrinceEdward (Bloor Street) Viaduct. A copy of the advertisement is attached (see Appendix A).

Approximately 50 design firms picked up the "Design Brief for Expressions of Interest" which provided the following information:

-background to the project;

-history of the Prince Edward (Bloor Street) Viaduct;

-design requirements;

-selection process; and

-submission requirements.

The schedule for submitting and evaluating "Expressions of Interest" (Stage I) was as follows:

Stage 1:

Expression of Interest AdvertisedJuly 11, 1998

Expression of Interest Design Brief AvailableJuly 13, 1998

Deadline for Receipt of Stage 1 SubmissionsJuly 27, 1998

Steering Committee Adjudication - Stage IJuly 30, 1998

Announcement of Stage II CandidatesJuly 31, 1998

Sixteen firms submitted Expressions of Interest which were reviewed in detail by members of the Project Steering Committee. As a result of this review, four firms were selected to participate in the design competition in accordance with the following schedule:

Stage II:

Distribution of Stage II Design BriefAugust 4, 1998

Information Session with Stage II CandidatesAugust 6, 1998

Deadline for Stage II QuestionsAugust 14, 1998

Deadline for Stage II SubmissionsAugust 27, 1998

Selection Committee Adjudication - Stage IIAugust 28, 1998

Recommendation to Urban Environment andSeptember 8, 1998

Development Committee

City Council DecisionOctober 1, 1998

A copy of the Stage II Design Brief is attached (see Appendix B).

The Project Steering Committee will be meeting on August 28, 1998, to commence the adjudication process which will be completed during the week of August 31 to September 4, 1998.

Conclusions:

The Prince Edward (Bloor Street) Viaduct project is on schedule. A presentation will be made and a report containing a recommendation on the preferred design will be submitted to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on September 8, 1998.

Contact Name:

Mr. Les Kelman, Director, Transportation Systems, 392-5372, Fax.: 392-4940.

--------

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, also having had before it a communication (July 24, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the Corporate Services Committee on July 20, 1998, endorsed the recommendations embodied in the report (July13, 1998) from the City Solicitor, entitled "Inquest into the Death of KennethAu-Yeung", viz:

"It is recommended that this report be forwarded to the Urban Environment and Development Committee for its information";

and submitting a supplementary report (July 17, 1998) from the City Solicitor which advised that the actions taken by City Council at its meeting of July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, with respect to the establishment of measures to deter suicide attempts at the Prince Edward (Bloor Street) Viaduct, are consistent with the jury's recommendations, as set out in its verdict rendered as a result of the aforementioned inquest.

The following persons made presentations to the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Mr. Tom. G. Denes, Executive Director, Technical Services, Works and Emergency Services Department;

-Mr. Les Kelman, Director, Transportation Systems, Works and Emergency Services Department, and also filed a copy of his presentation material, entitled "Prince Edward Viaduct (Bloor Street) Stage II Submission";

-Mr. Stephen G. McLaughlin, President, Stephen G. McLaughlin Consultants Inc., and Professional Advisor to the Bloor Street Viaduct Suicide Prevention Project Steering Committee; and

-Mr. Derek Revington, President, Derek Revington Studio.

The following persons appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Mr. Al Birney, President, East York Chapter and Chairman, Bridge Committee, Schizophrenia Society of Ontario;

-Mr. Mike McCamus, Bridge Committee, Schizophrenia Society of Ontario;

-Mr. Richard L. Stromberg, Manager, Historical Preservation, Heritage Toronto; and

-Councillor Jack Layton, Don River.

(A copy of Appendices A and B, referred to in the foregoing report dated August 24, 1998, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the September 8, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communications:

(i)(July 31, 1998) from the Chief Coroner of Ontario, forwarding a copy of the Verdict of Coroner's Jury and the Regional and Presiding Coroner's Explanation concerning the inquest into the death of Kenneth K. Au-Yeung and requesting that his office be informed with respect to the implementation, or otherwise, of the Jury's recommendations; and

(ii)(September 10, 1998) from Mr. Patrick Hardy, addressed to Councillor John Adams, Midtown, commenting on the anti-suicide netting on Danforth viaduct and submitting comments in this regard.)

(A copy of the communication (July 31, 1998) from the Chief Coroner of Ontario, together with a copy of the Verdict of the Coroner's Jury and the Regional and Presiding Coroner's Explanation, were circulated to all Members of Council and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

2

Idling Control By-law.

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends that:

(1)an Idling Control By-law, identical to the former City of Toronto's Idling Control By-law (City of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 212), be adopted immediately for the new City of Toronto;

(2)the General Manager, Transportation Services, be requested:

(a)to monitor and increase enforcement of the Idling Control By-law as soon as possible, but in any event, prior to the 1999 tourist season;

(b)to contact representatives of the bus companies, particularly those from the UnitedStates, in order to educate them with respect to the Idling Control By-law; and

(c)to liaise with representatives of the hotel industry in order to emphasize the importance of clean air and a clean city for visitors to Toronto;

(3)a copy of this matter be forwarded to the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) and to the Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Toronto Coach Terminal Inc., with a request that they ensure, to the best of their ability, that the by-Idling Control By-law is respected; and, further, that the TTC's inspection staff be utilized in the enforcement of the by-law where idling is occurring unnecessarily; and

(4)the appropriate City officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following communication (August26, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The Toronto Pedestrian Committee recommended that the Idling Control By-law, City of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 212, be applied to the entire new City of Toronto.

Background:

At its meeting on August 20, 1998, the Toronto Pedestrian Committee had before it for consideration the attached information leaflet on "An Idling Control By-law".

(Extract from the aforementioned leaflet, entitled

"An Idling Control By-law".)

Currently applies within the Old City of Toronto Boundaries.

Idling and Air Quality:

Contaminants from vehicle exhaust are major contributors to deteriorating air quality in Toronto. Recent studies by Health Canada and other agencies link a number of contaminants from vehicle emissions to significant respiratory health effects. Reducing these contaminants in Toronto's air by restricting unnecessary idling is part of a comprehensive air quality strategy for the City. The goal of this strategy is to improve air quality and respiratory health.

What is the Purpose of the By-law?

The by-law is intended to reduce unnecessary idling in the City. It limits idling to no more than three minutes in a given 60 minute period. The by-law allows transit vehicles to idle when picking up or discharging passengers and also allows limited idling when transit vehicles are waiting for passengers. As well, the by-law provides for idling during extreme outdoor temperatures to ensure heating or cooling inside a vehicle.

How Will the By-law be Enforced?

The City's intention is to achieve compliance with the by-law through voluntary measures. If these measures are not successful, the by-law provides for a fine of $105.00 for infractions of the by-law. City Works Services staff are responsible for by-law enforcement.

Why Should we Reduce the Unnecessary Idling of Vehicles?

There are known environmental impacts and economic costs associated with vehicle emissions.

Environmental Impacts:

-Motor vehicles and related activities are the major sources of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, suspended particles and volatile organic compounds in the City. Nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds are the two main substances involved in the formation of ozone, a component of smog.

-Ozone and suspended particles are included in the group of chemicals associated with significant respiratory health effects and hospital admissions.

Economic Costs and Operational Impacts:

-It has been estimated that three percent of Ontario's fuel is wasted by idling. An idling diesel engine will burn about 2.5 litres per hour. An idling gasoline engine will burn about 3.5 litres per hour. Ten seconds of idling uses more fuel than restarting the engine.

-Idling a diesel engine accelerates engine cool down. Fifteen minutes of idling reduces engine temperature the same amount as turning the engine off for one hour.

-Lubricant contamination occurs from excessive idling. This is because engine operation at idling temperatures creates soot deposits and condensation of water vapour mixes with sulphur oxides to become sulphuric acid in the crankcase.

What are the Alternatives to Unnecessary Idling?

From a cold start, it is better to warm up an engine by driving it rather than idling. Warm up times are reduced to half and fuel consumption is reduced.

If you are concerned about turning off your engine because you may have trouble restarting it, a well maintained starter system and engine is a better alternative than idling.

A condition referred to as "hot stall", where older diesel engines may be difficult to restart, should not occur if the engine is shut down properly.

____________

The following persons appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Mrs. Lois James, Scarborough; and

-Ms. Natalie Litwin, Co-Chair, Environmentalists Plan Transportation, and filed a written brief with respect thereto.

3

Toronto Transit Commission:

Park 'N' Ride Metropass.

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends:

(1)the adoption of the following report (September 3, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services;

(2)that the Chief Administrative Officer be requested to review the mandate of the Toronto Parking Authority with a view to bringing it into harmony with the objectives of the Toronto Transit Commission, and submit a report thereon to the Urban Environment and Development Committee;

(3)that the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, in consultation with the Chief Administrative Officer, be requested to submit a report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on the feasibility of allocating a portion of the revenues of the Toronto Parking Authority towards the establishment of commuter parking lots; and

(4)that the Chief General Manager, Toronto Transit Commission, be requested to meet with the proponents of Destination: Technodome to explore the possibility of offering incentives to encourage members of the public to use public transit to access the Technodome:

Background:

The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC), on July 15, 1998, considered a report, entitled "Park'N'Ride Metropass". The Commission forwarded this report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee requesting that:

(a)City of Toronto staff, together with staff of the Toronto Parking Authority, report on City-owned and commercial parking lots near subway stations (including location, price and usage); and

(b)TTC staff and City of Toronto staff initiate discussions with the auto insurance industry to determine insurance premium reductions for Park 'N' Ride passholders.

Recommendation:

That the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to initiate discussions with all relevant parties regarding the Park 'N' Ride Metropass and report further on the outcome in consultation with the TTC and the Toronto Parking Authority.

Comments:

The Urban Planning and Development Services Department will be examining many ways to reduce the demand for vehicular travel in the City.

The management of travel demand requires a multi-discipline approach to lessen the dependence on the private automobile. The introduction of a Park 'N' Ride Metropass is one of many concepts that would promote and encourage the use of public transit.

Transportation planning staff from the City's Urban Planning and Development Services Department will continue to work with public transit authorities to promote the use of public transit. In addition, staff will report further on the two above-captioned requests from the Toronto Transit Commission.

Contact Name:

Mr. Rod McPhail, Director, Transportation, 392-8101, Fax: 392-3821.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following communication (July 20, 1998) from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission:

At its meeting on Wednesday, July 15, 1998, the Toronto Transit Commission considered the attached report, entitled "Park 'N' Ride Metropass."

The Commission received Recommendation No. (1) contained in the above report, as listed below:

"(1)receive this report for information, noting that the TTC will be developing the concept of a "Park 'N' Ride" Metropass to encourage higher ridership amongst current users of the TTC who have access to a car, but choose to take transit for some of their trips";

The Commission amended Recommendation No. (2) by adding thereto the words, "together with staff of the Toronto Parking Authority,"; so that such Recommendation reads as follows:

"(2)forward this report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee requesting that:

(a)City of Toronto staff together with staff of the Toronto Parking Authority report on City-owned and commercial parking lots near subway stations (including location, price and usage);

(b)TTC staff and City of Toronto staff initiate discussions with the auto insurance industry to determine insurance premium reductions for Park 'N' Ride passholders";

The Commission also amended Recommendation No. (3) by adding thereto the words "with such meeting to include the Chair of the Toronto Transit Commission and Commissioner Miller,"; so that such Recommendation reads as follows:

"(3)forward this report to the Office of the Mayor, City of Toronto, requesting that a meeting be held with the Federal Minister of Transportation and Federal representatives from the City of Toronto to pursue a change in the tax status of employer-provided transit passes, with such meeting to include the Chair of the Toronto Transit Commission and Commissioner Miller."

In addition, the Commission approved the following:

(1)that staff report on the issue of video surveillance at TTC commuter parking lots for the dual purpose of allowing Transit Control to report to the public on the available capacity at the lots, as well as the issue of reducing thefts from automobiles;

(2)that this issue regarding the Park 'N' Ride Metropass be referred to the Customer Service and Ride Ability Task Force once it is established; and

(3)that this report be forwarded to the Toronto Parking Authority to look at parking rates, including public transit levies, locations and usage in the downtown area.

The foregoing is forwarded to the City Urban Environment and Development Committee, the Mayor's Office, City of Toronto, and the Toronto Parking Authority for appropriate action, as detailed above.

(Toronto Transit Commission Report No. 3,

entitled "Park 'N' Ride Metropass".)

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the Commission:

(1)receive this report for information, noting that the TTC will be developing the concept of a "Park 'N' Ride" Metropass to encourage higher ridership amongst current users of the TTC who have access to a car, but choose to take transit for some of their trips;

(2)forward this report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee requesting that:

(a)City of Toronto staff report on City-owned and commercial parking lots near subway stations (including location, price and usage);

(b)TTC staff and City of Toronto staff initiate discussions with the auto insurance industry to determine insurance premium reductions for Park 'N' Ride passholders; and

(3)forward this report to the Office of the Mayor, City of Toronto, requesting that a meeting be held with the Federal Minister of Transportation and Federal representatives from the City of Toronto to pursue a change in the tax status of employer-provided transit passes.

Funding:

The funding implications of the Park 'N' Ride Metropass will be determined as the concept is fully developed. It is anticipated that this initiative will result in a net gain in revenues for the TTC, as a result of attracting more ridership to transit.

Background:

The implications for Canada of implementing the Kyoto Protocol on Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) is a 21 percent reduction in emissions from current trends (see attached). A comparison of transportation modes shows that the urban car is by far the most significant source of GHG; the urban car emits almost 60 million tonnes of GHG while public transit emits one million tonnes of GHG. Reducing automobile emissions is therefore an essential part of efforts to achieve the Kyoto targets.

There are three ways to reduce automobile emissions:

(i)reduce the number of cars;

(ii)increase emission controls; and

(iii)reduce the trip length of the automobile.

Reducing the number of cars is unlikely due to the overall importance of the automobile industry to the Provincial economy. Increasing emission controls may be difficult to achieve and/or cost prohibitive to implement. Reducing the trip length of the automobile has the greatest potential to reduce emissions. This is supported by TTC market research with residents of Toronto which demonstrates that, given the right incentives, people would be willing to get out of their cars and onto transit for at least part of their trip.

It is estimated that for automobiles parked at suburban subway stations, vehicle emissions would be reduced 30 percent to 70 percent each work day.

Discussion:

Recent market studies have shown that the TTC's growth market is the 'choice' rider (one who has access to a car whenever needed). The choice user currently accounts for 60 percent of TTC ridership. However, we have only penetrated about one-third of the trips taken by this market compared to almost 100 percent of the captive market (i.e., those people who do not have access to a car). Therefore, the potential for ridership growth is greatest amongst the choice users.

Interviews with choice users indicate that they like to use their car, but are frustrated by traffic congestion and the cost of parking. They choose to take transit because they believe the TTC has a competitive advantage over the car in terms of:

(i)free (or lower cost) parking; and

(ii)the speed and convenience of rapid transit to downtown.

There is potential to increase ridership amongst choice users by developing a program to provide for convenient park and ride trips which offer the advantages of both car and transit. The TTC is reviewing the concept of a "Park 'N' Ride" Metropass to tap into this market. This pass would provide free parking at suburban subway locations, and allow a convenient transfer to the subway and a ride downtown. Cross-promotions would be developed to enhance the attractiveness of the Park'N' Ride pass for potential users. For example, passholders could be entitled to a discount on their automobile insurance premiums to reflect that they are using their car less.

The competitive advantage of the Park 'N' Ride Metropass (and other TTC passes) would be significantly increased by allowing employers to provide passes as a non-taxable benefit. The application of current tax laws tends to be inequitable, as employer-provided transit passes are normally taxed, while parking spaces provided to employees are usually not treated as a taxable benefit.

Even with a change to the tax laws for transit passes, one of the keys to developing the park and ride market is the TTC's ability to offer parking at rapid transit stations. However, there is limited space available at existing commuter parking lots; usage rates are 90 percent or higher at 16 of 23 commuter lots. Demand for commuter parking is also expected to increase with the continued economic and employment growth that is forecast for Toronto and the GTA.

Overall, the Park 'N' Ride Metropass program requires three major elements to be successful:

(1)an increase in parking capacity at subway stations;

(2)a discount on car insurance from the insurance industry; and

(3)a change to Federal tax laws to allow employer-provided transit passes to be considered a non-taxable benefit.

The following action is needed to make progress in these areas and to begin the process of turning the Park 'N' Ride Metropass concept into reality:

(1)City of Toronto staff to report on City-owned and commercial parking lots near subway stations (including location, capacity, price and usage);

(2)TTC staff to conduct a similar assessment of TTC commuter parking lots;

(3)the Mayor's Office to meet with Federal Minister of Transportation and Federal representatives from the City of Toronto to pursue a change in the tax status of employer-provided transit passes; and

(4)City of Toronto and TTC staff to initiate discussions with the auto insurance industry to determine auto insurance premium reductions for Park 'N' Ride passholders.

Justification:

Market research has indicated a potential growth market for park and ride trips by 'choice' users of the transit system. The Park 'N' Ride Metropass program is being developed to provide an incentive to encourage higher ridership amongst this group. The program would also contribute to an overall reduction in automobile trip length and emissions by stopping the use of the car outside the downtown area. For every free parking space provided at a subway location, car trip lengths and emissions would be reduced by 30 percent to 70 percent. This would be a tangible step towards achieving the targeted reduction in Greenhouse Gas Emissions established in the Kyoto Protocol.

--------

Mr. Bob Hughes, Senior Marketing Analyst, Toronto Transit Commission, made an overhead presentation to the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(A copy of the attachments to the foregoing Toronto Transit Commission Report No. (3) has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the September 8, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

4

Litigation in Relation to the Province's Proposal

to Put Slot Machines at Woodbine Racetrack.

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (August 24, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to inform Councillors of the litigation commenced by The Ontario Jockey Club ("the Jockey Club"), against the City of Toronto and the Chief Building Official and to request Council's confirmation of the City Solicitor's actions.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The Jockey Club has requested that it be awarded its costs of the litigation should it succeed.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that Council confirm the actions of the City Solicitor in this litigation to date in responding to the appeal of the Jockey Club, and, should the litigation be ongoing, instruct the City Solicitor to proceed.

Council Reference/Background/History:

On July 8, 1998, the Jockey Club applied for a building permit to "refurbish floor space to accommodate slot machines" at Woodbine Racetrack. Buildings Division staff refused the permit by informing the Jockey Club that slot machines are not listed as a permitted use or accessory use at that location.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The Woodbine Racetrack site is in a Class 2 Industrial Zone. The Etobicoke Zoning Code permits "racetracks and ancillary facilities" in a Class 2 Industrial Zone. On August 7, 1998, the Jockey Club appealed the refusal of a building permit. The Jockey Club takes the position that slot machines are an "ancillary facility" to a racetrack. My staff have prepared affidavit material in support of the position that slot machines are not an "ancillary facility". The Jockey Club has been served with this material. The appeal is scheduled to be heard on September 16, 1998.

I will prepare further reports to the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and, if necessary, directly to Council, as this matter progresses.

Conclusions:

The actions of the City Solicitor should be confirmed, and, should the litigation be ongoing at the time this report is considered, the City Solicitor should be instructed to proceed with the litigation.

Contact Name:

Ms. Wendy Walberg, 392-8078.

5

Ontario Municipal Board Hearings.

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto to the following:

"It is further recommended that the joint report dated September 30, 1998, from the Commissioner of Corporate Services and the City Solicitor, entitled "Retention of Planning Experts", embodying the following recommendation, be adopted:

'It is recommended that this report be referred to the Budget Committee for review.'")

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends;

(1)the adoption of the report (August 25, 1998) from the City Solicitor; and

(2)that the City Solicitor be requested to include in the 1999 Operating Budget for the LegalDivision sufficient funds to retain any expert witnesses required for Ontario Municipal Board hearings.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the City Solicitor, in consultation with the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, to submit a report directly to Council, for consideration with this matter on October 1, 1998:

(a)providing a breakdown of the funding which was allocated by each of the former Area Municipalities for retention of any expert witnesses required for Ontario Municipal Board hearings; and

(b)specifying whether funding for this purpose was requested in the Legal Division's 1998 Operating Budget and what funding, if any, was approved.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following report (August25, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

To review the practices of the former municipalities and to standardize the City Solicitor's instructions to attend at Ontario Municipal Board hearings in support of Council's position with respect to planning applications.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

If Council adopts positions which are not supported by the Executive Director and Chief Planner of City Planning, the retention of external consultants to provide evidence at the Ontario Municipal Board may be required. The Legal Department's budget does not include funds for external consultants and the necessary funds would therefore have to be made available from the Corporate Contingency Account.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the City Solicitor be given standing instructions to attend all Ontario Municipal Board hearings in support of Council's decisions on planning matters such as Official Plan Amendments, Zoning By-laws, plans of subdivision and condominium and site plan unless otherwise instructed by Council;

(2)the City Solicitor attend at Ontario Municipal Board hearings with respect to appeals from Committee of Adjustment decisions and severance decisions only pursuant to Council's direction to attend;

(3)where Council's position is not supported by the Executive Director and Chief Planner of City Planning, Council expressly direct the City Solicitor to retain external consultants as may be required, on a case-by-case basis, with the monies to be made available from the Corporate Contingency Account; and

(4)this report be forwarded to the Community Councils for their information.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

In the former municipalities of Toronto, North York, Scarborough and York, the City Solicitor had standing instructions to attend at the Ontario Municipal Board in support of decisions made by Council on planning matters such as Official Plan Amendments, Zoning By-laws, plans of subdivision and condominium and site plan approval. In the former municipalities of Etobicoke and East York where external legal services were used, the Solicitor would attend in support of Council's position with respect to planning applications when directed by Council. It would be appropriate to standardize the practice throughout the City and establish the City Solicitor's standing instructions to appear at the Ontario Municipal Board in support of Council's decisions in these matters.

It has also been the practice of the former local municipalities that Council would instruct the City Solicitor to attend the Ontario Municipal Board on appeals from Committee of Adjustment decisions on a case-by-case basis. It would be appropriate to confirm that Council instructions must be given to the City Solicitor to appear at the Ontario Municipal Board with respect to appeals of Committee of Adjustments decisions.

There are times when Council's position on a planning application is not supported by City staff. In such cases, the Solicitor would have no evidence to present to the Board in support of Council's position. There is a concern that in a planning matter of some magnitude, the Board may not look favourably on the City's lack of evidence and there is a possibility that costs may be awarded against the City. It is also acknowledged that there may be some cases of a more minor nature where a lack of planning evidence may not be fatal to the City's case.

Traditionally, the local municipalities have provided funding in their legal department budgets to retain external consultants to provide evidence at Ontario Municipal Board hearings in situations where City staff were unable to support Council's position. The amalgamated Legal Division's budget does not have sufficient funds to cover such expenses if it is, at the same time, to achieve the Council mandated expenditure targets for this year. Should Council wish to retain external consultants in such circumstances, it is recommended that Council specifically instruct the City Solicitor, on a case by case basis, to retain such external consultants as required with funding to be made available from the Corporate Contingency Account.

Conclusion:

It is appropriate to standardize, clarify and confirm the City Solicitor's instructions with respect to Ontario Municipal Board hearings and the retention of outside consultants as set out in this report.

Contact Name:

Ms. Anna Kinastowski, Director, Planning and Administrative Tribunal Law, 392-0080. Fax:392-0024.

--------

Councillor John Adams, Midtown, appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following joint report (September 30, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services and the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

To provide information with respect to funds allocated in the former Cities of Toronto, Scarborough, North York and Etobicoke legal departments budgets for the retention of expert witnesses for Ontario Municipal Board hearings, and to recommend a budget location for these funds in the amalgamated City operating budget.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Traditionally, the former Cities of Toronto, Scarborough, North York and Etobicoke provided funding in their legal departments budgets to retain external consultants to provide evidence at Ontario Municipal Board hearings in situations where City staff were unable to support Council's position. The former legal departments of Metro, East York, and York requested funding from Corporate Reserve accounts in these circumstances. The amalgamated Legal Division's budget does not have sufficient funds to cover such expenses for the balance of the year if it is at the same time to achieve the Council mandated expenditure targets for the same period.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be referred to the Budget Committee for review.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Urban Environment and Development Committee considered at its meeting on September 8, 1998, a report from the City Solicitor entitled "Ontario Municipal Board Hearings" (August 25, 1998). The report in part discussed the issue of retaining external consultants for Ontario Municipal Board hearings. The City Solicitor advised that while the former Cities of Toronto, Scarborough and North York had funding in their legal department budgets to retain expert planners, the amalgamated Legal Division's budget does not have sufficient funds to cover such expenses for the balance of this year.

The Committee recommended:

(1)to Council:

(a)the adoption of the aforementioned report; and

(b)that the City Solicitor be requested to include in the 1999 Operating Budget for the Legal Division sufficient funds to retain any expert witnesses required for Ontario Municipal Board hearings; and

(2)requested the City Solicitor, in consultation with the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, to submit a report directly to Council, for consideration with this matter on October 1, 1998:

(a)providing a breakdown of the funding which was allocated by each of the former Area Municipalities for retention of any expert witnesses required for Ontario Municipal Board hearings; and

(b)specifying whether funding for this purpose was requested in the Legal Division's 1998 Operating Budget and what funding, if any, was approved.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Current Funding and Budget Pressures

The table below indicates funds allocated in the 1998 operating budgets of the former municipal legal departments for the retention of expert planners in addition to known commitments to date.

¹Etobicoke did not categorize its legal budget. The firm it retained expended expert planners and witnesses as disbursements in its regular billings.

While currently there is a favourable variance in this account, this information must be reviewed in the context of the Division's overall budget position and serious anticipated budget pressures:

(i)The Division was requested to reduce salaries in a 9 month period by $1,114,000.00. The Division will achieve this target.

(ii)The Division was requested to reduce its reliance on outside counsel in 1998 by $1,646,000.00. While the Division is still accounting for the extent of its liabilities for work already out sourced, we are forecasting that one of the external firms will exceed their retainer in the magnitude of 10 percent.

(iii)The approved budget included an assumption for increased revenues ($255,000.00) related to a surcharge for Planning and Development fees. Council, at its meeting on April 16, 1998 adopted a surcharge of 7.5 percent. To date, the Division has not seen any revenue related to this surcharge. The Finance Department is reviewing whether the former Cities are in fact collecting this surcharge, and the value of revenues to date. Finance is monitoring this process to ensure that these monies flow to the Legal Division.

It is projected that any further discretionary spending, which includes the retention of expert planners, would result in an overexpenditure position at year end for the Division.

Planning Applications:

There is no way to estimate from year to year the number of times Council and staff will be at odds on planning applications. Certainly the magnitude and complexity of the applications will vary as will the cost to retain experts for a particular matter. To date we have had funding for expert planners ranging from $8,000.00 to $150,000.00. The Legal Division does not have the flexibility in its budget to absorb such dramatic expenditure fluctuations. As the Legal Division's budget is 78 percent salaries, and more than 10 percent in recoverable costs on a gross basis, there is very little discretionary spending. Staff reductions become the only redress.

Conclusions:

It is impossible to estimate the number of occasions that Council will request expert planners be retained to attend OMB hearings. As the costs associated with the experts is tied to the size and complexity of the planning application, there is no way to estimate a year in advance funding requirements. The Finance Department is working with the Legal Division to develop a policy to set up a reserve account to address in year funding requirements that exceed the approved budget. Underexpenditures in the "expert planner" line item would flow to the reserve account at year end rather than Corporate Sundry Revenue. This account would be available in later years for overexpenditures without the requirement to draw from Corporate Contingency. This, however, does not address the Division's immediate budget pressures. It is projected that any additional discretionary expenditures anywhere in the Legal Division's budget this year will result in an overexpenditure position at year end.

The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer has been consulted on this report.

Contact Name:

Natalie EarlyVal Sequeira

Manager, Administration - Legal DivisionManager, Budget Services

Telephone: 392-8044Corporate Services & Finance

Fax: 397-5624Telephone: 397-4225

Fax: 392-3649.)

6

Appeal of Planning Application

(Committee of Adjustment) Fees.

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (August 31, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

To advise of an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board received pursuant to Section 69 of the Planning Act with respect to the amount of fees paid for minor variance and severance applications.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There is a potential impact on the City's revenue source if the planning application fee is not upheld by the Ontario Municipal Board.

Recommendation:

That the City Solicitor be directed to attend at the Ontario Municipal Board in support of Council's fee schedule for planning applications.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Mr. A. Neil Craik, solicitor for Stanley Makuch-in trust, has appealed the Committee of Adjustment fees with respect to minor variance and severance applications for 735 Craven Road in the former City of Toronto to the Ontario Municipal Board pursuant to Section 69 of the Planning Act.

Section 69 of the Planning Act provides that Council of a municipality may by by-law establish a tariff of fees for the processing of applications made in respect of planning matters which shall be designed to meet only the anticipated cost to the municipality or to a Committee of Adjustment of processing each type of application. Section 69(3) further provides that any person may pay the application fee under protest and thereafter appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board against the levying of the fee or the amount of the fee. The new fees for planning applications were harmonized and established effective May 1, 1998.

Conclusions:

It would be appropriate to direct the City Solicitor to attend at the Ontario Municipal Board with respect to the appeal filed in support of Council's fee schedule for planning applications.

Contact Name:

Ms. Anna Kinastowski, Director, Planning and Administrative Tribunal Law, 392-0080.

Fax: 392-0024.

7

Amendments to Existing By-laws that

Delegate Planning Powers to Staff of

Former Metropolitan Toronto Municipalities.

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (August 24, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To recommend an amendment to existing by-laws that delegate planning powers to staff of the former municipalities of East York, Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough, Toronto, York, and Metropolitan Toronto (the "former municipalities") in order to identify staff positions that reflect the current structure of the Planning Division of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the City Solicitor, in consultation with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, bring forward a by-law(s) to the October 1, 1998 meeting of Council to amend the existing delegation by-laws of the "former municipalities" so as to name the Executive Director and Chief Planner and the Community Planning Director of each of the relevant district offices as the titled officials to whom previously delegated planning powers remain delegated; and

(2)that authority be granted for the introduction of the necessary Bills in Council.

Background:

The existing delegation by-laws of the former municipalities remain in effect until they are repealed by City Council. The result is a variety of practices throughout the City since some delegations of site plan approval power, for example, were limited and others were not. Planning staff are currently reviewing and will soon be reporting on the introduction of a harmonized by-law respecting the delegation of certain planning powers to staff. Delegation of approval authority to the Commissioner and appropriate designates has proven to be a significant streamlining and cost-efficiency measure.

Discussion:

The issue at this time is that amendments to the provisions of existing delegation by-laws are required before a new harmonized by-law can be recommended to Council and existing by-laws can be repealed. Recent changes in the organizational structure of the Planning Division mean that some of the titled officials and alternates named in the existing by-laws have ceased or may soon cease to be employees of the City. Therefore, as an interim step, the existing delegation by-laws should be amended to reflect the current structure of the Planning Division. This will not in any way change the extent or nature of the powers currently delegated to staff. If these amendments are not made, individuals responsible for delegated approvals at a particular district office may not possess the power to approve applications processed in that district.

Conclusion:

It is desirable and necessary to amend the existing delegation by-laws of the former municipalities to name titled officials and alternates by position in accordance with the Planning Division's current structure in order to ensure that the benefits of streamlined development approvals are maintained. Pending the completion of my ongoing review, I will report on a harmonized and improved delegation by-law for the City.

Contact Name:

Mr. Raymond David, South District Office, 392-7188.

Mr. Rob Dolan, North District Office, 395-7120.

8

Toronto Pedestrian Committee:

Proposed Terms of Reference.

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends that:

(1)the Proposed Terms of Reference for the Toronto Pedestrian Committee be approved, subject to:

(a)amending Part (3) of the section, headed "Objectives" to specifically include a review and comment upon the standards for street and sidewalk lighting;

(b)amending the section, headed "Membership":

(i)by striking out the words "Upto three (3) Toronto Councillors - one(1) to be Co-Chair of the Committee", and inserting in lieu thereof the words "One (1) Member of the City of Toronto Council;

(ii)by adding thereto the following:

"One (1) representative from the Toronto District School Board and one (1) representative from the Toronto Catholic District School Board, if they so wish";

(iii)by adding thereto a requirement that the membership of any sub-committee established by the Toronto Pedestrian Committee shall be open to interested members of the public; and

(iv)by deleting therefrom the following paragraph:

"Membership may be expanded either to balance community membership or to include other interested persons. Organizations may also name alternates to stand in for the named member in their absence.";

(c)amending the section, headed "Quorum" to provide that the quorum shall be six (6) Members;

(2)the matter of the appointment of the Member of Council to the Toronto Pedestrian Committee, referred to in Recommendation No. (1)(b)(i) above, be referred to the Striking Committee for consideration;

(3)the following persons be appointed to the Toronto Pedestrian Committee:

-Ms. Joan Doiron, Toronto - Co-Chair;

-Ms. Rhona Swarbrick, Etobicoke - Co-Chair;

-Mrs. Helen Hansen, North York;

-Ms. Helen Riley, East York;

-Mrs. Lois James, Scarborough;

-Ms. Madeline McDowell, York;

-Ms. Sheila McKenna, representative of Feet on the Street;

-Ms. Dorothy Fletcher, representative of the Older Women's Network;

-Mr. Wayne Scott, representative of the Hoof and Cycle Couriers;

-Ms. Saro McKenna, student representative;

-Mr. Garnett Martin, representative of the Advocacy Committee for the Canadian National Institute for the Blind; and

-Ms. Joanne Cook, member-at-large; and

(4)each of the following organizations be invited to nominate a representative to sit on the Toronto Pedestrian Committee:

-Toronto Cycling Committee; and

-Toronto Field Naturalists.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, having:

(a)requested the General Manager, Transportation Services, to compile a listing of ongoing community festivals which necessitate street closures, and submit a report thereon to the Urban Environment and Development Committee; such report to include possible mechanisms which could be implemented in order to reduce bureaucratic involvement; and

(b)received Recommendation No. (2) of the Toronto Pedestrian Committee.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following communication (August26, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Recommendations:

The Toronto Pedestrian Committee on August 20, 1998, recommended that:

(1)the attached Proposed Terms of Reference be approved; and

(2)the Nominating Committee be requested to seek members for appointment to the Toronto Pedestrian Committee who will be active in promoting the work of the Committee and who will encourage other interested citizens to attend meetings.

Background:

At its meeting on August 20, 1998, the Toronto Pedestrian Committee, had before it the following:

(i) a joint report (June 29, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services, and the Executive Director and Chief Planner, City Planning, containing recommended revisions to the proposed Terms of Reference for the Toronto Pedestrian Committee; and

(ii)Clause No. 4 of Report No. 6 of The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, headed "Staffing Levels and Resources to Support Cycling and Pedestrian Programs", which was adopted, without amendment, by City Council on May13and 14, 1998; such Clause containing the following recommendations:

(1)the adoption of Recommendations Nos. (1) and (2) embodied in the joint report (April16, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation and the Interim Functional Lead, Planning;

(2)that separate Cycling and Pedestrian Committees be established to be staffed within current budget; and

(3)that the Terms of Reference outlined in the communication (March 9, 1998) from Mr.JackBecker, Metro Cycling and Pedestrian Committee, and the communication (February 20, 1998) from Ms. Joan Doiron, Chair, Toronto Pedestrian Committee, be adopted, in principle, and that the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation and the Interim Functional Lead, Planning be requested to report to the first meetings of each Committee on any necessary revisions.

--------

The Toronto Pedestrian Committee

Proposed Terms of Reference

Definition of Pedestrians:

Persons moving from place to place on foot or at a walking pace (for example, users of mobility devices, children on tricycles).

Objectives:

(1)To work for improved pedestrian safety and better pedestrian access to public transit, schools, workplaces, shops, libraries, community centres, parks, including roads and other public spaces;(2)to provide pedestrian-oriented input to the allocation, design and use of public space;

(3)to provide staff with comments and recommendations relating to standards, guidelines, and general design of the public realm, including roads, with the understanding that Council may, from time to time, request direct input from the Toronto Pedestrian Committee on any general or specific issue it so chooses;

(4)to provide a forum for public consultation on pedestrian health and safety, including working with Community Councils on local neighbourhood concerns, and working with the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) on transit-related issues;

(5)to promote walking as the most environmentally friendly form of transportation; and

(6)the provision of educational programs to the general public and special needs groups.

Membership:

Seventeen (17) representatives from the following groups:

-up to three Toronto Councillors - one to be the Co-Chair of the Committee;

-six citizens appointed from Community Council Districts: East York, York, Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough, and Toronto;

and the balance of representatives from the following:

-"Feet on the Street" or other pedestrian advocacy groups;

-wheelchair users, physically-handicapped, blind or hearing-handicapped persons;

-Older Women's Network or other seniors' group;

-high school, college, or university student;

-walking/hiking organizations (e.g., Toronto Field Naturalists, Citizens for a Lakeshore Greenway, Bruce Trail [Toronto Club]); and

-Toronto Cycling Committee.

Membership may be expanded either to balance community membership or to include other interested persons. Organizations may also name alternates to stand-in for the named member in their absence.

It is desirable that all committee members and alternates should be people who regularly walk and/or use public transit as their primary modes of transportation.

Should a member appointed to the Toronto Pedestrian Committee be absent for a minimum of three consecutive meetings, or seven of the 12 regularly scheduled meetings, without providing the Committee with written or verbal notification and reason for such absence, that member shall be deemed to have resigned from the position.

Quorum:

The quorum shall be a majority of members.

Staff Resources:

Assigned staff from the Transportation and Planning Departments. TTC, Police and Health officials to be invited as required or as interested. Recording secretary to be assigned from City Clerk's. Mailings for meetings to be continued.

Meetings:

Meetings to be held monthly, or at the call of the Chair. All meetings to be open to the public and advertised.

From time to time, the Committee should meet in different locations across the City to deal with local concerns and to promote walking.

Small working groups may be set up as needed. Also, individual members may be designated to liaise with other groups or organizations (e.g., the Toronto Cycling Committee).

Reporting:

The Toronto Pedestrian Committee will report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following joint report (June29, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services, and the Executive Director and Chief Planner, City Planning:

Purpose:

To provide comments from Transportation Services and City Planning staff on the proposed Terms of Reference for the Toronto Pedestrian Committee.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)rather than applying a limited definition of pedestrians, the Toronto Pedestrian Committee represent all users who have mobility interests in pedestrianized areas or at pedestrian facilities;

(2)Objective No. (3) be revised to focus on providing staff with comments relating to standards, guidelines and general designs of pedestrian facilities, with the understanding that Council may, from time to time, request direct input from the Toronto Pedestrian Committee on any general or specific issue it so chooses;

(3)the objectives of the Toronto Pedestrian Committee include an element relating to the provision of educational programs to the general public and special needs groups;

(4)(a)the membership of the Toronto Pedestrian Committee be established at 17, not including the attendance of staff;

(4)(b)of the 17 members, six be citizens appointed by Community Councils, one from each Community Council;

(5)the following sentence be deleted:

"Membership may be expanded either to balance community membership or to include other interested persons";

(6)the quorum shall be a majority of members; and

(7)rather than saying members and alternates should be people who regularly walk and/or use public transit as their primary modes of transportation, reference be made to this criterion being desirable, not mandatory.

Background:

At its meeting of May 13 and 14, 1998, Toronto City Council adopted Clause No. 4 of Report No.6 of The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team and, in so doing, instructed the Interim Functional Leads of Transportation and of Planning to report on the proposed Terms of Reference of the Toronto Pedestrian Committee, dated February 1998.

Discussion:

The proposed Terms of Reference for the Toronto Pedestrian Committee (TPC) are attached.

Transportation Services staff have the following suggestions which are embodied in the list of seven recommendations at the start of this report:

Recommendation No. (1):The definition of pedestrians should be expanded to capture other sidewalk users such as roller bladers or skate boarders.

Recommendations Nos. (2) and (3):The objectives of the TPC should include an educational component. Also, to be most effective the TPC should focus on providing input to staff on general issues such as standards, guidelines and designs of pedestrian facilities.

Recommendations Nos. (4), (5) and (6):Staff are of the opinion that the size of the TPC should be established at a maximum of 17 so it can remain focussed and facilitate decision-making during its meetings. The rules of quorum should conform with the City's Procedural By-law.

Recommendation No. (7):Even though there may be benefits derived by applying a membership criterion which basically requires all members to be regular walkers and/or public transit users, it is not practical to make such a criterion mandatory. Similar benefits could be achieved by saying these are desirable qualities for members of the TPC.

Conclusion:

Transportation Services and City Planning Division staff recommend a number of modifications to the proposed Terms of Reference for the Toronto Pedestrian Committee in order to help focus and optimize the efficiency of the Committee.

--------

The following persons appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Ms. Joan Doiron, proposed Co-Chair, Toronto Pedestrian Committee;

-Ms. Sheila McKenna, Toronto;

-Ms. Helen Hansen; and

-Councillor John Adams, Midtown.

(A copy of the proposed Terms of Reference for the Toronto Pedestrian Committee, and Clause No.4 of Report No. 6 of The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, which were appended to the foregoing joint report dated June 29, 1998, from the General Manager, Transportation Services, and the Executive Director and Chief Planner, City Planning, is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

9

Proposal for a Joint City of Toronto/City of Mississauga

Project for a Bicycle/Pedestrian Path from the

Waterfront to Eglinton Avenue West.

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends:

(1)the adoption of the recommendations of the Metropolitan Cycling and Pedestrian Committee, the Toronto City Cycling Committee and the North York Cycling and Pedestrian Committee, embodied in the following communication (June 6, 1998) from the City Clerk; and

(2)that the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to review:

(a)the action required to implement the proposed joint bicycle/pedestrian path as quickly as possible;

(b)the design guidelines for the proposed path prior to its construction, in order to ensure that all environmentally sensitive areas are avoided; and

(c)the current partnerships with the Waterfront Regeneration Trust, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, and other Agencies, Boards and Commissions;

and submit a report thereon to the Urban Environment and Development Committee:

Recommendations:

The Metropolitan Cycling and Pedestrian Committee, the Toronto City Cycling Committee and the North York Cycling and Pedestrian Committee at a joint meeting on May 25, 1998, recommended to the Urban Environment and Development Committee that, in co-operation with the City of Mississauga, the City of Toronto plan and develop a continuous bicycle/pedestrian path from the waterfront to Eglinton Avenue West; and further, that:

(1)the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to:

(a)participate in a 1999 study with the City of Mississauga, including study funding (share of funding to be determined), subject to available funding (study would address feasibility of proposal and would be a Master Plan/Pre-Design Level, and include alternatives, project costing and recommended phasing);

(b)indicate a program for improvements to the existing bicycle paths in the Etobicoke Creek to be considered and budgeted for implementation in 1999, including:

-trail widening (e.g., where less than three metres wide);

-trail relocation (e.g., where conflicts exist with other park uses); and

-trail signage (e.g., in parks and on roads leading to parks showing direction, distance, destinations, etc.);

(c)budget for and complete (preferably in 1999) a bicycle/pedestrian trail extension connecting through Centennial Park from the existing trail system to meet ElmcrestPark either at the termination of the existing Elmcrest Park, or at an extended Elmcrest Park at Rathburn Road, or at Canerouth Drive or Ivybridge Drive;

(d)investigate the feasibility of developing a bicycle/pedestrian trail linking existing parks and crossing under Dundas Street and under the Queen Elizabeth Way; and

(e)complete the trail system along the Etobicoke Creek, in conjunction with the City of Mississauga, so that it extends uninterrupted from the waterfront to Eglinton Avenue West, with the timing to be determined by the two cities (the preference is to complete this work as a Millennium Project, or as a high priority as soon as possible thereafter, but shall not be longer than four years); and

(2)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to determine the feasibility of on-road or on-boulevard bicycle lanes to connect:

(a)the parks, including a signage program (streets include Bissett Street, Evans Road, The West Mall, the West Mall Crescent, Neilson Drive, Canerouth Drive/Ivybridge Drive); and

(b)the West Dean/Echo Valley Park System to the Bloordale Park North System along Burnhamthorpe Road, or a parallel road system, including a signage program.

Background:

The Metropolitan Cycling and Pedestrian Committee, the Toronto City Cycling Committee and the North York Cycling and Pedestrian Committee had before them a communication dated May 8, 1998, from Mr. Jack Becker, Co-Chair, Network/Bicycle Planning Sub-Committee, forwarding the report of the Technical and Field Work Committee (MCAC) dated November 18, 1997, respecting the Etobicoke Creek as a potential route in the City of Mississauga's long-term master plan of pedestrian and cycling routes and the City of Toronto's participation in such project.

Mr. John Sabiston, Chair, Mississauga Cycling Advisory Committee, appeared before the Committees in connection with the foregoing matter.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following report (August21, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To provide background information respecting the proposed bicycle/pedestrian path along EtobicokeCreek between the Waterfront and Eglinton Avenue West.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Any funds required for participation in a study to determine the trail alignment and sequence of development are being considered as part of the 1999 budget request by the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Background:

The Metropolitan Toronto Parks and Culture Department retained a consultant in 1994 to identify possible trail alignments in the Etobicoke Creek area. In 1997 the Mississauga Cycling Advisory Committee reviewed the trail alignments proposed by the consultant and identified alternate alignments located partially in Mississauga.

At their joint meeting on May 25, 1998 the Metropolitan Cycling and Pedestrian Committee, the Toronto City Cycling Committee and the North York Cycling and Pedestrian Committee heard a presentation by the Mississauga Cycling Advisory Committee respecting the proposed Etobicoke Creek area trail. As a result, the cycling committees recommended to the Urban Environment and Development Committee that, in co-operation with the City of Mississauga, the City of Toronto plan and develop a continuous bicycle/pedestrian path from the waterfront to Eglinton Avenue West along Etobicoke Creek.

Discussion:

Parks planning staff and Economic Development, Culture and Tourism staff met recently with Mississauga staff regarding joint development of the proposed trail. There is general agreement that trail development should be cost-shared by Toronto and Mississauga and that a cost-sharing formula should reflect the alignment of the trail. The original 1994 study is still relevant; however, it will need to be supplemented to address a more extensive area and some additional possibilities for trails that have emerged since its completion. Any funds required for the Toronto share of such a supplemented study would be addressed as part of the 1999 budget request by the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department.

Development of this proposed trail should also be considered within the context of a comprehensive cycling plan for the City which will be developed over the next year in consultation with the Toronto Cycling Committee and other interested parties.

Staff of the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department have reviewed this report.

Conclusion:

Economic Development, Culture and Tourism staff have begun discussion with Mississauga staff for a joint Toronto-Mississauga project to plan the proposed trail extensions and improvements.

Contact Name:

Mr. Daniel Egan, City Hall Office, 392-1143, e-mail: degan@city.toronto.on.ca.

--------

Mr. Bohdan Kowalyk, Etobicoke, appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(A copy of the communication dated May 8, 1998, from Mr. Jack Becker, Co-Chair, Network/Bicycle Planning Sub-Committee, referred to in the foregoing communication dated June6, 1998, from the City Clerk, is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

10

Removal of Trees from the Sheppard Avenue

and Bayview Avenue Rights-of-Way.

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (August 17, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation:

Purpose:

To authorize the removal of trees in connection with the construction of the Sheppard Subway, Bayview Station, and the reconstruction of the Bayview Avenue/Sheppard Avenue intersection.

Funding Sources:

The costs associated with the Bayview Station construction are the responsibility of the Toronto Transit Commission, and the funds for the reconstruction and widening of the BayviewAvenue/Sheppard Avenue intersection are available in Account No. C-TR-023, SheppardAvenue, Beecroft Road to Leslie Street.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that authority be granted for the removal of 42 trees from the Sheppard Avenue and Bayview Avenue rights-of-way.

Discussion:

Metro By-law No. 211-74, Section 10, ss(I) and (ii), provides that, "no person shall injure, destroy, or cut down any tree on a Metropolitan Road without the approval of Metropolitan Council".

The Sheppard Subway Bayview Station will lie roughly below the centreline of Sheppard Avenue, extending from the east side of Bayview Avenue to approximately 320 metres east of BayviewAvenue. In conjunction with the station construction, the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) will be undertaking the reconstruction of the Sheppard Avenue and Bayview Avenue intersection on behalf of the City of Toronto.

According to established procedure, the TTC has had an arborist assess the trees impacted by the station construction and has established a replacement value for the trees that must be removed. The TTC is responsible for the replacement value plus associated costs for all trees which have to be removed as a result of its work. The station construction requires the removal of twenty-one (21) trees, with an assessed value including associated costs of $21,655.00. These funds, and other funds collected as the result of the Sheppard Subway work, will be used for tree replacement in the Sheppard Avenue corridor, pursuant to existing procedure and practice in consultation with the Councillors, adjoining property owners, and the Community.

The improvements to the Sheppard Avenue/Bayview Avenue intersection were approved by Metropolitan Toronto Council on November 8, 1995, to support the approved development in the North York Centre area. The widening will improve the safety and traffic handling capacity of the Sheppard Avenue/Bayview Avenue intersection. The design of the streetscape associated with the road widening is based on the Streetscape Study for the Sheppard Avenue Corridor, carried out by the former City of North York Planning Department. This plan includes the planting of approximately ninety (90) new street trees within the project limits.

City of Toronto staff have also reviewed the impact of the reconstruction of the intersection on the existing trees. Site inspections have been carried out by staff to consider all possible design modifications to lane width, sidewalk layout, and boulevard treatment that can be made to minimize the impact on the 60 existing trees within the construction zone. As part of this review process, 39trees have been identified for protective measures and six trees have been identified as potential transplant candidates. The proximity to underground plant, utilities, or site conditions may preclude the transplanting of all six trees identified as potential candidates, in which case these would be removed. In addition, 15 trees could not be protected on site due to conflicts with the proposed road works and are scheduled for removal, making a total of 21 trees identified for removal.

Notwithstanding the tree removals resulting from the subway and road construction, the total number of trees in this area will increase by 48 upon completion of the construction project.

Conclusion:

In order to facilitate the construction of the Sheppard Subway, Bayview Station, it is recommended that approval be granted to remove 42 trees.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Mr. David Butler, Manager, Sheppard Subway Traffic Operations, 392-5285.

(A copy of the location plans, which were appended to the foregoing report, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the September 8, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

11

Proposed Installation of Traffic Control Signals:

Royal York Road and Newcastle Street.

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (August 6, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services:

Purpose:

To propose the installation of traffic control signals at the intersection of Royal York Road and Newcastle Street, coincident with the removal of the existing pedestrian crossover (PXO).

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with new traffic control signal installations are contained in the Works and Emergency Services Department's Capital Program under Project No. C-TR031. In 1998, $1.6million has been allocated for new traffic control signal installations. These funds have been fully committed already through the approvals of 21 new signal installations. Therefore, unless additional funding is identified in 1998, new signal approvals for the balance of 1998 will be placed on a priority list for 1999 and await approval of the appropriate budget item in the 1999 Capital Budget. The estimated cost of the installation of traffic control signals on Royal York Road and Newcastle Street is $67,000.00 including the removal of the existing PXO.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)traffic control signals be approved at the intersection of Royal York Road and Newcastle Street, subject to the availability of funds;

(2)coincident with the traffic control signal installation, the existing pedestrian crossover on Royal York Road at the north side of Newcastle Street be removed; and

(3)the appropriate by-law(s) be amended accordingly.

Background:

At the request of an area resident, the Department investigated the feasibility of replacing the existing pedestrian crossover with traffic control signals because of concerns that some motorists do not react appropriately to pedestrians at the PXO.

Discussion:

Royal York Road in the vicinity of Newcastle Street is a two-lane arterial roadway. The posted speed limit is 50 kilometres per hour. A PXO is presently located on Royal York Road at the north side of Newcastle Street. The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) has a northbound near-side and a southbound far-side bus stop at Newcastle Street. The area is a mix of commercial and residential frontage. A senior citizen apartment building is located at 340 Royal York Road, on the southwest corner of the intersection. Newcastle Street, east of Royal York Road, is a connection to the Mimico GO Station. Traffic control signals are located 405 metres north of this site at EvansAvenue and a PXO is located 371 metres to the south at Stanley Avenue.

To determine the level of activity at Royal York Road and Newcastle Street, the Department conducted a traffic signal warrant study. The results of the study revealed that during an eight-hour count on a typical weekday a total of 334 pedestrians were recorded crossing Royal York Road in the vicinity of Newcastle Street. The results of the traffic signal warrants study are tabled below:

Minimum Vehicular Volume Warrant 45 percent

Delay to Cross traffic Warrant100 percent

Collision Hazard Warrant 20 percent

Either Warrant 1 or Warrant 2 should be 100 percent satisfied or any two of the three warrants should be 80 percent satisfied to meet the minimum technical requirements for the installation of traffic control signals. Based on the above-noted results, the minimum technical warrants for the installation of traffic control signals are satisfied.

Transportation Services staff reviewed the collision records provided by the Toronto Police Service for the five-year period ending March 31, 1998. During this period three collisions have occurred which are of the type susceptible to correction by the installation of traffic control signals. One collision involved two pedestrians. In this collision the pedestrians sustained no injuries and the driver of the vehicle was charged.

Both Councillors agree with the recommendations of this report.

Conclusion:

Traffic control signals are warranted at the intersection of Royal York Road and Newcastle Street and should be installed coincident with the removal of the existing PXO.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Mr. Bruce Zvaniga, Manager, North and West Traffic Regions, 392-8826.

(A copy of the location plan, which was appended to the foregoing report, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the September 8, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

12

Proposed Installation of Traffic Control Signals:

Overlea Boulevard and the East York Town Centre.

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (August 6, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services:

Purpose:

To obtain approval for the installation of traffic control signals at the intersection of OverleaBoulevard and the easterly entrance to the East York Town Centre at 45 Overlea Boulevard.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with new traffic signal installations are contained in the Works and Emergency Services Capital Program under Project No C-TR031. In 1998, $1.6 million has been allocated for new traffic control signal installations. These funds have been fully committed already through the approvals of 21 new signal installations. Therefore, unless additional funding is identified in 1998, new signal approvals for the balance of 1998 will be placed on a priority list for 1999 and await approval of the appropriate budget item in the 1999 Capital Budget. The estimated cost of the installation of traffic control signals at this location is $127,300.00.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that traffic control signals be approved on Overlea Boulevard and the easterly entrance to the East York Town Centre, subject to the availability of funds.

Background:

This location was investigated in response to several requests from members of the public for pedestrian crossing protection in the vicinity of the East York Town Centre at 45 Overlea Boulevard.

Discussion:

Overlea Boulevard is a four-lane arterial roadway with a posted speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour. A "T" intersection is formed with the easterly driveway to the East York Town Centre on the south side of Overlea Boulevard. At the easterly entrance to the East York Town Centre there is a westbound left-turn lane, a westbound far-side bus stop and an eastbound far-side bus stop. Adjacent traffic control signals are located approximately 380 metres to the west at the Thorncliffe Park Drive west intersection and 180 metres to the east at the Thorncliffe Park Drive east intersection.

An eight hour traffic control signal warrant study was conducted and revealed that traffic control signals are technically warranted. The results are listed below:

For the traffic control signal warrants to be satisfied, one of the "Minimum Vehicular Volume" or "Delay to Cross Traffic" warrants must be 100 per cent. satisfied or any two of the three warrants must be at least 80 per cent. satisfied. The "Collision Hazard" warrant is based on the number of collisions that occurred at the intersection in a three-year period which were potentially preventable by the installation of traffic control signals. Collision statistics provided by the Toronto Police Service indicate that three collisions occurred over a three-year period from January 1, 1994 to December31, 1996, which were potentially preventable by the installation of traffic control signals. One of these collisions involved a pedestrian. Based on the above information, the technical warrants for the installation of traffic control signals are met.

As part of the installation of traffic control signals, adjustments to curbs and gutters of the existing centre median island are required to accommodate north-south pedestrian crossings and eliminate the need for pedestrians to walk over the median. In addition, in order to encourage pedestrians to cross at the traffic control signals, it is proposed to remove the existing asphalt walkway within the median as well as the concrete step and sidewalk within the south side boulevard area located approximately 30 metres west of the intersection. These civil improvements are estimated to cost approximately $59,000.00 and these expenses are included within the overall cost of installing these signals, estimated at $127,300.00.

Network performance analysis has confirmed that the installation of traffic control signals would not have a significant impact on the effectiveness of this arterial road within the network of arterial roads. Furthermore, the traffic control signals would provide benefits to all road users in the immediate area.

Staff have contacted the Ward Councillors and both have voiced their support for the proposed installation of traffic control signals.

Conclusions:

The installation of traffic control signals on Overlea Boulevard at the easterly entrance to the EastYork Town Centre are technically warranted and would provide benefits to all road users in the immediate area. In 1998, $1.6 million has been allocated for new traffic control signal installation. Twenty-one traffic control signals have been approved so far in 1998, which fully commits all these funds. Therefore, unless additional funding is identified in 1998, the installation of newly approved traffic control signals will have to await approval of the appropriate budget item in the 1999 Capital Budget.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Mr. Martin D. Maguire, Acting Manager, East Traffic Region, 392-5243.

(A copy of the location plan, which was appended to the foregoing report, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the September 8, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

13

Proposed Installation of Traffic Control Signals:

Lawrence Avenue East and

Charlottetown Boulevard/Bridgeport Drive.

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (July 30, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services:

Purpose:

To obtain approval for the installation of traffic control signals at the intersection of LawrenceAvenue East and Charlottetown Boulevard/Bridgeport Drive.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with new traffic signal installations are contained in the Works and Emergency Services' Capital Program under Project No C-TR031. In 1998, $1.6 million has been allocated for new traffic control signal installations. These funds have been fully committed already through the approvals of 21 new signal installations. Therefore, unless additional funding is identified in 1998, new signal approvals for the balance of 1998 will be placed on a priority list for 1999 and await approval of the appropriate budget item in the 1999 Capital Budget. The estimated cost of the installation of traffic control signals at this location is $76,300.00.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that traffic control signals be approved on Lawrence Avenue East at Charlottetown Boulevard/Bridgeport Drive, subject to the availability of funds.

Background:

This location was investigated in response to several requests from members of the public for pedestrian crossing protection in the vicinity of Sir Oliver Mowat Collegiate Institute at 5400Lawrence Avenue East.

Discussion:

Lawrence Avenue East in this vicinity is a four-lane arterial roadway with a posted speed limit of 60kilometres per hour. Charlottetown Boulevard and Bridgeport Drive are both local roads that intersect with Lawrence Avenue East to form a full intersection with four approaches. Charlottetown Boulevard is on the north side of Lawrence Avenue East and Bridgeport Drive is directly opposite on the south side. At Charlottetown Boulevard/Bridgeport Drive, there is an eastbound left-turn lane and near-side bus bay, and a westbound left-turn lane and far-side bus stop. Sir Oliver Mowat Collegiate Institute is located immediately west of Charlottetown Boulevard at 5400 Lawrence Avenue East. The Port Union Community Centre at 5450 Lawrence Avenue East is located immediately east of Charlottetown Boulevard. Adjacent traffic control signals are located approximately 465 metres to the west at Centennial Road and 330 metres to the east at Port Union Road.

An eight hour traffic control signal warrant study was conducted and revealed that traffic control signals are technically warranted. The results are listed below:

For the traffic control signal warrants to be satisfied, one of the "Minimum Vehicular Volume" or "Delay to Cross Traffic" warrants must be 100 percent satisfied or any two of the three warrants must be at least 80 percent satisfied. The "Collision Hazard" warrant is based on the number of collisions that occurred at the intersection in a three-year period which were potentially preventable by the installation of traffic control signals. Collision statistics provided by the Toronto Police Service indicate that two collisions occurred over a three-year period from January 1, 1994, to December 31, 1996, which were potentially preventable by the installation of traffic control signals. Neither collision involved pedestrians. Based on the above information, the technical warrants for the installation of traffic control signals are met.

As part of the installation of traffic control signals, the construction of concrete median islands, on both the eastbound and westbound approaches to the intersection, is proposed. These median islands are required to accommodate traffic signal plant and will also serve as a pedestrian refuge area.

Because of the distance to adjacent control devices, the installation of traffic control signals would not have a significant impact on the effectiveness of this arterial road within the network of arterial roads. Furthermore, the traffic control signals would provide benefits to all road users in the immediate area.

Both Councillors within the affected Ward have voiced their support for the proposed installation of traffic control signals at this location.

Conclusions:

The installation of traffic control signals on Lawrence Avenue East and Charlottetown Boulevard/Bridgeport Drive are technically warranted and would provide benefits to all road users in the immediate area. In 1998, $1.6 million has been allocated for new traffic control signal installation. Twenty-one traffic control signals have been approved so far in 1998, which fully commits all these funds. Therefore, unless additional funding is identified in 1998, the installation of newly approved traffic control signals will have to await approval of the appropriate budget item in the 1999 Capital Budget.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Mr. Martin D. Maguire, Acting Manager, East Traffic Region, 392-5243.

(A copy of the location plan, which was appended to the foregoing report, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the September 8, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

14

Proposed Installation of Traffic Control Signals:

Ellesmere Road and Dolly Varden Boulevard.

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (July 28, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services:

Purpose:

To obtain approval for the installation of traffic control signals at the intersection of Ellesmere Road and Dolly Varden Boulevard.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with new traffic signal installations are contained in the Transportation Department's Proposed Capital Program under Project No. C-TR031. In 1998, $1.6 million has been allotted for new traffic control signal installations. These funds have been fully committed already through the approvals of 21 new signal installations. Therefore, unless additional funding is identified in 1998, new signal approvals for the balance of 1998 will be placed on a priority list for 1999 and await approval of the appropriate budget item in the 1999 Capital Budget. The estimated cost of the installation of traffic control signals at Ellesmere Road and Dolly Varden Boulevard is $65,000.00.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)traffic control signals be approved on Ellesmere Road at Dolly Varden Boulevard, subject to the availability of funds;

(2)coincident with the traffic control signal installation, southbound left turns be prohibited at all times from the westerly driveway at 2040/2050 Ellesmere Road; and

(3)the appropriate by-law(s) be amended accordingly.

Background:

This location was investigated in response to a request from a member of the public for pedestrian crossing protection on Ellesmere Road at Dolly Varden Boulevard.

Discussion:

Ellesmere Road in this vicinity is a major five-lane arterial roadway with a posted speed limit of 60kilometres per hour and a two-way, 24-hour traffic volume of approximately 27,500 vehicles. Dolly Varden Boulevard, a local road, forms a "T" intersection on the south side of Ellesmere Road. At Dolly Varden Boulevard there is a westbound left-turn lane, a westbound far-side bus bay, and an eastbound near-side bus bay. The Centennial Community Centre, Centennial Arena and Confederation Park are located south of Ellesmere Road immediately west of Dolly Varden Boulevard.

A pedestrian crossover (PXO) warrant study revealed that 200 pedestrians crossed Ellesmere Road at this location in an eight-hour study period. Of these 200 pedestrians, 130 were delayed more than ten seconds before they could complete their crossing. Based on this information, both pedestrian volume and pedestrian delay warrants are 100 percent satisfied.

We have evaluated the operational characteristics of a proposed PXO according to the guidelines that were developed for the "Audit of Operational and Physical Suitability at Pedestrian Crossovers in Metropolitan Toronto". The results are as follows:

This location does not meet five of the criteria listed above, specifically the operating speed, number of lanes, presence of driveways, high volume of turning vehicles and loading zone locations. In addition, a review was conducted of the Toronto Police Service collision records for the five-year period ending December 31, 1996. During this period, there were no collisions involving pedestrians.

Given the foregoing prevailing conditions, a pedestrian crossover cannot be expected to perform in a satisfactory fashion at this location. Accordingly, traffic control signals would provide the best form of crossing control and are recommended for this location.

2040/2050 Ellesmere Road is an industrial complex located on the north side of Ellesmere Road directly opposite Dolly Varden Boulevard. Three driveways service the complex. The driveways are located 96 metres east, 38 metres east and 12 metres west of Dolly Varden Boulevard. It is not practical to control the closest driveway with the proposed traffic control signals because this would result in a fully signalized offset intersection with numerous vehicle conflicts and hazards. Therefore, installing traffic control signals at the "T" intersection of Ellesmere Road and Dolly Varden Boulevard is the best alternative.

If traffic control signals were installed at Dolly Varden Boulevard, the southbound left-turn movements from the closest driveway, 12 metres to the west, would cause numerous vehicle conflicts resulting in hazards to the public. Therefore, in order to provide optimal safety at the proposed traffic control signals, southbound left turns from the westerly driveway should be prohibited at all times. Although the owner of the industrial complex has expressed concern about the loss of the existing movement at the westerly driveway, he has indicated that he will not oppose the installation of traffic control signals if the Department agrees to rescind the prohibition in the event his driveway is reconstructed to align with Dolly Varden Boulevard in the future. The Department agrees that this condition is reasonable.

Both Ward Councillors' offices have reserved judgement with respect to this proposed installation of traffic control signals.

Conclusions:

The installation of a PXO is warranted on Ellesmere Road at Dolly Varden Boulevard. However, because this location fails to meet the "environmental standards" for the installation of a PXO, traffic control signals will potentially provide for a safer crossing environment and should be installed at this location.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Mr. Martin D. Maguire, Acting Manager, East Traffic Region, 392-5243.

(A copy of the location plan, which was appended to the foregoing report, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the September 8, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

15

Traffic Regulations at the Intersection of

Kingston Road, Eastern Avenue and Queen Street East.

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (August 17, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services:

Purpose:

To introduce the traffic regulations required to operate the reconstructed signalized intersection of Kingston Road, the Eastern Avenue extension, and Queen Street East in a safe and efficient manner.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with the installation of appropriate signs are contained in the Works and Emergency Services Department's 1998 Capital Budget. The estimated cost of installing the appropriate signs and related elements is $2,000.00.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the current traffic regulations identified in Appendix 1 of this report be rescinded;

(2)the traffic regulations identified in Appendix 2 of this report be enacted; and

(3)the appropriate by-law(s) be amended accordingly.

Background:

Numerous road improvements are associated with the redevelopment of the Greenwood Racetrack site, in the area bounded by Lake Shore Boulevard East, Woodbine Avenue, Queen Street East, Eastern Avenue and Coxwell Avenue. In order to improve traffic flow at the northwest corner of the site, an extension of Eastern Avenue was previously approved, to connect directly to KingstonRoad at the south side of Queen Street East and eliminate the current jogged configuration. Therefore the Kingston Road at Queen Street East intersection has been converted from a "T"intersection to a "cross" configuration.

Discussion:

Because of the realignment of Eastern Avenue and a redesign of the intersection, new or revised traffic regulations are required, most of a housekeeping nature. These measures were always contemplated throughout the original studies and analyses undertaken for this project. Each regulation is discussed briefly below:

(a)Northbound No Left Turn: Eastern Avenue to Queen Street East:

Because of the skewed alignment of Kingston Road, the sight lines for northbound and southbound motorists to observe each other approaching the intersection are poor. Therefore the northbound left-turn manoeuvre would be hazardous, and should be prohibited at all times. There is a convenient alternate route for this northbound left-turn movement via the Coxwell Avenue and Queen Street East intersection.

The southbound left-turn manoeuvre is presently prohibited at all times. This regulation should be retained because the median lane of southbound Kingston Road will be reserved for streetcars only, and, as mentioned earlier, Kingston Road intersects Queen Street East at a skewed angle.

(b)Rescind Westbound No Left Turn: Eastern Avenue to Greenwood Raceway:

The previous left-turn prohibition from the soon-to-be-abandoned section of Eastern Avenue to the Greenwood Raceway is redundant and should be rescinded.

(c)Rescind Pedestrian Crossing Prohibition: West Leg of Queen Street East at Kingston Road:

One operational characteristic which is changed with the conversion from a "T" intersection to a "cross" is the need for two lanes of southbound Kingston Road traffic to turn right onto Queen Street East at the same time. In future there will be a conventional curb lane southbound right turn for general traffic.

For pedestrian safety, pedestrian crossing activity was prohibited on the west leg of the intersection across the dual right turn. However, a normal pedestrian crosswalk is the preferred design once the conventional southbound right turn is instituted. Furthermore, westbound Toronto Transit Commission stops will be relocated to the west leg of the intersection in 1998, and eastbound stops will be relocated there in 1999, resulting in a significant demand for a crosswalk at this location.

(d)Reserved Lane for Southbound Streetcars: Kingston Road at Queen Street East:

In order to operate the southbound approach of this intersection safely and efficiently, southbound streetcars (which have to turn right) should have their own exclusive lane, and two lanes of general traffic are required between the curb and the streetcar tracks. The north leg of Kingston Road has been widened to accommodate a 45-metre reserved median streetcar lane. The legal designation of this exclusive streetcar lane will help the general public understand the safe operation of the southbound approach, and will provide optimal efficiency for streetcar operations.

(e)Rescind a Redundant Parking Regulation: Kingston Road north of Queen Street East:

At present there is a by-law which allows for parking to be prohibited on both sides of Kingston Road, from Queen Street East to Lark Street, between 12:00 noon and 6:00 p.m., on Greenwood Racetrack race days. This by-law is obviously redundant now.

(f)Parking and Stopping Regulations:

Eastern Avenue between Coxwell Avenue and QueenStreet East:

At the present time parking is prohibited at all times on both sides of Eastern Avenue in this area, and stopping of vehicles is prohibited during weekdays from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. on the north side of the street, and from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. on the south side.

Because of the curvature of the newly constructed four-lane Eastern Avenue extension; the left-turn movements which will be generated by the new accesses to the parking facilities on both sides of Eastern Avenue; the abundance of off-street parking provided on the south side of the road for the teletheatre; and the pedestrian crossing desire line between the off-street parking and the teletheatre, it is prudent for public safety to institute a no stopping any time regulation on both sides of Eastern Avenue, between Coxwell Avenue and Queen Street East, to be in effect at all times.

(g)Parking, Standing and Stopping Regulations:

Queen Street East between Kingston Road and the Remnant Portion of Eastern Avenue:

At the present time the following parking regulations are in effect on this short section of Queen Street East:

North Side:- no parking any time

- no stopping weekdays - 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.

- 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.

South Side:- no standing any time

- no stopping weekdays - 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.

- 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.

With the opening of the Eastern Avenue extension, traffic volumes on this section of QueenStreet East will decrease significantly. Therefore the stopping prohibition can be amended to be contiguous with adjacent sections of Queen Street East, namely prohibiting weekday stopping on the north side between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m., and on the south side between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. only. It is anticipated that, in 1999, streetcar platforms will be constructed on this section of Queen Street East, for both eastbound and westbound routes, plus a widening on the south side of Queen Street East to accommodate a streetcar by-pass lane. A no stopping any time regulation would be appropriate on the north side of the street once the platforms are in place, the exact limits of which can be determined as part of the design process.

The no standing any time regulation on the south side of Queen Street East should be retained in order to accommodate special taxi pick up arrangements at the teletheatre. As a condition of development, the teletheatre is required to provide an off-street taxi cab stand in the parking lot at the southwest corner of the building. There is a direct telephone link required between the teletheatre and the taxi cab stand so that customers can call for a taxi, and be picked up at the front entrance of the building on the south side of Queen Street East.

Because of the realignment of Eastern Avenue, housekeeping by-law amendments are required to address all parking regulations on the subject section of Queen Street East. The proposed amendments have been discussed with staff of the TTC, who generally concur with the planned modifications.

Both Ward Councillors have been advised of these recommendations.

Conclusions:

The proposed changes to traffic regulations at the Kingston Road at Queen Street East at EasternAvenue intersection are recommended in order to operate the reconstructed intersection in a safe and efficient manner.

Contact Names and Telephone Numbers:

Mr. Peter Hillier, Senior Manager, Traffic Regions, 392-5348.

Mr. Tim Laspa, Transportation Planner, 392-7711.

--------

Appendix 1

Regulations to be Rescinded

Schedule VI of Metropolitan Uniform Traffic By-law

Prohibited Pedestrian Crossings

--------

Schedule VIII of Metropolitan Uniform Traffic By-law

No Parking

--------

Schedule IX of Metropolitan Uniform Traffic By-law

No Stopping

--------

Schedule XI of Metropolitan Uniform Traffic By-law

No Standing

--------

Schedule XV of Metropolitan Uniform Traffic By-law

Prohibited Turns

--------

Appendix 2

Regulations to be Enacted

Schedule VIII of Metropolitan Uniform Traffic By-law

No Parking

--------

Schedule IX of Metropolitan Uniform Traffic By-law

No Stopping

--------

Schedule XI of Metropolitan Uniform Traffic By-law

No Standing

--------

Schedule XV of Metropolitan Uniform Traffic By-law

Prohibited Turns

Schedule 1 of Metropolitan By-law No. 132-93

Reserved Lanes for Designated Classes of Vehicles

(A copy of the location plan, which was appended to the foregoing report, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the September 8, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

16

Proposed Amendment to Parking Regulations:

Weston Road, Both Sides, Between

Damask Avenue and Bradstock Road.

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (August 14, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services:

Purpose:

To amend the parking regulations on both sides of Weston Road between Damask Avenue and Bradstock Road.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated for this work are contained in the Works and Emergency Services' 1998 Current Budget. The estimated cost to install the required signs is $2,500.00.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the parking regulations listed in Appendix 1 of this report be rescinded;

(2)the parking regulations listed in Appendix 2 of this report be enacted; and

(3)the appropriate by-law(s) be amended accordingly.

Background:

At the request of the Toronto Police Service's Parking Enforcement Unit, the Department reviewed the feasibility of changing the parking regulations on both sides of Weston Road in the vicinity of St.Jude School at 3251 Weston Road. The concern is that pedestrian safety is being compromisedby motorists stopping to pick up and drop off students on both sides of Weston Road near St. Jude School.

Discussion:

Weston Road between Damask Avenue and Bradstock Road is a four-lane arterial road with a two-way, 24 hour volume of approximately 26,200. This section of Weston Road is approximately 300 metres in length. The land use on the east side of Weston Road consists of single-family residential units immediately south of Damask Avenue followed by St. Jude Roman Catholic Church, St. Jude School and Woodview Park Plaza on the northeast corner at Bradstock Avenue. Land use on the west side of Weston Road consists of two low-rise residential buildings between DamaskAvenue and Coronado Court and single-family residential units between Coronado Court and Bradstock Road. A pedestrian crossover (PXO) is located approximately 70 metres south of DamaskAvenue immediately in front of St. Jude Roman Catholic Church.

During a five-year period ending December 31, 1996, four pedestrian collisions occurred on this section of Weston Road. Two occurred at uncontrolled locations late at night, while two others occurred at the PXO during the day. In one incident an eight-year-old girl was hit at 3:45 p.m. just after school, and in the other a senior citizen was struck just before the end of the school day.

Currently, on the east side of Weston Road, stopping is prohibited between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, in the immediate vicinity of St. Jude School. However, to avoid this regulation, vehicles are stopping as far north as Damask Avenue. In order to provide optimal pedestrian safety, the Toronto Police Service has requested that the stopping prohibition be extended north along Weston Road to Damask Avenue.

On the west side of Weston Road opposite St. Jude School, stopping is prohibited between 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday. However, the school day ends shortly after 3:00 p.m. and many vehicles are stopping between 3:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. Stopping on the west side requires students to cross a busy arterial road. Similarly, in order to improve pedestrian safety, the Toronto Police Service has requested that the afternoon stopping prohibition begin at 3:00p.m. instead of 4:00 p.m.

Alternative stopping locations on the east side of Weston Road, which do not require students to cross Weston Road, are as follows:

(1)Damask Avenue itself, approximately 120 metres north of the school;

(2)St. Jude Church parking lot, approximately 20 metres north of the school; and

(3)Woodview Park Plaza parking lot, immediately south of the school.

The proposed amendments to the parking regulations will have no impact on vehicular traffic operations on Weston Road.

Staff have contacted the Ward Councillors. Both Councillors Mammoliti and Sgro have reserved judgement regarding the proposed amendments.

Conclusions:

The proposed amendments to the parking regulations, as detailed in Appendices 1 and 2, will provideoptimal safety for pedestrians and will have no impact on vehicular traffic operations on Weston Road.

Contact Name:

Mr. Martin D. Maguire, Acting Manager, East Traffic Region, 392-5243.

--------

Appendix 1

Parking Regulations to be Rescinded

By-Law No. 32-92

Schedule IX - No Stopping

--------

Appendix 2

Parking Regulations to be Enacted

By-Law No. 32-92

Schedule IX - No Stopping

(A copy of the location plan, which was appended to the foregoing report, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the September 8, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

17

Proposed Amendment to Parking Regulations:

Kingston Road, South Side, Between

Valhalla Boulevard and Kildonan Road.

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (July 29, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services:

Purpose:

To amend the parking regulations on the south side of Kingston Road between Valhalla Boulevard and Kildonan Drive.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated for this work are contained in the Works and Emergency Services 1998 Current Budget. The estimated cost to install the required signs is $1,500.00.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the parking regulations listed in Appendix 1 of this report be rescinded;

(2)the parking regulations listed in Appendix 2 of this report be enacted; and

(3)the appropriate by-law(s) be amended accordingly.

Background:

At the request of Councillor Gerry Altobello, the Department reviewed the feasibility of modifying the parking regulations on one block of the south side of Kingston Road, between ValhallaBoulevard and Kildonan Road. A petition was sent to Councillor Gerry Altobello's office from the owners of properties located between 1541 and 1553 Kingston Road requesting the rescission of the one hour parking regulation between 6:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m.

Discussion:

Kingston Road between Valhalla Boulevard and Kildonan Drive is a four-lane arterial road with a two-way, 24-hour volume of approximately 28,000. Currently, on the south side of Kingston Road, stopping is prohibited between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, and parking is restricted to one hour at all other times. The one-hour restriction on the south side of Kingston Road encompasses approximately 12 blocks, from Birchmount Road to 61 metres east of WoodGlenRoad, west of Warden Avenue. Past attempts by business owners to amend the parking regulations within this area were not successful because, unlike the amendments proposed in this report for the one block of Kingston Road, there was no consensus among the property owners.

Generally, one-hour parking regulations are implemented to generate frequent parking turnover in front of commercial properties for the convenience of store patrons. The properties located on this section of Kingston Road are predominantly retail stores and, according to the property owners, they do not require frequent parking turnover during the evening and overnight periods. A petition signed by the property owners indicates that they would prefer to have the convenience of extended on-street parking between 6:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. every day of the week. A review of traffic volumes on this section of Kingston Road indicate that three-hour parking could be permitted on the south side between 6:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. with no impact on eastbound traffic.

Given that the stopping prohibition from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays is being retained, the one-hour parking should be in effect from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. every day of the week. Consequently, three-hour parking will be in effect during the evening and overnight periods.

As instructed by the Urban Environment and Development Committee, staff have contacted the Ward Councillors. Councillor Ashton has voiced support for the proposed amendments to the parking regulations while Councillor Altobello's office has reserved judgement.

Conclusions:

The introduction of a three-hour parking limit between Valhalla Boulevard and Kildonan Drive from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. will improve on-street parking conditions for the property owners and will have no impact on Kingston Road traffic.

Contact Name:

Mr. Martin D. Maguire , Acting Manager, East Traffic Region, 392-5243.

--------

Appendix 1

Parking Regulations to be Rescinded

By-Law No. 32-92

Schedule X

Parking for Restricted Periods

--------

Appendix 2

Parking Regulations to be Enacted

By-Law No. 32-92

Schedule X

Parking for Restricted Periods

(A copy of the location plan, which was appended to the foregoing report, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the September 8, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

18

Amendments to Parking Regulations on Keele Street,

Between Bloor Street West and Dundas Street West.

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends:

(1)the adoption of the following report (August 10, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services, for a three-month trial period; and

(2)that the General Manager, Transportation Services, and the Chief General Manager, Toronto Transit Commission, be requested to monitor the traffic situation on this portion of Keele Street during the trial period, and report thereon to the Urban Environment and Development Committee in January, 1999:

Purpose:

To amend parking regulations on Keele Street, between Bloor Street West and Dundas Street West.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with the implementation of the proposed parking regulations are contained in the Transportation Services Division's 1998 Current Budget. The estimated cost of installing appropriate signs is $600.00.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the current parking regulations identified in Appendix 1 of this report be rescinded;

(2)the parking regulations identified in Appendix 2 of this report be enacted; and

(3)the appropriate by-law(s) be amended accordingly.

Background:

In response to concerns of the Keele Street/Parkside Drive Traffic Safety Committee, the Department reviewed available options to meet the community's goals of bringing more of a "community feel" to this section of roadway.

Discussion:

Keele Street, between Bloor Street West and Dundas Street West, is generally a four-lane roadway. The speed limit on this section of roadway is 50 kilometres per hour, except for the trial school speed zone near the Keele Street Public School (near Keele Street and Glenlake Avenue) where the speed limit is 40kilometres per hour when the school is in session. The daily, two-way traffic volume on this section of roadway, which is approximately 1.3 kilometres long, varies between 25,000 and 30,000vehicles.

The following table summarizes typical weekday average traffic volumes (vehicles per hour) for traffic on Keele Street:

The following represents the general parking regulations on this section of Keele Street:

West side:

-No stopping 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., Monday to Friday, between Bloor Street West and AnnetteStreet; and

-no parking at other times.

East side:

-No parking 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., Monday to Friday (except from Annette Street to DundasStreet West where parking is prohibited at all times except on Sundays);

-no stopping 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday; and

-parking for a maximum period of three hours at other times.

Based on the prevailing traffic flows on this section of Keele Street it is feasible to implement the following modifications to the parking regulations:

-allow parking on the west side, except during weekday peak periods, between Glenlake Avenue and Annette Street;

-allow parking on the west side, except during the period from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, between Bloor Street West and Glenlake Avenue;

-for consistency purposes, prohibit stopping on the west side from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., Monday to Friday, between Annette Street and Dundas Street West; and

-allow parking on the east side of Keele Street, between Bloor Street West and AnnetteStreet, during the weekday morning peak period.

Allowing parking on Keele Street during off-peak periods could provide more of a "community feeling" to this section of roadway. A satisfactory level of service can be maintained for vehicular traffic on Keele Street. Also, additional parking would be provided for residents and businesses along this section of Keele Street.

Councillors David Miller, Chris Korwin-Kuczynski, Dennis Fotinos and Betty Disero have been consulted and have voiced no concerns with this proposal. Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) staff have suggested that this proposal may introduce delays to their bus service. However, the benefits for the community associated with this proposal could outweigh the potential increases in delay to the bus service along Keele Street. Transportation Services and TTC staff will work together to monitor the impacts of this change, and report further modifications if necessary.

Conclusions:

Allowing parking on Keele Street during off-peak periods could provide more of a "community.feeling" to this section of roadway, while maintaining a satisfactory level of service for traffic. Also, additional parking would be provided for residents and businesses along this section of Keele Street.

Contact Name:

Ms. Jacqueline White, Acting Manager, Central Traffic Region, 397-5021.

--------

Appendix 1

Parking Regulations to be Rescinded

Schedule VIII

No Parking

--------

Appendix 2

Parking Regulations to be Enacted

Schedule VIII

No Parking

Schedule IX

No Stopping

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following communication (September 2, 1998) from the Chief General Manager, Toronto Transit Commission:

The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) objects to the proposed amendments to parking regulations on Keele Street, as outlined in the attached original letter from the TTC to Transportation Services, because it would result in delays and a reduction in the quality of service on two of the TTC's major high-frequency routes, 41 Keele and 89 Weston. If the parking regulation amendments are allowed to proceed, TTC buses would have to make two lane changes at every stop to weave in and out of the curb lane, and would experience delays from vehicles waiting to make a left turn from the single lane which would be available for moving traffic.

We do not believe that permitting parking on a road is how one brings a "community feel" to an area, nor is it sufficient justification to reduce levels of service on a major arterial road in Toronto.

I am requesting that a TTC staff member be allowed to speak to this issue when it is dealt with at Committee.

(Communication dated August 5, 1998, addressed to

Ms. Jacqueline White, Acting Manager, Central Traffic Region,

City of Toronto Transportation Department from

Mr. Mitch Stambler, Manager, Service Planning, Toronto Transit Commission.)

We have reviewed the proposed measures outlined in your June 8, 1998 letter to Mr. Jim Chisholm to reduce vehicle operating speeds and to bring more of a "community feel" to Keele Street/Parkside Drive between Annette Street and The Queensway. We are very concerned that Toronto Transportation Department would propose the implementation of measures that could severely degrade the level of service on a major arterial road and major transit corridor.

The TTC operates two high-frequency routes, 41 KEELE and 89 WESTON, on the affected segment of Keele Street and one low-frequency route, 80 QUEENSWAY, on Parkside Drive. The service frequencies and passenger volumes on the affected segments are displayed in the following table.

Affected TTC Buses (Riders)

Following are the TTC's comments on each proposed measure that would impact TTC operations.

Allow Parking on the West Side of Keele Street During the Off-peak Period:

The TTC is strongly opposed to this proposal as it would reduce the quality of service to the 41 KEELE and 89 WESTON bus routes. Permitting parking to reduce vehicle speeds and bring more of a "community feel" is not sufficient justification to reduce levels of service on an arterial roadway which is also a major transit corridor, especially given that there is no evidence that the current parking availability is inadequate. If parking is permitted, our buses would have to make two lane changes at every transit stop. As all vehicular traffic would be restricted to the median lane, the lane change out of the curb lane would be particularly difficult. Longer queues at signalized intersections would also increase the frequency of buses being delayed an extra cycle because of increased delays in reaching nearside transit stops. Given the absence of left-turn lanes and the numerous T-intersections and private driveways, vehicles waiting to turn left would completely block southbound traffic, causing further delays. Reduced frequency of gaps in southbound traffic would also increase delays to northbound traffic as through vehicles could not pass due to parking in the curb lane.

Allow Parking on the East Side of Keele Street During the Weekday Morning Period:

The TTC is strongly opposed to this proposal for the same reasons outlined above. In addition to increased delays and poorer customer service, an additional bus could be needed to offset the capacity reductions from allowing this parking because of the frequent transit service.

Allow Parking on the West Side of Parkside Drive During the Off-peak Period:

The TTC has no objections to this proposal subject to implementation of the following measure to reduce the negative impact to the 80 QUEENSWAY bus route: parking should be prohibited at all times within 100 metres of all signalized intersections and at T-intersections and driveways to allow through vehicles to pass vehicles stopped to turn left.

Install a Painted Median on Keele Street, between Annette Street and the TTC Overpass,

North of Bloor Street West:

The TTC is opposed to this measure as the reduction of the curb lane widths would require buses to merge into the centre lane to overtake cyclists. This merge could increase delays to our buses.

Our assessment suggests that TTC customers would be subjected to longer and more variable travel times and the TTC could incur greater costs should the above proposals be implemented. We would request that you undertake further work to quantify the delay and cost impacts to traffic and transit operations.

Should you choose to move forward with these proposals, we would appreciate it if you would notify us well in advance of your report going to the Urban Environment Development Committee and/or Council, so that we could object to the proposals there.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these proposals.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following communication (September 8, 1998) from Councillor David Miller, High Park:

I am writing to request that Members of Committee strongly support the recommendations of the Transportation Department.

This section of Keele Street is a very significant area of traffic safety and speeding concern. In fact, it is so serious that the Transportation Department will be recommending it to be one of the first areas to become a Community Traffic Safety Zone under the new Provincial legislation. Three people have been killed in the area, there has been consistent enforcement by Police--thousands of tickets have been handed out. Nothing works. A junior school, Keele Street Public/Mountview Alternative and Community Centre, is located in the area and several other schools and day care centres are in the vicinity. One of the people killed crossing this street was a teenaged Humberside Collegiate student who was killed by a bus last year.

The parking changes will help to increase safety by promoting a "community feel" to this street which will help to slow drivers down. At the moment Keele Street is like a raceway visually. Additional parked cars on the streets should help to counteract this visual appearance.

I understand that TTC staff might be making some objections to this proposal. Please be advised that their comments have not been approved by the Commission. Furthermore, their letter indicates no understanding whatsoever of the traffic conditions on Keele Street and the importance of stopping any further deaths. I regret that I am unable to be at the Committee today and hope that you are able to support this most important traffic safety initiative.

--------

The following persons made oral presentations to the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Mr. Mitch Stambler, Manager, Service Planning, Toronto Transit Commission; and

-Mr.DaveKaufman, General Manager, Transportation Services Division, Works and Emergency Services Department.

Councillor Chris Korwin Kuczynski, High Park, appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(A copy of the location plan, which was appended to the foregoing report dated August 10, 1998, from the General Manager, Transportation Services, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the September 8, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

19

Amendments to Parking Regulations

on the North Side of Eglinton Avenue East,

in the Vicinity of No. 368.

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (July 31, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services:

Purpose:

To amend the parking regulations on the north side of Eglinton Avenue East, between RawlinsonAvenue and Cardiff Road, specifically in front of 368 Eglinton Avenue East.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with the implementation of the proposed parking regulations are contained in the Works and Emergency Services Department's 1998 Current Budget. The estimated cost of installing appropriate signs is $300.00.00.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)parking be prohibited at all times on the north side of Eglinton Avenue East, from 62 metres east of Rawlinson Avenue to 11 metres further east thereof; and

(2)the appropriate by-law(s) be amended accordingly.

Background:

At the request of a member of the public, the Department investigated sightline problems on the north side of Eglinton Avenue East, between Rawlinson Avenue and Cardiff Road, specifically in the vicinity of 368 Eglinton Avenue East.

Discussion:

Eglinton Avenue East, between Rawlinson Avenue and Cardiff Road, is a five-lane roadway (twowestbound lanes) with an estimated two-way, daily traffic volume of 33,000 vehicles. The current parking regulations on the north side of this section of Eglinton Avenue East are "NoStopping", between 7:00 a.m., and 9:00 a.m., and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday. At all other times parking is controlled by the standard three-hour restriction.

368 Eglinton Avenue East is a 13-floor, 150-unit apartment building. This property has four accesses on Eglinton Avenue East. From west to east, the driveways operate as follows: a two-way, two-lane driveway for the surface parking lot for visitors; a two-way, two-lane driveway for the underground parking garage for tenants; and two driveways which serve as a one-way, counter-clockwise circular access, which serves the main entrance. A westbound Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) bus stop is located between the two driveways of the main entrance. An 11-metre parking area exists on Eglinton Avenue East between the driveway to the underground parking garage and the outbound driveway of the main entrance, just west of the TTC bus stop. Until recently, this parking area was signed as a "No Standing" zone as part of the TTC bus stop which has since been adjusted.

The superintendent of 368 Eglinton Avenue East raised a concern that a stopped or parked vehicle(s) in this 11-metre parking area reduces visibility and compromises safe access to/from the underground driveway and the exit driveway of the main entrance to 368 Eglinton Avenue East.

The proposed introduction of "No Parking" in the 11- metre curb area between the aforementioned driveways would result in the loss of two on-street parking spaces. There is sufficient alternative on-street parking in this vicinity to accommodate the displaced spaces. This matter has been discussed with TTC staff. They concur with the recommendations. Furthermore, Councillors AnneJohnston and Michael Walker have been consulted and they have no concerns with this proposal.

Conclusion:

The introduction of a "No Parking" regulation on the north side of Eglinton Avenue East in front of 368 Eglinton Avenue East would improve visibility at the driveways to 368 Eglinton Avenue East and provide minor improvements to traffic operations in this vicinity.

Contact Name:

Ms. Jacqueline White, Acting Manager, Central Traffic Region, 397-5021.

(A copy of the location plan, which was appended to the foregoing report, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the September 8, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

20

Proposed Driveway Closure: 34 Progress Avenue.

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the confidential report (August 19, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services, respecting the proposed closure of the driveway at 34 Progress Avenue, which was forwarded to Members of Council under confidential cover.

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a confidential communication (September 21, 1998) from the City Clerk embodying a confidential report, dated August 19, 1998, from the General Manager, Transportation Services, such communications to remain confidential in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (September 29, 1998) from Mr. Marvin S.N. Geist, Barrister and Solicitor, respecting the proposed closure of the driveway at 34 Progress Avenue.)

21

Proposed Introduction of Westbound

Left-Turn Prohibition at the Southerly

Access to 3309 Dufferin Street.

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (July 27, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services:

Purpose:

To prohibit westbound left turns at the southerly access to 3309 Dufferin Street.

Funding Sources:

The cost of the installation of the appropriate signage is the responsibility of the property owner.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)westbound left turns at the southerly access to 3309 Dufferin Street be prohibited at all times; and

(2)the appropriate by-law(s) be amended accordingly.

Background:

As a condition of site plan approval, the Developer agreed to accept restricted access to DufferinStreet at the southerly access to 3309 Dufferin Street whereby westbound left turns would be prohibited by by-law and restricted by the physical layout of the driveway.

Discussion:

Dufferin Street in this vicinity is a four-lane arterial roadway, with a southbound left-turn lane and a posted speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour. The subject property on the east side of DufferinStreet at 3309 is being redeveloped to construct a two-story building to contain offices and a car rental agency. This property has two accesses to Dufferin Street. The southerly access to 3309Dufferin Street is approximately seven metres north of the north-side pedestrian crosswalk of the signalized intersection of Dufferin Street and Bentworth Avenue/Ranee Avenue. Outbound left-turning movements from the southerly access, so close to the intersection, are awkward and can cause conflicts within the intersection of Dufferin Street and Bentworth Avenue/Ranee Avenue. The outbound left-turning movement will continue to be permitted at the northerly access.

At the present time, there is not a history of collisions at the subject driveway. However, once the redevelopment is complete and site traffic increases, the risk of collisions would be increased.

Both Ward Councillors have been contacted concerning this matter and both are in agreement with the recommendations.

Conclusions:

The prohibition of westbound left turns at this access is a condition of site plan approval. It is supported by channelization of the driveway and will promote safe and efficient traffic operations on this section of Dufferin Street.

Contact Name:

Mr. Bruce Zvaniga, Manager, North and West Traffic Regions, 392-8826.

(A copy of the location plan, which was appended to the foregoing report, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the September 8, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

22

Proposed Introduction of Turn Prohibition on

Yonge Street at the Access to 6365 Yonge Street.

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (August 7, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services:

Purpose:

To prohibit southbound left turns and northbound right turns from Yonge Street to the access to 6365Yonge Street.

Funding Sources:

The cost of the installation of the appropriate signage is the responsibility of the property owner.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)southbound left turns from Yonge Street to the access to 6365 Yonge Street be prohibited at all times;

(2)northbound right turns from Yonge Street to the access to 6365 Yonge Street be prohibited at all times; and

(3)the appropriate by-law(s) be amended accordingly.

Background:

As a condition of site plan approval, the Developer agreed to operate the access to 6365YongeStreet as a one-way outbound (westbound) operation only. Southbound left turns and northbound right turns to this access from Yonge Street would be prohibited by by-law and the installation of appropriate signage.

Discussion:

Yonge Street in this vicinity is a six-lane arterial roadway, with a northbound left-turn lane and a posted speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour. The subject property on the east side of Yonge Street at 6365 is being redeveloped to construct a three-story mixed-use building to contain retail, offices and residential units. This property has one access to Yonge Street (approximately 15 metres south of Nipigon Avenue) and one inbound access on Nipigon Avenue.

The existing northbound left-turn lane on Yonge Street serves an access to Centrepoint Mall whichis located on the west side of Yonge Street immediately north of the subject access to 6365YongeStreet. As a result, it is not possible to provide a southbound left-turn storage lane on Yonge Street in this vicinity. Southbound left-turning movements into the subject access would be required to wait in the southbound through lane blocking one lane of southbound through traffic.

At the site plan approval stage, it was agreed that southbound Yonge Street access to 6535YongeStreet could be achieved via a southbound left turn at Yonge Street and NipigonAvenue, and then accessing the site from Nipigon Avenue. There is an existing southbound left-turn lane at Yonge Street and Nipigon Avenue. Since the subject access will operate as one-way outbound, traffic destined to the site from northbound Yonge Street will also access the site via Nipigon Avenue.

The northbound right-turn prohibition will support the one-way outbound operation and reduce the potential for motorists mistaking the access as inbound or two-way.

Both Ward Councillors are aware of the recommendations of this report.

Conclusions:

The prohibition of southbound left turns and northbound right turns at this access is a condition of site plan approval. It is supported by the installation of appropriate signage and the introduction of a one-way westbound outbound movement from this driveway and will promote safe and efficient traffic operations on this section of Yonge Street.

Contact Name:

Mr. Bruce Zvaniga, Manager, North and West Traffic Regions, 392-8826.

(A copy of the location plan, which was appended to the foregoing report, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the September 8, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

23

Various Amendments to Former

Metropolitan Traffic By-laws.

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (August 18, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To effect amendments to the Metropolitan Uniform Traffic By-law and other traffic-related Metropolitan by-laws with respect to entries which are incorrect or no longer applicable.

Funding Sources:

Funds associated with this work are contained in the Transportation Services Division's 1998 Current Budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the changes, additions and deletions to the Metropolitan Uniform Traffic By-law and other traffic-related Metropolitan by-laws outlined in the attached Appendices be adopted; and

(2)the appropriate by-law(s) be amended accordingly.

Discussion:

At the present time all traffic by-laws which were in place prior to this year within the seven municipalities are still in effect and require distinct amendments. It will be some time before the consolidation of these by-laws is complete. In the meantime it is necessary to amend the existing by-laws to legalize current conditions and provide for a means of enforcement.

The semi-annual review of various schedules of the Metropolitan Uniform Traffic By-law and other traffic-related Metropolitan by-laws revealed a number of entries which are incorrect or no longer applicable and which should be amended or deleted.

In general, the amendments identified in the Appendices to this report are housekeeping in nature and are required in order to correct typographical/clerical errors or to formalize signage and pavement markings which exist on-street. Attached to each Appendix 1 through 9 are explanatory notes describing why the amendments are being introduced.

In order to maintain current and accurate by-law information, it is recommended that the changes, additions and deletions to the Metropolitan Uniform Traffic By-law and other traffic-related Metropolitan by-laws listed in the attached Appendices 1 through 9 be put into effect.

Conclusions:

The adoption of the by-law amendments identified in the Appendices to this report will improve the accuracy of information contained in the Metropolitan Uniform Traffic By-law and other traffic-related Metropolitan by-laws and, when necessary, allow for proper enforcement and prosecution.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ms. Sandra Burk, Traffic Assistant, 392-8750.

--------

Appendix 1

Schedule IV to Metropolitan Uniform Traffic By-law

Taxicab Stands

--------

Explanatory Notes to Appendix 1

Schedule IV to Metropolitan Uniform Traffic By-law

Taxicab Stands

--------

Appendix 2

Schedule VI to Metropolitan Uniform Traffic By-law

Prohibited Pedestrian Crossings

--------

Explanatory Notes to Appendix 2

Schedule VI to Metropolitan Uniform Traffic By-law

Prohibited Pedestrian Crossings

--------

Appendix 3

Schedule VIII to Metropolitan Uniform Traffic By-law

No Parking

--------

Explanatory Notes to Appendix 3

Schedule VIII to Metropolitan Uniform Traffic By-law

No Parking

--------

Appendix 4

Schedule X to Metropolitan Uniform Traffic By-law

Parking for Restricted Periods

--------

Explanatory Notes to Appendix 4

Schedule X to Metropolitan Uniform Traffic By-law

Parking for Restricted Periods

--------

Appendix 5

Schedule XIII to Metropolitan Uniform Traffic By-law

One-Way Traffic Lanes

--------

Explanatory Notes to Appendix 5

Schedule XIII to Metropolitan Uniform Traffic By-law

One-Way Traffic Lanes

Appendix 6

Schedule XV to Metropolitan Uniform Traffic By-law

Prohibited Turns

--------

Explanatory Notes to Appendix 6

Schedule XV to Metropolitan Uniform Traffic By-law

Prohibited Turns

Appendix 7

Schedule XVI to Metropolitan Uniform Traffic By-law

Compulsory Turns

--------

Explanatory Notes to Appendix 7

Schedule XVI to Metropolitan Uniform Traffic By-law

Compulsory Turns

--------

Appendix 8

Schedule I to Metropolitan By-law No. 107-86

Parking Meters on Metropolitan Roads

--------

Explanatory Notes to Appendix 8

Schedule I to Metropolitan By-law No. 107-86

Respecting Parking Meters on Metropolitan Roads

--------

Appendix 9

Schedule I to Metropolitan By-law No. 108-86

Pedestrian Crossovers on Metropolitan Roads

--------

Explanatory Notes to Appendix 9

Schedule I to Metropolitan By-law No. 108-86

Respecting Pedestrian Crossovers on Metropolitan Roads

24

Toronto Transit Commission:

Request for Provincial Subsidy in

Support of Data Management Group.

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends that Council endorse the action taken by the Toronto Transit Commission, as embodied in the following communication (July 16, 1998) from the General Secretary of the Commission:

At its meeting on Wednesday, July 15, 1998, the Toronto Transit Commission considered the attached report, entitled "Request for Provincial Subsidy in Support of Data Management Group."

The Commission approved the recommendation contained in the above report, as listed below:

"It is recommended that the Commission:

(1)confirm its continued financial support of the Data Management group at the University of Toronto at a gross cost to the TTC of $96,600.00 in 1998, conditional upon receiving a 75percent subsidy from the Ontario Ministry of Transportation for this program. This financial support is part of the TTC's ongoing participation in the Toronto Area Transportation Planning Data Collection Steering Committee (TATPDCSC);

(2)request the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) to provide the TTC with a 75percent subsidy to be applied to offset this cost, which will result in a net cost to the TTC of $24,150.00 in 1998; and

(3)forward this report to the Ministry of Transportation and to the City of Toronto."

The foregoing is forwarded to the Province of Ontario for the necessary approval as detailed in the report, and to the City of Toronto for information.

(Toronto Transit Commission Report No. 21

entitled " Request for Provincial Subsidy in Support

of Data Management Group.")

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the Commission:

(1)confirm its continued financial support of the Data Management Group at the University of Toronto at a gross cost to the TTC of $96,600.00 in 1998, conditional upon receiving a 75percent subsidy from the Ontario Ministry of Transportation for this program. This financial support is part of the TTC's ongoing participation in the Toronto Area Transportation Planning Data Collection Steering Committee (TATPDCSC);

(2)request the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) to provide the TTC with a 75percent subsidy to be applied to offset this cost, which will result in a net cost to the TTC of $24,150.00 in 1998; and

(3)forward this report to the Ministry of Transportation and to the City of Toronto.

Funding:

Sufficient funds to cover the net cost to the TTC have been provided in the 1998 TTC Operating Budget for this support.

Background:

The TTC has actively participated in the Toronto Area Transportation Planning Data Collection Steering Committee (TATPDCSC) since 1977, along with the Ministry of Transportation, the CityofToronto, GO Transit, and the Regional Municipalities of Durham, York, Peel, Halton, and Hamilton-Wentworth. The mandate for TATPDCSC is to co-ordinate and administer the identification, collection, and analysis of transportation planning information which is of common interest and benefit to the member agencies. This includes major travel surveys in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), the development of common data standards, shared consistent data collection procedures, and the preparation of transportation forecasts for the GTA. TATPDCSC has conducted three comprehensive household travel surveys to date. The 1986, 1991, and 1996 Transportation Tomorrow Surveys were jointly organized and funded by TATPDCSC members, including the TTC, and by the Ministry of Transportation, which provided a 75 percent subsidy.

To realize efficiencies in the management of these survey data and other joint-shared databases, these data are stored in a centralized location at the Data Management Group (DMG) at the University of Toronto. To date, 75 percent of the funding is provided by the Province, and the remaining 25percent has been shared by the participating agencies. Ministry staff indicate that they expect this level of funding to be maintained in 1998. The Commission's net cost share represents approximately six percent of total costs.

Discussion:

Through participation in TATPDCSC, the TTC gains direct access to several million dollars worth of transportation planning data and research on an annual basis. These data are used extensively for transportation planning and policy development purposes. Detailed transit trip information from the 1986, 1991, and 1996 TTS databases are heavily used by TTC staff for market research, demand modelling, ridership forecasting, annual Service Plans, and various other special studies.

A major advantage of participating in TATPDCSC is that the Data Management Group at the University of Toronto assumes full responsibility for the management of the survey databases and co-ordination of associated research activities, under the direction of TATPDCSC. Consequently, TTC staff involvement is minimal, and TTC staff have direct on-line access to the TTS and other databases and transportation models such as EMME/2, resulting in substantial computing cost-savings to the TTC each year.

The 1998 net cost share for TTC participation in TATPDCSC and the DMG is estimated to be $24,150.00 based on a TTC gross cost share of $96,600.00 and the provision of a 75 percent subsidy from the Ministry of Transportation.

Justification:

The Commission should approve the net expenditure of $24,150.00 to the Data Management Group as part of the TTC's continued participation in TATPDCSC because the TTC will have access to several million dollars worth of valuable transportation planning information and analysis tools which are used to assist staff in determining the best allocation of TTC resources when making service planning decisions. This cost is relatively small compared with the value of the data and the cost to the TTC to collect, maintain, and support similar data and analysis tools in-house.

25

Other Items Considered by the Committee.

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, received this Clause, for information.)

(a)Vital Services in Rental Residential Properties in the City of Toronto.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:

(1)deferred consideration of this matter to its meeting scheduled to be held on October 5, 1998, to facilitate review and input from the Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes; and

(2)requested the City Solicitor, in consultation with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, to submit a report to such meeting on:

(a)the timing implications for tenants who use the Provincial Tribunal process for prosecution/enforcement of vital services issues; and

(b)Recommendation No. (2) embodied in the report dated August24, 1998, from the Medical Officer of Health, viz:

"(2)that the City Solicitor be requested to review the feasibility and conditions under which the Health Protection and Promotion Act, c.H.7, R.S.O. 1990 could be applied in situations involving the discontinuation of vital services.":

(i)August 28, 1998) from Councillor Jack Layton, Chair, Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes, advising that the Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes will not be meeting before the September 8, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee and, therefore, will be unable to comment on the issue of vital services in rental residential properties in the City of Toronto; and requesting that this item be deferred until the October 5, 1998 Committee meeting to facilitate review and input from the Council Strategy Committee.

(ii)(August 24, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services advising that staff are of the opinion that a Vital Services By-law should not be enacted under current legislation as it could put the City in the position of having significant and potentially non-recoverable funds owing; that other mechanisms are available to address the risk to vulnerable persons without incurring the high administrative costs and uncertainty of recovery of funds; that legislation exists to allow Toronto Hydro essentially the same power of recovery of outstanding bills as under the former City of Toronto's "Urgent Hazards Program"; that the policy of Consumers Gas notes that "gas service may be discontinued only as a last resort", and the company advises that it would generally not cut service in the winter where vulnerable persons would be at risk; stating that prior to considering enacting a Vital Services By-law, it would be appropriate for a working group, comprised of representatives from Municipal Standards, Public Health, and the relevant utilities or fuel providers, to establish policies with respect to discontinuing service/supply, and to monitor these policies in action for at least one year; explaining that it is possible to minimize the number of situations under which Emergency Orders (either under a Property Standards By-law, or the Health Protection and Promotion Act) would have to be used by ensuring that the utility companies provide sufficient notice of planned cutoff to allow for proper evaluation of specific situations and to provide the opportunity to apply alternative solutions; and recommending that this report be received as information.

(iii)(August 24, 1998) from the Medical Officer of Health advising that Public Health staff met with representatives from agencies and organizations that serve tenants and persons living in poverty on August 13, 1998 to discuss possible health impacts to residents should the City not intervene to restore cut-off vital services; stating that the health of the residents of Toronto could be compromised if vital services are turned off; further advising that the August 24, 1998 report of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services (Item1 above)has been reviewed, and the idea of a working group to review anticipated service cut-offs before they occur is supported; however, there are concerns about the feasibility of using the Health Protection and Promotion Act as a remedy in these circumstances; and recommending that:

(1)this report be received for information; and

(2)the City Solicitor be requested to review the feasibility and conditions under which the Health Protection and Promotion Act, c.H.7, R.S.O. 1990 could be applied in situations involving the discontinuation of vital services.

(iv)(June 10, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services recommending that the City of Toronto not enact a vital services by-law under authority of the Tenant Protection Act, given the expected high cost of its administration and potential for financial risk to the City; advising that, in the event that Council chooses not to adopt the aforementioned recommendation and, instead, chooses to enact a Vital Services By-law, then that action would require the reversal of Council's previous budgetary decision to discontinue the former City of Toronto's "urgent hazard" program in order to commit funds now to the staffing and administration of a vital services program in the amount of $60,000.00 for 1998 and $120,000.00 annualized thereafter; that, in addition, historically the former City of Toronto committed funds, ranging from $500,000.00 to $1,000,000.00 annualized, to the restoration of utilities in rental residential properties; explaining that under authority of the City of Toronto Act, these funds were recoverable as they were collectible through the municipal realty tax process; that any future funds to be expended by the City to restore such utilities under a vital services by-law would be at great risk of being unrecoverable, given that the enabling legislation does not provide for such funds to be placed on the tax rolls; stating that the current legislation provides for a lien to be placed against the property and/or for the City to have tenants pay rents directly to the City; and suggesting that City Council seek to rely instead on general enforcement of municipal standards regulations through prosecution by the City as necessary, as well as on procedures which are currently being put into place under the Tenant Protection Act for tenants to seek prosecution activity through the Provincial Tribunal specifically regarding vital services.

(v)(June 9, 1998) from the City Solicitor reviewing the potential implications of the motion referred by City Council at its meeting of May 13 and 14, 1998, which proposes that the City enact a by-law requiring providers of vital services to adopt a program whereby the service providers would continue to provide services to tenanted properties despite the landlord's failure to make utility payments; advising that City Council lacks the authority to enact such a by-law; that Council may require utility companies to give 30 days notice of the intention to discontinue service for non-payment; however, after the 30-day period has elapsed, Council cannot require continuation of the service without payment to the utility company; and recommending that this report be received for information.

(vi)(August 10, 1998) from the City Clerk enclosing, for information and any attention deemed necessary, Clause No.3 contained in Report No. 9 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, headed "Vital Services in Rental Residential Properties in the City of Toronto", which was adopted, without amendment, by the Council of the City of Toronto at its meeting held on July29, 30and31,1998; such action, in effect, being that City Council received the report dated July 15, 1998, from the City Solicitor.

(b)Sheppard Subway - Status of Permits and Approvals.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having deferred consideration of the following communications to its meeting scheduled to be held on October 5, 1998:

(i)(May 21, 1998) from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission, advising that the Commission on May 20, 1998, considered Report No. (27), entitled "Sheppard Subway Status of Permits and Approvals"; that the Commission received the subject report for information and approved the following:

(1)that staff report on the critical path for completion of the Sheppard Subway, including tenders, site plan approvals, building permits, design work, tunnelling work and any other appropriate deadlines associated with the project; and further

(2)that any site plan approval conditions which add costs beyond the approved budget for the Sheppard Subway project be forwarded to the City Budget Committee and City Council for additional project and funding approval;

and stating that the foregoing is forwarded for the information of the City of Toronto Council.

(ii)(July 30, 1998) from the Chief General Manager, Toronto Transit Commission, responding to a request made by the Urban Environment and Development Committee for a full report on the potential cost overruns on the Sheppard Subway project; submitting a copy of the briefing given to the Toronto Transit Commission on July 9, 1998, which covers the potential cost overruns; advising that the TTC does not expect to have any more information until after September 8, 1998; and that staff will be present at the September 8, 1998 meeting of the Committee to respond to any questions.

(iii)(August 31, 1998) addressed to the Toronto Transit Commission from the ChiefGeneral Manager of the Commission, and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, regarding building permits for the Sheppard Subway.

(c)Toronto Transit Commission: Procurement Authorization - Excavation and Paving 1998 Surface Track Program.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:

(A)recommended to the Budget Committee that:

(1)additional project financing approval in the amount of $2,223,000.00 be granted to City Project No.120 of the Toronto Transit Commission, "SurfaceTrack"; and

(2)the TTC's approved 1998 Capital Program be increased by a corresponding amount to cover the road reconstruction portion of the surface track work; and

(B)requested the Chief Administrative Officer to submit a report directly to the Budget Committee, for consideration with this matter at its meeting on September 15, 1998, regarding the issue of inter-departmental/inter-agency cost allocations with respect to this program:

(i)(August 20, 1998) from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission, advising that the Commission on August 19, 1998, approved the following recommendations contained in Report No. (10), entitled "Procurement Authorization - Excavation and Paving 1998 Surface Track Program":

"It is recommended that the Commission:

(1)approve the issuance of a Purchase Order in the total upset limit amount of $3,802,000.00 to the City of Toronto - Works and Emergency Services Department for the Commission's cost of excavation and paving within the track allowance. This work will be completed by the City of Toronto in 1998;

(2)forward this report to the City of Toronto requesting an increase in the TTC's approved 1998 Capital Program in the amount of $2,223,000.00 and a corresponding increase in Project Approval to reflect the downloading of costs from the City to the TTC for the road reconstruction portion of the surface track work, (this work has traditionally been funded through the City's Transportation Department's budget); and

(3)note that this work is proceeding at this time since deferral of the work would impact the ability to complete the work in a timely and cost-efficient manner."

(ii)(April 23, 1998) addressed to the Chief General Manager, Toronto Transit Commission, from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, regarding TTC track rehabilitation projects; acknowledging that the TTC is willing to fund the entire cost for the CoxwellAvenue project, both Lake Shore Boulevard West projects, and the two DundasStreet East projects in the 1998 Track Rehabilitation Program; advising that Transportation staff are currently in the process of preparing contract documents and will be tendering the work in an effort to meet the 1998 work schedule; pointing out that, for subsequent years, the TTC has proposed that it initiate, fund (100percent) and complete all surface track replacement and track allowance projects; stating that Transportation Services supports this proposal in principle ; and setting out some of the numerous responsibilities and details that still need to be clarified to ensure safe and effective program implementation.

(d)Toronto Transit Commission: Confirmation of Additional Project Approval - Roofing Rehabilitation Program.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having recommended to the Budget Committee that:

(1)additional project financing approval in the amount of $1,530,000.00 gross ($765,000.00net) be granted to City Project No. 311 of the Toronto Transit Commission, "Finishes - Roofing Rehabilitation Program", for a total City approval of $5,744,000.00 to cover cash flow requirements to the end of 1998; and

(2)a corresponding reduction in project financing approval be granted to City Project No.610 of the Toronto Transit Commission, "Environmental Programs";

noting that there is no net increase in the overall Capital Budget of the Toronto Transit Commission:

(August 20, 1998) from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission advising that the Commission on August 19, 1998, approved the following recommendations contained in Report No. (14), entitled "Confirmation of Additional Project Approval - Roofing Rehabilitation Program":

"It recommended that the Commission confirm the approval provided by the Chair, Vice-Chair and Chief General Manager with regard to the following:

(1)authorize staff to undertake previously unscheduled urgent work in 1998 under Project No. 3.1Finishes - Roofing Program, noting that additional expenditures of $1,530,000.00 will be required to the end of 1998 and noting that full project documentation will be provided in the 1999-2003 Capital Program submission;

(2)forward this report to the City of Toronto Council requesting that additional project approval (City Project No. 311) be granted in the amount of $1,530,000.00 gross ($765,000.00 net), for a total City approval of $5,744,000.00 to cover cash flow requirements to the end of 1998, and reducing the project approval for Project No.6.1 Environmental Programs (City Project No. 610) by a corresponding amount; and noting that there is no net increase in the overall TTC budget; and

(3)authorize staff to proceed with project expenditures, due to the critical nature of this request, and hold in TTC accounts, pending City Council project approval."

(e)Toronto Transit Commission: Confirmation of Additional Project Approval - Garage Subsurface Investigation and Remediation Program.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having recommended to the Budget Committee that additional project financing approval in the amount of $493,000.00 gross ($123,250.00 net) be granted to City Project No. 613 of the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC), "Environmental - Garage Subsurface Remediation Program", for a total City approval of $11,610,000.00 to cover cash flow requirements to the end of 1998; noting that sufficient under-expenditures are available in 1998 under other projects in City Project No. 610 of the TTC, "Environmental Programs -Various", to accommodate the aforementioned increase in cash flow requirements for this project:

(August 20, 1998) from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission, advising that the Commission on August 19, 1998, approved the following recommendations contained in Report No. (15), entitled "Confirmation of Additional Project Approval - Garage Subsurface Investigation and Remediation Program":

"It is recommended that the Commission:

(1)grant additional project approval in the amount of $493,000.00 for 6.1Environmental - Garage Subsurface Remediation Program for a revised total project cost to the end of 1998 of $11,610,000.00, noting that full project documentation will be provided in the 1999-2003 Capital Program submission;

(2)forward this report to the City of Toronto Council requesting that additional project approval (City Project No. 613) be granted in the amount of $493,000.00 gross ($123,250.00 net), for a total City approval of $11,610,000.00 to cover cash flow requirements to the end of 1998;

(3)authorize staff to proceed with project expenditures, due to the sensitive nature of this request, and hold in TTC accounts, pending City Council project approval; and

(4)forward this report to the Ministry of Environment for information.";

such report also noting that sufficient under expenditures are available in 1998 under other projects in 6.1 Environmental Programs to accommodate the aforementioned increase in cash flow requirements for this project.

(f)Funding of Pedestrian Improvements.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:

(1)recommended to the Budget Committee the adoption of the following report from the General Manager, Transportation Services; and

(2)referred the brief filed by Ms.RhonaSwarbrick to the General Manager, Transportation Services, with a request that he report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on:

(a)criteria which can be used to evaluate, prioritize and implement pedestrian improvements, how such improvements can be accommodated within the budget process, and how the private/business sector can be involved; and

(b)the allocation of revenues from the leasing of road rights-of-way, and how those funds are expended:

(i)(August 16, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services, advising that the annual revenue from the lease of City of Toronto road rights-of-way for pedestrian tunnels and bridges is approximately $100,000.00; that reallocation of this revenue from general transportation uses to specific pedestrian improvements can be accommodated within the existing budgets for transportation services; and recommending that the revenue collected in the City of Toronto from the leasing of road rights-of-way for pedestrian tunnels and bridges be allocated to improve pedestrian facilities.

(ii)(July 23, 1998) from Councillor Irene Jones, Lakeshore-Queensway, suggesting that a fund for pedestrian improvements be established; and, if necessary, that the Committee request staff to bring forward a report on how pedestrian improvements are funded and whether or not a specific fund would be desirable.

____________

Ms. Rhona Swarbrick, Etobicoke, appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter, and filed a written brief containing recommendations with respect to the funding of pedestrian improvements.

(g)Contract No. T-47-98: F. G. Gardiner Expressway - Saulter Street to Leslie Street, Substructure Repairs.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having recommended to the Budget Committee the adoption of the following report:

(August 5, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services advising that emergency repairs are required to remove delaminated concrete from the south cantilevers and bearing seats of the F. G. Gardiner Expressway which are in danger of spalling, thus posing a potential threat to motorists currently using LakeShore Boulevard westbound; stating that funding for this project has previously been approved by Council and is available in Capital Account No. C-TR026, F.G.Gardiner Repairs - Parkway to Leslie Street; that here are sufficient funds available in Capital Account No. C-TR026 to accommodate the extension of this Contract.;and recommending that the contract price for Contract No.T-47-98, F.G.Gardiner Expressway - Saulter Street to Leslie Street, Substructure Repairs, be increased by $250,000.00 net to a total of $1,036,920.80 to accommodate the additional emergency work.

(h)Proposed Installation of Pedestrian Crossover: McNicoll Avenue and Silver Springs Boulevard.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:

(1)deferred consideration of the following report from the General Manager, Transportation Services, to its meeting scheduled to be held on October 5, 1998; and

(2)received the following communication from Councillor Sherene Shaw, Scarborough Agincourt:

(i)(July 30, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services recommending that a pedestrian crossover be installed on McNicoll Avenue at SilverSprings Boulevard; advising that the subject location has been investigated on numerous occasions in response to pedestrian safety concerns raised by the SilverSprings Community Association; that the technical warrants for the installation of traffic control signals are not met at the aforementioned location; that, in support of the September 1997 resolution of the former Scarborough Council, a pedestrian crossover should be installed at this location at an estimated cost of $19,300.00; and stating that funds are available for the installation of pedestrian crossovers as per Section 37 agreement, Account No.70697-0000-0000-853.

(ii)(September 2, 1998) from Councillor Sherene Shaw, Scarborough Agincourt, requesting that the Urban Environment and Development Committee defer consideration of this matter until its October 5, 1998 meeting in order to permit her to notify and consult with the local community.

(i)Non-Concurrence with Request for Traffic Control Signals: Midland Avenue and Lockie Avenue.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having deferred consideration of the following report to its meeting scheduled to be held on October 5, 1998:

(July 30, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services reporting on the results of the traffic signal warrant studies conducted at MidlandAvenue and Lockie Avenue, in response to concerns raised by members of the public about the operation of the existing pedestrian crossover (PXO) at this location; stating that the technical warrants for the installation of traffic control signals are not met at the aforementioned intersection; that the location is suitable for a PXO; and recommending that this report be received for information.

(j)Use of Flashing Hand and Walk Displays at Signalized Intersections.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:

(1)requested the General Manager, Transportation Services:

(a)to undertake a study of the flashing orange hand and walk signal display at three signalized intersections, as well as an evaluation of the timing of the walk signal; such study to include the intersections of CarpenterRoad and Steeles Avenue, and Lawrence Avenue and Kingston Road, as two of the subject intersections, with the remaining intersection to be located in the vicinity of a senior citizens' centre;

(b)to seek permission, if necessary, from the Minister of Transportation of Ontario for the City of Toronto to take the foregoing action within the existing legislation contained in the Ontario Highway Traffic Act;

(c)to conduct a public education program in the areas affected by the aforementioned study;

(d)to establish focus groups in order to determine the effects of the recommended flashing orange hand signal; such focus groups to be conducted under the auspices of the Toronto Pedestrian Committee; and

(e)to submit a report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee upon conclusion of the study; such report to provide a comparison of the study's findings versus existing experience, and recommendations on the most appropriate method of proceeding with pedestrian signals; and

(2)received the following communication and report:

(i)(August 26, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the Toronto Pedestrian Committee on August20, 1998, had before it a motion regarding the use of flashing hand and walk signals throughout the City, and recommended to the Urban Environment and Development Committee that:

(a)the City's plan to install flashing hand and walk signals be deferred and that appropriate staff be instructed to review and report, through the Toronto Pedestrian Committee, on their performance and effectiveness;

(b)no further installations of such signals take place until the review has taken place and a report submitted within a time line consistent with 1999 Capital Budget considerations; and

(c)the review include the timing of all current walk signals.

(ii)(August 17, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services, providing information in response to a request made by the Urban Environment and Development Committee at its meeting on June 15 and 16, 1998, for a report on the feasibility of replacing the "flashing don't walk" display at signalized intersections with a "flashing orange walking-person" display; advising that replacing the flashing orange hand display used for pedestrian clearance with a flashing orange walking person display is not recommended due to:

(1)non-compliance with provincial legislation;

(2)non-compliance with widely accepted practices applied throughout NorthAmerica;

(3)the importance of reinforcing the message to pedestrians that sufficient crossing time will not be available if they leave the curb/sidewalk during the pedestrian clearance display; and

(4)the significant cost associated with converting existing pedestrian signal displays;

and recommending that this report be received for information.

____________

The following persons appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Mrs. Helen Hansen, North York, and filed a written brief with respect thereto; and

-Ms. Rhona Swarbrick, Etobicoke.

(k)Audible Pedestrian Signals.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having

(1)requested the Audible Pedestrian Signals Advisory Group, in consultation with the GeneralManager, Transportation Services, and in accordance with the budget allocation, to develop a detailed priority system for the installation of audible pedestrian signals, together with an annual recommendation which identifies high priority locations;

(2)requested the General Manager, Transportation Services, to submit a report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee, on:

(a)potential mechanisms which could be utilized in order to install audible pedestrian signals at a higher rate than they are currently installed;

(b)any alternative technologies which may be available and the costs thereof; and

(c)the cost of making audible pedestrian signals standard equipment in new traffic control signal installations, and on the incremental cost-savings which might accrue as a result thereof; and

(3)received the following communication and memorandum:

(i)(August 27, 1998) from Mr. Garnett Martin, Chair, Audible Pedestrian Signals Advisory Group, advising that there are 41 outstanding requests for the installation of audible pedestrian signals; that, at the present rate of funding, it will take three-and-one-half years to install those signals, by which time an additional 41requests will have been received; and recommending that City Council give consideration to a special grant of $640,000.00 in 1998 to finance the installation of outstanding approved requests for audible pedestrian signals.

(ii)(September 8, 1998) from Mr. Les Kelman, Director, Transportation Systems, Works and Emergency Services Department, advising that as of September 8, 1998, audible pedestrian signals have been installed at 20 locations, and the Division's 1998 budget estimates will permit the installation of additional eight signals; explaining that the average installation costs have risen to $25,000.00 per location to cover other treatments required in conjunction with the audible pedestrian signals in order to make the locations more accessible for pedestrians who are blind or visually impaired; stating that staff could address the current backlog of 43 requests in 1999 if a capital budget of approximately $1,100,000.00 was provided.

____________

Mr. Ron Stewart, Senior Manager, Traffic Systems, Works and Emergency Services Department, made an overhead presentation to the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

The following persons appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Mr. Garnett Martin, Chair, Audible Pedestrian Signals Advisory Group;

-Ms. Natalie Litwin, Co-Chair, Environmentalists Plan Transportation;

-Councillor John Adams, Midtown; and

-Councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski, High Park.

(l)Pollution Probe - GTA Transit Summit Project - Final Report.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having referred the following communication to the Commissioners of Urban Planning and Development Services and Works and Emergency Services, and the Chief General Manager, Toronto Transit Commission, with a request that they submit a report thereon to the Urban Environment and Development Committee:

(July 13, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the Board of Directors of the Toronto Atmospheric Fund on July 6, 1998, gave consideration to a communication (February 28, 1998) from K.B. Ogilvie, Executive Director, Pollution Probe, forwarding a final report, entitled "Trans-Action'98 - An Action Plan for a Modal Shift to Transit in the Greater Toronto Area", prepared by Mr. Dave Roberts for Pollution Probe; and stating that the Board, among other things, requested that a copy of the final report be forwarded, for information, to the Urban Development and Environment Committee

(m)Proposal for the Causeway Concept.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having received the following communication and presentation:

(May 15, 1998) from Mr. Abel Van Wyk, submitting four letters sent to all Members of Council regarding the Causeway Concept; and requesting that the following motions be put before City Council:

(1)that a small task force be formed that will report to Council whether it appears true, on the surface, that the Causeway Concept is technically feasible and that it will create savings to the Toronto community of more than $4billion per year; and based on this, whether a broader study should be considered; and

(2)that Council consider giving financial support to a booth presentation of the Causeway Concept at the Canadian National Exhibition.

__________

Mr. Abel Van Wyk made a presentation to the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter, and also filed a copy of his presentation material.

(n)Construction Activity Report for the Second Quarter of 1998.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having received the following report:

(August 24, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services providing consolidated information regarding the building permit activity in the City of Toronto for the second quarter of 1998; and recommending that this report be received for information.

(o)TTC Insurance Company Limited: Financial Statements for the Year 1997.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having received the following communication:

(August 6, 1998) from the Secretary, TTC Insurance Company Limited, advising that the Board of Directors of TTC Insurance Company Limited at its meeting of June 17, 1998, approved the Financial Statements for the year 1997; and submitting a copy thereof to the Urban Environment and Development Committee for information.

(p)Toronto Transit Commission:

58 MALTON - Service to Pearson Airport and in Mississauga.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having received the following communication:

(July 17, 1998) from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission, advising that the Commission on July 15, 1998, approved the following recommendations contained in ReportNo. (23), entitled "58MALTON - Service to Pearson Airport and in Mississauga":

"It is recommended that the Commission:

(1)approve a change in the fare collection procedure for the 58 MALTON bus route, so that customers travelling between Toronto and the Pearson International Airport pay only a single TTC fare, noting that:

-this change will be for a six-month trial period, beginning Sunday, July19, 1998;

-this change will make the fare collection procedures at the Pearson Airport area consistent with the fare collection procedures on other TTC routes at locations close to Toronto's boundary;

-this change is expected to result in a net loss of revenue to the TTC of approximately $40,000 each year, but it will make TTC service to the airport significantly more attractive for Toronto residents and visitors, and is expected to increase TTC ridership;

(2)approve the continued operation of the current TTC service and fare collection procedure on the 58 MALTON route in Mississauga west of the airport, pending discussion with the City of Mississauga regarding revenue sharing on this section of the route. If negotiations with that municipality on the cost recovery issue are not satisfactorily resolved by September 30, 1998, the service west of Pearson Airport be eliminated, effective Sunday, January3, 1999; and

(3)forward this report to the City of Mississauga, the City of Toronto, the Greater Toronto Airports Authority, and the Office of the Greater Toronto Services Board."

(q)Flexlink Advanced Auto Network (FAAN) - Smart Mobility for the Millennium.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having deferred consideration of the following communication to its meeting scheduled to be held on October 5, 1998:

(August 24, 1998) from Mr. Rocco Maragna, President, Maragna Architect Incorporated, submitting information regarding the Flexlink Advanced Auto Network (FAA); advising that FAA is a new transportation system which is an intermediate between public and private transit, yet is complementary to both systems; requesting the opportunity to give a short presentation of this Smart Mobility concept to the Urban Environment and Development Committee with a view to seeking the endorsement of the Committee, and a recommendation that City staff be directed to provide assistance to, and participate with, the FAA team in applying this approach to the specific needs of the City of Toronto.

(r)Proposed Fixed Link (Bridge) to the City Centre Airport - Advance Notice of Joint Meeting.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having received the following communication:

(August 20, 1998) from the City Clerk submitting a copy of an advance notice of a joint meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee and the Economic Development Committee to be held on Tuesday, September 29, 1998, in the Council Chamber, 2nd Floor, Metro Hall, at 9:30 a.m., to consider the proposed fixed link (bridge) to the City Centre Airport.

(s)Planning Policies for Railway Corridors.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having referred the following report to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, with a request that she submit a report thereon to the Committee:

(September 8, 1998) from Councillor Ila Bossons, Midtown, regarding planning policies for railway corridors; and recommending that Council develop planning policies and procedures to ensure:

(1)the safety and protection of not only new developments but also of existing neighbourhoods;

(2)that noise and safety measures are designed in consultation with representatives of existing neighbourhoods; and

(3)that any outside consultant reports commissioned by the City and relied upon for any approvals for developments, become the property of the City.

(t)Proposed Establishment of a Parking Committee.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having referred the following report to the General Manager, Transportation Services, with a request that he submit a report to the meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee scheduled to be held on October5, 1998, on the desirability of establishing the proposed Parking Committee:

(September 8, 1998) from Councillor Ila Bossons, Midtown, recommending that:

(1)a Parking Committee be formed to find solutions to the serious problems of residential, commuter and small business parking in the City core;

(2)the Parking Committee consist of:

(a)at the very least, Councillors representing the City core; that is, Downtown Ward 24 and Midtown Ward 23;

(b)staff representing the local and arterial roads sections;

(c)planning staff;

(d)a representative of the Board of Eduction;

(e)a representative of the Toronto Transit Commission;

(f)a representative of the Toronto Parking Authority;

(g)a representative of Ratepayers Associations';

(h)a small business representative; and

(i)a representative of the Toronto Cycling Committee; and

(3)the Parking Committee be administered by the City Clerk.

Respectfully submitted,

JOE PANTALONE,

Chair

Toronto, September 8, 1998

(Report No. 11 of The Urban Environment and Development Comititee, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998.)