Good afternoon, everybody. [ [strikes gavel] ] we’re going to resume the meeting.
I believe we left off on tulsa no. 5. Item no. 5. We left off item no. 5. City
road work warranty requirements. I believe we firmed finished questions to staff. I don’t
have a list of any speakers. Are there any speakers or motions to this
item? Sorry? 5. Review of cities, road work warranty requirements. So I don’t have any
motions here. We’re finish finished with — okay. So adoption staff recommendation by Councillor
McKelvie. All those in favour. Opposed . That is carried. Looks like we’re moving to 7.
We have deputations for that. Beverly thorpe . This is asper Ashbridges Bay treatment plant
pelletizer. Ms. Thorpe . Please. No. We’re moving along here. The thank you very much
. I’m very happy to be here. Good afternoon. I am Beverly thorpe, environmental consultant
and educator with a specialization in chemicals. I’m also a member of the neighbourhood associate
and member supporter of the Canadian national farmers union union. I’m here today because
I noted an application, 11.7, to continue spreading bio-solid for agricultural use in
southwestern Ontario which yesterday rang alarm bells for me.
Which is why I’m here today. My recent research is focused on a class of chemicals known as
per and polyallege coal substances or PFAS for short. These synthetic chemicals used
widely since the 1960s are also known as forever chemicals because they’re highly persistent
in the environment and will take hundreds if not thousands of years to disappear from
the soil and ground water where they accumulate. From a health perspective, all Canadians surveyed
by health Canada now contain levels of PFAS in our blood.
PFAS has been hunked to thyroid diseases, kidney and liver cancer and elevated cholesterol
to name just three. PFAS is used in stain and Greece resistant application such as nonstick
cookware, grease and waterproof coating on food packaging such as the microa waivable
popcorn bags, fast food wrappers and take out containers and carpets, clothing and fire
fighting foam used to fight fuel-based fires at airports and military installations. Here
in Toronto Toronto, our great lakes are contaminated with PFAS chemicals and most notorious in
this class are now official chemicals of mutual concern in the great lakes basin.
A major point source of PFAS into our environment are from landfills and wastewater treatment
plants. Wastewater treatment plants why? Because of the discharge into the sewer system by
industries using PFAS plus the use and intentional or sometimes accidental discharge of fire
fighting foam at airports and military bases that of course eventually end up in our waterways
and also from PFAS in household dust from the products we use that eventually gets washed
down our drains. PFAS has been measured at high levels in Toronto
air which is typical of other urban environments e our federal government has restrict the
use of a handful of PFAS chemicals that thousands of other unrestricted PFAS are on the market
and many of these new replacement chemicals are even more soluble in water which means
there is a constant input of PFAS into our water systems.
Yet we have no drinking water standards for PFAS in Ontario, nor do we have wastewater
affluent standards for PFAS or restriction in sewage sludge for application on land.
So what does this have to do with biosolids and wastewater treatment such as Ashbridges
Bay. I notice we have power point image. A study of PFAS levels across treatment plants
found increase levels of PFAS in water and air around these plants. It is surprised that
advanced biological treatments such as at Ashbridges Bay can actually transform the
level of PFAS in the influent into other more innumerous forms of PFAS into the affluent
and air and of course PFAS is also found in sludge.
So my question here today at that is, are these bio-solid pellets from Ashbridges Bay
treatment plant testified prior to use. This is an important question. Recent case this
past summer Fred stone, a dairy farmer in maine, was forced to dispose of his milk.
There is Fred. Was forced to dispose of his milk after discovering the soil, hay and pluck
from the cows on his farm contained extremely high level of PFAS chemicals. The source of
PFAS was biosolids promote during a 1980 state program to fertilize the pastures with treated
sludge waste. The stuffery of discovery of PFAS on his far
and other contain named sites in maine around the country prompted maine’s govern to form
a task force to study PFAS contamination at more than I have in sites. In Wisconsin, the
city of merinet has stopped distributing biosolids to farms after getting high PFAS reading reading.
In Michigan, tests on PFAS and sludge at 41 plants.
You’re over 5 minute if you could wrap up. There is a lot of work happening and I would
hate to see farmers suffer a similar fate to Fred stone or find their market is at risk
from a provincial PFAS source and for this reason I believe it would be highly advisable
to test for levels of PFAS in biosolids prior to marketing and use in Ontario as well as
set stringent limits for PFAS in biosolids. Thank you.
Great. Thank you very much. The any questions for
the deputy? Councillor McKelvie.
I don’t know that we set the standards. I think it is the Ontario industry. Are there
other chemicals as well you find are of concern or emerging in biosolids that we should be
weary of? There are a range.
The reason why PFAS is getting so much attention scientific and policy arenas right now they
just don’t degrade. So we’re actually facing the legacy of these chemicals from even our
use 50 years ago. And that is why there is so much effort working at municipal and state
level in the us, for instance, to stop the flow of these PFAS chemicals into wastewater
treatment plants. What about for example from pharmaceuticals.
We continual continually try to design drugs so they don’t necessarily break down super
fast in the body so some of those same properties that make them great for treating illness
unfortunately lead to, you know, high resistance to break down, biochemical processes. What
about those ones as well? Yep. Everything ranges from birth control
pills to pharmaceuticals, this is why tumour suit calling take back is — why pharmaceutical
ca is so important to take back at this level. The reason I’m raising this issue now that
increasing increased testing is happening south of the border in the great lake basin
of chemical concern in the great lakes, we’re going to have a lot of questions asked about
the quality of our soil and ago dull cultural level here around — agricultural level here
and I just want us to get ahead and not be defensive when a lot of questions are asked.
I would have to say environment Canada has been doing a lot of monitoring but it is — we
have no policies to actually restrict any of these chemicals in our industrial affluent,
in our sewage sludge but also just in the companies that use them in the Toronto area.
We should at least be monitoring what is coming out down into our sewer systems.
Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor McKelvie. Any other questions for the deputant?
Thank you very much. Anyone else here to dispute this item?
Alexandra m metcheck. Great. Thank you for coming.
Thank you. This is for 1.17, the 80s strategy? No. This is item 7, Ashbridges Bay.
I registered for 1.17. Sorry, I don’t know how that got mixed up.
I’ll come back. Thank you. All right.
Okay. Are there any — any other thing to dispute on this item?
Questions for staff? Councillor McKelvie.
Hi . Do we set the levels for our biosolids? Is that done by administration?
There you, Mr. Mr. Chair, the bio-solid is done by the province
under the management act. There are other sources of legislation that we have to follow
with respect to our have you not discharges. That is under the Ontario water resources
act. There are provisions and environmental rules
that we have to follow there. What we do regulate is within the city is in our sewer by-law.
We do have a set of stringent criteria of discharging that we measure against. But the
particular issue that was raced by the deputant is newly emerging issue and quite large in
parts of the United States. As they have a lot more military bases as you heard used
in fire retard chemicals for fighting fires. A lot of air force bases in the us are finding
that chemical was used and there is some ground water contamination.
There is a lot of research that is underway right now that Toronto water is tracking with
respect to what is occurring from a regulatory standpoint by the federal us, EPA and what
municipal drinking water providers have to do or may have to do. There have been no changes
yet to regulations but it is being discussed in the sciences under underway looking at
what the issues are. In Canada there is a little bit of work going on but in many cases
because we do not have a national regulator. In Canada our regulations are governed provincially
. We tend to watch what happens in the us EPA and the science there with you we do some
of our own. We’re tracking the issue. There are no changes
proposed as of yet. There is some lobbying going on and requiring
the change but that has not occurred as of yet.
There is two issues. One of the issues in the biosolids and one discharge.
The bigger issue when you talk about the particular chemical that was raised, within the water
wastewater industry is around the drinking water site first. Now, it is a closed loop
system system. If find it in drinking water it is going to work its way into wastewater
system. Both in the liquid and then as well as its
discharging on the affluent. Some of it may be captured in the biosolids.
We follow all of the regulatory requirements of the province. The province requires us
to test for a variety of different chemicals for — in our bio-calls and in affluent. And
we follow those. At this point in time there is no specific requirement test for additional
parameters than what we’re doing right now. Likewise you’re following the science and
what is happening in regulatory perspective on PFAS, you’re also doing it for emerging
pharmaceutical and contaminants as well? We participated as Toronto water on previous
pilot and assessments within environment Canada looking at the issue of pharmaceuticals and
personal care products in affluent and we provided sample results back to the federal
regulators. You know, so we cooperate closely with the regulatory agencies if they’re undertaking
any scientific studies to try to develop new standards.
We have done that from ammonia toxicity to chlorinated affluents all the way through
personal care products. We’re in close communication with the regulators.
At this point in time, this issue is just being tracked as an emerging issue. And we
are aware of it as staff. But it is not yet hit the regulatory front for us to report
and respond back to council to say that these are the implications to us as operators . Chaise
thank you, Councillor McKelvie. Any other questions for staff? No. Speakers. No. Someone
like to move the recommendations? Adopt and receipt. Councillor McKelvie. S
just adopting the recommendation. Councillor McKelvie.
Sure. All those in favour. Opposed. That’s carried.
Item no. 8. Logistical and legal implications eliminating right-of-way occupancy of for
private construction project and potential provisions of construction management plans
at rezoning stage. April anabe anaberg . Thank you very much for coming.
I’m April. I live, work and spend most of my time in Spadina and was candidate during
the municipal election. For con anyone in the room or watching because we have not gone
into detail what this agenda item is about, it is about priewft construction private construction
companies not taking over sidewalks and roads for years during the construction process.
So I’m non-partisan. I have zero affiliation with any political
party or politician. I’m simply here to stand up for that general premise it has gotten
complete completely out of hand the way that Toronto allows private construction companies
to take over lanes of traffic and sidewalks for years. And if you look at the staff record
that was recently done addressing this issue, the excuses given are simply unsatisfactory
to me. So, for example, one quote says eliminating
a use of right-of-way for construction purposes would cause development restrictions, impact
construction costs, result in longer development horizons and cause potential health and safety
concerns on certain sites. But regarding the potential health and safety concerns, the
issue is constant constantly that construction projects are being built all the way to the
property line and in other words just the edge of the sidewalk so that’s why for example
the sidewalk needs to be closed or lanes of traffic need to be closed rather than actually
moving the entire development a few metres back.
And then the reason why it is always going to the property line also stated in the report
is achieving long term development objectives. And that is what, quote, often results in
buildings either built to lines or close to property lines.
The park goes on to state even if the city elected to eliminate the occupation of the
public right-of-way it would still be utilized since paid duty officer have the discretionary
authority to close all live lanes of traffic during hoist hoisting activities. Again, I
think many of us know that a lot of construction projects don’t constantly involve hoisting
activities if that is something that needs to happen on a one off situation again a lane
of traffic does not need to be closed for years.
I would like to point out that even though I’m only one of two deputants here today to
speak about this issue, I can assure you that many constituents in Spadina and york are
greatly concerned about this because Spadina york is growing four times faster than the
rest of Toronto of on my walk to work, I personally have to have my right-of-way taken over by
four different construction sites just to get to work.
And if you look at a lot of the work the city has done recently, for example, the King Street
pilot, there is now a condo constriction project between Peter and John that is not only taking
over the entire sidewalk it is also taking over an entire lane of traffic.
The construction project is just started. We debate here for a long time. Making the
add and there is a project at leg leg Eglinton and moved it into the middle of the road and
made it unsafe. This is a safety concern for Torontonians and we need to prioritize over
sidewalk and roads over private developments and conveniences. Thank you very much for
your time. I’m happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much. Questions for the deputant?
I just have a couple. Thank you.
One of the biggest area I can’t of I air areas of complaints we receive is construction companies
blocking off lanes with absolutely no work going on. They put up the orange pylons.
There is no workers in there, no equipment in there, no digging in there. For a few days
that lane is blocked. Traffic is bunched up. And nothing is happening. Do you find that
as well in your downtown work? Sure. There’s times where there is a problem
that it looks like they’re not making the best use of time. But really what it comes
down to is a safety hazard . Now, I’ll give you another example. By Libertyville language
at the corner of strong strawn. There is five or more condominium projects happening simultaneous
simultaneously. Try pushing a stroller in that area or someone that needs a wheelchair
to get around in that area or for everybody it is extremely inconvenient and unsafe.
The other thing I notice is that the construction workers use an active lane as their personal
parking lot. And then to — to make it even worse they
fence it off during the entire weekend to make sure that those spots are available on
Monday morning. Do you see that as well? Yes, actually. I’m happy you asked that question.
As we all know because of the King Street pilot project, there is no parking on king
except guess where, at the new condominium construction project where they have blocked
off a lane and now I have noticed they have been actually parking a vehicle in that spot
on King Street where pedestrians now have to use actually walk on the road instead of
the sidewalk. In the prime location of the pilot.
Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Any other
questions for the deputant? No. Okay. Thank you for your comments. Ms. Wilson.
Some ways this is a very difficult topic because I have to empathies with the builders of the
many buildings goes up how difficult it is to get the volume of materials out and the
number of materials in like the ton okays of soil and the tonnages of building material
are really significant. So, yeah, how do you manage to do that and still keep the traffic
closed? I have empathy; however, there does seem to
be far too much private gain and private — you know, profit at public expense. The right-of-ways
are challenged and limited. And I have been very concerned as you I think would know by
now over the decades about where we’re getting hurt as cyclists and specific focus in the
core. I don’t feel that we have been responding well enough to these crash statistics.
And incidents like doesn’t have to be a serious injury to make somebody very nervous about
biking. I like to count everything as being an important concern. So there are area whys
where I think you have to be much more careful string general how much encroach encroachment
is aloud and how long. These crash stats should be indicator especially
on the east/west roads of queen and king and Dundas and part of college.
Going back to these — those Saturdays stats, they didn’t include the harm from the streetcar
cracks. They can be very significant. You have to back that off a little bit, please.
These tracks are hazardous for cyclists and I notice in many, many areas, this area here
called the margin is really, really rough and unrideable.
There are far too many locations to actually call them in. This is systematic issue now.
So the way that things get closed off you take the lane basically right up to this point
here. And that is a real problem for cyclists. We need to have some wiggle room like half
a metre, you know. Give us .5 of the metre. Don’t let the full lane be occupied all the
time. Give us some wiggle room especially on the streetcar track streets.
It would be really nice to see a motion come out of this saying yes, the roads with street
cocker car streetcar cracks, bius the safety of not having to cross these tracks or the
— the increasingly dangerous margins zone I think it is. So there is a consistent amount
of endangerment and I don’t — you get the sense that with the building boom everybody
is over overloaded. Or there is a lack of caring or there is a
lack of — some erosion in the standards. And this is another instance here of another
major project with encroachment up at Bloor and Yonge. I had an into in Bloor because
of the subway relief. They closed off a lane on Yonge Street. So Yonge Street southbound
is one lane but on Bloor only halfway. Taken part of a lane. So interestingly, the cyclist
is heading that is a very substandard lane width. Only about maybe 1.7 metres or 8 feet
or so. It has been that way for a good year or so when you add in — and right here, you’ll
see some signage. Right at the construction zone.
Actually that signage should be way back to permit the cyclist to actually take the lane
in comfort. I think it is possible the woman I had a meeting
there ahead of the — sent her the photograph there was just missed by inches by a speeding
car going through because she was trying to avoid the potholes here or serious depression
here from construction activity that should be filled in by now. So there is a set of
dangerous, especially when you add in the snow banks. We need to have wiggle room. We
need to have much greater safety in these construction zones. Lower speeds.
Even lower speeds than what you have done on Richmond or Adelaide.
They taped over 30-kilometres an hour over 40. Good. Maybe down to 20 please. Make it
safer. Make sure there is actually the signage . The proper signage. And with the enforcement,
it sure would be nice if the officers were actually watching the traffic rather than
the construction. I totally agree with the chair about the personal parking lot aspect
of some of these construction sites as well. It is pretty annoying. So, yes. Please do
things to make it safer for pedestrians and cyclist including cleaning things up. Bits
of gravel under tires, they can go springing off into hit somebody somebody’s car and they
can actually go a bit ballistic on you sometimes if they think that you have damaged their
car. Thank you very much. Any questions for the
deputant? No. Okay. Thank you very much. Questions for staff?
Questions for staff in you list three things that are really the advises as to why developers
can’t accommodate all loading — all loading, unloading construction activities on their
site. Construction timelines, the issues related to health and safety and then these term development
objectives. Is that right? I’m missing one more. I can’t recall.
Through the chair, that is correct. What kind of health and safety things can
we get — came up in your discussions? I should point out that the first line of the report
saying following consultations with the development industry, probably — that may have been ‘best
put a little bit deeper. That was — heavily influenced the report.
Because I think that is what a lot of us are really concerned about. So can you talk about
those, those three things, the health and safety aspect. What is it about allowing for
use of the public right-of-way that deals with some kind of health and safety concern.
Through the chair, I would also encourage my team to jump in on various pieces but the
health and safety piece that is referred to here is bouncing the requirements of the construction,
the development requirements, with the site but, also, the health and safety concerns
of actual construction on the site for the workers under the Ontario health and safety
act. I’m not sure if that is as clear, clear clearly stated as it might be. That but that
is definitely a significant piece. I canning have my team talk a little but more about
that. With regard to the development righters, a
lot of it has to do with zero lot line buildings and I see the chief planner is here and he
can talk a little more about about — he’s back behind you — talk about the urban design
and city building priorities that the official plan refers to in terms of trying to have
a continuous street wall and zero lot line building that place a significant change in
developing those buildings in tight conditions when they’re quite tall.
There are those thing that need to be balanced. We look at that and try to balance that on
every application. As the sites — as there is more demand and construction activity that
is happening, those sites are tighter and tighter and getting to be a more challenging
issue. The last item was construction time timelines.
I would love to ask about what kind of difference there is in relation to the amount of time.
I actually have a good example that I don’t know if you’re aware of or not. The lane on
bather street with respect to the village redevelopment. They didn’t need that part
of the lane to build the site. They asked for it because it shaved two years off construction.
And I think that is an important — that is something certainly that we consider in terms
of the overall impact and you know I think that there is going to be impacts in any case
on every project. Some of them are much more significant than others and where we don’t
want to end up going and I know that part of the reason for this report is that there
is with the incredible growth in construction in the city there is a lot of impact on the
right-of-way and on the traveling public which we really do try to minimize as much as we
can. What you’re describing is, in fact, one of the things that we consider and try to
minimize as much as we can. I don’t this to sound like I’m in defence
of the development industry on this because I am not. I want to always make sure that
they’re paying what — paying for the growth and the value of their property. But with
respect to long term development objectives and I’m really happy that the chief planner
is here because it has come up. Building a lot line isn’t always just the developer developers
most favour favorable building condition, is it?
This is often what the city would like to see.
Chief planner: Through the speaker. Certainly the long term
look and feel of the city should be driven if you will be our vision of how we want to
build the city. Certainly not as impactful as it can be. Certainly not a two or three-year
construction impact which h I grant you has to be appropriately managed.
The long term look and feel is about whether it be in a general way or specifically . I
know a lot of attention has been paid in the downtown Yonge and Eglinton issue and both
have area plans where we may decide that we want to set some buildings back to wideen
sidewalks, for example, or create better streetscape conditions but even in those areas, the development
is as dense as it is in those urban conditions. Really does not offer the opportunity to avoid
completely avoid the road occupation during construction.
It’s been our experience that that inevitably has indications inficonventions for the right-of-way.
What we suggested in the report is certainly at the zoning stage where we often don’t have
the detail that you would have later on but at the zoning stage at least start to surface
this issue more than we have in the past and identify principle principles that might inform
a construction management plan and then by the time I get I get to site plan.
That is when you move away from principles into detail and you have got a better idea
of exactly what is going on and maybe even who the construction company is that you can
is that you can have a much more thorough understanding what the impacts are and that
has been the effort recently is to work — is to have transportation work through the right-of-way
post to ultimately get those details as tightly defined and managed as possible.
That is kind of the continuum that we’re suggesting and the improvement that we’re suggesting
in the report is at the zoning stage at least get this issue more surface than we have in
the past. Understanding that we believe in our view, our advice is that some impact on
the right-of-way is going to be inevitable. We will always look for the other solutions
but there is an inability inevitable about this case.
The chair forgot to start my clock initially so I’ll leave my questions at that.
Any other questions for staff? Councillor Colle then Councillor Peruzza.
I’m not sure what the answer was that Councillor Layton’s question was. Do we encourage developers
to build the lot line? Generally we do through the chair,. We have
zoning by-laws in the city that have what we call build to lines. In other words, you
can only set the building back so far. When you look across the streets, main streets,
you know, the look and feel that we want to achieve is buildings up to the sidewalks to
avoid creating a a saw — some buildings setback and some buildings are set forward.
That is not the nicest streetscape I can think of and that is not the streetscapes we build
in Toronto. We usually build buildings up on an entire basis up to the street. With
understanding areas like Yonge and Eglinton and other growth areas we come up with specific
block plans for example to create wider sidewalks. We’ll position a building where we think with
in the long term, a bidding should be, a lot of times that is informed by creating a wider
sidewalk. I just wanted to be clear there is an inevitable about this, this — positioning
the building is not that going to get you away from the problem of getting into the
right-of-way during construction. There is an inevitable from my experience, an inevitability
there. We certainly experienced with different needs
and transportation services have been pushing the envelope on that and you have seen for
example construction trailers up in — up above zero the sidewalk and things like that.
But I don’t think pushing bulled buildings back is the answer that you’re looking for.
Thank you, Councillor Colle. Councillor Peruzza. Yes.
I just want to better understand this. So we woo couldn’t even if we said no present
somebody from going on to a right-of-way if they needed it to be able to build something
or fix something. I just want to know where our rights begin and end here.
Chief planner: Any time someone asks for — let’s just say we said no. We said no. Sorry . You
can’t close the road. You can’t come on to the road. You can’t build the canopy on the
road. You can’t obstruct the mom with the stroller.
There have been a number of cases where we have said no in the past. And then what in
depending on the circus. It is a case we always look at every request that comes through and
ask what is the nature of the construction activity that you’re doing doing. Why do you
need to have that access to the right-of-way. We challenge them to see are there other ways
you can go about delivering that construction without taking access to the right-of-way
and yeah. There are occasions where we will tell them no. There are other alternatives
and to push back in that regard. If there is an alternative, if we believe
there is an alternative, we can see say no and hold them to a no.
Like Roger said we do look at alternatives. At the end of the day for sites like this
that have been approved by City Council, we’re going to get to a point where there is a permit
issued. Just a matter of which conditions we’re applying to that permit. We go through
a very rigorous exercise to figure out where the occupation could happen and what — maybe
I’ll ask the question another way. I just want the information. It is not — nothing
to argue about it. I just want to know if I’m going to build something and I can’t build
it safely or whatever other reason without going on to your property, you — you have
to allow me to go on to your property or you can say no no.
We can say no but we have to act reasonably in saying no. So we — so you can say no but
technically if I require at the end of the day to go on to your property to build what
I’m building or fix what I’m fixing, I have the right to do that. Right?
I’m not sure up legal want to weigh in on this particular question can. But my understanding
is we take in an application. We review it for all the details that we need on an application.
If we’re acting receivable reasonably we issue a permit or don’t issue a permit. The challenge
with development sites is, there’s usually a City Council approval of some description
for that particular planning site. So is it — is it fair to act, acting reasonably
to not issue a permit to allow to construct if you have gone through all the necessary
steps to make sure it is done safely and you have involved all — all right. Fine. All
the necessary steps. So some guy has to build something at or near the property line. Given
the nature of construction today with big equipment, right? Nobody mixes concrete on-site
any more. Like sand, gravel, shovel. Right? Concrete comes in on big trucks. Right? Mixers.
Right? And then those big trucks have to sort of, you know, off-load their concrete on to
something being hauled up by a big crane swinging over head, right? And usually swinging over
the right-of-way. Correct? Yes, through the chair, that is correct.
Then what you want to do you want to make sure as they’re doing that the people underneath
are walking around underneath are safe and that is where all of these kind of encumbrances
sort of begin to take place. Right? Correct. That’s — safety is our biggest thing
when we’re reviewing these things. Okay.
So what you’re really talking about is potentially sort of looking at construction activity and
saying to someone who is going to build something, well, you know what, maybe we can move the
trucks now from our road, which we don’t do today I’m assuming, right? To the back of
your property. Right? You build the front first. You off-load. Then
when you build the back yeah there is — you’ll close the right-of-way for a shorter period
of time. Is that really what we’re talking about here?
Through the chair, chair,. I think that is correct and some of the items that were brought
up by the deputant, the first deputant to talk about the duration of the construction.
What you’re just describing is a finite period of that construction because the construction
as you know occurs in phases. You want to make sure one of the things that
we do is to try to manage the phases of those constructions as tightly as possible so the
impacts on the right-of-way where they have to happen can be as short in a time duration
as possible notwithstanding what Councillor Layton brought up about if they can take the
right-of-way for a little bit longer and ultimate ultimately going to carve a bunch of time
off the total duration of the project, we’re going to take that into account as well.
Just the last piece about monitoring and auditing the sites so when they’re no longer using
the right-of-way sites for active construction, our transportation standards officers are
out there enforcing the sites to pull them out and make sure that they’re returning the
right-of-way to the public. Thank you, Councillor Peruzza.
I think I only used up a minute and a half of my five minutes.
You can’t bank time around here. You can’t bank?
No. You can ask for is a second round. You can borrow but it will ask cost you. You can
ask for a second round but I’ll vote against it.
I’m going to ask toy a second round. I’m going to vote against it.
It is my area. I have all this construction. I don’t have any here come here and you’ll
see. I’ll tell you what Councillor Colle.
You don’t have to take it to a vote. It is customary.
That is why we’re a committee. Someone has a request to ask, let them ask the question.
I have a deal for you, Councillor Colle. I could have asked those questions by now.
We don’t know how long the answer will be. I’ll make a deal just ask a couple quick questions
then I’ll turn the floor back over to you. You’re going to ask a couple of questions?
Sure go ahead. Thank you very much. I don’t think it is any
secret that the — I mentioned it to the deputant that the unnecessary closing of live lanes
with no construction work, no workers, no welcome to, no digging, no-no anything going
on. Is a chronic problem. What tools do we have to order these construction companies
to remove these barriers and open up the lanes at the very least to remove them on Friday
afternoon so that they have access to them all weekend.
Through the chair, I’ll start and then I think it is important to understand there is some
activities — I think that you’re accurate in saying what is occurring out there certainly.
In the county to get downtown we have tried to be aggressive at ought auditing those sites
so when no activity is happening we’re pulling those barriers back and ensuring that they
return to the public right-of-way. In areas where there is still construction
but perhaps less construction we’re definitely needing to be out there and on top of those
constructors and I think there are times when the lanes are taken it doesn’t appear as if
there is much activity happening but there might be activity happening.
That is why I wanted a little bit of an overview from my staff who are out in the feed from
that. Through the chair, if I can add to that same
point, the work zone coordinator and coordination team, they try to closely monitor each of
the construction activities once the permits of the right-of-way have been issued. Sort
of understand the nature of the work that is on-going and specifically just driving
by the sites on regular basis to observe and see exactly the instances that you’re referring
to and reaching out to those developers to ensure whether or not they still need that
space. If they don’t basically asking them to basically remove it and provide the right-of-way.
But again, to Barbara’s point, there are oftentimes where it may appear as if they have taken
the lane. There is no actual work on-going whereas it may be a case there is concrete
below that is curing or setting. All kinds of element of construction that require where
it is not safe to reopen the lane, provide access back to the public.
But there is no actual physical work going on. I think most recently within the city
there has been a bit of a campaign where actually been putting additional signage up saying
nobody physically on-site. This is mediary stage.
No-no no all right. Well, my next question surrounds the fencing off of parking spots.
Either sometimes they’re metered spots spots. Sometimes not. Where the workers are parking
their vehicles in a live lane and they use it as a personal parking lot during during
construction hours. I have seen situations where the work is done for the week. They’re
gone. Everyone is gone. The fencing remains blocking
that live lane. So those spots are available on Monday morning. Now, what action is the
city taking against this shenanigans? Through the chair, we have actually observed
the same thing. We have been trying to ramp up our efforts specifically in the downtown
core to see if and when those situations arise I should say we reach out to those developers
and essentially tell them to cease and desist. Is there compliance?
Oftentimes, yeah. We reach out to them basically tell them this is not the intended purpose
for this use of right-of-way. We tell them either provide the access or remove the vehicles.
We also provide issue ticket for noncompliance. Okay.
All right. Thank you very much. Councillor Colle, you had an additional question?
Yes. And I want to say that I do appreciate that
many of you that have here have been on the road with me and the sidewalks at these construction
sites. I appreciate that. It helps when staff is there and takes that time. What I — don’t
you think what is missing here is that city staff and whether it is the building permit
department, transportation, planning staff, do what they have to do. One of these construction
sites is an on-going moving target. Within a 24-hour period there could be all
kinds of conditions that change on the sidewalk, the condition of the road. The construction
overhead. There may be these crazy construction pylons and signs everywhere. Don’t we need
some kind of monitoring system where someone with either that is paid for by the developer
or the contractor or from city staff is basically monitoring these sites on a regular daily
basis rather than on a complaint basis coming from a Councillor or coming from, you know,
a citizen. Don’t we need some serious comprehensive monitoring
of these sites to basically keep them safe. Because frankly, many of them are not safe
for for suing lists, pedestrians, mothers with strollers, seniors seniors, it is like
you’re walking in a war zone. I mean as I said to anne Marie d’amico square
you better have your army boots on an helmet. I tell you now I’m asking you to walk with
me. Nance we’ll walk in each other’s wards. That is what I’m saying. Don’t we maybe need
a comprehensive person there that is supervising this on a regular basis?
Through the chair, traditionally that role is handleed by traffic officers that are pa
ruts ruseing the areas and try to identify the issues and issuing citation to the have
youlators. In parallel with that it has been a general responsibility of the work shown
coordinators as well especially in areas where they’re aware there is a lot of heavy construction
activity on-going to be monitoring the areas. Most recently back in December we just launched
our pilot of the construction hub coordination project taking it to a much higher level of
service in that regard where within the Yonge and Eglinton area you’re aware we have a dedicated
project manager helped with coordination starting from now and the coming months really start
taking on more and more of that kind of responsibility as well.
Thank you, Councillor Colle. Yes, Councillor Nunziata.
Madame Speaker: That not that I’m going to go take a walk
with Mr. Coal. Of what the last time — Councillor Colle. When was the last time you came to
my ward. Talking about development plucks, what about
when the city is doing work on the road and some of them are going on for a couple of
years and they have got the sidewalk flows and people are walking on the site . In that
case, what do we do then? Because that is closing actually, you know,
the accessibility for anybody to walk. They’re walking on the road.
Through the chair, it is similar rules and responsibilities for public works construction
in terms of they don’t necessarily get a permit as per se but they go through an internal
process of review to ensure they’re only taking up those areas of the right-of-way when they
actually are doing active construction. Some of the construction like water mains and building
sidewalks. The it takes two or three years. It does take a long time. Very often there
is phasing of that work that are going to impact the sidewalk and then they’re going
to go to a dust place and come back and impact the sidewalk again to finish the work.
But it is all — we do monitor it in the same way we monitor the — in a similar way monitor
the private development. Councillor Nunziata:
They apply, they come forward and apply for is a permit as well.
They do not apply for is a permit but they go through a permit process and they have
inspection and oversight that is provided that Michael was talking about through ecs
as well. Councillor Nunziata:
Thanks. Thank you, Councillor Nunziata. Any other
questions for staff? No. Speakers? Councillor Matlow.
The chair, committee members, thank you for zero addressing this addressing this issue.
The reason this item is on your agenda is based on a number of different motions that
we approved at council over the past several years. Two of them — two of the items this
report really delves into that we moved a few year old ago, one of which was called
taking back our streets. Ait address it addressed specifically how
best we can restrict the number of lane closures and sidewalk closures that are occurring around
our city that are contributing to zero more safe environments along with increasing suggestion
in our city and becoming impediments of all users to our right-of-way.
The other matter that I brought to council is requesting staff to look at — I think
they address addressed it well in this report. If it is possible to have a better understanding
of how the builder — developer want to construct their project earlier in the process rather
than in the back end site plan so that during the approval process, we can be better informed
about what impact it will have in our community and in our city. What we’re also consider
considering the built form and other considerations. I think staff did a very good job at considering
that request and I appreciate it. On the matter of further restructuring these lane closures,
I say respect respectfully the feed back that I have heard from staff, it is — it doesn’t
go as far as I would like. And I’ll tell you why. I respectfully disagree
with the characterization that I heard from our chief planner who I a think does an admirable
job . But the character sawtion of inevitability. I just respectfully disagree. I respectfully
disagree that the burden of responsibility should be on us. And on the public . To provide
for the ability of developers to build big buildings and mock a lot of money. I — I
submit to you if you are in the development business.
The burden of responsibility should be on you up you’re speculating considering what
properties you want to and make a lot of money you should be able to figure out whether or
not you’re going to be able to develop it or not. Without assuming that you have some
divine right to occupy somebody else’s property to stage the construction for two or three
years. That shouldn’t be the default position. So I’m not suggesting that we be unreasonable
either. I recognize that there are circumstances where
the impact on the public and the public right-of-way are not as adverse as other circumstances.
Sometimes they’re almost benign and sometimes they’re incredibly impactful. But how are
we able to plan for bike lanes for example and see they want interrupted in the middle
when a developer wants to stage on that lane? How are we able to manage the traffic flow
for motorists when we don’t know year after year how many lanes we’re going to have to
give up to the development industry? How are we able to plan for further traffic
infrastructure such as brts if we don’t know what is going to become of of that curve lane.
You know as well as I do when sidewalks are interrupted we would like to see the pedestrians
cross the street and use the other side but many make other choices risky scenarios where
they cross in a lane of traffic to their preferred path of destination. We all do it. So ultimately,
what I’m submitting to you through the letter that Councillor Layton has gracious graciously
said he would carriage of is this. To follow up on the work that staff has done to report
on the motions that I moved to council. What council. What I’m asking you to consider is
this: (a), the default position is that the right-of-way
belong to the public. We’re not in the business of giving it over to every developer that
wants it. We need to make it clear to the development industry. Also, that staff you’ll
see how I wrote it, it is comprehensive through staff that they — I’m not saying it will
never happen again. It is not to be unreasonable. There will be circumstances that staff deem
it appropriate and reasonable and there won’t be such an adverse affect we should not support
it that it should be supported. But when it is, we should use that leverage. You know
we have got very few cards to play. Section 3745 (d) (c) all being roald into a benefit
charity now. We have not seen what kind of benefits we can gain from communities in the
long run yet. But what I want to explore — I ask you for
your support. This is a report request to explore with staff. Is there a way that if
a developer is achieving more GFA by not having to setback as far as they should frankly at
this stage on their own property, then is there a way to gain a percentage of what that
GFA would be? Contribute it toward whether it be childcare or senior services or affordable
housing on that site or nearby. Is there a way to do that? I don’t know. I
want to explore that. Let’s use whatever leverage we have. If they’re using our space let’s
see what we can get out of them for the community that is losing their lane or their sidewalk
or their bike lane for two or three years. Why wouldn’t we want to explore that?
And finally, development is going to continue in the city. Sometimes we need to adjust to
that. Sometimes there are ways that — if I may just round up slightly more — you have
got quite a bonus going here. I’ll wrap up with this.
First time you have come to our committee. We’re giving you a visitor bonus. Yeah, you
have to wrap this up. .
I’ll wrap up by saying thank you very much. Councillor Layton. Has it been charged? Okay
. Anyone else to speak on the item? Councillor Colle?
Again as I said before, I do appreciate really we were on the streets dealing with some of
these real life issues of safety with these major construction sites. Some cases we were
able to talk to the construction manager on-site. They made some quick fixes. But you know there
is a lot of sloppiness . I’m a jogger. I jog up Yonge Street. Eglinton, sometimes even
yawing jog up jog up near west lake pardon near I can’t — I see pylon pylons and construction
signs that lay there for months. I pick them up and move them over to the wall aor into
the alleyway because they’re there for months. So that is just housekeeping. Then there is
the construction companies the development that is taking place where the sidewalks,
you have these temporary barriers for instance with these metal feet. I know you have seen
them. They sort of — they don’t really bolt them down to the sidewalk but they hold up
the fences. These things are a hazard. But they’re all up and down our streets now.
I can imagine how many seniors and people trip over these fence feet, I don’t know what
the names of them are. What are the names of those things I’m talking about. You know,
they’re supposed to be bolted into the sidewalk. What? But they have a foot that is metal.
Feet. Anyway, that. Yeah. Variation of the above. Then there’s, you know, the harding,
the darkness. You can’t see in the middle of the day like
going through a tunnel on Yonge Street because there is no lighting in these construction
tunnels. So I just think somehow we’ve got to support staff in — whenever planning decision
are made through approval, section 37, 42, whatever, include some of these costs that
the developers will pay to keep the place in a safe, working order . Right now, it’s
hit and miss at best about. Sloppy, dark, dangerous. These are our major streets.
This is not on backwater streets where there is thousands of people that are walking, trying
to get by. So I think in our approval process going forward, we’ve got to put in some of
protection for people on our public streets. We’ll never get rid of the construction obviously
because they need the space to get on to the lot line. We have to put in some safety measures.
Right now they’re not safe places to be. Thank you, Councillor Colle. Any other speakers
on this item? Is your motion — yes, thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I have taken Karen
of Councillor Matlow’s motion. With one small change. I’ll just go through
the motion that conclude request general manager transportation services and consultation with
the chief planner and executive director of city planning to report to the Infrastructure
and Environment Committee in the second quarter of 2020 with a report on implementing a new
right-of-way occupancy permit policy. That defaults to a denial of the request except
when no other options are available or when other factors necessity and will require a
consultation with the TTC, transportation and city planning, to determine whether a
closure will adversely impact any current or future possible public right of uses of
the right-of-way including those affected, ped, motorists, you know suck list and cyclist
and achieved by the developer as a result of the city right-of-way use for construction
to be provided for public amenities such as affordable housing childcare or seniors services.
First I would like to thank Councillor Matlow and city staff for bringing this forward and
working on the issue. It is something that we struggle with in the Toronto east conclude
and just yesterday we approved Bloor if you have seen and gone on university or avenue
road. Not too Bloor. This was afternoon road. This is —
they have now had three extensions. It has been there for four years or something
like that. .. They keep asking for more and more time. I keep not giving them as much
time as they’re asking for. Knowing that they’re just going to come back I’m trying to make
a point. I’m trying to make a point they just can’t have the space. They shouldn’t be just
entitled to it. In this case it is the sidewalk.
But there is no sidewalk extend extended out into the road. So it would have been taking
of the road if we replace the sidewalk. Unfortunately that wasn’t the agreement that was reached
prior to me taking on the file. The use can of public right-of-way by develop developer
parties a a constant annoyance of residents in the City of Toronto.
It is no surprise that it is often the target of folks in the media, of politicians, all
of us, of members of our community as to why we’re seeing such enormous congestion issues
in the city. It is no surprise. As we heard from the chief planner and see
in the report, it is sometimes a necessity. Not all the time. But sometimes. And sometimes,
yeah, sure. It benefits the developer. They get to go to market quicker with their units.
They get to sell it faster. Make their money quick quicker. It is probably a little easier
to build their project. They might be able to build a little more because they’re building
to the lot line. But that’s not always the only mode of it. Or the only reason why they’re
ending up in that position. Sometimes as our chief planner said we want
them to bid to the lot line. So you don’t have one building on Eglinton at the sidewalk
width and then one situated four metres further back. Sometimes we do does one. New housing
units built in the City of Toronto. When we have housing emergency like we do, the situation
we do in the city, we want to help get the buildings built faster. It is not just the
developers that want to see that. In the village I have closed a lane of bathers
constantly with supportive enthusiasm with my community because it shaves two years of
construction time of a — what will now be a five year project. We wand that. And yes.
West bank makes money faster. But we get 900 rental units. One hundred of which are affordable
faster, too. There is a little bit of give and talk here.
But I think where Councillor Matlow want to go with this and I’ll just try to sum up quickly
here. Where I think Councillor Matlow wants to go with this is that it can’t always seem
like we’re favoring. We start at a position favorable to developer developers. Because
I think that is how a lot of people feel. Whether or not it is intentional.
I don’t believe it is intentional. I don’t believe we in fact do that because
I have seen some of the give-and-take that goes on. I think that there is a perception
of that. I think the communities need — they need to know that we have their best interests.
And concerns top of mind and not only those of the developers. And I think we do that
by starting at a place of denial and having it need to be demonstrated to us that there
is a need for this. Both from a developer’s per Councillor Peruzza expectative, around
the site constraints but also that it benefits the community in the end.
I struggled with this for a little bit but where I landed often Councillor Matlow’s motion
I think something that I can support. Thank you, Councillor Peruzza.
Yeah. I’m going to support the essentially the staff
recommendation that are in front of us today. I get it. I understand the — some of the
problems connected to this. We’ve all experienced them firsthand. My real pet peeve is you know
the private develop developers that is a problem. But that is — the real culprit culprits are
when we do the big public projects. The subways and LRTs and those kinds of things. They just
come along. Sort of take properties as of right . They
shut it down. They move barriers in the middle of roadways, don’t move them. And we’ve chatted
about that every time. But I think that we need to be a little more vigilant but I don’t
believe we’re going to have the resources to police this proper properly or in fact
to create those construction schedules that people are talking about creating. At the
end of the day, it is a far more complex world than we would otherwise believe here. Having
said that that, I do want to say this. I don’t understand why it is z that we would encourage
in fact in most cases force developers to build their first floor to the lot lines.
I have never understood this. Like why we from a planning perspective not encourage
sort of a public ground coverage space where (a) you — you create a greater sidewalk with
but, bncht, bncht, as (b) ‘as the city develops you get more people and more people on sidewalks,
you create more sidewalks and coverage space. Many of you would notice you walk on Bay Street
down here for example. Now they have signs that say, overhead ice.
Right? So you’re walking by a building that is basically on the lot line. A very narrow
sidewalk between the curb and the building on Bay Street. You got signs saying you have
chunks of ice that are going to drop on your head.
Look up dummy. That’s not to talk about falling windows and all of the rest of that. You get
it. 88 planning. . great planning. I great principle. Why would we say to them not your
first floor? Reset your first floor. Create a public route
and then you can come out on your second floor so people have something cave to walk safe
to walk under so ice doesn’t drop on their brain. I understand that that is more of a
planning argument than I should perhaps maybe go to the planning committee and speak to
that. But you have seen some of those buildings we all love by the way. You know where you
have the columns that come out to the lot line. Anchoring the second floor.
But you have these wide kind of like boulevard area that sometimes are used for public amenities
outdoors . But you’re walking in a covered space. Why we wouldn’t promote the creation
of that type of city. Where people can move around safely, sheltered, shadeed. Without
having chunks of ice drop on their head. Creating much, much wider sidewalks . Like
why we wouldn’t do that is beyond me. Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Peruzza. Are there any other speakers on this item? Thank you littler
Councillor Peruzza thank you, Councillor Peruzza. Any other speakers on this item? I guess not.
That is good. We have one motion for this item. Item no.
8. It is currently on the screen. All those in favour.
Councillor Matlow would like to see a recorded vote so I’ll indulge him on that request . Any
of you ask the same I would say that. Councillor Colle, Councillor Layton, Councillor
McKelvie, Councillor Pasternak, any opposed? In favour includes Councillor Peruzza. Any
opposed. That motion carries unanimously. Item as is amended. Okay. Tulsa no. 9, Councillor
Colle. You held that — nine is next. You’re here for item 10? Thank you. Councillor Colle,
could we dispose of this quickly? Is there a reason you’re holding it?
Yes, there is about five years of reasons why I’m holding this.
This is exactly what Councillor Layton was just referring to.
He’s getting extensions for the public sidewalk on Yonge Street. We gave one extension, two
extensions, now they’re asking for another one. You know, ironically enough, the nom
of the developer is lifetimes. It sure is lifetime developments. Seems they’re going
to be developing this project on Yonge Street for a lifetime. So the question that I have
— I have a question couple of questions of staff about this lifetime development. If
I could ask staff. Okay, Mr. Chairman? Yes. In terms of this extension they have
asked for now until April 2021. We gave them one — how many expenses have we given lifetime?
Where is it? This would be the second. The second extension. When did this project
start? The site has been in place since February
1st, 2018. Seoul so 2018, Seoul so so 2018. How many years are going to go on.
It has been going on for a number of years here. So do they expect to be finished by
April 30th, 2021? Will this be the last one that they have asked
for? Through the chair, my understanding is that
they have — they’re building — they’re on the 21st floor of their construction.
They have 12 floors remaining. They plan to remove their crane in 2020. Do
street scaping in Yonge and helendale in the fall and doing interior work and finishing
until 2021 Councillor so I guess I could therefore I could therefore put an amendment or motion
this is the last extension you get. Okay. Anyway, this is — thank you.
This is if I may speak to it briefly. This is why where we just have been talking about
perfect example here. On Yonge Street where with nonstop construction with building of
the Eglinton across unto our life time project has been going on for 30 years. Not to mention
this — the attempt of people try to work on Eglinton.
Councillor Nunziata knows so well when we started to build this subway in 1990. It has
been 20, 30 years now of construction on Eglinton. Along with the construction on Yonge Street,
I don’t know when it is going to stop. That is what the people are saying. They’re patient.
They want sub subways. They want construction. But 30 years of it?
Then extensions and extensions. So if I could just move an amendment that this be the last
extension given to — in their lifetime for lifetime developments for the project at 2360
Yonge Street. Do you want to prepare that with — then we’ll
move it down and I’ll prepare my amendment. Okay. Any other speakers? Okay. So then we’ll
move to the next item. So 11.10 and there are deputations. Ms. Amish Wilson.
You have 5 minute. This is theoretic theoretically good news
or could be . It is nice to see; however, been there in some ways. This is from 1998
I think cycling trail opportunities in rail and hydro core corridors. And we’ve had this
that was kind of what they came up with as, you know, first round, second round sort of
thing. I’m not sure how much was done. And it is good. It is good.
There is no doubt about it at the time but at the same time, I think we should be focusing
on the on-road safety which is still a set of issues including say on Bloor street east
where there is a keystone gap that was in the 2001 bike plan. It is still not done despite
the repaving and despite the commitment to study it is still a gap. I favour the onroad
rather than offroad because the onroad is usually cheaper to be done and it is where
commuters are going rather than recreational. So by doing the offroad as a priority, it
tend to eat up the bike budget and not necessarily benefit the cyclist as much as I would like
to see happen. And quite honestly the best use use, high it’s highest best use for some
of the linear corridors many of them is for tran it. Not — tran it and not necessarily
for biking and that is a sore topic for some and when the space gets really contested as
we get to the core core, that is the — that is the highest best use.
There are two areas that I would like to suggest should be really highest best use for transit
and one is the real rail west in corridor here and also up here — actually three. This
is now a real trail in council Robinson’s ward and then there is the other corridor
and tons of space and that would be logical place for is a transit way. With the westin
corridor, this goes back to merely 1985 or so . You can see that the rail line was suggested
for transit u that is good. That is what we — the upx was such a sad waste of resources.
We need sub-regional fast transit more than we do the milk runs and even though the real
trails are a wonderful resource to bike on, it feels safe, it isn’t as needed need as
surface relief. Pressure on this corridor gets even more intense. South of queen.
There is all this demand that comes in from the west and from Etobicoke and my hope some
decade trying to compromise. We have a new idea of stacking the transit on the north
side of this corridor so we have the sub-regional TTC under the — any rer or go so the queen
car can be advantaged as a loop. One way reverseible loop down to front street then back on queen
or king. Then in the afternoon afternoons head out.
Some year we have got to actually improve the transit in the core. I think this is one
of the keystone links for tran it come back next year perhaps. I know tran it is a very
sore point with all of us. Because of of the changes that have been forced upon us by the
province. So, yes, absolutely. It makes some sense sometimes to get the rail trails, offroad
happening. I just wish that we would focus on the onroad.
The offroad isn’t necessarily safe for women by the way. There is an equity issue as well.
Because there they tend to be more remote. They aren’t necessarily as safe. So yes. Plenty
of gaps on the onroad bike network and I would hope that we could actually fill those in
first please. Any questions for the deputant? Any questions on
the item? Madame Speaker:
There have been a number of motion that have gone through council the past few years on
that when the line went through my ward westin and it is going northbound to gunthro and
union street. We did make motions asking Metrolinx because right now they’re going through the
study and doing the electrical fix study, right, on electrifying the train and so it
is my understanding that they’re going through the process now. That is what I was told by
me trilinks. So in the report it says that the city is requested Metrolinx to accommodate
the rail path within the corridor as part of their electrical fix design. Do we know
where it is at this point? You want to make sure they actually look at
that during the design period. It is my understanding they’re doing that now. I just don’t want
to miss the opportunity here because this is something that has been on-going for a
few years. I know Councillor Bailão it goes through
her ward. I believe Councillor Cressy and Councillor Layton it goes through Councillor
Cressy ward, too, right? Through the section north of the existing
rail path we worked with Metrolinx on a through- through-opportunities to extend through the
St. Claire master plan. At that point there were not opportunities
there within the rail corridor. So we looked at on street alternative alternatives to provide
all ages and abilities safe facility. Through the trophy trophycation process we kingdom
them to look at that. I don’t have an update on where it is and we’ll certainly look into
that and get back to you. It is my understanding we started this process.
I was at a meeting a couple of months ago that is what we were told. I’ll get back to
that. Any questions from staff or would someone
like to move it? Councillor Layton. All those in favour. Would
you like to move for a seat? That sounds good.
All those in favour. All those opposed. Carries. The next item is do you want to go
we’re going to continue forward in the agenda and go back to 11.9 when that motion is prepared.
The next step is lesson .1. A deputation from in Mr. Perry . Thank you. You have five minutes.
I we provide cycling and education to schools in Toronto and since 2013 we have engaged
37,000 students. The back to school project supports this report improving road safety
of school-age children. The city focus and resources need to be directed toward arterial
roadway not collectors and local streets. In the last five years, more than 80% of collisions
in which school-age children were killed and seriously injured occurred on arterial roadway.
We’re due to prioritize resources toward making Toronto arterial streets safer. Implementing
automated speed and enforcement devices which by rule must be implemented near schools on
arterial road areways. Your initial rollout of the 50 sc devices fails to recall.
Implemented on major arterials. Six will be implemented on minor arterials
and 44 or 88% will be implemented on collectives and local streets. So 88% of these devices
are being implemented on streets where ksi collisions are much rareer. It doesn’t have
to be this way. We know from this report that the city recently reduced speed limits on
149-kilometres of arterials that passed within school soaps and thus are eligible for ase
devices. These arterials near schools are ideal locations
to implement ase. These devices will be relocated every three to 6 months so we urge you to
prioritize ase implementation on arterials before the next relocation. This is just one
way that resources for schools can of the type of meaningful impact that this report
calls for. We know how to make our streets safer for school-age children.
Focus on arterials, reduce speed limit, implement complete street designs and enforce traffic
laws. On behalf of all Toronto students trying to bike, walk and roll to school safely, the
bike to school project urges you to please focus the cities attention and resources on
vision zero interventions that will have a meaningful impact that will make our most
dangerous streets are safer for school-age children and all Torontonians.
Councillor Colle? Thank you for making a deputation on safety
issue. I’ll move a motion a little later asking exactly what you called for. And that is you
called for the prioritization of the speed cameras on major arterials, right?
Correct. Why should that be the case?
So as stated in this report, the majority of serious injury and deaths that are occurring
in Toronto are happening on this — these major arterials, even though there is far
fewer kilometres of them, they are — the locations where the most serious collisions
are happening so we need to target those areas. Yes. I guess I don’t know if you’re familiar.
I have got athe most dangerous school crossing my areas on avenue road. Aleville school.
Teachers have been hit hit, kid have been hit, people on sidewalks. Mysteriously, it
was not chosen as a site for one of these safety cameras cameras . Are you familiar
with avenue road at all? Absolutely.
You know there is that dead man’s curve there just before it. And another school I have
a granddaughter at running meade public school. For the life of me I can’t understand why
that is not a school safety zone. Why that is not signed for a speed camera. I guess
there is so few. Only 50 of them. Anyway I just think that could you please again talk
to about the reality of safety on these major arterials for pedestrians, cyclists, whoever
it may be. Right. I think that it is a myth that most
schools in Toronto or that all schools in Toronto are located on these quiet streets.
Many schools are located on or near the large arterials. Kids are facing very real challenges
in either going along. Ing along the arterials are get across them. Whether we’re talking
about walking or biking or using a scooter or any device.
These kids need to be safe using these large streets. We need to use a variety of tools
that we have in order to make that happen. And as I outlined the very small number of
camera cameras that we have are not being allocated strategically only 12% are on arterials
and those arterials are minor arterials. They’re not avenue road and
when you have resources it is more important to allocate them more strategic strategically.
Thank you very much. Thank you. Any other questions for the deputant.
Thank you for coming . Any questions for staff? Councillor Colle.
I guess the question I have for staff, would there be — what are the problems with trying
to prioritize major arterials for locations for the speed cameras?
So through the chair, we’re looking at all locations for automated speed enforcement.
We prioritize based on the greatest need not just based on the world classification type.
The sites that were selected initially, those were the sites that had the highest need.
Also, we’ve talked about potential conflicts with specific sites. So to the point about
why are we not higher currently, may have just been conflicts with things like construction,
sign signage, thing of that nature that prevented us from going with a few more on arterials
on this initial deployment cycle. What do you mean by conflicts?
Through the chair, if there is construction that is occurring, if there is not the required
signage in place at this time, if there is not a quick space or locations for the devices
to be placed, those are the types of conflicts that may exist right now that we would have
to work through in our next rebut location cycle.
I know you only have 50 that have been allocated. Is that 50 because of lack of funding. If
you had more moneys allocated would you would install more than 50 of these speed cameras?
So through the chair, 50 was the number that was approved by council. I think if we were
to increase that number we would have to look at the feasibility of doing so. The impacts
to the program. Given that it is the launch of the program 52 per ward ait was a about
way to start to sort of evaluate the program effectiveness.
The only thing I would add there Councillor through the chair, is that the nature of these
cameras we’re able to move them on rotation we found from other jurisdictions there is
tend to be a drop off affect from a certain period of time. We only have two cameras per
ward. We’re not going to keep them in the same place for the duration. We really get
more coverage and to Mike’s point as we grow the program similar to it we would come back
and ask for more capacity in the future. Just in terms of sort of got conflicting information
here. Basically we don’t want more than 50. Wouldn’t it be beneficial to try just change
the — you might say the sort of attitudes of people by having these cameras in more
locations so we could start issuing tickets and getting the message out that you can’t
speed ‘in your schools. So I don’t see the downside of putting in 100 cameras.
Through the chair,. There are a number of — I don’t want to call them administrative
because they’re very important components of the automated speed enforcement program
that the back end if you will that does make it, I believe, more beneficial to start with
a smaller number and ensure that we have all the protocols correct and that we’re able
to address the management of the ticketing that we’re able to do appropriate warning
letters and basically able to start up the system and we had the same process with red
light cameras where we rolled out I think 74 sites to start.
We auto got all the bugs out of the system and then we doubled the program and now we’re
doubling it again. I think that we have every reason to believe
it is going to be a very successful deploy. We have lots of partners that are — that
we’re working with here some that have some concerns and many which are quite enthusiastic.
We know the community wants more. We want to deliver it but we believe that the best
way to launch was to start with a reasonably sized deployment and then move the cameras
around within the ward of the hotspots so we could get the best coverage that we could.
We would come back to you with other requests for expansion in future years. Control yeah
I guess a lot of the problem is a result of the complications arising from the province
having to basically dictate the terms of, you know, collecting fines and issuing fines
and — but for the first 3 months I guess is just warning letters that they’ll get.
That is correct. Okay.
Thank you. Questions for staff?
Thank you for preparing this. I know we had asked for it because residents were really
from you strayed how long it was taking to rollout the school soaps and zones and it
is nice because now we have everything that you’re doing in one spot which is very helpful
because it was hard to piece all of that together and see that big picture. Thank you for that.
The second part of that motion though that — where we put in this request was asking
if there was anything that could be done to improve project management because in my community
my street was resurfaced and repaved in July. In front of the public school was resurfaced
and repaved in September. It could have — just as easily have been switch switched because
it would not have been a problem to pave in front of my house and on the residents at
that time. Is there anything that can be done about this so that we’re better coordinating
the timing of construction in the order that we’re doing in the city streets. That was
really what inflamed residents got this conversation going. I notice you’re not reporting on that
here. Maybe it is coming another time. Maybe you
can speak to that. Through the chair, yes. We certainly can improve
the way we rollout the programs. The intention and the direction is to not do work in front
of schools in September. This particular situation was a good learning as to what can happen
when schedules slip. We had some schedules this year.
I believe this site was one of those that we did want to try to get it done as quickly
as possible. The safety improvements were important. But
it did slip the calendar did slip. As we talked about in a previous meeting it
is on the public record as well the nature of the contracts for the local road program
have changed in the way they’re written to address the timing of projects not happening
during the start up of the school season especially and focusing the work over the summer months
when it is less busy in those neighbourhoods . In terms of a report back ba there was an
option to bring it forward as part of the report that didn’t come forward at that time.
We’ll have to look at which report it comes back in, in a more formal way .
Thank you. Any other questions? Councillor Layton.
I’m still a little unclear on when determining the ase locations.
How was it that we didn’t end up with any on our roads? Arterial roads?
Through the chair, our information is that we have seven of the 50 cameras on arterial
roads. Furthermore as I said there is decided by a data driven process as well as a further
site investigation that we can place equipment at that location. We have seven camera reviews
on the trail roads currently. Again, we may be looking at feasibility of expanding that
in the future but maybe opportunities ft. Future to do that.
When we did our initial scan based on all the location on the ksi and had where we established
that the need would be the greatest, it ended up with seven minor arterials.
Through the chair, that is correct. You might recall through the chair, the first
was designated zones because we could only put the speed enforcement cameras in community
safety zones. We did an assess meant in 2018 and 19 to establish those safety zones. They
all include school frontables but they go beyond the 150 metres in front of the school.
We were somewhat limited in how far we could expand the zones. We did try to pick up as
many of the arterials as we could. How are we limited in that way?
I believe the provincial legislation requires us to place the cameras in community safety
zones. The boundaries how are they set?
Through the chair, we tried to recreate essential l is school soaps through the community safety
zones to basically mimic but at the same time allow a little additional flexible. For example
in location where you would have multiple schools a awrong the same road. Instead of
having gaps of the community safety zone we would expand that to be one larger community
safety zone. As well to Barbara’s point, it is important to note that of the existing
altogether hundred 31 eligible community safety zones that exist, 17% ever those are on artral
roads that is the distribution that we have where the cameras are arterials versus non-arterials.
Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Layton. Any other questions
for staff? Speakers? Councillor Colle.
I would just like to — just getting some context and my frustration there is a guy
in the corner behind me. So this is a context here of — frustration with the getting technology
to make our roads safer. So this h is campaign I introduced the legislation
to the provincial legislation. You voted against it remember? So this is where we put up the
first red light camera at Lawrence and westin road. You can see Councillor Nunziata and
Jack Layton and myself. So this has been a long fight to get the city and the province
into the 21st century in terms of dealing with the pedestrians safety. That is why I’m
very glad that we’re proceeding with the automated speed enforcement cameras which then had a
long, long time coming. Not the fault of the city so much. The fault of the provincial
government. No matter what strife they have been opposed
to change or to technology. They told me at the time we did the red light cameras they
said we could have a cop in every corner to monitor people running red lights. That is
what we wanted. We don’t need cameras. We need more cops on the intersections. Anyway.
I had a motion. Just a few years. That is all. The motion I have up here is
for two requests. That going forward if we could ensure that the local Councillor is
consulted prior to the cameras being installed and I know that we have been told we’re going
to be consulted after the fact. That the 50 are already in. But I think you know we just
can’t be slaves to the analytic analytics on this. We need to talk to the Councillors
because we’re in constant conversation with the people that live in the area. That know
the area. The principals with the crossing guard. So
I think it is important going forward that the local Councillors be consulted prior to
the decision of where these camera reviews go so we can have our input. Secondly related
to the deputant that just brought forward, we should look at the possibility of giving
some priority to our major arterials because they are the most dangerous schools and I
think there is more than just data that determines the danger on these major arterials.
The speed on avenue road, in fact they — we had the test cameras on avenue road. We clocked
somebody 120-kilometres an hour. The greatest number of speeders on the test cameras were
on the avenue road location. Then I find out avenue road was not chosen. The people were
just flabbergasted. You’re not putting a camera at Allen b school.
I think going forward we have to look at the major arterials more seriously as one of the
ingredients in determining where these cameras go. We should also consult the local Councillor.
But anyway, I want to thank staff for this report. It has been very frustrating for them,
too, because of all the hoops they had to go through with the province on this.
Fundamentally they were not in support of camera technology. I was there when they voted
320 amendments against the cameras going in. So they didn’t really want them but they were
forced by citizens to do something about it. So we have them. And we have got more work
to do but at least we are starting to implement technology rather than having a cop at every
school. Thank you. Any other questions requests? Councillor Layton.
I’ll be brief. I just want to thank staff for bringing this forward.
I would have liked to see as part of b of the original request for this report is having
those different options of what we could do to improve or here is the range of things
that we could do to improve. Because as it appears to me some of these things are going
to come back as part of a budget ask in future years. That is when we’re going to have that
debate. Unfortunately when we put issues like this in to the debate — the overall budget
debate it tend to get lost in the necessity of us furthering our investment and adding
to that investment. And so it is often useful to present us with
costed options at stages like this when all of our attention is focused on those things
and we can ask them to be included in the budget or direct staff to include them in
the budget. I think what it did though and like maybe I was — I was caught in with many
people who sort of rushed to look at protections in school safety zones. Spending our money
as quick as we can in school safety zones. I think it is a natural feeling a lot of us
have to try to protect the most vulnerable. Let’s go to where they are. Let’s go to the
school safety zones. That is where we have to be. But what this report has outlined is
you know what, if you want to — if you want to protect those vulnerable road users, it
is not necessarily school safety zones where you need to be.
And that’s probably one of the shortcomings of the automated speed enforcement in general.
How it is not going to have the affect that we want to see it have because it is restricted
those areas. We might you’ve to make those areas more reflective of the playground, the
travel pattern of those vulnerable road users in order to protect them at the end of the
day. If you read between the lines expand those
school zones so we can apply the cameras where they might have more of an affect on major
arterial roads where people are actually dying and getting real really hurt. That is clear
from the first page in the report. But I don’t think it is something that comes naturally
to people to say, you know what, to protect school age kids, we don’t necessarily need
to be spending all of our money at schools. We should be spending them on large dangerous
roadways because that is what is going to actually make a difference at the end of the
day. So I would say a comment was made earlier that the ases were not being — were not being
located strategically. I think that is a bit unfair to staff.
Partly because when the locations came out, I saw them. I said my community is going to
start calling me and complaining about the locations. But you know what, I didn’t choose
where they are. I actually don’t love the notion that Councillors are going to be consulted
on where they’re going to be because we’re not the ones that probably actually know where
they should be best. That’s going to be our professional staff.
And I saw what staff — because I immediately sent — I think I sent it to staff. It may
have been my own internal team to say, how are these locations chosen?
I know I’m going to get asked. I was sent just a snapshot into what they went through.
They were very strategic. Hyper-strategic in their locating these cameras. And so while
I appreciate the second point of Councillor Colle’s motion and I would be supportive of
that giving it a report request I’ll let the first part slide. I just don’t need to be
consulted about the locations. I think that — I think that the shortcoming in the ase
piece is that we’ve limited it to — it is limited to the — the school zones and not
been put in areas where it actually might make more of a difference. Thank you.
Any other speakers on the item in thank you, Councillor Colle. We just have the one motion.
Put it on the screen. All those in favour. Opposed . That is carried. Now I understand
that no. 9 was held down . Councillor Colle, do you have a motion for that? I understand
you have withdrawn your motion? Yeah? All right. So I think that we’re ready to
— okay. So can I have someone move the recommendations and we’re done with no. 9. I will move the
recommendations. All those in favour. Opposed. That is carried. I can also quickly release
if the committee agrees no. 20. Which is really report back on how we
can preserve some of the green space of the different transfer station. We can get that
one done. It was a walk on item if everybody is okay with that. Yeah.
It is no. 20. It is report back on how we can save some of the green space of the Dufferin
transfer. I want to release it it. Save the green space. Okay. All those in favour.
Opposed. That is carried. Now I think we jump back to item item 15. Feasibility of implementing
local traffic vehicle decals. De decals. We have a deputant. Oh, he’s — he didn’t — he
didn’t want to wait athe six for this. For this opportunity. He has missed a golden opportunity
for this wonderful idea. Any questions for staff but I’m not sure whether we want to
waste any more time on this one. I’ll move the staff recommendations.
Put us out of our misery. Staff recommendations moved. All in favour. Opposed. That is carried.
No. 16. It was actually held by pooh Councillor McKelvie. Smart commute program transition.
I have a motion if nobody has questions we can proceed with it u if you have a motion.
Anybody have questions for staff? Want to speak on it other than Councillor McKelvie
to move her motion? You good. Okay. Mcm, Councillor McKelvie, why don’t you move your motion.
Evaluate the enhancing smart commute by discussion through discussions with other navigation
providers so that we can look at how we can have carbon tracking and measurement tools
and how we can look at more multimolding sequencing of trips and had there is report back in the
fourth quarter of 2020. So basically what the vision here is, there is all these calorie
counters that happen right now. People look at I can eat this or I can eat
that. And then they can work out and they can say I saved 300-calories today. They put
out a tweet. Yeah. Can we do the same sort of thing with commuting? I walked and saved
x amount of carbon. And not only that moving forward and I think we can do that with google
maps. We can do that with waise. Right now they calculate your trip time with different
kind of transit. Can we get them to take it a step further
and say what is the car carbon is associated with that so people can start to think about
the impact of that you are travel in a different way much like they think about eating when
they start to use these calorie counters. But the other thing I think that we need to
pay more attention to and it came forward through some of the transfer consultations
that I attended is that we tend to think of commuting and travel as one mode of transit
only. You’re either on the bus the whole way or
you’re walking the whole way or you’re driving the whole way. But for many residents especially
in the suburbs you may drive to a tt tc stop or a go train stop and then you’ll take transit
then you may walk. Those google maps and waise and things like
that are not great in splitting up in component. I asked staff to look at the feasibility of
this. Have some discussions and make a recommendation if this is something that can be done and
maybe ideally through partnership with others that work in that space and that technology
space that we can maybe look at our carbon a little bit differently. Calorie carbon.
I love it. All right.
Any other speakers on the item? No . We’re good. Okay. There is the motion on the screen.
All those in favour. Opposed. That is carried. The item is amended . Staff
recommendations. All those in favour. Opposed. That is carried. So we’re on to item number
17. We have a number of deputations. Student lions, bert, Canada. Great. Thank you for
coming. Thank you for your patience. It has been a long day.
Mr. Chair and committee members I’m Stuart ly lyons.
I’m the ceo of bird Canada. A Toronto based Canadian owned company that offers Canadians
innovative last mile mobility solutions for urban areas. Last year we launched a dockless
scooter sharing program in Calgary, ud must be ton and Montreal and this year we look
to launching additional cities like Toronto in the spring of this year.
I appreciate the opportunity to meet many of you individually and grateful to appear
before the committee today. As of January of first the Ontario government has removed
the principal obstacle of this launch of e scooter sharing and city staff are preparing
a report for those committee consideration. I look forward to appearing before you in
March when the report is completed. In the interim I wanted to previously comment
on the electric vehicle strategy. I wanted to commend the reports authorities from including
shared mobility in general and bike mobility of range of available actions to help the
city achieve its lottable 2050 goal of having transfer powered by zero carbon energy sources.
In order to meet this goal at least two things have to happen in our opinion. One people
have to replace gas powered vehicles with electric vehicles obviously and two the number
of trips taken by motor vehicles in our city overall will have to be reduced. Dockless
e- e-scooter sharing is significant contributor to both of these objectives.
I say this for two reasons. First electric light vehicles can materially assist a city
in meeting emission reduction targets and secondly because data consistently shows that
every 3 e-scooter trips replace one car trip. Even last month month’s report in Calgary
with e-scooter sharing revealed the exact same report.
I would like to draw your attention of study a leading French firm that specializes in
carbon strategy. Some of you have a copy of the Paris focused report that concluded that
light electric vehicles can help cities meet de-carbonization goals. Based on the current
mode split in Paris it examined three scenarios to determine the potential for dockless leds
and scooters to meet future ability need and emit carbon emission in 2030. These analysis
found that biking and leds could account for 21% of all trips in Paris.
Supporting an overall reduction of emissions for energy consumption of 68%. For these reasons
it is clear that light electric vehicles such as e scooters are important contributor to
City of Toronto de-carbonization goal. I did pleased to do this report before the committee
today recognizes the complimentary nature of e scooters. I encourage this committee
to do the same. Bird Canada looks forward to looking with you as you prepare for e sharing
in the spring. Thank you. I would be happy to answer any questions that
you have. Thank you very much. Questions for the deputant.
Okay. Thank you very much u Brian per purcell. Atmospheric fund. Brian purcel purcell.
I think he submitted a written document. Okay.
Chris schaffer, line Canada. Thank you for coming. You have 5 minute.
I work for is a atech company. See if I can get this laptop hooked up so we can see the
presentation. I can send along the presentation afterwards.
Sure. I’m Chris schaffer schaffer. I’m senior director
of strategic development at lime in Canada. Today I wanted to talk about the strategy
obviously as my friend mentioned there is a report coming before the committee later
this quarter on potential regulation for e scooter share operations after the province
permitted that where municipalities wish to have them.
I won’t talk about that. That is something for later. I wanted to touch on briefly the
EV strategy particular cannily electric scooters. The atmospheric funded a report out recently
it highlighted the unfortunately reality of some transportation emissions increasing on
a per capita basis across the GTA and in Toronto. As we know transportation is one of the largest
contributors to green gas emissions and you’re all very familiar with.
There is a need in here which I’ll talk about very briefly to mode shift. Get more people
out of cars and into other forms of sustainable transportation that do two thing. Don’t contribute
to traffic congestion and they’re environmentally friendly. In the transform to under transportation
one of the gold is 75% of all trips under you have to kilometres will be walked or cycled.
I would add rolled to that as well. That is sort of multi-modal multimodeal universal
that we’re living citizens and resident of the City of Toronto which I many a aadds well
looking different ways to get in and around their cities. Scooters can play a small role
but a role nonetheless in advancing the EV strategy and climate change emergency concerns
that we have here in the City of Toronto and transferred to as well. How is lime addressing
its environmental work and sustain sustainability of its products?
Four thing I’ll highlight very briefly. We’re continuing to strengthen the durability of
our e-scooters to extend their operational lifetime. The longer they last the better
it is for the environment. There is also the modularity of the components thements of our
scooters. We can use different parts to repair around replace animal ages parts in other
scooters. Our newest models of scooters are now lasting over a year which is a marked
improvement from the initial scooters launched by companies three years ago which were not
lasting as long. Over newest scooters that we have launched globally about 96 to 97%
of the parts are recyclable as well. Another item I’ll highlight very briefly there
is others but is the mode shift element that I’ll talk about very briefly of the last thing
is that where there are less invially friendly components that are operation such as the
rebalancing of scooters where we don’t do that by by bicycle and human power. We use
vans that might run on diesel. We use carbon offsets. So our tire fleet of
electric scooters is charged with 100% renewable energy and use carbon offsets where we need
to. As my friend highlighted, Calgary, Edmonton and Montreal are op rossal in lime last year.
Calling bary the first city to produce a thorough report on e-scooters.
We found one in three replaced a trip with a car. That mode shift is important as we
need to shift more people out of cars and to other forms of environmentally friendly
transportation. We’re seeing real impact from scooters in Canada to date. Again, when I
share this presentation with the committee motorcycles I can’t see it now I have got
just my last slide here and I’ll wrap up is I pull data for any city but I pulled data
from Paris, France, where we have a scooter operation in Paris, France.
It maps tom-t of m company traffic conbest transcripts and lime trips throughout the
day and week. Monday starting in the morning to evening.
You’re looking at rush hour traffic congestion patterns and the pattern of our daily lime
trips on our scooters matches as traffic congestion run increases so does the use of our scooters.
You see a nice trade off as people are mode shifting during rush hour, high periods of
congestion I think that is important as well. That is the end of my presentation. Thank
you very much committee. I’ll take any questions if there are any.
Thank you very much. Any questions for the deputant? No. Okay. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Gabriela colapos.
Hi there, everybody. Thank you for allowing me the time to present
today. My name is gabriela col colasm ‘. Zero. S and we’re a charitable environmental organization
we work with partners for private protection campaign to advance their clean air and climate
change and actions. I wanted to say thank you very much for this opportunity and to
also the cleaner partnership would like to provide its full hearted report for the Toronto
EV strategy. One of the key things that is really important
about this is not only is this a leadership opportunity for the City of Toronto but there
is a lot of other municipality municipalities all across Ontario who will be following in
Toronto’s footsteps on their EV strategy. So the direction that Toronto takes will not
only influence what happens in Toronto, it will actually influence what happens not only
across the greater Toronto and Hamilton area why but also across Ontario.
I won’t spend a lot of time talking about the EV strategy because I was out outlined
very well in the EV strategy itself. But what I did want to kind of speak to is really the
case in the EV market it is accelerating within our — within the market on its own ; however,
it is really important that we don’t have the — since we don’t have the time to allow
the market to advance on its own pace, the leadership and the policies that government
put in place to accident said rate the EV ready readiness and adoption documentation
within our this. Communities is really integral to when the
province of Ontario advocated on its responsibility to play a leadership role on this file, a
good number of municipalities came to us and asked us what options were available to them
to ensure that their communities didn’t fall too far behind on their EV readiness and uptake.
We know that Ontario is falling behind bc and Québec on EV readiness and uptake on
their communities. I was real very, yes — you can understand
why I was so pleased to see that Toronto was leading the effort on their development of
EV strategy and provided a real boost to the momentum to the other municipalities following
in those footsteps. I did want to provide the caveat that the EV transition is in no
way a silver bullet that is going to address all our transportation and GHG challenges
ahead of us but it is a big piece of the puzzle. I know that you have seen the deputation from
Nancy smith and the director of caps active transportation project on this file . I won’t
raise kind of the importance of active transportation on this. We have a really big public health
care challenge ahead of us and activation transportation file plays a big role in playing
a prevent preventative role getting people physically active in their day to day commuting
and in thereby achieving some public health care benefits we’re all aiming for.
One of the key things I did want to raise is that there is an element in the EV strategy
about the significant role that municipality advocacy can play. One of the areas that there
is a really great opportunity right now for the City of Toronto to play an advocacy role
as it comes to the clean fuel standard that is being developed at the federal level.
The clean fuel standard is set up to zero reduce submissions from the transportation
sector. There are two components to it u 1 is making or reduce the ghd intensity of fossil
fuel an obstruction and use. Other areas moving away from fossil fuels in our transportation
sector towards electric vehicles and other zero emission option. The way that the clean
full standard is being advanced at present it hasn’t been out yet.
But one of the key options we really do need to make sure that the clean fuel standard
is set up in a way that not only achieves efficiency that can be grand from the fall
fuel but drives that market transportation to electric vehicles and zero emission vehicles.
One of the key area I can’t I think is important to do, we have a recommendation that the City
of Toronto send a council resolution or advance council a resolution that a letter would go
to the environment and climate change minister speaking to the critical role clean fuel standard
plays in both reducing the carbon intensity of fossil fuels as well as ensuring that market
movement towards non-transportation and energy courses.
So that is one of the key areas. I wanted to highlight our strong support for the vehicle
electric vehicle strategy, Toronto and how important it is driving that leadership that
will take place across the regions across greater Ontario and Hamilton region and across
Ontario and hoping there is opportunity to praise the importance for the clean fuel standard
to play a role in efficiency with fossil fuels as well as driving the market towards electric
vehicles. Thank you. Thank you very much. Questions for the deputant?
No of okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. I understand that Brian
purcell is here. Is that correct? Thank you for coming . You have five minutes.
Thank you, chair, thank you for your patience. Thank you Councillors for taking time to listen
to me today. My name is Brian p up c cce. Ll.
Vice president of policy and programs at the atmosphere fund regional agency to focus on
urban client solutions. Ev is really critical to our objectives and the city’s transferred
to objectives, the single most important action outlined in transform to, accelerating adoption
offing tvtion and transportation accounts for more than a third of our carbon emission
in Toronto and beyond carbon emission it is major source of air pollution which causes
an estimated 280 premature deaths every year and 1100 hospitalizations. So there are multiple
benefits to excel rotting adoption of EV not just for our client but for public health.
I want to commend staff and the consulting team on this project for an inclusive and
thorough plan development process. We have been closely involved over the past 18 months
on steering committee and electric vehicle working group in developing the plan. It has
been a great process which is really been thorough and provided a great opportunity
for stakeholder of various types to contribute and voice their views. We have been involved
all through and it is a comprehensive plan that addresses all major barriers to accelerating
adoption of electric vehicles. There is some incredible ambitious and challenging
targets around vehicle adoption but the targets are absolutely necessary to achieve our climate
objectives and reflective of the scale of the climate emergency. So we support this
plan strongly and encourage council to adopt it and fully resource it. But while we should
celebrate the strategies of a adoption, we must acknowledge the hard work begins now
after we adopt . Blends and strategies this reduce emissions, actions do.
The true measure of success is how quickly and effectively the plan is implemented and
the pace at which emissions messing are reduced. We are begin implementation immediately with
a sense of urgency that fits the climate emergency that was declared last year. We belief the
most important role for the city is accelerating employment of charging infrastructure.
And ranging — that is because ranging anxiety and access to urge changing infrastructure
are two of the key barriers to electric key adoptions and bar barriers that the city best
placed to address. City have several key roles to play including deployment of charging infrastructure
and including leverages our assets by deploying on-street. Strategy comprehensive there is
a major gap in here. No targets or timelines for deploying on-street charging in infather
stuck isn’t the city. Really that is because staff and consulting team couldn’t drive and
create targets and timelines because we have not yet piloted installing such infrastructure.
We don’t yet have the knowledge what of of what it takes and what squall we can deploy
z aa city. A it as a city. It should be the most important
strategically in my view. We have known that for a decade which is why council approved
the first on street charging pilot in 2012. There has been some great progress that has
been made on the pilot, there are still no charms installed charges installed and no
timeline yet for installation or operation of those charges. Similarly residential on-street
charging is critical. It address the problem of so-called garage orphans, Toronto lacks
access to appropriate space at home and the city rightly approved a pilot for that in
2017. To address that issue; however, we have not
yet installed any of those charges and there is again no construction schedule for getting
that in the ground. So just as a contrast the city of monk began piloting charging on
street five years ago. And as recently celebrated completing 750 on street charging installations
with their partners. In a comprehensive network that includes both residential and on-street
charging infrastructure. That is a picture of what leadership could look like and deploy
in the input in the infrastructure and we would like to see the city on-street charging
accelerated completing the pilots this year. There is no reason that can’t be done. In
the report back in 2021 on the plan we like to see building out a strategy and timeline
for how we can accelerate that at a larger scale and small pilots that we have approved
already. We’ll continue to land our expertise and support through the EV working group otherwise
we also can support the plan financial financially through our grants program and happy to support
the city in that way. In closing I would like to urge the council to adopt the strategy
and compliment with it the urgency and commitment that be fits the climate emergency.
And that includes accelerating progress on some of the previously approved initiatives
as well as the new initiatives in the strategy. Accelerating adoption of EV imperative not
only for catastrophic climate change but build happy prosperous in the city.
Thank you for your time and attention. Happy to take any questions.
Thank you very much. Any questions for the deputant. Councillor Colle.
Thank you for your presentation. I just noted Montreal has 750 on street charging stations.
And how many do we have? Zero.
Were they able to access was this done with just city of monk money?
Provincial money as well. There was provincial sa. Any federal money?
I can’t answer that specifically. May well have been.
Might be hard for us to do without provincial. No provincial money now for zero — not currently.
There is a federal money in the offering. They have an on-going funding program with
rounds being released regularly for charging it which the city qualifies for.
Thank you very much. Thank you Councillor Colle. Any other questions
for the deputant? No. Okay . Thank you very much.
Thank you. Mr. Wilson.
Greeting. Thank you . I’m a little less optimistic or supportive of all of this. Absolutely we
are in in a climate emergency. There is no doubt about that. It has gotten
incredibly serious; however, the challenge is iss are, are we being responsive enough?
I think this is kind of tending to tinker around the edges versus the radical changes
that we actually need. We’re not doing that well on some of the basics from let’s see
there was the Toronto target from the changing atmosphere conference.
The study that came out of that from the former City of Toronto suggested that athe a the
dan ford bike language we still have a gap to fill on Bloor street east. I keep coming
back to this but gosh dang it is also subway relief which is important. The transport does
lead our greenhouse gas emissions, no doubt about that. Something new from 2007 it is
time to start counting emissions like calories so I’m sorry that is really focused in on
it. Extra focus but basically there is a lot of
other things in the whole equation that we should be looking at. The concrete, the air
conditioner, you know, the lighting, the oils, the lithium in the batteries, the transport
energy for all these vehicles. If we go to heavy vehicles or try to replace current levels
of automobile with electric auto-mobility. I sent in something I’m sure I sent it in
copy a tweet from the European cycling federation that did a life psych analysis on a kilogram
per passenger basis. A bike was the at 21 grams. E bike was at 22 grams. A bus was at
101 grams. A car was at 200 up 71. So that’s what we should be doing is supporting
our biking and our transit far, far, far more than private mobility. Other aspect of this
green house gas stuff is that aluminum is very prized in both bikes and buses and cars;
however, there is some smelting gases that are basic l is permanent greenhouse gases
that have been associated with some pfcs and really bad news.
The space demands of just replicate replicating auto mobility as we have it have had it are
also not really conducive to functional mobility. This is from the nacdol guideline. That is
what the capacity of a private lane or lanes cars, mixed transit two way protected bike
lane far more better at moving people. Dedicated transit and then real heavy-duty bus rail
up to 25,000 people an hour. That is the sort of thing that we need.
The space demands of auto mobility are really extreme and that is part of our congestion
problem. Here is another little blast from the past. Automobile predict downtown 2000
lesson. That is the sort of direction we need to go in because yeah. We need to have actually
if we’re going to go to evs we need to actually do as many other European cities are doing
and constrain the access of vehicles. Especially the polluting ones into our core. Because
this isn’t necessarily showing so well. If we did a car free or a car reduced clean
car only zone from High Park, the rail line through Rosedale valley road and the Don River
on the east, that is the sort of thing that we should by doing concurrently with this
sort of we’re going to go to evs. Let actually squeeze the cars to make sure that we have
a better downtown . Because they are still going to be dangerous. There are some stats
that dispi Kate indicate that the electric cars are a bit more dangerous. They are quieter.
Don’t have the auditory can you cues that a ped bicyclist might have have. We may have
a lot of damage to people from the electric cars which may have really quick upca take
uptake as well. Acceleration. I’m not a fan of evermore auto mobile. If
we’re going to put more money into things I would suggest we need a vehicle registration
tax of what 600 bucks a vehicle or something. This is another old stat I keep sharing out.
200700 bucks per vehicle 2700 bucks of vehicle averted cost from Vancouver of how many decades
ago now. If we’re going to go ahead with this let’s have subsidies or more user pay because
heck there is a mountain of transit expenditure. You’re a little over 5 minute if you could
wrap up. It is something but — we’re so behind.
Thank you very much. Any questions for the deputant? No. Thank you very much . Alexandra
mutch mutchuacek. Thank you for coming. Five minutes.
Thank you. Good afternoon. I agree with Hamish Hamish. This is a very complex issue. There
are other factor that we should be addressing; however, I also have experience of someone
who has lived in a more distant aspect of the city and commuting far distances is like
and recognize there will always want to be drivers especially those who are commuting
far from the GTA. We have people from Markham and Oakville and I know someone that takes
a two-and-a-half hour route via transit to my work place actually.
We do have people coming from really wide and far for our work place places downtown.
And that being said, I myself am an EV driver. I adopted my first vehicle a couple and as Hamish they’re quiet and you can sneak up on pedestrians and suing
list but it is fuel efficient and operates on gasoline. I think we should venture way
from those; however, it was a fantastic experience in the beginning. I had the luxury however
of living at home when my family in a resident residential home. Access to charging facilities
was very easy. I could hook it up into my garage.
There were not very many questions asked. I paid $40 for my charging per month. That
was it. I barely had to refuel. When I started to venture off on my own however as a renter
in the city I began to realize how prohibitive driving an EV feels in the city. Especially
when you’re considering costs for the majority. I have a reasonable salary. I am fortunate
in that that. As a single person without a family I still feel the restriction driving
an EV. If we’re going in this direction which we should, I feel imminently convert more
into electrical vehicles for those of us who are driving, having more access to charging
facilities I think is an urgent matter. So a lot of the — I think the majority of
us who don’t have access to homes which can be more expensive unless you’re doing rooming
type of projects. Having access to charging in condos, apartments, long term parking lots
I think would be really wonderful and important. There are a lot of barriers that include legal
assistance. There is a lot of fees involved. It is complicated to have charging facilities
available in these buildings. I think if we are going to increase access
to charging maybe perhaps in the transform to process while rebuilding or transforming
our buildings from the inside to — toward more sustainable in infrastructure we perhaps
also address EV charging at the same time because as other deputants had mentioned construction
around condos can be quite constructive for those involved. Lastly, I would like to say
that I am really grateful and enthusiastic to expand our EV infrastructure. It is wonderful.
I do want to inquire whether we have a lofty enough goal of — I saw 22 or sorry 220,000
evs or hopeful for evs in 2030. Approximating about 20% of our personal drivers in the city.
That would be about 22,000 drivers per year increasing their vehicles to be more sustainably
fueled and I wonder if that is fast enough when we’re talking about a client emergency.
I work in health care myself. It is the city that a climate emergency and there’s emergency
when you go to the hospital on the weekend because the clinic is closed and you have
a cough and then there is an emergency when something is urgent and eminent and if you
don’t address it you’re in big do-do. I wanted to ask if we are being address enough
and I do agree with Hamish we have a lot of other factor to address and that accessibility
in the city inners of transit that is also I would why I myself became a driver is just
taking the bus to zero subway bus home after a night shift when subways only available
at 9:00 a.m. On a Sunday is a bit taxing on the body when you have to go back in the same
night to take care of people and also as a cyclist I have wiped out myself. It can be
quite daunting driving on Queen Street. There are limitations in our public transportation
and cycling availability that I think would be lovely if they were address addressed as
well. That is all I have to say. Thank you. Great.
Thank you. Any other questions for the deputant? Mr. Mr. Councillor Colle.
They did thank you. Just thought provoking. Perhaps we should look at policies when we
approve new developments that any new development mental developments or condos going up everywhere
that prior to approval they have to include EV charging in that building.
I agree. I think that it is — I notice that the item area of the documents included in
this item they have education as part of our process and I think education is always important.
I do think that when people are shopping for vehicles they look for accessibility first.
I know those who are more prudent I was more row has not sizing the idea when I purchased.
I didn’t realize how difficult. But if it was automatically available I think that creates
a green light for people to approach evs. They ask ma I may I ask what you purchased?
A Chevrolet volt v v. Which is no longer in production.
All that is left from them is a spark. They have a new Toyota prias. Plug in hybrid.
All over the map. Sound like a wonderful chitchat. Let’s leave
it. Any other genuine questions for — genuine. Wait a minute. You’re in insulting the deputant.
I was insulting a Councillor. Councillor Peruzza.
How long does it take to charge one of these cars?
Thank you for asking I forgot to mention that that. So with the way the technology is for
my vehicle right now if you have a super charger it is between four and five hours or if you
plug it into a standard outlet you can charge at eight it amps or 12 and that takes 13 hours.
It can be very limiting. There are placing places with temporary charging if you go to
IKEA or different clear ships. It nawz not the most practice practical because we’re
not spending a lot of time in grocery stores unless you want to park overnight without
their permission. I don’t think a lot of business owners would
appreciate that. Having more I think long term charging valuability is the most practical
for EV drivers. I think the technology is getting better. I really am ignorant but I
think Tesla they have super, super charges where you can charge a significant personal
parking of your vehicle in one hour or two hours. Something like that. I think it will
get better with battery technology but right now standard it can take 12 hours at home
I think is best. I don’t know if that was too long of an answer.
I just had not thought about that. So we’re like creating all these parking spots for
like 12 hours. It would be I’m thinking if somebody with
guest parking it would zero have to be parking where that is already taking place. So I think
with green p parking for example you would pay overnight rates. It wouldn’t be parking
that is already temporary. Taking vague advantage of spaces or parking inappropriately in areas
where visitors are not billion welcome I think it would have to be designated areas for people
commonly there or people can expect to go where recharging stations are offered.
How much is a 12 hour charge to recharge that. What does it cost? Just for the charge.
It can be about 10 cents to 35 cents an hour. I think — I have not checked in a little
while. I have been paying kind of a basic rate every month just to approximate my electricity
bill but I think overall I pay about $40 approximately per month in electricity.
I don’t have to gas up it is great but I think between 30 and 40 cents per hour. $3 to $4
a charge. I charge at my rental home right now. I had my landlord install an outlet.
He was very gracious about that. There are people who are more willing these days but
the stress of being rental somebody who is renting and trying to find a location in the
city was immense in my price range still being able to save and go to work.
I thought it might be time to break up I call my car misty. I have been trying to be persistent.
Excuse my ignorance, unlike parking chargers there is no like portable charger for these
cars, right? No. Not yet.
There is no portable battery that you can charge and then use that to charge.
No. Okay. You don’t mean the actual equipment to hook
up to the car you mean a separate battery? I meant like pocket juice for your cell phone.
That would be cool. That would be great. Not yet. I hope so.
Thank you. Thank you Councillor Peruzza. Any other questions
for the deputant? Thank you very much u thank you kindly for
your time. Darnell Harris.
Thank you very much for your patience. Good afternoon all.
So very briefly you know we notice that this report defined electric mobility but within
that there is no mention of e-assist cycles for businesses and the only reference to any
e-bike parties adding it to the Toronto bike share as far as I can tell.
That is all that I can see within there. Detroit expect all other e bakes will outpace in the
next couple of years, expecting 130 million of these to be sold worldwide. New York has
just launched a cargo bike pilot specifically with the two devices that you have seen here.
In fact I think that ups 1 with John Tory in it from last year. Suffice it to say, it
is a concern because although cycle logistics does not appear anywhere in this document,
there are certainly a number of things within it that would benefit from that.
For example, you know, they speak of major economic opportunities. Research and schools.
Waste and end of life reuse. Support efforts to grow economic opportunities as well as
help attract businesses. With you all of that certainly there is an opportunity to do so
through micro ability because the cost of having these devices that can hold several
hundred pound is spoken to this committee about is much lower than electric vehicle
which is 10 to thousands of dollars at best. So certainly in terms of the opportunities
here this is something that businesses want to see invest investing tens of millions and
more in fleets of this size for e commerce and federal government is interested, provincial
government is interested and certainly when it comes to things like what does the city
need to ask the province to do. Part of that is regulation around this.
So certainly there needs to be some sort of adjustment, amendment to this plan to ensure
that cycle logistics and practical micro-mobility device devices for businesses are not left
out of this. That simply is going to shortcut opportunities for businesses and people all
across the City of Toronto. I yield my time to the chair.
Thank you very much. Questions for the deputant? No. Okay. Thank you very much. Questions for
staff? Councillor Layton.
Just a couple here. I know it is quite late in the day. We have been at this for some
time. But I shared some of — like Darnell’s concerns that he just voiced and so did a
couple of other speakers. Why were bikes and e scooter are not included in the EV strategy?
Speaker: Through the chair, the focus of the strategy was on the electrification of personal
vehicles because they currently account for 80% of 38% of the free house gas emission.
There is an activity focused on micro- micro-mobility in which we reference as the deputants had
the opportunity to look at e bikes first through the bike share fleet but also potentially
additional ways so we’re reporting back on that separately. We do acknowledge e mobility
and micro-mobility having a role. I would argue that trifix of my cargo bike
just as well in the opposite direction. The strategy is more about the transition from
gasoline powered vehicles to electric power cars or gasoline powered cars to electric
power powered cars. This strategy seeks recognizing that some
trips are likely to remain car based. Strategy is to electro pay for the trips while recognizing
that that is one part of an over sustainable transportation system.
On the on-street charging pilots, anyone here that is able to tell me how far or at least
what the expected date of the installation is?
Through the chair, I’m Joe bi almost ly from Toronto hydro. The plan is to get them in
this spring. Great. My motion is not going to cause you
too much grief. Thank you. Councillor McKelvie I don’t plan to speak
later. I want to thank everybody from preparing this great study. I have four questions I’ll
try to be fast. How does this interface with better homes to and that initiative?
Through the chair, we recently amended the home energy loan program which is one component
of better homes t to which is a low interest financing mechanism to now include loans for
level two electric vehicle chargers. So that is a concrete example of the ways in which
we’re looking to integrate electric readiness into our retrofitting programs and certainly
supporting electric mobility through our buildings program parties something that we’re focused
on. Great. I have 17,000 single family homes in
my community. I think there is a huge potential for — many of them will drive to a transit
mode. 5% though some will say it is ambitious. It sound great. It is a great goal. 5% by
2025. What is the typical fleet turnover that is happening annually anyway? How much — what
percentage of new cars every year need to be electric to hit that?
In the study we have assumed 11 year vehicle turnover and so the percentage of new car
sales I’m going to need to get back to you to hit those overall targets. We do have a
calculator. And what is in this year’s budget ask for
this program versus next year because I see a lot of think about next year and 2021. What
is being done in 2020 to work towards this. In the 2020 budget in support of this electric
strategy there is lesson hundred which is a public charging location study. Identifying
where across the city it would be most valuable and important to install public charging.
Also some education and out outreach components. Separate to this particular strategically
there is also a budget ask for greening the city’s own fleet. Making sure our own vehicles
are electrified or green and that is what we’re looking at in 2020. The rest of the
actions are reporting back to the 2021 cycle. Question, last one, what is the stat under
the circumstances of the federal incentive program is that still going, continuing? What
sorts of things need to happen with the federal or provincial governments to kind of incentivize
this sort of turnover, how are you incorporating that into this strategy?
Certainly, the removal of the provincial purchase incentive for EV had impact on uptake electric
vehicles. Federal incentive is still on-going. As an individual to purchase an electric vehicle
you do receive a $5000 purchase rebate. It is important, we’re very supportive of
it and we identified advocacy as two other components as a part of this process. When
you look at jurisdictions and municipality municipalities that have been really successful
in installing infrastructure which is the second part beyond the purchase rebate, much
of that charging infrastructure has not been paid for by the municipality. It has been
paid for by other had form of gop. Thank you. Thank you for this great report.
Thank you. Councillor McKelvie, any other questions for
staff? Councillor Colle can quick question. The TTC, is it any way contemplating getting
rid of the dirty diesel buses on our streets and replacing them with electric buses? We
used to have the trolley as I remember. Remember them telling me that Howard mosk and I were
crazy trying to replace the trolley, the diesel. What about the TTC.
Speaker: Through the chair, our TTC colleagues would be best positioned to answer this. But
we do currently have 14 electric bus on the road. We’ll have 60 on the road by the end
of 2020. There are plans in place to further electro pay for the bus fleet.
So they are planning to eventually concert the diesel convert the diesel to battery operated
vehicles. Through the chair, I can’t speak to the entire
— the nature of their electrification plans but they have articulated in the TTC sustainable
fleet plan their approach to reaching the overall net zero emission in transportation
. Any plans to bring back the trolley on western
road and Mt. Pleasant and those places? Just a facetious question. Okay.
Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Colle, for that suggestion.
Any other questions for staff? No. We can go to speakers. I do have a motion here from
Councillor Layton. If you want to put that on the floor.
That would be great. Thank you very much. General Manager of transportation
services and consultation with the director environment and energy and all other relevant
decision to complete the on on-street charging pilots in 2020. Two City Council direct the
director of energy and environment and consultation with the electric vehicle working group to
report back as part of the 2021 status update on target and timeline for expanding deploy
of on street electric charging infrastructure. First of all, just thank you for staff for
putting this together. When you talk about going from less than 1% to 5% as being a lofty
goal, it kind of sounds a little comical. The but given our starting point as a society
in general and — but as a city, we got a lot — a lot of moving to do. And moving that
first 5% is probably going to be the hardest 5% to — the hardest shift that we’ll make
in this. I’m a cyclist. I don’t own a car. We rent a car on the rare
occasion at that we need one. But there are many people in our city, businesses and individuals
that require personal vehicles on occasion. We have not done well to give people other
options to move around the city ineffectively a carbon freeway. That unfortunately we will
probably need to have single occupancy vehicles on our roads for at least the foreseeable
future. Now, that doesn’t mean that we can’t shift
away from that and should be doing everything that we can to encourage walking, riding bicycles,
taking public transit and all of those things first. But like the 3 rs of recycling, there
are — the same rules apply here. That we need to do what we can to get people out of
their cars. Not public transit riding bikes and doing
all those things. But where we can’t we need to look at fuel shifting. That is well recognized
as a logical course of action in us to achieving our zero emissions. We started doing this
many years ago when this discussion was first brought about. You was on the committee that
first approved the pilot. Since then, there has been very little action.
It has not been the City of Toronto’s fault. It has not largely not been Toronto hydro
hydro’s fault. There was provincial regulations that prohibited the moving forward of a file
like this. Or of this — of this pilot project. Fortunately that has changed. We are able
now to move forward with this pilot project which like — it is clear that not every individual
is going to be able to install one of these at their home.
They might not have the luxury of either (a) owning the property. (b) having a landlord
that is reasonable enough to install it for them or (c) having the fatal where they live
to accommodate that. Whether or not it is a tall building or not it just may not that
be in the configuration of that living — of that home that allows for that. It is not
necessarily that that is going to drive evs into the future.
So this is going to be an enormously important pilot project. I’m glad to hear that it is
moving forward this year. So I don’t mind putting this forward on the advice of the
Toronto fund saying us — atmosphere inning fund saying make sure it is done this year
and look how you can improve it once you get some of that early data in place.
I will say though that I think it the would have been useful to expand the overall focus
of the electric vehicle strategically question to be beyond single occupancy vehicles and
go beyond the — maybe buses and e etc. You have ran out of time.
I have not been speaking that long. You don’t think ? Don’t show?
Just wrap up. Up.
There are other people that we could make those investment in. Getting people out of
their cars may be easier if they were moving into a lighter electric vehicle rather than
straight on to the Buick by about you suckle which by suing el which is bicycle which is
not for everyone. Any other speakers? Councillor Colle.
Again I want to thank staff for a very detailed and very, very comprehensive report covering
so many areas. It is not an easy thing to do. All your work is really appreciated considering
what you’re tasked with. I — I just think in many ways we are behind the curb big time.
I mean if you look at the command demand there is for trick vehicles. When you see mustang
coming out with an electric vehicle that is already sold out even before one has been
put on the road when you see cannot buy electric vehicle in Toronto right now. There is a waiting
list for up to a year, two years to get an electric vehicle.
The public is timely turned the corner and I guess it is boss of because of the breakthrough
work of Tesla and they have now have the massive plant in shanghai. And they’re able to get,
you know, electric vehicles that have a lot of horsepower. I mean I mean, the — as much
as we worry about speed the fact is that the electric vehicle vehicles are becoming very
attractive. There is a huge demand for charging stations and there is not — it is not the
city’s fault given we don’t have any provincial support in this initiative like they do in
Québec. We’re going to have to I can see us back here
in a year when people are able to buy electric vehicles. They’re going to say, where do we
charge? We can’t charming at home. We’re renters. We can’t charge at work. So there is going
to be huge pent-up demand for us to build charging infrastructure which is basically
nonexistent. It is really marginal at best. And in the
second part of it I do think that we’re going to have to get our public transit infrastructure
electrified. We have the streetcars that are electrified. Our subways are electrified.
But I think the big gap here is one of the real problems with our downtown corridor,
our core main streets we have dirty diesel buses which is 18 century technology running
in the streets of Toronto. So we pretend to be a modern clean city but we have diesel
carbon being spewed out of these buses 24 hours a day. What is that?
Who is responsible for that? We all are. Joint responsibility.
Certainly I wasn’t because I was a big supporter of the trolley buses and I tried to keep the
trolley buses in this part of our fleet but I was overruled. The buses were not the thing
to do. But anyway. The main thing is that there is going to be
a huge demand and I think that h we’re going to have that we’re going to have to really
find the ways and means to step up our investment in all formed forms of electric mobility.
I think bring it all on. Scooters, bicycles, you know, drones, whatever we need I would
say go for it. Because we cannot if there is a climate emergency that we have declared
you voted for a climate emergency declaration. What are you doing about it? I’m saying let’s
do something and let’s really step up our game and electro pay for everything. Thank
you. Thank you, Councillor Colle. We have Councillor
Layton motion. Put it on the screen please. All those in favour. Opposed. That is carried.
And the item is amended. All those in favour. Opposed. That is carried.
Just don’t put a charging station at the end of my driveway. Exactly just saying.
That concludes our business for today. Thank you very much everybody. Councillors,
thank you very much. Clerk staff. City staff. And once again, happy new year.
Successful New Year. We’ll see you soon.