Public Issues Associated With Planning a Large Diameter Pipeline in a Multi-Use Urban Corridor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The lack of foresight by municipalities and others in preserving corridors for utilities means that there are increasingly fewer opportunities to locate linear facilities in large urban centers such as the City of Toronto. In those corridors that do exist, there are competing land uses that make it difficult to accommodate any new use. Many of these land uses are directly related to the people living adjacent to and in the vicinity of the corridors. In 2003, the Ontario Energy Board approved new “Environmental Guidelines for the Location, Construction and Operation of Hydrocarbon Pipelines and Facilities in Ontario”. The Guidelines include specific new requirements for planning pipelines in urban areas. Among other things, these new requirements involve the identification of indirectly affected landowners and a more detailed analysis of public issues and how they were resolved. Through the use of a case study, this paper identifies the public issues that were encountered in planning the location of a NPS 36 (Nominal Pipe Size 914 mm or 36 inch diameter) natural gas pipeline through residential neighbourhoods in the City of Toronto and the Town of Markham. It also describes how the public involvement requirements contained in the Ontario Energy Board’s new guidelines were incorporated into the planning process. The case study begins with a rationale for the study area selected. A description of the public issues follows. The techniques used to address these issues and the success of the public involvement program that identified 180 directly affected and 3,200 indirectly affected landowners is documented. The study results illustrate that it is possible to plan a right-of-way through an urban corridor in such a manner as to satisfy the general public, be compatible with existing development, conform to the new Ontario Energy Board Guidelines and minimize the amount of remedial work required to mitigate the impacts occurring on and adjacent to the right-of-way.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".