June 1, 1998

Urban Environment & Development Committee
Metro Hall
55 York St
Toronto, Ontario
M5V 3V6

Att: Councillor Joe Pantelone,

Chairman

Re: Review of level crossings and the construction of Grade Separations in the City of Toronto

Dear Councillor Pantelone:

As you are well aware all level of governments strive to rid populated areas of level crossings. We only hear about the need for grade separations when a tragedy occurs.

Generally, municipalities have a list of priorities for eliminating grade separations. Traditionally, under the old cost sharing programmes, the cost of a grade separation was shared by the Federal Government, the local municipality, the railway company and in many cases a benefiting industry or industries.

The most recent cost sharing system, under the Canada Ontario Infrastructure Programme, which ran out a few years ago, the construction costs were shared evenly by the Federal, Provincial and Municipal governments. Land acquisition costs were not included in cost sharing. But with the recent cut back of government funding, it is now more difficult to obtain such funding.

Another option, in the past, has been that the Railway company would pay 85% and the local municipality would pay 15%. But this has not been used for a long time and it was usually tied in to the priorities and needs of the railway company.

Presently there are two grade separations, planned for the development of the Railway Lands in the Downtown area. I understand that construction will take place in the near future. You might inquire into the cost of these separations and who is paying for them.

In my younger days, I worked for the railways as a track engineer, so I have a fair amount of knowledge on track construction and rail safety.

The attached letter, dated January 13, 1992, from the Metro Transportation Department shows that there are still six level crossings in the ‘old’ Metro Roads system which should have grade separations – Pottery Rd, Finch Ave E, Steeles Ave E, Sheppard Ave E, Danforth Ave and Lawrence Ave E .

There are probably other level crossings in the ‘old’ local municipalities, which should have grade separations. The Strachan Ave level crossing is one example.

In the last twelve months I have become acutely aware of one grade separation, at Strachan Ave south of King St (north of # 1 Traffic), which was high on the list of priorities of the ‘old’ City of Toronto. It is the only major level crossing still in existence, between the Humber River and Victoria Park.

The new By-law 1997- 0521, of the ‘old’ City of Toronto is the ‘developer’s dream’, where industrial zoned land is opened up and expanded to include residential. This will add to the ‘bottom line’ of the CIBC for the second time in the King/Strachan area, since their original involvement with Massey Ferguson. But it will add a new safety problem for the many children and families who will live next to the level crossing.

The Strachan Ave grade separation has now fallen into a ‘black hole’. It will probably never be built, as the participating industry – the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, the mortgagee in possession of the Massey Ferguson lands – was ‘let off the hook’ in the dying days of the old City of Toronto Council, in September 1997.

As one of the two councillors for the Srtachan/King area in the 1980s, I was well aware of the decline of traditional industries. We spent much time and effort to develop a new plan. We had extensive studies, discussions, reports and meetings. After four years, it eventually led to a plan to rejuvenate the area.

Under the 1986 plan, the grade separation at Strachan Ave, would be a safety feature and help attract industry. Now, in 1998, with the new zoning, and the introduction of a new residential community with many children and a school planned on the east side of Strachan Ave, south of the tracks, the need for a grade separation is chillingly evident.

The 1986 agreement, outlined in By law #694-86, was a compromise and had a solid commitment, to, among other things:

• Allow some residential uses north of King St, but retained the remainder of the land for industrial uses, with a focus on high tech uses particularly south of King St.
•  
• Retain the old Massey Harris building at 915 King St W, as a historic building with community facilities (a public library) on the ground floor.
•  
• Provide for a cost sharing approach to eliminate the Strachan Ave grade separation, with Massey Ferguson paying 75% of the net cost.

The above three major elements of that agreement have now been discarded.

The attached Section #5 of the City of Toronto By-law # 694-86 spells out the commitment to finance the Strachan Ave grade separation in the Massey Ferguson

Agreement.

Under Section #5.5 of the agreement, the only way that Massey Ferguson could be released from that commitment would be that the Commissioner of Public Works ‘determine the Strachan Ave grade separation is not needed’. There is no report, evidence or letter from the Commissioner Works, on any such release.

In my attempt to bring this matter to the OMB, my solicitor, was unable to obtain access to any correspondence on file with the City although he had requested copies of such information from the City Solicitor.

I do not wish to waste your time or my time in outlining the details of my battle with the CIBC. If it is the wish of the municipality to let the CIBC ‘off the financial hook’, I will accept it, as there is little more I can do about it. But, as a taxpayer, I cannot agree with it.

But I do want to bring to your attention the need to review all the level crossings in the new City of Toronto and to find a way to finance the construction of grade separations. These grade separations should be rated on a priority basis with criteria developed to take into account vehicle, residential and train traffic.

Specifically I recommend that you adopt the following:

1. Request staff to report on the locations of all level crossings in Toronto
2. Report on the financial formulas to be used for the construction of grade separations
3. Review the contributions of benefiting developers/ industries
4. Review the status of the Strachan Ave level crossing. Also comment on safety, legal and the rights of the abutting new residential community.

I would like to address your Committee when this letter is before your Committee. Please let me know of the time and date so that I can make arrangements to be there. Also let me know if you and your committee require any additional information.

Yours Truly

Tony O’Donohue P Eng