F.G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project

(Don River and East Toronto - Wards 25 & 26)

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, amended this Clause:

(1) in accordance with the report dated June 7, 1999, from the City Solicitor, subject to striking out Recommendation No. (6)(a) and inserting in lieu thereof the following new Recommendation No. (6)(a):

A(6)(a) direct that reconstruction of Lake Shore Boulevard include sufficient sound barriers on the north and south sides of Lake Shore Boulevard in the vicinity of Toronto Film Studios, the Showline Limited property located at 915 Lake Shore Boulevard East, and other film studios in the area, to prevent additional traffic noise from affecting film productions;@,

so the recommendations embodied in such report shall now read as follows:

AThe amendments proposed by Mr. Stanley M. Makuch, Cassels Brock & Blackwell, in his communication (May 17, 1999) which were adopted by the Urban Environment and Development Committee be deleted and replaced with the following recommendations which have been developed in consultation with Mr. Makuch:

(1) that Recommendation No. (3) be amended by adding the words >such expenditure to be made upon the direction of the Toronto Film and Television Office in consultation with representatives of the Toronto Film Industry who include a Toronto Film Studios representative, and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services=, so as to read:

>(3) direct the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to hold $100,000.00 in reserve for a Film Industry awareness campaign to address the concerns raised by the Film Industry, such expenditure to be made upon the direction of the Toronto Film and Television Office in consultation with representatives of the Toronto Film Industry who include a Toronto Film Studios representative and with the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;=;

(2) adding the following Recommendations Nos. (4), (5) and (6):

>(4) direct appropriate City officials, to include in all contracts for all phases of the demolition of the Expressway and the reconstruction of Lake Shore Boulevard, the performance-based noise and vibration specifications and the working protocol for the demolition and construction as contained in a report prepared by S. S. Wilson Associates, Consulting Engineers, being Report No. W96-10-(97) entitled ASpecial Provision for the control of construction noise-specifications; F.G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling; the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto@ and dated June 25, 1998, amended as follows:

(i) add a requirement to section 3.c., for the Contractor to provide fax numbers in addition to telephone numbers;

(ii) revise the last sentence of the last paragraph in section 5, located at the top of page 4, to read as follows:

>The Contractor shall immediately cease use of all equipment within 200 metres of the location identified by the complainant as the likely source of the noise, and shall cooperate by allowing inspection and testing of any equipment likely to have caused the noise. Work shall not commence until the Contract Administrator is certain that the work will conform with the Special Provisions for the Control of the Construction Noise - Specifications and all other relevant contract provisions.=;

(iii) revise the first sentence in section 7, at the top of page 5, as follows:

>The Contractor agrees that in the event of noise complaints being filed (either verbally or in writing) with any person employed by the Contractor and referred to in section 3.c. above, by occupants of the nearby buildings, the work shall be stopped immediately until such time as noise control measures are implemented to the satisfaction of the Contract Administrator.=; and

(iv) revise the last sentence on page 5 to read as follows:

>These Schedules form part of this Contract and are not to be exceeded without the express consent of the respective TV/Film Studios.=;

Further, additional specifications upon which contracts will be tendered shall take into account the concerns of the Film Industry and the site-specific concerns of Toronto Film Studios and shall include:

(v) requirements that Contractors limit all noise related to the construction of Lake Shore Boulevard and the demolition of the Expressway to levels no greater than the existing peak period ambient noise levels as identified in the report prepared by S. S. Wilson Associates, Consulting Engineers, or as otherwise agreed to by City officials and by Toronto Film Studios Acoustical Consultants;

(vi) a provision that contractors cease work within fifteen minutes of being notified by a designated City official that the designated Toronto Film Studios official has advised that the work significantly interferes with filming at the Toronto Film Studios, and providing that the City official will notify the contractor immediately upon being notified by Toronto Film Studios and that the parties will then meet immediately to resolve the complaint;

(vii) demolition within 200 metres of Toronto Film Studios will only occur during the months of December to March inclusive;

(viii) reasonable contract specifications to ensure that the demolition or reconstruction does not interfere with the Toronto Film Industry's ability to obtain bonding for production deadlines;

(ix) a provision that the storage of equipment and materials cannot occur on either side of Lake Shore Boulevard within 200 metres of a film studio;

(x) reasonable contract specifications respecting dust control, as determined by appropriate City officials in consultation with the Toronto Film Industry and Toronto Film Studios in particular;

(xi) a provision that truck access from Lake Shore Boulevard to the Toronto Film Studios property will not be obstructed except at times approved by a designated Toronto Film Studios representative, unless an alternate access to the south access point of the Toronto Film Studios property is provided that is satisfactory to Toronto Film Studios; and

(xii) a provision whereby the contractor and the City acknowledge that Toronto Film Studios is relying reasonably on all noise provisions in all contracts relating to the construction or demolition in order to ensure its uninterrupted and continued operation, and furthermore acknowledge that Toronto Film Studios is entitled to any legal remedy for breach of such provisions including injunctive relief and damages based on such reasonable reliance;

(5) respecting existing railway lines,

(a) direct that the reconstruction not allow the existing railway line owned by TEDCO to be relocated to the north side of Lake Shore Boulevard east of Carlaw and provide that all railway crossings to be reconstructed be controlled by signal lights and bells;

(b) City officials be instructed to take all necessary actions to negotiate and enter into no-whistle-blowing agreements with the railways in respect of all reconstructed rail crossings; and

(c) in the event there is a significant increase in rail traffic to the Port Lands in the future, the City shall undertake a study to determine the feasibility of alternative railway routes to serve the port area, and the Toronto Film Industry will be consulted in this regard;

(6) (a) direct that reconstruction of Lake Shore Boulevard include sufficient sound barriers on the north and south sides of Lake Shore Boulevard in the vicinity of Toronto Film Studios, the Showline Limited property located at 915 Lake Shore Boulevard East, and other film studios in the area, to prevent additional traffic noise from affecting film productions;

(b) that, subject to any relevant provisions of the Municipal Act, surplus lands adjacent to Lake Shore Boulevard in the vicinity of the demolition and construction, be offered to adjacent property owners for purchase after taking into account planting, pedestrian/bicycle routes, sound barriers and any other municipal requirements; and

(c) direct the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and all other City officials to make reasonable efforts to consult with the Toronto Film Industry and Toronto Film Studios in particular, and to protect the film industry in general, and Toronto Film Studios in particular, from any and all adverse effects resulting from the demolition and reconstruction.=; and

(2) by adding thereto the following:

AIt is further recommended that:

(a) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to:

(i) direct the Transportation Services Division to:

(1) enter into further discussions with the Toronto Port Authority, the Toronto Economic Development Corporation, railway companies and railway company clients on the feasibility of relocating the rail lines currently running along Lake Shore Boulevard East to the Don Roadway route as detailed in the Clause, and report on the progress of these discussions to Council, through the Planning and Transportation Committee; and

(2) include the development of a light rapid transit line, unanimously endorsed by City Council during the debate on the Olympic bid early last year, as part of the transportation improvement planning for the East End of Toronto; and

(ii) submit a report to Council, through the Planning and Transportation Committee, on the feasibility of installing an alternate entry/exit route via Knox Avenue or Woodfield Road; and

(b) the Executive Director and Chief Planner be requested to re-examine the proposal put forward by Mr. John Sewell respecting decking over the Gardiner Expressway in the Parkdale area and submit a report thereon to the Planning and Transportation Committee, as quickly as possible.@)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the joint report (May 5, 1999) from the General Manager, Transportation Services and the Executive Director and Chief Planner, City Planning subject to inclusion of the following amendments proposed by Stanley M. Makuch, Cassels Brock and Blackwell in his communication (May 17, 1999):

(1) that Recommendation (3) be amended by adding the words Asuch expenditure to be made upon the direction of the Toronto Film and Television Office in consultation with representatives of the Toronto Film Industry who include a Toronto Film Studios representative and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services@, so as to read:

A(3) request the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to hold $100,000.00 in reserve for a Film Industry awareness campaign to address the concerns raised by the Film Industry, such expenditure to be made upon the direction of the Toronto Film and Television Office in consultation with representatives of the Toronto Film Industry who include a Toronto Film Studios representative and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;@

(2) adding the following additional Recommendations (4), (5) and (6)

A(4) direct the City Solicitor, in co-operation with appropriate City officials, representatives of the Toronto film industry who include a Toronto Film Studios representative, and appropriate officials from companies that provide bonding for film studios, to prepare performance based noise and vibration specifications for inclusion in all contracts for all phases of the demolition of the Expressway and the reconstruction of Lakeshore Blvd. in addition to a working protocol. Such specifications and protocol to be to the satisfaction of Toronto Film Studios prior to awarding the contract.

The specifications are to include:

(a) requirements that contractors limit all noise related to the construction or demolition of the Expressway to levels no greater than the existing peak period ambient noise levels as specified by Toronto Film Studios acoustical consultants;

(b) a provision that all contractors cease work within 15 minutes of a designated City official being notified by a designated Toronto Film Studio official that the work significantly interferes with filming at the Toronto Film Studios and that the parties will meet immediately to resolve the complaint;

(c) demolition in the vicinity (within 200 metres) of Toronto Film Studios will occur only in the months from December to March inclusive; and

(d) reasonable contract specifications to ensure that Toronto Film Industry will be able to continue to obtain bonding for production deadlines in spite of the demolition and reconstruction.

A(5) No railway line be relocated to the north side of Lakeshore Boulevard east of Carlaw Street, and all crossings be controlled by signals bells and not by train whistles. Further, that if there is any significant increase in rail traffic to the Port Lands, that the requirement for a new rail line to the Port will be studied further.

(6) (a) direct that reconstruction of Lakeshore Boulevard include a sufficient sound barrier on the north side to prevent additional traffic noise from affecting film productions;

(b) directs subject to any relevant provisions of the Municipal Act, that any surplus lands on the north side of the Lakeshore Boulevard be offered to adjacent property owners for purchase after taking into account planting, pedestrian/bicycle routes and sound barrier requirements;

(c) direct that all contracts specify that no construction staging can occur on the north side of Lakeshore Boulevard for demolition or reconstruction purposes within 200 metres of a film studios;

(d) direct that all contracts for demolition and construction specify dust control requirements to the satisfaction of Toronto Film Studios consultants;

(e) direct that all contracts for demolition and construction specify that truck access from Lakeshore Boulevard to the Toronto Film Studios property will not be obstructed except at times approved by a designated Toronto Film Studios representative; and

(f) direct the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and all other City officials to make reasonable efforts to co-operate with the film industry in general and Toronto Film Studios in particular and to protect the film industry in general, and Toronto Film Studios in particular from any and all adverse affects resulting from the demolition and reconstruction.

The Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the City Solicitor to review the proposed amendments and wording submitted by Cassels Brock & Blackwell and report directly to City Council for its meeting on June 9, 1999 on the implications of Council adopting these amendments.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following report (May 5, 1999) from the General Manager, Transportation Services and Executive Director and Chief Planner, City Planning:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to request the Urban Environment and Development Committee to make a final decision on whether or not the City should proceed with the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project as endorsed by the former City of Toronto and Metro Toronto Councils in December, 1996. An assessment carried out in April, 1999 indicates that the structural condition of the Expressway has reached a point where it is essential that either dismantling take place or the full rehabilitation program be initiated. We cannot predict a time or date at which a structural failure could occur. However, the risk to public safety increases every day that work is deferred.

This report also presents the results of four studies authorized at the December 1, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee: the Alternative Rail Service Delivery Study, the Community Improvement Plan, the Air Quality Study - Phase III, and the Area Traffic Management Study; and responds to various requests made at the same meeting.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The 1999 - 2003 Capital Works Program for the Transportation Services Division includes $3 million for the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project in 1999 (C-TR-026).

Recommendations:

It is recommended that Urban Environment and Development Committee:

(1) endorse the Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project, as originally approved by the former City of Toronto and Metro Toronto Councils, and direct staff to reinitiate the project immediately;

(2) (a) instruct the City Solicitor to take the necessary actions to complete City Council=s consideration of the Community Improvement Plan contained in Appendix 3 of this report;

(b) allocate $1.25 million, from the Gardiner East Dismantling Project budget, to the implementation of the Community Improvement Projects, listed in Sections 3.1 and 3.4 of the Community Improvement Plan contained in Appendix 3 of this report, whose completion is to coincide with the overall project;

(c) allocate $250,000.00 from the Gardiner East Dismantling Project as a contribution towards completing additional Community Improvement Projects listed in the Community Improvement Plan contained in Appendix 3 of this report.

(d) request the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to investigate and report back on the potential for improvements, to Leslie Grove Park as outlined in Section 4.1 of Appendix 3 of this report;

(e) request the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

(i) to review street lighting conditions on Queen Street East, Eastern Avenue, and on public lanes within the Community Improvement Plan area and report back;

(ii) to install, monitor, and report back on the effectiveness of traffic management measures on Logan Avenue described in Section 5.1 of Appendix 3 of this report; and

(iii) coincident with the removal of the existing pedestrian crossover on Eastern Avenue at Caroline Avenue, to install a pedestrian activated traffic control signal on Eastern Avenue at Larchmount Avenue described in Section 5.2 of Appendix 3 of this report.

(f) the Parking Authority of Toronto be requested to investigate and report on the feasibility of creating a commercial lot to service businesses on Queen Street East between Carlaw Avenue and Leslie Street.

(3) request the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to hold $100,000.00 in reserve for a Film Industry awareness campaign to address the concerns raised by the Film Industry.

Conclusions:

City staff, area residents and area businesses have worked for over 3 years on the issue of what to do with the east end of the F.G. Gardiner Expressway. The following conclusions have been drawn based upon the work completed:

Structural Concerns:

- the structural condition of the Gardiner Expressway East has reached a point where we must either proceed with dismantling or the full rehabilitation program;

- long-term public safety can no longer be guaranteed with a further deferral or delay of work.

Dismantling vs. Rehabilitation:

- the Dismantling Project offers many benefits over rehabilitation: $14 million (net present value, 1996 dollars) in life-cycle cost savings, Acity-building@ opportunities, and the Agreening@ and humanizing of the Gardiner - Lake Shore corridor.

Approved Plan vs. Alternative Plan:

- the Approved Plan provides the best package of benefits in terms of traffic conditions; improved urban design; enhanced environmental conditions; greater opportunities for community improvement projects and long-term cost savings to the taxpayer;

- although the Alternative Plan (described in Appendix No. 1) is physically feasible and would provide a satisfactory operation, its benefits in vehicular delay reduction are minimal when traded-off against the lower cost, better urban design and other advantages of the Approved Plan.

Rail:

- currently there are no regularly scheduled daytime rail crossings of Lake Shore Boulevard, all scheduled rail crossings of Lake Shore Boulevard occur at night;

- staff recommend proceeding with the rail relocation design proposed as part of the Dismantling Project;

- modifications required to remove rail traffic from Lake Shore Boulevard are estimated at $16.6 million, not including property costs, compared to $3.2 million for rail modifications as proposed in the Dismantling Project;

- rail removal can be protected as a long-term option, if justified by future increases in rail traffic.

Air Quality:

- the Medical Officer of Health=s review of the Air Quality Study indicates that dismantling is slightly favoured over rehabilitation because it best protects air quality in the residential community.

Traffic Infiltration:

- the most recent assessment of traffic infiltration confirms the earlier findings of the Environmental Assessment:

- no significant east-west traffic diversions are expected either during or after construction of the Dismantling Project;

- the most significant diversion of traffic occurs on Carlaw Avenue with the transfer of north-south traffic flows from Leslie Street.

Community Improvement Plan:

- Community Improvement Projects recommended to be implemented in conjunction with the Dismantling Project provide additional Agreening@ of the area, improve safety for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists and provide additional amenities for the community

Noise and the Film Studios:

- a protocol has been developed to minimize construction noise impacts on the film studios, including a $100,000.00 reserve fund to cover the cost of an industry awareness campaign, if required.

Due to the advanced deteriorated state of the existing structure a decision must be made now to either dismantle the east end of the Gardiner Expressway or to rehabilitate it. Staff recommend that City Council proceed with the dismantling option because of the long-term cost savings, the urban design and city-building benefits and the potential for community improvements compared to rehabilitating the existing structure.

Council Reference:

At its meeting held on November 30, 1998 and December 1, 1998, the Urban Environment and Development Committee had before it the following reports and communications:

(i) (November 23, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services, the Executive Director and Chief Planner, City Planning, and the Medical Officer of Health, entitled F.G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project;

(ii) (July 7 and 9, 1998) from the General Manger, Transportation Services, both entitled F.G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project;

(iii) (July 13, 1998) from Councillors Sandra Bussin and Tom Jakobek, East Toronto; and

(iv) (June 18, 1998) from the Task Force on the Gardiner/Lake Shore Corridor.

Upon hearing a presentation and deputations on the foregoing, the Urban Environment and Development Committee:

(1) adopted the November 23, 1998 report from the General Manager, Transportation Services, the Executive Director and Chief Planner, City Planning, and the Medical Officer of Health entitled F.G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project thereby directing staff to conduct three studies: an Alternative Rail Service Delivery Study, a Community Improvement Plan, and an Air Quality Study;

(2) deferred consideration of the remaining reports (i.e. July 7 and 9, 1998, July 13, 1998, June 18, 1998) pending the results of the studies;

(3) requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

(a) to report to Council through the Urban Environment and Development Committee, before May 1999, with a detailed plan for the prevention of traffic infiltration in residential neighbourhoods during construction as a result of either dismantling or rehabilitation of the Gardiner Expressway East, and a second detailed plan for the prevention of traffic infiltration in residential neighbourhoods as a result of closures of Lake Shore Boulevard for whatever reason after dismantling of the Gardiner Expressway East, should City Council decide to proceed;

(b) provide a consolidated report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee addressing all relevant issues, i.e., traffic studies, impact on neighbourhoods, including the communities from Leslie Street to Coxwell Avenue, the feasibility of a light rail system or street car route along the Lakeshore; and further that the Chair of Committee ensure that Toronto Transit Commission staff are involved in discussions respecting the design and right-of-ways in this regard; and

(c) develop a noise mitigation and monitoring protocol in partnership with the Film Industry representatives, and report thereon to the Urban Environment and Development Committee; and further that the Film Office consult with the film industry to develop and implement a public relations plan;

(4) requested the Toronto Transit Commission to participate in the planning process relating to the F.G. Gardiner Expressway dismantling project to ensure appropriate measures are taken to facilitate the future introduction of mass transit on the Lakeshore, and the rerouting of express buses off Eastern and onto Lake Shore Boulevard; and

(5) requested Mayor Mel Lastman to meet with the Film Studio representatives to tour the facilities.

History:

Since the history of the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project spans a number of years, this section provides a brief overview of the project and its rationale. The F.G. Gardiner Expressway between the Don Valley Parkway and Leslie Street was built in 1964 and 1965 through the eastern waterfront area, which generally consisted of industrial and port uses. Originally planned as the first portion of the Scarborough Expressway, it was to link the Gardiner Expressway to Highway 401 and via the East Metro Freeway to connect to Highway 407. In 1971, a citizens group successfully lobbied the Ontario Municipal Board to order all work on the Scarborough Expressway stopped. As a result, the ultimate construction of the Scarborough Expressway was never realized.

Over the years, the traffic usage combined with the age of the facility and its rate of deterioration have created the need to undertake extensive rehabilitation of the Gardiner Expressway. Major repairs to the elevated portion of the Expressway west of the Don Valley Parkway have been ongoing since 1979. To date, little rehabilitation work has been carried out on the section of the Expressway east of the Don Valley Parkway.

In January 1996, during consideration of the former Metro Transportation Department=s 1996-2000 Capital Works Program, the former Metro Planning and Transportation Committee requested a report on whether the rehabilitation of the Gardiner Expressway east of the Don Valley Parkway should continue or whether dismantling should be considered. A quick review was undertaken and based on the results of this quick review, staff were authorized to undertake an Environmental Assessment to assess all possible alternatives in greater detail and to consult with stakeholders. The F.G. Gardiner Expressway East Environmental Assessment and Preliminary Design Study (Class EA Study) was initiated in April 1996 and completed in November 1996. The results of the Study indicated that the construction of new access ramps on the east side of the Don River and the dismantling of the existing structure from the new ramps to Leslie Street was the preferred option. On the basis of the urban design benefits, impacts on transportation service in the Gardiner Expressway-Lake Shore Boulevard corridor, and a $14 million life-cycle cost savings, both the former City of Toronto and Metro Toronto Councils endorsed the Dismantling Project in December 1996. Thus, the preferred option became the AApproved Plan@. Final EA approval was confirmed in April 1997 and detailed design of the project began in May 1997.

On April 16, 1998, City Council adopted Clause 1 of Report No. 3 of the Urban Environment and Development Committee. By doing so, Council passed 14 motions directing staff to undertake a number of analyses and respond to questions. One of the requests was to examine the feasibility of dismantling the Gardiner Expressway in such a way that the traffic signal at Carlaw Avenue and Lake Shore Boulevard is by-passed. A number of options were explored to develop what is now referred to as the AAlternative Plan@. The AAlternative Plan@ involves leaving a longer section of the Gardiner in place, and locating the entrance and exit ramps so that they merge with Lake Shore Boulevard east of Carlaw. Although implementation of the Alternative Plan would require a new Environmental Assessment, to ensure consistency with previous work this Plan was evaluated using the same three factors as was the AApproved Plan@ during the original Environmental Assessment Study: urban character; transportation service; and 50-year life-cycle cost. The assessment of the AAlternative Plan@ concluded that although it is physically feasible and would provide satisfactory operation, its benefits in vehicular delay reduction are minimal when traded-off against its higher cost and poorer urban design characteristics as compared to the AApproved Plan@ for the Dismantling Project. As a result, staff recommended that the project continue according to the AApproved Plan@. The detailed evaluation of the AApproved Plan@ versus the AAlternative Plan@ can be found in Appendix 1.

The staff report dealing with the analysis of the@Alternative Plan@ and other matters raised by Council was deferred at both the July and December, 1998 meetings of the Urban Environment and Development Committee pending the completion of four studies: a community improvement plan, a study to explore alternative rail service delivery options for the Port Area, an air quality monitoring program and a request to develop an area traffic management plan. These studies are now complete and their findings presented below in this report.

Discussion:

(1) Why dismantle...

The F.G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project has developed into much more than just a transportation maintenance project. In developing the dismantling alternative it has become clear that there are many benefits to this project over and above the approximately $14 million (net present value, 1996 dollars) in cost savings - the Acity-building@ possibilities, the Agreening@ and the overall improvements to the community.

From a city planning perspective, the most striking feature of the Gardiner East Dismantling Project is the inclusion of urban design, and Agreen@ elements as part of the proposal to transform Lake Shore Boulevard into a new urban boulevard. This Agreening@ includes the addition of:

- a landscaped Agreen@ space having a maximum width of 30 metres along the north side of the new road;

- a new trail for cyclists and pedestrians within the green space on the north side of Lake Shore Boulevard;

- a pedestrian path and landscaping on the south side of Lake Shore Boulevard;

- a landscaped median; and

- public art, to be developed in consultation with the community.

Overall, these design elements have a significant impact on humanizing the physical environment of the Lake Shore/Gardiner East and improving the physical amenity of the area.

(2) Why the decision must be made NOW....

The Environmental Assessment Study that led to the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project was initiated because of the poor structural condition of the Gardiner east of the Don Valley Parkway and the immediate need to begin rehabilitative efforts. Since then, the structural condition of the Gardiner East has continued to deteriorate. The emergency measures that have been implemented, lane reductions and localized emergency repairs, have done little to prolong the life of this structure. Our most recent assessment, carried out in April 1999, has indicated that a decision on whether to dismantle or rehabilitate is required immediately. The condition of the structure is such that emergency repairs will do little to keep this portion of the Expressway in operation over the long term. We must either proceed with the dismantling project or initiate the full rehabilitation program to ensure that public safety is protected. Therefore, it is crucial that a FINAL decision be made at the May 17, 1999 Urban Environment and Development Committee meeting.

(3) Results of Studies and Responses to Various Motions:

The results of the four studies: the Alternative Rail Service Delivery Study, the Community Improvement Plan, the Air Quality Study and the Area Traffic Management Study, are briefly summarized in the following paragraphs. Full reports on the findings of each of these four studies can be found in Appendices 2 through 5. In addition, at the December 1, 1998 Urban Environment and Development Committee a number of motions were made requesting additional information. The responses to these motions can be found in Appendix 6.

(a) Alternative Rail Service Delivery Study (Appendix No. 2):

The current plan for the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project proposes to relocate the Q200 lead, which is the rail line that is located in the median of Lake Shore Boulevard, between Booth Avenue and Leslie Street, to the north side of Lake Shore Boulevard. In order to address the concerns of Logan Avenue residents and the motorists that travel through the area, the Alternative Rail Service Delivery Study was carried out to examine if the Q200 lead could be removed from Lake Shore Boulevard altogether.

The Q200 lead performs two functions:

(i) As far as Carlaw Avenue it is a switching lead for the Keating Yard ( the switching yard is used by the railways to sort rail cars going to and from the Port Area); and

(ii) It provides rail service to the eastern and southern Port areas through an alignment that parallels Leslie Street and Unwin Avenue to access the Port of Toronto Piers 51 & 52. En route it serves CanRoof Corporation, the City of Toronto Main Sewage Treatment Plant and Intermetco via a network of spur lines.

In order to eliminate the portion of the Q200 lead along Lake Shore Boulevard there must be an alternative for both of these functions.

Four alternative schemes were developed to modify or replace the Keating Yard and thereby minimize or eliminate shunting activity east of Booth Avenue. Of the four alternatives, Alternative 1 - Shortening of the Keating Yard, is the most desirable.

Four route alternatives that would provide an alternate link to the Port Area in addition to providing connections to all existing industries currently served were developed and evaluated. Route Alternative 4 - Don Roadway was seen as the least problematic of the four alternatives. Although this alternative has the highest construction cost, it provides the best compromise between maintaining existing rail service and promoting future rail service growth while minimizing impacts on road operations.

Based on the assessment carried out the following conclusions have been reached:

- as long as CanRoof Corporation continues to be the main customer on the Q200 Lead, the Don Roadway route alternative is not desirable from an operational perspective and therefore the significant capital costs associated with this option cannot be justified. If the Port of Toronto is successful in the future in significantly increasing its use of rail service, the Don Roadway route alternative will become more operationally feasible; and

- while a shortening of the Keating Yard may be feasible with the Q200 Lead in its current position on Lake Shore Boulevard, the full benefits of this yard alternative cannot be realized until the Q200 Lead is removed from Lake Shore Boulevard.

As a result, we recommend that the shortening of the Keating Yard and the Don Roadway route alternative be considered longer term options. If the Port of Toronto significantly increases its rail usage, at that time cost sharing arrangements between the City, TEDCO and THC could be explored.

In the interim, the rail relocation design proposed as part of the Dismantling Project could be implemented without precluding either of these potential future modifications to the Port Area rail network.

Full details of the process followed in conducting the Alternative Rail Service Delivery Study, the alternatives developed and evaluated, and the businesses and members of the public that were consulted can be found in Appendix 2.

(b) Community Improvement Plan (Appendix No. 3):

A proposed Community Improvement Plan is included as Appendix 3 of this report. Preparation of the Community Improvement Plan included extensive public consultation by City staff with a wide variety of local interest groups. As well two public open houses held on the project gave the public additional opportunities to comment and make suggestions regarding the community improvement projects comprising the Plan. The types of projects included in the Community Improvement Plan are diverse, but fall into three broad categories:

- projects which add further value to a redesigned Lake Shore Boulevard as an urban boulevard containing a substantial Agreen@ corridor;

- traffic management related improvements; and

- projects which are independent of the Gardiner East Dismantling Project.

Appendix 3 of this report contains a detailed discussion of the individual Community Improvement Projects. Overall, the Community Improvement Plan provides a framework for future public reinvestment within South Riverdale in order to improve its amenity and livability. The Community Improvement Plan proposed is best achieved in conjunction with the Gardiner East Dismantling Project as recommended by City staff. Should City Council not implement the Gardiner East Dismantling Project, the Community Improvement Plan as proposed in Appendix 3 will have to be substantially reduced in scope. In addition, it is not clear how a reduced Community Improvement Plan could be funded.

(c) Air Quality Study - Phase III (Appendix No. 4):

An ambient air quality monitoring study was conducted to allow for an assessment of the current ambient situation and for the refinement of modelling prediction of the impact of either the rehabilitation or dismantling of the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East. The objectives of this study were to:

- measure background levels of certain air pollutants in the study area;

- identify and characterize the range of pollutant sources in the study area;

- predict the dispersion potential of the pollutants monitored for both options - rehabilitation and dismantling; and

- identify measures that will mitigate negative air quality impacts associated with the rehabilitation or dismantling of the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East.

The study concluded that the overall assessment of air quality impacts associated with either option of the Gardiner East slightly favours dismantling because it best protects air quality in the residential community.

(d) Area Traffic Management Study (Appendix No. 5):

An Area Traffic Management Study was undertaken for the area in the vicinity of the Gardiner East Dismantling Project as defined by Coxwell Avenue, Commissioners Street and Lake Shore Boulevard East, Booth Avenue and Queen Street. The objectives of the study were to:

- Evaluate existing and future traffic conditions in the study area;

- Predict potential changes in traffic patterns that could occur during and after the Gardiner East Dismantling Project; and

- Identify measures to improve existing traffic conditions as well as measures which would address any future traffic-related problems, with or without the dismantling project.

The major findings and conclusions of the Area Traffic Management Study can be summarized as follows:

- there is an existing capacity problem for the eastbound left-turn movement at Lake Shore Boulevard and Coxwell Avenue during the p.m. peak period. This capacity problem could be addressed by a double eastbound left turn under existing conditions, or by providing an alternative route via Knox Avenue or Woodfield Road after the dismantling of the Gardiner Expressway East;

- similar to the findings of the Environmental Assessment Study for the Dismantling Project, the travel times on parallel east-west routes in the area are currently balanced and will be balanced both during and after construction, with the Gardiner Expressway always being the fastest route. As a result, no significant east-west traffic diversions are expected either during or after construction of the Dismantling Project;

- also similar to the findings of the Environmental Assessment Study, the most significant increase in traffic volumes on north-south streets after dismantling will occur on Carlaw Avenue. This is as a result of motorists with local origins or destinations diverting from Leslie Street where they currently access or exit the Gardiner Expressway and ; and

- mitigating measures can be implemented to address community concerns regarding existing incidences of traffic infiltration and speeding that have been identified through this study.

Contact Name:

John P. Kelly

Manager, Infrastructure Planning

Phone: 392-8340

Fax: 392-4426

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following communication (May 17, 1999) from Stanley M. Makuch, Cassels Brock & Blackwell, Barristers and Solicitors:

We represent Toronto Film Studios located at 629 Eastern Avenue. Our clients production film studios are the largest in Toronto and have been home to such productions as AGoodwill Hunting@, ALong Kiss Goodnight@, ARoad to Avonlea@ and ALazarus and the Hurricane@ (starring Denzel Washington) and AThe City@, a new hit series on CTV. It consists of 15 stages and has a gross floor area of approximately 235,000 sq. ft. and employs up to 500 people at any given time.

The dismantling of the Gardiner Expressway puts Toronto Film Studios in serious jeopardy because the studios are retro fitted industrial buildings which were not constructed to address the sound and vibration problems caused by the dismantling of an expressway.

In addition, the adverse impact on Toronto Film Studios from the demolition will badly hurt the film production industry in Toronto. That industry provides/employs 28,000 skilled professionals and infuses 3/4 of a billion dollars into the Toronto economy annually.

Our clients are opposed to the dismantling of the Expressway unless they and the industry are clearly protected from the adverse impacts of the demolition. Therefore, they cannot support Recommendation 1 in the above report which endorses the Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project as originally approved unless the following recommendations are also approved at the same time, or prior to approval of Recommendation 1:

a. That Recommendation 3 be deleted and changed to the following:

Direct the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to hold $100,000.00 in reserve for a Film Industry awareness campaign to address the concerns raised by the Film Industry, such expenditure to be made upon the direction of the Toronto Film and Television Office in consultation with representatives of the Toronto Film industry who include a Toronto Film Studios representative and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

b. That Condition 4 is added as follows:

Direct the City Solicitor, in co-operation with appropriate City officials, representatives of the Toronto film industry who include a Toronto Film Studios representative, and appropriate officials from companies that provide bonding for film studios, to prepare performance based noise and vibration specifications for inclusion in all contracts for all phases of the demolition of the Expressway and the reconstruction of Lakeshore Blvd. in addition to a working protocol. Such specifications and protocol to be to the satisfaction of Toronto Film Studios prior to awarding the contract.

The specifications are to include:

(i) Requirements that contractors limit all noise related to the construction or demolition of the Expressway to levels no greater than the existing peak period ambient noise levels as specified by Toronto Film Studios acoustical consultants;

(ii) A provision that all contractors cease work within 15 minutes of a designated City official being notified by a designated Toronto Film Studio official that the work significantly interferes with filming at the Toronto Film Studios and that the parties will meet immediately to resolve the complaint;

(iii) Demolition in the vicinity (within 200 metres) of Toronto Film Studios will occur only in the months from December to March inclusive; and

(iv) Reasonable contract specifications to ensure that Toronto Film Industry will be able to continue to obtain bonding for production deadlines in spite of the demolition and reconstruction.

c. That Condition 5 is added as follows:

No railway line be relocated to the north side of Lakeshore Blvd. east of Carlaw, and all crossings be controlled by signals bells and not by train whistles.

Further, that if there is any significant increase in rail traffic to the Port Lands, that the requirement for a new rail line to the Port will be studied further.

d. That Condition 6 be added as follows:

(a) Direct that reconstruction of Lakeshore Blvd. include a sufficient sound barrier on the north side to prevent additional traffic noise from affecting film productions;

(b) Directs subject to any relevant provisions of the Municipal Act, that any surplus lands on the north side of the Lakeshore Blvd. be offered to adjacent property owners for purchase after taking into account planting, pedestrian/bicycle routes and sound barrier requirements;

(c) Direct that all contracts specify that no construction staging can occur on the north side of Lakeshore Blvd. for demolition or reconstruction purposes within 200 metres of a film studios;

(d) Direct that all contracts for demolition and construction specify dust control requirements to the satisfaction of Toronto Film Studios consultants;

(e) Direct that all contracts for demolition and construction specify that truck access from Lakeshore Blvd. to the Toronto Film Studios property will not be obstructed except at times approved by a designated Toronto Film Studios representative; and

(f) Direct the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and all other City officials to make reasonable efforts to co-operate with the film industry in general and Toronto Film Studios in particular and to protect the film industry in general, and Toronto Film Studios in particular from any and all adverse affects resulting from the demolition and reconstruction.

It is only through the adoption of the above recommendations that Council can ensure that Toronto Film Studios in particular, and the film industry, in general in Toronto is protected. There is no dispute as to the importance of this industry and there is no doubt, given the highly competitive nature of the industry, that without the above protection the industry will be lost in Toronto. The Report includes provisions for Community Improvements, street lighting on Queen Street and other street improvements. The Report must address in detail, the need to protect the film industry in our City. Without approval of these recommendations, we cannot support the Report.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following report (May 5, 1999) from the Medical Officer of Health:

Purpose:

To report on Phase III of the air quality impact assessment that included ambient air pollutant monitoring, and dispersion modelling which predicts the potential air quality impacts under the two options for the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East.

Source of Funds:

There are no direct financial implications related to this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the General Manager of Transportation Services and the Chief Planner ensure that the greening plan proposed in the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project proceed including the examination of alternate bicycle routes, irrespective of the option chosen, in order to minimize the potential impact on cyclists due to poor air quality along the Lakeshore Blvd./Gardiner Expressway corridor.

(2) the Executive Director/Chief Planner of City Planning ensure that the process for developing the new Official Plan for the City of Toronto considers air quality impacts from transportation corridors as a priority in long-term landuse and transportation planning.

(3) the Medical Officer of Health monitor the work of the federal government under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) review process regarding the examination of cyanide in road salt and its impact on air quality.

Background:

At the December 1, 1998 meeting, the Urban Environment and Development Committee (UEDC) considered a report from the Medical Officer of Health (November 23,1998) on the air quality impacts of dismantling the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East. The MOH recommended that an ambient air quality monitoring study be conducted because the Phase II air quality impact assessment predicted exceedances in the F.G.Gardiner/Lakshore corridor of the provincial ambient air quality criteria for particulate matter under worst-case conditions for both options under consideration for the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East. Monitoring specific to this area allows an assessment of the current ambient situation and allows for refinement of the dispersion model predictions of the impact of either rehabilitating or dismantling the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East.

In addition, the Commissioner of Works & Emergency Services, in consultation with the Medical Officer of Health and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, were to identify and investigate the feasibility of implementing measures that will mitigate the negative air quality impacts.

Comments:

Senes Consultants Limited, who has experience in air monitoring and modelling were retained by Transportation Services to conduct the Phase III Air Quality Impact study in the area bounded by Queen Street to the north, the Don Roadway to the west, Commissioners Street to the south and Leslie Street to the east. The study objectives were to:

- measure background levels of criteria air pollutants in the study area (ambient air monitoring);

- identify and characterize the range of pollutant sources in the study area;

- predict the dispersion potential of the pollutants monitored for both options - rehabilitation and dismantling (models were consistent with those used in Phase II);

- identify effective and feasible measures that will mitigate negative air quality impacts associated with the rehabilitation or dismantling of the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East.

Ambient Air Monitoring - Winter 1999.

From February 16, 1999 to March 29, 1999 ambient air monitoring was conducted at two locations in the study area: Bruce Public School (57 Larchmount Ave) and South Riverdale Community Health Centre (955 Queen St E.). The pollutants monitored were carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM₁₀, PM_{2.5, -} sulphates and nitrates), nitrogen oxides (NO_x) and sulphur dioxide (SO₂). The pollutants selected for analysis are those criteria pollutants for which transportation sources are the largest contributor. Sensitive receptors/facilities (i.e. residential areas, schools, parks, health care centres) and their proximity to existing stationary, area and point sources were considered in siting the monitoring locations. In addition, the Ontario Ministry of Environment (OMOE) agreed to deploy its mobile air monitoring bus such that the additional data could be used to calibrate the dispersion models and result in more accurate predictions.

Table 1 and 2 are a summary of the ambient monitoring data collected at Bruce Public School and South Riverdale Community Health Centre, respectively. Approximately 14 days of sampling occurred at each location. Consistent with the averaging times for the respective MOE AAQCs, hourly measurements are reported for No_x, CO, and SO₂ and daily measurements for PM₁₀ and PM_2.5. There were no exceedances of the OMOE ambient air quality criteria (AAQC) observed at Bruce Public School. At South Riverdale Community Health Centre most of the measurements were within the standards. However, there was one exceedance of NO_x and PM₁₀ (NO_x = 518 µg/m³ and PM₁₀ = 66 µg/m³).

Table 1 Range of Maximum Concentrations Recorded at Bruce Public School (µg/m³)

*there is currently no MOE AAQC for PM_2.5. The U.S.EPA 24-hour standard is 65 µg/m³

Table 2 Range of Maximum Concentrations Recorded at South Riverdale Community Health Centre (µg/m³)

NOTE: shaded cells denote AAQC exceedances for NO_x and PM₁₀. The NO_x and PM₁₀ AAQCs are 400 µg/m³ and 50 µg/m³, respectively.

*there is currently no AAQC for PM_2.5. The U.S.EPA 24-hour standard is 65 µg/m³

Table 3 illustrates that the maximum NO_x levels (converted to ppb) measured in this community during February and March, 1999 are lower than the maximum levels recorded at other Toronto locations where the OMOE monitors for NO_x (OMOE, 1999). It should be noted that over a one year period maximum levels are expected to occur in the summer months. Therefore, the levels of NO_x observed in the study area are expected to be higher in the summer months. However, this situation applies to both the dismantling and rehabilitation option.

In general, the NO_x levels experienced at several Toronto monitoring stations are higher than other parts of Ontario. The only other two Ontario locations with comparable levels are Cornwall (454 ppb) and Hamilton (427 ppb). While levels are a concern throughout Toronto due to the large volumes of vehicular traffic the ambient NO_x exceedances noted at the South Riverdale Community Health Centre are not as great as those at other monitoring sites in Toronto (Table 3). According to the OMOEs most recent air quality report (1996 data), across the province approximately 67 percent of NO_x comes from the transportation sector (OMOE, 1999). This source allocation will vary among local communities depending on the mix of sources (i.e. transportation vs industrial). The following section on dispersion modelling estimates the source allocation for the pollutants monitored in this study. The provincial average ambient NO_x levels have remained relatively constant throughout the 1990s (OMOE, 1999).

Table 3 Comparison of maximum NO_x concentrations with other Toronto locations

¹OMOE, 1999

²Senes Consultants Limited, 1999

With respect to PM₁₀ levels, the highest ambient 24-hour level recorded (remote from an industrial point source) in Ontario was at a downtown Hamilton site (91µg/m³). Table 4 compares the maximum levels recorded at three Toronto locations with the two locations monitored in this study and illustrates that the maximum PM₁₀ levels recorded in this study are comparable to maximum levels recorded at other Toronto locations where the OMOE monitors for PM₁₀ (OMOE, 1999).

Table 4 Comparison of maximum PM₁₀ concentrations with other Toronto locations

¹OMOE, 1999

²Senes Consultants Limited, 1999

In addition to the transportation related pollutants monitored, community members have raised questions regarding other pollutants such as lead, ground level ozone, cyanide, manganese and hexavalent chromium. As part of their provincial ambient air monitoring network, the OMOE monitors for lead and manganese in the study area. In 1996, the limits for manganese and lead were not exceeded at these locations (OMOE, 1999).

Hexavalent chromium, although present in Toronto=s air at trace levels, is largely associated with industrial sources (TPH, 1993). The OMOE has informed Toronto Public Health that no routine monitoring of hexavalent chromium in ambient air is conducted in Toronto (personal communication OMOE, 1999).

Cyanide has been identified because of its presence in road salt as an anti-caking agent. There has not been an analysis of the exposure to airborne cyanide that may be re-entrained from transportation sources. The federal government is conducting an ecological risk assessment of road salt. Toronto Public Health will monitor the work of the federal government.

Ground level ozone is secondary pollutant that forms downwind of emission sources of NO_x and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the presence of sunlight. This is illustrated by the monitoring data collected by the OMOE at six locations in Toronto. In 1996, the greatest number of exceedances, 48, were observed at the York location compared with no exceedances at the Toronto downtown location (OMOE, 1999). The regional nature of ground level ozone also results in a significant percentage (approx. 50 %) being transported into Ontario on hot summer days from sources located in the United States.

In summary, the ambient air monitoring exercise was useful in demonstrating that there were few exceedances of environmental exposure limits during late winter. Although pollutant levels are known to vary seasonally and possibly result in a greater number of exceedances in summer, the ambient monitoring data are especially useful for application of dispersion models to this study area to predict how pollutants will travel and what levels they may reach under certain meteorological conditions.

Predicted Air Quality Impacts under Rehabilitation or Dismantling.

Atmospheric dispersion modelling was used to compare the existing atmospheric concentrations of criteria pollutants with predicted future concentrations for the two options for the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East. The models used in this study are regulatory models that will predict atmospheric concentrations of pollutants from industrial sources and vehicular sources. The ambient monitoring data collected was used to refine the models for the study area. Because weather conditions play a significant role in how air pollutants travel across an area, the dispersion models consider area-specific meteorological observations, specifically wind speed, direction and stability.

Since pollutants are emitted from several different sources (e.g. particulates are emitted by both vehicles and local industrial sources) the consultants were requested to distinguish between transportation sources and industrial sources in the study area. The Main Treatment Plant, although technically outside of the defined study area, was considered a special case and was therefore included in the analysis.

Dispersion modelling was conducted for NO_x, CO, SO₂, PM₁₀, and PM_2.5. Given that only NO_x and PM₁₀ levels are predicted to exceed the AAQC under certain meterological conditions, the following discussion is limited to NO_x and PM₁₀. The predicted NO_x and PM₁₀ concentrations for either rehabilitation or dismantling vary amongst the 17 sensitive receptors locations selected for study. In general, the closer the roadway is to grade, the greater the pollutant levels will be at receptor locations closest to the road. When the roadway is elevated pollutants will disperse further thereby having a greater impact on remote locations and a lesser impact on receptor locations closest to the source.

The predictions for the dismantling scenario were calculated by Senes Consultants Limited by assuming an increase in traffic volumes due to increased development and general traffic growth, whereas the rehabilitation scenario was done assuming the present day traffic volumes. The predicted difference in the 24-hour concentration averaged for all receptors when comparing dismantling to rehabilitation is 3 percent for NO_x and 1 percent for PM₁₀, indicative of slightly superior air quality with dismantling. These estimates are considered to be conservative and a larger difference is anticipated between the two options, whereby a greater number of exceedances are expected to occur under the rehabilitation option when increases in traffic volumes due to future development are considered. Senes Consultants Limited anticipates that the overall pollutant concentrations in the study area will be lower under the dismantling option than the rehabilitation option.

Mitigative Measures.

The consultant was also requested to assess the range of possible measures that can mitigate negative air quality impacts associated with the options for the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East. The two basic approaches that can be undertaken to reduce the air quality impacts resulting from emissions of gaseous and particulate pollutants are emission reduction and control.

In the context of transportation sources, emission reduction or pollution prevention, requires the reduction of traffic volume. Although, the dispersion modelling did not explicitly model a reduction in air pollutant concentrations that would result from a decrease in traffic, the relationship is approximately linear (personal communication, Senes Consultants Limited). For example, for every percent reduction in traffic volume there would be an equivalent reduction in air pollutant levels. This relationship underscores the need for integrating air quality protection measures into landuse and transportation planning processes.

Emission control for roadways includes greening and engineering options. With respect to the greening options, there is increasing evidence that plant canopies are a sink for airborne pollutants. Trees can have a major impact of the environment in residential neighbourhoods by influencing local wind speeds, air temperature, humidity, etc. and gaseous airborne pollutants can be absorbed through the same process that plants absorb nutrients.

Pollutant removal by plants is highly dependent on: the physical form or phase of the pollutant; meteorological conditions above and within the canopy; the properties of the leaf surface and interior and; the structure of the leaf canopy.

Pollutant uptake is highly variable amongst plant species and the potential of pollutants to cause plant injury needs to be considered within the context of long-term pollutant removal efficiency. In general, species with high leaf surface areas are more effective at removing atmospheric pollutants. It has been observed that large trees can remove more pollution than small trees, however, the experimental evidence shows that the removal efficiency of leaf canopies depends on the nature of the leaf surface (i.e. smooth leaves will remove less particulate than leaves with fine hairs). Various species have been identified as efficient in pollutant removal, as well as resistant to the negative effects of certain pollutants. This information should be considered in any landscaping plan for transportation corridors.

In their review of the greening mitigative options, Senes Consultant Limited concluded it was difficult to accurately quantify the amount of pollution removed by greening options. However, planting trees along the transportation corridor would not be harmful and quantifying the benefits of pollutant removal by evaluating the effectiveness of a greening intervention is something to be considered in the future. In addition, trees indirectly benefit air quality by providing shade which can reduce the amount of electricity required for air conditioning during summer months. This results in reduced emissions from coal-fired generating stations.

With respect to engineering options, PM₁₀ emissions from vehicles is, in large part, generated by the resuspension of road dust as tires pass over the road surface. Urban roadways contain a certain amount of accumulated dust and silt. In general high speed roadways tend to accumulate less material than lower speed roadways and therefore, less dust is available for resuspension.

The efficiency of engineering controls depends on the frequency with which the control is applied. The two most common controls are street washing and street vacuuming. Control efficiencies of up to 80 percent can be achieved with a rigorous cleaning cycle, depending on the nature of the roadway and the number of days since the last rainfall. Unfortunately, this option would be ineffective for a major traffic corridor such the Gardiner/Lakeshore corridor under either the rehabilitation or the dismantling option due to the volume of cars travelling on the roadway. In order to achieve any measurable control, the corridor would need to be watered several times per hour during peak time, which would require significant amounts of water (thereby having negative safety implications) and would interfere with traffic flow.

Street vacuuming would have similar operational issues as street watering and would tend to be noisy which may preclude nighttime operation.

Health Implications.

The effects of air pollution on health can range from severe (aggravation of respiratory disease, death) to moderate (reduced lung function with or without symptoms) to minor (eye, nose and throat symptoms). Some researchers have suggested that there is a logical Acascade@ of these effects whereby the total burden of illness increases along the spectrum of health effect from most severe to minor (Bates, 1992).

Exposure to NO_x at levels normally experienced in urban environments have been linked to a range adverse health effects. The levels typical to Toronto can be associated with irritant effects such as breathing fatigue eye irritation, increased bronchial reactivity in asthmatics, and increased airway resistance in healthy persons. At very high concentrations nitrogen dioxide can produce pulmonary edema (TPH, 1993; TPH, 1996). It is important to note a reduction in NO_x levels will also result in reduced formation of ground level ozone which has also be linked to adverse health effects. The effects include decreases in lung function in children and adults and increases in respiratory symptoms in healthy exercising individuals (TPH, 1996).

There are a wide variety of health effects associated with inhalation of particulate matter. PM₁₀, particles less than 10 µm in diameter, pose a health concern because they can be inhaled deeper into the respiratory system than larger particulates. Adverse health effects include increased incidence of respiratory symptoms, decreased pulmonary function resulting in increased hospitalization and other health care visits for cardiopulmonary diseases and increased cardiopulmonary disease mortality. Other types of adverse respiratory health effects may be associated with suspended particles which have gaseous pollutants or toxic substances adsorbed to the surface such as acid aerosols. Of greatest health concern are particulates less than 2.5 µm in diameter because they can reach deepest into lung tissue. Acid aerosols are generally less than 2.5 µm in diameter and are typically composed of sulphate and nitrate compounds. Sulphates are considered a crude indicator of acid aerosols. Acid aerosols are known to damage surface of lung tissue where oxygen exchange occurs.

The overall assessment of air quality impacts associated with either option slightly favours dismantling because adverse impacts are anticipated to be lower in the surrounding residential community including sensitive receptors such as schools. Notwithstanding the slight area-wide decrease in pollutant concentrations predicted with dismantling the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East, a significant number of exceedances of the AAQC for PM₁₀ and NO_x are anticipated at a number of the receptor locations under either option. Given that the source allocation for the modelled pollutants attributed approximately 98 percent to transportation sources, longer term landuse and transportation planning solutions need to be considered to reduce the impact of vehicular traffic in this community and other Toronto communities similarly impacted by vehicular traffic.

Under the dismantling option, pollutant concentrations are expected to be somewhat elevated along the Lakeshore corridor. Therefore, particular attention is required to minimize the impact on cyclists that may result from exposure to elevated pollutant levels. The greening plan developed for the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East project, should be implemented, irrespective of which option is selected. In addition, alternative bicycling routes should be explored.

Conclusions:

The overall assessment of air quality impacts associated with either option for F.G. Gardiner Expressway East slightly favours dismantling because it best protects air quality in the residential community. This conclusion is based on the predicted number of exceedances for PM₁₀ and NO_x at a number of the sensitive receptor locations such as schools.

Given that the source allocation for the modelled pollutants attributed approximately 98 percent to transportation sources, longer term landuse and transportation planning solutions need to be considered to reduce the impact of vehicular traffic in this community and other Toronto communities similarly impacted by vehicular traffic

Irrespective of which option is selected for the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East, mitigative measures need to be implemented to reduce pollutant exposures to cyclists using the Lakeshore Blvd. These measures are particularly important for the dismantling option.

Contact Names:

Franca Ursitti

Research Consultant, Health Promotion & Environmental Protection, Toronto Public Health

Tel: 416-392-6788, Fax: 416-392-7418, email: fursitti@toronto.ca

Monica Campbell

Manager, Health Promotion & Environmental Protection, Toronto Public Health

Tel: 416-392-6788, Fax: 416-392-7418, email: mcampbe2@toronto.ca

References

Bates DV (1992) Health Indices of the Adverse Effects of Air Pollution: The Question of Coherence. Environmental Research; 59:336-349.

Toronto Public Health (1993) Outdoor Air Quality in Toronto: Issues and Concerns.

Toronto Public Health (1996) Outdoor Air Quality in Toronto and Respiratory Health.

Ontario Ministry of Environment (1999a) Air Quality in Ontario - 1996: A concise report on the state of air quality in the province of Ontario. 47pp.

Ontario Ministry of Environment (1999b) Air Quality in Ontario - 1996: Appendix.

Personal Communication (1999) Gary DeBrou, Ontario Ministry of Environment

Senes Consultants Limited (1999) Air Quality Assessment of Various Options for the Future of the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East - Phase III (draft).

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following report (July 7, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services:

Purpose:

To provide additional information related to the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project as requested by the Urban Environment and Development Committee and City Council.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The 1998-2002 Capital Works Program for the Transportation Services Division includes $7.9 million for the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project in 1998 (C-TR026). The Treasurer has previously certified that financing for the estimated project expenditure in 1998 can be provided under the updated Debt and Financial Obligation Limit and that it falls within the updated debt guidelines approved by City of Toronto Council.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project proceed as originally approved by the former Metropolitan Toronto and City of Toronto Councils.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting of April 16, 1998, City Council adopted, as amended, Clause No. 1 of Report No. 3 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, headed AF. G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project@. In so doing, City Council requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Interim Functional Lead for Transportation to report back on a number of issues. These issues are described and discussed below.

Discussion:

Council passed 14 motions on April 16, 1998 which directed staff to undertake a number of analyses and respond to questions. Each motion is described and a detailed response is provided in Appendix No. 1 to this report. The discussion below summarizes Council=s directions and staff=s findings over the last 10 weeks.

Summary of Findings:

The 14 motions of Council can be summarized into two basic directions or questions. First, consultation should be held with stakeholders, particularly those opposed to the approved dismantling plan, and second, an alternative plan that by-passes the traffic signal at Carlaw Avenue should be developed and evaluated against the approved plan.

(1) Consultation With Stakeholders and Objectors:

In response to Council=s request, meetings have been held with the following groups and individuals:

(a) Design and Construction Liaison Group (The DCLG is comprised of a Business and Industry Forum and a Public Forum);

(b) Beaches Triangle Residents Association;

(c) Bruce Public School representatives;

(d) Citizens for the Retention of the East Gardiner Expressway;

(e) Film Industry representatives (co-ordinated through Toronto Film Studios);

(f) Logan Avenue Residents;

(g) Mr. Marshall Golden;

(h) The City of Toronto Economic Development Corporation (TEDCO);

(i) Mr. Kevin Walters; and

(j) Public Meetings with area Councillors.

Staff of the Toronto Harbour Commissioners (THC), which was one of the organizations named as objecting to the dismantling project, have indicated that THC does not have a position on this issue, and therefore a meeting is unwarranted. A copy of the correspondence from THC dated June 8, 1998 is included in Appendix No. 2. THC staff continue to actively participate in the Design and Construction Liaison Group.

A detailed listing of the issues raised by the stakeholders is provided in Appendix No. 2. The main issues raised by the stakeholders are as follows:

Issue (i):

Access to the Port Area should be improved to support long-term development of the Port Area.

Response (i):

Intersection modifications to improve north-south movements to access the Port Area are included in the approved dismantling plan at Carlaw Avenue and Lake Shore Boulevard and at Leslie Street and Lake Shore Boulevard.

Issue (ii):

Traffic volumes will probably increase over time and dismantling the expressway will lead to more spillover traffic in local neighbourhoods and neighbourhoods to the east. To address this issue, an independent study funded by the City and led by a community group should be undertaken and be used to determine the future of the expressway.

Response (ii):

A major transportation planning study of this corridor was undertaken in 1994 by the former Metro Planning Department called the AEast Metro Waterfront Corridor Transportation Study@. The study concluded that improvements to TTC and GO Transit service and better integration of the two services should form the basis of serving travel growth from the east and northeast. As a result, the former Metropolitan Council decided that no additional roads were required in the corridor and Council removed the Scarborough Transportation Corridor from the Official Plan and the lands for the future extension of the expressway are now being sold.

The issue of existing traffic infiltration into local neighbourhoods needs to be addressed whether or not the Gardiner dismantling proceeds. Analysis is now underway by City staff for the South Riverdale/Eastern Avenue area to determine what measures can alleviate their problems. Similar work can be undertaken in any of the affected communities.

The approved plan for dismantling the expressway provides almost the same level of service in the Corridor as exists today, so after construction there will be little additional pressure to use the local road network as an alternate route as a result of the dismantling.

Issue (iii):

The relocation of the railway lines will cause traffic delays, noise and vibration during and after construction.

Response (iii):

The issue of noise and vibration impacts from trains on the film industry located north of Lake Shore Boulevard East is being reviewed with an independent noise and vibration consultant retained by Toronto Film Studios. This review will provide the basis for the identification of mitigation measures that will be provided to address the film industry=s concerns.

Traffic delays due to rail crossing activity must be addressed in two parts: delays due to shunting activity; and delays due to through rail movements.

Shunting:

During shunting operations within the Keating Rail Yard, which is located on the north side of Lake Shore Boulevard East between the Don Roadway and Booth Avenue, rail cars located on various tracks are connected to form a single train. To accomplish this, the train must pull out of the rail yard in order to switch between tracks within the yard. Currently, when a train pulls out of the yard, vehicular traffic on Booth Avenue and on westbound Lake Shore Boulevard East is blocked by the train. Motorists originating from Logan Avenue and Morse Street would also be impacted by these shunting operations if their intention is to travel westbound on Lake Shore Boulevard. Staff of the St. Lawrence and Hudson Railway (a division of CP) have indicated that a Board-Order from the Canadian Transportation Agency prohibits shunting activities during the morning and afternoon peak periods. However, during off-peak periods the impact of shunting activities on Lake Shore Boulevard westbound traffic can be significant.

Under the dismantling design, these shunting operations would take place on the north side of Lake Shore Boulevard East and, therefore, shunting trains would no longer stop westbound Lake Shore Boulevard East traffic. Depending on the length of trains performing the shunting, Booth Avenue, Logan Avenue and Morse Street could be blocked by shunting operations. However, as indicated above, motorists originating from these streets are already impacted by the existing shunting operations and the relocation results in no change from this current situation.

Through Train Movements:

Regarding through train movements, the main area of concern is the three rail spur lines located between Carlaw Avenue and Leslie Street. Two of these lines serve a single property occupied by CanRoof Corporation. The third rail lead extends south of Lake Shore Boulevard East, serving the Main Sewage Treatment Plant and the lower Port Area. These rail lines presently cross eastbound Lake Shore Boulevard East, east of Carlaw Avenue. Under the approved dismantling plan, these rail lines will cross both eastbound and westbound Lake Shore Boulevard East and motorists destined to or originating from the Gardiner Expressway will be required to cross them. This will translate into additional delays for westbound Lake Shore Boulevard traffic as described below.

Number of Train Movements:

At the time of the environmental assessment study, our information on train usage by the major users of rail transport in the eastern Port accounted for 4 train movements per week across Lake Shore Boulevard East between Carlaw Avenue and Leslie Street. Since that time, we have received updated information on the number of train movements across these 3 lines. On most weekdays, there are 2 train movements during the midday (1 train on a return trip) and 2 train movements in the late evening (between 8 p.m. and 2 a.m.). On some weekdays there are an additional 2 to 4 train movements to CanRoof Corporation between 8 p.m. and 2 a.m.. Therefore, on average, there are 6 movements per weekday across Lake Shore Boulevard East between Carlaw Avenue and Leslie Street.

Timing of Train Movements:

Each of these movements across Lake Shore Boulevard takes approximately 2 minutes due to the slow speed of the trains. Therefore, using the figure of 6 train movements per weekday, Lake Shore Boulevard and Gardiner Expressway traffic would be stopped by through train movements for a total of 12 minutes per 24 hours on an average weekday, and all of that time would occur outside of the peak traffic periods.

Issue (iv):

Air pollution will increase as a result of the dismantling and the barrier effect of Lake Shore Boulevard will be as great as the barrier effect of the Gardiner Expressway.

Response (iv):

Our air quality analysis indicates that for the dismantling project, air quality measures such as nitrogen oxides, total suspended particulates, and carbon monoxide will not change significantly (+1%).

It is true that Lake Shore Boulevard provides a challenge for designers with respect to pedestrian crossings. However, the new configuration presents a number of opportunities to improve the overall pedestrian environment which are not possible with the existing elevated structure. For example, sidewalks, trees, a bicycle/pedestrian trail and improved pedestrian crossings can be provided as part of the Approved Plan which mitigate the barrier effect of Lake Shore Boulevard.

(2) Evaluation of Alternative Dismantling Plan:

Council directed staff to develop options for dismantling the expressway which would remove or bypass the traffic signal at Carlaw Avenue and Lake Shore Boulevard. In order to achieve this objective both at-grade and grade-separated alternatives were developed and evaluated.

Evaluation of At-Grade Alternatives:

Within the at-grade category two alternatives were considered:

(a) remove the traffic signal at the Carlaw Avenue and Lake Shore Boulevard East intersection; and

(b) restrict all left turns and north-south through movements at the Carlaw Avenue and Lake Shore Boulevard East intersection.

Both alternatives would have similar impacts in that they would require closing the intersection to north-south traffic.

The Port Area has four main access points: Cherry Street, Don Roadway, Carlaw Avenue and Leslie Street. On several occasions over the course of this project, TEDCO has noted the importance of multiple access points for the Port Area to attract and serve future development. Prohibiting north-south traffic at the Carlaw Avenue intersection would result in significant out of way travel for traffic moving to and from the Port Area. North-south access for vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists to and from the Port would be limited to Leslie Street, the Don Roadway (which is a connection to the Don Valley Parkway only) and Cherry Street. Traffic that currently turns left or proceeds north-south at Carlaw Avenue would most likely be diverted to the Leslie Street intersection which is the closest alternative access to the Port Area. As a result, the Leslie Street and Lake shore Boulevard East intersection would operate with significantly lower levels of service during peak periods.

The closure of the Carlaw Avenue and Lake Shore Boulevard East intersection would reduce access capacity to the Port Area and thereby reduce the attractiveness of the Port Area for future development as well as its ability to accommodate it. In addition, Carlaw Avenue is one of the few intersections in the South Riverdale area which provides north-south access for pedestrians and cyclists across Lake Shore Boulevard East. As a result of all of these impacts, removing the traffic light or restricting the movements at Carlaw Avenue, was not considered a viable option.

Evaluation of Grade-Separated Alternatives:

We considered the following two physical alternatives to bypass the traffic signal at Carlaw Avenue and Lake Shore Boulevard East:

(i) grade separation of Carlaw Avenue and Lake Shore Boulevard; and

(ii) an alternative dismantling plan in which the Expressway ends east of Carlaw Avenue.

The first alternative would require either Carlaw Avenue or Lake Shore Boulevard East to be raised or lowered to physically separate the two roads. None of these options is considered feasible for the following reasons:

(aa) the narrow right-of-way along Carlaw Avenue is insufficient to accommodate a structure, while maintaining access to Lake Shore Boulevard;

(bb) presence of buildings immediately adjacent to the streetline prohibits widening of the right-of-way on Carlaw;

(cc) the presence of a number of private entrances along Carlaw Avenue both north and south of Lake Shore Boulevard results in severe access impacts to lands in this area,

(dd) conflicts with utilities, particularly the large (2.2 m by 1.4 m) twin concrete drainage culverts running along Carlaw Avenue, outletting at Commissioners Street. Relocating these utilities is not feasible within the existing right-of-way.

(ee) the existing Lake Shore Boulevard right-of-way is not sufficiently wide to accommodate the grade separation; this option would result in property impacts to Buchman Lumber and Mayfair Racquet Club

(ff) the distance between the end of the Gardiner Ramps at Bouchette Street and the ramps to the structure on Lake Shore over Carlaw Avenue is insufficient to permit a proper connection between Carlaw Avenue and the Gardiner.

On this basis these alternatives were not developed into full detailed plans and were not considered further.

The other alternative for bypassing the signal at Carlaw Avenue is to leave a longer section of the Gardiner in place, and locate the entrance and exit ramps so that they merge with Lake Shore Boulevard east of Carlaw Avenue. The scheme developed for this option is shown in Exhibits Nos. 2A and 2B and is from here on referred to as the Alternative Plan. (The Approved Plan is shown in Exhibits 1A and 1B).

It should be noted that, during consultations with the affected Ward Councillors on the Alternative Plan, we were requested to review the feasibility of a design where the new ramps to the Expressway would begin east of the film studios= properties and merge with Lake Shore Boulevard just west of Leslie Street. Although we have not had sufficient time to develop a detailed plan for such a design, a cursory examination indicates that this plan would create significant operational problems and would be quite similar in cost to the rehabilitation option.

The operational problems associated with such a plan would occur where the eastbound off-ramp, east of the film studios= properties, would meet Lake Shore Boulevard less than 200 metres west of the signalized intersection of Leslie Street and Lake Shore Boulevard East. This design would result in eastbound vehicles queuing from the signal at Leslie Street up the off-ramp and onto the Expressway, creating a potential rear-end collision hazard. In addition, this design would not provide sufficient weaving distance to permit eastbound Expressway traffic to turn right onto Leslie Street or for eastbound Lake Shore Boulevard traffic to turn left onto Leslie Street.

Accordingly, due to its higher cost and operational problems this alternative was not considered further.

The Alternative Plan shown on Exhibits Nos. 2A and 2B will enable the Carlaw/Lake Shore intersection to function as it does today, with Gardiner Expressway traffic bypassing the traffic signal at Carlaw Avenue and Lake Shore Boulevard East. Other significant differences in design features from the Approved Plan for the dismantling of the Expressway are highlighted in the table below. It should be noted that some elements of the design (in either case) are predicated on a commitment to the public that access to and from the F.G. Gardiner Expressway be maintained at all times during the re-construction effort.

The Alternative Plan was evaluated against the same three factors as was the Approved Plan in the environmental assessment study. These factors are:

- urban character - socio-economic and natural environments;

- transportation service - route travel times and intersection levels-of-service; and

- 50-year life-cycle cost expressed as a present value.

The details of this evaluation are provided in Appendix No. 3. A summary of the advantages and disadvantages of the Alternative Plan relative to the Approved Plan is provided below:

Alternative Plan Compared to Approved Plan

It is important to consider that the basic differences between the Approved Plan and the Alternative Plan relate to the small benefits in reducing vehicular delay provided by the Alternative Plan compared to the Approved Plan at a cost of approximately $6 million more over the life of the project and significantly reduced urban design benefits. The Executive Director, City Planning Division supports the Approved Plan from an urban design perspective as it provides superior city building opportunities compared to the Alternative Plan.

While we believe that the Alternative Plan is physically feasible and would provide a satisfactory operation, its benefits in vehicular delay reduction are minimal when traded off against the lower cost and better urban design of the Approved Plan.

Conclusions:

Many of the concerns raised about the F.G. Gardiner Expressway Dismantling Project have already been addressed through previous planning and design work or can be addressed with appropriate mitigating measures. Those concerns that cannot be addressed relate to a desire to maintain the existing Expressway structure.

We are of the opinion that the approved plan for the dismantling of the Expressway continues to provide the best combination of transportation service, urban character improvements and cost savings over the long term. On this basis, we recommend that the dismantling of the F.G. Gardiner Expressway between the Don Roadway and Leslie Street proceed as planned and that the contract for the relocation of the rail lines be awarded as recommended in a supplementary report.

Contact Name:

Kathleen Llewellyn-Thomas

Manager, Project Planning and Design

392-8590

Insert Table/Map No. 1

F.G. Gardiner Expressway East

Insert Table/Map No. 2

F.G. Gardiner Expressway East

Insert Table/Map No. 3

F.G. Gardiner Expressway East

Insert Table/Map No. 4

F.G. Gardiner Expressway East

The Urban Environment and Development Committee received a presentation from Paul Bedford and David Kaufman in connection with the foregoing matter.

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

- Sarah Climenhaga, Transportation Options;

- Donna Hinde, Ontario Association of Landscape Architects;

- James Alcock, Chairman, Citizens for the Retention of the East Gardiner Expressway;

- Dalton Shipway;

- Susan Deryk, Canadian Automobile Association;

- William Brown, obo South Riverdale Community Health Centre;

- Michael McClelland;

- Peter Smith;

- Tanny Wells, Chair, Task Force to Bring Back the Don;

- Abel Van Wyk;

- Ken Greenberg;

- Kathy Chandler;

- Michael Kirkland;

- Kevin Walters;

- John DeMarco;

- Elizabeth Borek, Lakeside Area Neighbourhoods Association;

- Brian Smith, Woodgreen Community Centre;

- Gloria Martin;

- Joey Schooley obo Jim Egan;

- Boris Mather;

- Ed Clark;

- Barry Munro, P.Eng.

- Catherine Nasmith, Co-Chair, Gardiner Lakeshore Task Force;

- Alex Burke, East Beach;

- Carl Strygg;

- Hamish Wilson;

- Stanley Makuch, obo Toronto Film Studios;

- Wilfred Walter, Transport 2000;

- Crawford Murphy;

- Jeff March, Tango Palace;

- Joan Doiron;

- Rhona Swarbrick, Protect Established Neighbourhoods (PEN);

- Joe Lobko;

- Gail Thompson, Ontario Film Development Corporation;

- Nina Koskenoja;

- Linda Lynch, obo Peter Lucas, Shoreline Ltd.;

- Wayne Olson;

- Jacob Allderdie;

- Jim Neff;

- Andrew Pask;

- David Glassey;

- David Hanna;

- Fred Avery;

- Babak Abbaszadeh;

- Karen Buck;

- Jose F. Reisinger;

- Paula Fletcher; and

- Martin Collier.

CCCC

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also had before it the following material, which was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Urban Environment and Development Committee for its meeting of May 17, 1999, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk:

- Appendices 1-5 appended to the report (May 5, 1999) from the General Manager, Transportation Services and Executive Director and Chief Planner, City Planning;

- Appendices 1-3 appended to the report (July 7, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services;

- report (July 9, 1998) General Manager, Transportation Services providing a summary of the differences between the F. G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project (the Current Plan) and an alternative plan developed to by-pass the Lake Shore Boulevard East and Carlaw Avenue intersection (the Alternative Plan); and recommending that this report be received for information;

- reports/communications that the Committee had before it at its meeting on November 30 and December 1, 1998:

(1) (July 13, 1998) from Councillors Sandra Bussin and Tom Jakobek, East Toronto, recommending to Council the adoption of the AAlternative Plan@ for the dismantling of the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East and the renovation of Lake Shore Boulevard East, and further recommending that staff be requested to meet with the area studio and other business property owners to seek their input on the "Alternative Plan";

(2) (June 18, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the Task Force on the Gardiner/Lakeshore Corridor, inter alia, reaffirmed that it prefers the option selected as part of the environmental assessment process with the ramps coming down at Bouchette Street;

(3) (November 24, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the Task Force on the Gardiner/Lake Shore Corridor on November 16, 1998, requested Urban Planning and Development Services staff to continue investigating and resolving problems related to the Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project, and suggested that ancillary improvements such as bicycle lanes and pedestrian improvement projects be proceeded with where possible to enhance the Lake Shore Corridor;

(4) (June 8, 1998) from the Chair, South East Toronto Industrial Advisory Committee, advising that the City of Toronto=s South East Toronto Industrial Advisory Committee on May 26, 1998, discussed issues respecting the Gardiner East Dismantling Project;

(5) (October 27, 1998) from Mr. James Alcock, Chair, Citizens for the Retention of the East Gardiner Expressway (CREGE), advising that the CREGE remains committed to its opposition to the demolition of the eastern portion of the Gardiner Expressway and urging the adoption of the Alternative Plan, with the ramps east of Carlaw Avenue;

(6) (November 25, 1998) from Mr. James Alcock, Chairman, Citizens for the Retention of the East Gardiner Expressway (CREGE) urging the UEDC to recommend to Council on December 1, 1998 that no further deferrals or delay be imposed and that the expressway structure be completely rehabilitated with new double ramps placed over the Leslie Street intersection.

(7) (November 24, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer recommending that should Council decide to proceed with the extension of the F.G. Gardiner Expressway over Leslie Street, the additional funding will need to be included in the Transportation Division=s 2000-2004 Capital Works Program;

(8) (November 29, 1998) from Mr. Eric Cages, Toronto opposing the dismantling of the eastern portion of the Gardiner Expressway, and noting the high volumes of traffic in this area;

(9) (November 29, 1998) from Mr. D. Clouthier, Toronto, advising that any decision with respect to the Gardiner Expressway should made carefully, once more information is available on the impacts which would result from the dismantling;

(10) (November 27, 1998) from Ms. D. Paradis, Toronto, opposing the dismantling of any portion of the Gardiner Expressway as it will result in increased traffic congestion in this area, and expressing concern for the safety of the many children who walk to the schools in this area;

(11) (December 1, 1998) from Mr. D. Z. Yazici, President, D.Z.Y. Drafting & Design Services, Toronto, stating that any demolition and reconfiguration of the eastern portion of the Gardiner Expressway will result in devastating consequences to area business and will cause traffic problems; and supporting a one month trial closure of the east expressway;

(12) (December 1, 1998) from Mr. W. Walker, Transport 2000 Ontario, recommending that a larger overview of the future land uses in the area presently transversed by the easterly extension of the Gardiner Expressway be undertaken prior to any conclusions leading to more detailed design of future transportation facilities, and supporting the community improvement plan and air quality monitoring program which are proposed in current staff reports;

(13) (December 1, 1998) from Ms. Karen Buck, Toronto, opposing the complete dismantling of the Gardiner Expressway extension into Toronto=s east-end, and in support of experiments with closures and re-routings in order to determine possible solutions;

(14) (undated) from Mr. R. Chandler, Toronto, opposing the dismantling of the eastern portion of the Gardiner Expressway, and outlining concerns with respect to the increased air and noise pollution which would result;

(15) (undated) from Mrs. K. Chandler, Toronto, expressing concern with respect to the negative impact on air quality which would result from the dismantling of the eastern portion of the Gardiner Expressway; and

(16) (December 1, 1998) from Mr. Bruce H. Bryer, Secretary, Citizens for the Retention and Extension of the East Gardiner Expressway (CREGE), unanimously opposing the demolition of the Eastern F.G. Gardiner Expressway; and outlining concerns with respect to the increased air and noise pollution which would result.

(17) (December 1, 1998) from Mr. David Crombie, Chair, Waterfront Regeneration Trust, expressing support based on their position that the Gardiner East Dismantling Project offers the potential for the City to achieve several important objectives.

- communication (April 13, 1999) from James Alcock, Citizens for the Retention of the East Gardiner Expressway opposing the dismantling of the Gardiner and explaining why this eastern stretch of the expressway must remain and be rehabilitated with a new on-ramp at Leslie Street;

- communication (April 4, 1999) from Keith and Dianne Roberts opposing any plan to demolish the East extension to the Gardiner Expressway;

- communication (April 21, 1999) from Victoria Dinnick expressing the view that the Gardiner Expressway is a key factor in the turn-around that the district has experienced;

- Petition signed by 385 persons filed by Phil Vriend at Urban Environment and Development Committee supporting improvising access to the Gardiner Expressway at Leslie and retaining this valuable existing cross-city route;

- (May 11, 1999) from John Winter, John Winter Associates Limited requesting that the elevated Gardiner Expressway be maintained as it is;

- (May 12, 1999) from Ken Lim opposing the demolition of the elevated eastern Gardiner Expressway;

- (May 11, 1999) from the City Clerk, Toronto Pedestrian Committee forwarding the action of The Toronto Pedestrian Committee, at its meeting on May 10, 1999, and recommending:

(1) that the Toronto Pedestrian Committee supports the dismantling of the F.G. Gardiner Expressway; and

(2) that the Toronto Pedestrian Committee be consulted during the detail design stage to achieve the following three principles:

(i) adequate and safe pedestrian crossings;

(ii) separate cycling and pedestrian trails; and

(iii) provision for the safety and enhancement of pedestrian use.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, also having had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter the following communications:

- (May 12, 1999) from Charles-Antoine Rouyer supporting the project of dismantling the East Gardiner;

- (May 12, 1999) from Chuck Cunningham supporting the dismantling of the East Gardiner;

- (May 13, 1999) from Clive D. Roy supporting the removal of the Gardiner Expressway east of the DVP and Don Valley;

- (May 17, 1999) from Boris Mather, Citizens for a Lakeshore Greenway supporting the dismantling for the following three main reasons:

(1) Cost Effectiveness: Dismantling is the most economical, cheapest solution to this problem of a decaying, dangerous structure. Thorough continuous heavy maintenance and rehabilitation would be more expensive, and just as noisy and dusty;

(2) Obsolescence: This extension was originally planned to extend the expressway through the Beach into Scarborough . .That Scarborough Expressway plan is defunct now. The absurd and very expensive Afly-over@ option favoured by some would open the door to extending the expressway. The Afly-over@ would avoid hitting a red-light, 50% of the time when heading west only; and

(3) Obstruction: We said last February, AThis forbidding eyesore is a barrier to enjoyment of the Lake and the lakeshore. It is time we let the sunshine in.@.

- (May 13, 1999) from Christopher Macgowan supporting the idea of converting the east section of the Gardiner to a recreational corridor;

- (May 11, 1999) from the City Clerk forwarding the action of the Toronto Cycling Committee at its Special Meeting on May 10, 1999, in which the Toronto Cycling Committee, endorsed:

(1) the dismantling of the F.G. Gardiner Expressway from the Don River to Leslie Street; and

(2) the Community Improvement Plan, as recommended by City Planning and Transportation Services staff and, in particular, the construction of a pedestrian/cycling bridge over the Don River, north of Lake Shore Boulevard East, and a commuter bicycle path between Leslie Street and Coxwell Avenue;

and recommended that:

(1) a new commuter bicycle path be extended north to Queen Street from Lake Shore Boulevard East and Coxwell Avenue;

(2) modifications that would improve the safety of cyclists, pedestrians and in-line skaters be made at the intersection of Lake Shore Boulevard East and Cherry Street;

(3) the Toronto Cycling Committee be consulted in the detailed design of the Project; and

(4) the Ward Councillors representing Don River, East Toronto and Scarborough Bluffs be consulted in the final design of cycling and pedestrian facilities and that those Councillors be requested to seek public input through community meetings.

- (May 12, 1999) from Helen Melrose opposing the demolishing of the Gardiner;

- (May 12, 1999) from Sidney C. Rozycki opposing the Gardiner demolition;

- (May 12, 1999) from Helen Cocking opposing the Gardiner Plan to demolish;

- (May 12, 1999) from Linda Winter, Ed.D., C.Psych. Opposed to any action to dismantle the Gardiner Expressway;

- (May 12, 1999) from John Bernardi, Linmar Investment Corporation Limited opposing any action to dismantle the Gardiner Expressway;

- (May 12, 1999) from Frank Hutchings supporting the complete removal of the Gardiner Expressway, especially the eastern section;

- (Undated)from Bruce Reid supporting the Toronto Cycling Committee=s motion for the dismantling of the Gardiner Expressway East Section and the 5 motions from its meeting of May 10, 1999;

- (May 13, 1999) from Jenny Mulkins requesting that the Committee endorse this project and allow work to begin on it as soon as possible;

- (May 13, 1999) from Laura & Adam Smith requesting that the Committee endorse the Gardiner East project, as originally approved by the former Councils;

- (April 6, 1999) from Manny Danelon, Industry Co-Chair, Film Liaison Industry Committee opposing the demolition of the Gardiner Expressway;

- (May 13, 1999) from Jennifer Clark supporting the Gardiner dismantling and resulting cycling facilities;

- (May 14, 1999) from Helen and Robert Hansen supporting demolition of the Gardiner Expressway East, and the greening plan;

- (May 14, 1999) from Anne Hansen supporting the dismantling of the East Gardiner;

- (May 14, 1999) from Heather Smith and Martin Koob supporting the plan to demolish the east Gardiner and replace it with cycling and recreational paths and facilities;

- (May 14, 1999) from Ronald L. Hart, Co-Chair, North York Cycling & Pedestrian Committee supporting the demolition of the eastbound spur of the Gardiner Expressway;

- (May 14, 1999) from Martin Collier supporting the dismantling of the Gardiner East section;

- (Undated) from Wilfred Walker obo Transport 2000 Ontario recommending that if studies and plans of the option are put in motion by the Committee or by Council, significant effort should be directed toward designing a more community friendly Lakeshore Boulevard, with specific attention to the inclusion of a right of way for a future light rapid transit or high capacity street railway line within this corridor;

- (May 14, 1999) from Citizens for the Retention of the East Gardiner Expressway (CREGE), Lakeside Area Neighbourhoods Association (LANA) and Portlands Citizen Action Committee (PCAC) forwarding a complete East Gardiner Fact Sheet set;

- (May 14, 1999) from Marc Kramer supporting the proposed dismantling of the east portion of the Gardiner Expressway and the associated implementation of the bicycle commuter route;

- (May 14, 1999) from Donna Tozzi in support of the current dismantling plan of the Gardiner Expressway east of the DVP and the Don Valley;

- (May 14, 1999) from Marlyn Allicock supporting the removal of the Gardiner=s eastern section;

- (May 14, 1999) from Bruce H. Bryer opposing the demolition of The East Gardiner Expressway;

- (May 16, 1999) from Paul V. Connelly endorsing the Approved Plan for the dismantling of the Gardiner Expressway East;

- (May 12, 1999) from Caryn Thompson supporting the proposal that is being considered to remove the East portion of the Gardiner Expressway;

- (May 11, 1999) from Simeon Stairs and Maya Telek supporting the long-standing proposal to dismantle the eastern portion of the Gardiner Expressway;

- (May 17, 1999) from Helen Riley urging the Committee to approve the dismantling of the east end of the Gardiner Expressway and replace it with an urban boulevard as approved by the former City of Toronto and Metro Toronto;

- sketch submitted by Elizabeth Borek, Lakeside Area Neighbourhoods Association;

- (May 17, 1999) from Barry Munro, P.Eng. submitting notes on the 4 studies requested by the Urban Environment and Development Committee in December, 1998;

- (Undated) from Councillor Sandra Bussin, East Toronto, Councillor Tom Jakobek, East Toronto and Councillor Gerry Altobello, Scarborough Bluffs recommending that:

(1) the Gardiner East not be demolished; and

(2) the elevated expressway be restored and the Leslie Street end be demolished and redesigned in consultation with and the approval of the film studios.

- (May 17, 1999) from Abel Van Wyk supporting the Causeway Concept;

- (Undated) from Allan Reeve supporting the dismantling project;

- (May 17, 1999) from William E. Brown, South Riverdale Community Health Centre supporting the Acurrent plan@ to dismantle the east end of the Gardiner and relocate the on-off ramps west of Carlaw Avenue;

- (Undated) from Kevin Walters submitting statistics regarding demolition;

- (Undated) from Donna Hinde, Landscape Architect obo Ontario Association of Landscape Architects endorsing the Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project;

- (Undated) from Sarah Climenhaga, Research Director obo Transportation Options recommending that the Committee make a decision on the Gardiner East that will be in keeping with Toronto=s status as a world leader in urban planning and design, and that will move us into the 21st century in the right direction;

- (Undated) from Karen Buck submitting a schedule of various timed car trips from her home to Yonge street using the Gardiner Expressway, Lakeshore and Eastern Avenue;

- (Undated) from Michael McClelland, Toronto Society of Architects supporting the removal of this section of the Gardiner;

- (May 17, 1999) from Jim Egan noting that the addition of a ramp to the east of Leslie Street would eliminate the bottleneck and permit the Gardiner East to serve its full potential as a cross city route;

- (May 17, 1999) from Catherine Naismith, Co-Chair, Gardiner Lakeshore Task Force supporting the dismantling of the extension of the Gardiner;

- (May 17, 1999) from Joan Doiron, Co-Chair, Toronto Pedestrian Committee supporting the dismantling of the Gardiner Expressway;

- (Undated) from Linda Lynch obo Peter Lucas, President, Showline Ltd. Opposing the proposed demolition of the Gardiner Expressway;

- (May 17, 1999) from Jacob Allderdice, M.Arch.supporting the demolition of the Gardiner Expressway east of the Don;

- (May 17, 1999) from Babak Abbaszadeh, President, Corktown Residents and Business Association, Inc. supporting the dismantling project;

- (May 16, 1999) from Martin Collier supporting the dismantling of the east section of the Gardiner Expressway;

- (Undated) from James Alcock submitting a sketch and map.

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (June 7, 1999) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

To report as requested on amendments proposed by Mr. Stanley M. Makuch in his May 17, 1999 communication to the Urban Environment and Development Committee.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

None

Recommendations:

The amendments proposed by Mr. Stanley M. Makuch, Cassels Brock & Blackwell, in his communication (May 17, 1999) which were adopted by the Urban Environment and Development Committee be deleted and replaced with the following recommendations which have been developed in consultation with Mr. Makuch:

(1) That recommendation (3) be amended by adding the words Asuch expenditure to be made upon the direction of the Toronto Film and Television Office in consultation with representatives of the Toronto Film Industry who include a Toronto Film Studios representative, and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services@, so as to read:

A(3) Direct the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to hold $100,000.00 in reserve for a Film Industry awareness campaign to address the concerns raised by the Film Industry, such expenditure to be made upon the direction of the Toronto Film and Television Office in consultation with representatives of the Toronto Film Industry who include a Toronto Film Studios representative and with the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;@;

(2) Adding the following recommendations: (4), (5) and (6);

A(4) Direct appropriate City officials, to include in all contracts for all phases of the demolition of the Expressway and the reconstruction of Lake Shore Boulevard, the performance-based noise and vibration specifications and the working protocol for the demolition and construction as contained in a report prepared by S. S. Wilson Associates, Consulting Engineers, being Report No. W96-10-(97) entitled ASpecial Provision for the control of construction noise-specifications; F.G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling; the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto@ and dated June 25, 1998@, amended as follows:

(i) add a requirement to section 3.c., for the Contractor to provide fax numbers in addition to telephone numbers;

(ii) revise the last sentence of the last paragraph in section 5, located at the top of page 4, to read as follows:

AThe Contractor shall immediately cease use of all equipment within 200 metres of the location identified by the complainant as the likely source of the noise, and shall cooperate by allowing inspection and testing of any equipment likely to have caused the noise. Work shall not commence until the Contract Administrator is certain that the work will conform with the Special Provisions for the Control of the Construction Noise - Specifications and all other relevant contract provisions.@;

(iii) revise the first sentence in section 7, at the top of page 5, as follows:

AThe Contractor agrees that in the event of noise complaints being filed (either verbally or in writing) with any person employed by the Contractor and referred to in section 3.c. above, by occupants of the nearby buildings, the work shall be stopped immediately until such time as noise control measures are implemented to the satisfaction of the Contract Administrator.@;

(iv) revise the last sentence on page 5 to read as follows:

AThese Schedules form part of this Contract and are not to be exceeded without the express consent of the respective TV/Film Studios.@

Further, additional specifications upon which contracts will be tendered shall take into account the concerns of the Film Industry and the site-specific concerns of Toronto Film Studios and, shall include:

(i) requirements that Contractors limit all noise related to the construction of Lake Shore Boulevard and the demolition of the Expressway to levels no greater than the existing peak period ambient noise levels as identified in the report prepared by S. S. Wilson Associates, Consulting Engineers, or as otherwise agreed to by City officials and by Toronto Film Studios Acoustical Consultants;

(ii) a provision that contractors cease work within fifteen minutes of being notified by a designated City official that the designated Toronto Film Studios official has advised that the work significantly interferes with filming at the Toronto Film Studios, and providing that the City official will notify the contractor immediately upon being notified by Toronto Film Studios and that the parties will then meet immediately to resolve the complaint;

(iii) demolition within 200 metres of Toronto Film Studios will only occur during the months of December to March inclusive;

(iv) reasonable contract specifications to ensure that the demolition or reconstruction does not interfere with the Toronto Film Industry's ability to obtain bonding for production deadlines;

(v) a provision that the storage of equipment and materials cannot occur on either side of Lake Shore Boulevard within 200 metres of a film studio;

(vi) reasonable contract specifications respecting dust control, as determined by appropriate City officials in consultation with the Toronto Film Industry and Toronto Film Studios in particular; and,

(vii) a provision that truck access from Lake Shore Boulevard to the Toronto Film Studios property will not be obstructed except at times approved by a designated Toronto Film Studios representative, unless an alternate access to the south access point of the Toronto Film Studios property is provided that is satisfactory to Toronto Film Studios.

(viii) a provision whereby the contractor and the City acknowledge that Toronto Film Studios is relying reasonably on all noise provisions in all contracts relating to the construction or demolition in order to ensure its uninterrupted and continued operation, and furthermore acknowledge that Toronto Film Studios is entitled to any legal remedy for breach of such provisions including injunctive relief and damages based on such reasonable reliance.

(5) respecting existing railway lines,

(a) direct that the reconstruction not allow the existing railway line owned by TEDCO to be relocated to the north side of Lake Shore Boulevard east of Carlaw and provide that all railway crossings to be reconstructed be controlled by signal lights and bells;

(b) City officials be instructed to take all necessary actions to negotiate and enter into no-whistle-blowing agreements with the railways in respect of all reconstructed rail crossings; and

(c) in the event there is a significant increase in rail traffic to the Port Lands in the future, the City shall undertake a study to determine the feasibility of alternative railway routes to serve the port area, and the Toronto Film Industry will be consulted in this regard;

(6) (a) direct that reconstruction of Lake Shore Boulevard include a sufficient sound barrier on the north side in the vicinity of Toronto Film Studios to prevent additional traffic noise from affecting film productions;

(b) that, subject to any relevant provisions of the Municipal Act, surplus lands adjacent to Lake Shore Boulevard in the vicinity of the demolition and construction, be offered to adjacent property owners for purchase after taking into account planting, pedestrian/bicycle routes, sound barriers and any other municipal requirements;

(c) direct the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and all other City officials to make reasonable efforts to consult with the Toronto Film Industry and Toronto Film Studios in particular, and to protect the film industry in general, and Toronto Film Studios in particular, from any and all adverse effects resulting from the demolition and reconstruction.@.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Urban Environment and Development Committee, at its meeting of May 17, 1999 considered several issues respecting the F. G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling project and, in addition to adopting recommendations contained in staff reports, requested that amendments proposed by Stanley Makuch of the law firm Cassels Brock & Blackwell on behalf of his client, Toronto Film Studios, be incorporated. The Committee also requested that the City Solicitor review these proposed amendments and wording and report directly to City Council for its meeting on June 9, 1999, on the implications of Council adopting these amendments. In his letter, Mr. Makuch advises that the dismantling of the Expressway puts his client in serious jeopardy because the studios are retrofitted industrial buildings which were not constructed to address the sound and vibration problems caused by the dismantling of an expressway. Mr. Makuch also advises that Athe adverse impact on Toronto Film Studios from the demolition will badly hurt the film production industry in Toronto. That industry employs 28,000 skilled professionals and infuses 3/4 of a billion dollars into the Toronto economy annually.@

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The purpose of this report is to recommend alternative wording to the recommendations made by Mr. Makuch which were adopted by the Urban Environment and Development Committee. City staff, including staff from Transportation Services and City Planning in particular, have been working closely with the Toronto Film Industry in developing the F. G. Gardiner Expressway dismantling project. The intent of the amendments proposed by Mr. Makuch are acceptable to the general manager, Transportation Services, and the executive director and chief planner of the City. The suggested revisions to these amendments have been prepared in consultation with appropriate City staff and with Mr. Makuch and are intended to address substantial legal concerns arising out of the recommendations adopted by the Urban Environment and Development Committee while retaining the substance of the amendments which staff have agreed to, and which are designed to better ensure the protection of the Toronto Film Industry from any adverse impact as a result of this project. The recommendations contained in this report alleviate legal concerns respecting any unintended delegation of administrative control over the project in recommendation (4) and matters concerning railways which are beyond the City's jurisdiction in recommendation (5) of Mr. Makuch's communication.

Conclusions:

The City Solicitor was requested by the Urban Environment and Development Committee to review the proposed amendments and wording submitted by Cassels Brock & Blackwell and to report directly to City Council on the implications of Council adopting these amendments. The recommendations proposed in this report are intended to replace the proposed amendments submitted by Cassels Brock & Blackwell, and are satisfactory to appropriate City staff and to Mr. Stanley M. Makuch of Cassels Brock & Blackwell and his client, Toronto Film Studios.

Contact Name:

Mary Ellen Bench

Director, Municipal Law

392-7245.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communications in support of the dismantling of the F. G. Gardiner Expressway East:

(i) (May 14, 1999) from Mr. David W. Oleson, Oleson Worland Architects;

(ii) (May 17, 1999) from Ms. Gail Thomson, Director, Location Promotion and Services, Ontario Film Development Corporation;

(iii) (May 25, 1999) from Ms. Kathryn Dean;

(iv) (June 5, 1999) from Ms. Ross Snetsinger, Chair, Rail Ways to the Future;

(v) (June 6, 1999) from Mr. Bruce Budd, Chair, East End Citizens for Democracy;

(vi) (June 7, 1999) from Ms. Anne Hansen, Toronto, in support of the dismantling of the F. G. Gardiner Expressway East;

(vii) (June 7, 1999) from Ms. Helen Hansen and Ms. Joan Doiron, Feet on the Street; and

(viii) (undated) from K. Buck.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communications in opposition to the dismantling of the F. G. Gardiner Expressway East:

(i) (January 7, 1999) from Ms. Margaret Blair, Lakeside Area Neighbourhoods Association;

(ii) (June 8, 1999) and (June 10, 1999) from Mr. Peter Lukas, President, Showline Limited;

(iii) (May 25, 1999) from Mrs. Briar de Lange-Riddell, submitted by Councillor Jakobek; and

(iv) (June 4, 1999) from Mr. Barry Munro, Toronto.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following petition filed by Councillor Bussin and signed by concerned residents respecting the dismantling of the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East:

- 328 signatures in support of the AAlternative Plan@; and

- 30 signatures in opposition to the AAlternative Plan@.)