Ministry of the Environment, Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch, 2 St. Clair Avenue West, Floor 12A, Toronto, Ontario M4V 1L5 To the Honourable John Gerrettsen, Purpose The contents of this document are to illustrate to The Crown, as clearly as possible, serious concerns and consequences of the proposal put forward by Metrolinx for the Georgetown South Service Expansion and Union-Pearson Rail Link, on the CN/GO Weston Subdivision between Bathurst Street and Goreway Drive. Background The Georgetown GO Corridor has been serviced by rail by GO Transit since 1974. It has been studied for expansion to full-day service for about 20 years. Studies and projections indicate the corridor has the highest potential for growth in the GO Transit rail network. Metrolinx is a corporation of The Crown, setup to oversee the planning and implementation of a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) for the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA). Metrolinx is the proponent of the Georgetown South Service Expansion (GSSE) project, including the Union-Pearson Rail Link (UPRL) as part of the same Environmental Assessment (EA). The Crown’s initiative to have a body put into place for coordinating the various local transit agencies’ and GO Transit’s efforts to improve transit services in the GTHA is laudable. The Crown deserves credit for taking leadership on this issue after over a decade of neglect that started in the 1990s. The Crown setup the Greater Toronto Transportation Authority in June, 2006, branded it Metrolinx in December, 2007, and merged it with GO Transit in May, 2009. The RTP was adopted in November, 2008. Metrolinx Complications Things have not gone smoothly for Metrolinx, and there are indications that communication has been fragmented or, in some cases, absent. There is strong evidence to suggest that this has led to a lack of coordination, both within Metrolinx between departments, and between Metrolinx and other agencies and stakeholders. Karl Junkin 416-316-4510 The style of project management and public consultation employed by Metrolinx on the GSSE project also strongly implies a lack of vision to what transit can really do for both the region and, particularly, the local, directly impacted communities along the line when opportunities that the project presents are properly seized. Part of the evidence to support this is the absence of development of revenue generating tools for Metrolinx project by the Investment Strategy Division until recent action taken by Metrolinx President and CEO Robert Prichard in July, despite having already received over $10 billion from The Crown, straining its resources. The GSSE project has the opportunity to generate significant revenues and operational savings, especially long-term, if such opportunities are seized. Such revenues are needed for the long-term sustainable funding of the RTP. Further to the lack of vision is a lack of preparation to carry out RTP projects. Despite backgrounder information published on the subject of Mobility Hubs during the consultations for development of the RTP, it was admitted at the July 13, 2009 Metrolinx Board meeting that Metrolinx staff in the Transportation Policy and Planning Division have not done much work on Mobility Hubs, and do not understand enough about them. This is critical information for a project as large and rich in growth as the GSSE, and Metrolinx cannot properly carry out the project without a high level of comfort with Mobility Hubs. This has a very high impact on the ridership that the project will attract once implemented, and fixing mistakes after the fact will be extraordinarily difficult and at extremely high expense. Related to Mobility Hubs is the impact of the GSSE project on a key RTP Anchor Hub: Union Station. This is an issue of the highest, most critical importance, and has been neither resolved, nor sufficiently addressed by the GSSE project team. There is a strong perception by communities of unwillingness on the part of GSSE project team to work with affected partners on the GSSE project, despite Metrolinx preaching of cooperation through the media. Efforts to work with the City of Toronto, Toronto Public Health, the Toronto District School Board, and several local communities along the rail corridor such as Weston, Mount Dennis, The Junction, and Brockton Village, suggests inflexibility with the GSSE project team, and a breakdown in its communication with the public. The Unrealized Potential of the GSSE Project As someone that has experience in architectural design and working/construction drawings, followed urban planning in and around Toronto, familiarity with aspects of railway engineering, experience with other rail systems in other countries such as Japan (specifically Tokyo area, where railways are ubiquitous), a history as a life-long captive transit user, and been a frequent participant in public engagement by transit agencies, I have a high level of comfort with this kind of Karl Junkin 416-316-4510 subject matter, and I know that this has the potential to be a fantastic project. However, the proposal put forward, and the process used for developing the proposal, falls far short of the potential of this project. There are large and growing volumes of evidence that suggest that this project, as proposed by the GSSE project team, may in fact do more harm than good. There is no doubt that a fantastic project is possible for the GSSE, and that The Crown wants a fantastic project for the GSSE. However, the GSSE project team has instead put forward a problem-laden proposal, problems that are not insurmountable if better engagement with the communities had been undertaken by the GSSE project team in earnest. It is reasonable to conclude that, as a result of the community engagement and project proposals to date, that there is a large and growing percentage of the public that has lost confidence in the capability of the project team Metrolinx has selected to do the work for the GSSE/UPRL project. The reasons, including additional reasons not listed above, are detailed in the attached report, and illustrate how this can be the fantastic project so many Ontarians want it to be. Hundreds of thousands of Ontarians will be affected by GSSE/UPRL projects. Legend This document contains a very large number of direct quotes from the GSSE Final Environmental Project Report. These quotes are enclosed and identified with a black band at the top indicating the section and heading, with a page number in brackets. If applicable, a date is also included. 1.2.3.4 Example Heading (EPR Pg. 1000) Subsection (December, 2008) Quoted connect from the GSSE Final Environmental Project Report. Karl Junkin 416-316-4510 1 Table of Contents VISION: THE BUILDING BLOCK OF A GREATER WHOLE ............................................................ 3 REGIONAL VISION ........................................................................................................................................ 3 DETAILED CORRIDOR VISION ...................................................................................................................... 3 COORDINATING AND UNIFYING VISIONS ..................................................................................................... 4 RELATIONS WITH PARTNERS/STAKEHOLDERS ............................................................................... 5 CITY OF TORONTO COUNCIL ....................................................................................................................... 5 TORONTO PUBLIC HEALTH .......................................................................................................................... 9 TORONTO DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD ......................................................................................................... 9 CITY OF TORONTO PARKS AND FORESTRY ............................................................................................... 10 REGION OF PEEL ....................................................................................................................................... 10 ONTARIO MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT .............................................................................................. 12 ONTARIO MINISTRY OF CULTURE .............................................................................................................. 15 PUBLIC CONSULTATION AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT ............................................................. 16 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 16 ELECTRIFICATION ...................................................................................................................................... 17 SNC-LAVALIN (SNC-L)............................................................................................................................. 21 COMMUNITY IMPACTS ................................................................................................................................ 22 JOHN STREET ............................................................................................................................................. 23 LIBERTY VILLAGE/PARKDALE GO STATION ............................................................................................... 27 STRACHAN AVENUE ................................................................................................................................... 30 MOBILITY HUBS AND ANCHOR HUBS