Metrolinx Continues Its Deception: Uses Alternative Facts to Dismiss Merits of Alternative Train Yard Site
Thinking back to your days in school, you were often given assignments that had to fit, for example, on one page. Depending on how much you were able to write, you would try to trick your teacher by adjusting the font and margins size to ensure you fit what you wrote into the one page. Metrolinx utilized the same trickery with SaveTPARK’s alternative site selection – they discreetly changed the guidelines to ensure that the train yard would not work with SaveTPARK’s alternative site.
In designing the alternative site presented to Metrolinx (Figure 1), SaveTPARK took care to ensure that the same design elements that Metrolinx used was applied in our alternative. In dismissing the alternative site, Metrolinx used high school tricks and invented new criteria, in comparison to that used in Thorncliffe Park, to ensure that 44 trains would not fit in the alternative site location (Figure 2). Metrolinx used the following tactics to manipulate their drawings:
1. Used a 50 meter set back from top of slope (top of the ravine) to reduce useable area.
Whenever you are building near a ravine, creek and in this case the Don Valley, there is a requirement to start your building from what is called the top of slope. This set back is normally 10 to 15 meters, maybe in rare cases 30 meters. Based on feedback from professional land use planners spoken to by SaveTPARK, nobody has ever seen a 50 meter set back for a project like this. When asked on September 14th, why 50 meters, Metrolinx has yet to provide an answer to this question.
If the 50 meter set back is real, then why is this set back not being applied to the maintenance buildings located at 40 Beth Nealson? Based on Metrolinx’s drawing, they are conveniently showing a different set back on this side of Beth Nealson. Based on our analysis, applying a 50 meter set back would severely impact the ability for Metrolinx to build the maintenance buildings they suggest they will build, as is shown in figure x.
Furthermore, if the set back of 50 meters is a real, it would mean that many of the existing buildings in the area are non-confirming (much less than 50 meters), as all of them are closer to the top of slope (ravine).
Metrolinx – what is the factual justification for a 50 meter set back? Why are you inconsistent in applying this requirement to your own proposed plan? Or are you just making facts up that are convenient for you?
2. Pushed the Ontario Line further north.
In the Metrolinx drawing discounting the SaveTPARK’s alternative location for the train yard, Metrolinx shows the main rail line further north from its original location. This naturally reduces the area available for train storage in SaveTPARK’s alternative. While Metrolinx could argue that this is the refinement of their work, it would (and should) also affect the area available for the maintenance buildings as well.
Metrolinx – why did you push the Ontario Line further north in order to refute SaveTPARK’s alternative location for the train yard? What happens with the maintenance buildings?
3. The distance between the rail banks (groups of tracks) are larger.
In refuting SaveTPARK’s alternative, Metrolinx shows a larger width between the banks (groups) of train storage compared to what they presented for Thorncliffe Park. The distance between the banks in Metrolinx version of SaveTPARK’s alternative is 18 meters, compared to 10 to 12 meters they used in Thorncliffe Park. Metrolinx choosing to use a greater distance between banks reduces the space to fit the 44 trains. If 18 meters was used in Thorncliffe, 44 trains would not fit – more space would be needed, therefore, more properties would be impacted.
Metrolinx – why are the rail banks 18 meters apart in your drawing discounting the alternative? Why are they not 18 meters in Thorncliffe Park and only 10 to 12 meters? If they are to be 18 meters you would need more land, what additional properties are you expropriating?
4. The distance between the rail lines within the rail banks are larger.
The width shown in between the rail lines within the banks of train storage is larger in Metrolinx version of SaveTPARK’s alternative compared to what Metrolinx shows in Thorncliffe Park. The distance between the rail lines in the alternative are 5.8 meters, compared to 5.2 meters in Thorncliffe Park. Once again, Metrolinx choosing to use a greater distance between the rail lines, conveniently reduces the space to fit 44 trains. If the same distances were used in Thorncliffe, 44 trains would not fit – more space would be needed, therefore, more properties would be impacted.
Metrolinx – why are the rail lines within the rail banks 5.8 meters in your drawing for SaveTPARK’s alternative? Why are they not 5.8 meters in Thorncliffe Park and only 5.2 meters? If they are to be 5.8 meters you would need more land, what additional properties are you secretly planning to expropriate in the future?
5. Metrolinx claims more jobs would be lost in alternative site than in Thoncliffe Park.
As previously published, data received by SaveTPARK from the City of Toronto shows that less jobs are impacted in the alternative (only 426 jobs) versus Thorncliffe Park (1,247 jobs) – (Figure 2 and 5).
Metrolinx listed 6 businesses as being impacted by SaveTPARK’s alternative. The businesses (plus 1 additional business that Metrolinx did not list) are:
Parkhurst Knitwear – this business has sold their property to a developer and is looking to close their operation within the next couple of years.
Lincoln Electric – this is incremental warehouse space for Lincoln Electric. Their main operations are further east on Wicksteed. It is likely that the jobs located at their 10-acre 179 Wicksteed Ave facility are being included in the 426 jobs number. Generally, warehouses only have a few people. Therefore, the real jobs number is most likely less than 150, not 426. In addition, based on discussion with the President of Lincoln Electric, none of their employees reside in Thorncliffe Park.
Bike Share Toronto – this is a storage yard for a few bikes. Likely, only a few jobs impacted (if any).
MBTW Group and W Architect – these are architecture firms. Both of these companies appear to be the same organization. Based on an undated picture, there appears to be approximately 50 employees. In addition, none of these employees live in Thorncliffe Park and can be easily relocated.
Linda Lundstrom – it was reported that this Toronto designer went out of business in February 2008 – 13 years ago. We are not sure what Linda Lundstrom business Metrolinx is referring to (there is old faded signage that looks over 13 years old at the property – if Metrolinx did a little bit of work they would have known that Linda Lundstrom is no longer in business).
TI Group – while Metrolinx did not list this business, they rent excess warehouse space in SaveTPARK’s alternative location. They are a marketing and brand company.
While all businesses are important, the above 7 businesses (most likely 5 as it appears that Linda Lundstrom is no longer in business and Parkhurst will be closing in the near future), can easily be relocated and will not have a harmful impact to the local economy.
Comparatively, in Thorncliffe Park, over 30 businesses are being impacted by Metrolinx current plans (Figure 6 - there are too many to fit in the body of this article). All of which are vital to the community in that they employ hundreds of local people and provide a variety of culturally sensitive and appropriate services for the community, including a supermarket and services that cater to health, education and social well being. Metrolinx always parrots the empty claim that they are helping businesses find other properties. Reality is that there is NO real estate in Thorncliffe Park to relocate a majority of the businesses.
Metrolinx continues to manufacture data and have shifting criteria to deceive politicians (MPP Wynne, MP Oliphant, Councillor Robinson, MPP Mulroney, MPP Surma, MPP Cho). What is even worse, is that this collection of politicians are letting Metrolinx have their way with a community that depends on them for support and protection. In the wake of recent events where there has been a realization that we have historically taken advantage of vulnerable communities, Metrolinx is ready to add another community to the list of the unfortunate. As our Prime Minister recently demonstrated to Canada’s Indigenous people, words are meaningless. Metrolinx is no different.
Figure 1: Alternative train yard presented by SaveTPARK on behalf of Thorncliffe Park. SaveTPARK’s alternative used the same criteria as that used by Metrolinx in Thorncliffe Park, such as distance between rail banks (10 to 12 meters) and distance between rail lines (5.2 meters). This layout fits the 44 trains that Metrolinx requires.
Figure 2: Metrolinx rendition of SaveTPARK’s alternative location showing an unheard of 50 meter set back from top of bank (pink area), 18 meter distance between rail banks and 5.8 meter distance between rail lines (these distances were determined by replicating Metrolinx drawings). The 50 meter set back is not shown on the 40 Beth Nealson side where essentially the same top of bank conditions apply. If Metrolinx applied the same criteria that was applied in Thorncliffe Park, 44 trains WOULD FIT in SaveTPARK’s alternative
Figure 3: The green dotted line shows the 15 meter top of slope distance. The red dotted line shows the 50 meter top of slope. SaveTPARK developed its’ alternative utilizing a 15 meter set back compared to 50 meters by Metrolinx. As can be seen, if a 50-meter buffer is applied consistently, Metrolinx maintenance buildings will not be compliant – red line overlaps the blue buildings by a significant amount.
Figure 4: Toronto Regional and Conservation Authority Regulation Mapping for Alternative Site Area and 40 Beth Nealson Dr.
Figure 5: Alternative Train Yard (red outline) versus Proposed (yellow out line). More jobs are impacted in Thorncliffe (1,247) versus the alternative (426).
Figure 6: List of 30 plus businesses in Thorncliffe Park being impacted. Based on numbers received from City of Toronto, these businesses represent 1,247 full time equivalent jobs – majority of whom live in locally in Thorncliffe Park.