Fixing Sam’s Road: The urban design disaster of Avenue Road

Avenue Road is the enduring legacy of Sam Cass. Very enduring.

Cass was the traffic engineer hired by the new Metro Toronto government created in 1954 to federate the city of Toronto and 12 other local municipalities. His task was to create a network of roads that would bring people efficiently into the downtown core and take them back to their suburban homes at night. That was the post-war vision of the city. He took to this task with the zeal that earned him the nickname of “road czar.” Cass believed in the car and thought the only people who used public transit were those who couldn’t afford to drive.

“Transit,” he once said, “is not an alternative to the car.”

Cass was integral to the creation of the Gardiner Expressway and Don Valley Parkway, and had plans for other expressways before the city soured on such high-speed, limited-access roads. He also designed a grid of so-called “arterial roads” to carry huge volumes of traffic. Most often, these were four-lane roads and if he had to knock down a few trees and trim some sidewalks to make them fit, well, such was the price of progress.

As his boss, Metro chair Frederick Gardiner once said when critics complained that big, wide roads ruined neighbourhoods: “There have got to be a few hallways through living rooms if we are going to get our metropolitan arterial system built.”

By the time Cass retired in the late 1980s, Metro was responsible for about 688 kilometres of arterial roads. But none was as prominent or integral to Toronto traffic movement as Avenue Road. In the late 1950s, Metro had felled trees and drastically narrowed sidewalks from St. Clair Avenue to Bloor Street West in order to add two more lanes, thus creating a six-lane thoroughfare that has funnelled 30,000 vehicles daily — mostly at great speed — ever since.

Avenue Road widening courtesy City of Toronto Archives Fonds 220, Series 56, File 51 and Fonds 220, Series 65, File 153, Item 1

Despite growing concern about its impact on air quality, pedestrian safety, and the quality of life of the neighbourhoods it bisects, unlovely and unsafe Avenue Road has resisted change while other schemes from that time, such as the Scarborough Expressway, were abandoned. Despite the later installation of signs and flashing beacons cautioning drivers about the presence of seniors and students, the 2.1 kilometres between Bloor and St. Clair has largely remained unchanged.

Avenue Road, however, may be changing. A coalition of citizens’ groups, the Avenue Road Safety Coalition (ARSC), working with Brown + Storey Architects, has presented a visionary design that would transform the street from a de facto expressway into a pedestrian-friendly, tree-lined boulevard. It would do this by removing one lane of traffic in each direction to create room for wider sidewalks and expansive greenery.

As Brown & Storey state in their plan, the reduction of lanes would allow Avenue Road to be “reinvented for a new generation with generosity, imagination and civic leadership.”

The design makes sense in that there is little reason for the road, which is four lanes north of St. Clair, to suddenly widen to six lanes, only to be constricted again south of Bloor.  The question is, will Toronto find the “civic leadership” to do something imaginative that allows pedestrians and cyclists to share the street with vehicles?

It’s a difficult question. Avenue Road has been one of the many third-rail issues of Toronto civic politics. And it seems to carry the deadliest current with politics and politicians, and city staff worried about incurring the wrath of those vigilant about the so-called “war on the car.” Late last year, the Toronto and East York Community Council, responding to public pressure marshalled by ARSC, asked staff to report back by the end of 2020 on a pilot project to increase pedestrian safety by using temporary barriers to expand sidewalk space. There are hints from city staff that a proposal is coming, but if there’s any urgency it isn’t apparent. Contrast that with the warp speed shown by the installation of bike lanes on Yonge Street and on University Avenue south of Queen’s Park.

Looking north at Avenue and Davenport roads

Area councillors Josh Matlow and Mike Layton supported that pilot project, and have made reassuring noises about the Brown + Storey proposal (which did not involve city planning staff). But Layton was quick to caution in comments to the Toronto Star that it would take time to implement because any reconfiguration would need to coincide with other capital work like sewer main replacement. A major overhaul of Avenue Road isn’t planned for another 20 years but surely interim measures could be taken that don’t involve a major overhaul of the road and its underground infrastructure.

Even with champions on city council, it will be a dog fight to get approval for the Brown + Storey proposal (or something like it) over the objections of councillors from north Toronto and beyond and drivers who are accustomed to flying down the Avenue Road hill to the detriment of local residents and the city’s climate, road safety, and public health goals.

Council will need to decide if Sam Cass and Fred Gardiner’s 1950s vision should rule the Toronto of today or if it’s time to heed the call of residents who want to reclaim their streets and rebuild them according to 21st century attitudes and priorities.

Murray Campbell is co-president of the Rathnelly Area Residents’ Association, which is a member of ARSC.

Renderings courtesy Brown + Storey Architects

Railway diversion Project Proposed

The organization representing Ontario’s real estate industry is proposing a multi-billion-dollar project that would allow the diversion of freight trains running through central Toronto.

The Ontario Real Estate Association says the current system of criss-crossing freight and passenger rail lines in the Greater Toronto Area is creating bottlenecks. It says separating freight and passengers trains on to distinct tracks would enable significant growth in passenger volumes and new service for Milton, Kitchener and other communities.

“Freight rail, which carries heavy cargo, limits the passenger volumes that can share the same tracks,” the OREA says in a new research report detailing the 10 most urgently needed infrastructure projects in the GTA. “We need to move goods and people but it can’t be done well on the same tracks.”

The project recommended by the OREA would require construction of about 15 kilometres of new freight track in the west end – between two existing freight lines from Brampton to Mississauga along Highway 407. This so-called “missing link” would allow freight trains to avoid tracks that are currently used by passenger rail trains. 

It would allow cargo trains to bypass the densely populated areas of the GTA, including the CP Rail line that runs through Toronto.  The line is adjacent to Macpherson Avenue at the bottom of Rathnelly Avenue for several blocks. 

“Less freight rail through densely populated areas means less noise, and more hazardous or potentially dangerous substances diverted from urban locations,” the OREA said.

The missing link had been advocated by the previous Liberal government but was scrapped by Premier Doug Ford soon after the Progressive Conservatives took office in 2018.  Ironically, the CEO of the OREA is Tim Hudak, who preceded Mr. Ford as the PC leader.

In a statement, Mr. Hudak said the 10 infrastructure projects his organization is recommending – which  also includes a transit hub at Pearson International Airport -- would increase Ontario’s prosperity.

“Lack of transit connectivity and traffic congestion often rank as Ontario’s most challenging economic problem so we need to address this barrier to economic competitiveness if we want to bring the dream of home ownership closer to more Ontarians.”

The OREA says the relocating of freight lines would cost between $2-billion and $6-billion and would involve the participation of all three levels of government and both freight railways.

Leaf Blowers in RARA

RARA has endorsed an initiative at City Hall to ban or limit the use of two-stroke, gas-powered leaf blowers used by garden maintenance services.

Co-presidents Pym Buitenhuis and Murray Campbell wrote to the city’s Infrastructure and Environment Committee to encourage it to support a motion by Councillors James Pasternak and Shelley Carroll to explore the feasibility of a ban.

“This is a serious health and environmental issue that is causing concern in many Toronto neighbourhoods,” the RARA letter said. “Residents in our neighbourhood complain of the disruptive noise and air pollution generated by this lawn-care equipment.  We also know that use of the equipment contributes to hearing and respiratory health problems for the workers.”

The motion was brought before City Council last July and is now in the hands of the city manager and the Medical Officer of Health, who were requested to report back in the first quarter on the feasibility of a summer-only ban or a year-round ban on the blowers. Their report has been delayed by the competing priority of dealing with the Covid-19 pandemic.

In their motion, Pasternak and Carroll criticized not just the noise of the leaf blowers used by private  maintenance firms but also their hydrocarbon pollution, which is about 500 times that of an average vehicle. As well, the councillors noted, the blowers are contributing to “dramatic loss” of insect populations.

The motion has been supported by many other residents’ associations in Toronto. About 100 cities across North America have banned or limited the use of these gas-powered machines.

CP Rail Noise

Many Rathnelly residents have noted increased noise from the CP Rail line that runs through our neighbourhood. It is possible to register a complaint about noise and vibration but it is a complicated issue and the railways argue that "operational requirements" allow for reasonable noise levels. Henry Wiercinski, a member of the Annex Residents Association and co-chair of Rail Safety First (supported by RARA) offers this briefing:

Over the years development has encroached on rail corridors. What were once lines on the outskirts of built-up areas now find themselves in the middle of urban areas. The Canadian Pacific Galt, North Toronto and Belleville Subdivisions are one such example. Additionally in response to current development pressures in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area driven in part by the Province’s Provincial Policy Statement and Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, residential development is occurring on lands previously zones for employment in close proximity to rail infrastructure.

With respect to the latter, the Canadian Federation of Municipalities has issued guidelines for new development in proximity to rail infrastructure. Some municipalities have also undertaken studies of the issue. These initiatives are in part designed to address safety issues but are also directed to the adoption of techniques to mitigate noise and vibration from rail operation. They are also designed to transfer liability from the municipality and the developer to the end buyer of the property through disclosure and acknowledgement.

http://proximityissue.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/2013_05_29_Guidelines_NewDevelopment_E.pdf

However, these initiatives provide no recourse for residents in existing buildings who experience noise and vibration from rail operations.

The Canada Transportation Act (CTA) establishes a process for addressing such complaints.

The process covers both federal freight railways as well as public passenger service providers including urban transit authorities.

Noise and vibration can arise from passing trains, two trains passing concurrently, idling locomotives, shunting, whistling, compression or stretching of trains (buff and draft) and any noise and vibration produced during the construction and operation of a railway.

Over the years trains have gotten heavier as well as longer. Train speeds vary and are subject to regulation. The weight of a train is a function of the goods that are being transported. Some trains carry a variety of goods. These are called mixed manifest trains. Some trains carry only a certain type of goods. These are called unit trains. Railways are generally tight-lipped when it comes to disclosing any information regarding the foregoing, even the number of trains per day.

In addition to weight, length and speed, noise and vibration are also affected by many other factors such as weather, geology, topography, track ballast, type of track, switches (crossovers or frogs) etc.

The science of measuring noise is quite advanced. Vibration measurement, while measurable with instrumentation, is less developed. That said municipalities require that any application for development in proximity to rail infrastructure include a noise and vibration study from an accredited expert.

Section 95.1 of the CTA provides that a railway shall cause only such noise and vibration as is reasonable, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT

* it’s obligations under sections 113 and 114 of the CTA, if applicable;

* its OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS; and

* the area where the construction is taking place

Section 113 of the CTA details the level of service a railway must provide to its customers for services such as loading, uploading, transportation and delivery of merchandise.

Section 114 specifies a railway company’s obligations regarding the transfer of merchandise from its railway to that of other railway companies, the return of rolling stock of other companies and the obligation, where a railway forms part of a continuous line with the railway of another company, to maintain the continuous line of transportation.

Sections 113 and 114 do not relieve a railway from its obligation to only cause such noise and vibration as is reasonable.

The CTA has established a process to address noise and vibration complaints which it has outlined in “ Guidelines for the Resolution of Complaints Over Railway Noise and Vibration”.

https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/publication/guidelines-resolution-complaints-over-railway-noise-and-vibration

The Guidelines provide for a staged process that starts with a written complaint to the railway with engagement over the issue. Should this prove unsuccessful, with the agreement of the parties, the matter can move to facilitation and mediation under the auspices of the CTA.

Should these steps achieve a positive result a written settlement agreement would document the result. A settlement agreement can be filed with the CTA.

Failing resolution under this process a formal complaint may be filed with the CTA to conduct an investigation.

Decisions of the CTA are published.

https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/decisions?f%5B0%5D=field_mode%3A1347

More than anecdotal evidence of the noise and vibration should be documented.

Expect the railway to push back asserting that the noise and vibration are reasonable to meet its operational requirements.

While the CTA has issued decisions favourable to complainants, this is the exception rather than the rule as can be seen from its published decisions.

RARA Rail Safety

Rathnelly residents concerned about the safety of the CP Rail line running along Macpherson Avenue were not given much comfort in a recent report by the federal Auditor-General, Karen Hogan.

The report chastised Transport Canada for moving too slowly  to improve rail safety in the eight years since the fiery crash of a train carrying crude oil at Lac-Mégantic, Que., claimed 47 lives.  It concluded that Transport Canada could not demonstrate that its oversight of Canada’s rail companies had improved their compliance with safety regulations.

The focus of the investigation was  the Safety Management System (SMS) that’s been in place for two decades and under which each of Canada’s 75 railway companies are responsible for the day-to-day safety of their operations according to regulations set by the government. The Auditor-General found some progress in Transport Canada’s oversight but it criticized the department not having yet assessed the effectiveness of the SMS despite many reports in the past 14 years that recommended it do so. Ms. Hogan called the department’s failure to assess the effectiveness of SMS “a big loophole.”

In the wake of the report, Transport Minister Omar Alghabra pledged to strengthen the safety management systems.  But to Bruce Campbell, author of a 2018 book on the Lac Mégantic tragedy, it was a familiar story from the government. He said Transport Canada’s resources have been systematically squeezed over the years, leaving the oversight of the railways to desk-top audits rather than on-site inspections of railways cars, tracks and signal systems.

Mr. Campbell said the responsibility to protect the public rests with the government and that can be in conflict with the mandate of railway companies to maximize shareholder value.  “When they conflict, safety becomes compromised,” he said.  “The railways have had the upper hand for far too long.  The power relationship must be rebalanced.”

There were 959 accidents on Canada’s rail line in 2020 that claimed the lives of 59 people.  Most of the accidents were derailments although most of the deaths involved trespassers.  Eighty-one of this accidents involved dangerous goods, including crude oil, propane and ethanol.  A report last October by the Environmental Commissioner found that Transport Canada has still not resolved problems with conveying dangerous goods that were identified in its 2011 audit and that “the window for a recurrence of a Lac-Mégantic-type disaster is still open.”

The train involved in the 2013 crash in Quebec had passed through Rathnelly on the CP Rail line a few days earlier. Rail Safety First, an organization involving neighbourhood residents, continues to actively monitor the rail safety situation.

Rathnelly has fought for itself before and it will do it again.

The recent news that properties are being assembled on the west side of Avenue Road between Macpherson and McMaster avenues for development of a mid-rise condo has spurred memories of the last time a developer had eyes for the neighbourhood.

In the spring of 1962, according to a history read to a RARA meeting in 1985 by Joy Tidy, residents heard informally from a shopkeeper that there were plans to put a large shopping plaza on Avenue from McMaster to Macpherson.  The first four or five houses on the side streets would be torn down for a parking lot.

City planners favoured the proposal because their surveys had shown Rathnelly comprised mostly rooming houses and duplexes with very few people owning cars.  They thought a supermarket would help the neighbourhood by bringing shopping to its doorstep.

After getting confirmation of the development from the planning board, McMaster residents Jack Robson and Peter Buitenhuis went to see the local alderman, David Rotenberg.  They told him that the composition of the neighbourhood was changing, there were many more families with children and apart from the destruction of the homes and character of the area, the proposed plaza would create a traffic nightmare.

Rotenberg said residents would have a better chance of changing the city’s mind if it banded together in an association, which is how RARA was formed. (This was five years before the Centennial year unilateral declaration of independence and nine years before the successful Stop Spadina campaign.)

It took several months of insistent lobbying before city hall put a stop to the development plans.

“Our first foray into the complexities of city legislation was successful,” Ms. Tidy reported.  “We realized how important it was going to be for us to keep a very eagle eye and ear open for any further encroachments into our little urban oasis.”

Pending Developments in the Area

There are a couple of pending property development proposals that RARA is keeping an eye on.

The first concerns an assembly by Lennard Commercial Realty of a number of properties on the west side of Avenue Road between McMaster and Macpherson and one on Macpherson.

Councillor Matlow's office is aware of the development.It's very early days on this because no developer has been identified and obviously no application has been made to the city.

The second proposal concerns the property at 1140 Yonge Street currently occupied by Staples.  The developers, Devron and Constantine Enterprises, are proposing a 13-story building with 66 units with an additional three townhouses on Marlborough.  They anticipate submitting an application to the city this month.  (July)

The developers have consulted with the ABC Residents Association and held a virtual meeting.  More information is available at 1140yonge.com.

Pump Park Update

Work in the Pump Park is continuing beyond the original estimated completion date. RARA has checked in with officials at the City of Toronto and they've provided us with the following updates and completion estimates:

Any update on the progress?

To date, groundwork under the new substation and installation of the new transformers and controls is complete.  The enclosure and final commissioning remains.

When might the temporary sub-station be removed? 

After final commissioning.  We expect September.

Will anything be done to repair the park before Hydro goes in?

Yes, re-sodding of the area north of the new substation will start in July.  The contractor will have to leave the fence as-is for a few weeks to let the sod establish, then it will be opened up.

Will the fence line remain the same?

Hydro is occupying less space.  Along the slope to the west side.  They also need the area from MacPherson to the new substation.

Updates on construction in the neighbourhood are always available on our Public Works Notices page.