Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor East Community ...€¦ · Business Case decision process. (RA) we can walk through mitigating options. Anne: Ballast mats on more than E0 track

USRCE CAC meeting: Jan 29, 2019 - Final minutes and received CAC community member comments

Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor East Community Advisory Committee Meeting #12 Metrolinx Updates, Commitments, and Air Quality Tuesday, January 29, 2019 Cooper Koo Family Cherry Street YMCA, 461 Cherry Street, Community Meeting Room 6:30 pm – 8:30 pm

MEETING SUMMARY On Tuesday January 293, 2019, 33 people attended the Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) East Community Advisory Committee (CAC) meeting #12 that focused on Metrolinx Updates, Commitments, and Air Quality. Attendees included members of the CAC and staff from Metrolinx (see Attachment A for the list of the participants, Attachment B for the meeting agenda, and Attachment C for the outstanding list of action items). The meeting was facilitated by Rawle Agard (Acting Manager, Community Relations USRC) Presentations and remarks were made by:

Peter Zuk (Chief Program Officer, Special Projects),

Jana Neumann (Metrolinx Senior Advisor, Station Planning and Project Lead PCCS),

James Francis (Metrolinx Manager Environmental Programs and Assessment),

Trevor Anderson (Metrolinx, Program Sponsor for Union Station),

John Potter (Metrolinx Manager, Design Standards)

Bill Clowes (Vice President, USRC),

James Burchell (Metrolinx, Community Relations & Issues Specialist for the USRC East). Rawle began round table introductions, and set the framework for the reset meeting - status and process update on all GO Expansion (USRC East Enhancement) Project elements. Each section had its own Q&A. Peter Zuk shared the CCO’s lens and future participation as Chief Program Officer, Special Projects. All other presenters presented from the provided slide deck, beginning with Jana Neumann, who shared a PCCS update and next steps that would entail the creation of a sub-CAC group developing meeting framework independent of but comprised of members from the USRC CAC group. James Francis provided Air Quality and Noise mitigation updates. Trevor Anderson provided updates on both the Business Case and pending decisions of E0. John Potter gave a brief overview of Public Realm, and Bill Clowes provided a very welcomed Operations update. James Burchell was last to present, and provided updates community relations updates that concentrated on the new framework and leadership of future CAC meetings. Rawle Agard closed the meeting, and thanked everyone for attending. The questions, feedback, advice, and considerations shared by participants at the meeting are captured in this summary. This meeting summary was written by James Burchell. It reflects the main points shared by participants during the meeting and is not intended to be a verbatim transcript. A draft of this summary was shared with participants for review prior to being finalized.

USRCE CAC MEETING: JAN 29, 2019 - FINAL MINUTES AND RECEIVED CAC

COMMUNITY MEMBER COMMENTS 2

I. Overall Summary of Discussion The following emerged as key points of discussion from the meeting. These points are meant to be read alongside the more detailed descriptions provided in the rest of this summary. Members of the CAC expressed many concerns regarding air quality impacts on human health. Some members of the CAC requested for a public health and/or air quality expert to attend a meeting with the CAC to discuss the impacts of diesel fumes on human health. A member of the CAC suggested that Metrolinx hire a third-party consultant who can evaluate air quality impacts from the perspective of the local residents, rather than a regional perspective. The four locations identified in the Receptor-Based Noise and Vibration Assessment (LARA, Cathedral Court Co-op, Caroline Co-op, and TCHC) have provided, or are in the process of providing their feedback on their preferred mitigation options for the Business Case Team, originally due by November 15, 2018, but extended due to further information on architectural design, Cathedral Court.

II. Detailed Summary of Discussion The following sections capture the questions, feedback, advice, and points of consideration shared by participants. Responses from Metrolinx staff, where provided, are noted in italics. The following numbered lists are for reference only and are not intended to rank priority or importance.

A. CCO’s lens and future participation in CAC process Peter Zuk, former Chief Capital Officer, and new Chief Program Officer, Special Projects commented on the following:

Commitments ongoing: construction noise, idling trains, backup beepers, air quality.

Reference to key personnel present at meeting: Trevor, Bill, Jamie

“Report of Progress” – promised deliverable, aiming to solidify commitments and steady state.

Still involved in the CAC process and the project but will not attend every meeting. Q&A – Peter Zuk

Chris Drew: Electrification timelines? (PZ) Four companies shortlisted to bid for On Corridor(OnCorr) Request for Proposals, which includes electrification.

Cynthia Wilkey: Commitment letter? (PZ) All subjects of commitments ongoing. Draft of where we are will be distributed (Tom Aylward Nally TAN).

Suzanne Kavanagh: Uncomfortable with switch: No Swerhun, switch to a CLC focus (PZ) MX should be able to respond directly. Rawle Agard stated Swerhun was needed for EA FOCUS. (Suzanne not convinced of need or effectiveness of change).

Rhonda Parto: Expressed confusion for need of E0. (PZ) Trevor will address in his presentation.

Sabina Sormova: Where is the noise mitigation from the fall? (PZ) Bill Clowes (VP USRC) and Trevor Anderson (Program Sponsor for Union Station) to address.

B. PCCS update and next steps Jana Neumann, Snr Advisor Stations Planning and PCCS Project lead provided a high level overview:

Jana presented an update on the PCCS

Moving forward, a CAC sub-group for the PCCS will be established, and meetings/workshops will be scheduled independently from the USRC East CAC

Nicole Swerhun has been retained for CAC facilitation.



Invitation extended to current CAC members to participate in the sub-group for PCCS meetings

Q&A – Jana Neumann

Cynthia: How will you contact interested members? (JN) >>James Burchell: Jana and I will coordinate interest in participating in CAC sub-group for the PCCS.

C. Air Quality and Noise Mitigation Updates

James Francis, Manager Environmental Prorams and Assessment gave the following overview:

James presented his slides

Spoke to the idling trains and red and green zone issue

Spoke to MX relationship with Toronto Public Health, and how findings will be presented, hopefully at the Q1 meeting.

Q&A – James Francis

Anne Dywan: comments on delay in circulation of slide deck. (JF) >>James Burchell: to distribute to all CAC members in advance of CAC meetings for due preparation of members.

Sabina Sormova: request for updates to be distributed out earlier. (JF) >> James Burchell: MX will endeavour to circulate slide deck prior to CAC meetings

Peter Allen: There were air quality related questions provided with the selection for the RBNVA business case. (JF) Metrolinx will work with AECOM to provide responses (James B to follow up).

D: Business Case update Trevor Anderson, Program Sponsor for Union Station

Trevor walked through matrix: Strategic, Economic, Financial and Deliverable operational case.

Process for Noise Mitigation – need to distribute to CAC. Business case will be presented with a decision from Investment panel.

Q&A – Trevor Anderson

Anne: What about the feedback? (TA) Most has been received.

Sabina: Will we have mitigation before construction? (TA) If approved we will begin in summer.

Sabina: Will construction begin in April? (TA) >>Mike Bogias: No earliest is fall. Currently at 60% design.

Sabina: Replacing windows will take little time and give great benefit (all members agreed)

Cynthia: Why not communicate business case option selected by MX? Why does it need to be posted to website? (TA) Website - Board has determined that all commitments must be posted for full transparency. Does not add to timelines. AS FOR option choice, we want to move on this AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE?

Cynthia: Is there anything to fear that there will be no movement on this file? (TA) We are committed to moving ahead.

Arlene Brankley: Need for clarity on Noise wall and vegetation removal. (MB) No decision will be made until April as previously suggested.

Chris: Could we have an example of Business Case matrix ratio performance to better illustrate the weight of the numbers. James Burchell will follow up with Trevor Anderson to see if this can be provided for next CAC meeting in March (April).



Suzanne: Clarity – on timelines of Business Case submission. (TA) Originally there was a network wide lens aligned to the case. Now we are approaching this as a singular vision, hence the delay. Suzanne: USRCE is unique.

Tom Davidson (Cllr Cressy): Will the Business Case be shared in advance of IP submission? (TA) Recommendation and decision will be shared.

Anne: Why have we not shared any questions with clarification on option selection communicated? (RA) we have asked for your input, and we have to continue the process.

Cynthia: Maintains that MX should come back to the CAC and share the final business case final BEFORE IP submission and decision is made. (TA) will take that back to Business Case decision process. (RA) we can walk through mitigating options.

Anne: Ballast mats on more than E0 track. Was that added to the recommendation? Trevor to report on. James B to follow up with Trevor.

E. Public Realm Updates John Potter, Manager, Design Standards

IBI has been hired. Many moving parts and unknowns that are necessary to develop scope, budget requirements and timelines. IBI work delayed until more is known and a decision is made on E0.

Q&A: John Potter

Sonja Vangjeli – Waterfront Toronto): What IS THE STATUS of the Cherry Street Tower? (JP) >> MB: We are at 60% design on the project. We are hiring a consultant to prepare a conservation plan for the relocation of the tower. AECOM will revise the site plan to address conflicting parking spaces and grading with Block 32 to resolve conditional approval requirements with Infrastructure Ontario.

Suzanne: If we are still looking at E0, will we revisit the scope of design for bridges on north side? Southside is going ahead? (MB) Requirement for E0 impacts the need for north side bridges and is under review by the Sponsor’s Office. The requirement for E7 and E8 is not in question and the south side works will continue as planned. We tentatively plan to start construction end of year. Project status update can be shared at the next CAC meeting in April

Cynthia: Has IBI done any design work so far? (JP) Yes but with known unknowns, IBI has paused.

F: Operations Update Bill Clowes, VP USRC

“Stop the noise in the first place”.

Bill presented his notes per slide deck. CAC members were particularly interested in his comments on train bells and backup beepers. (James B to follow up as to anticipated timelines).

Looking into the potential reduction of train bells so that they are only being used when approaching work crews and platforms. They should not be used the length of the USRC East corridor.

Definition of train idling vs stopped for a signal (Anne Dywan not convinced and does not accept definition).

“USRCE is special” - USRCE is part of the Union Station hub. There are 7 tracks presently vs 2 in most communities.



Bill Clowes stated that commitment is being made by Metrolinx to use noise mitigating strategies for machinery operating on USRC East, specifically noise reducing screens, shrouds/tents, use of engine blankets.

Diesel usage in future state, will be reduced with the integration of electrification. RH will continue but with T4 technology. Oldest trains will be replaced first until all are at T4 technology. Comment from Sabina Sormova: We have Metrolinx on record stating that only 16 T4 trains will be added, yet, the service is ballooning from 170 diesel trains to 392 (!) diesel trains. The brute majority of these added diesel trains will be T3, T2, even T1 trains! The net diesel pollution on USRC East produced by Metrolinx fleet will most DEFINITELY INCREASE!

Q&A: Bill Clowes

Sabina: Max noise threshold for night time work? (BC) 80 dbs. Sabina maintains not compliant.

Sabina: When will signalling be done? (BC) by 2021.

Anne: wants idling location revisited. (BC) Need for internal discussion to build narrative that CR will distribute on location. This is as good as it gets. James Burchell suggestion - Definition of idling trains to be communicated via e-blast. Will follow up with Bill Clowes on this.

Sabina: What can be done about train bells? (BC) Train bells are a federal requirement within the corridor when approaching rail crossings and platforms, and where work crews may be in vicinity. However, where none of the above are factors, there may be room for mitigation on this issue. Bill to look into this. (James B to follow up with Bill.)

G. E0 Status and next steps Trevor Anderson, Program Sponsor for Union Station

Spoke to 3 scenarios being reviewed presently: 1) Build E0 as per the EA, 2)Defer E0 to the longer term, 3)Do not build E0 (remove from project)

Decision is close, based on simulation (future state) and performance (present operations).

Shared areal maps of E0 vicinity.

Do we do, modify or defer? That is where we are at and we will present results. Q&A: Trevor Anderson

Sabina: when will the next meeting be? (TA) >>James Burchell: March or April.

Anne: If no E0, will diesel traffic be diverted? (TA) we will present our recommendation, with indications on where diesel trains will operate

Shalin Yeboah, City of Toronto): Don &Wilson Yard updates? (TA) PDT team will review E0 impacts and communicate when decisions are made.

Rhonda: Why the shift in E0 decision: (TA) hard look at what is needed now and listening to concerns of neighbouring residents.

Sabina: Will electrification be included now? (TA) In project scope for OnCorridor work (as Peter noted earlier). Right now we are in the first procurement package for enabling works to prepare the corridor for “on corridor” infrastructure works like electrification that OnCorr will deliver on.

Sabina: Tom Longboat embankment will need to be reconstructed for retaining wall etc. (TA) >>MB: Requirement for a new retaining wall is contingent on Sponsor’s Office and Senior Management Team’s review of the E0 track and noise walls. Trevor will have updates for the next CAC meeting in April.

Chris: If no E0, will the scope be revisited, and some changes such as move of utility poles. MB: Yes



Anne: Can we look at diesel trains moved to a track away from residents.(TA) >>JB: As Metrolinx looks at our logistics very closely to find the most efficient and effective use of our track footprint while recognizing our impacts on adjacent communities, the consideration of moving RH line traffic to another track would lead to increased congestion and longer idling times closest to residential communities. With RH traffic approaching Union Station from the line parallel to the Don River, and most northern approach, the movement from this track to a more southern approach would entail halting all train traffic to cross live tracks, resulting in more idling trains in this region.

H. Community Relations Update James Burchell, Community Relations and Issues Specialist

Shared general outline of a 4-meeting CAC cycle (one per quarter) with the ability to add more when needed.

Desire to explore other communication channels to share and collect information: surveys, participatory email, FAQ portal, focus groups, etc.

Explained migration from an advisory to an liaison role and the responsibility to inform fellow residents, and report back.

Further detailed upcoming signal enhancement work (laying of foundations for a signal bridge) and mentioned ongoing efforts to secure mitigating measures that will be enacted by contractor performing work. James will update via e-blast bulletins as information is confirmed.

Update on participation in GIS study for monitoring “red/green” zones in place for idling locomotives. Although already in play, James is working with GIS staff to build granular requests of the system to meet reporting needs to CAC. Updates will be shared with CAC when available.

Reiterated the appreciation for their participation in sharing concerns. CR’s escalation of those issues has been responded to and Subject Matter Experts and Management have presented at this CAC meeting with their commitments to further improvements and mitigations measures.

Q&A: James Burchell

Anne: Idling trains still remain an issue; what will be done? (JB) CR remains committed to following up on this issue, and will work with the GIS team and operations crews on additional measures that may further improve situation. Reiterated Bill Clowes’ point of clarification: Idling vs stopped train for traffic signal. Reminder of their proximity to a live and very congested rail corridor.

Shalin: Could Community Relations ensure that meeting material is shared in advance of CAC meetings so members can digest and prepare accordingly? (JB) Yes, this is a good idea, and we will look into ways to improve timing of circulation.

Cynthia: Could you please share slide deck and notes from the meeting for review? (JB) Yes that will be done.

Charles Palmer: Do we know what the themes of upcoming meetings will be? (JB) I am working with the SMEs and project delivery team to see what can be shared and when. The next meeting is scheduled for late March (early April), and content will be shared in advance, based on ready content and timelines which necessitate sharing with CAC members.

Cynthia: Spam concerns regarding the distribution of work impact e-bulletins.(JB) requested that CAC members ensure that the email address



([email protected]) is added to their contact list. Saving that, I am working with IT on this issue.

Anne: Can water be provided for the next meeting? (JB/RA) we will look into this.

III. Wrap-up and Next Steps (closing comments) Rawle Agard: Acting Manager, Community Relations Rawle thanked all CAC members and stakeholders for their attendance, and acknowledged the MX SMEs and senior staff for their time this evening. He also mentioned for CAC to watch for updates through email correspondence and e-bulletins. Minutes and Slide deck will be shared shortly, and information regarding the next CAC meeting will be forth coming. Meeting ended promptly at 8:30pmNote added after the meeting: Metrolinx has informed us that they need to postpone the next proposed meeting to sometime in May, 2019. Updates to follow when confirmed. This is necessary to ensure that as many CAC members can attend, that requested material is ready to be publically shared, and that Metrolinx and its government and public partners (including the City of Toronto and Waterfront Toronto) have had a chance to review and discuss the materials before sharing them with the USRC East CAC. The USRC East CAC will be updated once the meeting is rescheduled.



Attachment A: Participant List The following lists contain the participants who attended the USRC East Community Advisory Committee Meeting #12 on January 29, 2019. Number of attendees: 33 MX Attendees: (11) John Potter, Jana Neumann, James Francis, Rawle Agard, James Burchell, Mike Bogias, Bill Clowes, Peter Zuk, Tom Aylward Nally, Jamie Robinson, Trevor Anderson, CAC members: (17) Charles Palmer – Cathedral Court Anne Dywan – Cathedral Court Peter Allen – Cathedral Court Laura Herbert – Cathedral Court Arlene Brankley - LARA Sabina Sormova – LARA Mike Hutchinson – Caroline Co-op Rhonda Parto – Caroline Co-op Suzanne Kavanagh – St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Association Eric Forhan – St. Lawrence Market BIA Cynthia Wilkey – West Donlands Chris Drew – BikeTO Sonja Vangjeli – Waterfront Toronto Tom Davidson – Cllr Cressy’s office Vera Gavrilova – City of Toronto Shalin Yeboah – City of Toronto Deanne Mighton – City of Toronto Guests/late arrivals (5) Key Contact: CR: James Burchell, 647-202-7537 [email protected]



Attachment B: Agenda – January 29, 2019

CAC MEETING AGENDA 1. Introductions and housekeeping – Rawle Agard (10 mins)

2. Peter Zuk to address his CAC involvement going forward (Peter Zuk) (15 mins)

o Commitment Letter update o Acknowledgement and departure of Nicole Swerhun as facilitator o Q&A

3. EPA action items update – Air Quality; Noise & Vibration w timelines (James Francis) (15-20 mins)

o Updated Receptor-Based Noise and Vibration Assessment (addressing RWDI and Coulter comments)

o Status of the business case for noise mitigation (Trevor Anderson) o transition from an EA focus to a pre-construction and design phase o Q&A

4. PCCS – Individual process with independent timelines (Jana Neumann) (5 mins) o Overview

o Q&A

5. Design Excellence and Public Realm – Process going forward (John Potter) (5-10 mins) o Process going forward o Q&A

6. Operations update – USRCE (Bill Clowes, VP USRC RER) (30-40 mins)

o Broadband back-up beepers o Don Yard and Wilson Yard expansion o Increased service, past and future timelines o Feedback on red/green zone implementation. GIS modelling o E0- status and next steps (Trevor Anderson)

o Q&A

7. Discussion - CAC migration to CLC and necessary changes (James B) (10 mins) o objectives and timelines o Informative vs consultative o greater responsibility of members to share information with fellow residents o updates from past CAC requests o Q&A

8. Closing remarks (Rawle Agard) (5 mins)

DATE: Tuesday, January 29th, 2019

TIME: 6:30 – 8:30 PM

PLACE: Cooper Koo Family YMCA - Community Room, 461 Cherry Street, Toronto



Attachment C: Outstanding Action Items – January 29, 2019 The following is a list of outstanding action items that Metrolinx has committed to address in coming months:

Commitment Letter – What Metrolinx is committed to do in response to community concerns?

Business Case Decision – Noise Mitigation: What will be done?

Decision on Track E0 – when will this be confirmed and shared with the CAC community?

Toronto Public Health – TPH opinion on Metrolinx TPAP, and their response to these findings – next steps

Construction Work Impacts – what will Metrolinx do to regarding the following:

o Construction Noise Mitigation o Idling Trains o Backup Beepers





Documents

Metrolinx Union Station Rail Corridor East Community ...€¦ · Business Case decision process. (RA) we can walk through mitigating options. Anne: Ballast mats on more than E0 track