1.9K 
By 6:30 PM on the evening of January 18, 2016, the main hall at the Davenport Perth Community Centre was mostly a standing room, and, soon after, an overflow of attendees had to be accommodated in the basement. Such was the degree of interest and outrage that speeches were alternately greeted by thunderous applause, standing ovations, angry shouts from the crowd, or the intermittent ringing of a cowbell.
At issue was Metrolinx's plan for a new grade-separation of GO Transit's Barrie corridor and CP Rail's North Toronto Subdivision. The Metrolinx proposal calls for an elevated bridge that would see the GO line raised above the CP Tracks, clearing the bottlenecks that regularly afflict the Davenport Diamond—one of the busiest rail crossings in North America—slowing train traffic and significantly impacting the reliability of freight and commuter service.
UrbanToronto attended the meeting, and our editorial presents an overview of the discussion, followed by some of our own thoughts about the outcome of the meeting, and the nature—and veracity—of the claims presented.
Background
Improving the frequency and reliability of service on the Barrie line forms an important element of the broader GO RER initiative, transforming the current peak-hour commuter GO service into an all-day transit network with regular service at 15-minute intervals. According to projections, the planned increase in service along the Barrie corridor—made possible in significant part by grade separation—would see ridership increase over 400%, with substantial growth in transit use similarly predicted for other parts of the GO rail network.
As it stands, GO runs 14 trains a day through the corridor—7 in the morning and 7 in the evening—while the GO RER plan would see 180 quieter trains per day by 2022, when the system is expected to be electrified. Initially, the bridge would allow for up to 36 diesel trains per day until electrification takes place.
However, since Metrolinx's plan for Davenport Diamond separation was first brought to community consultations in June and October last year, many residents have voiced concern with the nature of the plans, and with the lack of public input. The fact that other options for grade separation—particularly tunneling—were not seriously studied nor presented to residents as an option, angered many. Last year, a community activist group known as Options for Davenport formed to fight the proposal for "a Gardiner of GO trains," and to demand a thorough re-evaluation of Metrolinx's plans.
In December, the issue was brought before Toronto City Council, where members voted 38-1 in favour of demanding that Metrolinx abandon its bridge plan in favour of a tunnel which would cost over a quarter billion dollars more. While Council lacks the authority to alter the plans—since Metrolinx is a provincially-run agency—the vote evidenced a lack of cohesion between the City and the Province.
Council sided with the interests of the local Davenport and Junction Triangle community, while the Province's priorities were more far-reaching. Chief City Planner Jennifer Keesmaat also called for the plans to be more thoroughly studied.
The Metrolinx Presentation
Monday evening's meeting was divided into three parts, beginning with a new Metrolinx presentation—led by Nick Spensieri and Beth Kapusta—which was followed by an Options for Davenport presentation, and closed out by a series of questions from the audience.
Metrolinx representatives presented a revised plan "based on input from the community," which would see the length of the bridge reduced from approximately 850 to 570 metres, with a 2-metre sound insulating wall along the guideway, alongside extensive public art, community space, and landscaping planned for the area underneath. The new plan also features reflective stainless steel cladding along the 570-metre guideway, with the bridge structurally reconfigured to maximize new community space underneath, and aesthetically lightened to be a less intrusive presence in the area.
The 570-metre guideway would also allow for a number of new pedestrian crossings to better integrate the area with its surroundings, while extensive public art programming is planned to 'enliven' the columns underneath, creating a safer and friendlier space.
On either side of the elevated guideway, 400-metre berms would gradually bring the railway back to grade. The revised plan also sees a row of mature Siberian Elm trees in Campbell Park preserved—addressing a community concern—with a multi-purpose public plaza envisioned beneath the tracks on Wallace Street.
Now featuring more extensive landscaping (by Toronto-based gh3), the revised Metrolinx plan places more emphasis on greenery and public space, while the pedestrian connections under the bridge would help shorten commutes for a number of area schoolchildren. A "skylight" running the length of the bridge would allow natural light to spill into the greenway, and a continuous LED light strip would be installed atop the columns.
The Metrolinx team also explained that a tunnel would cost $500-600 million—compared to $210 million for the revamped elevated guideway—and would impact a far greater number of residents than the bridge. Given the area's uneven grade, a complex and lengthy construction would be inevitable, Metrolinx representatives explained.
The construction of a much longer 2,000-metre tunnel (with an additional 1,900 metres of trenches on either side) would also impact some 6,600 thousand people, compared to the roughly 3,900 residents who would be impacted by the construction of the bridge.
A third potential option presented would see the GO track run along a 1.5 kilometre trench, with cross-streets elevated to allow the trench to pass underneath. However, since the tunnel option had been identified as a far more popular community interest at previous consultation meetings—where more concrete data about tunneling was demanded—the trench option was not discussed at any great length by any party.
Options for Davenport
Following the Metrolinx presentation, Options for Davenport co-founders Sam Barbieri and Laura Zeglen were enthusiastically applauded to the podium. "We're not against transit," Barbieri told the audience, "we just think the project as proposed is the worst of all the options." Barbieri and Zeglen argued that Metrolinx's outreach to residents had thus far been inadequate, with many community members feeling that they lacked sufficient information to form an educated opinion on the subject. Metrolinx, Barbieri and Zeglen argued, had attempted to "railroad" the community, and—based on the audience response—the community agreed.
While the Options for Davenport team praised Metrolinx for the greater effort put into the new renderings, which "look very nice," they doubted the realism of what was portrayed. "Why aren't the houses beside the tracks depicted, and what happens when the metal on the bridge is covered by dirt and grime from the diesel trains?"
"And it's still a 1.4-kilometre bridge, even if they use terms like 'guideway' and 'berm' to confuse the issue," the presenters argued. Options for Davenport also called into question Metrolinx's commitment to preserving trees in their current state, arguing that Metrolinx would likely cut much of the foliage alongside the tracks.
The environmental concerns regarding an increase of diesel train service through the neighbourhood were also widespread amongst attendees, with applause breaking out whenever the issue was raised. "We'd like to see electrification first, and then more trains" Barbieri told the audience.
Metrolinx's initiative to move forward with the project quickly was also vociferously cut down. Barbieri and Zeglen expressed that they "don't believe there is a true rush on the project. We believe this is an artificial deadline, much like the UPX which was artificially rushed in time for the Pan Am Games. It's a political deadline, not a real deadline."
The comparison to UPX was a frequent refrain during the meeting, with the Barrie GO corridor perceived by the Options for Davenport team—and much of the audience—as an analogous project. The "PR spin" ridership projections—like the renderings, the electrification timeline, and the promised arboreal preservation—were disputed, an issue that Zeglen identified as a broader problem of "whether or not we can trust what we're being told." Barbieri and Zeglen also expressed concern about the threat of train derailment, which they argued could cause devastation to the neighbourhood.
Options for Davenport also asserted that the community is unable to trust Metrolinx because of broken promises regarding UPX electrification, with "diesel trains still running." (Even though UPX only entered into service in mid-2015, and electrification is not scheduled until the Kitchener GO Line is electrified as part of the RER initiative).
Every 7.5 minutes, throughout both of the evening's presentations an individual protester rang a cowbell, with the sharp sound meant to represent the noise increase that would come to the neighbourhood once 15 minute headways—in both directions—are implemented. "It's going to be loud, like a rock concert," Options for Davenport warned the attendees. The presentation was—like any good rock concert—followed by cheers, applause, and a standing ovation.
Question Period
Following the presentation, the floor was opened to questions from the audience, all of which were highly critical of Metrolinx. The politicians in attendance—Ward 18's Ana Bailão, Ward 17's Cesar Palacio, and Davenport MPP Christina Martins—were all called upon by members of the audience to voice their support of the community. All three did.
Bailão identified Metrolinx's "deficit of public trust," also asking the Metrolinx team "how are you going to stop those trains from derailing?" Palacio echoed similar sentiments, arguing that the community had been left behind in the decision process. Following continued demands from the audience to elucidate a clear position, Christina Martins eventually announced she would write a letter asking the project to be delayed and reconsidered.
Other members of the community worried about "trains derailing into nearby houses," and "an unholy rush for a 100-year piece of infrastructure." One man compared the lack of transparency in Metrolinx's decision-making to living in war-torn Syria, and another man complained about the risk of a train crashing into his child's bedroom. Many of the concerns were far more reasonable, however, including worries about the environmental impact of diesel trains, and increased noise levels. A lack of consultation with area schools was also identified, and Ward 9 Trustee Marit Stiles rightfully criticized Metrolinx for a lack of engagement regarding impacts on local students.
Reflections
Based on the events of the meeting, as well as the broader discourse surrounding the project—including the City Council vote—it is clear that Metrolinx and the Province lack cohesion and effective communication with the City and with members of the community. Though the updated plan presented on January 18 reflects Metrolinx's increased efforts to take community engagement into account, Options for Davenport convincingly argued that many residents remained uninformed. According to Options for Davenport, Metrolinx has not been effective in building public trust, nor in presenting an adequately convincing and well-researched proposal.
In this respect, a lack of effective communication and transparency between the provincially-run transit agency, the City, and the community, has certainly harmed the project. In particular, the fact that so many residents remain ill-informed about the nature of the project—and its benefits—makes it difficult to build trust and support in the community. However, while Metrolinx and the province could have taken a more proactive role in community engagement, the parochial nature of local political interests and community viewpoints has also contributed to fostering a somewhat limited understanding of the project.
For City Council and the politicians in attendance, the unequivocal show of support for the community overlooks the importance of having the project completed on time and within a feasible budget. Unlike UPX, which is tailored to visitors and business travelers, the widespread implementation of GO RER—including faster, more reliable service along the Barrie corridor—would benefit hundreds of thousands of existing commuters and contribute to making Toronto a globally competitive city. In this sense, it is naïve to regard a crucial element of the initiative as a mere political 'vanity project.'
Transit experts agree that Toronto desperately needs regional express rail service, and it is widely recognized that the city is already decades behind in building transit. Whether the grade separation gets built now or several years later, does matter. The economic impacts of delay could be significant. A failure to acknowledge or even consider this fact—and the fact that many GTA residents are left economically disadvantaged by a lack of transit—reflects a parochialism sadly characteristic of our municipal politics.
Writing about the project in December, the Globe & Mail's Marcus Gee argued that "[i]f politicians side with vocal community groups every time an overpass has to be built, a bridge raised or a corridor widened, it will gum up the works, adding to the time and money it takes to get express rail done. Councillors are elected to represent their local constituents, yes. They also have a responsibility to see the greater good. In the case of the Davenport Diamond, they failed," Gee concludes, lamenting a City Council vote that arguably put local interest ahead of much more far-ranging priorities.
To maintain strong community engagement, politicians often put vocal community concerns ahead of larger priorities. While this can be problematic in and of itself, it's especially worrying when those concerns—such as train derailment—are inflated and unreasonably prevalent. Councillors (and Metrolinx, for that matter) should seek to help make their constituents better informed, providing clarified facts and a broader context for the issue, rather than taking the much easier path of immediately agreeing with whatever voice speaks loudest.
The fact that risk of train derailment continues to form such a central part of the discourse surrounding the bridge is, to say the least, surprising. Passenger train derailment is exceptionally rare in Canada, with a very low number of fatalities. Most derailments and serious accidents occur with freight trains, and the type of commuter rail stock that would run through the neighbourhood is—much like an above-ground subway— exceptionally unlikely to ever derail and cause any serious injury.
Speaking of the community, the engagement and mobilization fostered by Options for Davenport is undeniably impressive, and even inspiring. The fact that a community is able to find such a strong voice is a great asset for our city, and Barbieri and Zeglen's exceptional degree of commitment and engagement deserves to be applauded. Yet, while the organization's success as a grassroots movement is an encouraging sign of a healthy body politic, the success of some of Options for Davenport's rhetoric is troubling.
Throughout the meeting, the word "community" was frequently spoken, with Barbieri and Zeglen building an impressive base of support from the residents of the area. However, throughout Options for Davenport's presentation and all the discussion that followed, the notion of community did not seem to extend past the boundaries of the immediate neighbourhood.
Neither Options for Davenport nor the assembled crowd expressed concern about the surrounding communities of 6,600 residents that would be disrupted by a significantly prolonged and more intrusive construction process if the much longer tunnel was built. For all the solidarity and concern about local children and the well-being of neighbours, attendees seemed unwilling to adopt a more inclusive paradigm of "community." The thousands of additional residents who would be impacted by the construction of a tunnel perhaps fall just outside of the community that Options for Davenport and their supporters are so eager to protect.
More broadly, amidst all the talk of there being "no rush" to finish the project, nobody in attendance expressed concern about the interests of GTA and Barrie residents who need better transit service, and whose communities shoulder the costs of Ontario's lost decades of infrastructure planning. Nobody voiced any thought for these farther flung communities that would greatly benefit from improved access to the city.
Amidst all the talk of community, the Options for Davenport movement seemed unable to see past the issue's most immediate and personal context. No notion of the bigger, regional community was expressed. In this sense, some of the rhetoric presented at the meeting strayed dangerously close to an entitled, $500-million Toronto NIMBYism that refuses to look beyond itself. This is especially troubling given that some of the communities that would benefit most from immediate transit improvements may also lack the established socio-economic standing that is unfortunately often necessary to mobilize as strongly and influentially as Options for Davenport have done.
While many of the concerns expressed by Options for Davenport are eminently reasonable and deserving of serious consideration, the rhetoric of the meeting sometimes reflected a type of balkanized, parochial closed-mindedness that is all too common in Toronto. The paradox is that we live in one of the most tolerant, accepting, and multi-cultural cities in the world, and yet our civic horizons chronically fail to stretch just a little bit past ourselves.
*
What do you think of the Davenport Diamond grades separation controversy? Share your thoughts by leaving a comment at the bottom of this page, or by joining in the ongoing discussion on our Forum.
A full video of the presentation is also available here.
NOTE: The story has been edited to clarify how and why a cowbell was ringing during the meeting.
