Centre For Local Research into Public Space (CELOS)
Show search options
You are on the [June 16, 2009] page of folder [Georgetown Expansion And The Air Raillink]
For the cover page of this folder go to the June 16, 2009, 4 e-mails
J. B wrote:
Hi everyone, There has been discussion on this listserv in the past about pushing for a bike bridge across Lansdowne over the tracks to Sorauren Park. Here's your opportunity to speak out and try to get this built. Let's contact Metrolinx and push for it!
This would mean:
A fast and safe way to access No Frills
A bridge between Sorauren Park (Roncey, and High Park) and Brockton (and Downtown)
A safe way to access the expanding Railpath, north and south of Dundas
When a group of residents met with Metrolinx a couple of months ago, they were interested in hearing our ideas about this. Metrolinx is in talks with the city of Toronto and their bike plan team. Last time I heard they were befuddled with what to do with the Railpath south of Dundas.
These are my thoughts on how this bike bridge might work... http://www.incompleteproject.com/bikebridge.jpg
The best way to contact Metrolinx (regarding this AND electrification) is through their online consultation portal. There are some good instructions on how to register and log in to make comments here. http://www.cleantrain.ca/webportal.php. Or go directly to the portal at http://metrolinx-consult.limehouse.com/portal/gsse/gsseuprl_virtual_open_house_series_two. You've got until July 30th to make comments.
Once you get into the "document" comment on Panel 11. You can also make comments regarding this if you plan to visit the Metrolinx open house at Fort York tonight.
p.s. The residents near Strachen Ave. had the plans for the super-bridge changed because there were 270 comments on the web portal. Let's try to match that!
p.p.s. Anyone interested in helping me get residents to make comments to Metrolinx regarding this by postering etc, let me know.
E. K. wrote:
If a value for the hardship and inconvenience could be attached perhaps this precedent would be applicable.
http://www.dailycommercialnews.com/article/id34023
June 9, 2009
Legal Decision
B.C. court ruling could impact future construction
Change in construction method costs consortium $600,000
RICHARD GILBERT
staff writer
VANCOUVER
A B.C. Supreme Court ruling that awarded damages to a downtown Vancouver merchant for business disruption caused by a rapid transit line construction job will have ramifications for all public works projects, if upheld.
The court awarded $600,000 in damages to a maternity wear shop owner who claimed lost revenues as a result of four years of Canada Line construction in front of her business. Susan Heyes sued the City of Vancouver, provincial and federal governments, Canada Line Rapid Transit Inc, TransLink and InTransitBC, claiming the drop in business was caused by a decision to use a cut-and-cover construction method instead of a bored tunnel.
The method was used because it reduced cost by more than $400 million and had several advantages in terms of design, such as allowing stations to be closer to the surface.
“The reduction in cost was achieved by imposing an unacceptable burden on Hazel & Co,” said Justice Ian Pitfield in his ruling.
“A loss (of revenue) over four years resulting from the decline in sales and the reduction of approximately 50 per cent in gross profit caused solely by cut and cover construction, cannot be regarded as a tolerable or acceptable burden, which should be absorbed by Hazel & Co. as its contribution to the realization of a project of general public utility.”
“There is a serious concern about the impact of this decision on all public works, where people have a business that is adjacent or nearby the project,” said George Macintosh, the lawyer for the Canada Line partners.
“The social question is: Where does the cost lie at the end of the day?”
Any business nearby the work would argue the project budget should bear the cost. But, the farther you get away from the project, people are looking to the public purse to pay damages.
The cut and cover excavation of the street went down to a depth of six storeys, which blocked and redirected traffic.
It created dust, noise and a nuisance that drove people away from the businesses on Cambie Street, the court was told. Pitfield ruled that TransLink, Canada Line Rapid Transit and InTransitBC are jointly liable
The judge dismissed claims of negligence, misrepresentation and nuisance against the city of Vancouver, as well as the provincial and federal governments.
“From the ministry’s perspective, we will be analyzing the decision to see how it will affect the way we do business. It is too early to see if there are any implications right now,” said Jeff Knight, spokesperson for the B.C. Ministry of Transportation.
Macintosh thinks the ruling may make it necessary for governments to plan projects so that construction will minimize disruption, even if that proves the more costly option. Many are expecting the ruling to be appealed.
If upheld, the ruling will have significant ramifications for all public works projects because it challenges a fundamental and long-standing assumption that the benefits of constructing public projects outweigh any harmful consequences.
In the case of the Canada Line, an alternative to pre-cast tunnel sections was used, which involved the construction of forms in the trench for the tunnel floor, walls and roof, and the pouring of concrete in place.
Cut and cover construction is significantly less expensive than bored tunnel construction.
The consortium responsible for the construction of the Canada Line did not publicly disclose that the cut and cover method of construction would be used instead of a bored tunnel, the court found. In the early stages of planning, the general public was advised that the Canada Line would be located in a tunnel that would be bored or mined. There was no indication suggesting that a cut and cover method of tunnel construction would be employed on Cambie Street portion of the line.
The possibility of cut and cover construction was first raised by SNC-Lavalin/Serco in January 2004, when it responded to the Request for Proposals. But details were not released to the public because confidentiality agreements prevented disclosure of design proposals and cost estimates under consideration.
The TransLink board approved the proposal, based on a cut and cover trench in December, 2004 and made public the Environmental Assessment Office website. TransLink and Canada Line Rapid Transit LRT did not make a public announcement about the use of the cut and cover method.
Local media outlets first reported the change in construction methods a month later.
Moriyama & Teshima Planners
32 Davenport Road, Toronto, Ontario M5R 1H3 Canada
t: 416-925-4484
f: 416-925-4637
http://www.mtplanners.com
J. W. wrote:
this seems to be the only choice. can we try to get an idea of how many people are in support of this action, is it 2, 50, 100, 200? they are not going to stop. is this already in motion?
sent by E. B.
this email is about the legal situation. While I am a lawyer, I practice employment law at a legal clinic, so I cannot help much and the below has NOT been vetted with an expert in this type of law, so do not treat this as a conclusive legal opinion! But I thought I would pass some thoughts on. You probably already know this. It is my understanding that:
1. The Supreme Court of Canada has found that the legality of an activity is irrelevant to a case of nuisance (the right to the peaceful enjoyment of property). So even if the piledriving is "legal" - i.e. they have all the necessary permits - they are still liable to you for nuisance. You could start a class action in nuisance.
2. An injunction can be obtained if a legal case is initiated and the court finds: a. the case is viable (ie there is some chance of success) and b. irreparable harm will be suffered if the activity is not stopped prior to the resolution of the case in court. Irreparable harm is harm that cannot be "remedied" through a payment of money or other reparation. An easy example of "irreparable harm" is cutting down an old growth forest. There is no point in arguing a legal case about the forest if it gets cut down before the court can decide. You cannot put it back.
Your case seems a bit harder. You would likely need expert evidence that the impact of the noise on your health is not reparable. I expect you could find an expert who would say that the impact on your children in particular will be long term with respect to stress, cognitive functioning, their ability to perform in school and other activities, their sense of well-being and security. This cannot be fixed through a payment of money. (So note that harm to your houses is not included as this could be addressed through a payment of money. It is not technically 'irreparable.") Harm to the health of children is something that a court might find irreparable. So if you start a viable action and can show that harm to your children could be irreparable, you might get an injunction to stop the piledriving.
3. I expect you have been looking for lawyers already, but I would say that there is a chance that a law firm might take this on contingency, since there has been harm suffered, damages could be significant, and there are deep pockets to pay an award or settlement (these are the 3 criteria that I understand are necessary for a lawyer to consider the significant risk of a contingency agreement). You also likely need a lawyer functioning within a larger firm that can take on the risk and can fund expert opinions.
I don't know much about civil law suits outside of employment law, but you might try Paliare Roland. They are a reputable litigation firm. You might try Cavalluzzo Hayes. They do mostly labour law, but they also do class actions. Thomson Rogers do medical malpractice, but they might look at this because of the health angle. I am not sure who else.
From: Clean Train Coalition
Say NO to Diesel Trains
And Demand IMMEDIATE ELECTRIFICATION
Metrolinx and the Province of Ontario plan to run over 400 diesel trains a day through our neighbourhoods. Diesel exhaust is a known threat to human health, especially the health of children and seniors, and is linked to cancer and respiratory diseases. Diesel trains will spew fumes, create noise and divide our neighbourhoods. This plan will seriously impact our quality of life.
Speak up!
Tell them that you demand:
- Clean and modern electric trains to run along the Union Station to Georgetown Corridor
- No new investment in diesel technology
- A new environmental assessment that considers electrification as an alternative to diesel
- More accessibility by adding stops and making connections between communities.
Visit http://www.cleantrain.ca for simple instructions for making your voice heard!
Join us today at the Metrolinx Open House at Fort York
The Clean Train Coalition is asking people to go to the Metrolinx Open House at Old Fort York. Be there Tuesday June 16, between 6:30 and 7:00. Visit http://www.cleantrain.ca/events.php#openhouses for more information.
Neighbours Talking to Neighbours!
This week we are continuing to work our way through the neighbourhoods along the train tracks. Neighbours are speaking with their neighbours about the Clean Train Coalition and the expansion of GO services. People are spreading the word at Community BBQ's and Festivals, end of school year events, and simply going door to door in their communities. Do you have a local event that you would like us to participate in? We are always happy to come and speak with people about the issue! If you would like to join us in spreading the word, visit http://www.cleantrain.ca/contact.php. We sure can use you energy!!
Help get the word out - get your neighbours to sign up to http://www.cleantrain.ca