SOS Bulletin

 

July 18, 2007

 

 

Several of us attended City Council today to see the community finally win a small victory.

 

The item that we were interested in was the design of the Dufferin - St.Clair intersection with exclusive transit lanes. As you know, the TTC proposed that both passenger loading platforms be located on the western side of the intersection thus eliminating left turning for vehicles turning north onto Dufferin. The community opposed this design, primarily fearing traffic congestion at the Northcliffe U-turn, and additional traffic into the residential neighbourhood. St.Clare Catholic School is located at Northcliffe and St.Clair. There were other related impacts that were also of concern.

 

The Etobicoke York Community Council had unanimously endorsed the community alternative at a special meeting held on July 12. However, City Staff recommended that City Council adopt the original City/TTC proposed design.

 

The discussion and debate extended from 3:15 pm to 4:45 pm. Here are the highlights.

 

The following table was produced by city staff and included in the report to City Council, dated July 16, 2007

 

 

     IMPACT OF INTERSECTION CONFIGURATION ON SIDEWALK WIDTHS

     AT ST.CLAIR AVENUE WEST AND DUFFERIN STREET

 

 

Location	Existing Condition 1.5 m platforms, near side configuration	EA Recommended Design 2.4 m platforms, farside westbound and near side eastbound			Alternative Design 2.4 m platforms, farside configuration
	Existing width of sidewalk	Resulting width of sidewalk	Reduction from existing		Resulting width of sidewalk	Reduction from existing
	m	m	m	%	m	m	%
a) Northwest corner of St.Clair and Dufferin	4.6	3.6	1.0	22	3.4	1.2	26
b) Southwest corner of St.Clair and Dufferin	4.2	3.0	1.2	29	3.2	1.0	24
c) Northeast corner of St.Clair and Dufferin	4.6	3.2	1.4	30	3.2	1.4	30
d) Southeast corner of St.Clair and Dufferin	4.4	3.4	1.0	23	3.2	1.2	27

 

 

-  Councillor Mihevc moved that Council adopt the City/TTC design. The justification given was the opposition to further sidewalk cuts. He also introduced the recommendation of the Toronto Pedestrian Committee supporting the City/TTC design. He was adamant on this point, saying he wished to preserve the pedestrian experience, noting SOS's position against sidewalk cuts.

 

It does seem incredible that Councillor Mihevc would stand before Council and pretend to be the champion for sidewalks when he supported the ROW in the first place. He did not object to the sidewalk cuts in the proposed design. Just between Westmount and McRoberts, the TTC is planning to cut the sidewalks by up to 2.5 meters on the north and south sides of St.Clair, at each of the signalized intersections (Dufferin, Via Italia, Earlscourt, and Lansdowne). Look at the table, above. The sidewalks at each corner of Dufferin and St.Clair will be cut. What is in question is whether or not the impacts resulting from 0.2 m additional cuts are more or less significant than the impacts resulting from additional arterial traffic congestion at Northcliffe and additional arterial traffic through the adjacent neighbourhood. Not once did Councillor Mihevc suggest that the TTC compromise and reduce the width of their platform to 2 meters from 2.4 meters, thereby reducing the extent of sidewalk cuts! Some champion! Some hypocrite!

 

- Councillor Palacio moved his motion calling for support of far-side passenger loading platforms and set backs in the Avenue Study affecting future development. This means that future buildings constructed at this intersection would be required to allow more sidewalk width.

 

- Both Giorgio Mammoliti and Michael Walker questioned why City Council was hearing this matter at all. Councillor Mammoliti stated that this issue should have been resolved by the unanimous vote of the Community Council, suggesting that it appeared that the Ward 17 election was being played out again on the floor of Council. Councillor Walker asked if there was another agenda in bringing this matter to City Council.

 

- Councillor Walker stated that the southwest corner of Yonge and St.Clair is now 2.5 meters with resulting negative impacts.  Where was the concern for preserving sidewalks when this cut was made?

 

- Many Councillors stated that they would support the vote of the Community Council and the local community champion, Councillor Palacio.  Councillor De Baeremaeker offered that he would support the community alternative in order to 'make peace' with the local community.

 

- Councillor Adam Vaughan raised some interesting points. He said that this situation is a classic example of what happens when we allow transportation planners to do neighbourhood planning. He suggested that neighbourhoods should be planned for people, not cars, and that congestion in a neighbourhood makes a healthy neighbourhood. He said that we were now being asked to make a bad idea better. He recommended that we create destinations, not thoroughfares and give pedestrians the first claim on the public realm. Although I thought that Councillor Vaughan had some good ideas, he did not really help us to resolve the problem before us.  His comments were more relevant when we were fighting the ROW and offered the Brown and Storey plan for a shared street that would be a destination. Instead, now we are being asked to make unwanted choices, and we are supporting the alternative that, on balance, results in the least harm to the community.

 

- The staff report stated that recent traffic counts reveal that approximately 45 vehicles per hour in each direction during non-peak hours make left turns at this intersection. The counts did not distinguish between cars and trucks. Staff concluded this is a 'low demand'. There are three problems with this information. First, the traffic count was taken in the current conditions, before the ROW is constructed. It does not include an estimation of the additional traffic that will be prevented from turning left onto sidestreets from Caledonia to Dufferin, due to the ROW barrier, and will be forced to turn left only at Dufferin. Second, the estimation that 45 vehicles per hour is 'low' has not taken into account that 45 vehicles per hour making U-turns at Northcliffe adjacent to the school, and then probably turning north on Westmount may not seem a small matter to the people living there and directly affected by this additional traffic.  Discounting 45 vehicles per hour seems absurd from a residential neighbourhood perspective. Finally, there is a significant difference between trucks and cars in terms of turning radius/turning time and noise disruption, further exacerbating the problems for the local neighbourhood.

 

-  The staff who were present to answer questions stated more than once that both alternatives can be made to work, and that far side loading is operationally preferable to the TTC.

 

- The voting was as follows:

 

Councillor Mihevc's motion was defeated, 8 in favour to 21 opposed.

Councillor Palacio's motion was approved, 21 in favour to 8 opposed.

The final motion as amended was adopted 22 in favour to 6 opposed.

 

Mayor Miller was not present. He left the council chambers as this item was introduced.

 

On another note, I offer the following suggestion to Mayor Miller who is now looking for ways to trim the budget: Why not cancel the ROW? Think of the money saved by eliminating escalating construction costs and avoiding future lost business taxes. It's just a suggestion!

 

Cheers,

 

Margaret