The TTC really has to update its idea of ROW's though. Or it will continue to be a hard sell. If you look at the mess of transit signals that slow down Spadina cars, its no wonder it makes people in other parts of the city wonder.
TTC should fix the kinks in the service on Spadina, and maybe it would make it easier to finnish routes like St Clair, and start others.
oh, God, i know!
Finns are so much more docile and well behaved. we could have had two ROW's built on St. Clair by now if it wasn't for those damn feisty Italians
That wasn't quite fair....
Though it is the works and transportation department, not the TTC that is responsible for the ROW working like it should on Spadina. Though, even with the lack of signal priority, the 510 works a hell of a lot better than the 77 did - ridership is way up, and capacity (and even speed) improved. Even the end of left-turning cars in front of the 512 will help, though the transportation department had better get the signals working properly.
Here are a few shots of the construction taken Saturday afternoon.
Looking west across Yonge:
Looking east across Yonge:
Sidewalk construction on south side, west of Yonge.
Thanks for the pics.
That's quite the difference in sidewalk space - and this was the part of St. Clair that didn't put up the big fuss. Imagine that sidewalk with sandwich boards, newspaper boxes or monsterbins!
cool pics!
Why do you think I put >: >: in my posting about the sidewalk a few days ago?
It is odd that the business did not put up any type of fight along the south-west sidewalk to stop this. I never heard anything from this area at any of the EA meetings. It must happen behind close doors.
Wait tell the sidewalk is put back into service with 3 lanes of traffic passing it, especially if a few scooters show up at the same time. We now got sidewalk grid lock.
Concrete is a day behind for the eastside. The section that has received final pour in the picture is a stub section now until they do the track into the loop.
Where is the fancy brick layout for the top coat that supposed to there for whole route?
Main focuses is to get Yonge St open for Tuesday or it will be nightmare from hell.
TTC will get blame for this mess, not the city who is doing this because TTC is on the front lines and the public eye.
There will be ""NOTHING"" put on the sidewalk to impede the flow of pedestrians not only in this area, but other places where this happens. Right-of-Way Management team has been form to look after to what goes where and how many. This means newspaper boxes, bike racks, trees, plants, benches, lightpoles and etc. I not holding my breath to see if this works.
Something just come to mind, where are the wiring for the westbound priority signals? I have not seen anything place in the track area for this up to Thursday night. The new streetcar stop will be on the westside not the east when it is all done. Maybe will be cut into the concrete at a later day.
Dave
wow, that sidewalk is tiny. i wonder if the city did that deliberately so that the nimby's will come begging to have a lane of traffic converted.
and that doesn't look like a ROW going in, what's the deal? does the ROW start further west?
Re: St Clair ROW underway? Photo's
Go to photos.yahoo.com/drum118 and I have verious shots of the intersection as well the ""sidewalk"" there.
From sound of things, the SOS has made a case to get the courts to hault anymore construction for the ROW.
Court ruling will be release some time this week.
If the SOS gets thier way, it will be a sad day for TTC because of the City bucther of sidewalks. Also the car is the King of the Road everything eles does not count.
Dave
I've never seen the TTC/City work so fast on a project before--I think they're even going at it 24/7. Usually it takes them 6 months to fix an escalator, but here, they're rebuilding an intersection in a matter of weeks. Must be all the heavy hitters located in the area (Weston, Chum, etc...) Amazing what a little money and power can accomplish.
Court Decision Expected Today
From the Star:
Oct. 11, 2005. 08:06 AM
Judges rule on St. Clair streetcar
$65M project set to start tomorrow
City violated Planning Act, critics say
KEVIN MCGRAN
TRANSPORTATION REPORTER
The future of St. Clair Ave. W. hangs on semantics.
Does the plan to run streetcars on dedicated lanes on St. Clair constitute the definition of "rapid transit" in an "exclusive" right-of-way, or is it merely a "surface transit improvement"?
A three-judge panel decision expected today will either allow the TTC to start as scheduled tomorrow to dig up parts of the road, or send city lawyers and councillors scrambling to find some way to save their much-touted $65 million project.
Opponents argued before a Divisional Court panel that the City of Toronto violated the provincial Planning Act by not amending its official plan to allow for "rapid transit" on St. Clair Ave. W.
Lawyers for the TTC and the city say there is no need to amend the official plan because the St. Clair project wasn't "rapid transit," but rather "surface transit improvement."
Lawyer Eric Gillespie, representing the group Save Our St. Clair, argued that if the city has its way, St. Clair is going to end up with the same kind of "rapid transit" enjoyed on Spadina, Queens Quay and the Harbourfront.
He said city maps on the 1994 official plan that guided the former Metro government designate streetcar lines on Spadina, Queens Quay and the Harbourfront as "rapid transit." He said the former Metro government amended its 1980 official plan to allow for these projects, complying with the Planning Act.
He argued the official plan passed by council in 2002 says rapid transit projects in "exclusive" rights of way require a more stringent process than the environmental assessment the St. Clair project had from 2002 to 2005.
TTC lawyer Jim Harbell said previous references to the Spadina and Queens Quay streetcar lines as "rapid transit" were "quirks of history," although he admitted they presented the judges with a "conundrum."
"It's not a perfect world," he added.
Harbell said none of the streetcar routes in Toronto qualify as rapid transit — despite the '94 maps that suggest otherwise — because the vehicles don't attain high speeds, have their stops too close together and don't carry enough passengers.
Therefore, he said, the part of the 2002 official plan that guided the St. Clair initiative was the part that dealt with "surface transit improvements" and was adequately dealt with in the environmental assessment process, which received final approval in June.
Gillespie's arguments seemed to gain some traction with the judges. Madam Justice Susan Greer said it appeared what the city was "attempting to do by the back door (was) create another RT like Spadina."
The city maintains the streetcar project will put more people on public transit and improve its reliability, meaning the streetcars will be able to maintain schedules and not bunch up the way they do now.
Opponents say trucks couldn't make deliveries by double-parking, businesses would lose customers and more road rage would ensue.
GB
Re: Court Decision Expected Today
Back door? Good grief!Madam Justice Susan Greer said it appeared what the city was "attempting to do by the back door (was) create another RT like Spadina."
Re: Court Decision Expected Today
The Star is reporting that the court has blocked the ROW.
I am ALL FOR boycotting all the businesses who did this. I'm going to contact the pro-ROW people about it.
Court blocks St. Clair streetcar lane
Re: Court Decision Expected Today
I would say not only is a boycott in order, but I would even say civil disobedience is in order.
This situation reminds me of the same problem I have with the OMB, that being, those with money can outspend the community at large and buy whatever decision they want.
The problem I have isnt neccesarily with this individual case but that there exists the larger problem that this will continue to happen so long as the system works in favor of those with money. Unless something is changed in terms of how issues like this are dealt with in the public arena the next ROW or other public project, and any subsequent ones after that, are going to have to repeat the exact same process.
Re: Court Decision Expected Today
Oct. 11, 2005. 12:25 PM
Court blocks St. Clair streetcar lane
Angry residents argue that new plan is 'rapid transit'
KEVIN MCGRAN
TRANSPORTATION REPORTER
Residents of St. Clair Ave. W. who oppose a separate right of way for streetcars down the middle of their street won a legal battle today when a three-judge panel ruled in their favour at a judicial review of the city project.
The judges said they would later release their reasons for siding with opponents of the project to set aside city council's decision to go ahead with the $65 million project.
The city and the TTC have 15 days to appeal.
"People should take heart. You can believe in something and you can fight for something you believe in and you can fight on principle," said Margaret Smith, the local resident who galvanized opposition and formed the Save Our St. Clair (SOS) campaign. "I really honestly believed there’s a better solution and our community is at risk."
The decision represents a significant blow to the city’s 2002 Official Plan - which has been passed by council, but not yet approved by the Ontario Municipal Board. The plan calls for surface transit improvements in many key roadways.
St. Clair was the first major transit project to be undertaken by the city, which outlines pedestrian traffic, cycling and public transit as priorities to be promoted and supported by council decision.
Opponents argued before a divisional court panel that the city of Toronto violated the provincial Planning Act by not amending its official plan to allow for “rapid transit” on St. Clair Ave. W.
Lawyers for the TTC and the city argued that the city didn’t need to amend its official plan because the St. Clair project wasn’t “rapid transit”, but “surface transit improvement”.
SOS lawyer Eric Gillespie argued that if the city got its way, St. Clair was going to end up with the same kind of “rapid transit” found on Spadina Ave., Queen’s Quay and the Harbourfront.
He said city maps on the 1994 official plan that guided the former Metro government designate streetcar lines on Spadina, Queen’s Quay and the Harbourfront as “rapid transit.”
He also said the former Metro government amended its 1980 official plan to allow for these projects, complying with the Planning Act.
He argued the official plan passed by council in 2002 says rapid transit projects in “exclusive” rights of way require a more stringent process than the Environmental Assessment study St. Clair underwent from 2002 to 2005.
TTC lawyer Jim Harbell had argued that the St. Clair project was not “rapid transit”, but “surface transit improvement.” He said previous references to the Spadina and Queen’s Quay streetcar lines as “rapid transit” were “quirks of history”, although he admitted they presented the judges with a “conundrum.”
Harbell said none of the streetcar routes in Toronto qualify as rapid transit - despite the '94 maps that suggest otherwise - because they don’t attain high speeds, have their stops placed too closely together and don’t carry enough passengers.
Therefore, he said, the part of the 2002 official plan that guided the St. Clair initiative was the part that dealt with “surface transit improvements” and was adequately dealt with in the Environmental Assessment process, which got final approval in June.
He also said the 1980 Metro Official Plan was onerous and required continual amendments; so councillors writing 1994 Metro Official Plan - which still is in effect today - and the 2002 Official Plan - which has not yet been approved by the Ontario Municipal Board - wrote with generalities so that amendments were not necessary.
Harbell said it wasn’t proper for the judges to rule on the adequacy of the EA process without the Ministry of Environment being named as a respondent to the application.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks