As promised, here are you counter arguments: (pro pedestrianization pilot)
Overlap with major events including the FIFA World Cup, as well as peak
summer demand, placing additional strain on already busy road networks.
Specifically, impacts to adjacent routes, including north-south routes such as
Yonge Street and Jarvis Avenue, and east-west routes such as Bloor Street,
Wellesley Avenue and Carlton Street. Staff would need to see a completed traffic
modeling study related to the proposed closure of Church Street which is
typically carried out by the applicant.
The FIFA argument with no events anywhere near here is dubious, but easily countered by just pushing back the start date a bit.
• Concurrent construction activity in the area, including the TTC track and
watermain work on College Street from Bay Street to Carlton Street and Church
Street which will result in a full closure of the intersection of Yonge Street and
College Street/Carlton Street and a full westbound closure on Carlton
Street/College Street between Yonge Street and Bay Street
Except for the full intersection closure, this work is low impact on Church. The City would need to provide the date for said closure which will only be a small amount of time out of the entire project. It may be desirable to have Church open during such a closure. With mostly temporary furniture/fixtures, that could be done at reasonable cost/hassle.
• Near Church Street, additional watermain construction is taking place on
Wellesley Street East, resulting in lane reductions and directional closures. As a
general best practice, activities or events, such as this proposed closure, should
avoid proximity to ongoing construction due to the potential for operational
challenges and conflicts.
Not a significant issue.
• Potential impacts to TTC operations, including the night network along Yonge
Street and bus shuttle services that rely on Yonge Street during subway closures
on TTC Line 1, due to increased diverted traffic onto the corridor.
Not an issue except for the full intersection closure, for that, see above.
Policing and security considerations
• Adequate policing resources, including pay duty officers will be difficult to
accommodate given the competing needs during the closure period
There is no reason to believe that any additional police resources are required. No reason is given by staff as to why they would be.
• The lack of comprehensive safety and traffic management plans that need to be
developed and submitted by the BIA to the City.
A made up requirement.
• The lack of an approved Hostile Vehicle Mitigation (HVM) infrastructure plan from
the BIA to ensure public safety is addressed
No such plan/infrastructure is required. Installing permanent or substantive barriers would conflict with the EMS access otherwise sought by the City in this very report.
• The lack of a plan for dealing with crowd management and risks associated with
high attendance or overcrowding
There is no reason to believe this will be an issue. But this can be addressed by simply requiring the BIA to monitor the situation and by reserving to the City the right to suspend the pilot should it become unmanageable.
Emergency response
• Emergency response constraints, including diversions of existing reliable and
unobstructed routes for fire, paramedic and police services.
As noted, this objection conflicts with the objection directly above it. This issue is addressed by an easy to move barrier that is staffed.
Staff resources
• Transportation Services currently lacks the dedicated staffing and resources
required to effectively manage a long-term pedestrianization initiative of this
scale. The Church Street closure is proposed to happen simultaneous with FIFA,
and staff are focussed on delivery of these games.
• Based on recent experience with the Distillery Winter Village, a prolonged
closure of 9-weeks may generate a high-volume of public complaints related to
traffic congestion, traffic infiltration, restricted access for residents, loss of
parking, business deliveries and noise complaints
• A complaint management strategy/triaging process would need to be developed
that can be integrated with 311
TS has no shortage of staff and can dedicate such resources as it sees fit. That, however, is simply not needed here for a pilot and is nothing but a poor fig leaf of an excuse to kill the idea.
For the record, TS has known for a long time this was coming, and it chose not to spend time working on any of the things it now demands be worked on. That tells you everything you need to know.
Liability risk
• As the applicant is a BIA, insurance coverage is shared with the City, resulting in
joint liability and limiting the City’s ability to fully transfer risk.
Not a material risk.
Financial Impact
• The Councillor is also seeking approval to waive all applicable street event permit
fees associated with the proposed temporary closure of Church Street.
• The fees proposed for waiver include an application fee of $266.41 +HST and an
estimated permit fee of approximately $832.56 + HST per 4-day closure period.
This results in an estimated total revenue loss of $15,353.73 + HST.
This is not correct. Forgone revenue that would not otherwise occur, but for this event is not a revenue loss. If the City kills this, there will be revenue either. Not even a bad argument, a non-argument that borders on deceitful
.
• At this time, any additional implementation costs such as traffic management,
security, street cleaning, waste removal, accessibility measures, and Hostile
Vehicle Mitigation have not been identified. The associated financial impacts will
need to be reviewed and will be reported at the earliest opportunity through the
2026 quarterly operating variance reporting process. These additional costs are
not included in the 2026 Operating Budget for Transportation Services
Some of the above, as noted, is simply not required. Additional waste collection costs may be fair, but could also be addressed by simply having the BIA handle it on their own, or through a reasonable bill back for requested service, to an upset limit for the pilot.
****
This is the nonsense we're up against.
Item TE32.46 (Pedestrianizing Church Street Pilot) has finally appeared on tomorrow's Toronto and East York Community Council agenda! Please e-mail teycc@toronto.ca ASAP to voice your support and/or register to speak. Also recommend CC'ing Mayor Olivia Chow (mayor_chow@toronto.ca), Councillor Chris Moise (councillor_moise@toronto.ca), and your city councillor.