Toronto Union Station Revitalization | ?m | ?s | City of Toronto | NORR

DSC said:
They may not be anchored but they are very heavy - properly placed they will stop a truck. (That said, I hope we are not going to see our streets lined with jersey barriers.)
Click to expand...

Years ago I volunteered across from the MTCC and worked at the Automotive Building at Exhibition Place both during the G20 summit. There were so many fences and barricades I was starting to think I was working in Cold War era Berlin. It was not inviting at all and if I did not have ID I would not have got anywhere near where I needed to go.

I doubt anyone wants a repeat of that.

Fun fact: During the G20 the Allstream Centre had enough food, water and toiletries to last a week should they have been put into lockdown for an extended period. They had planned to turn it into a heavily fortified hotel for the staff if needed.
 
Northern Light said:
The wise investments here focus on preventing someone going down such a path in their life, not in 'hardening' every conceivable target.
Click to expand...

Yes and no - if there is one target that should be hardened, it's the area immediately around Union Station - to not do so through good defensive design for such an important and obvious target is just bad policy. Quite frankly the intersections immediately around the station is already a tad unsafe just from the high speed traffic alone.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Yes and no - if there is one target that should be hardened, it's the area immediately around Union Station - to not do so through good defensive design for such an important and obvious target is just bad policy. Quite frankly the intersections immediately around the station is already a tad unsafe just from the high speed traffic alone.

AoD
Click to expand...

With the greatest of respect, I can think of literally 20 locations off the top of my head where carnage on a mass scale would be easier to inflict. As I don't wish to encourage or facilitate criminal behavior, I will decline to list them, but I'm sure you could come up with a similar list in minutes.

Do you propose we secure them all?

Morever, this (vehicular assault) is hardly the only way to cause destruction or loss of life at scale. Again, particularly in the current circumstances, I would feel uncomfortable rhyming off a list, lest there be one reader who mistakes it for a how-to manual; yet let me be clear that barricades against vans and trucks would only change a violent/criminal/terrorists m.o. not the result.

I don't want metal detectors everywhere, or fences, I don't want glazing to be routinely bullet-proofed, nor a heavy police presence everywhere.

I don't imagine you do either, but I think its a very fine line between imagining there's a useful investment to be made in 'defensive infrastructure' and a loopy amount of $$ going towards
a veritable police state.

****

As to vehicle speeds, these are better tackled by the Great Streets program of investment. The reports for which are on the Planning and Growth agenda for next week.

http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/decisionBodyProfile.do?function=doPrepare&decisionBodyId=1039

Report calls for lane reduction on Front, west of Union Station, and for lane reduction on University as well.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
With the greatest of respect, I can think of literally 20 locations off the top of my head where carnage on a mass scale would be easier to inflict. As I don't wish to encourage or facilitate criminal behavior, I will decline to list them, but I'm sure you could come up with a similar list in minutes.

Do you propose we secure them all?

Morever, this (vehicular assault) is hardly the only way to cause destruction or loss of life at scale. Again, particularly in the current circumstances, I would feel uncomfortable rhyming off a list, lest there be one reader who mistakes it for a how-to manual; yet let me be clear that barricades against vans and trucks would only change a violent/criminal/terrorists m.o. not the result.

I don't want metal detectors everywhere, or fences, I don't want glazing to be routinely bullet-proofed, nor a heavy police presence everywhere.

I don't imagine you do either, but I think its a very fine line between imagining there's a useful investment to be made in 'defensive infrastructure' and a loopy amount of $$ going towards
a veritable police state.
Click to expand...

I can think of two to three that has to potential to reach the level of intensity one can near Union Station (with equivalent or less potential to paralyze the transit network). And by harden I don't mean metal detectors or razor-wirefences- but good, defensive street/sidewalk design, bollard placement, planters, speed control and whatnot combined with discreet surveillance. This should have been there from the start. You can't secure everything everywhere - but that's no reason not to sensibly harden obvious targets where the potential for damage and disruption is the greatest.

And thank you for the link to the PG/Great Streets - been looking forward to the reports!

AoD
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
I can think of two to three that has to potential to reach the level of intensity one can near Union Station (with equivalent or less potential to paralyze the transit network). And by harden I don't mean metal detectors or razor-wirefences- but good, defensive street/sidewalk design, bollard placement, planters, speed control and whatnot combined with discreet surveillance. This should have been there from the start. You can't secure everything everywhere - but that's no reason not to sensibly harden obvious targets where the potential for damage and disruption is the greatest.

AoD
Click to expand...
Yes, but (like most things) 'the devil is in the details' and one need to balance security, aesthetics, clutter, accessibility etc etc. Installing jersey barriers may be a short-term 'solution' but let's hope it is VERY short-term and that the next phase will look more critically at what needs to be done and how to do it WELL.
 
interesting question raised by the tragic events of Monday (and our response to them).....are the bollards in front of Union station just cosmetic? Because yesterday morning we felt the need to do this:

upload_2018-4-25_10-54-54.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-4-25_10-54-54.png
    upload_2018-4-25_10-54-54.png
    463.8 KB · Views: 572
TOareaFan said:
.....are the bollards in front of Union station just cosmetic? Because yesterday morning we felt the need to do this:

View attachment 141361
Click to expand...
Good question. If the bollards are too widely spaced, increase the number of bollards. One way or another, obviously, those hideous jersey barriers have got to go.
 
Longview said:
Good question. If the bollards are too widely spaced, increase the number of bollards. One way or another, obviously, those hideous jersey barriers have got to go.
Click to expand...

You can also have bollards spaced wider but in two staggered rows as well; and built-in planters (e.g. Dundas along Eaton Centre; York south of Union) can serve as limited vehicular barriers. Jersey barriers is like the lowest common denominator that should be avoided for long-term use.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
You can also have bollards spaced wider but in two staggered rows as well; and built-in planters (e.g. Dundas along Eaton Centre; York south of Union) can serve as limited vehicular barriers. Jersey barriers is like the lowest common denominator that should be avoided for long-term use.

AoD
Click to expand...
I don't think these are intended for long term use at all......just a quick reaction to Monday and protecting an area which has lots of people and may be a copycat target....what I was surprised at was that they are needed here at all.....I had thought the bollards were the long term solution to that issue in this area.
 
TOareaFan said:
I don't think these are intended for long term use at all......just a quick reaction to Monday and protecting an area which has lots of people and may be a copycat target....what I was surprised at was that they are needed here at all.....I had thought the bollards were the long term solution to that issue in this area.
Click to expand...

It's very likely that the original bollards are just cheap steel or aluminum shells, designed to discourage people from parking on the sidewalks. They might not have been designed to take the impact of a vehicle moving at full speed.

I hope these new barriers are temporary. They are very ugly.
 
TheTigerMaster said:
It's very likely that the original bollards are just cheap steel or aluminum shells, designed to discourage people from parking on the sidewalks. They might not have been designed to take the impact of a vehicle moving at full speed.

I hope these new barriers are temporary. They are very ugly.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Upgrade the bollards from cosmetic to structural ASAP. They can look identical. The big difference is the anchor, which are sometimes only small screws for cosmetic bollards.

We only want GO LEAFS GO JERSEYS at Union ... Not jersey barriers!

Nice planters, nice structural bollards, whatever. They'll do as good as structural barriers, and even stop a car even more effectively without looking ugly.
 
Last edited:
Both you and Globe have points. The pedestrian density at peak is superhigh. The sidewalks are super wide and unbollarded.

For Bay Street, west edge north of Front, when bollarding/plantering the curb, move the RBC Bank sidewalk-blocking sign to the very curb edge. Then it doubles as car-blocking bollard rather than blocking pedestrian flow. Surround all curbs with strong-but-pretty bollards but leave big gaps for good flow. Widen the crosswalk super-double-wide at the intersection to compensate for bollard constriction. Then full protection achieved without slowing ped traffic.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top