Updated July 15, 2010 at 11:00 am:
With luck, this will be the last update in this thread.
At the TTC meeting on July 14, there was a long presentation and discussion of the issues at Donlands and Greenwood Stations. The presentation materials are not yet online as the project pages are being updated by the TTC to reflect recent changes.
Greenwood Station
TTC staff recommended and the Commission approved that the community’s alternative proposed second exit route be used. This route passes through the back yards of numbers 11 and 15 Linsmore rather than through a site now occupied by any house.
The first version of this scheme included the expropriation of the house now under renovation at 9 Linsmore. A newspaper report of the affected landowner gives some idea of the background and suggests that his 7-year renovation project is a long-standing annoyance to at least some in the neighbourhood.
In any event, it appears that other owners on Linsmore may be willing to sell, and one way or another, that’s where the exit will go. The only remaining issue for the TTC is to determine the location of a sewer that may interfere with the proposed route to the exit, and the feasibility of diverting this sewer to suit the new construction.
Donlands Station
The situation at Donlands is more complex than at Greenwood. TTC staff did a much more thorough job at the Commission meeting, compared with the public meeting a few days earlier, of explaining the standards and calculations used in evaluating the alternatives. Their target for the path length from the point where an exit stair meets the platform to the surface is two minutes. This keeps the total exit time, including getting to the exit on the platform, within the overall code targets.
The original group of exit proposals by the community fails to meet the exit time criterion. However, a new alternative came to light at the Commission meeting. This would link into the east, rather than the west, end of Donlands Station. The exit passages would all lie under roads rather than houses, and the exit building would be on the north-east corner of Donlands & Strathmore where there is now a school parking lot and a vent shaft to the subway. TTC staff will report back on this option once they have a chance to review it.
The most contentious part of the discussion turned on whether the TTC would give approval to any plans on July 14, or would wait until their August 23 meeting to finalize their choice. The community, understandably, does not trust the TTC, and a deferral would have been a sign of good faith from the Commission. Such an action would not have slowed work because the Council meeting at which expropriation will be considered is not until August 25. A TTC recommendation could be taken to Council as supplementary information, a routine process.
On a split vote of 6-3, the Commission decided not to delay approval, and decided to give staff the authority to proceed with the three proposals now on the table: (a) Donlands & Strathmore, (b) the new TTC alternative with a building in the Dewhurst road allowance and (c) the original scheme using property now occupied by 1 & 3 Strathmore.
Staff assured the Commission that they will report back in August with the outcome of their review. More generally, there is a recognition at TTC that a public consultation process is needed for “small” projects that don’t trigger formal Environmental or Transit Project Assessments.
Updated July 12, 2010 at 10:30 pm:
At a public meeting this evening, the TTC presented a review of the options they had originally examined for Donlands and Greenwood Stations’ second exits, as well as comments about alternative schemes put forward by the community. This material is not yet available online, but I hope that it will appear on the TTC’s site in the next few days.
At Greenwood Station, the TTC has accepted the community’s proposed option that would take a tunnel south from the station under the back yards of 11 & 15 Linsmore Cres. emerging in a new exit building to replace the derelict house at 9 Linsmore.
At Donlands Station, the TTC proposes to shift their original planned exit building, which would have required the taking of the houses at 1 & 3 Strathmore Blvd., about 10m to the west. This would place the exit building partly within the roadway of Dewhurst Blvd. This option was not well-received by the community who have argued for various alternatives, notably a point slightly further south and on the west side of Dewhurst.
An issue affecting several of the alternative schemes is that the TTC wants the distance from the platform to the street not to be too long, but they have not defined exactly what this means or cited the standard that would produce an acceptable or unacceptable rating.
When this comes to the TTC for a decision on July 14, there will likely be an effort to split the vote so that each station option is dealt with separately. The Greenwood scheme would proceed, while Donlands would be held back for further consultation. Whether the split-vote tactic will be succeed depends on the lobbying efforts of each side in the debate.
Staff would prefer to get approval for both sites right away and continue consultations afterwards. That, however, effectively says “we are not going to change our minds”.
From the TTC, a request to expropriate property (and any other necessary changes such as narrowing Dewhurst) would go to the August 25 Council Meeting.
I will update this article following the Commission Meeting.
Updated July 7, 2010 at 1:30 pm:
Minutes of the first community meeting have been posted on the TTC’s website. Also available are pages for the Donlands and Greenwood sites, but these show only renderings of the proposed exits, not the details of the below-grade links to the subway or the property requirements.
Updated July 6, 2010 at 11:00 pm:
The TTC will hold a follow-up meeting at Danforth Collegiate & Technical School, 800 Greenwood Avenue, on Monday July 12 from 7:00 to 9:00 pm. The purpose, as stated in the notice is:
This meeting is to provide residents of the local community with more information, discuss construction impacts and to consider community proposals, and review alternative options that were previously considered.
Updated June 30, 2010 at 10:00 pm:
A community meeting on June 29th brought TTC staff, Councillors Giambrone and Ootes, and the communities around Greenwood and Donlands stations together for a meeting that ran just over three hours. To everyone’s credit, the discussion stayed focussed and didn’t degenerate into a shouting match between the audience and the presenters.
First off I must congratulate representatives from the two communities whose presentations of neighbourhood concerns and proposed alternative schemes were as good as if not better than those given by the TTC. From my experience with other public participation schemes that have been much more community focussed, I think that starting off with a polished presentation by both sides set the tone for an actual conversation, although at times it was quite animated.
A major concern, separate from the actual design, was the process by which people, especially those whose homes would be expropriated, learned of the TTC’s plans. Sending a general mailing with a drawing that just happens to show your house as a future station entrance is the height of insensitivity, but that’s just what the TTC did. To its credit, the TTC team, headed up by Chair Giambrone, committed to a complete review and improvement of the way they handle this type of situation. Less clear is the role of Councillor Ootes who expressed displeasure with events, but failed to explain why, even though he knew of the plans at least in March 2010, if not earlier, he did not inform the affected homeowners or organize community meetings. He will be gone from Council after October’s election.
The proposed alternatives will be reviewed by the TTC who will meet with community representatives to go over these and over any other schemes the TTC might have considered but discarded. The information will be brought back to another public meeting, likely on July 12, with the intention of still taking a recommendation to the July 14th Commission meeting.
Donlands Station
The proposed exit requires the demolition of a house on the southeast corner of Strathmore and Dewhurst. There are three alternatives proposed for consideration by the TTC:
- Relocate the exit building to the site of an old garage just south of the lane on the west side of Dewhurst opposite number 17.
- Build a tunnel under the lane dividing numbers 14 and 26 Dewhurst to a point where the exit would surface in an existing municipal parking lot behind 14 Dewhurst.
- Build a tunnel south under Dewhurst so that the new exit would surface on Danforth Avenue at Dewhurst.
There are variations on each of these, but broadly this is what community representative have suggested. Their presentation is not yet available online.
Greenwood Station
This station is a trickier situation because the station lies in the middle of a residential block and the new exit cannot be placed at an intersection.
The proposals here are:
- Shift the new exit to the west so that the north-south passage would lie in the back yards of 11 and 15 Linsmore, and the exit building would replace 9 Linsmore which has been unoccupied and under renovation for a considerable period of time.
- Tunnel the north-south passage to Danforth Avenue and emerge through a store front.
My own point of view is that the first of the proposals in each case has a chance of being accepted because each of them stays fairly close to the station and are likely to meet both the distance and cost criteria for the projects.
The second Donlands option (a tunnel under the lane separating 14 and 26 Dewhurst) will likely fail on distance criteria.
Exits on the Danforth itself have problems with distance from the station, but also in the case of Greenwood Station, a tunnel would be required under existing houses to reach the Danforth property. Such a tunnel is not likely possible given that it would be close to the surface (between the roof of the subway station and the street) and would pass under houses that are likely quite difficult to underpin for this sort of construction. Any house that would be tunnelled “under” would almost certainly have to be demolished.
Another consideration, particularly for an exit to Danforth itself, is that the building should include entrance turnstiles given the prominent location.
Further news on this subject awaits the next round of meetings with the TTC.
Original Post from June 23, 2010:
An obscure report at the recent TTC meeting authorized the release of confidential plans for Donlands and Greenwood Stations as a means of aiding public discussion in the affected neighbourhoods. The actual implications are not mentioned in the TTC report, and even the version released after a letter to the General Secretary’s office doesn’t give much detail of what is going on.
I was recently contacted by representatives of both neighbourhoods who found in their mail notices of the impending projects. A few found that there would be substantial easements for construction and new underground structures. A few more found that their houses would be expropriated.
They were not amused.
What is rather odd is that on the same agenda, there was a report about the second exit planned at Woodbine Station which does include detailed drawings including notes about the property taking that would be required. This is not as extensive as in the proposals at Donlands and Greenwood for which no drawings were shown.
As a public service (and because the TTC will only release the info to those who ask for it), here is the material sent to the communities around Donlands and Greenwood Stations.
In both cases, residents have come up with alternative schemes that may prove less intrusive to their neighbourhoods than those put forward by the TTC. I will not discuss these here as the plans may still evolve, and each community is responsible for its own affairs. They have two separate websites.
I hope that the TTC will actually listen with an open mind to alternative proposals for both stations. The organization has a bad history of “knowing what’s best for you” and dismissing critiques and suggestions out of hand. Considering that this is the first anyone in the two neighbourhoods heard of the proposal, the TTC owes people a fair and honest hearing.
Steve Munro 
I don’t understand the logic in proceeding with a second exit at Greenwood, which has a tiny ridership, apparently before Coxwell which has two busy routes into it.
Steve: I too am baffled by the relative priority of stations in the TTC’s plans.
LikeLike
Also – given that Ootes is a lame duck councillor I wonder if that had any influence on rushing this through – what has Jane Pitfield to say about this? Given her parachuting in from Don Valley one would hope she’s at least having the decency to bone up on this matter if she desires to sneak into Ootes’ seat.
For me, these second exits should be opportunities to create subway exits through redeveloped properties onto Danforth promoting a trend towards somewhat more dense (3-4 storey rather than 1-2 at present) at streetedge. Instead TTC are just punching a hole in the residential neighbourhoods with little redeeming value apart from safety code compliance alone.
Steve: The problem the TTC has is that the subway is under Strathmore, not under Danforth, and just to get to Danforth, they have to pass through existing residential properties a block further north.
LikeLike
I understand why the neighbourhoods are frustrated.
To go off on a tangent for a moment, I would like to see the TTC provide entrances at both ends of the planned Eglinton LRT stations. I realize that main and secondary entrances are being provided but, in most cases, all of the entrances are centered on the major intersection. It doesn’t seem very customer service friendly to require patrons to cross over the whole platform at street level in order to reach an entrance. Plus, it might even reduce the need to acquire properties for emergency exit buildings, which is sure to cause a fight in some areas.
As for Donlands and Greenwood stations, the TTC clearly should have consulted with their neighbours from the outset. Second entrances should be a net benefit to the community, not a net loss.
LikeLike
I’m in favour of the second exits, in general, in that they have a legitimate safety rationale, but also could, if done properly, really improve convenient access to the system.
Note, I said if done properly.
I have to say, one thing I was immensely impressed by in Paris, was the walkways along the subway that follows Voltaire….were virtually un-ending. By that I mean, you could almost (but not always) walk from one station to the next completely underground.
The station entrances often flowed from beyond the outer edge of a platform, at both ends, and in the middle, such that there was a subway entrance, to the same station, on virtually every block.
When I look at the station exit scheme proposed, I fail to see it taking full advantage of similar opportunity.
While I fully support trying to shift entrances to Danforth, I would acknowledge the difficulty in many cases. But if that was not attainable other gains were/are.
In the case of Greenwood, the obvious location of a second exit is GREENWOOD Avenue. Now I realize the station box doesn’t extend that far…….so???? Why not extend a walking corridor parallel to the tunnel for 30M or 50M then have the stairs up to Greenwood? (this is what Paris would do) Why do you have to assume that the second exit must be exactly where a standard-grade set of stairs directly out of the station box would come up?
I have sympathy for the established residents who may face expropriation, but we need to say, no matter that the TTC choose that looms as a real and likely out come, that someone will lose their property.
The key to me, other than good manners in executing the above, is to pick a location that produces a material public benefit, and thusly justifies the disruption and costs associated with the construction.
The proposal, in the case of Greenwood, in particular, to stick the exit in a seemingly random location, that has no obvious advantage in drawing in new customers or providing convenience to existing ones…..is very challenging to justify.
****
The Woodbine proposal seems a tad more logical…..but I must admit, I would have picked Cedarvale & Danforth as the exit, not the opposite side of Woodbine….but sure……..
LikeLike
Thank you for sharing our plight here on your informative site Mr. Munro.
We will keep everyone informed as we proceed with our endeavor to assure our views as a community here at Donlands and Strathmore are heard.
LikeLike
Steve,
Thank you so much for the insightful information you have been providing to our two community groups.
Fire safety is a very serious concern, but I too agree with Mike’s comments about low ridership and am startled that a second exit for everyday use at Donlands (not just emergency) would ever be an essential expediture, especially given some of the shortcomings in the state of the transit system across Toronto.
We are grasping to understand the full impact of the TTC’s plans. This our neighbourhood, our homes and our families that will be subject to the decisions made by the TTC/city council over the coming months. As parents, taxpayers, and community members we are entitled to more information – let’s hope it’s forthcoming!
Jody
LikeLike
Why hasn’t Councillor Paula Fletcher contacted? Will her office send someone? The boundary is on Danforth Avenue, 63 metres south.
The .pdf says someone from Councillor Ootes will be there. Why isn’t Ootes coming?
This will affect people across the street from Danforth Avenue (South side) as well, THEY should of given notice as well and not just Ootes area.
I hope Jane Pitfield comes.
LikeLike
Re the Greenwood second exit – the optics of expropriating a home belonging to a couple who are 80+, who have lived in the house for more than 50 years and put up with the construction of the subway under Strathmore originally is certainly not good. In terms of Greenwood vs. Coxwell, the number of buses feeding the station isn’t relevant, as people coming off buses would have little use for a second exit, no matter how busy the bus routes that feed the station. Buses aren’t going to be re-routed, the only beneficiaries of the second exit at Greenwood is a small number of walking distance riders based on the location which seems only a few steps away to the east of the existing entrance. It seems that the engineers picked a spot on the platform and then superimposed the exit on the street above since it “must be built to conform to code” without there being any logic as to its location right in the middle of a residential block, which seems completely inappropriate when you look at it from the street level point of view. At least the Woodbine second exit is on Woodbine and on a corner and the Donlands second exit is at a street corner. And the engineers have apparently deemed the houses to be unworthy of a Spadina Rd. treatment where the exit is camouflaged in the existing structures. One would think that stations where the second exits come up into parking areas such as Chester, Jane or Runnymede would be easier to do first since there wouldn’t be the same expropriation and demolition needs, but I guess it’s easier to expropriate the elderly than to take revenue-generating parking spots away from the Parking Authority.
Steve: My comment about connecting buses relates to the likely number of people using the platform who would need emergency evacuation. That said, if a train is being emptied, the location has little to do with connecting routes.
LikeLike
Steve, the reason I often disagree with you on these issues can be answered with the e-mail address of this group which spells out “say no ttc second exit”
The TTC requires these second exits by law. If they have a reasonable proposal to relocate it to a nearby un-used location, that is fine, but making the TTC jump though hoops for fun is not on.
You can’t just have the exits in people’s basements. However this is solved, it will not be easy, but there needs to be a solution. If these residents accept that, then I will fully back any kind of ‘deal’ they can work out. If the answer is NIMBY (or, in this case, Not Though My House) then I must oppose.
Steve: Both of the residents groups have worked out alternative schemes that reduce the effect on homes in the neighbourhood. They are not opposing the construction itself.
LikeLike
Why does the TTC keep throwing away good money after bad then declares bankruptcy? First the renovation of Victoria Park Stn which is only 40 years old, now adding in secondary exits to stops on the Danforth line that are scarcely 600 m apart to the detriment of small homeowners.
Steve: Victoria Park needed major work because the slab of the roadway under the old bus bays was in bad shape and would have to be replaced. The new station layout eliminates the accessibility problem of the bus bay configuration and opens up the building. The secondary exits are a fire code requirement, but it is unclear whether, strictly speaking, they have to be built at this time.
LikeLike
As a resident near the Donlands station, I feel that the new location doesn’t seem unreasonable. Unless someone can deny that a second exit is needed, I think it is just a question of making sure the construction is managed reasonably well. (Although the neighbourhood website does make a good, and practical, suggestion of moving it to the other side of Dewhurst where there is only a run-down garage at the moment.)
The Greenwood location is ridiculous, however. I understand that it would be quite difficult to tunnel through to Danforth there, but that would be so much more useful than a new exit in the middle of a long block of houses.
The fact that the owners who are to be expropriated found out about this through the same announcement flyer that was delivered throughout the neighbourhood is utterly shameful. If the TTC is that callous, it should be obvious we cannot trust them to handle any aspect of this project with any respect for the community.
LikeLike
I can’t believe I’m reading this. I myself felt blindsided about this intent of second exits at two small stations.
Now I was educated at Danforth Tech which is at the corner of Greenwood and Strathmore north of Danforth Avenue (which is in between both subway stations) back in the early 80’s. Each station has all kinds of schools nearby:
Served by Greenwood Station:
Greenwood S.S. on Mountjoy Avenue (south of Greenwood Stn)
St Patrick Catholic S.S. on Felstead Avenue (across from the Greenwood Yards)
École élémentaire La Mosaïque on Queensdale Avenue (north Greenwood Stn.)
Served by Donlands Station:
Eastern Commerce Collegiate on Phin Avenue (south of Donlands Stn.)
Earl Grey and Jones Public Schools at the corner of Jones and Strathcona
Avenue (south of Donlands Stn.)
Wilkinson Public School (across from Donlands Stn.)
These stations deal with students for couple hours a day (8 to 9 am and 3 to 4 pm), any other times these stations not as congested with students. Besides these schools, there are many types of businesses along the Danforth with some of them having residents living on the upper levels. There are also some apartment buildings nearby. With the Greenwood, Jones, Leaside buses with the Pape buses (on a temporary reroute to Donlands) shuttling passengers to and from these stations, I can’t see why the city would have the nerve to destroy homes for a second exit/entrance.
LikeLike
On a technical note, Steve, full articles no longer seem to be showing up in the RSS feed, just a truncated teaser. May I humbly request the return of the full versions?
Steve: Done. I had changed the option to keep the size of the transmitted update within reason. There is no option to restrict this only to comments without affecting articles.
LikeLike
The damning thing to me is that residents seem to be able to come with a very sensible alternative in a short space of time that appears to have never occured to the professionals within the TTC.
Residential lots are by far the worst land to expropriate – it is much better to use city-owned or vacant lots.
LikeLike
Wow. A few years ago, I came very close to buying a house on Strathmore, about 50m east of Coxwell station, on the south side. Given what’s going on over at Greenwood, I guess the same can be expected for Coxwell in the future. I sure am glad I didn’t buy that house.
Looking at the plans for the three stations, Woodbine seems to be the most logical, and best planned one. It minimizes disruption to the surrounding residential community, and is located exactly where it’s needed – on the west side of Woodbine. This will save many people from having to j-walk across Woodbine, or go down to Danforth and cross at the lights, in order to access the station.
The plans for Greenwood, on the other hand, are the exact opposite. They clearly don’t take into consideration the existing residential neighbourhood, nor does it do anything to improve access like Woodbine does. Yes, these second exists are now legal requirements, but the TTC should not be permitted to ram through ill-conceived plans just because they are the easiest to implement from an engineering perspective. Everything needs to be considered, from engineering, to improved access, to neighbourhood impact and finally, individual properties and their owners. Granted, someone’s property will have to be expropriated for these second exits, but there must be a better way over at Greenwood. The Danforth on that block has a few run-down or empty storefronts, yet they’re going to demolish two well-kept homes on a very well established street? I don’t care about the engineering optics; it’s simply not right.
LikeLike
How about mothballing either Donlands or Greenwood Station? That would save millions and save families their homes.
On the Danforth portion of the line, only Chester Station services fewer people.
Closing one of the stations would allow TTC labour to be more effectively applied elsewhere. Commutes would be faster for passengers skipping a stop. And train access to the Greenwood Yards could be more flexible, avoiding delays.
If closing Greenwood, Donlands Station can handle the 31+ buses, or they can go to Coxwell to provide accessible service on that stretch of Danforth.
If closing Donlands, Pape Station could handle the 56+ and 83 buses. As Pape is pretty congested as is, diverting to Greenwood would provide accessible service on that stretch of Danforth.
LikeLike
It’s ironic that the Italian couple mentioned in one of those websites has lived in that house since before the subway was built, so they must have seen the original construction. Over there, the subway runs directly under Strathmore, so there’s no way to put the exits anywhere else, unless you want them in the middle of the road. By the way, my aunt’s house was expropriated in 1962 — here’s your money, now get out. It was either that, or put BD directly under Bloor, which would have made off street surface transit interchanges with the subway difficult.
Further west when it comes time to do Christie, Dufferin, Dundas W., Runnymede and Jane, they should be OK, but I’d like to see them add a 2nd exit to Old Mill.
PS — how does anyone live there? I can feel the rumbling of the subway when I’m at Palmerston library as it runs directly underneath. All those houses along Strathmore must feel it constantly.
Steve: The exits have to go somewhere, but the trick is finding a way to fit them in with the least side-effects.
LikeLike
Steve, another question I have is why can’t the TTC build downtown-style exits where the stairs from the station lead directly to the sidewalk? Perhaps that way, they wouldn’t need to expropriate any property and instead, would only require property easements to accomodate the entrance structure on the sidewalk? A good example of this would be the secondary, north exits at Lawrence station, where the stairs lead directly to the sidewalk on a sidestreet just north of Lawrence Ave. It doesn’t look like any property was impacted when those exits were built.
I still don’t think it’s appropriate for a mid-block secondary entrance on Strathmore, but at least this way the impact would be diminished. If they could do this up at Yonge and Lawrence, why not at Danforth & Greenwood?
Steve: I believe that they want the fare control area to be at street level. This also reduces the footprint of the underground part of the structure.
LikeLike
Why not do an exit like a University-line station then? … ie. just a stairway on the sidewalk — wouldn’t this work since the tunnel is directly under Strathmore, just as it is directly under University?
Steve: The University stations with stairways have multiple stairways to the surface, typically one to each corner of the intersection.
LikeLike
Mimmo, regarding your question about the rumbling, quite simply you get used to it. I lived at Yonge & Davisville for four years in the late 90’s, in an apartment directly above Davisville station. Not only did I get used to the sound of trains rumbling by, I even got used to the sound of trains moving through the old, rusty tracks in the yard overnight. I guess you just learn to tune those sounds out. I do have to admit though, that many times when I had visitors, they were suprised at just how much you could hear the trains. But it didn’t bother me at all.
LikeLike
If it is simply a fire-code exit as required by law (in the case of Greenwood) then why couldn’t there simply be some exit turnstiles and a set of stairs? That is not a lot of underground footprint, and it is highly unlikely that an entrance in the middle of a side street would get more use than by those living immediately around it.
Steve: If you read the report on Woodbine Station, you will see that there are requirements for the size of passageways, and a single stairway isn’t going to provide enough room. Don’t forget that at locations with the fare control at the mezzanine level, there is more than one stairway to the surface.
LikeLike
How about that house on Spadina? Could you not only use part of the house for the exit?
Steve: Nobody lives in the house on Spadina.
The proposed exit on Strathmore take both halves of a semi-detached house, and builds very close to the fronts of four other.
LikeLike
Steve, I did some research and have several comments:
1) Safety.
A good backgrounder is here.
Safety seems to be the primary driver for the TTC staff. “TTC management regards as paramount its responsibility for the safety of its customers and employees.” There does not seem to be any building or fire code that mandates this project. Also interesting is that the backgrounder only refers to “TTC Management” and not as a vote made by the Commissioners.
Steve: The Ontario Building Code, as implemented by Ontario Regulation 350/06 at section 3.13.4.3 and following sections deals with exits from underground rapid transit stations. It explicitly states:
There are other sections about distances to exits. Originally, the TTC’s attitude to this requirement was that pre-existing stations were grandfathered and the second exit was only needed if some other construction at a station materially change it, especially the projected passenger volume, thereby triggering a need to bring the station up to current code. After a few major fires in stations, TTC decided to be pro-active and implement this and other requirements on an ongoing basis. Therefore, strictly speaking, they do not have a legal obligation to “do it now”, but the Commission has endorsed this as an ongoing goal by funding the work through its capital budgets.
While I could not find the referenced 2002 fire report, using the ttc rider guide, they are ensuring that all subway platforms, irregardless of use, have two exits with the curious exception of Rosedale south bound.
Steve: Note that the TTC rider efficiency guide is not a TTC publication.
Also, Rosedale is an open air station and walking off of the platform onto the track area counts as an “alternative” exit in case of fire.
Surely there is a better way to tell people that their property is being expropriated than dropping a letter in the mail. Who and where is their councillor?
Steve: Case Ootes, who is retiring from Council this year. Note that according to the TTC report, Ootes has known about this proposal since March 2010.
The second exit off Greenwood is especially problematic as standard TTC architecture would really look out of place. It reminds me of the north east exit at Spadina station (Y-U-S line) where the neighbourhood had to fight the TTC and ended up with an exterior that fit that line of houses instead of the typical TTC shoebox.
Steve: Don’t forget that many of the stations on the Spadina line had special architectural treatment. The second exit program budget does not likely have funding for this sort of thing. In any event, there may be an alternative that only removes one house that is long under renovation and an eyesore, rather than taking a pair of semis that are occupied.
LikeLike
Wow. This is just wrong. And I thought that the “process” for the Ashbridges Bay facility was bad (which it was). But this really stinks to high heaven of abuse of process on so many levels.
Once again, thanks are owed to Mr. Munro for trying to do the right thing – in spite of the TTC.
Perhaps the TTC is trying to make the entire city hate them – one neighbourhood at a time? If their objective is to undermine themselves so badly that the city revolts en masse in support of privatization – then they’re doing a wonderful job.
I certainly hope that someone is taking this to the media. And I would suggest that we have a larger problem here, that could use a larger response than individual neighbourhood community groups. If the TTC’s approach to Ashbridges Bay and these two stations is a repeating pattern, I would suggest that the community groups band together, together with the next few “projects” the TTC is hiding from the public, and fight en masse for planning, and a planning process, that actually helps the communities it “serves”.
To the residents of both of these neighbourhoods, particularly the residents whose houses are to be expropriated, I extend my sympathies to you, and you have my support to help fight this.
LikeLike
When are they doing Christie? The 1976 fire at that station eventually blocked its only exit (but luckily the train was evacuated before the stairs became impassable). During the Greenwood wye fire of ’97, some passengers ran through the tunnels from Donlands to Pape to escape.
I’ve always wondered why almost every other station on Bloor has automatic entrances, but not on Danforth. Either they ran out of money, or Wilson didn’t care too much for the Danforth. Think about it … Bellair/Cumberland, Bedford, Markham (which was originally staffed during the afternoons in the 60s — the crowd from Honest Ed’s maybe?), Delaware, Emerson, Indian Grove, Parkview Gdns, Grenview Blvd, but nothing on the Danforth.
Steve: On Bloor, they more or less carved a new path across the city north of Bloor with the cut and cover construction, and this made the inclusion of second exits easier, although there were notable exceptions like Dundas West (which would have been easy when it was built) and Dufferin (which the TTC thought wasn’t going to be important enough to warrant a bus loop). On Danforth, they ran under an existing street making second entrances a bit trickier. All the same, it is odd given that it was an era when expropriation was done with little communuity opposition in the name of “progress”.
LikeLike
For M Briganti: I lived in the house right next to Greenwood station for a couple of years. The buses turned right under our dining room window. After a while we found that we noticed about one bus a day and the occasional subway rumble.
Unless there has been major development there in the last 35 years, a second manned entrance is unjustifiable.
LikeLike
My sympathies to the people affected.
But the fact is that tunnels don’t build themselves. Are these people willing to pay a share for the extra construction required to build the exit in place of the garage ‘just around the corner’, or drill through to Danforth without upsetting the houses above? To convince Angry Suburban Voters from Etobicoke to pay their share, too? To fight back when the Sun posts another flame piece about TTC wastes and artsy projects that pour taxpayer money down the drain?
Steve: The issue here is that on many other TTC projects, there has been proper consultation about the effects of the project and examination of alternatives. The proposed alternatives do not increase the underground distance much or at all (depending on which one we are talking about, may reduce expropriation costs, and in no cases involve tunnelling to the Danforth.
LikeLike
I will definitely attend the meeting and will be meeting with residents who have contacted me in advance.
LikeLike
One question is why is the meeting at the same time as the one for Woodbine station, but in a different location. Divide and conquer?
Steve: It is entirely possible that there are two project teams, both trying to finish their work for the July 14 Commission Meeting, and both trying to squeeze the public meeting in before the holidays.
LikeLike
Am I missing something? I can’t find alternate plans on either of those community websites.
Steve: I have not been posting information on the alternatives because each of the neighbourhoods is discussing them internally. The ones I know of, in general are:
At Greenwood: Shift the new exit further west so that the north-south link can pass through the back yards of houses fronting on Linsmore, and then turn west through a house that has been undergoing renovation for a long time and is unoccupied.
At Donlands: Move the exit to the west side of Dewhurst where there is an aging garage.
In both cases, the communities are upset with the process and the lack of consultation before the notices of pending expropriation arrived. Consider the amount of detailed work that went into station plans for the Eglinton LRT tunnel, a project that is still some years away. There appears to be a rush to push this project through for approval before Council recesses for the election.
LikeLike
As I said before in the comments section at one of the protest sites:
Steve: To be fair to the subway advocates, the underground stations on the Eglinton LRT will have two exits, although of course these are planned in as part of the project, not a retrofit. The same applies to all new subway lines. The last segment built with single-exit stations was the original Spadina line, and on it, only Dupont has a single pathway through a common mezzanine to the surface.
LikeLike
Meanwhile, Dundas Station, which has to be one of the busiest, has all its entrances on its south end. Why it didn’t have an entrance at its north end right from day one, where it would meet with the main gateway to the Ryerson campus at Gould Street, is beyond me. It could easily connect underground directly to Jorgensen Hall and/or the bookstore as well. UQAM in Montreal has direct connection.
Oh and, could these new entrances be a way of making the stations in question more accessible to the disabled, as has been court-mandated?
Steve: When Dundas Station was built, Ryerson was a much smaller school than it is today and Jorgensen Hall, among many other buildings, did not exist. There are plans to build a new entrance at Gould Street as part of the Ryerson development, but I have not seen any details yet. Dundas is already accessible via developments to which it connects and the elevator in Dundas Square, although none of these existed when the station opened. Neither did the accessibility legislation.
Oddly enough, Woodbine’s project does involve making the station accessible, but at Donlands and Greenwood, it’s strictly a second exit project for fire safety / building code reasons.
LikeLike
Hi Steve,
I have a number of questions I’m hoping you, or your readers, can answer, so I’ll just throw them out here (in no particular order – sorry).
Steve: My answers come at the end of your list of questions as some are interrelated.
My husband feels that, looking at these community consultation processes from a governance perspective, the approach we’re witnessing might indicate a rogue individual or department that has become drunk on power.
I’m speaking of the process used for these two projects, as well as the Ashbridges Bay facility (both the site and access route selection).
1. Is there indeed one specific person or department who is pushing these radical types of changes on communities at this time? (Fast-tracked “proposed” changes, without adequate design, planning and community consultation which are in truth “done deals” as the Mirror article asserts.)
2. Is this something that has been going on for some time, or is this something new – perhaps as Steve said an attempt to get things done before the election?
3. Would you happen to know what, if any, rules the TTC/City has to follow in these types of cases, and how (or if) they are audited/evaluated? And by whom?
4. Is there any body to whom one can appeal these decisions, or does the TTC/City have unfettered power here with no governance, checks or balances?
5. Would these project processes and/or community impacts fall under the jurisdiction of either the City or Provincial Ombudsman?
6. Are you aware of any future TTC projects which might also employ this heavy-handed approach? If not, is there any way to find out?
7. Under what rules is the TTC allowed to make one proposal (Woodbine) public, but keep two others confidential for months – even from the local councillor?
8. The Woodbine project at least publicizes a process (whether it is adequate, or they intend to follow it is another matter, but at least it’s there). Why such a difference between the three “second-exit” projects?
9. What are the criteria that the TTC &/or City has to use when considering, designing, planning, and evaluating these type of projects? Are they encoded in legislation &/or by-laws anywhere, or is this another case of “self-governance”?
Thanks in advance for any input you, or anyone here, can provide.
Steve: I don’t think anyone has become “drunk on power”. This is simply one of those “it’s always been like that” situations for some parts of the bureaucracy, especially since amalgamation when the heavy-handed Metro model seemed to win out over the more consultative City model. One criticism I have of the Miller team is that they are too easy on the City’s management (including its agencies), and the politicians wind up taking the blame for screwups at the staff level. Having said that, I will be fair to the staff by observing that political interference in projects (e.g. St. Clair) is not unknown.
The Ashbridge project has two components. The site selection was done over a year ago and went all the way through the regular process of TTC and Council approval. At the time, it was the “least bad” of the available sites. Others encountered opposition from the movie industry (there are many studios near some potential sites), and some properties were a long way from the nearest connecting line, down in the south end of the Port Lands. The ideal site would have been the Lever Bros. property near the mouth of the Don, but only half of the property was available at the time of the site search, and the City doesn’t like to put working sites out of business. (The irony of this concern in light of residential expropriations is quite obvious, I’m sure.) The owner of the whole site is not a willing vendor. In any event, Ashbridge was approved as the carhouse site a long time ago.
Next came the question of the route. The original version of the Leslie route was (a) far more intrusive than necessary and (b) should never have been shown to the community as it was not, as I understand things, the intended plan. There is a further problem with Leslie in that it appears on the long-term city plans as a potential link into the Port Lands for a Kingston Road LRT. That line is no longer under active consideration, but the Official Plan hasn’t been updated to reflect this. Claims by the TTC that Leslie was a future major transit route came as a surprise to everyone except policy wonks like me who follow these things. It is part of a larger collection of proposed routes in the eastern waterfront that was approved quite a while ago. I doubt anyone from Leslieville was even aware of this process or its implications.
There is no “perfect” route to Ashbridge carhouse, and the real question about alternatives is how one chooses to weigh the benefits and shortcomings of each scheme. A late addition to the route options triggered a response from Canada Post that I can only characterize as misinformed considering that it surfaced at the last moment even though the TTC had already made proposals to run past their property earlier in the process. There is no conclusive traffic data supporting their claims, and the Canada Post rep didn’t even know which end of his building the trailer yard was on. Canada Post is a convenient big stick in this process.
I have to say that the local Councillors did not do as good a job as might have been wished under the circumstances, and the fact that Leslie lies on a ward boundary made the politics of the situation much more complex. Beyond this I will remain discreetly silent. I put a lot of work into presenting the implications of an alternative access, including work the TTC could have, but didn’t do on their own. There is, however, a limit to how much one person can achieve especially when one is dealing a project that is already late and critical for the future LRV delivery.
The coming election would certainly be a factor in the Ashbridge project which is time-critical, but less so for Donlands, Greenwood and Woodbine. This is, I suspect, more a matter of convenience to get the approvals out of the way. A strong case can be made for delaying until there is a proper evaluation of alternatives.
As for rules of procedure, this depends on the nature and size of the project. Larger projects are subject to a Transit Project Assessment which typically has a lot of preliminary work before it officially begins. For example, the TPA commencement for Ashbridge has only just been announced, now that the approvals are in place for the chosen route and site. The grounds for appeal of a TPA, once it is sent to the Minister, are quite limited.
It is not clear from the guide linked above whether a new station exit would trigger the need for a TPA. Schedule 1 of Ontario Regulation 231/08 sets out the type of project to which a TPA applies, and includes:
I am not sure the drafters of this regulation contemplated a situation where an existing station would undergo significant changes beyond what is listed in the regulation.
Property acquisitions are done by the City on behalf of the TTC which does not have expropriation powers in its own right. Typically the City acquires and holds land on the TTC’s behalf. There are procedures to be followed by the Expropriation Act, but in general the options for appeal are limited to questions of fair value especially if the purchase is clearly for a project that is within the City’s and TTC’s scope. The City cannot, for example, assemble land on spec or use its powers to compel purchase of land that would then be resold to a private developer.
TTC projects are subject to review by the City, but there is some debate about the degree to which the City can exercise fine-grained control over TTC activities. Once the City has broadly approved a project’s existence by approving its budget, it is up to the TTC how that project is executed. In this case, a general project to add second entrances would already be on the books, and the City would get line item review only when actual spending was to occur. It is quite rare that Council blocks a project, although some recent history may make Council more attentive to what the TTC puts before it.
As for future projects, I can think of a few, and finding out about them often depends on a careful reading of the capital budget books (all 1,600 pages of them) to see the detail in upcoming projects. Even then, the effects may not be evident from a general project description such as in your case.
The provincial rules governing business discussed in camera allow property and security transactions to be kept confidential so that negotiations are not affected by public knowledge of the City’s interest or bargaining position, and security issues are self-evidently private. That said, there is an inconsistency in application in this case as I have discussed with Woodbine (public, possibly because it includes accessibility features) whereas Donlands/Greenwood are only for fire safety, and therefore fall under “security”. Indeed, the Commission report about releasing “confidential information” dealt with these two stations specifically because they had been treated as a “security” project, and yet this revealed information that was publicly available for Woodbine in its report. I have already mentioned the Eglinton LRT tunnel where the locations of all stations and exits is a matter of public record.
The projects fall under City jurisdiction insofar as Council must approve funding and must authorize expropriations. Queen’s Park is not involved in any way, although a ruling on whether this type of work requires a TPA would have to come from that level of government. A challenge to the expropriation is a judicial matter, not one for the Ombudsman.
You mention that the TTC kept information about your stations from your Councillor even while the Woodbine process was already public. The TTC report clearly states that the local Councillor (Ootes) was advised about these projects in March 2010. What he chose to do with the information is between you and him, although if he failed to alert you at the time, this obviously creates problems for the TTC (the surprise announcement) and for him, if only he were running again. We will not have the pleasure of seeing “Landslide Ootes” on the ballot this time around (he’s my Councillor too).
LikeLike
One question on all this, do these second exits even need fare control. If you’re adding an exit simply to meet fire regulations, then you put a door with a fire alarm crash bar on it at the end of the platform, this leads to a tunnel that goes straight to the nearest street, then you put a one way door and a set of stairs to street level.
At the sidewalk you build a grate, when it’s closed it’s flush with the sidewalk and is strong enough that you can drive over it. A set of hydraulic lifts are built into each side, and if you push it from below it lifts up forming a railing around the stairs, which can be used as an exit. When closed it looks like any one of the other million or so grates like this in the city.
This is adding an emergency exit in case the station platform needs to be evacuated, other then TTC staff testing it, it will probably never be used, so why make this a $100 million per station project and disrupt whole communities.
Steve: Your proposed exit via a grate would not meet fire code because in an emergency there is no guarantee that the opening mechanism would work (think winter, snow, ice) or that a stream of frightened passengers would know how to operate it. Read the building code to see what’s allowed and what is not.
That said, the TTC did build some exit-only accesses, but this met with complaints from neighbours that they could have entered the station more easily if they could get in through the new exit. All second exits are now built as entrances.
As for the price, where did you get $100-million?
LikeLike
Wogster: If they’re going to spend the money to build the entrances, why not give the station’s users the functionality of a normal entrance/exit?
Also, hopefully the TTC will use attractive finishes in designing these entrances. The subway system is so important to the city and a key public space. Hence, the stations should be attractive. Montreal has the right idea.
LikeLike
The Donlands second exit seems to be located in a smart spot. The Greenwood second exit should be designed to run under 261 Strathmore, under the laneway, and surface as an exit replacing classy nails.
LikeLike
Okay, so they need to be entrance and exit, that’s fine, you don’t need to take out 2 homes and half the property of 3 others. Come out of the platform box, take out one house and build an automated entrance and exit.
One thing we know about the TTC, they will always find the most expensive and most disruptive way to accomplish a project, it will be designed to look really nice while the big shooters are there for the ribbon cutting, it will look like it hasn’t been cleaned in 40 years a week and a half later.
LikeLike
Neville, your comment that “Maybe now you people will wake up and realize that Transit City isn’t such a bad idea after all, and that subways aren’t necessarily the wave of the future, as Rob Ford and Rocco Rossi say” is insulting and ridiculous.
What makes you think people living on Strathmore are against Transit City? What makes you think Strathmore residents are Rob Ford fanatics who deserve punishment for their faulty thinking?
By the way, your other comments on the community websites claim that these second exits should be supported because they will add access for disabilities. Where did you get this idea? It is false. Elevators are coming at the main entrances and have nothing to do with the second exits.
Maybe you should follow the same advice I found you posting on another transit blog: “The above comment is a fine example of the kind of person that is allowed to post comments about the TTC and city matters online: ignorant, illiterate, and mostly ill-informed. Why not learn how to do spell-check, buddy? Or is just posting bullshit about the TTC and city matters your only purpose in life?” Well, at least you can spell.
LikeLike
As a resident of Strathmore Blvd, I just wanted to say Thank you Steve for shining a spot light on our situation. I’m living across the street from the proposed Donlands site and just wanted to point out that I am not opposed to a second exit. I understand the need for fire safety. I just don’t see the need to displace resident from their homes, especially when there is a dilapidated garage, and a Green P parking lot within very close distance of the houses in question. The second exit at Chester station will be placed in a Green P lot. If it can be done there, why not at Donlands?
LikeLike
How about they (the T.T.C.) use a store on the Danforth than someone’s property?
Steve: The subway is a block north of Danforth, and in order to get to any property on Danforth, they would have to go through a residential property on Strathmore.
LikeLike