Good to know. The old ramp from Telus to the GO concourse was half closed so I thought they were doing half of the stairs at a time so no closure would be required, but I guess they closed half of the ramp for some other purpose or that plan didn't work out.
Yes, the right side was demolished a couple of years ago and, for a few weeks, one could peer down to the Bay Concourse level - looked like stairs but I can't remember. It would be good if "they' posted updates somewhere but one has the feeling there is no real plan or schedule - look at the unfinished ceiling at the Front Street side!
 
Good to know. The old ramp from Telus to the GO concourse was half closed so I thought they were doing half of the stairs at a time so no closure would be required, but I guess they closed half of the ramp for some other purpose or that plan didn't work out.
Yeah I’m pretty sure that was the original plan. I stuck my phone behind the hoarding a few months ago and the floor is still completely knocked out.
They have the work required for The Market entrance from Union Plaza all excavated, so I assume they just don’t want to build over that.
The original access point to the place they were going to relocate the stairs is closed anyway, it was one of the platform 26-27 concourse rooms.

 
As we know, the City are busily (??) working on a made in Toronto solution to protect Union Station and pedestrians from terrorists or lunatics in speeding vehicles. We are now told that the Jersey Barriers may be replaced with bollards in 2024. Of course, our problems are NOT Toronto-specific and there is a lot of useful research, including this from the US FEMA: https://www.fema.gov/pdf/plan/prevent/rms/426/fema426_ch2.pdf

Lots of interesting ideas and cautions but, of course, we will need to reinvent the wheel here!
 
I read documents like that and think about how it has always bothered me that our method of dealing with threats is a knee jerk response with no thought towards how one risk compares to another, how sustainable the solution is when applied more broadly, etc. This is not unique to public property, this is a way of working for security everywhere like IT, like response to health threats, etc. That document covers line-of-sight items to protect against shooter threats. We really need more risk auditors and people focused on a sustainability focused view to deal with these problems. Knee jerk reactions happen far too often and people take their focus off of much more important considerations. Obviously the more something happens, the greater the risk is of happening based on the data... but 1 data point is enough for knee jerk reactions, but it isn't enough to make that knee jerk reaction a sensible precaution or enough to say one couldn't have predicted that there was some measure of risk before it happened. The event that caused the barriers to go up didn't happen at Union Station... it happened on Yonge Street and there are many streets across Toronto with people walking on sidewalks with no jersey barriers... many streets where sidewalks are flush with the road.

Imagine what a purely data and modeling approach might say to silly ideas like "the best way to deal with a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"? Never mind that capitol hill has metal detectors to keep out good guys with guns. The place that says guns are a right doesn't allow good guys to carry guns. How does it make any sense? Make the airport safer and let more good guys with guns enter the airport? I would love someone to take metal detectors and public facilities and institutions that use them to the supreme court for violating their 2nd amendment right so we can hear an argument on how less guns makes those places safer but somehow that less guns everywhere else reduces safety.

I got a little off topic but the same logical thinking needs to apply everywhere. Bollards were already planned here because the road lacked high curbs paving that made the domain for vehicles and pedestrians less obvious, and they botched the selection with bollards that can't handle taxi's backing up at 5km/h. We just need normal bollards that can handle cars hitting them. There are videos of bollards that retract to let buses pass where you can watch the result of drivers trying to sneak in despite the warning signs... that bollard strength is desirable but likely not necessary. Cost both install and maintain (after cars back into them), risk, and sustainability (i.e. could we afford to install these at all the other places with a similar risk profile) should be considered.
 
Last edited:
I read documents like that and think about how it has always bothered me that our method of dealing with threats is a knee jerk response with no thought towards how one risk compares to another, how sustainable the solution is when applied more broadly, etc. This is not unique to public property, this is a way of working for security everywhere like IT, like response to health threats, etc. That document covers line-of-sight items to protect against shooter threats. We really need more risk auditors and people focused on a sustainability focused view to deal with these problems. Knee jerk reactions happen far too often and people take their focus off of much more important considerations. Obviously the more something happens, the greater the risk is of happening based on the data... but 1 data point is enough for knee jerk reactions, but it isn't enough to make that knee jerk reaction a sensible precaution or enough to say one couldn't have predicted that there was some measure of risk before it happened. The event that caused the barriers to go up didn't happen at Union Station... it happened on Yonge Street and there are many streets across Toronto with people walking on sidewalks with no jersey barriers... many streets where sidewalks are flush with the road.

Imagine what a purely data and modeling approach might say to silly ideas like "the best way to deal with a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"? Never mind that capitol hill has metal detectors to keep out good guys with guns. The place that says guns are a right doesn't allow good guys to carry guns. How does it make any sense? Make the airport safer and let more good guys with guns enter the airport? I would love someone to take metal detectors and public facilities and institutions that use them to the supreme court for violating their 2nd amendment right so we can hear an argument on how less guns makes those places safer but somehow that less guns everywhere else reduces safety.

I got a little off topic but the same logical thinking needs to apply everywhere. Bollards were already planned here because the road lacked high curbs paving that made the domain for vehicles and pedestrians less obvious, and they botched the selection with bollards that can't handle taxi's backing up at 5km/h. We just need normal bollards that can handle cars hitting them. There are videos of bollards that retract to let buses pass where you can watch the result of drivers trying to sneak in despite the warning signs... that bollard strength is desirable but likely not necessary. Cost both install and maintain (after cars back into them), risk, and sustainability (i.e. could we afford to install these at all the other places with a similar risk profile) should be considered.
I think that the crux of the FEMA document I referred to is that bollards are only one of many solutions to protect buildings and pedestrians and not necessarily the best. Retractable bollards DO certainly exist but may not be best in an area with ice and for a City whose record on maintenance is poor! What is clear is that we can do FAR better than concrete Jersey Barriers, and that a proper and functional solution should not take two MORE years of study, discussion and ugliness!
 
The office itself is pretty generic modern office but the fact that the ceiling panels are aligned, the paint is not peeling, and the lighting is not an eyesore, are such a departure for Union…
Yes, some parts of Union are still a mess (FAR too long!!) but the sections they have finished are really a HUGE improvement.
 

Back
Top