[Q. quay cycling]

Q. quay cycling

They really need to do something about the streetcar/traintracks on Q. Quay - very dangerous for cyclists, saw an accident last night where someone's wheel locked in to the track on the so-called 'bike path' at Q. Quay just west of Jarvis. Another passerby noted she's seen several people wipe out in that section in the past week.

For a 'temporary' change, the city is opening itself up to major liability if it is advertising this area as safe for cyclists.

 

[unimaginative2]

Re: Q. quay cycling

Jarvis is well to the east of the Quay to the City project which runs from York to Spadina. I agree that those tracks area hazard. They will be cleaned up as part of the East Bayfront project.

 

[SD2]

As I said in the passage you quoted, I am completely supportive of Toronto receiving money for projects like the waterfront. I'm just saying that Toronto shouldn't behave as if it is getting so ignored by higher levels of government, particularly the federal government.

But it is getting ignored. If it weren't for the Olympic Bid the city would probably still be waiting for those contributions.

A few large donations of cash doesn't change the fact that the city's needs (and the needs of cities in general) are largely ignored in government.

 

[EnviroTO]

$500 million from the feds to a Toronto project would be similar to $100 million for the Region of Waterloo. In addition that $500 million has not been spent... it will be spread over 15 years or more. For Toronto that is about $33 million per year, for the Region of Waterloo that would be about $6 million per year. The province and federal government committed $13.4 million each to the Waterloo research park which covers two years of the 15 ($66 million equivalent to Toronto). Has the federal government spent $66 million on the waterfront yet? Probably the total spent by all three levels of government so far is around the $66 million mark although once the Union Subway station upgrade or Front Street extension gets underway that will change. Yet at the same time those two are really transportation projects even though they are going to be paid out of the waterfront improvement budget... on par with an LRT in Waterloo or a bridge to PEI.

London had significant funding for the Canada Games, Whitehorse as well, Vancouver is getting Olympic money and received Expo money, Edmonton received World Athletics money, Calgary received Olympic money, Montreal received Expo, Olympic, and Aquatics money, Victoria had Commonwealth Games money. Toronto had what?

I'm not complaining that all those cities get money but at the same time when money comes to Toronto it really shouldn't be seen as such a big deal... everyone gets money and Toronto is 8% of the country and the GTA is more than 15% of the country. If 15% of the federal budget spent in Canada gets spent in the GTA it is only fair, not Canada subsidizing the city or Toronto ripping the country off. If Toronto gets the Expo on the waterfront you can be sure that a lot of the money to prepare the portlands will come out of the $500 million.

The federal government spent $40 million for the 8th World Championships in Athletics in Edmonton, equivalent per capita to $137 million in Toronto or $286 million in the GTA.

Toronto should not be grateful to get its fair share any more than any other part of the country should be. You should be grateful when you get more than is expected or more than you contribute. We shouldn't have to hear about the unfairness of money spent in Toronto when so many reports show that a Toronto fiscally separated from the provincial and federal governments (assuming similar access to the Canadian market) would be further ahead and not further behind. Toronto has a duty as a player in Canada to help pay for social services in Northern Ontario and Newfoundland but at the same time Canada has a duty to spend money on projects in Toronto such as the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization.

 

[SD2]

Well said EnviroTO.

 

[unimaginative2]

Construction on the Union subway station has already begun.

The feds have already contributed hundreds of millions to the ROM, AGO, Gardiner, GO Transit expansion, Harbourfront Centre, the new waterfront square, and more. They've also committed hundreds of millions more to the Film Festival building, the Waterfront, the York subway, and many others.

I say again, I have nothing against Toronto receiving money for these projects. In fact, I wholeheartedly support it. I guess it's too much to ask for some kind of satisfaction about it. I just can't accept the claims that Toronto is so ignored and mistreated by the federal government.

We shouldn't have to hear about the unfairness of money spent in Toronto when so many reports show that a Toronto fiscally separated from the provincial and federal governments (assuming similar access to the Canadian market) would be further ahead and not further behind.

That's a pretty big assumption! What do people want? The Republic of Rosedale so the rich don't have to send a penny more to governments than they receive? In any kind of civilization, the wealthier people and regions will contribute more to a government than they get back.

 

[EnviroTO]

In any kind of civilization, the wealthier people and regions will contribute more to a government than they get back.

Yes but Toronto has a lot of immigrants requiring special services and people unable to afford rent as well, far more refugee type immigrants than other areas in the country. While there may be many weathly individuals in Toronto there are also a considerable number of disadvantaged individuals as well. The costs of creating public housing within the city would be higher than creating public housing in Sudbury possibly due to land acquisitions alone. Do the funding formulas the federal government use to give out social spending give more per head in more costly locales? It has already been shown that the number of dollars Quebec receives to help settle an imigrant with education and other social programs from the federal government is substantially more than an Ontario immigrant. Alberta and Newfoundland have received oil based revenue exemptions for social transfer calculations. Toronto airport pays more that twice as much per passenger to the federal government than other airports despite land values in Richmond BC and on the Island of Montreal being easily comparable to Milton. Why all these discrepancies?

 

[Antiloop33rpm]

Why all these discrepancies?

I would say much of it has to do with the leadership of Toronto (and Ontario as a whole). The Federal Government is not going to sit around and figure out who to give out money too and whether some places need more than others. This is especially true when the funding falls into categories that are outside of their jurisdiction or in a political grey zone that they may well want to avoid.

Take The New Deal for Cities. This did not come about because one day Ottawa woke up and decided it was time to increase funding for cities. It came about after 5 years of lobbying and work by a coalition of 10 municipalities working together with strong leadership to push the government to create the program. Likewise with Newfoundland and Nova Scotia and their revised oil revenue deals, likewise Quebec and its funding for immigration.

How often do you see David Miller or other past Toronto mayors forming delegations and coalitions of politicians, citizens, and advocacy groups and going to Ottawa with their concerns and rational, logical solutions to it and working with the Federal Government to get the funding or manpower needed?

And I might add to that the fact that it often seems that more energy is put into pursuing funding for waterfronts, Olympics and Expos and not social housing or other pressing needs would be the fault of the city for choosing what agenda it wants to pursue.

Outside of Dalton McGuinty who thus far has done a commendable job standing up for Ontario, I really cannot think of any other leaders in the past decade (in Ontario or Toronto) who have been impressive in this respect.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Government spending per capita per capital project is always going to be higher in smaller places.

 

[adma]

It took me until this morning to actually "be there". And on a Friday morning at 10:50 or so, it's, like, super-anticlimactic--bike archway and all...

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

From the Star:

Mixed views on Queens Quay
Success of 10-day project debatable
Easy being green, hard being a driver
Aug. 22, 2006. 05:46 AM
ANNA PIEKARSKI
STAFF REPORTER

Just like the red carpet after an awards show, the grass along Queens Quay was rolled up yesterday, ending a 10-day experiment that turned the street into a pedestrian-friendly boardwalk.

For almost two weeks, eastbound lanes were closed between York St. and Spadina Ave. as pedestrians and cyclists took over the road. But the success of the temporary project is debatable. While many people would like it to be permanent, there was criticism of the expense incurred for such a short-term test.

"I think it's a huge waste of money. Ten days hardly seems to be enough time to see if it works," said Leah Perrault, who lives in a condo on the north side of the street. The project turned one lane into a lawn while the other was used by cyclists and pedestrians. A flower bed separated the area from the streetcar track.

Perrault said she and her husband enjoyed being able to easily bike and rollerblade along the closed road to the Martin Goodman Trail. She was angry as she watched the workers dismantle the grass.

"Put it in and leave it. Don't put it in for 10 days and then rip it all apart."

Opened Aug. 11 by the Waterfront Revitalization Corp., the test was funded by the three levels of government at a cost of $1 million.

"A million dollars is a lot of money, but I think if it helped convince people this is doable it's well worth it," said John Campbell, president and CEO of the Waterfront Revitalization Corp.

"The broad consensus is that everyone is really supportive. We're quite happy with the outcome," Campbell said. Over the 10 days, the corporation surveyed individuals to get their reaction to the redevelopment. Traffic and bikes were also counted. The results of the study will be available soon, Campbell said.

"It's not very practical," said Teena Winter, who lives in a condo on the south side of Queens Quay. Getting her car out of the parking lot was a challenge, Winter said, explaining she had to weave through pedestrians and speeding cyclists to get to the westbound lane.

Winter's daughter Amy, who also lives in the condo, said people seemed afraid to step onto the grass. But many allowed their dogs to walk on the lawn.

Winter lived in New Zealand before moving to Toronto four years ago. She said she was shocked to learn how much money was spent on the project.

"I've never lived in a country that spent this much money on an experiment," she said.

Campbell admitted there were traffic issues west of Spadina, where two lanes of one-way traffic merged into a single lane. "That was a problem we knew we created," he said.

The final version of the redevelopment will be started next summer, Campbell said, with a planned single lane of traffic travelling in both directions. Queens Quay would become more like a local road, with more vehicles using Lake Shore Blvd. Throughout the year, the public will be given opportunities to consult on the final design, Campbell said.

Many people are already talking about the proposed changes, said Queens Quay Starbucks employee Jen Weddell, who heard many comments on the state of the street.

"I think the general consensus was, that it was for such a short period of time, what was the point?" Weddell said.

Business was a bit slower in the mornings Weddell said, surmising many people were avoiding the street during their commute to the office, but "the weekend was crazy."

It was difficult to tell whether the pedestrian-friendly set-up attracted more business, said Starbucks employee Chris Smith, explaining the International AIDS conference brought a lot of people to the city and many were seen wandering along the lakeshore.

There was definitely a surge in tourist traffic, said Samantha Queffelec, who works at a boat tour ticket kiosk along Queens Quay.

"It was really busy. There was a lot of bike traffic," Queffelec said.

Campbell confirmed there was a definite increase in the number of cyclists. He said most didn't seem to be tourists, but instead residents who were using the path.

AoD

 

[unimaginative2]

I'm pretty much sold on the idea now, but I do think it was ridiculous to spend that much money for a 10 day experiment. It should have been for the whole summer.

 

[afransen TO]

Doing the whole summer would have been much more expensive. The surface the grass was on isn't suitable for maintaining sod. I bet it took effort to keep it looking decent for 10 days. I remember hearing that they didn't have the money to water the geraniums or the grass...

 

[rbtaylor]

I'm pretty much sold on the idea now, but I do think it was ridiculous to spend that much money for a 10 day experiment.

It was put together strictly as a sales pitch. St. Clair and Blue 22 showed the EA processes were inadequate for street narrowings or closures to traffic.

This short-term introduction may have shaved a year or more off the EA process.

As you said, you're sold on the idea now. Hopefully a large majority of the crowd at the EA feels the same way and is anxious to get things moving instead of working hard to block it.

 

[tudararms]

The potential was made clear, and if it secures interest from the public the experiment will not have been a waste, particularly if the public starts to demand these sorts of improvements.