Request for Direction Report to oppose this one at OLT coming to the next meeting of TEYCC:


From the above:

1652449813451.png

1652449841005.png

1652449860470.png


How many different by-laws having parking requirements in them? That should have been addressed in omnibus fashion when the parking minimums for the City were reformed/abolished:

1652450034772.png


*****

Additional items:

The City is interested in a PATH connection here

The City is interested in a direct connection to the subway here.

The City would like Carshare spaces here.

Analysis:

I believe a settlement here is very feasible. The overall tone of the report is not all that negative and suggests room for compromises and solutions.

Comments:

While I support wider sidewalks here, the City's current plans are to narrow Yonge from Queen Street north to only 1 lane in each direction for cars.

I would like to ask Planning and Transportation if that is not in the long term plan for this stretch (and if not, why not); assuming it is, that will add between 1-3M to each sidewalk depending on whether bike lanes are envisioned.

I would not really be keen to create misaligned sidewalk widths and setbacks in a area with several heritage buildings that hopefully aren't going anywhere. This would make widening via road narrowing the better choice.
 
Northern Light said:
Request for Direction Report to oppose this one at OLT coming to the next meeting of TEYCC:


From the above:

View attachment 400052
View attachment 400053
View attachment 400054

How many different by-laws having parking requirements in them? That should have been addressed in omnibus fashion when the parking minimums for the City were reformed/abolished:

View attachment 400055

*****

Additional items:

The City is interested in a PATH connection here

The City is interested in a direct connection to the subway here.

The City would like Carshare spaces here.

Analysis:

I believe a settlement here is very feasible. The overall tone of the report is not all that negative and suggests room for compromises and solutions.

Comments:

While I support wider sidewalks here, the City's current plans are to narrow Yonge from Queen Street north to only 1 lane in each direction for cars.

I would like to ask Planning and Transportation if that is not in the long term plan for this stretch (and if not, why not); assuming it is, that will add between 1-3M to each sidewalk depending on whether bike lanes are envisioned.

I would not really be keen to create misaligned sidewalk widths and setbacks in a area with several heritage buildings that hopefully aren't going anywhere. This would make widening via road narrowing the better choice.
Click to expand...
"We want a subway connection but also 300 residential parking spaces!"

This is comically stupid by city staff. It isn't transit-oriented development if you encourage lots of people living there to drive a car. I really hope they drop that stupid demand.
 
TossYourJacket said:
"We want a subway connection but also 300 residential parking spaces!"

This is comically stupid by city staff. It isn't transit-oriented development if you encourage lots of people living there to drive a car. I really hope they drop that stupid demand.
Click to expand...
I think you are not reading the City comments correctly (or, at least, as I do) The comments say that the standard should be 363 parking spaces NOT that the City is insisting on that many.
 
Northern Light said:
Comments:

While I support wider sidewalks here, the City's current plans are to narrow Yonge from Queen Street north to only 1 lane in each direction for cars.

I would like to ask Planning and Transportation if that is not in the long term plan for this stretch (and if not, why not); assuming it is, that will add between 1-3M to each sidewalk depending on whether bike lanes are envisioned.

I would not really be keen to create misaligned sidewalk widths and setbacks in a area with several heritage buildings that hopefully aren't going anywhere. This would make widening via road narrowing the better choice.
Click to expand...

The question about Yonge Street is fair. Nothing is final yet, though this segment would certainly be part of an eventual EA, as the guiding vision was for a rethinking of the street between Davenport and the waterfront.
 
Most of Yonge north to Bloor is one lane in each direction already as some people treat the outside lanes as parking spots. This can be said for many of our downtown streets actually. Re-designing a good chunk of our 4 lane roads (2 lanes in each direction) as 2 lane roads (1 lane in each direction) isn't as big a leap as some suggest. It should be our goal regardless. I love driving but have little sympathy for people who insist on lugging 3,000 lbs of metal, plastic, rubber, and glass (their cars) around with them absolutely everywhere they go.

Culturally, we're still in an awkward transition period. Many are environmentalists and/or support pedestrianization in spirit only. I suspect it will take 20 years before we take these things seriously. When you show them what building cites for people first looks like there's still tremendous push back.
 
Last edited:
Instead of having one lane in each direction, it's better to make the road one way and have both lanes go in the same direction. If someone decides to drop off a passenger or is making left or right turn, they won't be blocking everyone behind them. Emergency service vehicles will also find that better because they won't need to worry about going head on in oncoming traffic.
 
Deadpool X said:
Instead of having one lane in each direction, it's better to make the road one way and have both lanes go in the same direction. If someone decides to drop off a passenger or is making left or right turn, they won't be blocking everyone behind them. Emergency service vehicles will also find that better because they won't need to worry about going head on in oncoming traffic.
Click to expand...
This is a good point, we used to have tons of one way streets and then turned our back on them. When I lived in Hong Kong it seemed as though half the city was one way streets, and they were generally the streets that were less jammed.
 
Bjays92 said:
This is a good point, we used to have tons of one way streets and then turned our back on them. When I lived in Hong Kong it seemed as though half the city was one way streets, and they were generally the streets that were less jammed.
Click to expand...
Yeah, take Adelaide and Richmond for example. As wide as Yonge or Bay but still have a full sized bike lane (which means fewer traffic lanes) and still traffic moves a lot smoother than either Yonge or Bay. You could take away one more lane from them and widen the sidewalks and they will still be better than Yonge. Why not repeat the same with other streets? Make Yonge only northbouth and Bay only southbound and take away 1 or 2 lanes from both. Everyone's happy!
 
This paragraph in the Staff Report on TTC is interesting

TTC The TTC requires that the proposed development (including piles or shoring) be kept a minimum 3 metres from all TTC infrastructure. In the event the OLT approves the development in whole or in part, no portion of the building, including all below and above grade structures, should be within 3.0 metres of all TTC infrastructure. The TTC encourages proposals for direct connections throughout the TTC’s subway station network. Should the applicant wish to connect to the network, TTC Board approval will be required. If the applicant moves ahead with an entrance connection, they will be required to undergo the TTC technical review process and pay an entrance connection fee as calculated per the TTC Entrance Connection Policy. Detailed comments on any proposed connection will be provided as part of the required technical review. The applicant is also encouraged to review the TTC’s Design Manual to incorporate the TTC’s standards and specifications for entrance connections. Planning Staff also encourage the applicant to provide a direct connection to the TTC subway station network and will continue to work with the applicant and TTC to advance and implement this connection.

Especially when looked at in conjunction with the proposed TTC Easier Access to King Station. See: https://ttc-cdn.azureedge.net/-/med...ea2fd32&hash=C6071D9C19C23B3CBCCD63DAD3A001AF

In this new Elevator (E 3) is at the south east corner of Yonge and Colbourne (on the sidewalk). MUCH better to put it INSIDE the new building, even if that will delay the full work at King.

1654356463585.png
 
Last edited:
DSC said:
This paragraph in the Staff Report on TTC is interesting

TTC The TTC requires that the proposed development (including piles or shoring) be kept a minimum 3 metres from all TTC infrastructure. In the event the OLT approves the development in whole or in part, no portion of the building, including all below and above grade structures, should be within 3.0 metres of all TTC infrastructure. The TTC encourages proposals for direct connections throughout the TTC’s subway station network. Should the applicant wish to connect to the network, TTC Board approval will be required. If the applicant moves ahead with an entrance connection, they will be required to undergo the TTC technical review process and pay an entrance connection fee as calculated per the TTC Entrance Connection Policy. Detailed comments on any proposed connection will be provided as part of the required technical review. The applicant is also encouraged to review the TTC’s Design Manual to incorporate the TTC’s standards and specifications for entrance connections. Planning Staff also encourage the applicant to provide a direct connection to the TTC subway station network and will continue to work with the applicant and TTC to advance and implement this connection.

Especially when looked at in conjunction with the proposed TTC Easier Access to King Station. See: https://ttc-cdn.azureedge.net/-/med...ea2fd32&hash=C6071D9C19C23B3CBCCD63DAD3A001AF

In this new Elevator (E 3) is at the south east corner of Yonge and Colbourne (on the sidewalk). MUCH better to put it INSIDE the new building, even if that will delay the full work at King.

View attachment 404790
Click to expand...
I understand that there are now active discussions with TTC on incorporating the TTC entrance into the base of the Building. Seems like a no-brainer to me.
 
ChesterCopperpot said:
Wow - have they never put those elevators in? I was doing cost budgets for that back in 2010
Click to expand...

No, they were delayed multiple times.

They found conflicts and needed to redesign; and there were some other hold ups as well.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top