From Eye Magazine

Extension out on a limb
BY JOHN SEWELL
What a terrific way to start the New Year! On Jan. 4, the first day of business for city hall in 2005, the Planning and Transportation Committee considered funding for the Front Street Extension. These were found in the 2005 capital budget submission for the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Commission, which has been charged by the three levels of government to carry out several proposals, including the Front Street Extension, that have nothing to do with revitalizing the waterfront. The TWRC included $85 million as the city's share of the new road, now estimated to cost about $255 million. Of this amount, $4 million was budgeted for 2005.

The committee savaged the request. It decided no substantial 2005 funds should be allocated to the extension, and that all decisions in the future should be deferred until the TWRC is reconstituted and has reviewed its priorities.

This decision was unexpected. A number of activists, led by former city councillor David White of the organization front&centre, addressed the committee. White made the point that there never has been a serious public debate about whether the Front Street Extension -- running two kilometres from Front and Bathurst to Dufferin, where it would link into the Gardiner Expressway -- is a good idea. The TWRC is not structured to have that kind of debate, and in any case, the idea was foisted upon it several years ago. For its part, city council is simply following TWRC's lead.

White also noted that the Front Street Extension would consume about two-thirds of the TWRC capital budget over the next five years. One concludes from the budget that the main function of the TWRC is not to revitalize the waterfront, but to bring more cars downtown. How bizarre.

White also noted that the extension would carry 2,100 people in 1,700 vehicles in the morning rush hour -- one additional GO train every 45 minutes would do the same. For a council trying to be transit-friendly, the extension is an embarrassment.

Councillors responded positively to White's approach. "I was a supporter of the Front Street Extension," said North York councillor David Shiner who was at the committee meeting but not a member of it, "but I am not any more. It will just move the congestion to the west and it will demolish a youth centre which has nowhere to relocate. I think we should shift the funding to implement a bicycle plan on the waterfront."

Etobicoke councillor Peter Milczyn proposed deferring any further expenditures on the extension until council had considered whether it would demolish the Gardiner Expressway. He went on to say he thought that opponents to the extension were really just expressing not-in-my-backyard sentiments, but said funds would be needed elsewhere for 2005, which is why deferral was reasonable.

Midtown councillor Karen Stintz moved a different kind of deferral, arguing that the TWRC had to get its act together and reconsider this matter carefully before council looks at it again. Councillor Cesar Palacio from the St. Clair-Oakwood area agreed there should be more public debate before proceeding and thought there should be a more environmentally friendly way to spend money.

"Why not just strike it from the budget altogether?" asked Councillor Cliff Jenkins from the Bayview-Lawrence area. "Deferral means it could be brought forward in 2006.... We should withdraw all funds permanently and ask staff either for an alternative way to use this money or to simply reduce our total expenditures."

"We should redirect the money allocated this year to the Front Street Extension to light rapid transit in the west end," said Councillor Bill Saundercook. City staff argued this was not feasible since no one had actually figured out how transit in the west waterfront area should be improved.

Councillor Gerry Altobello, the chair of the committee, would not accommodate Jenkin's request to take a clean vote on striking any expenditure on an extension; he interpreted Saundercook's proposal as a striking-out motion as well and disallowed it. It meant that the committee's main vote was on Stintz's motion to defer the $4 million allocated. It received support from Stintz, Saundercook, Palacio, Jenkins and John Filion. Milczyn was opposed -- as noted, he supported a different kind of deferral.

Several days later at the Works Committee, this decision was confirmed and on a motion by Glenn de Baeremaeker the committee agreed (unanimously) that it did not favour the expenditure of $255 million on the extension (originally it had been budgeted at $170 million) and, by a vote of 5-2, that the extension was a low priority for the city.

What is now clear now is that support on city council for the extension is limited. The strongest voice is Councillor Joe Pantalone's, who will be trying to corral votes -- including the mayor's -- for the proposal as he's done in the past. But Miller cannot be seen to be fighting a council majority to re-establish an expressway as a major expense. That would be pretending that we're living in the '60s. He'll be forced to come out against it.

This is not a final decision on the extension. That awaits consideration by various budget-related committees over the next six weeks and a vote on the capital budget expected at council in late February. Maybe the anti-extension sentiment will hold firm.

John Sewell was mayor of Toronto 1978-1980.

Councillor Cesar Palacio from the St. Clair-Oakwood area agreed there should be more public debate before proceeding and thought there should be a more environmentally friendly way to spend money.

He's probably annoyed at the lack of on-street parking that the Front Street extension offers.

And yet another knee jerk reaction - "build more bicycle paths" "no more money for roads" "Tell people to take transit more"

Sheesh. All the bicycle paths and good intentions in the world will not get people out of their cars and reduce congestion. For goodness' sake, we have a five month winter of sub-zero temperatures and snow! For those that brave the elements, leave for work in the dark, are able to shower and change at work, and are in reasonably to excellent shape, great. Ride your bikes. For the other 99%, we will be idling in traffic, burning ever more fuel and polluting so much more because we will be on the roads for twice the time necessary had we an actual decent road system.

You want an attractive alternative to cars? bike paths aren't going to do it. More old, slow, steamed windows, crowded streetcars won't do it either. I suggest more subways and/or Go trains NOW! Even then, we can't neglect the fact that people will always drive. Sorry, but that's the way it is. The city can either deal with it or put their heads back into their green/socialist/marijuana-induced sandbox. I wish people would wake up and vote these guys out.

I think traffic congestion is a good thing to urbanization in the long run people will get fed up of waiting in traffic and either take the subway/go train or move closer to work. In affect this will prevent sprawl. Thats why i am all for dedicated bus lanes on streets because it improves transit and hinders traffic.

I think traffic congestion is a good thing to urbanization in the long run people will get fed up of waiting in traffic and either take the subway/go train or move closer to work. In affect this will prevent sprawl.

As long as there is no legislation on suburban office parks, all it would do is increase sprawl. By building an office park the heads of the company save on taxes, and also save their workers time travelling to work (plus people will take less snow days off), which increases productivity.

I think traffic congestion is a good thing to urbanization in the long run people will get fed up of waiting in traffic and either take the subway/go train or move closer to work. In affect this will prevent sprawl. Thats why i am all for dedicated bus lanes on streets because it improves transit and hinders traffic.
I think that the governments in GTA definately need to build some guts to hinder traffic. This is something that they are really too chicken to do. Hindering traffic isn't the same as removing traffic. Furthermore, the dedicated bus lanes need not actually be a major road - it could be a small street that runs parallel to the major road at 50m to 75m offset.

I think traffic congestion is a good thing to urbanization in the long run people will get fed up of waiting in traffic and either take the subway/go train or move closer to work. In affect this will prevent sprawl. Thats why i am all for dedicated bus lanes on streets because it improves transit and hinders traffic.

... I 100% agree. As a pedestrian I do my bit by walking slowly across intersections and not letting cars turn! Creating a traffic backlog - increasing congestion.

I think traffic congestion is a good thing to urbanization in the long run people will get fed up of waiting in traffic and either take the subway/go train or move closer to work. In affect this will prevent sprawl. Thats why i am all for dedicated bus lanes on streets because it improves transit and hinders traffic.

It's easy to be preachy about forcing people out of their cars in theory, but the reality is that all of the speed bumps, traffic, crappy roads and busses will not get people out of their cars. People like to drive. Sorry, but that's the way it is. They would rather sit for an hour or two (or in cases like Mexico City, four hours) in their cars, by themselves, than "take public transit or walk or move close to work." the evidence is all around us. Drive the 401 and see! Let's look at the reality - no one is going to walk or bike to work from Ajax in 24 degree below weather, and we can't possibly move 5 million people "close to work." Where, if we're talking about the downtown core, praytell would we put them? Also if you look at the facts the largest growth in places of employment are close to where people live - just take a drive to Etobicoke or Mississauga. Yet, still, people drive.

I think that it is simply a cop-out to follow You Are to Blame's reasoning. If there was a superior alternative to driving, perhaps things might be different. Perhaps. The effects of a "let's hinder drivers" approach is more cars idling in traffic. Guess what? idling cars stuck in traffic pollute much more cars driving down open roadways. I say that Toronto needs a balanced approach - more public transit, better road infrastructure not an ideological sermon.

It's easy to be preachy about forcing people out of their cars in theory, but the reality is that all of the speed bumps, traffic, crappy roads and busses will not get people out of their cars. People like to drive. Sorry, but that's the way it is. They would rather sit for an hour or two (or in cases like Mexico City, four hours) in their cars, by themselves, than "take public transit or walk or move close to work." the evidence is all around us. Drive the 401 and see! Let's look at the reality - no one is going to walk or bike to work from Ajax in 24 degree below weather, and we can't possibly move 5 million people "close to work." Where, if we're talking about the downtown core, praytell would we put them? Also if you look at the facts the largest growth in places of employment are close to where people live - just take a drive to Etobicoke or Mississauga. Yet, still, people drive.

I think that it is simply a cop-out to follow You Are to Blame's reasoning. If there was a superior alternative to driving, perhaps things might be different. Perhaps. The effects of a "let's hinder drivers" approach is more cars idling in traffic. Guess what? idling cars stuck in traffic pollute much more cars driving down open roadways. I say that Toronto needs a balanced approach - more public transit, better road infrastructure not an ideological sermon.
Let's be realistic, everybody hates traffic. The fact is that there is a better way: railways/subways/ROWLRT. However, you are correct in that there is not enough of it. Service levels need to be seriously upped on GO Train lines so that they are available during off-peak hours. Who's going to chose a GO Bus over a car? Yeah, I thought so too. The public transit infrastructure is not being used to its fullest - but GO doesn't own their tracks. I think this is something that the Government should take a really good look at. Commuters need to get priority over freight traffic. For lines that GO needs to run its trains, I think that the tables should be flipped. What I mean by that is that GO owns the tracks and the freight companies rent from them. This would be relatively manageable for CN IMO, since they have the Steeles tracks to avoid Toronto if they have the option. CP however, would be go totally ballistic and never accept the idea as they have only the Midtown corridor cutting east/west in the Toronto area (fortunately this affects only one GO Train line, unfortunately it affects the most popular one outside lakeshore).