Potential Move of Toronto Coach Bus Terminal

[The 'Sauga]

From the Star:

90 Harbour St. below Union Station is considered a potential site for new intercity coach station

Aug 22, 2007 04:30 AM

Tess Kalinowski
Transportation Reporter

The longstanding idea of moving Toronto's intercity coach terminal to Union Station from its existing location at Bay and Dundas Sts. could finally be realized under Ontario's new regional transportation planning body.

The existing bus terminal is owned by the TTC and used by carriers such as Greyhound and Coach Canada. But the space and the location have long been considered inadequate, with insufficient room for buses to park so passengers can board and disembark.

The Greater Toronto Transportation Authority board will decide Friday whether to proceed with a six-month study of the implications of moving the terminal to the provincially owned former OPP headquarters at 90 Harbour St., now used mostly for film shoots.

"I think it's worth the GTTA looking to see whether there's a viable proposal that can be made," chair Rob MacIsaac said yesterday.

"We'll talk to all the players and the private sector and see what the possibilities are."

A GTTA report recommends the transit authority – created by the province to develop an integrated transportation plan for Greater Toronto – take the lead in incorporating an intercity bus terminal into the Union Station hub. It also suggests the GTTA signal interest in the Harbour St. property, just south of the Gardiner, before the site is eaten up by burgeoning residential and commercial development.

The GTTA study would consider the possibility of building a covered walkway between the Harbour St. site and Union Station and integrating that with tunnels that link to office towers farther north.

The study would also look at rapid bus access to the Gardiner Expressway and the Don Valley Parkway, including links to proposed dedicated bus lanes on the DVP.

A bus terminal "could further enhance Union Station as a major inter-regional mobility hub," according to the report. The study would consider how intercity bus service would work with other regional transit programs, Union Station redevelopment and Toronto's vision of reconnecting the waterfront with the downtown business district.

Private coach operators are "ecstatic" about the idea, according to the head of the Ontario Motor Coach Association.

Brian Crow said the location, close to the expressway, would shave up to 15 minutes off Toronto arrival times. Inadequate bus parking space at the Dundas St. terminal means coaches are regularly ticketed by the city; that cost one operator $78,000 last year, according to Crow.

The existing terminal, which hasn't been significantly updated since 1984, is dismal, he said. "Passengers have to drag their bags across Elizabeth St. to get into the main part of the terminal."

Operators have dreamed of moving out since about 1995, when the TTC flirted with the idea of selling its Bay St. building, Crow said. The association investigated moving the terminal into the old CP freight sheds, but that space was given to GO Transit.

An earlier proposal to move to Harbour St., which included a proposed walkway between the terminal and the train station over Lake Shore Blvd. and under the Gardiner, also stalled.

Linking the coach station to GO train and bus services and the TTC makes sense for private operators trying to get a share of the commuter business, as well as the public carriers that would be receiving passengers from other cities.

The GTTA study would consider governance and ownership issues of a new terminal, but Crow said the coach operators would be pleased if the property was owned by the city's Toronto Economic Development Corp. and leased to them.

[ale26]

I hate it there...they should take it away..make a nicer,bigger one near Union..and build a supertall there!

[Epi]

It's an idea long overdue... that's a great location too. It's sandwiched inbetween the Gardiner and some Gardiner offramp. It's pretty much dead land that I doubt would serve any great purpose except for cheap condos (expensive wouldn't fly as it's a bad location). The one thing they might have to do though, is rework the offramps or else the traffic would be a bit crazy.

[noob(but not really)]

CAN'T WAIT!!

The existing bus terminal is owned by the TTC and used by carriers such as Greyhound and Coach Canada. But the space and the location have long been considered inadequate, with insufficient room for buses to park so passengers can board and disembark.

Operators have dreamed of moving out since about 1995, when the TTC flirted with the idea of selling its Bay St. building, Crow said. The association investigated moving the terminal into the old CP freight sheds, but that space was given to GO Transit.

I hope the TTC sell it for a ton of money and get some much needed cash.

A supertall would not be appropriate for that area. Some infill would be just fine though.

About the terminal... couldn't they just build a GO/intercity terminal, having it serve both needs? Then it can be like Union Station, serving both GO and intercity travel. Much more efficient.

[rbt]

Originally Posted by noob(but not really)

I hope the TTC sell it for a ton of money and get some much needed cash.

Since it has a pre-built PATH connection the site of both bus terminals might be worth $20M. About the same revenue as a 0.2% ridership increase

[noob(but not really)]

Originally Posted by rbt

Since it has a pre-built PATH connection

Hmm... whatever gets built there is going to have to be something significant. I just don't want anything too tall. Something in-context would be the best. Like 30-40 stories tops.

EDIT: The Hospital for Sick Children helipad is very close by, so I'm sure it couldn't be that tall anyway. And it definitely CAN'T be a supertall.

the site of both bus terminals might be worth $20M. About the same revenue as a 0.2% ridership increase

Or, if they were smart about it, sell it for higher than that and actually get something significant out of this.

[Electrify]

Many Ontario cities seem to have their main hub of local bus, intercity bus, and in some cases even rail all together in the heart of downtown. Right now we have local rail/bus, regional rail/bus, and intercity rail, but no intercity bus. Once this is done, the Toronto's transit hub will truly be complete, and could be a stepping stone to a revitalized waterfront and downtown.

[samsonyuen]

Sounds good. The Coach station being close to Union station makes sense, and that land that it's on right now could be redeveloped for something that uses its location better.

[K85]

This would be good for people who want to visit Toronto, but don't know where to start

[valantino]

Interesting as 90 Harbour is protected


a little far (Telus/MLS/Gardiner) be better on the parking lot inbeween the ACC and 18 Yonge

[samsonyuen]

Maybe it's too expensive, or the space is too big?

[thryve]

Coaches already stop at Union anyway (well across the road at the Royal York), and I love the central location of the Bay Street terminal... but, I can't complain with the Harbour Street idea I guess. haha.

[urban 2.0]

I've been saying it for years

Use Skywalk - the upper level (where the shops are) could be the waiting areas
with escalators leading down to the platform level below - think of a reversal of the GO Train platforms.

Buses would enter from the West, and turn right onto York.

Connected with Trains, Subway and "Airport express". Plus the connections are indoors, smooth sidewalks, no traffic, etc.

[Taller, Better]

big assumptions.

[urban 2.0]

Originally Posted by Taller, Better

big assumptions.

.. you know it's true.

This city saves nothing! You can't truly think that the bus terminal would stay as is? It will be gutted, and the facade "saved" just like every other old building in this city.

You can see a gutting in progress south of the Hard rock cafe on Yonge - they've ripped down the whole back of the building which they're rebuilding.

Look at the buildings all along Yonge north of College, they're being driven into the ground.

Conservation means nothing in this city.

[TRZ]

Originally Posted by urban 2.0

.. you know it's true.

This city saves nothing!

Conservation means nothing in this city.

I think Walnut Hall is more than enough proof to validate that comment beyond any doubt.

[ONE HUMAN]

For those that are unfamiliar with the demise of Walnut Hall...

image hosted on flickr


Photo taken from this page: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gothjen/212229684/

....


TheStar.com - City losing its soul, brick by falling brick

May 23, 2007 04:30 AM
Christopher Hume

If ever there were a chronicle of a death foretold, it is that of Walnut Hall.

The row of Georgian townhouses, the last of their kind in Toronto, has been dying, slowly and painfully, for 35 years. It all came to a horrible end last weekend when the city moved in and knocked the 1856 buildings down before they collapsed and killed someone.

In a way, the city's action was a kind of mercy kill, a case of architectural euthanasia; these once stately houses had been neglected for so long, they were in terrible shape. They had become an eyesore, through no fault of their own.

And yet, in their own way, they represented an understanding of urbanity that flies in the face of a community that would allow them to be destroyed. Dense, compact, accessible, and elegant, they expressed a 19th-century notion of the city that was killed by the car. We are still recovering today.

Though contemporary Torontonians like to think they invented the idea of the city, in fact, we don't have a clue. If we did, we'd know that heritage preservation is a crucial aspect of metropolitan civilization.

But then this is a city in which nothing should be allowed to interfere with the rights of property owners, even when they are yahoos who would wreck a unique and valuable site to make a buck.

Why the city can't be more proactive, even aggressive, with such vandals remains a mystery. In many jurisdictions, their behaviour would be considered criminal, and perpetrators can end up being fined and/or in jail.

The decline of Walnut Hall started with the RCMP, which owned the buildings for 20 years and left them empty and unheated. In retrospect, it seems such scandalous behaviour is entirely consistent with an institution that has long since lost sight of its purpose and moral bearing.

At some point more than a decade ago, however, the RCMP sold Walnut Hall to a small-time Toronto developer, Joe Jonatan. He took his cues from the police and continued the pattern of neglect and civic contempt.

Though the city tried to induce Jonatan, who died in February, to do the right thing with the buildings – even offering financial aid – he opted to let them rot.

His argument was that this made good business sense.

Therein lies the reason Walnut Hall is no more. In a city such as Toronto – young, callow and without any real appreciation of culture – business concerns trump all others.

This is why Toronto manages to be prosperous, but bland and boring. That's why tourists come in ever-decreasing numbers.

Though they may seem completely unrelated, a similar act of vandalism occurred when Mayor David Miller and his "cabinet" approved a deal that will hand over the sidewalks and their public furniture to Astral Media for the next 20 years, a deal that council is expected to approve today. Though the design of the street furniture is inferior and Astral Media operates illegal billboards throughout the city, Miller couldn't say no to the $20 million Astral will pay the city annually.

This willingness to sacrifice the public realm, architecture and the built form of the city to the most crass economic considerations have kept Toronto from achieving the greatness it craves.

Is it hard to grasp that people are more interested in cities that have rows of Georgian townhouses and the like – London and Edinburgh – than those that let them fall apart?

Now, of course, it's too late. Some mediocrity or other, most likely a condo, will replace Walnut Hall and future generations will be none the wiser.

Even the bylaw that Councillor Kyle Rae introduced last year to stop demolition by neglect languishes somewhere in the bowels of city hall. It's time to consider more enlightened measures to save what little remains of Toronto's heritage such as property or income tax incentives.

And what about other neglected heritage buildings? There's an exquisite neo-classical 1905 bank at 199 Yonge St. that has sat empty for decades. How long before it has to be torn down?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Hume can be reached at chume@thestar.ca

.....


HERITAGE BUILDINGS
TheStar.com - Great cities showcase landmarks not landfill

Jul 18, 2007 04:30 AM
Catherine Nasmith
Peter Ortved
Tony Stappells

Two years after gaining the power to stop demolition, we continue to lose Toronto's heritage buildings.

The recent demise of Walnut Hall to demolition by neglect outraged us all, yet it was inevitable – the tragic hangover of 30 years of weak heritage protection and inadequate support of owners of heritage property. There are many more buildings at risk of a similar fate.

While the city's spirit is enlarged by new projects, such as the Royal Ontario Museum's Crystal, its collective memory and sense of place resides firmly in the older, familiar touchstones.

Toronto emphatically needs both old and new. Why, then, is our historic fabric allowed to disintegrate while nearly a billion dollars has just been invested in new cultural buildings?

Even though the city has the power to save buildings, it hesitates to use it. In many cases demolition by neglect is deliberate. But it is just as often accidental – the result of maintenance deferred to the point of no return. Maintenance isn't as sexy as capital projects or ribbon cuttings, but without budgets for maintenance, buildings have no future and the city ends up with no past.

A recent Canada West Foundation poll indicated that 83 per cent of Torontonians (the highest of seven major Canadian cities) supported the following statement: "Your city should protect heritage buildings rather than demolish them to make way for new buildings." It seems Toronto's citizens are ahead of their government. Eighty-three per cent of Torontonians want David Miller to make a new deal for Toronto's heritage.

A start would be to make this commitment: Complete the inventory of historic buildings and districts and create a master plan for heritage. Long under-resourced, the city's heritage staff too often face the unenviable job of trying to save buildings after they come under threat. Of 7,000 buildings listed on the city's Inventory of Heritage Properties, only 2,000 are fully protected under the Ontario Heritage Act.

Since 2005 we have lost many important buildings that were listed but not designated (the landmark Inn on the Park hotel designed by Peter Dickinson) and some that were not yet listed despite their historic significance (the Trend House in Etobicoke designed by Fred Brodie to showcase B.C. wood). We are also facing the imminent destruction of 48 Abell Ave., the Bata Building and the Riverdale hospital building because of the city's failure to designate.

The city's modest heritage tax and grant program can't stand up to the juggernaut of a hot development market fueled by let's-make-a-deal planning approvals. Density transfers have saved many buildings in the past but are ineffectual today when density bonuses are handed out like candy.

Great cities are made up of layers of important places, each generation adding their best. Buildings are more than private property: They are part of the public realm. Heritage decisions belong not with local ward politics but among the priorities of the city as a whole, along with environment, intensification and beautification.

Chicago, our sister city, has had a 30-year head start. It manages its stock of landmark buildings with a combination of financing incentives for restoration from all levels of government and regulations to ensure maintenance.


Restored properties command higher rents in both European and U.S. cities. Studies in the U.S. and by the University of Waterloo show that conservation and rehabilitation of historic structures lead to higher property values, increased assessment and greater economic spin-offs for neighbourhoods.

As in the United States, each level of government in Canada must do its part to make heritage a priority. The stronger provisions of the new Ontario Heritage Act will only work if municipal governments have the confidence to act.

Toronto can and must retain its architectural diversity in the same way that it fosters cultural diversity. Let's have landmarks, not landfill.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catherine Nasmith is president of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario; Peter Ortved is chair of Heritage Toronto; Tony Stappells is president of the Toronto Historical Association.

[current]

There are secret plans for a possible relocation of the bus terminal - Toronto Star article:

Landmark Bus Depot Loses its Lustre

Kate Allen
Staff Reporter
Sat Jan 7 2012

....But a make-it-or-break-it moment awaits, in the form of secretive plans for a new Metrolinx-built GO bus terminal near Union Station.

A Metrolinx spokesperson confirmed to the Star this week that the agency is “contemplating” building a new bus terminal at 45 Bay St., currently a parking lot just east of the Air Canada Centre. Metrolinx is also looking at other sites adjacent to Union Station, the spokesperson added. The current GO bus terminal is south of Front St. between Yonge and Bay.

Greyhound and Coach Canada have been offered spots in any new GO terminal that is built, according to TTC documents and both bus companies.

“We, as well as Greyhound, have indicated that we want to participate,” says Don Carmichael, president of Coach Canada, adding that talk of a new bus terminal has been swirling for years.

“It is a possibility,” says Timothy Stokes, a spokesperson for Greyhound. “Nothing has been finalized, but we are interested in hearing more from Metrolinx and continuing these conversations with them.”

Says Brown: “If they move, this place will close.”

Greyhound and Coach, which operates Megabus, represent almost all of the passenger traffic in the current Toronto Coach Terminal. According to the terminal’s 2011 budget, platform rental and ticket commissions accounted for $4.9 million of the terminal’s $5.4 million yearly revenue.

Any move by the big carriers will render the entire terminal obsolete.

But if the bus companies decide to stay — and there are a lot of ifs, with Metrolinx only begrudgingly acknowledging that plans for a new GO terminal even exist — the bargaining chips are back at Bay and Dundas.

The Toronto Coach Terminal has pitched Metrolinx for its own new bus facility, a total overhaul of the current site that would combine the original building and a later Elizabeth St. annex. Ideally, the roomy new structure, which could fit more than double the current number of bays, would be complete by the Pan-American Games in 2015.

A Metrolinx spokesperson says the agency has not been presented with a formal proposal, but has been “made aware of the potential for renovating the Bay and Dundas terminal.”

There is, of course, a third option: that the bus companies stay but Metrolinx not approve the renovation, leaving everything exactly the way it is now...




....But passenger traffic has still massively outgrown a facility designed six years after the city’s first set of traffic lights was installed.

Many decisions will hinge on Metrolinx’s proposed new GO bus terminal, details of which are scarce.

In 2007, 45 Bay St. was purchased by Ivanhoe Cambridge, the real estate subsidiary of Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, a pension-fund managing giant based in Quebec City. A spokesperson for the company said that a 50-storey office tower is planned for the site, and confirmed that the company is talking with various outside parties, but would not divulge details.

“It’s still early in the game for us,” says François Gaboury, Ivanhoe Cambridge’s director of public affairs and communications.


Read More: http://www.thestar.com/news/article/...ts-lustre?bn=1

[allurban]

Originally Posted by current

There are secret plans for a possible relocation of the bus terminal - Toronto Star article:

Landmark Bus Depot Loses its Lustre

Kate Allen
Staff Reporter
Sat Jan 7 2012

....But a make-it-or-break-it moment awaits, in the form of secretive plans for a new Metrolinx-built GO bus terminal near Union Station.

Read More: http://www.thestar.com/news/article/...ts-lustre?bn=1

As much as I'd like the centralized bus terminal down at Union, I still think we need to consider having more intercity bus terminals in the GTA - Union in Toronto (GO, VIA & Subway), 407 in Vaughan (GO, Subway, YRT/VIVA) and Square One in Mississauga (GO, MiWay - MiLocal/MiExpress - and the new "transitway").

I think Yorkdale would be a good site for a terminal as well, since it has Subway, GO, & Ontario Northland). If the access to the subway and the 401 can be improved (maybe with HOV lanes on the 401 as well, to get around traffic congestion), I could see more people using Yorkdale.

Cheers, m

[InTheBeach]

Originally Posted by allurban

I think Yorkdale would be a good site for a terminal as well, since it has Subway, GO, & Ontario Northland). If the access to the subway and the 401 can be improved (maybe with HOV lanes on the 401 as well, to get around traffic congestion), I could see more people using Yorkdale.

Cheers, m

Good thinking. Yorkdale does have a bus terminal.