 |
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||||
|
Bulletin
SAVE UNION STATION, Bulletin No. 7, December 5, 2002.
********* 1. Actions – what you can do right now. A review of the plans released by the city show that a number of issues need immediate attention by city councillors. Seven such issues are noted in our letter to the city's Administration Committee (see item 2, below). We have asked that these matters be scheduled at the Committee's meeting on Thursday December 12, along with the proposal for an Advisory Group to lead a public participation process. (see item 3, below.) We urge you to contact your councillor, as well as councillors on the Administration Committee to ask for their support on the substance of these issues, and that they be scheduled and discussed at the Committee on December 12:
Doug Holyday (chair):
David Soknacki (vice chair):
Brian Ashton:
Paul Sutherland:
Rob Ford:
Anne Johnston:
David Miller:
Francis Nunziata
2. Red Flag issues that need immediate attention The following issues have emerged from the plans released by the city as substantial problems which require immediate resolution.
1. Linkages
Union Station presents the opportunity of improving the linkages for people to move from one mode of transportation to another. Broader discussion is required to ensure that the linkages are as effective and functional as possible. For example TTC is proposing significant changes to the mezzanine in its Union Station which will have a major impact on many rush hour commuters. Of the 40,000 commuters coming into the Union Station each morning on GO Transit, many make their way north on the concourse level through the mezzanine of the TTC Union Station stop. Eighty per cent move right through the mezzanine, and 20 per cent get on the TTC. TTC plans call for modifying the mezzanine to consolidate and improve its own operations by placing the ticket booth facilities in the centre of the space, making direct entrance to the mezzanine area possible only after paying a TTC fare. The new station will be an obstacle in the path of those wishing to head north to the Royal Bank towers. They will be required to take a 100 yard detour around the station. A detour to the east is already available (it is an extra 100 yards and involves seven steep steps) while the detour to the west will be completed only after construction of the new platform to improve station capacity. The funds for the platform do not include the extra money (estimated by TTC to be $20 million) to complete the detour into the Royal Bank towers. Further, the linkage can be created only if the Royal Bank agrees to give up very expensive retail space to create this new route. The number of GO users inconvenienced by this change is very large. A solution to this linkage problem must be found.
2. Access to platforms
GO Transit plans to install 12 access points to each platform. GO staff state they prefer stairs to escalators for several reasons. One set of stairways costs only $200,000, whereas an escalator costs $500,000. Stairs can be used for passenger storage when platforms are full, whereas escalators can't. The increase in access points is considerable. Platforms 4-5 have eight access points, platform 2 has 6, platforms 3-4 have five, and 6-7 have 4. What is clear from platforms 4-5 is that the stairways already occupy a very large part of the platform and it is difficult to move around them. Doubling or tripling the number of access points on platforms will mean there were be very few places for people to stand on the platform and it will be very difficult to move along the platform. Consideration should be given to widening platforms, something that many commuters have already suggested. The current plans do not include any plans for widening the platforms, even though there is room to do it since the existing service platforms between tracks 5 - 6 and tracks 6 - 7 are generally unused now that VIA Rail is servicing its trains in Etobicoke. The second problem with access is that stairs might be appropriate where there is only one floor to climb or descend. But GO Transit plans to have access points into the East and West teamways - and in each case the difference in grade is at least two stories (as the Union Pearson sketches show.) For these, escalators are a necessity, but they are not apparently planned and GO Transit certainly doesn't have the funds to install them. These problems with access to platforms, including widening the platforms, must be addressed in any plan. Currently, they are not addressed.
3. Clarity in design
One hallmark of Union Station's Beaux Arts design is its clarity of purpose, of design, and of the public's understanding of its space. A principle of the Beaux Arts approach was that the public would understand what to expect next when entering large buildings, and that principle is a defining feature of Union Station's Great Hall. Unfortunately, downstairs, in the GO concourse, confusion reigns. For a novice user, wayfinding is already a challenge. There is no clearly defined place where passengers can meet. The space is a jumble of different textures, materials, and forms. Anticipated changes and expansion will probably magnify these problems. This is in stark contrast to the Great Hall where the clarity of the space and the presence of landmarks such as the central clock contributes to an understandable sense of place and direction. Improving clarity in design must be an objective in the GO concourse and other areas being reconfigured
4. An appropriate balance between uses
Two different priorities are evident in Union Station - its current main use as a transportation hub and its proposed use as a commercial and retail centre. Simply put, GO Transit wants to get its customers on and off their trains and platforms as quickly as possible while the landlord and its retail lessees want people to stay around for as long as possible, and buy things. It is not clear that the middle ground between these competing visions has been found. The appropriate body to find this middle ground, and to develop the principles that will govern the approach by all users, is the city. Until this happens, no plans can reasonably be finalized.
5. Revenues
Should Union Station simply be a cash cow for the city? Or should revenues from any comprehensive lease be funneled directly to supporting the Station's transportation uses and linkages? The costs of the transportation improvements to the Station and its linkages are high - including the cost of new stairways and escalators, track realignment, wider platforms, cleaning the track shed, improving the teamways, changing the TTC station in an appropriate fashion, and so forth. The lease of the Station is one way to generate money for this purpose. What kinds of revenues will be available? To date, this has not been revealed. Will they be significant enough to help meet these costs? The public does not know. Revenues from any proposed lease must be estimated to determine what kinds of changes they will help finance, and they must be made public. Obviously, if the revenues are not significant enough to pay for a goodly portion of the transportation changes needed, then no contract should be entered into. This information has yet to be made publicly available, which makes it very difficult to determine whether any proposed lease is worthwhile. It is feared there has been an assumption that revenues from any lease would flow into the city's general account - that would be wrong. Revenues should support Union Station in the key transportation role it plays in the downtown.
6. Heritage
There are two competing visions about heritage issues. A framework must be designed which is based neither on a "museum" interpretation (which forbids changing anything inside the existing Union Station), nor on a "retail" interpretation (which says everything is up for grabs). Some seem to rely on the fact that Heritage Canada holds an easement agreement on the Station; however, recent decisions by federal Parks staff seem to indicate that they believe in the "museum" interpretation. On the other hand, the city has taken a laissez-faire position in the short time it has owned the building, allowing vendors to sell trinkets and clothing from folding tables in the Great Hall - uses which are totally inappropriate in this space. There is a lack of confidence that new lessee will be required to adequately enhance and respect heritage aspects of the Station.
7. Length of Lease
City staff have indicated that lease terms are 35 years with a 15 year renewal, and perhaps even longer. These are significant time periods and they will expire after most current members of Toronto City Council have passed on to their rewards. Few members of society would be willing to sign a contract for such a long terms without looking very very carefully at the long term financial implications and at the ramifications on the downtown area, on commuter rail, on train travel, and on transit. We are not aware that any such studies have been done. We know that both GO Transit and the TTC are so constrained with current financial problems that they are unable to plan for five or ten years into the future. Yet to ensure these services work well, they require this kind of planning. We have yet to see any plans for the areas surrounding Union Station, and how those plans will be carried out. We have not seen the plans for VIA Rail over the next few decades, and we are not sure they exist. Until plans are drafted, debated and agreed on. It makes no sense to sign a lease which determines the future of this important site. ** These are some of the issues which require the urgent attention of city council. They require open debate by the city's residents, and by the interests which impinge on Union Station, particularly the carriers which use the Station. The above is not an exhaustive list of issues to be red flagged. Public debate will reveal other issues if equal importance, which is why a public participation process is urgently required. But as a first step, these issues must be addressed publicly and resolved favourably in the public interest before any agreement with any developer - Union Pearson or anyone else - is given serious consideration.
3. Advisory Group proposal for public participation At its November meeting, the Administrative Committee established a sub-committee to propose a public participation process for Union Station. We believe it is imperative that full public consideration be given to any proposal affecting the future of the Union Station, and that key issues such transportation, heritage, future development, finances, and urban design be fully canvassed. An Advisory Group would inform and expedite this process by bringing a level of expertise to the discussions along with the public confidence that comes with independent review. The Advisory Group could sponsor public meetings for discussion and decisions and make recommendations directly to elected officials on issues affecting the short and long term future of Union Station. The Advisory Group should encompass many interests and disciplines, and should be appointed by council so its mandate and membership is clear. Its mandate should be something like the following:
* to have the authority to obtain full information regarding proposals for Union Station; The Group should represent citizen interests (not established government agencies which already have a voice and a forum for input) including the following groups and interests: historical context; heritage; rail; transit; land use planning; heritage development; financing and revenue; architectural design; citizens; commuters; retail. Names and organizations would need to be suggested for each interest. The Administration Committee has been asked to establish such an Advisory Group without delay. *** Please consider sending this Bulletin to a friend. If you have not received this Bulletin directly from the site and wish to subscribe, send a short note to to signup@saveunionstation.ca, and please visit our website at http://www.saveunionstation.ca |
Contact Us: info@saveunionstation.ca