 |
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||||
|
Bulletin
SAVE UNION STATION, Bulletin No. 9, January 24, 2003.
********* 1. Actions – what you can do right now.
The Administration Committee meets on Wednesday, January 29, 9:30 a.m., Committee Room 1, second floor, City Hall, to deal with the city staff report on Union Station. One assumes the report recommends a long term lease to Union Pearson. It is critical that as many people as possible attend the meeting to speak on this matter, asking that it not go forward until there has been adequate time for public consideration of the staff report and until council can review both bids. Contact the committee secretary and ask to be put on the deputation list. If you are unable to do this, write a letter to the Committee. The secretary of the committee is Patsy Morris, telephone 416-392-9151, pmorris@toronto.ca. Ms Morris will take requests for deputations and will receive letters to the committee. It is expected the city staff report will be released on the afternoon of January 24 as part of the agenda of the City’s Administration Committee for January 29. It can probably be found at the section of the city site where agendas are posted.
2. A Disgraceful Process This bulletin was written on the morning of January 24. There are only two full business days until the Administration Committee meets on Wednesday, January 29, but the staff report is still not available. This puts members of the public in an impossible position trying to read the report, understand it, talk to friends , write briefs and then contact local councillors in a period of just a few days. (One wonders if councillors will have a fair chance of reading and considering the report.) This is a disgraceful way to do the city's business, but it fits within the process so far of relentlessly pushing through a deal on Union Station that gives the Mayor's friends a long term lease. The City's lawyer Patty Simpson promised the report would be available on Wednesday, January 22. But as of noon today it is not available. The best place to find it when it is made public is on the agenda for the City's Administration Committee for January 29. That can be found at the section of the city site where agendas are posted. As part of the rush for approval Councillor Doug Holyday and two other members of the Administrative Committee, Brian Ashton and Paul Sutherland, took the first steps on January 18 to form a Public Advisory Committee. The terms of reference for this committee and its membership will be before the Administrative Committee on January 29 and then to Council on February 4. As one member of the public stated at the January 18 meeting "It is a bit late to establish the Public Advisory Committee on the same date that the long-term lease is approved for the project." The proposed terms of reference involve none of the issues recommended by the Save Union Station Committee, as discussed in Bulletins 7 and 8.
3. Short-comings of the Union Pearson Bid One of the significant problems with the Union Pearson bid is that it does not address the question of transportation. A large reason for this omission lies with the city which excluded any talk of transportation improvements. (For its part, the other bidder, LPHeritage+ proposes widening train platforms and doubling up tracks. These improvements are critical if the station is to serve the travelling public.) Since Union Pearson did not address transportation elements its plans are very worrisome. First, the current GO concourse will be changed by Union Pearson so that all of the food stalls will be removed and the concourse will be interrupted with 27 staircases, each providing two flights of stairs up to the platforms. The west concourse will be virtually the same. These rooms will be more unpleasant and devoid of the amenities that GO passengers would want. Union Pearson claims that these designs simply follow the wishes of GO Transit. A recent meeting with the consultant for GO Transit indicates GO's position. David Hopper is an engineer with the consultant Delcan Corporation and is advising GO Transit on platform design. (According to the company's website - delcan.com - it has limited experience in rail transportation and rail stations.) Mr. Hopper says that GO Transit wishes to have an arrangement where passengers spend almost no time on the station platform but either exit directly from the train down the stairs to the concourse, or wait in the concourse to make their way up the stairs when the train arrives at the platform. In this way GO Transit hopes the train platforms will never become overcrowded. Mr. Hopper says that GO Transit is relying on computer programs to estimate the reasonableness of passenger flow but there are no written studies available on this matter. Mr. Hopper says that he is aware of no other train station in the world which operates in this manner. One has to wonder whether this extraordinary arrangement of assuming that passengers will not be on the platform is reasonable. If it were reasonable, one would think there would be at lease one other example of a station with very narrow platforms providing very limited room for passengers to wait. The other problem is assuming that passengers are delight to take two flights of stairs from the concourse to the platforms. One would assume they would be much happier to be able to use an elevator - but escalators would prove a real problem in the case of narrow platforms since they would deliver passengers who might overcrowd the platforms, and they are twice as expensive as trains. Because Union Pearson has not addressed this critical transportation issue, its concourses for GO passengers will be unpleasant and unattractive. Another issue is the re-alignment of tracks, which would likely require new supporting columns. Union Pearson feels that the major cut it is making in the VIA concourse will not stand in the way of future track re-alignment, but one has to wonder. There are significant costs to make this cut, which is being done for the sole purpose of creating space for the food courts which would otherwise have located in the GO concourses. One can only assume that the costs will be recovered from those leasing space in the food courts, and they would be unwilling to give up space for this construction. New platforms will not easily integrate into the Union Pearson plan.
4. LPHeritage+ bid Members of the Save Union Station Committee have been able to learn much about the bid that City staff have refused to allow city councillors to see. The LP Heritage+ bid is superior in terms of design and thoughtfulness to that of Union Pearson. As already noted, LP Heritage+ proposes to widen the platforms and double up the tracks, ensure that most of the access that occurs to the platforms will be by escalator, and will make very pleasant (perhaps elegant) concourses for GO commuters. LP Heritage+ also proposes to create a major internal promenade at grade level going from York Street, through the west wing, through the Great Hall, and (after negotiating with the Bank of Nova Scotia) through the east wing to Bay Street. This creates a great sense of clarity in the space and links the two wings of the building in a very sensible way with the Great Hall. (Union Pearson proposes that the main floor of the west wing be occupied by a hotel or function space for an office building so that people wishing to use the Skywalk to the Skydome will be required to take a circuitous and narrow corridor since the west wing to all intents and purposes is no longer a thoroughfare. It makes no proposals for the east wing.) The internal promenade means that there can be a good connection to the GO Bus Terminal on the east side of Bay Street . Those using the GO Bus Terminal come up to the platform level, go along the platform over Bay Street and then through the east wing into the Great Hall. LP Heritage+ also plans to excavate under the west concourse to establish foundations for new columns to support realigned tracks, then to create a level for short term parking. It would do the same under the east concourse and then under the central VIA concourse. This would ensure that there would be good drop-off deliver and pick-up facilities for passengers using the station. The cost of re-aligning tracks and widening platforms is significant. When it is done the shed over the tracks would be replaced with a glass and metal structure as grand as found in European cities. City Council should be making no decision on Union Station until it has the opportunity of looking at the LP Heritage+ bid. Why would the city ask for bids and then refuse to show these bids to council and the public? We believe that anyone who compares the two bids will see that the LP Heritage+ bid is far superior. It is more elegant and better thought-out. It also addresses the long term future of Union Station as a transportation terminal.
*** 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