#197: COMMUNITY RIGHT TO KNOW

world19 is a community group based in the Bloor West Village / High Park area of Toronto, promoting citizen participation in community & political affairs. We established our online communications network in 1998. For more about us, see our main website, read our about world19 web page, or contact us by email. To subscribe to our newsletter by email, or to see an index of past newsletters, visit www.newsletters.world19.com

-

We have taken a break since our activities around the Annette St. Bike Lanes… although we did take time to host a small celebration at the Yellow Griffin Pub with many of those who had participated in the campaign. See photo at www.annette.world19.com

For this newsletter, we are forwarding the following note, sent this week by Green 13, a new environmental group in Ward 13, regarding the imminent vote by City Council on the “Community Right to Know” bylaw. We also support this bylaw. which will be voted on at Council’s meeting Monday/Tuesday, Dec. 1/2.

You still have time to express your thoughts on the matter… the note below includes an email link for Councillor Saundercook. If you don’t live in Ward 13, you can get contact information for your councillor via this page.

If you would like to contact Green 13, you can do so by email: Chris_Holcroft@Yahoo.com. If you want to comment on the issue, or contact your Councillor, you should do so as soon as possible:the Council meeting begins on Monday.


Greetings,

We are writing on behalf of Green 13, a grassroots community environmental group operating in the Ward 13 area of Parkdale-High Park. Green 13’s goals are to educate and advocate for positive changes to ensure the protection of our environment.

We ask your help in encouraging Toronto City Council to approve the proposed Community Right to Know By-Law at its meeting next week.

Currently, most Toronto businesses including auto-body shops, printers and dry cleaners are exempt from having to report the use of some of the most dangerous toxic materials. As a result, we are not fully aware of the all the various pollutants entering our air, water and land.

But this landmark municipal policy would require between 5,000 and 7,000 Toronto businesses to report their use of 25 toxic substances. With this information, residents will know what toxins are being released into their community, and the City will be better positioned to encourage polluting businesses to use more environmentally safe products.

But these positive changes will fail unless there is political will to act at the December 1-2 City Council meeting. Please write our local Councillor Bill Saundercook and urge him to vote YES to the Community Right to Know by-law. Councillor Saundercook’s e-mail is councillor_saundercook@toronto.ca.

For more background information on the by-law please visit Toronto Public Health at: www.toronto.ca/health/hphe/enviro_info.htm or the Toronto Environmental Alliance’s Community Right to Know campaign at: www.secrecyistoxic.ca.

Thank you for your help in building a green community!

Sincerely and on behalf of Green 13,

Christopher Holcroft
Rita Bijons
Sarah Doucette
Annabel Reinis
Feresteh Hashemi
Jeanne Preudhomme

world19: Supporting citizen involvement in our community and its future
email: mail@world19.com
web: www.world19.com
To see an index of past newsletters or to subscribe: www.world19.com/newsletters.htm

Nov 30 2008 10:25 pm | newsletters | No Comments »

#196: TRIDEL DEVELOPMENT: Input needed!; Annette Bike Lanes approved

In this issue:
1) Tridel/2500 Bloor Update, input requested
2) Tridel meetings: Nov. 4 & 6
3) Annette St. Bike Lanes approved at City Council
4) Events: Ukrainian Festival public meeting; Swansea Craft & Bake Sale

1. Tridel/2500 Bloor Update, input requested:

This coming Thursday, November 6th will be the fourth and final meeting of the Tridel working group regarding the development of the Old Mill car dealership at 2500 Bloor St. (See notice below). The purpose of this meeting is to discuss community feedback on four proposed building scenarios.

Office for Urbanism, on behalf of Tridel, has provided depiction of these four scenarios - each with a density of 6X lot size but with different massing and so differing effects. Three are shown with maximum heights on Bloor of 10 to 12 stories, while the fourth presents a podium style with a tower as much as 18 stories high.

You can find these scenarios in the October “Meeting Three Presentation” document, along with an “evaluative toolkit” on this page of the 2500 Bloor website. Also see the “Meeting Three Notes” for details of the working group discussion, including discussion of height detail.

As many of you know, this relatively large development site sits rather strategically between the Humber River valley and the commercial activity of Bloor West Village, making it an important transition point between these two very different environments. It is otherwise neighbour to several low rise apartment/condo buildings and marks the south end of a continuous flow of single family houses to the north. It is also at a point on Bloor St. marked by already difficult traffic flow features around the Jane/Bloor and S. Kingway/Bloor intersections.

These are some of the key macro features of the site context that we think are important to keep in mind throughout your consideration of the scenarios. You will find these points and all other information previously discussed by the working group on the 2500 Bloor web site.

Your ideas and opinions matter. This is your chance to be heard prior to Tridel’s submission of a development application to the city. This type of opportunity for community input early in the planning process is still relatively uncommon and we encourage you to take advantage of it.

We do apologize for the short notice, but please send us your comments asap and we will carry your voice to the November 6th meeting. We will be pleased to receive any and all comments whether or not they are based on the evaluation categories suggested in the toolkit. In fact, it would be useful to know if you think there are evaluation categories or criteria that are missing from the toolkit as it stands.

As you’ll see in our ‘events’ section, the Swansea Area Ratepayers Association is consulting with their community via a meeting on November 4th at the Townhall. All community members are welcome to attend. And we remind you that all community members are welcome as observers at the final Tridel working group meeting on the 6th, again as noted in the ‘events’ section.

We hope to hear from you soon!

2. Meetings: Nov. 4 & 6
There will be two meetings this week on the development:

a) The Swansea Area Ratepayers Association (SARA) is hosting a public meeting to collect community input on the scenarios posted by Tridel (see above item).

SARA also sends the message, “We Need Your Participation!”

Tuesday, Nov. 4, 7:15pm
Swansea Town Hall, 95 Lavinia Ave
Council Chamber (2nd floor)

7:30-8:00: Brief Presentation of Development Options
8:00-8:40: Breakout & Feedback Sessions
8:40-9:00: Consensus Summary

b) Tridel Working Group Meeting: Nov. 6
The final meeting of the group mentioned above will be held on Thursday, Nov. 6, 7pm at the Old Mill Inn. Room TBA. Meeting participation is for the Working Group, but everyone is welcome — and encouraged — to attend.

3) Annette Bike Lanes Approved

On October 30, City Council approved, by a 20-11 vote, full bike lanes along the remaining (Runnymede to Jane) stretch of Annette St. This has been a very long (to us, needlessly long) process. We have posted numerous comments in our newsletter and website, so will not take up more space here.

Based on our past comments, it’s clear that we lay the blame for a seriously mis-managed process on Councillor Bill Saundercook, who failed in every aspect of this. Over the 6 months this item was on the table, consistently failed to organize public consultation, attempt to mediate between different viewpoints on this, and completely mis-represented the community’s views at both the Public Works Committee and City Council.

It took a huge effort from a large number of people to get the lanes approved, including local groups like world19 and the Bloor West Village Residents Association, cycling organizations like the Toronto Cyclists Union, leadership by Councillors Adrian Heaps and Gord Perks, and most importantly by the public. Over 200 emails were sent to City Council. 150 of them were copied to world19 — every one in favour of bike lanes. We’ve posted all 150 on our website (with personal information removed). Thanks to everyone who pitched in. It was a victory for community and public involvement.

We’ve posted some updates on our Annette bike page, including comments and quotes from the night of the vote, including a couple of rather astounding comments by Councillor Saundercook.

d) Other Events

Ukrainian Festival Meeting
A meeting open to residents and businesses to discuss the 2008 Ukrainian Festival
Wed. Nov. 5, 6:30-7:30pm
St. Pius X Church, 2305 Bloor St. W. (basement)

14th Annual Swansea Craft and Bake Sale
Saturday, November 22, 10 a.m. to 3 p.m.

Enter through the Community Centre at 15 Waller Avenue. Come join us for one stop holiday shopping for family, friends and teachers. We have Jewellery, art, jellies and jams, strudel, chocolates, stocking stuffers, Christmas ornaments and so much more. After shopping enjoy some lunch, purchase a treat from the bake table, buy a raffle ticket and get a tattoo. Bring your camera and visit with Santa from 11-1.

world19: Supporting citizen involvement in our community and its future

email: mail@world19.com
web: www.world19.com

For an index of past newsletters, or to subscribe, go to:
www.world19.com/newsletters.htm

Nov 02 2008 10:40 pm | newsletters | 1 Comment »

#195: IT’S NOW OR NEVER…ONLY YOU CAN SAVE THE ANNETTE BIKE LANES

(IMPORTANT: To send your comments by email to Council, CLICK HERE. It will set up your email for you (with all the cc’s, subject line, etc.) For more details on sending your email comments to City Council, see the “Email Comments” section later on this page.

All updates are now on our main Annette page: www.annette.world19.com  This includes

——————————————————————–

 

Smokey the Bear says, "Only YOU can save the Annette Bike Lanes1"

Only YOU can save the Annette bike lanes

It should have been over, but it’s not… quite…

The bad news is that last Friday, October 10th, the Public Works and Infrastructure Committee rejected the recommendation of staff to approve installation of the missing stretch of Annette bike lanes between Runnymede and Jane, and instead adopted a motion initiated by Councillor Saundercook to establish this stretch as a shared roadway, effectively maintaining the status quo.

The good news is, City Council has the final word and we believe we still have a shot at the full bike lanes. But Council meets on October 29/30 so our time to act is limited. It’s now or never…

 

By now, many are well acquainted with the history of this issue. (See, for example, our Oct. 7 newsletter #194).

Briefly, following an inadequately publicized and poorly attended public meeting in April, the Public Works and Infrastructure Committee (PWIC) in June requested Councillor Saundercook and city staff review options and conduct another community consultation. As a result, a public meeting was held on Sept. 15. This meeting was attended by about 150 community members.

At the meeting, staff presented 3 options to address the contested stretch of Annette between Runnymede and Jane:

  1. Full bike lanes on Annette, as already approved east from Runnymede to Dundas, continuing along Dupont to Lansdowne.
  2. A diversion of the route north to St. Johns as well as south to Ardagh. These would be ’signed routes’, essentially status quo shared roadways (not dedicated lanes) with bike route signage.
  3. A shared roadway on Annette, to be marked by painted sharrows. Bikes and cars would share the curb lane as they do now.

As a result of the meeting, 81% of attendees and those responding by email or fax chose Bike Lanes. City staff also recommended Bike Lanes. Their report showed the street would still have sufficient parking, and they confirmed that bike lanes are the safest solution (see links below for their report). All signs were pointing toward bike lanes as the best option and most assumed this stretch of lanes would be ‘missing’ no longer.

Needless to say, many of us were shocked and dismayed when the PWIC, by a 3-2 vote, rejected the bike lane proposal in favour of Option 3: a shared roadway along Annette. This motion was introduced by PWIC member Councillor Mark Grimes on behalf of Councillor Saundercook who was not in attendance. It was unfortunate that PWIC member Councillor Shelley Carroll was not present, as she is a strong supporter of bike lanes.

And while we believe strongly in the importance of these bike lanes for many reasons (see below), we are deeply troubled by the utter disregard shown to the community’s voice, the staff’s findings, all best evidence and the Bike Plan itself. Such arbitrary, ad hoc decision-making at the 11th hour simply makes a mockery of all and squanders valuable public good will.

 

City Council has the final say, and your comments NOW are essential

We believe there is a good chance that City Council might yet approve the full bike lanes at its Oct. 29/30 meeting – if Councillors hear enough support from the public on this issue. In the past several months, we have often suggested that people write various staff and Councillors on this issue, and apologize for doing so one more time. However, this is the final — and most important — chance to get these bike lanes in place.

Why should Council overturn the PWIC decision? You can see some of our reasons for supporting the lanes here…

 

Email comments: What to send and how to send them:

To let your views be known, here is what you should do. (See our handy email link below)

  • Write as soon as possible (see below for dates)
  • Send your comments to Marilyn Toft, Manager of Council Secretariat Support (see email link below)
  • Be sure to copy Councillor Adrian Heaps, Chair of the City Cycling Committee - We would also request that you copy bikes@world19.com
  • Use the subject “2008 Bikeway Network Program - Annette Street”
  • Be sure to reference agenda item PW 19.8
  • Request that your email be distributed to all Council members
  • Send your comments in the body of the email, not as an attachment
  • Keep your comments relatively brief to ensure they are read– focus on the issue and importance of these bike lanes
  • You can also point out that the consultation resulted in overwhelming public support of the bike lanes
  • Include your address. If you live near Annette, or in Ward 13, please indicate that too. If not, let them know where you live and why these Annette lanes specifically are important.
  • Email is best, but if you do send by fax, the number is 416 392-2980. Send to the attention of Marilyn Toft, and note on your cover page that it is for Council agenda item PW19.8
  • You can also call Councillor Heaps’ office (416-392-0213) to let your views be known.

Our handy email link:

To send an email, CLICK HERE to use our handy, one-step link which will set up your email for you (with all the cc’s, subject line, etc.). Or if you prefer, just email mtoft@toronto.ca and add your own cc’s or subject line. Whatever you do, it is very important for Councillor Heaps to receive a copy (councillor_heaps@toronto.ca.)

Click here to see some of the comments already sent to City Council.

 

Dates:

Please spread the word! There’s less than two weeks left before Council!!

 

Links

world19: Supporting citizen involvement in our community and its future

To subscribe to, or see our past newsletters, go to www.world19.com/newsletters.htm
email: mail@world19.com
web: www.world19.com

Oct 17 2008 07:03 pm | newsletters | 3 Comments »

#194: ANNETTE BIKE LANES: It Ain’t Over ‘Til It’s Over (and ACM info)

This will likely be our last post on the Annette Bike Lane issue (except for an update on its final resolution). Things look positive for completing the bike lanes between Runnymede and Jane, (strong public support and endorsement by city staff) but “It Ain’t Over….” etc.

Election update:

Before continuing on the Bike Lane issue, a quick note about 2 local election debates/All Candidates Meetings:

Tue. Oct. 7, 7:30pm
Swansea Town Hall, 95 Lavinia Ave.
Sponsored by Swansea Area Ratepayers Association.
All candidates have been invited

Wed. Oct. 8, 7:30pm
Runnymede United Church
432 Runnymede Rd.
Sponsored by Bloor West Village Residents Association
Candidates for Conservative, Liberal, NDP & Green parties invited

Bike Lanes

In this newsletter, we provide a brief background (again) on this issue, a recap of the public meeting held Sep. 15, results of public input, staff recommendations, and information on its next stage: presentation to the Public Works and Infrastructure Committee on Oct. 10, and information on how to provide your input.

The issue goes to Committee, Friday Oct. 10.

Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Attention all Annette bike lane advocates! The final round of the great Annette Bike Lanes Debacle is upon us. It’s time to gear up one last time and let your wishes be known to the Public Works and Infrastructure Committee before they convene this coming Friday, October 10th to determine just what will be done about the missing stretch of bike lanes between Runnymede and Jane.

Following the large, vocal and pro-lanes turnout at the September 15th public consultation (see our Sep. 20 newsletter report) we were heartened to see staff are recommending that the original plan for dedicated bike lanes between Runnymede and Jane be approved. (See below for links) But we think it is dangerous and premature to assume that the PWIC will adopt this recommendation without issue. We don’t doubt that opposition to the lanes (as in ‘pressure on the councillor’) from the businesses on Annette will continue until the end. And we note that recently published remarks by Councillor Saundercook (see below) indicate his preference for one or another of the alternatives to the dedicated lanes. No, unfortunately, it’s not time to rest on our bike seats yet!

Annette Bike lanes: a background:

(This section is from our Sep. 20 newsletter)

At its June meeting, the Public Works and Infrastructure Committee (PWIC) approved bike lanes along Dupont and Annette, but only as far west as Runnymede. A decision on the remaining stretch of proposed bike lanes (to Jane St.) was postponed to their Oct. 10 meeting. This was a result of controversy over loss of some of the on-street parking in that stretch based on concerns voiced by some local businesses at a poorly-publicized April public meeting. As an alternative to bike lanes on Annette, Ward 13 Councillor Bill Saundercook supported a diversion of the route, north to St. Johns Rd. But St. Johns could only provide a signed route, that is a shared (car/bike) roadway, rather than dedicated bike lanes.

In the end, since there had been inadequate opportunity for public input at the April public meeting, the PWIC instructed the Councillor and city staff to conduct proper community consultation on the issue, and return to the PWIC on October 10th with a recommendation. And so a public consultation was held on Monday, September 15th.

Sep. 15 public meeting: 3 options on the table

About 150 people attended this meeting. City staff gave background on issues around biking in Toronto, including information about the city’s official Bike Plan and the Annette (and Dupont) bike lane proposals. Councillor Adrian Heaps, chair of the City Cycling Committee was in attendance and spoke passionately about the necessity of building cycling infrastructure.

Most importantly to this issue, staff presented three options for the Runnymede to Jane stretch:

Public input on the options:

The public was invited to comment at the meeting, or later by email or fax.

Option 1 was the overwhelming choice. 81% of respondents selected it as their first choice.

Option 3, although only getting 11% support as the first choice was the second choice (67%). The diversion option (Option 3) was “clearly not acceptable to the vast majority of cyclists” staff wrote.

(Relevant documents are linked below. All are PDF format)

The decision: our last chance for input

As a result of all this, Transportation staff is now recommending the creation of proper bike lanes along the missing stretch to Jane St. This recommendation is being presented at the October 10th meeting of the Public Works and Infrastructure Committee.

The brief agenda for that meeting is posted here in brief and detailed formats. (This issue is the 8th item).

Despite the support of the staff (and the majority of the public who either attended or submitted comments), it is no safe bet that the lanes will be approved. Continued active support is needed.

A local Councillor’s views carries weight at these meetings, and Councillor Saundercook is still not onside. We’re not clear which option he supports… except that it is NOT bike lanes. See notes below on his role.

See some of our reasons for supporting the full bike lane choice here.

Submit your comments:

You can submit comments in writing, or depute at the PWIC meeting on Oct. 10. You need to send your comments, or request to depute by Oct. 9 noon at the latest. (The earlier the better though).

To do so, contact Rosalind Dyers, Committee Administrator at 416 392-8018, pwic@toronto.ca, or you can use this link to send an email which will go to the above address, and also copy Councillor Saundercook, the Toronto Cycling Committee and world19.

Comments on Councillor Saundercook’s role

We have frequently noted in our newsletters what we have felt to be Councillor Saundercook’s poor efforts to organize proper public consultation. There was virtually no public notice of the April Open House, yet the Councillor subsequently supported the St. Johns Rd shared roadway diversion, as a compromise based on “community consultation”. The reason of course, was that the loudest voices at that meeting were the businesses objecting to loss of on-street parking.

The legitimacy of that “consultation” was clearly contradicted by the statements made by many of the people writing and deputing to the PWIC in June, and the matter was sent back to the community. Despite the farce of the original consultation, again poor efforts seem to have been made to notify the public of the September meeting. The Councillor did post a notice on his website, and apparently arranged for a delivery service to distribute flyers in the area. Yet at the meeting, when the room was asked, not a single attendee said they had received official notice. Both world19 and the Bloor West Village Residents Association asked our mailing lists if anyone had received notice, and nobody indicated they did. Those that did attend the public meeting were there as a result of the efforts by groups like world19 and the BWVRA, and communication among Annette businesses.

So, after all this time, effort and comment, we’re not clear on what the Councillor’s current position is, except that it is likely NOT supporting bike lanes as endorsed by the community consultation and city staff.

Two contradictory articles were recently published:

In the September Town Crier, Mr. Saundercook still supported a diverted route, for reasons of safety (with a nod to the parking issue thrown in):

Area councillor Bill Saundercook said he also favours the St. John’s Rd. alternative for safety reasons.

“I was discouraging cyclists from coming to Jane and Annette because it’s a very dangerous intersection under the best conditions,” he said, adding the intersection is misaligned and TTC buses are constantly moving through the intersection, making it awkward for cyclists to maneuver.

“In an ideal world no parking there would be as safe as possible for the cyclists, no unexpected door openings, but in a busy city like Toronto, you definitely need some parking so we’re looking for that compromise,” Saundercook said.

Yet, in the Oct. 3rd Villager, he seems to support a shared roadway along Annette, because of the parking issue:

… local Ward 13 (Parkdale-High Park) Councillor Bill Saundercook said he’ll be advocating for the “sharrow” markings on an interim basis. He said that the bike lanes will delete about half the on-street parking on the stretch, and that will be a serious problem for two small business sections of the street. “These people have been suffering for years as it is,” he said. “There’s no off-street parking for anybody here, so it’s a real problem.”

At the Sep. 15 meeting, and in some conversations local residents have had with him in the past few months, the Councillor seemed to indicate the main issue was safety… especially the “dangerous” Annette / Jane / Baby Point intersection. (However, no statistics were ever provided to back this up). If safety were indeed the Councillor’s prime concern, we wonder how that would align with supporting a shared roadway concept, given city staff’s clear statement about the safety of bike lanes.

Two more links:

Oct 07 2008 12:18 pm | newsletters | 1 Comment »

#193: URBAN ISSUES & ELECTION; BILLBOARDS & (IL)LEGAL SIGNS

world19 is a community group based in the Bloor West Village / High Park area of Toronto, promoting citizen participation in community & political affairs. We established our online communications network in 1998. For more about us, see Our main website, read our About world19 web page, or Contact us by email. To subscribe to our newsletter by email, or to see an index of past newsletters, visit www.newsletters.world19.com

In this post:

1. Cities & the Federal Election
.. and a panel discussion: “Urban issues and the Federal Election”, Sep. 30
2. Signs: Input needed on new city bylaw
… and someone “stealing” the wall of the Humber theatre for an electronic billboard
3. Community events & news

1. CITIES AND THE FEDERAL ELECTION

Those who have followed our newsletters and website know of our long-running commitment to promoting urban issues. Our group began in 1997 around the amalgamation issue in Toronto, and the health and vitality of cities — where most of Canada’s population and economic strength lie — remain one of our core interests.

We have written extensively on this, both about Toronto’s specific situation, and from a general urban perspective. We have also met with our elected representatives at all levels on these issues. In the 2004 federal election, we sponsored an All-Candidates Meeting specifically on this topic.

Four years later, another federal election is here, and little has changed.

In a recent column, Toronto Star urban affairs columnist Christopher Hume bemoaned the situation:

From an urban perspective, the most remarkable thing about the current federal election is the sheer irrelevance of it all.

The issues that city-dwellers care about – jobs, housing, safety, transit – have yet to cause a ripple among candidates, let alone leaders.

…

But to ignore urban centres is to ignore Canadians, 80 per cent of whom inhabit towns and cities. For the most part, this is where our lives unfold. To listen to the rhetoric coming from candidates, however, you’d never know it.

The sad situation is summed up most (in)famously in Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s demeaning dismissal, “We’re not in the pothole business in the Government of Canada”. But as Hume pointed out, it’s not a partisan rejection… it was Liberal Finance Minister Paul Martin who first initiated the downloading that was so devastating to cities, who sit at the bottom of the governmental totem pole.

“City issues” are truly Canada’s issues. It’s here where real progress can be made on some of the most critical issues facing us: climate change, environment, crime, safety, immigration, housing. Most of Canada’s economic strength comes from cities.

As cities go, so goes the country.

We encourage readers to put cities on the election agenda. Talk to friends and neighbours; call, write, email your candidates.

Panel Discussion: “Urban Issues in the Federal Election: Why the Feds matter to cities and why cities should matter to the Feds”

On Sep. 30, there will be a panel discussion on the above topic. It is sponsored by the University of Toronto Cities Centre, the School of Public Policy & Governance and the Centre for Environment. Topics include Arts & Culture, Economic Development, Environmental Sustainability and Transit & Urban Infrastructure.

The event will be held at Hart House, University of Toronto, from 4-6pm. The event is free, but attendees are requested to RSVP to p.jory@utoronto.ca. Click here for details of the event, including speakers.

2. SIGN BYLAW: The City of Toronto is developing a new bylaw to regulate billboards
The following note is from the Toronto Public Space Committee (TPSC)

The City’s Sign By-law Project Team is approaching the issue with an open mind and looking for guidance from the the public. Should Toronto have fewer billboards? What types of signs should be prohibited? What areas should be designated billboard-free? What powers should the City have to enforce the law? What tools should the public have to comment on billboard applications or inquire about signs that have already been erected? How should the City maintain safety and environmental standards?

There are two public sessions this week:

If you’re unable to make either of these, you can send your comments to signbylawproject@toronto.ca or leave a phone message at 416-392-8000. A note as short as “Billboards make Toronto less beautiful” will have a difference.

More information: http://www.toronto.ca/signbylawproject/. TPSC contact: Jonathan Goldsbie, jonathan@publicspace.ca.

Video-projected billboard in the Village

On the topic of illegal signs, we recently noticed something odd in the Village. On a Saturday night, around 11pm, there was a parked car on the south side of Bloor, with a small generator sitting on the pavement behind it, powering a projector placed on the roof of the car. It was projecting rotating slides against the large blank wall of the old Odeon Humber theatre, advertising Perrier. There was a prominent display of a website address, luckier.ca. There is no website up at that address, but the domain name is registered to an advertising company, Ryan Partnership, whose clients include (not surprisingly) Perrier.

It was an odd situation. The wall was not visible to many… not to cars on Bloor; and there were few pedestrians. At best, a dozen or so patio customers at Bryden’s pub might have seen it. Perhaps they were just testing out a new method of using public space to advertise for their customers.

We enquired the next day of Rami Tabello who is dedicated to searching out and reporting illegal signs in Toronto (his website in fact is www.illegalsigns.ca), who said indeed this was illegal, and might be controlled under the new sign bylaw.

3. EVENTS, COMMUNITY NEWS
A few items sent to us recently:

a) “The Energy Predicament - Fossil Fuels and the Energy Future” - Wed. Sep. 25
Given by Randy Park, chair of Post Carbon Toronto
Humbercrest United Church, 16 Baby Point Rd (in the sanctuary)
7:30 pm, Free.

Click here for more details

b) Swansea “Cheering Event” and the Toronto Marathon, Sun. Sep. 28
Four Swansea-ites are running in the Marathon, and various Swansea groups, as part of the Marathon’s “Neighbourhood Challenge” have organized a cheering section and encourage people to come out. See our event listing for more information.

c) High Park news and events
Check http://www.highpark.org/ for their event listings (including weekly walking tours and the annual Harvest Festival, Oct. 5), plus the latest newsletter. Check the buttons on the left of the main page.

Sep 24 2008 10:17 pm | newsletters | No Comments »

#192: ANNETTE BIKE LANES: Comments required by Monday

A report on the Sep. 15 public meeting regarding Annette St. Bike Lanes

At the meeting, three options for completing the missing stretch between Runnymede and Jane were presented, and feedback was requested from those attending. Below are our notes from the meeting; the presentation given by the city is linked at the end of this post.

City staff is soliciting input and comments from the public, by Monday, Sep. 22 at the latest. We include information at the end on how you can send your comments and/or preferred option for this route to the city.

Background

At its June meeting, the Public Works and Infrastructure Committee (PWIC) approved bike lanes along Dupont and Annette, but only as far west as Runnymede. A decision on the remaining stretch of proposed bike lanes (to Jane St.) was postponed to their Oct. 10 meeting. This was a result of controversy over loss of some of the on-street parking in that stretch based on concerns voiced by local businesses at a poorly-publicized April public meeting. As an alternative to bike lanes on Annette, Ward 13 Councillor Bill Saundercook supported a diversion of the route, north to St. Johns Rd. But St. Johns could only provide a signed route, that is a shared (car/bike) roadway, rather than dedicated bike lanes.

In the end, since there had been inadequate opportunity for public input at the April public meeting, the PWIC instructed the Councillor and city staff to conduct proper community consultation on the issue, and return to the PWIC on October 10th with a recommendation. And so a public consultation was held on Monday, September 15th.

September 15th Community Consultation: the issue of meeting notification

This past week’s meeting was much better attended than the April one, with at least 100 people present. However, those who did attend were there because word had been spread by groups like world19, the BWVRA, Annette businesses and the cycling community, and not via any official city notification.

Councillor Saundercook noted that he had posted news of the meeting on his website, and said that meeting notices had been delivered throughout the area bounded by Jane, Colbeck, Runnymede and St. Johns Rd. However we have spoken with a number of people who live in the target area, including some living on Annette, and none received notice. Both world19 and the BWVRA asked those on our mailing lists if they had received notice from the city and have had no affirmative replies. At the meeting, one community member asked the audience to raise their hands if they had received official city notice. Nobody did.

We raise the issue of inadequate meeting notification for the Sept meeting since it was the same type of circumstance - poor notification and the resulting lack of public participation - that led to the June PWIC deferral of the decision in the first place. This situation would be merely ironic if it didn’t signal such a needless waste of city resources and unnecessary burden to the community. At any rate, one would have thought that with an October target date for the return of the issue to the PWIC, there would have been plenty of time to adequately organize, schedule and publicize a community meeting. Full public notice would also have encouraged a broader cross-section of opinion.

September 15th: Meeting Report

At the meeting, City staff gave a presentation which covered background on the City’s Official Bike Plan, information on the full Dupont/Annette bike route, and details of the section of Annette at issue (Runnymede to Jane), including some parking statistics, and finally outlined the three options under consideration for that section. See later in this post for a link to the presentation.

A few notes and thoughts from the presentation:

  • The abysmal progress to date of the Bike Plan’s network.

The plan, adopted in 2001 targeted creation of 495 km of on-road bike lanes by 2011. After almost 7 years, we have only 85km! The generally accepted reason for this? A lack of political will and priorities, as well as localized opposition to bike lanes.

  • Parking statistics. Staff did a parking survey (based on one count during three different time periods):

Current parking capacity = 126 cars
Capacity with bike lanes = 64 cars

Usage:
Midday (weekday) = 48
Evening = 36
Nighttime = 58

The presentation has a page with bar graphs showing a block by block analysis of usage plus current and “bike lane” capacity.

  • Options under consideration for the Jane to Runnymede Stretch. (See below how you can indicate your choice(s)

1. Full bike lanes, as on the rest of Annette & Dupont (to Lansdowne).

2. Alternate routes which would entail a signed route using shared (bike/car) roadway (i.e., no dedicated lanes or other road markings). These routes would be on St. Johns Rd to the north and Ardagh to the south.

3. A shared roadway on Annette. There would be: no dedicated bike lanes, instead markings (sharrows) would be painted on the road to highlight (along with signs) the fact that the route should be shared between cars and bikes.

The presentation was followed by extensive discussion, Q&A, etc. We don’t have the time or space to cover much of it here, however we will note that the meeting was peaceable; although there were clear and sharp differences of opinions, it never got heated.

Councillor Saundercook, who in the spring supported a St. Johns “diversion” specifically because of potential impact to business from loss of parking, this time expressed a concern about bike lanes on Annette for “safety reasons”. He felt that the Jane/Annette/Baby Point intersection was dangerous, and said that a relative of his had been killed there as a pedestrian a number of years ago.

One person in the audience then asked if there were any actual statistics about accidents there to back up “impressions” that its safety/accident record was worse than any other intersection in the city. She indicated that conversations with 11 Division pointed to no increased risk. Staff confirmed there were no data to support the perception of Jane/Annette as an intersection at increased risk of accidents. Further, staff stated that in general, it’s clear that wherever bike lanes exist, collisions are reduced.

Late in the meeting, Councillor Adrian Heaps, Chair of the City Cycling Committee spoke. He gave an excellent overview of the urgency of improving cycling infrastructure. There is no choice he suggested; it is an excellent and important way to reduce traffic congestion, make progress on climate change and other environmental goals, and promote fitness.


Conclusion

For all those, and other reasons, we feel that it’s critical that the Bikeway network outlined in The Bike Plan be established. It would obviously be an exaggeration to say its success depends on creating bike lanes along this last section of Annette, but consider how much of that network still needs to be built, and how much a city-wide network depends on good, efficient, easy-to-navigate routes.

Take a look at the proposed city bike network in the meeting presentation, and think about how impossible it will be to finish all those dotted (proposed) routes, if every time the plan hits a sleepy commercial section like Annette, the route is diverted, however briefly, to the east, west, north or south. And remember that while we talk about the ‘plan’ and the ‘route’, we’re actually talking about people - people who regularly move about the city on bikes. We should all be so lucky.

In relation to the two alternative options proposed, we feel that the full bike lane option is the correct one for other reasons. The others do not provide as safe and efficient a cycling environment. And while we strongly support local businesses, we feel that it is no longer practical in the heart of a big city for drivers to expect to always find a parking spot within a few steps of their destination, when sufficient parking does still exist mere steps away. And in the long run, perhaps by encouraging cycling throughout the city there will some day be less demand for parking.

We strongly urge the community to support the completion of the Annette Bike Lanes (”Option 1″).


References/Links

As always, we invite comments on these and other community issues. You can click the “comments” link below this post, or email us.

Sep 20 2008 09:33 pm | newsletters | No Comments »

191(a) BIKE LANES: Meeting tonight … It’s time to DO something!

 

BIKE LANE MEETING TONIGHT

A reminder of the public meeting on the issue of extending the already-approved Annette Bike Lanes from Runnymede through to Jane St.:

Monday, Sep. 15, 7pm
James Culnan Catholic School
605 Willard Ave. (between Annette & St. Johns Rd)

This meeting is being held because the Public Works and Infrastructure Committee (PWIC) postponed its original (June) decision on this stretch of Annette, pending further public consultation to be undertaken by Councillor Saundercook.

If you cannot attend the meeting, and wish to express your opinion, you can contact the Councillor by email, or by phone at his Constituency Office 416 338-5165, or City Hall office: 416 392-4073.  The PWIC will make its decision at its next meeting on October 10. If you would like to submit comments:

The meeting agenda will be posted. Watch this page: http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/2008/agendas/pw.htm

 

 

BIKE LANES? LET’S DO SOMETHING!

As reported in our previous newsletter, and on our bike page, at the June meeting of the Public Works & Infrastructure Committee (PWIC), a decision on completing the last section (Runnymede to Jane) of the long-planned Annette Bike Lanes was postponed (until October) because of the lack of any meaningful public consultation, and widespread objections to Councillor Saundercook’s proposed alternative (diverting to a signed bike route along St. Johns Rd).

Three months later, “public consultation” seems to have come down to another minimally-publicized public meeting to be held Sep. 15 (See above). And again, it seems the Councillor is supporting another alternative to the Annette Bike Lanes. If that is the case, we don’t believe he can justify that plan with any backing of “community consultation”. We have not heard about anyone who has actually received the Councillor’s meeting flyer… even those living right on Annette!

We strongly encourage people to come to the meeting, and/or express your opinions on the issue. See the end of this piece for details.

Some cities actually take action:

While the “controversy” over bike lanes along sleepy Annette St has dragged on for months, some cities seem able to move ahead full speed. Need to encourage cycling? Reduce car dependency? Build safe bike lanes? Just do it!

For a drastic contrast with our local situation, read John Barber’s column in the Sep. 9, Globe & Mail, “Want to make a difference for cyclists? Start a war“.

A few highlights from that article:

New York’s new transportation commissioner, impressed by a visit last year to see Copenhagen’s bicycling system which gives cyclists dedicated lanes protected by wide buffers (”lanes taken away from cars”), decided to implement the same idea. It was done in a month.

The city removed two lanes of parked and moving cars from Ninth Avenue in the Chelsea district, replacing them with one bicycle lane and a generous no-go buffer zone between it and the remaining motorized lanes. Just like that.

And also…
…city crews are tearing up the entire length of Broadway, removing driving lanes and parking in favour of generous bike lanes protected by broad landscaped buffers.

What is Paris doing?
Paris flooded its famous boulevards with a fleet of 24,000 bicycles for the use of any citizen with a euro in their pocket. Simply creating the stations to accommodate the fleet required the elimination of 7,000 parking spaces

While in Toronto,
local bureaucrats struggled to persuade suburban councillors to accept bicycle lanes on a handful of obscure routes.

While great cities around the world compete with bold strokes to reclaim their streets for pedestrians and cyclists …Toronto quails at the challenge of painting new stripes on Annette Street.

What we need is a big gesture, a thorough makeover of a major street with unapologetic impacts on drivers. The current strategy, which aims to remake the city without risking actual change, is an absurdity.

Consider the bureaucrats’ assurance that none of the proposals before committee yesterday would have “significant impact” on existing traffic. But if Toronto’s ambitious bike plan is to succeed, noted Ron Fletcher of the Toronto Bicycle Network, by definition it must have significant impact on traffic. Otherwise, what’s the point?

New York and Paris (among many other cities) have far more cars, far more road congestion, and far more parking “problems” than Toronto. Yet our relatively modest Bike Plan has been stalled for years.

Let’s start doing something! Let’s start small. Let’s start with a few blocks of bike lanes on Annette Street…

 

 

 

 

“BIKES AS A PUBLIC GOOD”: Public Forum, Sep. 18

The bike sharing program adopted by Paris cited above is one of the featured topics of discussion at this forum, subtitled “What is the future of public bike sharing in Toronto?”, organized by the Toronto Coalition for Active Transportation, the Clean Air Partnership an the Community Bicycle Network.

See http://torontocat.ca/main/publicbikes for more information.

 


Sep 15 2008 12:03 pm | newsletters | No Comments »

#191(b): 2500 BLOOR, AND BITTON UPDATE

On September 4th the Tridel Working Group met as planned for its first of three substantive working meetings. Group members representing local residents groups, including world19, were joined by a number of other interested local residents who participated at certain points in the evening’s activities, somewhat contrary to Tridel’s original plan, which suggested members of the public could attend as observers only.

Councillor Bill Saundercook was on hand to serve as chair, and again Jennifer Keesmaat from the Office for Urbanism was there as facilitator. The focus of this meeting was on the existing site conditions and their inherent opportunities and constraints. In the end, the time felt too short but clearly all those in attendance were fully engaged in the exercise.

The materials presented by Keesmaat along with other notes from the evening are now available on the Tridel project site. In particular, the Meeting One Discussion Summary, which contains summaries from the small group work and emerging themes will form the basis for next week’s meeting regarding guiding principles for the site.

Of considerable interest - at least to those of us who’ve been wondering about the future of the Odeon Humber site - was the arrival and participation of Odeon block (and beyond) owner Claude Bitton. His presence and the importance of the Odeon property were variously acknowledged by both Keesmaat and Saundercook. It seemed to many his arrival signalled the possibility of the coordination of his development plans with those of Tridel. In fact, in conversation with world19, Bitton did indicate that he had been in touch with Tridel prior to the evening. But perhaps in an attempt to ultimately lower the community’s expectations, Saundercook observed that, from the business side, the two remain competitors in the condo field. So, we shall see…

We have been in touch with Mr. Bitton subsequent to that meeting, and he indicated he plans to attend and observe the two remaining Tridel Working Group meetings; we hope similar community involvement will be an active part of his development process for the Humber block. (And we have been happy to note that some of the empty buildings have at least been cleaned up recently).

The next Working Group meeting is scheduled for the evening of September 18th, but specific time and place are TBA. However, we do expect to see a change of venue. Please watch www.world19.com for meeting details.

As always, we invite comments on these and other community issues. You can click the “comments” link below this post, or email us at mail@world19.com

Sep 10 2008 09:59 pm | newsletters | No Comments »

#190(b) JANE ST. LRT, UKRAINIAN FESTIVAL

a) JANE ST. LRT

Background:

The city has proposed a Light Rail Transit (LRT) route for Jane St., to run from Bloor to Steeles. It is part of Toronto’s planned “Transit City” network. (See map of full plan). The Jane route would intersect with the Bloor subway, and other proposed LRT routes along St. Clair (extending the current route), Eglinton and Finch, and terminate at the planned northern extension of the Spadina subway at Steeles Ave.

This route would likely be served by new, longer streetcars, although most details are not yet decided (for instance, the location and frequency of stops. A decision on those questions needs to find a balance between reduced travel time and the ease of access to stops). Given the narrowness of the roadway, and minimal frontage on the southern end of Jane St., running part of the LRT underground is one option.

The city is in the midst of extensive analysis of options over the next several months. There were two recent Open Houses held regarding the Jane proposal. See links below for details of the presentation.

Public information/feedback:

City staff is soliciting feedback as a result of the Open Houses. Comments are to be returned by Sep. 12. (See the last page of the panels linked below).

Another open house will be held Sep. 22 at the Centennial Recreation Centre West. This will focus on the Jane and Eglinton LRT’s. See the Jane LRT webpage below for details. The next Jane LRT Open House will be held this fall, partway through the City’s evaluation of options.

LInks:

b) UKRAINIAN FESTIVAL, SEP. 12-14

The annual Ukrainian Festival returns to Bloor West Village this weekend (Friday to Sunday), after last year’s diversion to Harbourfront Centre. Two things look likely: light rain, and heavy political campaigning. The parade (from High Park to Jane) is scheduled to begin at 11am Saturday. Details: http://www.ukrainianfestival.com/


As always, we invite comments on these and other community issues. You can click the “comments” link below this post, or email us at mail@world19.com

Sep 09 2008 10:39 pm | newsletters | No Comments »

#190(a) CYCLING: ANNETTE BIKE LANES PUBLIC MEETING; “BIKES AS A PUBLIC GOOD”

Two upcoming public meetings re: cycling issues:

  1. Annette Bike Lanes (Sep. 15)
  2. Public Forum: “Bikes as a Public Good” (Sep. 18)

1. A public meeting on the Annette Bike Lane proposal (Runnymede to Jane):

Monday, Sep. 15, 7pm
James Culnan Catholic School
605 Willard Ave. (between Annette & St. Johns Rd)

(See our Bike Page for more background)

Those who followed this issue in the spring will recall the controversy over proposed bike lanes along the stretch of Annette St. between Runnymede and Jane.

Briefly, the City’s official Bike Plan from 2001 has always included the proposal of bike lanes along Dupont and Annette between Lansdowne and Jane. As the seemingly endless implementation of the Plan actually approached this stretch of road, a very poorly publicized Open House was held in April, where a number of Annette businesses vocally objected to the lanes since they would eliminate some (somewhat less than half) of the on-street parking. As a result, Councillor Saundercook supported an alternative: diverting the bike route north to St. Johns Rd. between Runnymede Rd. and Jane St.

world19 and many residents opposed this diversion, feeling that the straight-through Annette route was too important to abandon with such minimal consideration of the issues. See our reasons here.

The Dupont/Annette proposal was considered at the June 4th Public Works and Infrastructure Committee (PWIC) meeting. Numerous area residents, businesses and others submitted comments and gave deputations, the majority of which supported the full Annette route, and objected to a decision being made with such inadequate community consultation. (See many of those comments here).

As a result, the PWIC approved the bike lanes heading west to Runnymede and a decision on the contentious Runnymede to Jane section was postponed to their October 10th meeting. Councillor Saundercook was requested to consult with community members in the meantime and report back to the Committee then.

The result to date is the scheduling of the above meeting. Given the lack of public input and participation the first time around, we encourage everyone interested in this issue to attend this meeting, and to pass on this information to all who may be interested.

Based on a recent conversation with Councillor Saundercook, it appears that he still supports the St. Johns diversion, and feels it likely to be approved. His most recent comments didn’t focus on the previous “issue” (parking on Annette), but his claim that the Jane/Annette intersection is too dangerous.

Once again, we are concerned that there is not enough opportunity for public awareness and consultation. The meeting itself was only scheduled in the last few days, and we are in doubt about how well it has been publicized. If you have received a notice at your home, we’d appreciate hearing from you. email us at mail@world19.com

If you cannot attend the meeting, and wish to express your opinion, you can contact the Councillor by email, or by phone at his Constituency Office 416 338-5165, or  City Hall office: 416 392-4073.

We understand that Councillor Adrian Heaps, Chair of the City Cycling Committee may also attend.

(To see what a completed Bike Plan would look like, you can see the full Bikeway Network here, and western routes here).

2. “Bikes as a Public Good”: A Community Forum

Sep. 18, 7:30pm
Innis Town Hall, 2 Sussex Ave
(At St. George St., just south of Bloor)

Topics include the history of Bike Sharing in Toronto, the new Public Bike system being implemented in Montréal, and the various technologies utilized in bike sharing. Speakers include: Michel Philibert, Stationnement de Montréal; David Boyce, OYBike Systems Ltd and Herb van den Dool, BikeShare/Community Bicycle Network. Moderated by Dave Meslin

Sponsored by the Toronto Coalition for Active Transportation (TCAT). For more info, see their website or Facebook page.

As always, we invite comments on these and other community issues. You can click the “comments” link below this post, or email us at mail@world19.com

Sep 09 2008 10:23 pm | newsletters | No Comments »
Next Page »