While the divide shouldn't come as a surprise, it does counter Doug Ford's repeated claims that the vast majority of residents want subways. Although that number reaches a majority in Scarborough (52.1 per cent believe council was in error), it lags behind the 70 to 80 per cent the mayor's brother has cited, though it's always been anyone's guess where he gets his numbers from. In North York and Etobicoke, 45.3 and 46.9 per cent of those polled believe council got it wrong while 38.0 and 39.7 per cent believe the right decision was made.

Before one puts a ton of stock in these numbers, however, it's worth drawing attention to the precise wording of the question to which participants responded. It reads: "Yesterday, Toronto City Council voted 25 to 18 to reverse Mayor Rob Ford's plan to focus transit spending on two new subways, and instead to put the money into building at least three above-ground light rail lines in different parts of the city. Given what you have seen, or read, or heard, do you think that City Council has made the right decision or the wrong decision?"

In case you didn't catch it, that phraseology is actually quite kind to Ford. At present, his plan isn't "to focus transit spending on two new subways," but rather to ensure that one LRT remains underground for the entirety of its passage along Eglinton. That's no minor distinction, and it gets worse when one accounts for the fact that the mayor doesn't have any money to focus toward a subway on Sheppard in the first place.

If anything, then, the numbers reported in this poll are actually skewed against the above-ground LRT plan, which is accurately described in the question at hand. I can't say this enough: the debate isn't about subways and LRT, but how best to spend the $8.4 billion we have in guaranteed funding from the province. Had the poll asked about that, the results might look even worse for Ford.

The latest poll to say so comes courtesy of Strategic Communications, Inc., which conducted its research in the 48 hours following Ford's loss at the special city council meeting on transit. As Stratcom has it, the mayor's overall disapproval has risen to 47 per cent, which is "the first time since Mr Ford was elected in 2010 that more Torontonians express disapproval of his performance than approval [43 per cent]." Meanwhile 35 per cent of Toronto residents "strongly disapprove" of Ford's job performance, an 11 per cent jump in the past six months.

Countering this decline is the number of people who strongly approve of the job the mayor's doing, which at 27 per cent remains consistent with other polls going back to March 2011. In other words, Ford still enjoys support from his base. It will be interesting to determine if this number moves at all when the transit file finally gets sorted.

Lead photo by Mariam Matti

All the rules and fine-print can be found in the original announcement post on the blogTO Flickr page. One thing to add, however, is that the voting period ends at 12:00 p.m. on Monday, after which the winner will be contacted with the good news.

For those photographers whose images are featured below, please feel free to give us a little information about your shot — i.e. where and when it was taken — in the comments section. Who knows? Maybe your description will sway voters in your favour! Lead photo by jezza323

2.

jonathancastellino

3.

marty_pinker

4.

simon.carr

5.

tapesonthefloor

6.

jamesbf

7.

Victor Shum

Before I get started, one fact needs to be established. This is not a debate about streetcars vs. subways. Neither Ford's plan, nor the Stintz/Transit City plan involves an Eglinton subway. In both cases the plan is for a light rail line, using Bombardier Flexity low-floor LRVs. The issue is whether the entire line would be buried (Ford's plan) or if it would run above-ground for much of its route, buried only between Laird and Keele (Stintz/Transit City plan). Any mention of subways in this debate is an attempt to cloud the issue, plain and simple.

Having established that this will be an LRT line, regardless of who gets the final say, let's start with where the LRT is going to stop. Toronto currently has one underground LRT stop, at Queen's Quay. It consists of two platforms with a walkway across the tracks to move between them, two entrance stairwells, and an elevator. Seeing as entrances, platforms, and wheelchair access are all necessities, it seems safe to assume that each stop on the Fords' underground LRT would have to be of similar design. If so, we need to talk about maintenance.

Having done various maintenance jobs at the TTC, I have a rough idea of what goes into keeping such a facility up and running. Queen's Quay is visited three times a day, for roughly half an hour each time, by cleaning personnel. In addition, it is visited by overnight heavy cleaning crews on a monthly basis. It is lit by over 100 fluorescent light bulbs, which run 24/7, increasing electricity costs. Two people spend roughly two or three shifts in the course of a year maintaining the lights, and the bulbs are changed every second year.

The entrances need to be cleared, and kept clear in the event of a snowfall, and someone has to be paid to do that. Because someone has to clean down there, there is a water feed and a sump pump. This means plumbers must visit the station for scheduled inspections and occasional repairs. The elevator also must be inspected and maintained on a regular basis, and in the event of a breakdown, it requires repair, which sometimes means a complete overhaul.

If you build a station, even a small one, there are significant upkeep costs. Whether the people doing the maintenance work are TTC employees or contractors, that work is still being done, and your fares are still paying for it. The city's above ground transit shelters, which involve less maintenance and are owned and maintained by Astral Media have virtually no effect upon the fare you pay.

Moving beyond maintenance though, let's discuss security. Queen's Quay, by way of example, is an unmanned station. TTC personnel do pass through there, due to the aforementioned maintenance tasks, and operators in the streetcars themselves keep an eye on the station. But what about stations in less populated areas?

Unsupervised, underground, out of view of passing motorists and local residents — is this a place you want to wait for a transit vehicle at 1 a.m.? Obviously this would be more of an issue in some areas over others, but to me, an unsupervised, out-of-the-way spot, where no one can hear me call for help seems like a bad place to spend my time. I would be much happier at an above-ground stop, visible to passing motorists, and from the windows of nearby buildings. So let's assume we can't leave these underground transit stops unsupervised. Would each one have a collector? Some sort of station attendant? A security guard? Either way, the TTC would be paying for someone to be there, and the ridership would be paying the TTC more to make that happen.

Doug Ford has suggested that if the Eglinton RT ran completely underground, it could be entirely automated, which I suppose would compensate for any extra costs incurred in station maintenance, but is his vision realistic? Even if the vehicles themselves were automated, would it be reasonable to run them without a paid attendant, who could contact emergency services in case of criminal activity, or a medical emergency on board? Would it be reasonable to have no one on board to oversee an evacuation through underground tunnels in case of a fire, blackout, or other emergency? Besides, Bombardier doesn't even mention this as an option in their specs on the Flexity Freedom.

Another question is how many stops the line should have. The more stops there are, the more you pay. The fewer there are, the further you have to walk if you happen to live in between two of them. If they are too far apart, would buses still have to run along Eglinton to service the areas between LRT stops, much like the Yonge 97 bus has to service the areas between subway stations? An above-ground LRT, by contrast, requires less infrastructure, meaning that stops can be much closer together.

There has been some noise from the Ford camp about how an above-ground LRT will force the people of Scarborough to wait outside in the cold, but if they have to hike to the station in the cold, or wait in the cold for a bus to take them there, is that really any better?

Finally, there's the matter of street level construction and the disruption to traffic, businesses, etc. that accompanies the building of an above-ground light rail right-of-way. This is undeniable. People remember when St. Clair was all torn up, and so references to "The St. Clair Disaster" can be very effective, despite evidence that it worked out quite well in the long run. The proponents of a buried line though, would have us believe that subterranean rail lines can be built without any disruption to day-to-day life on the surface. This is not going to happen. In the areas where the LRT will remain buried under either plan, property will need to be expropriated to make room for stations. There is far more involved in creating an underground transit line than simply boring a tunnel, and the idea that it can be done without any disruption above ground is absurd.

So much of Rob Ford's campaign has been about intelligent and responsible use of our money, and many people, understandably, like him for that reason. No matter how much one supports him though, he should not be immune to scrutiny. When he proposes to spend more money to build a much smaller transit network, and everything he proposes to build involves higher upkeep costs than the alternative, it is time for even his fiscal conservative supporters to start asking questions.

Guest contribution from Ed Cunningham

Queen's Quay station photo by Scott Snider

Beyond that, the Eaton Centre has always been a rather fabulous building on the inside. With its vaulted glass ceiling and multiple levels, it's always struck me as a futuristic version of the long-lost Yonge Street Arcade, which was located down the street at Temperance until its demolition in the mid 1950s. In this regard the building has in fact aged quite well. Scrolling through photos of the galleria, only the retail signage distinguishes between the contemporary and vintage images. Well, that and the fact that Eaton's itself no longer exists.

We've already written about how the mall came to be, what it might have looked like if the Eaton family's original plans came to be and about the snazzy new food court, so today let's keep it light and celebratory. Unlike Ontario place, Eberhard Zeidler's downtown shopping mall is still going strong at 35. Here's a little collection of photos and videos of the Eaton Centre over the years. Suffice it to say, the building has aged more gracefully than its representation in television commercials.

PHOTOS

Yonge Street before the Eaton Centre

At night, late 1970s (via Damon Schreiber)

Postcard 1970s (via Chuckman's blog)

Postcard 1970s (via Chuckman's blog)

Yonge & Queen 1980s (via Canada Good)

1990s (via the Toronto Archives)

VIDEOS (via Retronatrio)

Eaton Centre 1983

Food Court commercial 1984

Fashion in 1984

More fashion, this time in 1986

The Centre of it all 1989

Lead image from the Ontario Archives

The stated priority of the nearly $30 million redevelopment effort is to beautify the street and to improve pedestrian accessibility by way of widened sidewalks and urban design elements like removable bollards for event-based closures of the street to vehicular traffic.

Bike lanes are not recommended as part of the redesign — an absence that some will find dissatisfactory. Staff argue that the mountable curb — a key component of the redesign — will get delivery trucks out of the way and that traffic calming measures will reduce speeds on the street, but it remains to be seen whether or not John will actually be cycling-friendly if the recommended plans are adopted.

Highlights of the proposed plan can be found below (for the full report, check here). The Public Works and Infrastructure Committee will meet on Feb. 15 to consider the study. Should it ultimately be endorsed, the makeover would be completed in time for the Pan Am Games. What do you think of the designs?

Key recommendations from the staff report:

• The narrowing of the road pavement in order to provide significantly wider sidewalks
• Exclusive right turning lanes northbound at Adelaide Street West and at Wellington Street West and a southbound left turn lane at Wellington Street West in order to maintain an adequate level of traffic service
• A continuous "mountable" curb on both sides of the street to enable a seamless transition into a pedestrian-only space for events, for vehicles to mount the flexible boulevard for deliveries or drop-offs, and to accommodate additional vehicular and cycling manoeuvring on either side of the road in emergencies
• The widening of the east side boulevard between Front Street West and Stephanie Street to provide a 2.5 metre wide flexible space (defined by bollards) to accommodate deliveries and, when not used for vehicular loading/unloading, for pedestrians
• The provision of urban design elements which consist of a double row of trees where feasible, removable bollards, infrastructure to support special events and distinctive paving materials and patterns.

Lead image from the City's staff report

Often described as "palace hotels", most North American cities had at least one well appointed, oppulant accommodation decked out with the latest comforts. At the time, the Sword's Hotel and American Hotel on Front Street were the most popular choice for visitors with the money to be looked after.

In February 1855, Charles and Marcus Rossin, successful jewellers and land speculators, bought a plot of land on the southeast corner of King and York with plans to build a truly palatial hotel worthy of the town's up and coming status.

When York's official surveyor and engineer, John George Howard, declined to design the building the Rossins held a competition to find a stylish look for their new business. Open to American and Canadian architects, designs were submitted from as far away as New York and Baltimore but the winning entry came from Buffalo and a Mr. Otis.Started during a building boom, construction began slowly on the Rossin House Hotel due to a lack of builders in the city. By the time shovels broke ground a new designer, William Kauffman of Rochester, had taken over the project and added many fire safety features to the plans. Kauffman had included cast iron exterior details and a special load bearing system to the building when the hotel was completed and opened in May 1857.

Built to include an interior courtyard with lush gardens and a babbling fountain, the hotel's main rooms with tall windows and nineteen-foot ceilings were on the second floor above the stores facing King and York streets. Several deluxe suites and drawing rooms were also included in the floor plan for society's crème de la crème to entertain.

All guests of the Rossin House Hotel, deluxe suite or otherwise, could expect to sleep in well-ventilated, heated comfort with access to both hot and cold water (it's amazing what constituted luxury back in the day). In the dining room, thanks to a surviving menu, we know hearty staples like cold tongue, corned beef, ham and mutton were on offer alongside more exotic dishes like "Oyster Patties-French Style" and "Veal Currie-East India Style."

The wine and spirit list boasted pricey bottles of Moët & Chandon Green Seal and Roederer's Carte Blanche for guests prepared to splash the cash.Prior to its completion, the hotel, one of the tallest in York, was used to take the first panoramic photograph of the city. The low-rise, residential community in the pictures is practically unrecognisable as Toronto save for the presence of Osgoode and St. Lawrence Halls. For this reason the series, taken by Armstrong, Beere and Hime, provides one of the best glimpses at our humble beginnings and is available in its entirety in the City of Toronto Archives.

In November 1862, just five years after the hotel's grand opening, William Kauffman's fire safety additions paid dividends when the building was completely gutted, leaving only the exterior walls standing. All but one of the guests and staff managed to escape the building safely, a testimony to the multitude of stairways and dedicated cold water supply for firefighters available on the site.

With the Rossin House a smouldering wreck, the Rossins abandoned their hotel business and ownership of the site fell to James G. Chewett who embarked on a slow rebuilding process through 1863 and 1864. William Kauffman, who was retained as the designer, made very few changes to his original plans and the restored hotel opened again on the 1st August, 1867.Over the next sixty years the Rossin House gradually lost its appeal as a luxury destination, slowly falling behind the times in terms of features compared to the newer Royal York and King Edward hotels.

In the early 1900s the Rossin House was sold and renamed the Prince George. It saw various uses until it was demolished in 1969. Were it still standing today, the Rossin House would be on the site of the Standard Life Centre opposite Exchange Tower.

For more on the Rossin House Hotel and the panorama photographs, see William Dendy's Lost Toronto.

Lead Rossin House Drawing, 1870, Archives of Ontario. Rossin House Postcard, 1910, and Burning of the Rossin House, 1890, Toronto Public Library.
Rossin House Advert and all other images City of Toronto Archives.

IN THE MEDIA

While the reaction on Twitter was mostly positive (see below), perhaps it shouldn't be surprising that the folks at the Toronto Sun were positively incensed at what Christina Blizzard called the work of a bunch of "elitist downtown councillors." Here are a couple of choice quotations from her and colleague Sue-Ann Levy:

Listening to council's debate Wednesday was like something out of Alice in Wonderland... Councillors opposed to Ford called him a 'dictator.' They said what he was doing was 'undemocratic.' ¶ Hello? He ran an election on building subways. Voters gave him an overwhelming mandate. So, he pushes for subways — and that's "undemocratic." ¶ I don't think so, Ms. Stintz. ¶ He's the mayor — elected right across the city. You? You and your breathtakingly massive ego represent only a handful of people in your little corner of the world. — Blizzard

It's no small coincidence that The Woman Who Would Be Mayor (Stintz) and her ragtag group of assorted Useful Idiots in the Moronic Middle (Josh Colle, Josh Matlow, Ana Bailao, Mary-Margaret McMahon, Chin Lee, James Pasternak and the ever indecisive Jaye Robinson) plus the Miller Leftovers would strike while the iron was hot with their Transit City Lite plan. — Levy (who likes the all-caps thing)

Over at the Post, council's vote was characterized as an own-goal for Ford:

"For now, however, the vote stands as a win for common sense — or commoner sense, at least. And it's an own goal for a Mayor who seems to genuinely believe he was elected solely by people who think LRTs are Satan's chariots. Reality has forced Mr. Ford, like any mayor, into many climb-downs. But his death grip on his transit preferences remains, despite daunting feasibility reports on the Sheppard subway and his inability to gain the necessary support of council for his agreement with Metrolinx to bury the entire Eglinton line. He must regret not seeking that support before councillors grew their collective spine." — Chris Selley

The Globe, meanwhile, pointed out just how colossal a loss this was for the mayor:

"City hall veterans are struggling to remember a time when a mayor of Toronto suffered such a humiliating and public setback. Mel Lastman eventually lost a bid to ship Toronto garbage to the Adams Mine. David Miller failed in his first try at passing the land transfer tax. But this — this was on a whole other scale of magnitude. — Marcus Gee

And although not a direct reaction to the vote per se, it's also worth highlighting Peter Kuitenbrouwer's article on former TTC General Manager Rick Ducharme, who believes that Metrolinx is to blame for the disarray that has defined Toronto transit planning over the last few years.

TWITTER REACTION

Adding mirth to the already-mockery of a meeting, the final vote was attempted a total of three times as councillors claimed they pushed the wrong button. Yes, 8.4 billion worth of transit-bound dollars with which to play, and councillors are stumbling on the first step: pressing the right button. The mis-votes weren't, however, a factor in the final outcome.

It's very possible Giorgio Mammoliti let out an audible weep following the concluding count. Animated throughout the day, the Ward 7 councillor objected to the idea that LRT was being rammed down his constituents' throats, and at one point even suggested that money be diverted to a Finch BRT, the Eglinton LRT and Sheppard subway instead of at-grade rail in the area.

Ford was similarly indignant about the day's proceedings. At the outset of the afternoon session, the mayor attempted to pass a motion that would delay a vote on Stintz's motion in favour of referring the options for the Eglinton Crosstown to an expert panel, who would evaluate the merits of at-grade or underground passage East of Laird Drive.

When that didn't work — his motion was defeated 19-24 — he would later call the entire meeting into question. I'm very confident the Premier will build subways," Ford said during a brief media scrum after the voting had concluded. "Technically speaking that whole meeting was irrelevant because it's a provincial project."

It remains to be seen what exactly Metrolinx and the province will do with today's news, but pretty much any way that you dice it, this meeting was another huge blow to the mayor and his putative leadership. The councillors who backed the Stintz plan spoke of the need for the city to get the most transit infrastructure possible from the $8.4 billion in funding available. So long as the province endorses today's decision, it appears that's set to be the case after all.

Update (9:05 p.m.)

Ontario Minister of Transportation, Bob Chiarelli, has released a statement on today's council meeting, one that sure makes it sound like the province will support council's decision:

"Earlier today, City Council met to debate the future of public transit in the City of Toronto. As a former Regional Chair and Mayor, I have always respected the will of council, as a whole, to come to a position regarding public transit priorities.

Over the past few weeks, Torontonians have been party to a healthy debate about the future of public transit. For many, public transit is a necessity — it's how employees get to and from work, how seniors get to and from their appointments and how students commute to school.

Throughout the debate, the McGuinty government has maintained a clear stance--we wanted the City to come to a common position so that we all could focus on building much-needed transit infrastructure.

Now that Council has endorsed a position, we have asked Metrolinx to consider the impacts on current transit planning and report back to us as quickly as possible."

Read the statement in its entirety here.

Update (9:25 p.m.)

Rob Ford has posted a note to his Facebook page indicating that he plans to continue to campaign for subways in spite of today's vote. We've copied it in full below:

"Dear Friends,

I campaigned to bring subways to Toronto and the people of Toronto gave me an overwhelming mandate to build subways.

Today, City Council spoke to its wish for the Eglinton-Scarborough Crosstown. The residents of Scarborough, Toronto's fastest growing region, deserve underground rapid transit — and I promised to deliver it to them. Today's vote does not change my promise.

Great cities, like Paris, London and New York were built around long term transit visions 100 years ago. Subways in Scarborough represent that long term vision for our great city.

I want to thank the thousands of you who called and wrote to my office and to the office of your respective Councillors to tell them that you voted for subways.

I will continue to stand up for taxpayers across Toronto. I will continue to work for a high-speed subway network in Scarborough and across the city.

An investment in first class transit infrastructure will stand the test of time. I want residents, many years from now, to look back at our time and be thankful we did the right thing by building subways that will still be in use.

I will not abandon the people of Scarborough and Finch Avenue to a second class transit solution that will inflict St. Clair Avenue style chaos on neighbourhoods without any promise of improved travel times.

That is, and remains, my commitment to you as Mayor of this great city."

Robyn Urback and Derek Flack

Photo by Mariam Matti

We'll periodically update this post as the meeting continues.

Update (7:15 p.m.)

Karen Stintz's motion passes 25-18 after a series of mis-votes. That means LRT on Finch West, at-grade LRT on Eglinton East, and a study of how best to proceed on Sheppard Avenue. We'll have more on this shortly.

Update (5:50 p.m.)

Councillor Nunziata, speaking in her outdoor voice as always, mentions her opposition to the late Transit City in emphasizing the superiority of buried transit on Eglinton. Councillor Mihevc points out that Nunziata did, in fact, vote in favour of Transit City, and a mild "raised-voice" match ensues. Mammoliti inevitably joins in. People in the gallery contemplate death.

Update (5:25 p.m.)

Councillor Peter Milczyn thinks Council needs to emphasize, literally, other possible sources of funds for the Sheppard line extension. He also thinks Stinz deserves some props for standing up for what she believes to be best for Toronto transit. Agree?

Update (5:15 p.m.)

Councillor Lee proposes an amendment to Stinz's proposal to include a member of the Sheppard East Village BIA on the suggested expert advisory panel. A totally logical recommendation—wait, am I at City Hall?!

Update (5:00 p.m.)

"Show me your magic beans!" Councillor Perruzza exclaims to Mammoliti. We'd all love subways, he continues, but we don't have the magic beans to fund them. Touché, sir. Perruzza says Council is burning money (I believe his exact words were, "We're burning it! We're burning it! We're burning it!") and emphasizes the need to move forward with Stinz's plan. I, for one, would like to see those magic beans.

Update (4:40 p.m.)

Doug Ford has just finished an impassioned plea on behalf of Scarborough. In arguing that subways vs. LRT create a two-tiered system, he has considerably amped up the downtown vs. suburbs rhetoric. For a different way of thinking about Scarborough transit, here are just a few of the problems it faces while it waits for an unfunded subway.

Update (4:20 p.m.)

And then Mammoliti dropped a bomb. "The only difference between the Giambrone and Stinz proposals," he said, "is that we don't have a leather couch in this particular proposal." Less stinging, perhaps, was his amendment motion to divert funds from the Finch LRT to go towards Eglinton and Sheppard. Yes, you read that right; he is taking money away from his ward and putting it elsewhere. That's one way to prove a point.

Update (4:35 p.m.)

Here's a link to Councillor Karen Stintz's PowerPoint presentation on Toronto transit planning. It's worth a look if you're looking for more context on why she's brought her motion forward.

Update (4:10 p.m.)

With the refer/defer motions having failed, Council has returned to the original debate of Stinz's motion. This has been a slow-moving process during which both Councillor Cho and Councillor Wong-Tam put forward motions regarding federal funding for Toronto transit expansion and gender and racial equality with regards to the Sheppard line extension.

Update (3:30 p.m.)

The afternoon session began with a cameo by Rob Ford (who was noticeably absent during much of the morning meeting). Ford brought forward a motion to defer the vote on the Eglinton line for 30 days in order to establish an expert fact-finding panel to assess the situation — and to delay what looks more and more like a vote he can't win. After passionate pleas by various councillors both for and against the motion (which was amended by Councillor David Shiner to include evaluation of other TTC projects including the LRT on Finch and Avenue), the motion failed by a vote of 24 to 19.

That has paved the way for continued deliberation on Stintz's original motion.

Morning Session:

The meeting kicked off with Stinz's list of recommendations, which includes a proposal to establish an "expert" panel on transit. The panel would include former mayor David Crombie, Eric Miller from the University of Toronto, and Gordon Chong, among others, all of whom would weigh in on how best to execute the Sheppard Avenue expansion. According to Stinz's proposal, the advisory panel would report back no later than February 21. The mayor's existing plan sees the Sheppard expansion buried, as well as the entire Eglinton Crosstown line.

TTC chief general manager Gary Webster then put himself in front of the firing squad (only a bit of hyperbole there), fielding questions about Sheppard (Matlow: Does Sheppard meet the TTC's test for full subway? Webster: No), deflecting subtle motions for deferral (Grimes: Should we wait for Metrolinx to weigh in? Webster: No, we have the information we need), and defending his record and expertise.

Photo by Mariam Matti

Back on the street, I continue to wonder after their provenance. Many are named for people, a symptom of rampant cronyism in the early days of settlement, but there are some interesting stories nonetheless. Here's a handful of the best.

Spadina

Spad-ee-na, Spad-eye-na, however you want to say it, the broad, majestic avenue is one of Toronto's cultural hot-spots and a vital thoroughfare. Derived from the Ojibwa word "ishpadinaa" meaning "high or sudden hill", Spadina was the name chosen by Dr. William Baldwin (of Baldwin Street) for his property at the top of the escarpment behind today's Davenport Road. Designed by Baldwin, Spadina Avenue was the name of the street between Bloor and Queen. The section below Queen was known as Brock Street until 1884. Pheobe Street is named for Baldwin's wife.

Adelaide

Adelaide Street might sound like a polite tip of the hat to our Australian pals, but in reality Toronto had the name first. Named in 1797 for the young Princess Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen, later the wife of King William IV, Adelaide Street has been extended several times east and west consuming lesser streets in its path. The capital of South Australia was also named for Princess Adelaide in 1836.Avenue Road

Rumour has it that Avenue Road was named by Scottish construction workers who, arriving at the site, proclaimed "let's 'ave a new road here". I would say it's far more likely the street was named for its tree-lined character. The presence of other Avenue Roads in London, Sydney, Melbourne and Auckland further suggest the urban legend might be false.

Parliament

Although there's nothing remarkable about the name, the weird thing about Parliament Street is that it doesn't run anywhere near the parliament buildings. 218 years ago, it did. The Parliament Buildings of Upper Canada were located at the foot of Parliament Street on the south side of Front Street, which was then known as Palace Street. Berkeley Street originally held the title "Parliament" until it was shifted a block east.

Dundas

Considering Dundas' importance as a thoroughfare, it's surprising to discover the street is a relatively recent addition to Toronto's grid. Named for its destination, the historically important town of Dundas near Hamilton, the street's winding route hints at its past as a multitude of unconnected roads through the centre of Toronto. Although the route and name was established much earlier west of Ossington, several streets had to be renamed to form the section of today's Dundas Street that passes through the core of the city including Arthur Street, St. Patrick Street, Agnes Street and Wilton Street, among others.

Queen

One of Toronto's principal thoroughfares, regal Queen Street used to have a slightly less majestic name. Renamed for Queen Victoria in 1837, the route was originally known as Lot Street for the 100-acre "park lots" laid out by Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada John Graves Simcoe (of Simcoe Street). Designed to entice people to settle in the new town of York, the narrow, deep lots provided ample space for a villa with a waterfront view. A total of 32 rectangular properties from the Don River west to roughly Lansdowne were marked out for purchase. Toronto Family History has more on Toronto's park lots.Roncesvalles

There's something about the name Roncesvalles that just doesn't roll off the tongue. Meaning "valley of thorns" in Spanish, the street was named by Colonel Walter O'Hara, an early Irish settler to the area, for the 1813 battle of Roncesvalles Gorge, a bloody conflict in the Napoleonic Wars between French and Anglo-Portugese forces in which he fought.

Sherbourne

In a piece for the National Post in 2003, Liz Clayton told the story of how Caroline Street lost its name thanks to "the vilest wretch this world was ever cursed with." Named for Caroline of Brunswick, the wife of George IV, the name was discreetly canned in favour of Sherbourne, a misspelling of the town of Sherborne in England, when the lady lost the affection of the public.Danforth

No-one seems sure how the street became simply The Danforth. What is known, however, is that the avenue and road get their name from Asa Danforth Jr., the contractor who built the original Kingston Road east to Prince Edward County. An American who arrived in Upper Canada in the late 1700s, Danforth Jr. had already had a career in land speculation in the state of New York and around the town of York when he turned to road building. Despite financial trouble, the Yankee finished the 106-mile road but was never able to collect all the money promised to him.

Yonge

Once appearing in the Guinness Book of Records as the longest street in the world, Yonge Street is today one of Toronto's principal streets. Home to Canada's first subway, "Main Street Ontario" follows an ancient trail north from Lake Ontario. Developed by John Graves Simcoe and named for his pal Sir George Yonge, an English MP and British Secretary at War, the route was first built north from Eglinton to Lake Simcoe before it was extended south to Lake Ontario.Broadview

One of my personal favorites, Broadview Avenue is perfect for the game I mentioned in the introduction. Not surprisingly, Broadview gets its name for the expansive view it affords over the Don Valley. Dylan Reid at Spacing has a great piece on other literal street names in Toronto. The best vista the street has to offer comes from Riverdale Park.

Jarvis

Before it was named for Samuel Jarvis, the north-south road was called New Street. Created by the sale of Jarvis' Hazel Burn estate north of Queen Street, the road was the first to be paved in Canada. Kids in the area no doubt were pleased when the first Hazel Burn was cleared - children were apparently locked in the smokehouse if they were caught stealing fruit from the estate's orchards.

—

For more check out Allan Gould's Toronto Street Names.

Street Sign photo by E. Victor C., Spadina photo by Phil Babcock, Dundas Square photo by Maxxime, Roncesvalles photo by sniderscion, Broadview photo by Jason Allies, Danforth photo by EvidencE in the BlogTO Flickr pool.

It's been a tumultuous 14 months since then, but it wouldn't be a stretch to say that Ford's grip on council has slowly eroded since that time. The first definitive signs of this came with the unanimous vote against his brother Doug's plan to wrest control of the Port Lands redevelopment from Waterfront Toronto, and the trend kept up when councillors opposed to his slash and burn budget were successfully able to claw back some of the service cuts on the table for the 2012. In the wake of the budget vote, Ford claimed victory, but given his unwillingness to compromise on transit plans, it'll be impossible to do the same unless he gets exactly what he wants today (complete burial of the Eglinton Crosstown) — which is extremely unlikely.

That David Miller radio appearance on Newstalk 1010 the day after the vote on the Port Lands — you know, the one in which he said that Transit City could be "turned on like switch" — seems more and more like an impeccably timed bit of political maneuvering, doesn't it? Today's meeting, however, is about more than just a return previous transit expansion plans.

In a less linear sense, one could argue that the reason Toronto is back to considering an LRT plan many thought finished a year ago is that the various players responsible for transit planning in Toronto just can't seem to get on the same page. In a rather depressing article for the Star today, Royson James tracks the various ways in which in-fighting amongst the mayor, the TTC, and Metrolinx have conspired to put the future of Toronto transit planning in the uncertain position we see today.

Above all, however, the reason that council is gathered today is that there are serious doubts as to whether Ford's plan is the best use of the $8.4 billion the province has supplied Toronto in transit funding. Note well, this isn't a debate about the relative merits of subways or LRTs, but about how to provide service for the most people with a limited amount of money. Everyone wants subways, but Toronto's transit challenges are widespread and where we build infrastructure should reflect that.

Toward that end, the Pembina Institue's recent tale-of-the-tape comparison of the various transit strategies suggested for Toronto is useful guide to what's on the table today. Amongst the statistics to be found in the chart below, one that should really stick out is the number of residents served by each plan. In a nutshell, the LRT plan formerly known as the first phase of Transit City "would bring transit to 120,000 more Torontonians than Mayor Ford's full plan (including an unfinanced Sheppard subway) at about 70% of the cost."

When one takes out the Sheppard subway extension — and, let's be honest, does anyone think this thing is actually going to be built? — the number spikes to 240,300. While there's an argument to be made about a future increase in density along a subway line, given this city's difficulty in proceeding with transit expansion since the 1970s, it's difficult to argue against the benefits promised by the more wide-ranging plan.

Anyone care to prove me wrong?

The petition to call the meeting includes the requisite number of councillor signatures (24 in total), which means that the city clerk will convene council on Wednesday, at which time it will debate a 2009 memorandum of agreement between the TTC, the City and Metrolinx on the Transit City LRT plan (see below). Should council confirm its desire to proceed with this plan, Ford's unilateral decision to divert all provincial funding to an underground LRT line on Eglinton would be overturned.

The call for the meeting comes after a flurry of criticism has been directed at Ford's current plans for transit expansion in Toronto. Although momentum for a move against the mayor was already starting to pick up in late 2011, a legal report questioning the his authority to cancel Transit City and a failed call for compromise on transit plans have given council renewed confidence that the power to determine the future of transit in this city lies in its hands and must be acted upon.

With a majority of councillors on board to call the meeting in the first place, council will almost certainly vote to revert to the plan that called for above-ground LRT on the eastern section of Eglinton, on Finch Avenue West and Sheppard Avenue East. It may no longer be referred to as Transit City, but it surely won't be what Rob Ford had in mind. One wonders if the mayor is kicking himself for not playing ball with Stintz on her attempt to find some middle ground.

What exactly happens after the meeting is still up in the air. Even with the support of council, will Metrolinx be happy to move forward with a plan that's been rejected by the mayor? Will Karen Stintz survive as TTC Chair given this play against the Fords' interests? It's a strange situation to be sure — and one that probably won't be resolved once and for all at Wednesday's meeting. But, at a minimum, the good news is that a rational and critical discourse about transit planning in Toronto appears to have won the day. At least for now.

Stay tuned.

—

Karen Stintz's reply to Metrolinx Chair Robert Prichard

Reply to Prichard Metrolinx Signed

Petition for Special Meeting

Special Meeting Petition Signed by Toronto City Councillors

Along with a call to reinvigorate long term planning, the letter's signees, which include former chief planner Paul Bedford and mayor David Crombie, encourage council to support previous plans for at-grade (surface) alignment of the eastern section of the Eglinton Crosstown and to divert funds to other capital projects, including "high-order transit" on Finch Avenue West and Sheppard Avenue East. In other words, the authors support a course of action that's somewhat similar to the compromise plan put forward by TTC Chair Karen Stintz, with the major exception being that they conceive of heavy-rail on Sheppard as "unjustified."

The timing of the letter seemed somewhat strange when it was first released at 11:00 a.m. on so-called Superbowl Sunday, the same day that CUPE and the City of Toronto announced that they had reached a tentative agreement in labour negotiations. When Stintz tweeted that she'd be asking for a special meeting of city council early Monday morning to "respond to Metrolinx's letter regarding its transit projects," however, it started to make a whole lot more sense. Perhaps it's just a bit of good luck, but this letter has been released just before council will effectively have to choose between the former Transit City plan or Rob Ford's desire to spend $8.4 million on a completely underground version of the Eglinton Crosstown.

"Planning for desperately needed public transit expansion within the City of Toronto... is currently in astate of disarray and the Mayor's current plans will not provide cost-effective solutions to the City's pressing transportation needs," the letter reads. Perhaps the collective clout of the signees will sway council when it convenes to determine the immediate future of transit planning in Toronto. That's clearly the idea.

Cities Centre Transit Letter

When negotiations pushed passed the deadline, there was, however, some hope that a deal would be reached. The announcement of the tentative settlement broke at around 8:30 a.m. this morning.

The terms of the deal won't be released until its ratified by union members and approved by city council, both of which are expected to take place by Monday. As such, it's not yet possible to determine who "won," per se — but both sides sounded relatively upbeat about having hammered out a deal. "Throughout the process we have provided the City with many efficiencies and creative solutions to extremely difficult problems. There is no doubt that our members are making sacrifices," Ferguson said in a statement this morning.

For a sample of the City's early reaction, here's a press release that was sent out shortly after the working framwork had been reached. We'll provide an update when more info about the deal comes to light.

—

As of 8 a.m. this morning, the City of Toronto has reached a tentative agreement with the Toronto Civic Employees' Union Local 416 (CUPE), which represents the City's 6,000 outside workers and paramedics.

"I'm pleased that we have been able to reach an agreement that is fair for the employees and reasonable and affordable for the taxpayers of Toronto," said Deputy Mayor Doug Holyday. "Better yet, we will be better positioned to deliver efficient services to the residents and businesses of Toronto."

Deputy Mayor Holyday thanked the City's bargaining team for their hard work and long hours in negotiating an agreement that will help move the City of Toronto forward, and also acknowledged the Local 416 bargaining team for their willingness to negotiate at the bargaining table rather than taking job action that would deprive residents of important City services.

Details of the agreement will be released once it is ratified by the Local 416 membership and subsequently approved by City Council.

City services and programs continue as usual.

—

Photo by Oscar Strawczynski in the blogTO Flickr pool