blogTO Recent Comments: Capture the Hog: Don't Narrow Lansdowne!

Six Accidents on Lansdowne

Sat, 01 Dec 2007 15:19:55 PST

There have been at least six accidents on Lansdowne since it has been narrowed, and since its reopening to traffic two months ago. One accident had a car skidding over a sidewalk for twenty feet- if there had been a pedestrian on the sidewalk, they would have been killed. Another was a three car collision in front of West Toronto Collegiate.

anonamous

Mon, 17 Sep 2007 21:44:14 PDT

im sorry what does a wider side walk accomplish aswell this is supposed to be a greening project why is there so much comcrete it looks ugly. what is the point of all theys stupid bump outs it makes no sence Giambrone you are not being intelligent with this plan i know most people dont want this plan so why do it?

More Concrete; No Trees

Mon, 27 Aug 2007 20:21:33 PDT

Councillor Giambrone has lied to the residents of Lansdowne. The reconstruction of Lansdowne will have no bike paths, and few trees and flowers planted. In actual fact, the City has made a greater environmental footprint, with more concrete, traffic calming bump outs and a narrow neck which will create major traffic accidents for buses and industrial vehicles. I am ashamed of the City Councillors for for allowing such a destructive plan to go through after Councillor Giambrone ran an imaginary poll to sway their vote. Don't take my word for it- come see the traffic fiasco in the making.

Sidewalk Space

Tue, 17 Jul 2007 14:40:35 PDT

Hi Shoelaces, Having more sidewalk space located directly beside backed up industrial traffic rarely gets people out of a walk...this is what the narrowing of the street will do...

shoelaces

Tue, 26 Jun 2007 11:58:51 PDT

Who said narrowing would actually fight drugs and crime on Lansdowne? So far I've read that it would be a good start to making the area look nicer and that's about it. I think safety starts with taking some pride in your neighbourhood and looking out for one another. Sure pedestrian traffic has no impact on actual crime but have you ever been to Winnipeg. There is tons of crime in the north end of that city and guess what? Most average Winnipeggers don't even think of venturing downtown at night or in the day for that matter. For the single reason that there are not people roaming the streets who are looking out for each other. This only escalates the crime factor by allowing the criminals to control an area due to fear. Having more sidewalk space encourages foot traffic which means there are more eyes in an area. This can only be a good thing unless you have the view that you'd be safer in a vehicle in certain areas. The future of this ciy relies on transit and decent foot traffic to make cleaner air. Take a look outside at the smog and tell me different. I've also heard that narrowing will cause more congestion which I don't believe. There will still be 2 active lanes in both directions after improvements are made. What is left is one less lane of parking which doesn't even get used anyways. What I would like to know is what great plan does Sam Gelati have for this section of Lansdowne. If he is so against this thing then provide your idea for the area. Oh I know let's take the city to court and make them spend more money so they can undue the job in a city that is already super tight on funds. Make sense? Not really.

Renata

Fri, 22 Jun 2007 22:26:35 PDT

Hi.. let me introduce myself.. I have been a resident of St. Clarens Avenue for 43 yrs, I am aware of the problems at Bloor and Lansdowne and was a member of the Bloor Lansdowne Community Against Drugs, and spent many years involved attending revocation hearings to have liquor licenses removed from restaurants that catered to the drugs crowds on the corner. Instituted a moratorium on liquor licences for the stretch between Lansdowne and Dufferin and also had numerous safety audits in our neighbourhood. Therefore if someone thinks that "calming" Lansdowne will improve the drug situation the are confused. Improving pedestrian traffic on Bloor itself would indeed help, but Lansdowne pedestrian traffic has no impact on the drug activity as it is mostly limited to Bloor, between Lansdowne and St. Clarens on the North and South sides. The laneways that run parallel to Bloor between Lansdowne and St. Clarens just immediately to the North and South of Bloor also see drug activity take place there...so if someone says our laneways are safer than the streets, I don't know where they live because the converse is true. So trying to argue that the "calming" measures will reduce drug activity in the neighbourhood indicates a lack of knowledge of the dynamics of the situation. Currently, with 4 lanes on Lansdowne, the buses pull into the curb lane while passengers disembark. This permits other traffic to still flow in the two driving lanes. The current proposal means the buses have no curb lane to pull into, resulting in cars idling and emitting pollutants while they wait for the bus to finish passenger disembarkation. Those of us who have waited at Lansdowne and College know what congestion results when we have the streetcar parked in the middle lane and the bus stopping to let passengers on and off at College. So how will narrowing Lansdowne improve the community? I live on St. Clarens Avenue, we already experience overflow traffic from Lansdowne on our street. Many people speed up on this street to bypass the congestion that already exists on Lansdowne. Therefore, any change to Lansdowne will impact us, yet this street has yet to be "officially" notified of this change and consulted on this matter. Where is the democracy? Why was this matter not consulted with the St. Clarens residents. I have devoted myself to this community when many moved out because I love my neighbourhood and as such feel I am entitled to a say in changes that impact me and my family. I am willing to abide with the majority, but Adam Giambrone is not the majority, he is not even a resident and he should definitely not be permitted to dictate his vision of this community to hard working immigrant people.

Sam Galati

Wed, 13 Jun 2007 12:02:30 PDT

Happy Lansdowne Resident, I am glad that you are happy. The protest will help build a stronger sense of community, but this is not something that those who are ramming this project through despite what residents feel can take credit for. I recognize that you welcome the changes. By all means, go forward and say that the plan is a good thing for our street. But why would you be looking to other people to do this when they are clearly saying that they don't want this plan? It's not that they don't want the City to invest in this neighborhood -- they desperately do. It's that they don't want this money spent in this way. If you are seeing a lot of energy expended on this protest, it is because many residents are finally saying the are sick and tired of feeling treated as second-class citizens by local politicians.

happy Lansdowne resident

Wed, 13 Jun 2007 00:37:19 PDT

Good Day! If nothing else, this protest will help build a stronger sense of community. It's nice the city has their checkbook out to spend a good chunk of our tax dollars on our street...That in itself is good for our property values, and when these values escalate, many of the inherent street-level problems we see will begin to deteriorate. There has been an immense amount of energy spent on trying to discourage these so-called upgrades from happening in the form of public protest and demonstration. How can we, as residents, communicate in a positive way that the planned expenditures on our street are a good thing, and that valuable community input will only make the city's investment even more feasible?

gypsybird

Wed, 13 Jun 2007 00:30:55 PDT

Hey, how about the key point of the disabled man who was told he didnt need handicapped parking anymore? Or the key point of the councillor somehow failing to make good on a written promise in 2006 to discuss the issue in the coming year (2007) and that no decision would be made until that discussion took place? Let's talk about those key points.

ramanan

Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:41:12 PDT

For people still following this Lansdowne street drama, Adam's office emailed one of the community mailing lists in the area about the project. (I've posted the email online.) Two key points are: 1. "Currently, counts show that overnight parking is below half the available capacity, and will remain below capacity after the improvements are made." 2. "Traffic counts show that the road is currently operating at roughly 1/3 capacity, and will operate at roughly 1/2 capacity after the improvements are made. In other words, Lansdowne is more than capable of handling the traffic."

carolyn passarelli

Sun, 10 Jun 2007 19:50:29 PDT

the city has already said that the project on narrowing lansdowne is a "LITMUS" test, so get ready .If you think this is not going to affect you or your neighbourhood, your kidding yourself.

No Bike Path

Sun, 10 Jun 2007 16:50:32 PDT

Actually, the reconstruction of Lansdowne will not include true bike paths according to the report.

sam galati

Sun, 10 Jun 2007 07:37:59 PDT

Rob, 17,000 vehicles a day is not a lot of cars? What would qualify as a lot of cars to you? The 401?

Rob

Sat, 09 Jun 2007 11:57:11 PDT

17 000 cars per day/ 24 hours / 60 min / 3 lanes = about 4 cars per min per lane. I know it isn't evenly distributed but still. 17 000 is not a lot of cars. I live further north on Lansdowne and bike south through that area every day(during hte peak traffic hours). The road is crap and needs to be redone, people park where they shouldn't forcing cyclists into traffic. The narrow street with a bike path will probably save lives.

Scott

Wed, 06 Jun 2007 14:04:29 PDT

Dear Sarah Latha-Elliot, "Opposition to this plan is about [no]thing more than an unwillingness to forego personal conveniences for the sake of the quality of life"? Actually, my opposition has more to do with the fact that my street (St. Clarens) is already being as a quick short cut to Bloor by trucks, cars and motorcycles, and this plan will increase that trend since it will (in the words of the City's own report) increase congestion and slowdowns on Lansdowne. (Yes, even though it will only be at half capacity.) So yes, my personal conveniences happen to include the safety of my 1-1/2 old son, and the children of my neighbours. Adam didn't inform anyone on St. Clarens about this plan � ever - even though it will have a major effect on us. Just because he knocked on your door and you nodded your head doesn't mean that those who oppose this plan are lazy, selfish or dumb. There are valid parts of the plan and there are definitely things that could and should be done. Are they worth ramming through Council so that a large group of residents have no input and resent the plan? No. Are they as critical as dealing with crime? No.

sam galati

Wed, 06 Jun 2007 08:08:32 PDT

BTW Sarah, I don't recall seeing any mention in the opposition's literature about delivery of new appliances. Yes, I heard the gentleman make the comment about his groceries. Maybe when you get to be his age, having to walk long distances with loads will be an issue for you also. The oppositions' literature also had references to the concerns of many elderly and disabled residents, for whom being able to be picked up and dropped off in front of their home is a mobility issue. I not you didn't refer to these concerns in your post. Was it by any chance because it would have made your comment about "personal inconveniences" sound a tad insensitive?

gypsybird

Tue, 05 Jun 2007 23:16:16 PDT

Sarah, I think its about exactly what they're saying its about; lack of consultation. Its obvious from your posting that you feel superior to the rest of your neighbors, while trying to masquerade as a socially conscious, fair minded individual but at least give them some basic respect eh? 'opposition to this project stems from an individualistic, self-focused approach where concrete is prized over green-space'. huh? you sound like the self focused one here. if you really are so 'hyper vigilant' about democratic process where've you been while your neighbors try to get some democratic process going for them? Did you express your so sincere 'concern' to the media? Or are you only worried about democratic fairness for yourself? Sorry, but you're going to have to do better if you want to make an itelligent contribution to the discussion.

sam galati

Tue, 05 Jun 2007 19:34:14 PDT

Sarah, You say you are "hyper-vigilant" about ensuring democratic process and equitable, consultative decision-making in every sphere possible, yet you say opposition to the plan is unwarranted. Maybe you can explain why folks in Dufferin Grove are entitled to have two public meetings about a toilet in their park but people on Lansdowne are not entitled to even this with respect to a project that will cost almost $2 million on their doortstep. I recognize you strongly support the project but what right do you have to suggest that people's concerns about this project are not legitimate? When you make such statements, you are basically saying that consultation is unwarranted because there is only one right point of view -- yours. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, this incident has touched a nerve with locals -- and the patronizing treatment they have been receiving from local politicians. What they are starting to say is that they are unwilling to be treated like second class citizens -- whether they are right or wrong in their views about the City's plan, they don't deserve such treatment. I would suggest that the only people who are conflating opposition to the plan with concerns for consultation are those who for whatever reason don't want to see appropriate consultation take place. If you really do support the idea of consultation, then you need to be willing to consider other viewpoints (albeit not agree with them), which based on what you've written, doesn't seem to be the case. You seem to be for consultation -- but only with people who hold views similar to yours. That's not consultation. And it's ok to not be supportive of consultation -- but then don't pretend to be defending something you don't really seem to believe in.

Sarah Latha-Elliott

Tue, 05 Jun 2007 00:51:11 PDT

As a Lansdowne resident, I am distressed about the misrepresentation of the Lansdowne construction and renewal project as 'Lansdowne Narrowing'. Lansdowne is a 2-lane roadway(parking on both sides with two remaining lanes in the centre), with allowances made during the two rush-hours each day for an extra lane of traffic in the busy direction (south in the morning, north in the afternoon). Surely there can be no doubt about this fact: whether you choose to refer to it as a 2-lane, 3-lane or 4-lane roadway, there is one lane in each direction for 20 of the 24 hours in each day. The renewal plan for the street will thus have a negligible impact on traffic flow. Talk of 'narrowing' and references to the 17,000 cars using Lansdowne each day is simply inflamatory. As someone who is hyper-vigilant about ensuring democratic process and equitable, consultative decision-making in every sphere possible, I am always concerned when people feel excluded from ANY process. Working-class and immigrant communities in particular, always need to be watchful that they are included to the extent that more privileged, elite neighbourhoods expect and receive opportunities for consultation. However, to conflate concerns about consultation with a blanket opposition to this project is A BIG MISTAKE and frankly, insulting! In general, opposition to this project stems from an individualistic, self-focused approach where concrete is prized over green-space and hundreds of litres of water are rountinely used to chase a single leaf from the sidewalk area in front of a given person's property. A man commented in one news story: "Where will I unload my groceries?" Elsewhere in the opposition literature, it is mentioned that people will have trouble receiving delivery when they purchase new major appliances. So please, don't hesitate to bombard City Hall and Councillor Giambrone's office with feedback if you feel you have not been consulted. But don't insult people's intelligence by pretending that opposition to this plan is about anything more than an unwillingness to forego personal conveniences for the sake of the quality of life of the broader community, both your immediate neighbours and those surrounding us.

Sam Galati

Sun, 03 Jun 2007 22:41:21 PDT

Mike, You say that it is just silly to suggest that narrowing the street will not cause more pollution. Well, the Fire Department has expressed concern that narrowing the street will increase congestion -- which means more vehicle emissions (ie pollution). Also, the City's own traffic calming policy acknowledges that traffic calming (which this project has been described as) is not appropriate for routes with over 8,000 vehicles a day, partly because of the increase in vehicle emissions that is likely to occur. In other words, people's concerns about increased pollution are not as silly as you may think. Last summer and fall, we had one lane on this route closed because of work on a water pipe. The result was traffic backed up for many hours of the day, often from Bloor to College. Many people are concerned that that situation will become permanent once you are no longer able to add a 3rd lane during rush hours. You say that Lansdowne will not be able to handle 17,000 vehicles a day when the narrowing takes place. Our concern is that it will be LESS ABLE to handle this volume of traffic -- BUT WILL STILL BE REQUIRED TO HANDLE THIS VOLUME OR CLOSE TO IT. There is only so much traffic that can be diverted onto adjoining side streets. And is it right to divert traffic to these adjoining streets when these adjoining streets were not built with this purpose in mind? Those who live on the street know that traffic on this route has increased substantially because of all the new developments in the area. That is why many people are concerned about this plan. If the City was seriously committed to diverting substantial traffic away from this route, I might be more open to support the proposal to narrow the street. However, the traffic diversion should be done before the street is narrowed. If the City really was serious about all this, why isn't it proceeding on a test basis (by setting up temporary barriers) to determine if narrowing will actually reduce the traffic volume?