Toronto Union Station Revitalization | ?m | ?s | City of Toronto | NORR

[DavidH]

Give it time. He's going to spin his wheels on both the waterfront and TC, and once he realizes that he can't just cancel projects, he's going to look for something else to smash. Fortunately, I don't think he'll be able to get to this one either.

One good reason why this project is safe: Metrolinx now owns the space that the future two GO concourses will exist in. The City is under contractual obligation to provide the space to Metrolinx, which means that cancelling the renovations will not only result in penalties with the contractor, but with Metrolinx.

 

[Northern Magus]

True, but the Ford Brothers Circus seems undeterred by the $50-150 mil in penalties their smash-Transit-City-like-a-pinata stance is virtually certain to incur, Metrolinx be damned.

This crew ain't about facts or reasons or evidence, or anything that us frigging pinkos use. They've got a mandate, buddy - so fall in line. The city has a "spending problem" after all.......

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

True, but the Ford Brothers Circus seems undeterred by the $50-150 mil in penalties their smash-Transit-City-like-a-pinata stance is virtually certain to incur, Metrolinx be damned.

This crew ain't about facts or reasons or evidence, or anything that us frigging pinkos use. They've got a mandate, buddy - so fall in line. The city has a "spending problem" after all.......

Just how much did the city pay out for cancelling the Island Airport bridge???

 

[rbt]

Just how much did the city pay out for cancelling the Island Airport bridge???

Great question. I'm pretty sure the feds decided to do that on the cities behalf, without a court case or arbitrator requiring them to do so. To me, it looked like a gift.

In the end, the federal environment minister did not grant the construction permission. Normally building permits are trivial to obtain, and the port authority had work-crews on location under the assumption they would be granted.

I'm having dinner with the Port Authorities Archivist on the weekend. If you want, I can probably get some detail about who exactly was obligated to do what (obligated rather than volunteered).

 

[Dan416]

Just how much did the city pay out for cancelling the Island Airport bridge???

But now everyone regrets not building that bridge. So I'm not sure the comparison is apt. Although you're right, Lefties are just as likely to cancel something as Righties.

 

[EnviroTO]

But now everyone regrets not building that bridge.

You sure use the word everyone a lot. I don't regret it and a lot of other people don't regret it. The tunnel is being built and I am happy with that compromise which ensures it remains difficult to get vehicles on and off the island.

 

[rbt]

But now everyone regrets not building that bridge.

I don't regret it and I was a Porter frequent flier at one point (weekly Ottawa trips). Wouldn't be sad to see the airport become park land either.

One of the better arguments for the bridge was for faster hospital chopper service (ORNGE?). I understand that firm in the process of moving their operations to Hamilton due to runway congestion at the Island Aiport.

Don't need an eyesore bridge to go with the other eyesores in that area.

A tunnel is perfect as it may always be used (no "up" position), is climate controlled, and is invisible.

 

[Dan416]

You sure use the word everyone a lot. I don't regret it and a lot of other people don't regret it. The tunnel is being built and I am happy with that compromise which ensures it remains difficult to get vehicles on and off the island.

Why would you want it to be difficult to get vehicles on and off the island? It does not make sense to me.

 

[adma]

Why would you want it to be difficult to get vehicles on and off the island? It does not make sense to me.

Why did people want to make it difficult to get vehicles into and out of Toronto in 1971? Didn't make sense to a lot of people then, either.

 

[Northern Magus]

Just how much did the city pay out for cancelling the Island Airport bridge???

It is a valid question, but the point I'd make is that Miller made it his ballot question. It was the defining point of his entire campaign, and he essentially ran on a platform of city building -- not one of ending practices of "wasteful spending".

To that effect, there was nothing hypocritcal about Miller doing it, since he clearly had turned the 2003 election into a referendum on the issue. The 2010 election was definitely not a referendum on Transit City. Ford's mandate, in the context of which he speaks of it, is to stop wasteful spending.

The needless pentalty charges on transit city will make it one of the greatest single acts of wasteful spending the city has ever seen ..... by a man who flips out over $12,000.

 

[kEiThZ]

Why would you want it to be difficult to get vehicles on and off the island? It does not make sense to me.

+1

I support the conversion of YTZ to a park eventually (once we have HSR). But even then, I think a bridge for both cars and pedestrians would be really handy.

I really don't buy this whole bridge = YTZ permanence. YTZ will be around as long as the authorities let it stick around. Bridge or no bridge.

 

[nfitz]

I support the conversion of YTZ to a park eventually (once we have HSR).

I'm not sure the value of more park, it's already surrounded by park on the island. Surely we should be mixing land-use, rather than creating a park that is so big that it will often be empty.

 

[Northern Magus]

+1

I support the conversion of YTZ to a park eventually (once we have HSR). But even then, I think a bridge for both cars and pedestrians would be really handy.

So ... you want a bridge to an island park, so that cars can drive around -- and park -- in this park?

 

[Markster]

So ... you want a bridge to an island park, so that cars can drive around -- and park -- in this park?

We can make it a giant Car Park!
Don't even need to rip up the runways!

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

It is a valid question, but the point I'd make is that Miller made it his ballot question. It was the defining point of his entire campaign, and he essentially ran on a platform of city building -- not one of ending practices of "wasteful spending".

To that effect, there was nothing hypocritcal about Miller doing it, since he clearly had turned the 2003 election into a referendum on the issue. The 2010 election was definitely not a referendum on Transit City. Ford's mandate, in the context of which he speaks of it, is to stop wasteful spending.

The needless pentalty charges on transit city will make it one of the greatest single acts of wasteful spending the city has ever seen ..... by a man who flips out over $12,000.

Ford, from my vantage point, ran on a platform of cutting spending and re-thinking Transit City. You can agrue in what ratio both issues were talked about but the "halt transit city" madate was one of his election promises.

I have an issue with people supporting Miller spending to cancel the bridge (it was his mandate), while deriding another (Ford and Transit City) when we don't even know if or how much the city will pay out for terminating it's contracts. To me it smacks of partisanship: Approving of one mayor's wastefull spending while deriding another just because you fall on the former's side of the political spectrum. If you don't approve of wastefull spending than you should disapprove of all mayors wastefull spending. For the record if the Transit City plan is reviewed and it is found that it would cost the city millions to back out of, or alter, it's construction contracts and Ford continues with his plan regardless, than I'll say the same about him and wastefull spending.