News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 11K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 43K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 6.7K     0 
Ontario's Bill 110, Building Billy Bishop Airport Act, 2026 includes the expropriation of Bathurst Street, from south of the Gardiner Expressway to Queens Quay West.

The image below is from an article published by Toronto Today.

Portions of the 509 Harbourfront and 511 Bathurst streetcar routes might be at risk if Bill 110 is passed.

1777472667633.png
 
Transit said:
Ontario's Bill 110, Building Billy Bishop Airport Act, 2026 includes the expropriation of Bathurst Street, from south of the Gardiner Expressway to Queens Quay West.

The image below is from an article published by Toronto Today.

Portions of the 509 Harbourfront and 511 Bathurst streetcar routes might be at risk if Bill 110 is passed.

View attachment 732804
Click to expand...
Just because the province expropriates it, doesn't mean that the streetcar cant run. The ROW can be grandfathered. Otherwise the province will need to pay to re route the ROW.
 
Bordercollie said:
Just because the province expropriates it, doesn't mean that the streetcar cant run. The ROW can be grandfathered. Otherwise the province will need to pay to re route the ROW.
Click to expand...
You are missing the point.

Why does the provincial government need to acquire a major municipal road in the first place? Why have they not brought it to the public's attention? Why have they not explained their rationale for needing this land to the public?
 
Transit said:
You are missing the point.

Why does the provincial government need to acquire a major municipal road in the first place? Why have they not brought it to the public's attention? Why have they not explained their rationale for needing this land to the public?
Click to expand...
Because they have the authority to do so. Full Stop.
 
Transit said:
Wow...

You don't understand the principles of responsible government and democracy in Canada, do you?
Click to expand...
I didn't say that it was responsible. I was simply stating that they can so they will. If you don't agree with it reach out to your MPP. Whenever I do it I get some generic response, if I do get a response at all.
 
Transit said:
Ontario's Bill 110, Building Billy Bishop Airport Act, 2026 includes the expropriation of Bathurst Street, from south of the Gardiner Expressway to Queens Quay West.

The image below is from an article published by Toronto Today.

Portions of the 509 Harbourfront and 511 Bathurst streetcar routes might be at risk if Bill 110 is passed.

View attachment 732804
Click to expand...

For clarity:

While I oppose this legislation and its stated aims, the province has zero interest in Bathurst from Queen's Quay northwards and there is no impact on LRT operations whatsoever that is envisioned.

The province has empowered itself to expropriate based on legal parcel descriptions at this point, but none has actually been prescribed for taking. The province's interest is in lands south of Queen's Quay, and the option exists for them to narrow the description of the potential taking should it move forward.
 
Bordercollie said:
I didn't say that it was responsible. I was simply stating that they can so they will. If you don't agree with it reach out to your MPP. Whenever I do it I get some generic response, if I do get a response at all.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the advice. I didn't know that I could reach out to my MPP.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
For clarity:

While I oppose this legislation and its stated aims, the province has zero interest in Bathurst from Queen's Quay northwards and there is no impact on LRT operations whatsoever that is envisioned.

The province has empowered itself to expropriate based on legal parcel descriptions at this point, but none has actually been prescribed for taking. The province's interest is in lands south of Queen's Quay, and the option exists for them to narrow the description of the potential taking should it move forward.
Click to expand...
Respectfully, without knowing your real life identity and/or professional relationship with government, I cannot take your word for it.

If the Premier's Office or the Ministry of Transportation puts out a statement to that effect, good. Otherwise, it is an unverified statement on an internet chat.
 
Transit said:
Respectfully, without knowing your real life identity and/or professional relationship with government, I cannot take your word for it.

If the Premier's Office or the Ministry of Transportation puts out a statement to that effect, good. Otherwise, it is an unverified statement on an internet chat.
Click to expand...

Respectfully, my track record on this forum speaks for itself.

I know exactly what I'm talking about. If I were 'guessing' I would say so.
 
Transit said:
I do not believe you are a representative of the government, or the government's intentions. Regardless of your track record on this forum.
Click to expand...

I am not a representative of the government, I am someone who sees documents you do not. . Your disrespect is extraordinary and paints you in a very bad light. I will simply place you on ignore and decline to answer any of your questions in the future.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
I am not a representative of the government am someone who sees documents you do not. . Your disrespect is extraordinary and paints you in a very bad light. I will simply place you on ignore and decline to answer any of your questions in the future.
Click to expand...
Be my guest, I have no proof what documents you see or do not see. Either way, you are not a decision maker.
 
Transit said:
Be my guest, I have no proof what documents you see or do not see. Either way, you are not a decision maker.
Click to expand...
It's been pointed out many times already in the Billy Bishop thread that the province does not intend to take the entirety of the lands identified by the PINs. They were directly quoted as much in this article in the Globe and Mail yesterday regarding the PIN for the Toronto Islands. I see no reason as to why it would not also be the case here - in what world would the province have an interest in taking Bathurst Street and closing the streetcar? It doesn't even make sense in any form other than simply trying to villify them.

Take a deep breath and think critically about what you are saying, and trust that even if many people are not official government officials they may have a better understanding of how these processes work. And in this case, the province needs a mechanism in the legislation to identify lands they can expropriate from the city, and PINs are how you do that, even if you only need a small sliver of that PIN. Even from the get-go they have said they need about 1/3 of Little Norway Park.. but the PIN identified is the entire park as they have no way of specifying in the legislation the exact amount.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top