News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.7K     0 

Any idea how much damage was caused? Is the boat at risk of sinking?
No confirmation on damage, though it is not sinking. There is apparently already a fiasco to determine exactly which agency(ies) is (are) supposed to investigate what has happened, but as of now Toronto Police have "secured the site" (which I guess means the boat).
 
I doubt that accident was caused by the age of the current ferries - though the Sam McBride was built in 1939. Taking it out of service while they check it out (both to understand what happened and to inspect for damage) is obviously a good idea but no reason to think it will not be back in service in a week or so.

EDIT: The City is, apparently, seeing a longer time out of service, depending on when they think 'summer' ends..

"Ferry service from the Jack Layton Ferry Terminal to Toronto Island will run on a reduced schedule until the end of the summer while the Sam McBride ferry is out of service, City of Toronto Parks, Forestry and Recreation said on Twitter Sunday morning. “Passengers can expect much longer than usual wait times for the remainder of the summer,” the tweet read."
 
Last edited:
I doubt that accident was caused by the age of the current ferries - though the Sam McBride was built in 1939. Taking it out of service while they check it out (both to understand what happened and to inspect for damage) is obviously a good idea but no reason to think it will not be back in service in a week or so.

Quite correct. There were no fatalities so it won't undergo a lengthy investigation.
 
This may have been reported before but I just noticed that the City has established several City (and other) major construction websites that consolidate the various public documents of projects. Quite useful.


For example, the "East Harbour" hub has info on:

City-led Infrastructure Projects​

Waterfront Toronto Infrastructure Projects​

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Project​

Broadview and Eastern Flood Protection Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Opens in new window

Utility Projects​

Enbridge: NPS 20 Pipeline Replacement Cherry to Bathurst Project Opens in new window

Transit Expansion Projects​

Transit-Oriented Community​

The East Harbour transit-oriented community Opens in new window will be built by Cadillac Fairview.
 
EDIT: The City is, apparently, seeing a longer time out of service, depending on when they think 'summer' ends..
There's usually a "fall schedule" for the ferries that kicks in mid-September. That's probably what they are implying.

Either way, further reporting today indicates the Sam McBride will not be back in service any time in the near future considering they still are quoted to "not know" why they ferry crashed.


The cause of the collision was still not known on Sunday. But the city announced that ferry service between its downtown terminal and the Toronto Islands, a popular tourist destination, would be operating on a modified schedule for the remainder of the summer.
“City staff will continue to work with Transport Canada, Toronto Police Services and the Harbour Master’s Office while the investigation is carried out,” the city’s Parks, Forestry and Recreation division said in an e-mailed statement to The Globe and Mail.

So yeah, the federal government's involvement is required in the investigation since the Inner Harbour is still considered federal waters, and since this is a commercial operation they licence, so you can bet on weeks until some bureaucrat signs off on restoring service.
 
There's usually a "fall schedule" for the ferries that kicks in mid-September. That's probably what they are implying.

Either way, further reporting today indicates the Sam McBride will not be back in service any time in the near future considering they still are quoted to "not know" why they ferry crashed.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/can...rry-crashes-at-city-terminal-dock-injuring-17

I wonder if they will pull it from service permanently given the age of the boat.
 
This will presumably depend upon how damaged it is and what repairs will cost.

If it was heavily damaged they would have already been bailing out water or retrieving it from the lake. Given that they did not have to abandon ship in a hurry and it did not sink I am thinking it is not heavily damaged.

That being said, the boat is 83 years old and if there was a mechanical failure I can see them yanking it from service permanently. If it was an act of god or human error I don't see it being yanked.
 
Quite correct. There were no fatalities so it won't undergo a lengthy investigation.
The level of personal injury has little to do with it. Several regulatory authorities can become involved in incidents like this. They all conduct 'risk and compliance' investigations and by their very nature require fairly specific expertise. The Transportation Safety Board will likely have lead, but the provincial Ministry of Labour might become involved because it is a workplace. The Coast Guard will be responsible for inspecting ('surveying') the ship for damage and determine its seaworthiness and status of its commercial registration. Of course, the City and it's engineers and insurance adjustors will be involved with respect to both the ship - because they own it - and whatever land-based structure it struck - because they own it. It can sometimes get confusing if different investigators are looking to access similar records and evidence or interview the same persons. It can be frustrating but can only be streamlined to a point.

If it turns out the damage is minimal and the cause is readily determinable, the return-to-service might be relatively quick; analysis and reports can come later. It is not inconceivable, to me anyway, that any damage might be minimal or even not existent. The injuries are reportedly minor, many to "knees" apparently. The vast majority of passengers would have likely been standing, many with armloads of kids, stuff, etc. and any sudden stop would have lurched people forward. Momentum is a b**ch.
So yeah, the federal government's involvement is required in the investigation since the Inner Harbour is still considered federal waters, and since this is a commercial operation they licence, so you can bet on weeks until some bureaucrat signs off on restoring service.
Location has nothing to do with it. Constitutionally, the federal government is responsible for "navigation and shipping". If you get tagged for no life jacket or bailing can in a canoe on an inland lake in Haliburton, it will be an offence under the Canada Shipping Act.
 
Last edited:
If it turns out the damage is minimal and the cause is readily determinable, the return-to-service might be relatively quick; analysis and reports can come later. It is not inconceivable, to me anyway, that any damage might be minimal or even not existent. The injuries are reportedly minor, many to "knees" apparently. The vat majority of passengers would have likely been standing, many with armloads of kids, stuff, etc. and any sudden stop would have lurched people forward. Momentum is a b**ch.

If it sustained heavy damage you would know. As I said, it would have started taking on water if there was any significant damage and there would be alot more damage to the dick.

It was likely going slow into port and thankfully not full speed.
 
If it sustained heavy damage you would know. As I said, it would have started taking on water if there was any significant damage and there would be alot more damage to the dick.

It was likely going slow into port and thankfully not full speed.
A boat can have significant damage and not take on water and it was clearly not going as slowly as it was supposed to be! Let's leave the uninformed speculation until we have some facts.

EDIT:

THIS just in, as I said better not to post uninformed speculation!

1661208810851.png
 
Last edited:
A tender is out by the City for security guards for parks, starting with Trinity-Bellwoods, Alexandra Park and Lamport Stadium with the clear goal of preventing encampments.

The tender allows for the addition of other parks as well.

What's notable here is that they want guards who may actually carry out arrests; that means a different level of training that your typical guard and almost certainly means they would work in groups of two or more.


***

Comments:

1) I'm not opposed to enforcing rules against encampments, providing there is actually housing available to place someone in, and that said housing can reasonably be passed off as safe, and hygienic.
Given that Toronto shelters are turning away 40-100 people per day, even in good weather (never mind before it turns cold) I question where it is people are supposed to move to?

2) Further, if one is to enforce said rules; I'm inclined to think that this should be done with a light hand if at all possible (social workers, mental health workers etc); and failing that, that if there is no alternative but to use
some measure of force, that that should be done only by those with the most advanced training, to cause the least harm necessary.

The idea of spending a not insubstantial sum of money to chase people out of one spot or another, who then have nowhere to go............just seems odd. Where things are completely out of hand, the City already has means at their disposal to address that, for better or worse.

I question the value for money proposition here, and quite probably the moral of this, in the current circumstances.
 
A tender is out by the City for security guards for parks, starting with Trinity-Bellwoods, Alexandra Park and Lamport Stadium with the clear goal of preventing encampments.

The tender allows for the addition of other parks as well.

What's notable here is that they want guards who may actually carry out arrests; that means a different level of training that your typical guard and almost certainly means they would work in groups of two or more.


***

Comments:

1) I'm not opposed to enforcing rules against encampments, providing there is actually housing available to place someone in, and that said housing can reasonably be passed off as safe, and hygienic.
Given that Toronto shelters are turning away 40-100 people per day, even in good weather (never mind before it turns cold) I question where it is people are supposed to move to?

2) Further, if one is to enforce said rules; I'm inclined to think that this should be done with a light hand if at all possible (social workers, mental health workers etc); and failing that, that if there is no alternative but to use
some measure of force, that that should be done only by those with the most advanced training, to cause the least harm necessary.

The idea of spending a not insubstantial sum of money to chase people out of one spot or another, who then have nowhere to go............just seems odd. Where things are completely out of hand, the City already has means at their disposal to address that, for better or worse.

I question the value for money proposition here, and quite probably the moral of this, in the current circumstances.

I used to work near Allan Gardens last year and near Clarence Square this year. In both cases there were tents set up in the park along with makeshift shelters. This is in areas with families and dogs.

I get that the homeless have limited options but sleeping in parks should not be one of them. Some people who sleep in the parks are mentally unbalanced or addicted to something, in either case they refuse to leave.

The reality is that no matter what their belief, circumstances what have you they cannot stay in the park. It is not safe for the community and it is not their god given right to stay there. They should be given ample notice to move and if they refuse, be moved by force.

Think of it like being warned and refusing to adhere by that warning. The fact of the matter is, it is not safe for those in the community to use parks with encampments and quite frankly I would not use them myself. I do not know why these people are there but I do not want to be harassed by persons on drugs or thinking they are talking to god and risk my safety.
 
This is in areas with families and dogs.

Firstly, I care not one whit about 'families or dogs' vs the general population at large.

And btw..........what areas are family-less and dog-less?

I get that the homeless have limited options but sleeping in parks should not be one of them. Some people who sleep in the parks are mentally unbalanced or addicted to something, in either case they refuse to leave.

Second, Limited options or 'no' options?

**

Third , 'God' does not give rights in Canada to anyone.

*****

As I've noted above, I'm not opposed to moving to prevent/remove encampments, providing we have somewhere reasonable for people to go.

If we don't..........
 
Last edited:

Back
Top