[sjc]

One of the things to consider is that it shouldn't be too steep for streetcars to get across. Also, there isn't a lot of room on either side to extend the bridge onto the land -- some, but the runway and terminal buildings form a solid barrier that can't really be moved and ripping up the park wouldn't be popular.

How much did the streetcar tunnel from Union Station down to the lake cost to make? Something along those lines might work.

 

[rbt]

Somehow I have trouble believing a non-lift bridge can't be designed that would meet water clearance requirements. What are the requirements, anyways? 30m?

Navigable Waters Protection Act, which this would fall under since this is secondary exit from the Toronto harbour, says "the bridge clearance should be at least equal to the air draught required by the tallest boat".

This is the secondary exit which must be usable by all boats in during an emergency if the eastern exit is blocked, and we have a 50m tall ship in harbour.

Taking into account waves and change in water height, you probably need to clear 55m to be safe.

At a 5 degree slope this works out to about 600m of ramp on each side of the bridge -- making the total bridge length about 1.2km long.

 

[CDL.TO]

And how deep is the channel?

 

[rbt]

And how deep is the channel?

Great question. It is dredged regularly.

Toronto Port Authority records state "... in excess of seaway depths", so over 27 feet deep?

 

[adma]

>>>Iler called the airport site "the best piece of land on the waterfront. For them to get away with paying $432,000 a year, it's nothing."

Downtown councillor Adam Vaughan agreed the value put on the airport by the panel isn't accurate. "If it is, I've got a lot of developers who would buy it right now."<<<

I like how Community Air and Councillor Vaughan are now supporting development of the island.

How do you interpret that as "supporting development"? Just because Councillor Vaughan says he's "got" a lot of developers doesn't mean he's on-side with them.

I'd like to see a casino there with some hotels, behind the airport where you can give easy access to New York and Chicago gamblers.

Boy, you have a sleazy notion of desirable development for Toronto...

 

[Whoaccio]

Navigable Waters Protection Act, which this would fall under since this is secondary exit from the Toronto harbour, says "the bridge clearance should be at least equal to the air draught required by the tallest boat".

This is the secondary exit which must be usable by all boats in during an emergency if the eastern exit is blocked, and we have a 50m tall ship in harbour.

Taking into account waves and change in water height, you probably need to clear 55m to be safe.

At a 5 degree slope this works out to about 600m of ramp on each side of the bridge -- making the total bridge length about 1.2km long.

Jesus. That seems a bit excessive.

 

[Whoaccio]

As for the TPA, I think allegations of corruption are a bit much. It is a patronage tool, probably incompetent and cronyistic, but I fail to see the corruption. We might as well call the Senate corrupt, it fills the same basic niche as the TPA.

What specifically grinds my gears about the TPA doesn't really have anything to do with the airport. I am pissed off that we (it) still keeps the Port active. Lord knows what kind of rent it pays on all the acres it has in the Portlands, but I suspect is probably isn't accurate or fair. The idea of using Toronto as a commercial port just strikes me as ridiculous, we might as well start running freighters up the Thames. That land isn't being used to it's full potential as a port, and any private company would have developed the area long ago.

 

[rbt]

Jesus. That seems a bit excessive.

Which is probably why they opted to design a draw bridge with movable parts and a full time controllers (to open and close it all day) rather than build a fixed bridge.

 

[sjc]

>>>>Lord knows what kind of rent it pays on all the acres it has in the Portlands,<<<

Keep in mind that most of the acres in the Portlands don't belong to the TPA. They only own the little compound between Cherry Beach and The Docks (or whatever The Docks is called these days) where the International Ferry Terminal is.

 

[Hydrogen]

The only time a bridge would be built for the airport would be right before the airport was to be closed.

 

[jks]

^ That wouldn't be too bad. If the airport was then turned into more parkland, we could make the bridge pedestrian-only, and voila! Every penny well spent!

 

[Automation Gallery]

^ That wouldn't be too bad. If the airport was then turned into more parkland, we could make the bridge pedestrian-only, and voila! Every penny well spent!

Great, Lets hope City Hall makes it a toll pedestrian bridge and charges every Torontonian 5 bucks for the crossing.

 

[jks]

Great, Lets hope City Hall makes it a toll pedestrian bridge and charges every Torontonian 5 bucks for the crossing.

Why stop there!?! City Hall could charge everyone $1 per kilometre for using the sidewalks!! Imagine the revenue!!

 

[TOareaFan]

Why stop there!?! City Hall could charge everyone $1 per kilometre for using the sidewalks!! Imagine the revenue!!

Would the Spaniards buy the bridge?

 

[Whoaccio]

I dunno, rbt has killed my hopes of a non-lift bridge to the Toronto Islands like a cruel prom date. That aside though, charging people to use a theoretical bridge may not be such a bad idea. People already pay to use the ferries, so it's not as if the concept of paying for transport to the island is alien. If we, say, put turnstiles on either end and charged people a toonie each way, the theoretical bridge could make up it's costs pretty quickly. So what if Spanish people could own it? Is there something wrong with the Spanish?