generalcanada said:
basically in this case, and what was evident when the HDI was asking for "intervenor status" in the injunction was that their ask was completely separate from LSOs ask.
HDI and the first nations have some kind of agreement of cash-for-trees type deal.

This again will be shot down on tuesday, all the injunctions should be done. But lawsuits can go on for years with theese guys instead. The first nations and MX have quite an adversarial relationship it seems
Click to expand...
" The first nations and MX have quite an adversarial relationship it seems" ) This is hardly surprising as Metrolinx are notoriously poor at communicating (truthfully) with everyone and think that 'consultation' means sending out a press release..
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
I think the damage is already done. If this gets successfully stopped for good, are they going glue and fasten those trees back together again? I mean, it feels like a case of Humpty Dumpty here. /sigh
Click to expand...
Yes, this is a factor but the trees are not the whole story. A new station design that preserves the greenspace and fence in its entirety is the endgame.

More transit is a huge necessity, and if there were no other option, I would grudgingly support the plan. But there are other options, and in the case of the option that brings forward the University linear park, really good ones well worth any increase in cost.
 
SaugeenJunction said:
It’s the only picture on Twitter that’s up to date on cutting that I could find, no need to be so sensitive over a Tweet lol.
Click to expand...
This is a sensitive topic, what where you expecting?

...either way, thank you for the clarification at least. /bows
 
cd concept said:
Is there a better way not to disturb the Osgood hall gardens property. And build the underground pedestrians subway connections under University Ave north and south roadways instead. Temporarily closing one part of the street at a time to dig the connection under the street. After all Queen and Yonge intersection will be temporarily closed. Might all well close Queen Street from Yonge St to University Ave for a while. And make it a pedestrian road instead. Or even better having a permanent parkette etc now that the subway will be under Queen Street. These trees create a buffer between the noisy streets and the park. We should be adding more park than taking away from one of Toronto's major tourist areas and beautifying it with major Queen st parkette instead to handle major events at city Hall etc. JUST A THOUGHT lol!
Click to expand...
So basicly you want to make transit construction both more expensive to build and take longer..
 
Obsidian said:
So basicly you want to make transit construction both more expensive to build and take longer..
Click to expand...
One would presume they would do this efficiently and cost effectively as possible...

(...er, just pointing that out so you don't have exert yourself as much when attacking that strawman. It looks exhausting!)
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
One would presume they would do this efficiently and cost effectively as possible...

(...er, just pointing that out so you don't have exert yourself as much when attacking that strawman. It looks exhausting!)
Click to expand...

The most cost effectively way are the current plans to chop down the trees and a section of gate on Osgoode hall.
Anything else will just increase the project cost and time (which is alreay happening with the delays) and make other projects less feasible.
 
Obsidian said:
The most cost effectively way are the current plans to chop down the trees and a section of gate on Osgoode hall.
Anything else will just increase the project cost and time (which is alreay happening with the delays) and make other projects less feasible.
Click to expand...
Your claim wasn't that though. Rather, you stated anyone who doesn't like this is wanting a more inefficient and expensive method (the strawman). First of all, that's not the reasons folks would reject this. And second, in choosing other options, those same would still want whatever alternative to be efficient and cost effective as possible...which doesn't equate to actual less time and less money in spending on this. To which is a lot different from the narrative you are painting them here.

...the point is rather moot now, as they've already gone and partially cleared it. And probably get the permission to clear the rest.
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
Your claim wasn't that though. Rather, you stated anyone who doesn't like this is wanting a more inefficient and expensive method (the strawman). First of all, that's not the reasons folks would reject this. And second, in choosing other options, those same would still want whatever alternative to be efficient and cost effective as possible...which doesn't equate to actual less time and less money in spending on this. To which is a lot different from the narrative you are painting them here.

...the point is rather moot now, as they've already gone and partially cleared it. And probably get the permission to clear the rest.
Click to expand...
Now multiple this by 100x for all the NIMBY groups in the city who want to make "One small change" to this project and the cost have soon grown by 100 million and additional years for completion.
If Metrolink budges here it will only encourage more court injections all along the line. The more this project cost the fewer new transit projects we will get across the city.
 
Problem solved? 😏
(Kayahima Station in Japan)
station-2.jpg
 
Like I said, it' s not like we can put those trees back now. We're still free to think less of ML and their proponents here though...

...which reminds me, and since this keeps being brought up, there will still likely be cost overruns and delays with this project whether trees stayed up or not. Kinda of a not-issue in the end.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top