[DSC]

IMO somebody must be lobbying for the funicular options or it wouldn't still be considered. Does anybody know who and why? Is it simply a matter of cost?

Yes, I agree there seems to be 'someone' who is pushing this. Sounds a bit like the Scarborough LRT nonsense all over again.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

IMO somebody must be lobbying for the funicular options or it wouldn't still be considered. Does anybody know who and why? Is it simply a matter of cost?

Or it could be Staff’s way of saying “we tried” (with regards to lowering costs)

 

[Jeff Morgan]

Or it could be Staff’s way of saying “we tried” (with regards to lowering costs)

Wouldn't it be nice if "cost of delay" was factored in every time somebody introduces another option that takes a year or more to validate.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

IMO somebody must be lobbying for the funicular options or it wouldn't still be considered. Does anybody know who and why? Is it simply a matter of cost?

Steve Munro suggested WT is behind it; WT denied.

AoD

 

[ADRM]

Or it could be Staff’s way of saying “we tried” (with regards to lowering costs)

That's what the less cynical side of me wondered as well -- is Staff now savvy enough (after years/eons of dealing with so much political interference) to be gaming out the recommendations they offer up? Are they keeping the least desirable (slash patently ridiculous) option solely because they don't want a wishy washy middle ground to be latched onto by the John Campbells (and John Torys) of the world and assume that the presence of the funicular as a decision point makes the case even easier to make? Is this them trying to repeat the Gardiner East "Hybrid" nonsense?

Probably not; someone's likely effing with this already, but a guy can hope.

 

[W. K. Lis]

The original plans did not take into account the new platform(s) that will be (or can be) built in the basement of 45 Bay (The CIBC Centre) and also made allowances for the Bremner LRT which now seems to be officially dead. I am not arguing that the loop should not be rebuilt but it will need a new plan. What is VERY sad is that these plans go back well over a decade and we are still just talking (and now even looking at a funicular.)

They could have put a design for the streetcar tunnel and platforms into the design for 45 Bay, but looks too late now.

 

[DSC]

They could have put a design for the streetcar tunnel and platforms into the design for 45 Bay, but looks too late now.

They did:
"City Council consideration on September 30, 2015
TE10.68
ACTION Adopted Ward:28

45 Bay Street - Council Authority to Exercise Option for Construction of Future East Bayfront LRT Station Platform
City Council Decision
City Council on September 30, October 1 and 2, 2015, adopted the following:

1. City Council authorize City officials to sign the Section 45(9) Agreement and exercise the Structure Option, permitted as a condition of the January 28, 2015, Committee of Adjustment decision, to have the owner (Ivanhoe Cambridge) of 45 Bay Street construct a three-dimensional structure adjacent to the below-grade parking area for the potential future use as an LRT platform for the East Bayfront LRT station.

2. In the event the associated “Cost Differential” to the owner exceeds the $2,000,000.00 stipulated in the Committee of Adjustment decision, City Council direct that City staff:

a. be authorized to pursue non-debt funding sources for any such excess; and

b. report back to City Council identifying any such excess Cost Differential and the source of required funds.

3. City Council direct the Director, Waterfront Secretariat and City Planning to monitor the cost during construction to determine if additional funding is required.

 

[dowlingm]

The insistence on ramming all Waterfront service into Union with the massive costs required to properly accommodate that still doesn't make sense to me, especially with respect to 510 which virtually doubles back on itself and only has a 400m section between Spadina-Blue Jays Way and Spadina-QQW not covered by 509 service but the northern part of which is within the catchment of 121 to go east-west.

• Rebuild QQE-Bay and route 510 to Parliament Loop going with 509 operating into/out of Union Loop.
• Close Union for reworking (since the current loop is not fit for purpose for *existing* movements) but continue waterfront service on 509-510 to/from Parliament Loop
• Once Union is ready to reopen as a 2-LFLRV-route facility, then decide how to route future services either as
  • 509/510 run throughs or
  • add a third service to accommodate Parliament Loop-Union while 510 runs through or
  • something else again (as by that time the Gardiner rebuild may permit a final decision on Cherry-Lake Shore configuration).

 

[Leo_Chan]

IMO somebody must be lobbying for the funicular options or it wouldn't still be considered. Does anybody know who and why? Is it simply a matter of cost?

I wonder if the subway extension to Queens Quay was every brought up in the discussions. If the Union Loop was considered the lower cost option, then it would be highly likely that it would have been the "budget option". Only if the options were subway extension, streetcar loop expansion, or pedestrian path...only if.

 

[DSC]

I wonder if the subway extension to Queens Quay was every brought up in the discussions. If the Union Loop was considered the lower cost option, then it would be highly likely that it would have been the "budget option". Only if the options were subway extension, streetcar loop expansion, or pedestrian path...only if.

What on earth are you talking about? How exactly would you extend the subway to Queens Quay? One does not get far by suggesting ridiculous options just so the right one (fixing the loop) comes out as the cheap option.

 

[adrianaliu]

What on earth are you talking about? How exactly would you extend the subway to Queens Quay? One does not get far by suggesting ridiculous options just so the right one (fixing the loop) comes out as the cheap option.

well the city kinda did that with the scarborough situation loool. 'the 1 stop variant of the subway is so much cheaper that it leaves us with enuf to build eglinton east!!!!!!'

 

[BurlOak]

What on earth are you talking about? How exactly would you extend the subway to Queens Quay? One does not get far by suggesting ridiculous options just so the right one (fixing the loop) comes out as the cheap option.

Don't know - maybe refering to the fantasy map created by Gweed123 a good number of years ago.

 

[rbt]

What on earth are you talking about? How exactly would you extend the subway to Queens Quay? One does not get far by suggesting ridiculous options just so the right one (fixing the loop) comes out as the cheap option.

Break Yonge/University into 2 separate lines; terminate Yonge at Union and University at Queens Quay. Perhaps shift St. Andrew a bit south to allow an improved interchange with the Yonge line and Union.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

A city too cheap to pay for redoing the loop isn't going to extend the subway through the Southcore, period.

AoD

 

[rbt]

A city too cheap to pay for redoing the loop isn't going to extend the subway through the Southcore, period.

Of course. The triple whopper exists on the menu, despite very low sales (under 1%) to make the double whopper more appealing price wise.

I think adrianaliu's point was to make expanding the loop the 2nd most expensive option in the same way the 1-stop subway in Scarborough is the result of a compromise from a crazy expensive option (for the benefit) to a still very expensive option. A $2B University line extension might make a $500M loop expansion look good.