[BurlOak]

Also, Steve Munro is really, really, really stupid if he thinks any proposal other than the new platforms at Union station are being seriously considered. And as he shows in his links, the other options really haven't been seriously considered, considering the lack of serious planning in the presentation. This is probably one of those cases where city staff want to present an alternative option so they can say to their critics "we tried, there's nothing we can do, sorry..."

I guess your saying he's really stupid. He seems to indicate that the fix is in to re-purpose the tunnel.

 

[amnesiajune]

I guess your saying he's really stupid. He seems to indicate that the fix is in to re-purpose the tunnel.

I don't think he's really stupid. I think he's fully aware that Options B and C have no chance of happening, but he wants to imply otherwise because (A) it gives him something to criticize, and (B) it draws more attention to the post than just saying "these other two options are obviously not possible to build and operate as described" (which is essentially what he says further down in the article).

Like I said, he's knowledgable about transit issues but he also has a tendency to distort, complain, and distort-to-complain.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I don't think he's really stupid. I think he's fully aware that Options B and C have no chance of happening, but he wants to imply otherwise because (A) it gives him something to criticize, and (B) it draws more attention to the post than just saying "these other two options are obviously not possible to build and operate as described" (which is essentially what he says further down in the article).

Like I said, he's knowledgable about transit issues but he also has a tendency to distort, complain, and distort-to-complain.

That is a really bizarre read - so you are faulting someone for pointing out junk options that are being presented as viable in a public setting as grandstanding? Perhaps one shouldn't be stupid enough to put options that are "impossible" in a presentation and pass them off as an option in the first place (and spent a year getting to this point).

AoD

 

[Red October]

I don't think he's really stupid. I think he's fully aware that Options B and C have no chance of happening, but he wants to imply otherwise because (A) it gives him something to criticize, and (B) it draws more attention to the post than just saying "these other two options are obviously not possible to build and operate as described" (which is essentially what he says further down in the article).

Like I said, he's knowledgable about transit issues but he also has a tendency to distort, complain, and distort-to-complain.

Were you at the public meeting? IMO they (the city) really did seem to think option B would work.

 

[BMO]

Isn't Steve Munro on the stakeholder committee for this study? So wouldn't he have a better pulse of what's really going on?

 

[amnesiajune]

So you are faulting someone for pointing out options that are being presented as viable in a public setting has faults as grandstanding? Perhaps one shouldn't be stupid enough to put options that are "impossible" in a presentation and pass them off as an option in the first place (and spent a year getting to this point).

Were you at the public meeting? IMO they (the city) really did seem to think option B would work.

I wasn't at the meeting, but I'm not sure how anyone with half a brain would genuinely think that walking 5-10 minutes through a tiny, claustrophobic tunnel is a viable option. It's not unheard of for bad alternatives to be presented just to make the point that there was consideration given to alternatives and there aren't any good ones. The TTC did this when they were asked to cut their subsidy by 2% (they proposed things like ending student & senior discounts, ending metropass discounts and delaying the Spadina Extension opening), and they walked out of that with a 10% increase to their subsidy.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I wasn't at the meeting, but I'm not sure how anyone with half a brain would genuinely think that walking 5-10 minutes through a tiny, claustrophobic tunnel is a viable option. It's not unheard of for bad alternatives to be presented just to make the point that there was consideration given to alternatives and there aren't any good ones. The TTC did this when they were asked to cut their subsidy by 2%, and they walked out of that with a 10% subsidy increase.

We must take them at face value and provide criticism as necessary - giving it a pass and say "but it won't be implemented because it is so blatantly flawed" is inviting bad decisions to be made.

AoD

 

[amnesiajune]

We must take them at face value and provide criticism as necessary

Call the idea dumb, that's fine. But don't deceive people like Steve does by saying things like "the fix is in" and "somebody very badly wants to re-purpose the Bay Street tunnel".

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Call the idea dumb, that's fine. But don't deceive people like Steve does by saying things like "the fix is in" and "somebody very badly wants to re-purpose the Bay Street tunnel".

Given what @drum118 on here has also said/hinted at (as someone involved in the process), it is fairly clear there is some attempt at doing so. It certainly is more credible than "forget what's being presented, nothing to see here, trust me".

AoD

 

[crs1026]

Dumb alternatives find their way into staff analyses for many reasons. Sometimes there is value in presentkng 'straw man' ideas knowing these will get shot down.
In this case, my fear is that there are enough 'lesser analysts' on Council who would intuitively resist any substantial investment in streetcar/LRT facilities, and who may find these 'monorail'-quality options quite appealing. There are the Mammo's, but there are also the Campbells who will have been spooked by the lavish spending on Line 2 and will be looking for bargain buys to offset that spend. So these options may get undue support.
For that matter, the Smarttrack funding isn't a done deal yet... I can see certain parties wanting other big ticket items swept under the carpet until that deal is done.
We are speculating, but not from a lack of rational reasons to be very, very afraid.

- Paul

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Dumb alternatives find their way into staff analyses for many reasons. Sometimes there is value in presentkng 'straw man' ideas knowing these will get shot down.
In this case, my fear is that there are enough 'lesser analysts' on Council who would intuitively resist any substantial investment in streetcar/LRT facilities, and who may find these 'monorail'-quality options quite appealing. There are the Mammo's, but there are also the Campbells who will have been spooked by the lavish spending on Line 2 and will be looking for bargain buys to offset that spend. So these options may get undue support.
For that matter, the Smarttrack funding isn't a done deal yet... I can see certain parties wanting other big ticket items swept under the carpet until that deal is done.
We are speculating, but not from a lack of rational reasons to be very, very afraid.

- Paul

To put it even more bluntly - half-brained ideas are exactly the ones favoured by decision-makers with half a brain.

AoD

 

[aquateam]

What's even more egregious, imo, is that we are literally removing medium capacity transit infrastructure, and forcing people to walk (I see this pedestrian sidewalk broken within a few years, and have a fate like Spadina).

Come visit the Toronto Waterfront! Just walk for 1/2 km in a dark tunnel underground to get to it!

It doesn't have to be a dark tunnel. Riding the funicular could be just like the Bund Sightseeing Tunnel in Shanghai! Its length is 646.7 meters, about the same as the Bay street tunnel if it's extended to the ferry docks.

Or maybe there could be animatronic animals singing "It's a small world after all"

 

[Red October]

I wasn't at the meeting, but I'm not sure how anyone with half a brain would genuinely think that walking 5-10 minutes through a tiny, claustrophobic tunnel is a viable option.

Because they drive to work every day and park in a garage right under their office, so they don't understand what commuting by other modes is like.

 

[drum118]

Isn't Steve Munro on the stakeholder committee for this study? So wouldn't he have a better pulse of what's really going on?

Yes!, Steve was a stakeholder on this study and on numerous others, but not on all of them.

We may not see eye to eye various things over the years, but we shot this idea down in 2008 and it needs to be kill again.

Have said that, many cities in Europe have long walking distance underground between lines that come close to what been proposed here, but not under the current plan and conditions.

 

[amnesiajune]

Because they drive to work every day and park in a garage right under their office, so they don't understand what commuting by other modes is like.

The vast majority of city staff take transit to work.