News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 4.7K     0 

Which transit plan do you prefer?

  • Transit City

    Votes: 95 79.2%

  • Ford City

    Votes: 25 20.8%
  • Total voters
    120
very cruel!
 
Just got a letter from the Ministry of the Environment surrounding the Western Waterfront Extension today.

Bottom line the Ministry will not look or listen to issues not related to the environment itself. This applies to all TTC current and plan EA's

All EA's are been treated as MEA Class EA Transit Chapter 1 Schedule C.

This means TTC Can Ram Rod what every they want through outside subway and the only source to get changes made is when the EA's go before the commissioners or at council.

I find this disturbing considering there are environment issue involved now. I can see a number of law suite been file by local residents if TTC chose the route they want from day one.

Doesn't cutting trees down and removing environment land fall under their control?
 
Necessary Evil said:
I went to the Metrolinx public board meeting on Friday and one of the speakers - from the Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal - told the Board that construction is to start in 2009 on three priority projects - Finch West, Sheppard East and something about York/VIVA (didn't catch the specifics).
Click to expand...

It would be hwy 7 for York.

I found PI folks unprepared and they left too many unanswer questions or what has to happen first before going P3 route.

You better know what you want from day one and make sure it written with all the T's cross, otherwise it going to come back and bit you in the pocket book.

The taxpayers are on the hock one way or another going either route, but one can end up costing more than the other.

Going the P3 route requires the company to recovery it's cost and make a profit. But most of all, pay a good dividend to the shareholders.

I see some P3 working, but other failing or end up costing way too much at the end of the day.

Just look at the problem with the liners on Yonge line. If this was done by the P3 not TTC, there would be all kinds of law suite's.

But since it was TTC, riders are paying for the mistake. The people TTC hire to design and management the project have either move on, retire or pass on. Since they were employees of TTC, you cannot go back after them for their mistake in designing the tunnel.
 
drum118 said:
Just look at the problem with the liners on Yonge line. If this was done by the P3 not TTC, there would be all kinds of law suite's.
Click to expand...
Lawsuit against what company? Any firm doing short-term development work would fold immediately after the project is complete. There would not be an lawful entity remaining.

The only way to do a P3 and have the initial company hang around is to put them into a long term revenue contract that cannot be sold or transferred. Of course, since this dramatically increases the risk it also dramatically increases the bid price for the work to be completed.
 
That's all a matter of how you structure the contract. There's absolutely no reason why you couldn't have the parent company take on the liabilities of the subsidiary performing the work.
 
unimaginative2 said:
That's all a matter of how you structure the contract. There's absolutely no reason why you couldn't have the parent company take on the liabilities of the subsidiary performing the work.
Click to expand...

Sure, you could do that, but then P3's won't exactly be cheaper anymore since the risk has increased significantly.

So long as the goal is to demonstrate the low cost of P3's, they simply are not going to be absorbing much risk if any of the risk.
 
The consortium behind the Canada Line has absorbed a great deak of risk. They've paid $700 million in cost overruns on a project that has only cost governments $1.5 billion. Of course you're right that the increased risk could increase the cost, but that doesn't mean that many PPPs might not still offer good value.
 
Had a conversation with some people from the office of Adam Giambrone and the mayor's office today at Metronauts (Powered by Transit Camp). I asked what the stop spacing for Transit City would be, and they very clearly said 500 metres. Take from that what you will, but that's what they said.
 
The quote was:

"500 metres. Subway spacing. We have to convince people that this is light rail. This isn't streetcars."

Another person from city hall was saying that they absolutely do not want pockets of extreme high-density development at stations. They want developers to build medium-density mid-rise buildings spread out across the line - something that subways don't tend to compliment.
 
I live near what would be the Jane LRT.

The distance between Bloor and Annette is 959 m; between Annette and Dundas is 906 m; Dundas and Woolner is 652 m; Woolner and Alliance is 618 m; Alliance and Eglinton is 947m; Eglinton and Weston is about 676 m; between Weston and Tretheway is 784 m; between Tretheway and Lawrence is 555 m. At least that is where I would measure out where I would put the stops/stations. Plus or minus.

That is where I would start placing them.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top