[lenaitch]

You know, they do make things called bulldozers which, when employed properly can fix that.

There was a time where the inner core was single family homes too.

Although zoning rules play a role, there is difference between evolutionary intensification through market forces and large-scale expropriation by the state to further what is argued as a public good. It can be argued that bulldozing entire neighbourhoods, otherwise functioning and viable but comprised of single family dwellings, in favour of the efficiency of more density installation of transit line is ultimately a beneficial urban direction, but it would be extremely costly and highly disruptive.

 

[micheal_can]

Although zoning rules play a role, there is difference between evolutionary intensification through market forces and large-scale expropriation by the state to further what is argued as a public good. It can be argued that bulldozing entire neighbourhoods, otherwise functioning and viable but comprised of single family dwellings, in favour of the efficiency of more density installation of transit line is ultimately a beneficial urban direction, but it would be extremely costly and highly disruptive.

Zoning should allow the desification of all residential areas. Within a major city, unless it is a heritage area, it should be allowed to be built as much more dense area.

 

[W. K. Lis]

When the Metropolitan Toronto Council was initially created in 1954, it consisted of 12 councillors from Toronto (including the mayor), and one representative (usually a mayor or reeve) from each of the surrounding municipalities (the towns of New Toronto, Mimico, Weston and Leaside; the villages of Long Branch, Swansea and Forest Hill and the townships of Etobicoke, York, North York, East York, and Scarborough). A 12 "city" and 12 "suburb" council. That council was able to zone for new urban zones that was more dense that many of the township wanted. Thankfully, that resutled in better transit (okay, buses) than many of the current 905.

That lasted until 1967, when the villages and towns were merged with the city and boroughs of the time. They also shifted the focus from the center city to the surrounding municipalities.

 

[Streety McCarface]

I read somewhere that areas along the TYSSE and the Sheppard line are just not zoned for denser developments because of NIMBY ideologies. This honestly has to stop. We have perfectly good areas of the system that can support an influx of people, yet we still allow condos to be built in Vaughan, the Waterfront (With the exception of the Portlands, because they're planning a streetcar network down there and will hopefully have a subway stop on the DRL), and Mississauga. Hell, Brampton now wants a piece of the pie and wants their downtown to have huge new high-rises. The problem is that they cannot support that. They showed that they don't even want to. They cancelled the Hurontario LRT (which would have connected to 3 RER stations...), and they can't currently support RER in Brampton (CN). We have other areas of the city that are attractive and would do well with some development, so why are we zoning areas of the city with excellent transit for detached homes, and areas of the city with shitty transit for high rises? I know we all want to live by the waterfront, but it's not sustainable, not with the current transit network anyways.

 

[Streety McCarface]

https://transit.toronto.on.ca/subway/5102.shtml

Yonge Subway Construction started September 8, 1949.
The 7.4-kilometre long, 12 station, Yonge subway opened on March 30, 1954.
Total disruption time of 5.5 years. (and steel shortages due to the Korean war caused about a 1 year delay.

Eglinton LRT construction started on November 9, 2011 with TBM launch shaft.
9km, 15 underground stations expected to be opened in summer 2021.
Total disruption time of 10 years. The line is a bit longer, and more stations, but also the stations are shorter.

One would think with modern construction techniques we would be able to improve on construction speed compared to 60 years ago.

I still think that the biggest disruption is at stations - which are usually <1km apart. Having shallower stations probably means that cut-and-cover is less disruptive overall, but it just doesn't have the sex appeal of a modern TBM.

I've always liked cut-and cover. Sure it's more disruptive, sure, but it moves utilities to a central location (making maintenance a whole lot easier, especially if you can locate all of them), and it more easily facilitates expansion. We have to remember that mining also means stations are deeper, which is awful for transferring.

Ah wasn't familiar with PPD as a term. Yeah I wouldn't rule out 180,000/day with a major Line 4 expansion some day. A bit high but could happen. However think if we ever are going to expand it'd be prudent to go with 4-car max. There are savings to be had. And not in some DoFo mur money in yur pocket, I mean just so it could a) actually be built, b) see more than a few km, c) doesn't needlessly siphon capital from other projects.

A gripe of mine is the hardset view that we must build things super large and super expensive. There are ways of doing it differently. Not in some obscure or overseas means. Literally right here in this city. E.g Line 3 and its original expansion/upgrade plan. 100m trains, operating from Kennedy/Eglinton to Progress/Sheppard (w/ allocation for future NE extension + poss new inline yard @ Bellamy). Some underground, some elevated, simple stations. That's how you build a network, that's how other cities have done it. Similar could've worked with Sheppard. Heck Line 3 and 4 could've been combined into a true inter-suburb subway. That's a network. But instead we got what we have now - a grossly overbuilt perma-truncation just so a couple blocks in North York are future-proofed for an epoch, and a former fridge salesman has bragging rights for such oversized infrastructure.

People go on about how other cities manage to build expansive networks, but oftentimes neglect to look at the details or ways they've achieved this. Leeway for diff types of rolling stock (some wide, some narrow, some long, some short), allowing transfers, parts built deep parts in the open. For a Western example Madrid gets praise for its large expansion, and surprisingly did that virtually all underground. But look at the station lengths: 60m, 90m, 115m. That's 'light' territory, but still 100% metro nonetheless. Similar can be found with systems in Asia, Europe, S.Am.

And if we do have supposed champions of hardcore future-proofing things in TO then they definitely make themselves scarce on other matters. South Jane LRT, south Don Mills LRT, the cattle car nightmare of Waterfront LRT approaching Union (10k pphpd on a single unit legacy LFLRV!), Spadina + Harbourfront being built with single unit LRV, the sad 504, RL termination at Osgoode, at-capacity gridlock for the surface network across the city. Where are those future-concerned bureaucrats whom called for a +30k pphpd capacity solution on Sheppard?

Honestly, I don't disagree with the general sentiment, but we have to remember that building the Sheppard subway was actually cheaper than building an underground LRT line (along the existing corridor (Wider tunnels, longer escalators/elevators, etc)). I would have preferred an eglinton subway to a Sheppard subway, but we're stuck with what we have. It's true, I honestly cannot believe that the city and province constantly try to cheap out with projects the the Don Mills LRT, Scarborough LRT (come on, INNOVA makes so much more sense if it's not interlined with Eglinton), Waterfront LRT, and the worst contender, the crosstown, but I think the general idea of building with the future in mind is a good one, especially if it doesn't break the bank (rebuilding st Clair & spadina to have platforms that can serve 2 LFLRVs would have made a lot of sense, and probably wouldn't cost more than 50 million dollars, and they should have made the LFLRVs able to couple (added 5 million)). They coupled streetcars during the Peter Witt era, why can't they do it now (on LRT-lite streetcar corridors like King, Harbourfront, Spadina, and St Clair)?

I really wish Sheppard wasn't filled with NIMBYs, especially because there's so much prime land up there ripe for development that's wasted. Who wants to live next to the 401 in a detached house anyways?

Maybe this has more to do with safety than much else. If you died at a construction site, they might just lay the concrete over you and be done with it.

That's probably true as well, but even then, the risks building a cut and cover subway are arguably a lot lower than mining, especially since the worst that can happen to you is having a retaining wall fail.

 

[Rainforest]

rebuilding st Clair & spadina to have platforms that can serve 2 LFLRVs would have made a lot of sense, and probably wouldn't cost more than 50 million dollars, and they should have made the LFLRVs able to couple (added 5 million)). They coupled streetcars during the Peter Witt era, why can't they do it now (on LRT-lite streetcar corridors like King, Harbourfront, Spadina, and St Clair)?

Agreed with 97% of you post, but have to disagree re streetcar length, at least on St Clair and King. One Flexity LFLRV is comparable to, if not longer than, two coupled Witt streetcars. Both St Clair and King have very closely spaced cross streets; they are very different from Finch, or the outer sections of Eglinton, where the light rail will run on surface.

Long 2-car Flexity consists would totally dominate St Clair or King; in some places, they literally wouldn't fit between the intersections.

In case of St Clair, an additional complication is the underground station at St Clair West. It is built in such a way that all streetcars (westbound and eastbound) have to travel in single file clock-wise. I can't imagine how that arrangement will work with 2-car Flexity consists.

In conclusion, we are often stuck with the limitations of the original design on the legacy routes.

New lines is another matter, we have the flexibility to choose the right size, and make it expandable.

 

[micheal_can]

Agreed with 97% of you post, but have to disagree re streetcar length, at least on St Clair and King. One Flexity LFLRV is comparable to, if not longer than, two coupled Witt streetcars. Both St Clair and King have very closely spaced cross streets; they are very different from Finch, or the outer sections of Eglinton, where the light rail will run on surface.

Long 2-car Flexity consists would totally dominate St Clair or King; in some places, they literally wouldn't fit between the intersections.

In case of St Clair, an additional complication is the underground station at St Clair West. It is built in such a way that all streetcars (westbound and eastbound) have to travel in single file clock-wise. I can't imagine how that arrangement will work with 2-car Flexity consists.

In conclusion, we are often stuck with the limitations of the original design on the legacy routes.

New lines is another matter, we have the flexibility to choose the right size, and make it expandable.

Make all non signalized intersections right turn only.

 

[syn]

There is also the problem that we live in a city where many parts of it simply were not designed to be served by public transit. Unfortunately given the relatively young age of Toronto's burbs they all fell into the "Automotive Suburb" trap and we know today that it is terrible urban planning philosophy that just creates problems and then compounds them. On the other hand the core predates all of that so was designed and built with public transit and urban livability in mind.

This is ignorant defeatist bullshit that just seeks to justify underinvestment. Canada is not the US. And while Toronto is not a European city, it is denser and more transit friendly than just about any city in Canada or the US, save for New York City. And has the transit modal share to show for it. People here act like unless a place looks like Manhattan that higher ordered transit investment is unjustified. By this logic, most of Europe wouldn't have higher order transit either.

This for example is a station on the massive Crossrail line in London, UK:
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.613...4!1sRP1oUtc8W_2f1k268CcTvA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

And this is literally outside the terminus of that line:
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.631...4!1sEKxc8I7z5wHN3Qd5lKagpw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

So let's stop with this nonsense that most of Toronto is somehow some suburban wasteland that can't support transit. There's zero reason why Toronto can't invest more on rail, even in the suburbs. The ridership is there to justify it. The only limit is a willingness to raise taxes to pay for transit.

I repeat, the only reason we have this idiotic fights, and why we have deluded nonsense about how some parts of the city can't support transit, is because of artificial scarcity we have created.

But it's not 'ignorant, defeatest bullshit', is it? It's the truth. Continuing to ignore such truths is why we keep moving towards transit planning that's based rhetoric and division, rather than actual understanding.

@JSF-1 isn't suggesting we shouldn't invest in Scarborough. In fact, I don't think anyone has questioned the amount being spent, but how it's being spent. Those are two totally different things.

You mention New York, but New York doesn't build subways in places like Scarborough.

You mention Europe, but European cities utilize LRTs quite extensively (and successfully too). In Europe, LRTs qualify as higher order transit.

At one point you asked when Scarborough stops having to pay for the fact that the 'city centre' is built around a mall and poorly located. There's a deeper truth revealed in that question - poor planning decisions can have repercussions that last for generations. STC has had a rapid transit connection for decades yet the growth and character around it has remained decidedly suburban. Why?

Ultimately change is needed on multiple levels, but 'you deserve subways, because War on the Car' doesn't address the issues. It simply tells people they can continue to have their cake and eat it too even when it makes no sense.

 

[JSF-1]

The Europe example also dosen't work because European cities and far better planned than North American ones. Unlike North America, Europe never abandoned the people in regards to urban planning, whereas here, the people where knocked down the priority list in favor of the car which has lead to the problems we see today. Over in Europe and Asia owning a car is a choice, over here for most people you never had a choice to begin with. It is far easier to justify massive expansion into an area that is built for people than it is into an area that is not; and before any says it the Scarborough Town Centre was in no way designed for the people, look at the god awful layout of the area and try to tell me otherwise.

Also yes not every area needs to be high-rises everywhere, mid-rises work very well to; hell most Eurpean cities are mostly mid-rise buildings. Problem is we don't even have that either. Look at Montreal, it is filled with mid-rise development and it's a contributing reason as to why the Montreal Metro moves more people than the Toronto Subway despite being smaller. It's also a contributing factor for why the Montreal Metro has a better layout relative to the City. Given the spread of mid-rise density there really was no wrong answer, any direction they went there was lots people in small areas. Outside the core Toronto doesn't have such luck.

 

[Streety McCarface]

But it's not 'ignorant, defeatest bullshit', is it? It's the truth. Continuing to ignore such truths is why we keep moving towards transit planning that's based rhetoric and division, rather than actual understanding.

@JSF-1 isn't suggesting we shouldn't invest in Scarborough. In fact, I don't think anyone has questioned the amount being spent, but how it's being spent. Those are two totally different things.

You mention New York, but New York doesn't build subways in places like Scarborough.

You mention Europe, but European cities utilize LRTs quite extensively (and successfully too). In Europe, LRTs qualify as higher order transit.

At one point you asked when Scarborough stops having to pay for the fact that the 'city centre' is built around a mall and poorly located. There's a deeper truth revealed in that question - poor planning decisions can have repercussions that last for generations. STC has had a rapid transit connection for decades yet the growth and character around it has remained decidedly suburban. Why?

Ultimately change is needed on multiple levels, but 'you deserve subways, because War on the Car' doesn't address the issues. It simply tells people they can continue to have their cake and eat it too even when it makes no sense.

New York built subways (heavy rail rapid transit, not necessarily underground transit) everywhere, even to the beaches where employment and housing density is next to nothing (the rockaways). It built subways to almost every suburb, with the exception of certain areas deeper into queens, yet, everyone wants to extend the 7, the J/Z, the E, etc further into that borough. However, they've only been building the second avenue subway and the 7 West extension because there are weaknesses in the system. The Lexington Avenue line is overcrowded, and they were backlogged with work that should have been done half a century ago, the exact same situation Toronto is in right now. They don't like building subways now not because they don't want to, but because of a political mess in ownership, excessive workers on worksites, and most importantly, the backlog of improvements that need to be done to the system right now. Toronto has all these same problems, and comparing Toronto to New York is perfect, because people there want expanded service, they want new lines, and they want better state of good repair, they just can't have it because of opposition everywhere else in the city.

Name one European city that is relatively the same size as Toronto that does not also have a large subway network to compliment their LRT network. Toronto is more like a European city than almost any other city in North America (the exceptions being Montreal and Quebec City), and in terms of transit, Toronto is more like almost all European cities in terms of transit variety, and use of it. Most large European cities don't actually have LRT in the from we intend on building on most corridors. What they do have, are the following:
London: The DLR, which is pretty much a metro system
Vienna: Badner Bahn, which is more like a radial railway or interurban than an LRT
Prague: Fast Trams, which have a lot of grade separated sections (like tall viaducts)

Charleroi: This one is a lot like the Light Rail of Toronto, but there is a subway section (like on the crosstown), and that city has a population of 200K, not 3 million...
Aarhus: Aarhus Letbane, which is more like Calgary's Light Rail than Toronto's (POP 350K)
Frankfurt Au Maim: A light rail subway, like the crosstown. (Note Frankfurt is 1/4 the population of Toronto)

What almost all European cities have are trams (the equivalent to our streetcars, particularly those with a streetcar ROW). Toronto has a network of about 80km of streetcar lines, and of those 80 km, about 25km of those are in some sort of right of way or have grade separation. What we should be doing is attempting to reduce the amount of vehicular traffic in downtown Toronto, while expanding this network (Portlands, dufferin, parliament, Jane, Coxwell, waterfront, woodbine streetcars can all be future routes if viable) and adding some more lane segregation (especially on routes like the 505 and 506).

I don't have a problem with moving the STC, most of the ridership is based on bus usage, but there should be a subway line further extended into Scarborough. There are far too many buses for there not to be any major connections to higher order transit. Maybe the STC isn't the best place for that, but at least it has a lot of infrastructure readily available for use, and plenty of land for redevelopment.

The Europe example also dosen't work because European cities and far better planned than North American ones. Unlike North America, Europe never abandoned the people in regards to urban planning, whereas here, the people where knocked down the priority list in favor of the car which has lead to the problems we see today. Over in Europe and Asia owning a car is a choice, over here for most people you never had a choice to begin with. It is far easier to justify massive expansion into an area that is built for people than it is into an area that is not; and before any says it the Scarborough Town Centre was in no way designed for the people, look at the god awful layout of the area and try to tell me otherwise.

Also yes not every area needs to be high-rises everywhere, mid-rises work very well to; hell most Eurpean cities are mostly mid-rise buildings. Problem is we don't even have that either. Look at Montreal, it is filled with mid-rise development and it's a contributing reason as to why the Montreal Metro moves more people than the Toronto Subway despite being smaller. It's also a contributing factor for why the Montreal Metro has a better layout relative to the City. Given the spread of mid-rise density there really was no wrong answer, any direction they went there was lots people in small areas. Outside the core Toronto doesn't have such luck.

We have to also remember that what Toronto lacks in density, it makes up for with integration. The surface route network here is light years ahead of Montreal's, and despite the far lower overall population density, it has the overall higher public transit ridership.

 

[syn]

New York built subways (heavy rail rapid transit, not necessarily underground transit) everywhere, even to the beaches where employment and housing density is next to nothing (the rockaways).

Yes, not underground, originally adapted from pre-existing railway lines. It has 14 stops. Vastly different than what's being proposed here.

Name one European city that is relatively the same size as Toronto that does not also have a large subway network to compliment their LRT network.

It's the other way around.

The LRT network supplements the subway network in lower density areas where subway service isn't justified.

 

[Streety McCarface]

Yes, not underground, originally adapted from pre-existing railway lines. It has 14 stops. Vastly different than what's being proposed here.



It's the other way around.

The LRT network supplements the subway network in lower density areas where subway service isn't justified.

Again, most of us aren't necessarily arguing for underground transit, but transit compatible with the current subway system. Elevated, on a grade separated ROW, or underground, it doesn't really matter. Again, LRT doesn't work everywhere, and with grade separated transit, the subways we currently have work better (lighter, carry more people, high floors, smaller tunnels).

My mistake in terms of order (I've had a long day), but the point there still stands, our city is, compared to most European cities, quite large. To say we shouldn't expand rapid transit and LRT is ludicrous. Sure, we can argue over the particular corridors that should see the type of transit, but generally, you still need Heavy Rail in a city our size. Ruling the DRL, Sheppard, Scarborough, Eglinton, or Yonge North out over the long run (2040+) is somewhat illogical in my eyes given our growth rate. With all these lines built, we'd have a network of around 140km of Rapid transit, another 250km+ of other surface light rail (Streetcar network, Interscarborough LRT, Lawrence LRT, Finch LRT, Jane LRT, Waterfront LRT, etc), and finally, another 80+ km of Regional Rail in Toronto alone. By 2040, if our population increases at the rate it currently is (25K people annually), then we could see the city have a population of ~3,900,000 people (in all of Toronto alone!). If we want the public transit mode share to increase to around 50%, then that would imply an increase in transit rides to around 4,000,000 daily rides (without transfers). The current TTC has 2.75 Million rides daily with transfers (so closer to 1.5M rides, 750,000 daily commuters), we need to double the network size by 2040 to keep up.

 

[kEiThZ]

Man. You guys really have learned nothing from the election of Ford 1 and 2. Have you?

I think many of you are to the point where if Ford offered the DRL and SSE tomorrow, you'd campaign against it simply because the SSE is being built. Instead of pitching the DRL as necessary to support the SSE, or pushing suburban rail as a real alternative for the inner suburbs, so many of you made it a left vs. right thing and a downtown vs. suburbs thing. Y'all are now getting the culture war you crave. And the Fords have won it.

I've argued this has come about due to artificial scarcity. But the one-track band here plays on. Just remember, there are far more suburban voters than downtown voters especially when you consider the catchment of those suburban subways extending into the 905, and the need for provincial involvement in any subway. Keep insisting on making it a cultural marker and all of you are absolutely going to get what you deserve: another decade without the DRL.

 

[syn]

Man. You guys really have learned nothing from the election of Ford 1 and 2. Have you?

I think many of you are to the point where if Ford offered the DRL and SSE tomorrow, you'd campaign against it simply because the SSE is being built. Instead of pitching the DRL as necessary to support the SSE, or pushing suburban rail as a real alternative for the inner suburbs, so many of you made it a left vs. right thing and a downtown vs. suburbs thing. Y'all are now getting the culture war you crave. And the Fords have won it.

I've argued this has come about due to artificial scarcity. But the one-track band here plays on. Just remember, there are far more suburban voters than downtown voters especially when you consider the catchment of those suburban subways extending into the 905, and the need for provincial involvement in any subway. Keep insisting on making it a cultural marker and all of you are absolutely going to get what you deserve: another decade without the DRL.

Ford 1 and 2 managed to convince people that there was billions of waste in city hall, despite no evidence to support such an assertion. Ford 1 and 2 suggest relatively minor expenditures are a colossal waste of taxypayer dollars, and his followers eat it up. I get it - they appeal(ed) to a deeper sense of alienation and a general notion that governments are wasteful. The problem is that Ford 1 and 2 present fantasy as policy - they suggest taxes need to be lowered and spending needs to be reigned in, yet people can get whatever they want through 'efficiencies'. It doesn't work that way. If people are upset that the government is spending a few million were they shouldn't be, it's a guarantee people are going to question spending billions of dollars when there are other solutions available. Given the funding needs for a variety of programs (health, etc.) the idea that it's due to artificial scarcity isn't really accurate.

I'd have no problem with increased city taxes to cover transit expansion, but you're ignoring the perspective of many citizens and the root cause of this artificial scarcity - our tax dollars are not appropriately reinvested in the city. A lot of people are tired of paying half their paycheque (or more) only to be told we can't build necessary infrastructure because there isn't enough money. The Federal and Provincial governments need to reinvest more, or redistribute taxation power to the city.

As for the SSE and DRL, I don't see the connection. The DRL has been considered a critical project for decades. In the 80s, after Scarborough received a subway and a new rapid transit line, the DRL was outlined as part of Network 2011. Instead they decided to build Eglinton and Sheppard instead (we all know how that turned out).

In the 2000s, it was decided a subway to Vaughan was the biggest priority. Was the DRL next? Nope. Now Scarborough needs a subway.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if Sheppard becomes the priority after the SSE is underway, and perhaps extending the Yonge Line north after that.

There will always be a subway project more politically advantageous than the DRL, until the situation is dire.

Instead of pitching the DRL as necessary to support the SSE, or pushing suburban rail as a real alternative for the inner suburbs, so many of you made it a left vs. right thing and a downtown vs. suburbs thing. Y'all are now getting the culture war you crave. And the Fords have won it.

I'm not sure who you're referring to - who here isn't pushing suburban rail?

When RER and SmartTrack have been brought up, they've been dismissed more than a few times.

I can't speak for anyone else, but left/right political and/or culture wars don't interest me. Investing transit dollars intelligently and wisely does.

 

[syn]

Again, most of us aren't necessarily arguing for underground transit, but transit compatible with the current subway system. Elevated, on a grade separated ROW, or underground, it doesn't really matter. Again, LRT doesn't work everywhere, and with grade separated transit, the subways we currently have work better (lighter, carry more people, high floors, smaller tunnels).

My mistake in terms of order (I've had a long day), but the point there still stands, our city is, compared to most European cities, quite large. To say we shouldn't expand rapid transit and LRT is ludicrous. Sure, we can argue over the particular corridors that should see the type of transit, but generally, you still need Heavy Rail in a city our size. Ruling the DRL, Sheppard, Scarborough, Eglinton, or Yonge North out over the long run (2040+) is somewhat illogical in my eyes given our growth rate. With all these lines built, we'd have a network of around 140km of Rapid transit, another 250km+ of other surface light rail (Streetcar network, Interscarborough LRT, Lawrence LRT, Finch LRT, Jane LRT, Waterfront LRT, etc), and finally, another 80+ km of Regional Rail in Toronto alone. By 2040, if our population increases at the rate it currently is (25K people annually), then we could see the city have a population of ~3,900,000 people (in all of Toronto alone!). If we want the public transit mode share to increase to around 50%, then that would imply an increase in transit rides to around 4,000,000 daily rides (without transfers). The current TTC has 2.75 Million rides daily with transfers (so closer to 1.5M rides, 750,000 daily commuters), we need to double the network size by 2040 to keep up.

I don't think anyone is arguing we don't need more heavy rail, the problem is that decades of heavy rail expansion into the suburbs has done nothing but cripple the system when there are critical needs consistently left unaddressed.

The SSE is a project that has seen a dramatic increase in cost (with more increases to come) with a dramatic decrease in it's scope. Why shouldn't people question such an investment in an area that does not at all present any sort of compelling business case for it's existence?