[ARG1]

Bunch more there, but the gist is as it seems; staff reports included the effect of a Spadina-Front station when said station had been removed from the proposed program.

Except isn't Metrolinx now building that station? Just because the city itself isn't building them, doesn't mean it isn't worth consideration.

 

[Northern Light]

Except isn't Metrolinx now building that station? Just because the city itself isn't building them, doesn't mean it isn't worth consideration.

The argument, however, would be that using figures from project or station A, to buttress an argument for Stations, B, C, and D isn't being entirely accurate.

You want to look at what you're spending, vs what your getting for those dollars.

 

[facepalming_brooklynite]

The argument, however, would be that using figures from project or station A, to buttress an argument for Stations, B, C, and D isn't being entirely accurate.

You want to look at what you're spending, vs what your getting for those dollars.

Won't ridership numbers be contingent on fare integration? Without it, any kind of ridership projection seems highly tentative and not suited to prove or disprove the case for these stations.
I'd suspect that the ridership projections that were made before building the UP Express bear little resemblance to the (pre-pandemic) peak ridership that developed once the prices were reduced and a partial TTC rebate introduced

 

[Northern Light]

Won't ridership numbers be contingent on fare integration? Without it, any kind of ridership projection seems highly tentative and not suited to prove or disprove the case for these stations.
I'd suspect that the ridership projections that were made before building the UP Express bear little resemblance to the (pre-pandemic) peak ridership that developed once the prices were reduced and a partial TTC rebate introduced

Without going back and reading the report in question; too much work today for that, plus I have a backlog of stuff to post here....

Its certainly quite possible that there are other assumptions made that were problematic.

Though, as long as any report is honest and upfront about what assumptions are being made, its fair to then have that be an informed political decision.

I'm not arguing for, or against, the merits of the stations that went forward.

I'm only offering a report from The Star that says the report endorsing that project was misleading in some respects.

 

[ARG1]

The argument, however, would be that using figures from project or station A, to buttress an argument for Stations, B, C, and D isn't being entirely accurate.

You want to look at what you're spending, vs what your getting for those dollars.

Right but you're still making a decision based off things that either A) Already exist, or B) Will happen. The only real crime here would probably be making an assumption based off a project that isn't 100% certain will happen (that doesn't occur until shovels hit the ground). In a more optimistic scenario, the only difference is now one of your stations is paid for by another party, so your costs go down, while the benefits stay the same.

 

[robmausser]

Star article this morning; pay walled at time of posting, excoriates City staff for putting out a report for Smart Track to go forward; with numbers they knew were misleading.

A report on the mayor’s transit plan mistakenly included inflated numbers. City staff knew but failed to fix them before council voted

Senior staff’s decision to not correct numbers in a SmartTrack report is a serious violation of public service’s duty, say some councillors.

www.thestar.com

Excerpts:

"Emails obtained through a freedom of information request show staff inadvertently published projections in an attachment to a January 2021 report that overstated how many riders, residents and jobs Tory’s $1.46-billion SmartTrack program would serve."

**

"The manager said the figures appeared to be based on outdated modelling that included the effect of a station at Spadina-Front that had once been considered for the SmartTrack plan, but had been removed months earlier."

**

"In the two ensuing city hall debates about the report, including a 40-minute discussion at council during which Toigo and Perttula took questions from councillors, staff never mentioned the SmartTrack projections before them were based on the inclusion of a station that wasn’t in the plan."

****

Bunch more there, but the gist is as it seems; staff reports included the effect of a Spadina-Front station when said station had been removed from the proposed program.

This means that statistics such as ridership, daily boardings, and the number of jobs/residents near to stations were over-stated.

Staff knew the report containing a mistake and chose to proceed with the report in erroneous form, and did not verbally correct the record either at Executive or Council.

Those projection models were completely wrong from the get go anyways. Look at the original modelling figures for Smarttrack; they used ridership estimates based upon the existing GO fleet and frequencies. They didn't even take into consideration the new electric RER fleet planned, more frequent service, etc, possibility of fare integration, etc.

So the numbers were artificially low to begin with in my opinion.

 

[allengeorge]

Right but you're still making a decision based off things that either A) Already exist, or B) Will happen. The only real crime here would probably be making an assumption based off a project that isn't 100% certain will happen (that doesn't occur until shovels hit the ground). In a more optimistic scenario, the only difference is now one of your stations is paid for by another party, so your costs go down, while the benefits stay the same.

This is a highly dubious and misleading reading of the situation. The problem is not (as you state) that anyone is making decisions based on uncertainties - of course that’s the case with projections. The problem is that the staff projections were made with a configuration that wasn’t going to be built (by any level of government) at the time.

 

[nfitz]

So the numbers were artificially low to begin with in my opinion.

The biggest discrepancies appear to be that that the stations were located close to 103,000 existing jobs, rather than just 46,000. And that 113,000 residents lived neaer the stations, rather than just 72,000.

How were these numbers artificially low?

Star article this morning; pay walled at time of posting, excoriates City staff for putting out a report for Smart Track to go forward; with numbers they knew were misleading.

The article can also be found on page A1 of today's newspaper - available at newsstands everywhere!

 

[innsertnamehere]

Staff questioned mayor’s transit plan in wake of COVID-19, emails show

City staff wanted to be able to address concerns that the $1.46 billion required for SmartTrack would be better spent on other transit priorities.

www.thestar.com

Not too exciting in this one, other than that East Harbour is (unconfirmed) expected to cost around $500 million alone, about 1/3 of the SmartTrack program budget.

I always wondered where the $1.5 billion went beyond the associated station infrastructure rolled into the plan like the St. Clair West transportation improvements and the Broadview Avenue extension, but this sort of explains it. East Harbour, despite being a key item of the province's OL and GO expansion program, will effectively be paid for by the city and will be quite a nice station judging by the price tag.

 

[robmausser]

Staff questioned mayor’s transit plan in wake of COVID-19, emails show

City staff wanted to be able to address concerns that the $1.46 billion required for SmartTrack would be better spent on other transit priorities.

www.thestar.com

Not too exciting in this one, other than that East Harbour is (unconfirmed) expected to cost around $500 million alone, about 1/3 of the SmartTrack program budget.

I always wondered where the $1.5 billion went beyond the associated station infrastructure rolled into the plan like the St. Clair West transportation improvements and the Broadview Avenue extension, but this sort of explains it. East Harbour, despite being a key item of the province's OL and GO expansion program, will effectively be paid for by the city and will be quite a nice station judging by the price tag.

Yeah this is tricky. Its Tory and the Smarttrack plan that effectively put East Harbour on the map. Then, Metrolinx capitalized on this plan heavily with GO-RER and the Ontario Line.

At what point does an idea become the sole reason for full payment, and when does it become unfair that other agencies are capitalizing and benefitting from said work?

I feel like we definitely ended up with an unfair deal.

 

[rbt]

Yeah this is tricky. Its Tory and the Smarttrack plan that effectively put East Harbour on the map. Then, Metrolinx capitalized on this plan heavily with GO-RER and the Ontario Line.

At what point does an idea become the sole reason for full payment, and when does it become unfair that other agencies are capitalizing and benefitting from said work?

I feel like we definitely ended up with an unfair deal.

Arguably Tory also put the Eglinton West extension into play as a subway option, and the city isn't paying for any of that (until the maintenance bills start; then it'll be a money pit for the city too).

IMO, Toronto has generally gotten a better deal than Ottawa. That said, the province is also a primary beneficiary of GTA mobility via tax revenue.

 

[Tuck]

Staff questioned mayor’s transit plan in wake of COVID-19, emails show

City staff wanted to be able to address concerns that the $1.46 billion required for SmartTrack would be better spent on other transit priorities.

www.thestar.com

Not too exciting in this one, other than that East Harbour is (unconfirmed) expected to cost around $500 million alone, about 1/3 of the SmartTrack program budget.

I always wondered where the $1.5 billion went beyond the associated station infrastructure rolled into the plan like the St. Clair West transportation improvements and the Broadview Avenue extension, but this sort of explains it. East Harbour, despite being a key item of the province's OL and GO expansion program, will effectively be paid for by the city and will be quite a nice station judging by the price tag.

How on earth as an at-grade station on a brownfield site $500 million dollars?!

 

[asher__jo]

How on earth as an at-grade station on a brownfield site $500 million dollars?!

This isn't just a small station, this will be a multi-platform Go station interchanging with OL and TTC streetcars. I imagine it will also have a sizable bus bay and possibly amenities such as washrooms and shops. The intention is for this to be a relief to Union station as it will become flooded with riders because of GO expansion...and of course rapid population growth in the GTHA.

 

[Amare]

Arguably Tory also put the Eglinton West extension into play as a subway option, and the city isn't paying for any of that (until the maintenance bills start; then it'll be a money pit for the city too).

IMO, Toronto has generally gotten a better deal than Ottawa. That said, the province is also a primary beneficiary of GTA mobility via tax revenue.

Tory didnt put the Eglinton West extension into play as a subway. He stupidly put his hand up and offered to take it off the Wynne government's books, and made the extension into a ridiculous surface LRT with excessive amounts of stops. With no plan to pay for it, it was placed onto the city's never ending list of "approved but unfunded" projects.

Ford came along and then took control over the Eglinton West project, burying the entire thing and jacking up the costs substantially while doing so.

 

[ARG1]

Tory didnt put the Eglinton West extension into play as a subway. He stupidly put his hand up and offered to take it off the Wynne government's books, and made the extension into a ridiculous surface LRT with excessive amounts of stops.

That was not Tory's plan, that was Wynne's plan. Tory's plan was "Smart Track" which would've used Heavy DMU trains similar to what we used on the UP Express and have it run alongside Eglinton.