crs1026 said:
And, then there's SmartTrack - designed on a napkin with obvious techncial non-starters, and it took a couple years of study to prove what was readily obvious to technical experts from the beginning.

- Paul
Click to expand...

There are several people, at more than one level of government who bear responsibility for delays in getting transit done........

When one considers the above, one might say one name comes to mind; John Tory.............

But I might have another name in mind that had his paws on the above napkin and several others over the years..........

Michael Schabas

To my way of thinking, where one finds Meddling Mike, one finds troubled plans and many delays.
 
yea so its what i thought, HDI basically is using the injunctions to get mx to pay them more


She said meetings and emails between HDI and Metrolinx were about “coming up with a compensation model” regarding any impact to Haudenosaunee rights and interests.
Click to expand...
 
Northern Light said:
You are jaded; but rightly so.

However, this particular issue and the manner of its litigation isn't particularly typical in North America, nor will it end up representing a material cost on the project, there's a long list of other reasons for iordinate costs here (though note, we're nowhere near as bad as NYC, amongst other places); that have been addressed in detail elsewhere.

Try this for a start: https://transitcosts.com/transit-costs-study-final-report/#in_1_4


Too many; but in fairness, that's mostly on Mx for being secretive, opaque, dishonest, in general, in no way limited to this project. The trade-offs for this station and others were never publicly disclosed, people never got a chance to weigh in, and then this design was dropped in at the last moment as ' a fait compli'.

A nasty reaction was to be expected from such behavior. Had the merits/challenges at any given site been discussed in the open, this likely never unfolds as it has.



I'm one of those pragmatic enough to discuss removing the trees, I'm less enthused about ripping out heritage fencing and placing a non-complimentary structure on the grounds; but that too could be fairly discussed. However, I can't agree that breaking eggs is just fine.

This city has lost far too much heritage and far too many trees on just that premise.........what's one more?



You are.



Its not, its trees, its heritage, its public realm and its a well designed for riders transit station (which this is not)



Read the link I posted up top and we'll discuss more!
Click to expand...
Appreciate the link it's a great read! I believe Reece did a video covering the same material not long ago as well!

I take the point that transit costs depend on lots of factors and it's reductive to boil it down to excessive litigation - but it never the less is *a* factor. I'm also certainly not a metrolinx apologist so I won't be defending them either.

I suppose my larger point is this: on the level of any one decision, there are infinite alternatives with infinite trade-offs each with a legitimate reason to be discussed. But when aggregated, to the scale of something like a subway line there is a level of scrutiny that becomes paralyzing.

In the corporate world (forgive me) there's this decision-making ethos called disagree and commit whereby teams hash out different alternatives, pros/cons/tradeoffs etc knowing that getting 100% consensus will be impossible, but at the end still committing to a direction fully. It's a way for companies to avoid analysis paralysis and "perfect being the enemy of good". Part of me wishes public projects borrowed from that line of thinking rather than endless rounds of hashing and rehashing the same arguments.

On this specific project I might also challenge your asserting that we're losing a ton of heritage and given a station that fits poorly in context. Based on the render:
1676831508697.png


We are losing 3 segments of "heritage fencing" and getting a station that to my eyes is inoffensive and respectful to the surrounding context. If a re-engineering of this station at this point delayed this project another 6 months to save 3 segments of fence and deliver a marginally better design - I don't think that's a trade-off I would take.
 
desperateAmbassador said:
Appreciate the link it's a great read! I believe Reece did a video covering the same material not long ago as well!

I take the point that transit costs depend on lots of factors and it's reductive to boil it down to excessive litigation - but it never the less is *a* factor. I'm also certainly not a metrolinx apologist so I won't be defending them either.

I suppose my larger point is this: on the level of any one decision, there are infinite alternatives with infinite trade-offs each with a legitimate reason to be discussed. But when aggregated, to the scale of something like a subway line there is a level of scrutiny that becomes paralyzing.

In the corporate world (forgive me) there's this decision-making ethos called disagree and commit whereby teams hash out different alternatives, pros/cons/tradeoffs etc knowing that getting 100% consensus will be impossible, but at the end still committing to a direction fully. It's a way for companies to avoid analysis paralysis and "perfect being the enemy of good". Part of me wishes public projects borrowed from that line of thinking rather than endless rounds of hashing and rehashing the same arguments.

On this specific project I might also challenge your asserting that we're losing a ton of heritage and given a station that fits poorly in context. Based on the render:
View attachment 457403

We are losing 3 segments of "heritage fencing" and getting a station that to my eyes is inoffensive and respectful to the surrounding context. If a re-engineering of this station at this point delayed this project another 6 months to save 3 segments of fence and deliver a marginally better design - I don't think that's a trade-off I would take.
Click to expand...

I think that's a mostly fair take; though I would add, much discussed here is also the very problematic layout from a passenger perspective, the new Simcoe entrance not directly connected to Line 1; and the somewhat roundabout means of connecting the O/L to same.

So I think we hvave to consider the extent of what might be remedied; as well as consider secondary potential benefits (if the entrance were shifted to University Avenue ROW and that results in advancing University Park, I think that's a pretty significant secondary benefit.
 
desperateAmbassador said:
In the corporate world (forgive me) there's this decision-making ethos called disagree and commit whereby teams hash out different alternatives, pros/cons/tradeoffs etc knowing that getting 100% consensus will be impossible, but at the end still committing to a direction fully. It's a way for companies to avoid analysis paralysis and "perfect being the enemy of good". Part of me wishes public projects borrowed from that line of thinking rather than endless rounds of hashing and rehashing the same arguments.
Click to expand...

While I understand (and can buy) the ethos you are describing, the decision cycle for a corporate decision is different than the decision cycle for something involving the public good. And the effective timeline of that decision (ie the time it will take before we really know if a decision was a good one) is often quite different. Shareholders won't wait 15 years to find out if Pepsi did the right thing by bringing a new brand to market.... but it may be 15-20 years before we approve (or regret) some of the decisions around a subway line.

And, frankly, there may be internal politics in an organization even in "private sector business" which works against having a full, frank, all-encompassing airing of alternatives and cold-body critiquing. Generally, by the time that those discussions happen in the boardroom, people may have put their careers (or at minimum, this year's bonus and their chance at quick promotion) on the line. The time to air things at the Board is only a part of the time it takes for the C-suite inhabitants to feel comfortable with an idea. A board may only hear all the "pro" arguments and none of the "cons" - because the organization filters what they pass upwards. Conversely, a new CEO or executive may be eager to make a quick mark on an organization and launch an initiative before sounding out how well the organization is configured - organizationally or culturally - to manage that task productively. Those "faster" decisions are not necessarily "better" decisions.

And then there is the difference that in business, direction and power flows downwards, from the top... whereas in a public decision in a democracy direction and authority flows upwards from the voters.

The fact that there was pent up frustration with Toronto's plodding, inconclusive decision making process, and lack of action on a new relief line of any description, does not mean it is prudent to try and build that line faster than a proper, fully consultative process, or blow away checks on decisions that might prove to be important.

Even here on UT, where we fairly obsessive nerds debate minute details, a lot of the discussion about the Ontario line has been prefaced by "Now that I have finally seen the plan, my initial thoughts are " as opposed to "having heard all the arguments ad infinitum, I have finally landed". That by itself demonstrates that ML is moving too fast and too arbitrarily. Now transfer that dynamic to the voters in general.

- Paul
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
I think that's a mostly fair take; though I would add, much discussed here is also the very problematic layout from a passenger perspective, the new Simcoe entrance not directly connected to Line 1; and the somewhat roundabout means of connecting the O/L to same.

So I think we hvave to consider the extent of what might be remedied; as well as consider secondary potential benefits (if the entrance were shifted to University Avenue ROW and that results in advancing University Park, I think that's a pretty significant secondary benefit.
Click to expand...
To be clear: the University Ave ROW + the park *is* a better option than this, so I'll fully agree with you there. Again my only fear is that if one mega-project's timeline gets bound up with another then in all reality it just means both get delayed even more ☹️ but yeah, as mentioned before that's the cynic in me.
 
Allandale25 said:
Update:

www.thestar.com

Osgoode Hall trees can come down; Court refuses to hear Indigenous group’s appeal

Eleven trees are affected by Metrolinx’s construction work. As of last week, five have been taken down, four have been heavily pruned and two are untouched.
www.thestar.com www.thestar.com
Click to expand...
finally! sanity prevails. honestly these lobbyists are a big reason why projects take so long and cost so much. we are obliged to cater to every single minor group. what happened to majority rules??!
 
cplchanb said:
finally! sanity prevails. honestly these lobbyists are a big reason why projects take so long and cost so much. we are obliged to cater to every single minor group. what happened to majority rules??!
Click to expand...
Funny, I don't remember there being any kind of vote on the issue. With what confidence can you say this is what the majority wants?
 
kamira51 said:
Generally the people who don't complain are the ones who are in favor.
You know, the silent majority.
Click to expand...
Example, the 2022 Provincial general election where only 43.53% bothered to vote, resulting in 40.82% voting for (Progressive) Convervatives. The PC's won with 17.77% of the eligible votes. 56.47% didn't care who won, and were the majority.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top