News   Jun 04, 2020
 628     0 
News   Jun 04, 2020
 435     0 
News   Jun 04, 2020
 466     0 

Crosstown LRT | Metrolinx

BurlOak

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Messages
6,063
Reaction score
1,641
I'm one who typically opposes corporate welfare.

But I must admit, in this case, the level of hassle for some business owners is atypical, and a real hardship.

I don't think government should hand out compensation in these types of cases to every owner/lessee, it would set a terrible precedent that would burden future projects.

At the same time there has to some allocation for owners or residents uniquely inconvenienced in way that poses a real burden.
The should have thought of this before.

In the project there are always things that lead to slower production or more disruption or less cost.
Whenever cost were saved to increase disruption - that should have been known during design and a fraction of the cost savings used as compensation.
 

TheTigerMaster

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
12,638
Reaction score
4,947
Location
Best Toronto
"Open for business."

Metrolinx says it has no fund to compensate shop owners for lost business due to construction of the Eglinton Crosstown LRT.

"We don't have it," says Anne Marie Aikins, spokesperson for Metrolinx, the provincial transit agency.

"There's no pool of money where people can say, 'I lost this much business. Can you compensate me?' We don't compensate for lost business."

In a statement to CBC Toronto, Aikins said Metrolinx acknowledges that the construction has had an impact on pedestrians, drivers, transit riders and cyclists, as well as nearby neighbourhoods and local businesses.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toro...iness-eglinton-crosstown-lrt-delays-1.5473376
I'm one who typically opposes corporate welfare.

But I must admit, in this case, the level of hassle for some business owners is atypical, and a real hardship.

I don't think government should hand out compensation in these types of cases to every owner/lessee, it would set a terrible precedent that would burden future projects.

At the same time there has to some allocation for owners or residents uniquely inconvenienced in way that poses a real burden.
The should have thought of this before.

In the project there are always things that lead to slower production or more disruption or less cost.
Whenever cost were saved to increase disruption - that should have been known during design and a fraction of the cost savings used as compensation.
While I'm not certain that I'd support handing out compensation (as you said, it would be a real burden on realizing these projects), I can sympathize with the arguments in favour. I view this situation as being generally analogous to compensation for property expropriation. In both cases, the government is making a decision that is certain to significantly impair the ability of property/business owners to reap the benefits of their property. It's certainly not a fair situation for the business owners - but life isn't fair.

Again, I'm not certain that I'd support a substantial direct financial contribution to compensate these businesses, but I'd be really curious to see if the government could come up with any measures whatsoever to substantially help these businesses. Something more substantial than, say, an advertising campaign. At the absolute bare minimum, and as we discussed over the past few posts, the government needs to ensure that there is less physical disruption during construction. Crosslinx quite obviously isn't doing anything more than the absolute bare minimum to minimize disruptions to these businesses. That is not acceptable.

The government can ignore this issue at their peril. The Crosstown will eventually be up and running, but future transit projects may face increased local opposition if local businesspeople are residents believe that it'll kill neighbourhood businesses and drive people out of the neighbourhood. Not saying this will happen... but we're running a real risk here.
 

crs1026

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
6,064
Reaction score
7,201
What proportion of those businesses are leased versus owned? I don’t see the merit in giving a tax break to landlords, especially if the businesses have been paying their rent on time through this period. That advantage will not trickle down to the businesses. In all likelihood the landlord is seeing an uptick in market value for their buildings and may eventually raise rents. They don’t need tax relief.

The problem with putting any serious coin in the hands of leasing businesses is that landlords will want their share.

I can’t think of a way to give relief at City level, other than perhaps waiving fees for business licenses etc. What the city and province can do is lean on the contractor to get every last pylon and piece of work equipment out of the way once the holes are gone. Put the money into Eglinton Connects and try to maximise the future opportunity.

- Paul
 

sixrings

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
4,374
Reaction score
1,491
I feel bad for the businesses. I used to take piano lessons at one business and another is our local pub. At the same time Im sure the owners are just waiting for the line to be finished to sell to developers. If I was the renter I would have been gone a long time ago.
 

Adjei

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 6, 2013
Messages
2,056
Reaction score
766
Am I wrong here or is one of the reasons why crosstown is wearing everyone down is sloppy project management... it didn't really click for me until I watched this video. The decrepit state of the entire stretch of Eglinton quite frankly has me pissed off.

View attachment 232394

If a sand barrel is broken... THEN REPLACE IT! If the pylons are crushed and cracked, throw them out and replace them. If signage is knocked over then pick it back up. If there are massive and I mean MASSIVE potholes in the road then patch them.

For a project that has spanned the better part of a decade this is where Crosslinx and Metrolinx have both failed miserably. I remember looking at the Crossrail project in London and being amazed at how tidy the sites were. If you compare the projects they are not identical but both are similar in that they are crossing a major high density urban area and both have multiple construction sites operating concurrently. -- All of the sites in London were enclosed behind visually appealing barricades, the streetscape as a whole outside of these barricades was cared for and untouched by construction activity. When you compare London's approach to Toronto the difference is night and day. London clearly is taking every effort to minimize annoyance and disruption to city residents, whereby apparently Crosslinx and Metrolinx could give a flying f**K.

Crosslinx and Metrolinx need to take notes from TfL's playbook. Also, we the citizens need to be more demanding and stop tolerating this ignorance from our government.

EDIT: For comparisons sake here is a picture of your average TfL Crossrail construction site... the difference in cleanliness and appearance is staggering.
View attachment 232398
Not to excuse Crosslinx but how is the construction on Eglinton different from any other Toronto road construction sites or other construction sites? I drove around Keele and Finch when they building the Spadina extension and Eglinton is no different from that construction zone. If y'all are so offended by Eglinton then how do y'all manage to go around other construction sites in this city or even the city itself. Most of Toronto looks dilapidated. Driving through the majority of Toronto I am shocked at how rundown most of the place looks especially the suburbs. From potholes and terrible roads to cracked sidewalks, wooden hydro poles, hydro wires everywhere, third world or nonexistent public realm. You can't compare what is happening in London to here. They seem to have standards which they make sure are upheld. Standards here are nonexistent or so low to begin with. Crosslinx is meeting the minimum standards of this city. You think if this project was in London, Crosslinx would be doing this? As they say when in Rome, do as the Romans do...
 

W. K. Lis

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
16,645
Reaction score
5,402
Location
Toronto, ON, CAN, Terra, Sol, Milky Way
Not to excuse Crosslinx but how is the construction on Eglinton different from any other Toronto road construction sites or other construction sites? I drove around Keele and Finch when they building the Spadina extension and Eglinton is no different from that construction zone. If y'all are so offended by Eglinton then how do y'all manage to go around other construction sites in this city or even the city itself. Most of Toronto looks dilapidated. Driving through the majority of Toronto I am shocked at how rundown most of the place looks especially the suburbs. From potholes and terrible roads to cracked sidewalks, wooden hydro poles, hydro wires everywhere, third world or nonexistent public realm. You can't compare what is happening in London to here. They seem to have standards which they make sure are upheld. Standards here are nonexistent or so low to begin with. Crosslinx is meeting the minimum standards of this city. You think if this project was in London, Crosslinx would be doing this? As they say when in Rome, do as the Romans do...
Saving money by postponing maintenance, and hoping no one notices. Normal situation due to the fiscal-conservatives.
 

crs1026

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
6,064
Reaction score
7,201
Saving money by postponing maintenance, and hoping no one notices. Normal situation due to the fiscal-conservatives.
Nothing specific to conservatives here. Over-extended liberals with more spending promises than they can fund do exactly the same thing, rather than face fiscal realities.

The root cause is a political system that is not prepared to defend the cost of doing things right, and prefers to squeeze until people do things wrong.

- Paul
 

TheTigerMaster

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
12,638
Reaction score
4,947
Location
Best Toronto
Nothing specific to conservatives here. Over-extended liberals with more spending promises than they can fund do exactly the same thing, rather than face fiscal realities.

The root cause is a political system that is not prepared to defend the cost of doing things right, and prefers to squeeze until people do things wrong.

- Paul
Successive governments and the media have brainwashed the public into thinking lower spending = better results. No competent business would ever be run in such a manner
 

Amare

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 4, 2015
Messages
2,676
Reaction score
2,313
Location
Toronto
Successive governments and the media have brainwashed the public into thinking lower spending = better results. No competent business would ever be run in such a manner
Except for the fact that most businesses operate in that exact same manner. They want to pay employees the least amount possible, with the lowest headcount possible so they can keep as much as the profit as they can.

Governments just spend money inefficiently (re: that is different than "efficiencies" garbage we hear from politicians time and time again) because no one is there to hold them accountable. By inefficient, I mean they dish money out in a manner that gives them the least bang for their buck, while spending in other areas that are just purely questionable. For example, just look at what Doug Ford did with the Hamilton LRT: wasting hundreds of millions there while at the same time saying there is no more money for teachers.
 

11th

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 21, 2011
Messages
794
Reaction score
228
Except for the fact that most businesses operate in that exact same manner. They want to pay employees the least amount possible, with the lowest headcount possible so they can keep as much as the profit as they can.

Governments just spend money inefficiently (re: that is different than "efficiencies" garbage we hear from politicians time and time again) because no one is there to hold them accountable. By inefficient, I mean they dish money out in a manner that gives them the least bang for their buck, while spending in other areas that are just purely questionable. For example, just look at what Doug Ford did with the Hamilton LRT: wasting hundreds of millions there while at the same time saying there is no more money for teachers.
Not the best example, as their defense is that they were "cutting loss". A better example would be if the line was entirely paid for, and was then mothballed.
 

TheTigerMaster

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
12,638
Reaction score
4,947
Location
Best Toronto
Except for the fact that most businesses operate in that exact same manner. They want to pay employees the least amount possible, with the lowest headcount possible so they can keep as much as the profit as they can.

Governments just spend money inefficiently (re: that is different than "efficiencies" garbage we hear from politicians time and time again) because no one is there to hold them accountable. By inefficient, I mean they dish money out in a manner that gives them the least bang for their buck, while spending in other areas that are just purely questionable. For example, just look at what Doug Ford did with the Hamilton LRT: wasting hundreds of millions there while at the same time saying there is no more money for teachers.
Businesses pay whatever amount they feel will get them the best value for their money. That doesn't necessarily mean the least possible amount.

Case in point: A software company is buying computers for their engineers. Are they going to buy them the cheapest possible computers? No, of course not. On the contrary, they'd likely end up buying some of the most expensive machines available, as they deliver the best value through higher productivity and lower support and lifecycle costs.
 

innsertnamehere

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
14,250
Reaction score
8,844
Businesses pay whatever amount they feel will get them the best value for their money. That doesn't necessarily mean the least possible amount.

Case in point: A software company is buying computers for their engineers. Are they going to buy them the cheapest possible computers? No, of course not. On the contrary, they'd likely end up buying some of the most expensive machines available, as they deliver the best value through higher productivity and lower support and lifecycle costs.
The problem with public sector is their lack of profit-drivers. A business gets things done efficiently because they have to keep a constant eye on returns - if something gets bloated, it gets cut back, while still keeping an eye on key profit drivers.

Public sector is instead result-focused. The goal is set out at the outset - say, build a transit line, and costs accumulate to reach that framework set out at the start. Some bloating gets cut to control spending, but often the initial goal is politically motivated and has a poor return. And when costs do get cut, they focus on lower the capital expenditure, not how to keep costs in line while still delivering a quality product that will sell.

Another huge factor in public sector bloat is stuff that comes from being a government. Things like spending to ensure transparency, slow decision making because politicians need to approve it, open bidding processes to ensure fairness, etc.

A public sector project must be bid out fairly to all qualifying bidders. This sounds great, but reality is that the time and bureaucracy needed to do this often far outweighs the benefits of a marginally lower bid price. Successful private sector companies often realize that the most efficient way is to instead build a trusted group of consultants and contractors that they can single source work to. It may not be quite as cheap as if they had openly solicited bids, but it ensures that work moves quickly, smoothly, and the final product is quality because those contractors and consultants are trusted.
 

Top