micheal_can
Senior Member
So you want infrastructure that will need to be rebuilt in 10 years?
|
|
|
So you want infrastructure that will need to be rebuilt in 10 years?
OneCity
Senior Member
http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2017/01...cil-rejects-requiring-data-determine-priority
The fact is Toronto has many priorities and facts should not be used to portray the richest areas of the City area priority over the areas which have been neglect the most from transit infrastructure investment in the past. Surely we can avoid this divisive debate by starting to garner a plan to fund projects in all areas of the City together as a priority.
The fact is Toronto has many priorities and facts should not be used to portray the richest areas of the City area priority over the areas which have been neglect the most from transit infrastructure investment in the past. Surely we can avoid this divisive debate by starting to garner a plan to fund projects in all areas of the City together as a priority.
Johnny Au
Senior Member
Even Josh Colle voted against evidence-based planning and he's the chair of the TTC (and my local city councillor).
kEiThZ
Superstar
Because it was a pretty blatant political stunt to relitigate the whole debate.
The time to push evidence based decision was during the election. If Matlow is this interested in overturning the subway, why didn't he run for mayor?
Palma
Senior Member
cause he wants to remain on TORY's good side. Afterall all it was Tory that appointed Josh Colle as chair of the ttc
micheal_can
Senior Member
Just think if the Queen and Eglinton lines were built by now.
Sadly, NIMBY and ribbon cutting is more important than the movement of citizens.
OneCity
Senior Member
But would the evidence be non political? Its would be evidence used to support a political case for the areas which are exploding because they we blessed with transit from another era. We don't need that in this City.
We need to build and fund a network for all differing needs. And if the evidence was collected appropriately to support the need for City wide growth as a priority it would make sense. But thats not what this "evidence" motion was going to do if passed. It was a divisive motion to fund one need as a priority. And this is exactly the Politics we need to get away from so we can finally move forward.
Last edited:
amnesiajune
Senior Member
It's also just stupid. There's "evidence" to support many different proposals. What matters is how we prioritize and balance the different benefits and drawbacks of competing proposals - keeping costs low, serving the most passengers, supporting future growth, reducing travel times for the most people, reducing travel times for the people with the longest commutes, and so on. Josh Matlow's idea of "evidence based decision-making" is really just "decision-making based on the evidence that I like".
TransitBart
Senior Member
Much to my disappointment in adult life - perhaps as children, we are more willing to believe what adults say - when politics becomes involved, this simple golden rule becomes expendable. Politics has always muddied the waters. It just disappointing when the moment comes when you realize how much.
TransitBart
Senior Member
Here, here. It was a blatantly political way to advance something as fact based (fine) which happens to coincide with Josh Matlow's world view.
BurlOak
Senior Member
2006 - Scarborough RT expansion is the preferred solution, B-D extension worst (TTC Report).
2008 - 2010 - Transit City best with transfer at Kennedy (TTC report).
2012 - Continuous Scarborough Eglinton LRT best option (Metrolinx report).
2014 - 2016 - B-D subway extension best option (Metrolinx, TTC, and City Planning Reports).
The question always is, when we talk about evidence and fact based decisions, we always get manipulated facts.
2008 - 2010 - Transit City best with transfer at Kennedy (TTC report).
2012 - Continuous Scarborough Eglinton LRT best option (Metrolinx report).
2014 - 2016 - B-D subway extension best option (Metrolinx, TTC, and City Planning Reports).
The question always is, when we talk about evidence and fact based decisions, we always get manipulated facts.
Evidence-based decision making vs decision-based evidence making. The key is gathering and analyzing the evidence BEFORE you make the decision, not after. IMO, the 2006 report was the only one that laid out the evidence before the decision was made. All of the other ones had the technology type dictated before the analysis had even begun.
But you also have to look at the lost opportunity cost. If the Scarborough Subway costs $X more than another option that would have provided more or less the same service, you also have to look at the project(s) that could have been built with that $X.
The delta between the Scarborough Subway and Scarborough LRT could easily build the Waterfront West LRT too. So if you want to do a truly fair comparison, you would weigh the projected ridership of the Waterfront West LRT vs the increase in projected ridership by going with subway instead of LRT in Scarborough, to determine whether the subway really is better value, or if that money could be put to better use elsewhere.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
Save $2 billion, up grade the SkyTrain and make the Eglinton line SkyTrain as well. Faster, higher capacity than LRT, vastly cheaper and faster to build. LRT is just as stupid as the subway.
Eglinton is past the point of no return for any significant modifications. The contracts have already been tendered, and any changes to them the size that you're proposing would take Metrolinx to the cleaners when it comes to change orders. That and the stations are already under construction, and are configured for low-floor LRT.
At this point, the only real thing you could do would be to cancel the surface portion of the line, build it as ICTS instead, and then have it turn south at Don Mills and become the DRL, but even that would force a linear transfer at Don Mills for well over a decade.