Woodbridge_Heights
Senior Member
Not sure, going to bring it forward for everyone, including the associated commentary.
View attachment 333842
Won't somebody think of the children!
Not sure, going to bring it forward for everyone, including the associated commentary.
View attachment 333842
But why would it be a commercial site? How much money do they make vs. the harm in lack of transparency? Metrolinx is a public agency. If Walmart, or Toyota, or whatever were to do this, it would be reasonable.I don’t think Merx operates as you understand it.
It’s effectively a commercial site. They charge user fees. Their business model is to balance the user charges between posters (who they need to attract, hence low or no cost to them) and readers (predominantly bidders on work) who will swallow the charge as a cost of business development, hence can be charged more.
The value proposition of Merx is that it offers a single, one-stop source for tender calls that provides uniform presentation and timeline enforcement right across the public sector - hence eases effort by bidders scanning for public sector opportunities, and expecting fairness of treatment and access to same. Also helps cost/quality of goods/services procured by increasing the pool of suppliers - who might otherwise not find out about opportunities and never bid.
Again, I ask: is there a reason (other than "it's their business model) for the documents to be private? How much would it cost the government to have Merx as a free site?I don’t believe Merx’s business model speaks to transparency, public oversight or public access to info. If you want the underlying information and don’t want to enrich merx in the process, you can approach ML under a FOI banner…. in which case expect to pay far more.
Characterizing the other side as having a "hissy fit" never helps your case. Keep that in mind.I want the detail as much as anyone on Ut, but having a hissy fit over a user charge won’t help much. Maybe Rogers would lower their internet fees to offset the merx charge so you get the info at lower cost? Merx is just one link in the info chain.
Characterizing the other side as having a "hissy fit" never helps your case. Keep that in mind.
That's a way I haven't thought of before.While I’m not usually found in the camp of Ml defenders, I have some sympathy with their effort to stay out of controversy over procurement matters.
I would think that NIMBYs are the problem. The Star or CTC have the money (if not the will) to pay $40 for this, though who on their staff wants to go through 1000s of pages of technical reports is an issue.That’s a huge reputational and legal minefield, which the media is ready and willing to jump on, even regarding trivial but easy-to-sensationalise details. Even a small clarification or embellishment which leaks out of a tendering process through some other channel is problemmatic. Using an app like Merx is a pretty prudent and broadly accepted way of avoiding hot water..
It doesn't necessarily have to be the exact same thing, but I do want to see bird's eye view drawings and some side views.Maintaining some publicly accessible portal in rigid parallel conformity to Merx , perhaps on the ML web site, is at minimum an avoidable cost and at worst source of risk. One dead link….
If it were a choice between what you described and the drawings, I would choose transparency in the decision making process every time. But we all know that that's never going to happen, and I think a more limited release of these drawings and papers is still going to be benefital.And while I’m definitely a critic of ML on the subject of transparency, I’m not sure this is an example of that. For $40 you get the whole bundle. The procurement process is not where we need more accountability…. it’s the back door relationship between pols, ML, and developers where we need greater transparency…. and in the outreach/consultation machine. Sure, I would prefer it to be free of charge, but I can understand why ML would not jump to change their established process for our comfort.
- Paul
That's a way I haven't thought of before.
I would think that NIMBYs are the problem. The Star or CTC have the money (if not the will) to pay $40 for this, though who on their staff wants to go through 1000s of pages of technical reports is an issue.
It doesn't necessarily have to be the exact same thing, but I do want to see bird's eye view drawings and some side views.
If it were a choice between what you described and the drawings, I would choose transparency in the decision making process every time. But we all know that that's never going to happen, and I think a more limited release of these drawings and papers is still going to be benefital.
Welcome to AREMA. Metrolinx Spec made this somehow more cost effective than permanent deep foundations.That one hell of a thick wall....................Don't believe in using less concrete to build the dam. You could build some towers foundation on those walls.
Stouffville south of Unionville will be fully grade-separated AFAIK.With all these under/overpasses, will the core area of GO be completely grade separated? I'm not taking about GO commuter but rather just the RER sections.




