News   Jul 16, 2024
 445     0 
News   Jul 16, 2024
 552     2 
News   Jul 15, 2024
 1.4K     3 

GO Transit: Service thread (including extensions)

Can anyone tell me why if coaches are arriving from BBD, new locomotives from Wabtec, more track is in place, Georgetown south is complete and on and on in terms of layover yards and other improvements, the service can't be "expanded".

Fartin' around a train here and a train there... There are some very dramatic pictures of people squashed on LSW train these days?

Why all the bullshit and secrecy over when new service starts? In my business, we make a plan, we announce it and we hit the target. Why is it such a "secret" what the next improvements are?

Why is it such a secret when Gormley GO station opens?

Why is is such a secret when Burlington GO construction will be finished?

For all the ciriticism levelled at the TTC, they say such and such and intersection will be closed from X to Y, they do track work and then it's back to normal. Seems better to me.

ML seems to do projects piecemeal. I suspect they keep the high-level sequencing to themselves so they don't have to admit that there are missing links and critical path work packages that haven't been funded or started yet. At face value it may look like they are advancing work, but if you dig deeper there may be some missing piece that means a route or service can't be upgraded for years to come.

I have to give the TTC's Brad Ross kudo's for the candid and detailed way he gets back to people on most issues. Similarly, Andy Byford's monthly CEO report is pretty candid and fact-based, and provides a view of progress over time towards key goals.

With ML, it's hard to tell whether the secrecy is deliberate or if they are simply dysfunctional. Their reports to the Board certainly don't provide meeting-over-meeting progress reports. They talk about something once, then drop the topic. If there are target completion dates, you'd never see them monitor progress against these. And don't expect further details by asking on Twitter.

- Paul
 
ML seems to do projects piecemeal. I suspect they keep the high-level sequencing to themselves so they don't have to admit that there are missing links and critical path work packages that haven't been funded or started yet. At face value it may look like they are advancing work, but if you dig deeper there may be some missing piece that means a route or service can't be upgraded for years to come.

I have to give the TTC's Brad Ross kudo's for the candid and detailed way he gets back to people on most issues. Similarly, Andy Byford's monthly CEO report is pretty candid and fact-based, and provides a view of progress over time towards key goals.

With ML, it's hard to tell whether the secrecy is deliberate or if they are simply dysfunctional. Their reports to the Board certainly don't provide meeting-over-meeting progress reports. They talk about something once, then drop the topic. If there are target completion dates, you'd never see them monitor progress against these. And don't expect further details by asking on Twitter.

- Paul

When the Bowmanville expansion was announced, I thought, "great". But as it turns out, ML is very fuzzy on what each project costs, so all I really know is that 'something' / a lot of things are happening within a $13.5B envelope. While that may be reasonable, there is clearly no accountability for any given project.

Clearly a good deal more transparency is required.

If you are blowing through $13.5B then the least you could do is report to the legislature once a year on timelines, and what has been accomplished.
 
Last edited:
ML seems to do projects piecemeal. I suspect they keep the high-level sequencing to themselves so they don't have to admit that there are missing links and critical path work packages that haven't been funded or started yet. At face value it may look like they are advancing work, but if you dig deeper there may be some missing piece that means a route or service can't be upgraded for years to come.
...
With ML, it's hard to tell whether the secrecy is deliberate or if they are simply dysfunctional. Their reports to the Board certainly don't provide meeting-over-meeting progress reports. They talk about something once, then drop the topic. If there are target completion dates, you'd never see them monitor progress against these. And don't expect further details by asking on Twitter.

If you don't have definitive information, much less completion dates, you can't argue anything is behind schedule (what schedule?). It's a convenient way to avoid criticisms on that front.

AoD
 
If you don't have definitive information, much less completion dates, you can't argue anything is behind schedule (what schedule?). It's a convenient way to avoid criticisms on that front.

AoD
Anyone who knows anything about Burlington knows its years behind schedule for a simple station.

Then there was the Clarkson Parking Garage as well Erindale one.

How far behind is the Ex station?? A few years already.

ML has turn out to be a joke with a joker leading it who brush aside any issues with a wave of a hand or smooth talking.

He march to the beat of his master with no clue about a number of things. Hello UPX.
 
This annoys me as well. Still waiting with growing impatience for evening and weekend service to be added to the Kitchener line, hopefully in September. Although I see and hear rumours that this may not happen at that time. Yet announcements are being made about service improvements and expansions to happen 4, 5, 10 years down the road, while a significant train service increase that could be anything from 6 weeks to a few months to I don't know how far into the future has gone completely without mention
 
The story line that both he and Dunpar's counsel are shovelling about the area adjoining Judson being a 'coach yard' and not a 'maintenance facility' is an egregious misplacement of the facts. This guy is appalling.

- Paul
 
The story line that both he and Dunpar's counsel are shovelling about the area adjoining Judson being a 'coach yard' and not a 'maintenance facility' is an egregious misplacement of the facts. This guy is appalling.

- Paul
He correct in one way since the UPX Maintenance building is there beside this property with the main yard lead there as well.

The coach yard is on the West Side of Islington
 
The story line that both he and Dunpar's counsel are shovelling about the area adjoining Judson being a 'coach yard' and not a 'maintenance facility' is an egregious misplacement of the facts. This guy is appalling.

- Paul

Can't stand that guy, he is so full of shit trying to make his asinine proposal look like a good idea. If I knew he was in the area I'd drop a little stage two horn on him by 'accident'. Maybe that would wake him up from this fantasy world he's describing.
 
Metrolinx might not even have to get as far as appearing before the OMB. What the press has not reported, and as I detailed in another string, is that the Province has powerful overriding precedence in cases like this. The Minister for Municipal Affairs and Housing, let alone Transport and other ministries, can exercise powers with no recourse to municipalities and developers except through the Legislature and Courts.

Here's an example in this story posted right next to the one in today's Star:
[...][Because a special ministerial zoning order that overrides local planning approvals has already been issued for the plan by the province, the application is not subject to the usual municipal approval process. Groves believes the zoning order should only apply to the distribution centre, and not to the additional hydrogen facility in the updated application.][...]
https://www.thestar.com/news/city_h...rgence-of-canadian-tire-hydrogen-project.html

Metrolinx' taking this to the OMB is purely for grace and courtesy since there have been a number of unpleasant disputes with municipalities. Mississauga has an ongoing one with the Erin Mills transitway station:
[...][City staff were asked by councillors how the construction of the station could have happened the way it did without approvals from the public and the municipality.

“It is provincial land that they’re on,” said Martin Powell, the city’s commissioner of transportation and works. He said, therefore, they do not need site plan approval from the city.][...]
http://www.metronews.ca/news/toront...for-bus-station-beside-mississauga-homes.html

Take special note of this pic:
afwmetrolinxnoise09.jpg.size.xxlarge.promo.jpg


Metrolinx, via Provincial powers, (The Metrolinx Act is one of many) if push comes to shove, can just expropriate adjacent land. I suspect this might be the best and final outcome for at least some of the Judson land since the City refuses to do so (City of Toronto also has powerful expropriation powers, albeit more accountable than provincial). Metrolinx would then accede to the overwhelming local sentiment to either put a park area or low-rise industrial/commercial along the frontage.

Metrolinx via the Province can also dictate *specific usage particulars* on whatever zoning category the City does for the Judson land. Province has done and will do this again in many cases.

Di Ciano is backing a losing team. I wonder if he still gets paid when they lose?
 
Metrolinx might not even have to get as far as appearing before the OMB. What the press has not reported, and as I detailed in another string, is that the Province has powerful overriding precedence in cases like this. The Minister for Municipal Affairs and Housing, let alone Transport and other ministries, can exercise powers with no recourse to municipalities and developers except through the Legislature and Courts.

Here's an example in this story posted right next to the one in today's Star:
[...][Because a special ministerial zoning order that overrides local planning approvals has already been issued for the plan by the province, the application is not subject to the usual municipal approval process. Groves believes the zoning order should only apply to the distribution centre, and not to the additional hydrogen facility in the updated application.][...]
https://www.thestar.com/news/city_h...rgence-of-canadian-tire-hydrogen-project.html

Metrolinx' taking this to the OMB is purely for grace and courtesy since there have been a number of unpleasant disputes with municipalities. Mississauga has an ongoing one with the Erin Mills transitway station:
[...][City staff were asked by councillors how the construction of the station could have happened the way it did without approvals from the public and the municipality.

“It is provincial land that they’re on,” said Martin Powell, the city’s commissioner of transportation and works. He said, therefore, they do not need site plan approval from the city.][...]
http://www.metronews.ca/news/toront...for-bus-station-beside-mississauga-homes.html

Take special note of this pic:
afwmetrolinxnoise09.jpg.size.xxlarge.promo.jpg


Metrolinx, via Provincial powers, (The Metrolinx Act is one of many) if push comes to shove, can just expropriate adjacent land. I suspect this might be the best and final outcome for at least some of the Judson land since the City refuses to do so (City of Toronto also has powerful expropriation powers, albeit more accountable than provincial). Metrolinx would then accede to the overwhelming local sentiment to either put a park area or low-rise industrial/commercial along the frontage.

Metrolinx via the Province can also dictate *specific usage particulars* on whatever zoning category the City does for the Judson land. Province has done and will do this again in many cases.

Di Ciano is backing a losing team. I wonder if he still gets paid when they lose?

As much as I like democracy and "local" as a buzzword, municipalities should know that silly and or petty local decisions will be blown out of the water in the name of the "greater" plan. The time for action is here and the province muse exercise its right and duty to overturn local planning stupidity.

PS: I live next to LSE/Stouffville line and TTC Greenwood yard. I am intimately familiar with the noise from both. Some people can handle it. Some end up moving after twelve or twenty-four months.
 
I wonder whether the developer has a Plan B that involves pursuing expropriation, with an elaborate argument that inflates the purchase price so their end profit is somewhere in the same ballpark as they would earn if the development were to proceed. With the Plan C being just continuing to operate the cement plant, maybe even enlarging it..... just to put the gun to ML's head to buy them out.

The interesting twist would be if the developers lost at OMB and then threw the Councillors under the bus while seeking damages from the City somehow in court..... or to force the expropriation. I'm probably just daydreaming here.

I'm not thrilled about expropriation if it results in a profit to the landowners that should never have been. But that's better than putting townhomes where they ought not be....regardless of the legal arguments, it would be miserable to live next to Willowbrook.

- Paul
 
I wonder whether the developer has a Plan B that involves pursuing expropriation, with an elaborate argument that inflates the purchase price so their end profit is somewhere in the same ballpark as they would earn if the development were to proceed.
Yeah, you have to wonder to what level this is being 'gamed'. "Surely the City is able to see through that" one says to themselves...except:
City staff were asked by councillors how the construction of the station could have happened the way it did without approvals from the public and the municipality.
Now that's Mississauga council, but Toronto's, with only a few exceptions, aren't that much more aware. It's astounding at how little most councillors know of who has what power where. Municipalities are *creatures* of the province, completely in every respect. Even the Municipal Elections Act is about to be folded into the Elections Act due to rampant malfeasance on the part of a number of councillors. What many in the public don't realize is that the municipal level of government in this province is vastly less regulated than the provincial level.
I'm not thrilled about expropriation
You went on to qualify that, but even in the absolute, expropriation should only be wielded when 'normal' channels have failed. I think this what's happening in this instance. QP could have issued an edict by order in council or just a minister's directive to expropriate the land for a fair offer (or "like for like" with land elsewhere) and challenged ML Ready Mix to take it to court if they're not happy.

A letter from ML's counsel to City Planning details Metrolinx "making an offer" to buy, (Edit: see link at bottom of this posting) but brings up the legal elephant in doing so: The "easement" that Metrolinx claims on the land:
(I just Googled for another reference, tripped across this, and lo and behold, see whose name is at the bottom! Very curious...)
Tracking Status

  • This item was considered by the Etobicoke York Community Council on January 13, 2015. The Committee received the item for information only. No further action will be taken on this item.
Etobicoke York Community Council consideration on January 13, 2015
EY3.46
Information

Received


Ward:6

Metrolinx Status Update - Access Easement, 29 Judson Street
Community Council Decision


Etobicoke York Community Council received this Item for information.

Origin
(August 13, 2014) Letter from the Director, Realty Services, Metrolinx
Summary
Providing a status update, as requested by City Council on June 10, 11, 12 and 13, 2014, on the access easement proposed for the site located at 29 Judson Street.

Background Information
(August 13, 2014) Letter from the Director, Realty Services, Metrolinx
(http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2015/ey/bgrd/backgroundfile-74421.pdf)
City Council Decision - Items EY33.13 and EY33.14 - Investigation of Impacts Related to ML Ready Mix and 29 Judson Street (June 10, 11, 12 and 13, 2014)
(http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2015/ey/bgrd/backgroundfile-74405.htm)
Motions
1 - Motion to Receive Item moved by Councillor Justin J. Di Ciano (Carried)
http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2015.EY3.46

I've posted this elsewhere in this forum, but to inform those who might have missed it, since this is essential, and note, it's later than the item above:
Jul 07, 2015 | Vote 0 0
City denies Mimico concrete company easement relocation
Remicorp’s appeal to Ontario Municipal Board latest in string of hearings

Etobicoke Guardian
By Tamara Shephard
The city has denied a Mimico concrete batching company adjacent to a residential neighbourhood consent to relocate Metrolinx’s easement on its property.

Susanne Pringle, manager and deputy secretary treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment Etobicoke York Panel, last month refused Remicorp Industries Inc.’s consent application.

“The applicant has not received consent from the easement holder (Metrolinx) to relocate the existing easement,” Pringle wrote in her decision.

“The applicant has not demonstrated the need for the relocation of the existing easement.”

Remicorp owns and operates ML Ready Mix Concrete.

An easement is defined by the city as a “right of use” of someone else’s property by another party for a specific purpose.

Metrolinx objected to having its access and maintenance easement on Remicorp’s lands relocated.

“Metrolinx has reviewed the alternative proposed by Remicorp and has determined that this alternative does not accommodate the current and/or future requirements of Metrolinx,” Mike Millar, Metrolinx director of realty services wrote the city clerk in a letter last August.

It is unclear why Remicorp wants to relocate Metrolinx’s easement.

But Remicorp’s lawyers confirmed the company is appealing Pringle’s decision to the Ontario Municipal Board.

“Since it was granted by our client, Metrolinx has never used, or made a request to use, the easement,” Remicorp’s lawyer John Alati said in a statement.

“The City’s decision was wrong and based on flawed and irrelevant considerations. As such, our client has instructed us to appeal the decision to the Ontario Municipal Board.”

The ML Ready Mix facility at 29 Judson St. is on the south side of a residential street near the Mimico GO Train station, across from a park, seniors’ residence and adjacent houses.

Dan Irwin, who lives directly across the street from ML Ready Mix, lauded Pringle’s decision.

Irwin said he and other residents collected more than 500 signatures on a petition submitted to the city committee objecting to the company’s easement relocation application.

Meanwhile, company owners and residents await the province’s Environmental Review Tribunal decision on the company’s appeal of its Ministry of the Environment-issued amended Environmental Compliance Approval.

Alati said the company’s appeal is related to permitted truck traffic, record keeping and hours of operation.

The pitched battle between company officials and neighbouring residents began in 2007 when the concrete facility began operating. The Ministry of the Environment has said it learned of the operation the following year.

Some neighbouring residents have complained for years to the city and to the provincial ministry about the frequency and hours of trucks rumbling in and out of the facility, and the accompanying dust.

ML Ready Mix operated without ministry environmental approvals until 2013, which further exacerbated tensions between it and adjacent residents.
http://www.insidetoronto.com/news-s...-mimico-concrete-company-easement-relocation/

I've come across a few other references to this case in City Council motions, here's one, albeit the context and implications aren't clear, what is clear is that City Hall knew about this:
[...]
That Etobicoke York Community Council recommend that:



1. City Council request Metrolinx to submit to Etobicoke York Community Council a status update on the easement proposed for this site.


5 - Motion to Amend Motion moved by Councillor Sarah Doucette (Withdrawn)
That Part 1 of Motion 1b by Councillor Grimes be amended to include the local Member of Provincial Parliament on the Working Group.


6 - Motion to Adopt Item as Amended (Carried)

Vote (Adopt Item as Amended)
May-13-2014


Result: Carried Majority Required - EY33.13 - Adopt Item, as amended
Yes: 7 Vincent Crisanti (Chair), Sarah Doucette, Doug Ford, Mark Grimes, Peter Leon, Peter Milczyn, Frances Nunziata
No: 0
Absent: 4 Frank Di Giorgio, Gloria Lindsay Luby, Giorgio Mammoliti, Cesar Palacio

[...]
http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2015.EY3.46

I invite other readers to Google, a lot is coming up, but it needs to be filtered. As much as I understand the balance of information at this time, Metrolinx just might use that "easement" as a lever to expropriate the land with 'just cause' (which legally is completely unnecessary, it's the *optics* that good government demands). Whatever the story is, we're getting just the crumbs that drop. City Planning staff might just be salivating for their day in court to buttress Metrolinx' case.

If the Star or Globe had the budget still for investigative journalism, I suspect they'd find a motherlode in this case.

Edit to Add: Just scanning through the many Google results, and this is pertinent: (Mimico Residents' Assoc)
[...][MLRM update. The Court adjudicator sided with MLRM and not with Metrolinx. The easement that MLRM had relocated can stay. Metrolinx is appealing the decision. Once the appeal is heard and a decision made then MLRM will have go to the OMB to request approval for their six buildings that were constructed without building permits.][...]
http://www.mimicoresidents.ca/mra-board-meeting-minutes-february-2016/

Found what I was looking for: See Page 3 of this pdf:
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2014/ey/comm/communicationfile-47475.pdf
 
Last edited:

Back
Top