To a degree, yes.… in that the voters did understand that scrapping one plan to achieve another had a delay factor and a wasted effort factor and a cost escalation….. but those things were not valued by the voters.
If Rob Ford, or Karen Stinz, or even Doug Ford had been challenged on why they weren’t sticking with the last administration’s plans, we might have more transit running in Scarborough today.
It was a vanity contest, and the voters were fine with that.
I don’t like Doug Ford, and I dissent from some of his transit choices, but I give him credit for declaring a plan and ending any and all debate on what the plan should be, and getting on with building (perhaps a tad too arbitrarily, but that’s in the finer points). But again, if prior administrations gave short shrift to Milton Go, well, so did Doug…. so it may not have the voter prominence in anybody’s politics.
My point was, as previously noted, money is finite, and some worthy project will not quite make it over the line. Milton GO is too big and expensive to have fit in the current basket without crowding out other things….. so while it may have gotten less attention than it deserved, pursuing it would have excluded other things, possibly creating an even less equitable or effective outcome.
Responding to that prioritization, however it falls out, with sour grapes is a kind of divisive politic that makes decisions worse, not better.
- Paul