crs1026
Superstar
I went looking for the right thread to post my comments in, and rather than post in individual threads and fragment the discussion, I figured this one might deserve its own, just in case there are actual legs to this study and it becomes a real thing. (The mods may have other ideas, I defer to their wisdom, they can move this discussion wherever)
My personal reaction is that this plan is simply pre-election vapour, just like the promise to spend $200M to upgrade service to London which was made before the last election.
It appears to take ideas that have been studied already, and discarded on grounds of high cost or low utility, and package them in one big glossy project.... the likelihood being that the other parties know these ideas are weak, and won't be promoting them.... so the PC platform looks more ambitious and more focussed and the other parties look like they don't care, or don't have ideas.
The absurdity is that the party that is supposed to be most concerned with deficit control, cost control, and prudent use of taxpayer money, up to and including tax cuts.... is proposing a ridiculously expensive program that will rock the Province's finances (or generate demands that Ottawa shouuld pay for this). Is the avarage voter that gullible? Perhaps.
The Bolton line is the most likely to emerge, but it needs a proper Business Analysis with a clear scope. Is this to be a peak service consisting of a few trains, or another 2WAD service?
The Richmond Hill line seems to take on greater significance. How does this parallel the Line 1 extension? We don't need both. Any plan to upgrade and floodproof the Don line is going to be expensive and intrusive. Any plan to rekindle the Leaside Spur is just fantasy - it will never pass the NIMBY gauntlet.
The Milton 2WAD, Bypass, and Midtown line again need a clear scope definition. It would be good to have someone do a proper cost analysis. There is lots of speculation about this one, and railfan imaginations run wild.... but we need an apples to apples analysis of the cost/benefit of moving CPKC versus sharing the corridors. I expect that if reelected, Ford will milk the mere thought of a Milton 2WAD for another term in office without actually spending any money or signing a deal with CPKC. Milton 2WAD is not a bad idea, but it's an expensive one, and is not a crisis level problem yet. So keep teasing the voters and leave it at that.
The maps have so many wrong details that I seriously wonder if the whole thing was prepared by an intern, possibly using sources like UT for ideas. Perhaps it's time for the Roundhouse Museum to set up a display cabinet and begin collecting napkins from various political transit "platforms".
Lastly, ML is a failed organization that hasn't pulled off GO 1.0 yet. Any forward motion on 2.0 is counterproductive. Keep the spotlight on ML's current commitments (making sure they aren't dropped or rewritten, or deferred) and save 2.0 for some future date.
- Paul
My personal reaction is that this plan is simply pre-election vapour, just like the promise to spend $200M to upgrade service to London which was made before the last election.
It appears to take ideas that have been studied already, and discarded on grounds of high cost or low utility, and package them in one big glossy project.... the likelihood being that the other parties know these ideas are weak, and won't be promoting them.... so the PC platform looks more ambitious and more focussed and the other parties look like they don't care, or don't have ideas.
The absurdity is that the party that is supposed to be most concerned with deficit control, cost control, and prudent use of taxpayer money, up to and including tax cuts.... is proposing a ridiculously expensive program that will rock the Province's finances (or generate demands that Ottawa shouuld pay for this). Is the avarage voter that gullible? Perhaps.
The Bolton line is the most likely to emerge, but it needs a proper Business Analysis with a clear scope. Is this to be a peak service consisting of a few trains, or another 2WAD service?
The Richmond Hill line seems to take on greater significance. How does this parallel the Line 1 extension? We don't need both. Any plan to upgrade and floodproof the Don line is going to be expensive and intrusive. Any plan to rekindle the Leaside Spur is just fantasy - it will never pass the NIMBY gauntlet.
The Milton 2WAD, Bypass, and Midtown line again need a clear scope definition. It would be good to have someone do a proper cost analysis. There is lots of speculation about this one, and railfan imaginations run wild.... but we need an apples to apples analysis of the cost/benefit of moving CPKC versus sharing the corridors. I expect that if reelected, Ford will milk the mere thought of a Milton 2WAD for another term in office without actually spending any money or signing a deal with CPKC. Milton 2WAD is not a bad idea, but it's an expensive one, and is not a crisis level problem yet. So keep teasing the voters and leave it at that.
The maps have so many wrong details that I seriously wonder if the whole thing was prepared by an intern, possibly using sources like UT for ideas. Perhaps it's time for the Roundhouse Museum to set up a display cabinet and begin collecting napkins from various political transit "platforms".
Lastly, ML is a failed organization that hasn't pulled off GO 1.0 yet. Any forward motion on 2.0 is counterproductive. Keep the spotlight on ML's current commitments (making sure they aren't dropped or rewritten, or deferred) and save 2.0 for some future date.
- Paul
