Neutrino
Senior Member
Some sort of Uber style last mile solution?
|
|
|
Metrolinx: Other Items (catch all)
- Thread starter TheTigerMaster
- Start date
steveintoronto
Superstar
^ I think it's a harbinger, no matter what specifics can or can't be deduced from that particular RFI.
I had this on my taskbar ready to comment, when the other comments came hot after only to hammer home the point:
Haven't watched that vid yet, will do so shortly, but Verster has been indoctrinated/intoxicated with the concept. His background set the stage for it, but frustration with Gov't inaction, failed promises and dithering may have added a rancid edge to it. Did I mention sheer incompetence on the part of the Metrolinx Board too?
Here's the bottom line with all subjectivity removed: The 'promises' aren't going to happen with gov't money. Best we get in front of this 'new reality' rather than get dragged. Canadians now have a false expectation of how progress can be delivered.
For the record, I consider myself a Centrist. Have voted Con in the past, when they had social values, but that reveals my age...lol. It's well past time for a serious conversation to go past DBFOM, and toward a steep P3, the Infrastructure Bank, and the Public can maximize the benefit so everyone is best served.
If Investment Capital isn't attracted, we go nowhere at this rate. And on a positive note, Private Investment will be a hell of a lot more considerate to Public Need than Cons with steel spikes on their boots.
A term you might be hearing a lot more moving forward: "For the general advantage of Canada". Google it. It's a huge 'stick' that can be held over the Province, and to go past them for transit projects, especially rail ones. The SCC has ruled on a number of occasions that it doesn't just apply to 'railways' as we know them, but also "street railways and tramways". And they don't have to be connected to an already federally regulated one or travel outside a province to be so.
Implication for this string? Federally chartered P3 Corporations via the Infrastructure Bank (may or may not include the Province or an agency thereof) building the necessary transit infrastructure that Metrolinx could then lease and/or operate. Ditto VIA for HFR, the same infrastructure could be shared. What is obviously necessary is a business model that assures a return on investment for private capital. All done in other nations, many instances using Cdn capital.
I'll link legal reference if asked.
I had this on my taskbar ready to comment, when the other comments came hot after only to hammer home the point:
For better or worse Metrolinx is moving hard to Private Enterprise. I actually favour this, but not by the present QP regime, who are inept or worse. Australia is a good example of where this has been done very successfully, but by rational conservatives, not pea-brained populists.
Haven't watched that vid yet, will do so shortly, but Verster has been indoctrinated/intoxicated with the concept. His background set the stage for it, but frustration with Gov't inaction, failed promises and dithering may have added a rancid edge to it. Did I mention sheer incompetence on the part of the Metrolinx Board too?
Here's the bottom line with all subjectivity removed: The 'promises' aren't going to happen with gov't money. Best we get in front of this 'new reality' rather than get dragged. Canadians now have a false expectation of how progress can be delivered.
For the record, I consider myself a Centrist. Have voted Con in the past, when they had social values, but that reveals my age...lol. It's well past time for a serious conversation to go past DBFOM, and toward a steep P3, the Infrastructure Bank, and the Public can maximize the benefit so everyone is best served.
If Investment Capital isn't attracted, we go nowhere at this rate. And on a positive note, Private Investment will be a hell of a lot more considerate to Public Need than Cons with steel spikes on their boots.
A term you might be hearing a lot more moving forward: "For the general advantage of Canada". Google it. It's a huge 'stick' that can be held over the Province, and to go past them for transit projects, especially rail ones. The SCC has ruled on a number of occasions that it doesn't just apply to 'railways' as we know them, but also "street railways and tramways". And they don't have to be connected to an already federally regulated one or travel outside a province to be so.
Implication for this string? Federally chartered P3 Corporations via the Infrastructure Bank (may or may not include the Province or an agency thereof) building the necessary transit infrastructure that Metrolinx could then lease and/or operate. Ditto VIA for HFR, the same infrastructure could be shared. What is obviously necessary is a business model that assures a return on investment for private capital. All done in other nations, many instances using Cdn capital.
I'll link legal reference if asked.
Last edited:
crs1026
Superstar
^I’m all for contracting discrete functions so long as they have clear objective metrics that permit oversight, accountability, and enable competitive bidding.
What’s concerning about ML is the contracting out of strategic and ‘soft’ planning and decisionmaking functions that may contribute to lack of transparency and accountability.
There are some decisions that are destiny choices or that have legitimately political considerations. Some obvious examples would be station selection, service planning, and that old chestnut, electrification (and/or hydrail). The enterprise has to stand up and defend these choices - these decisions are seldom binary, there will be compelling reasons pro and con every alternative, and somebody has to make a tough call that some part of the electorate won’t favour, and that have huge economic and practical implications in the longer time span.
What I see happening is ML either admitting that they don’t have the internal expertise and competency to make these decisions, or they want to firewall themselves from these decisions so that if they blow up, they can shift the blame somewhere else.
Imagine how the debate over Kirby station, or (God forbid) the Line 2 extension in Scarborough would be unfolding if the decision had been contracted out to a (self interested) vendor. It’s bad enough having politicians involved, and the objectivity and independence of staff studies is already debated. Imagine if the decision were a proprietary matter and there were confidentiality provisions preventing the data from discovery.
This seems to be where ML is heading.
The gobbledyguck of corporate speak terminology in that RFI is a red flag in itself.
- Paul
What’s concerning about ML is the contracting out of strategic and ‘soft’ planning and decisionmaking functions that may contribute to lack of transparency and accountability.
There are some decisions that are destiny choices or that have legitimately political considerations. Some obvious examples would be station selection, service planning, and that old chestnut, electrification (and/or hydrail). The enterprise has to stand up and defend these choices - these decisions are seldom binary, there will be compelling reasons pro and con every alternative, and somebody has to make a tough call that some part of the electorate won’t favour, and that have huge economic and practical implications in the longer time span.
What I see happening is ML either admitting that they don’t have the internal expertise and competency to make these decisions, or they want to firewall themselves from these decisions so that if they blow up, they can shift the blame somewhere else.
Imagine how the debate over Kirby station, or (God forbid) the Line 2 extension in Scarborough would be unfolding if the decision had been contracted out to a (self interested) vendor. It’s bad enough having politicians involved, and the objectivity and independence of staff studies is already debated. Imagine if the decision were a proprietary matter and there were confidentiality provisions preventing the data from discovery.
This seems to be where ML is heading.
The gobbledyguck of corporate speak terminology in that RFI is a red flag in itself.
- Paul
rbt
Senior Member
Announcement tomorrow. Perhaps GO is making something like the CityPass that includes transportation + attraction tickets?
news.ontario.ca
Ontario Newsroom
Last edited:
raptor
Senior Member
/https://www.thestar.com/content/dam/thestar/news/gta/2019/02/27/go-transit-to-let-kids-ride-free-starting-march-11/go_trains.jpg)
GO Transit to let kids ride free
The policy change expected to be announced Thursday will follow Metrolinx’s “Kids GO Free” pilot project running on the Barrie line since April.
steveintoronto
Superstar
Nothing will be "contracted out". A consortium would assess a proposed project, and remember, GO is already at the DBFOM level, consider a funding model, then approach QP to tell them how they planned to build it, and seek co-operation, failing co-operation provincially, they'd seek a federal charter (which may be the plan from the start) and build it with the opportunity for Metrolinx to lease and run it. Or not.
CDPQ Infra | Building sustainable transport infrastructure for communities
CDPQ Infra acts as a principal contractor for major public infrastructure projects. Planning, financing, execution, operation.
Where's Metrolinx' money coming from? I don't see them financing anything big anymore.
raptor
Senior Member
I'm sorry, but these town halls are nothing more than empty pie-in-the-sky promises, I'll reverse my skepticism when the shovels hit the ground.
steveintoronto
Superstar
That's not "anger"...it's a correct objective observation. They're about 'playing PR' to placate the 'troublemakers' asking real questions.
You'll note that the only answers proffered are already predigested and ready to mime. When a real question is asked, it's a case of "Oh, can you put that in writing to XXX and we'll get back to you?"
I wouldn't be so harsh on this, save that I got 'fooled' when Verster first came on the scene. I actually believed him. I was a fool. See:
Union Station and GO RER: Metrolinx's Phil Verster on the Future | UrbanToronto
UrbanToronto sat down with new Metrolinx President and CEO Phil Verster to talk about the future of GO RER—the conversion of the service from commuter rail to regional express rail—and of Union Station.
And then:
Union Station: Big Changes Are Coming | Urban Toronto
View the early townhall meetings and interviews with Verster. Do you file it under 'fiction' or 'science fiction'....that's the hard question. Nothing a flyover and passing sidings can't fix...just like a comb-over and side passes.
Last edited:
Allandale25
Senior Member
steveintoronto
Superstar
From the TorStar:
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...t-fares-on-short-go-transit-trips-to-370.html
It's not as benevolent as the Lib proposal, but still in the right direction, and tilts a number of factors to change the lay of the transit land.
Last edited:
W. K. Lis
Superstar
NEVER announce anything on April 1st. Hard to believe it. But it is on the Metrolinx website, see link.
What about UPX?
steveintoronto
Superstar
It's a bit of a debate in the https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threa...-mmm-group-limited.3188/page-640#post-1435378 string. Officially on the UPX fare system, as best as can be determined, no reduction. But there's absolutely no indication of suspending the use of GO fare between Union/Bloor/Weston, so it applies to those, but wouldn't if you were foolish enough to use the UPX fare machines between those points.
The fact that there's no rational answer to the question indicates something else at play behind the curtains. And that's wishing UPX to remain easy to hive off for private sale. See the UPX forum for more.
As for April 1:
https://toronto.citynews.ca/2019/04...tance-fares-and-increase-long-distance-fares/
raptor
Senior Member
From the April 10 Metrolinx Board meeting:
TOD Implementation Framework
TOD Implementation Framework
W. K. Lis
Superstar
April 11, 2019
Board Meeting Agenda and Reports
From link.
Board Meeting Agenda and Reports
From link.
- TTC Recognized as One of Canada’s Best Diversity Employers
- Approved Minutes of the Advisory Committee on Accessible Transit (ACAT) General Monthly Meeting for January 31, 2019
- Update on Benefits Fraud Labour Arbitration Cases (This report contains information about labour relations or employee negotiations and advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege)
- Bylaw to Govern TTC Board Meeting Proceedings – Update (Supplemental Report) (Referred from January 10, 2019 meeting (Deferred from February 27, 2019 meeting)
- Response to the TTC Board’s Proposal for a Joint Meeting of the TTC and Metrolinx Boards
- Making Lansdowne Station Accessible
- Malvern Garage – Hoist Replacement in Bus Repair Area
- Temporary Customer Service Assistance
- Line 2 East Extension (Formerly Scarborough Subway Extension) – Purchase Order Authorization Amendment
- Financial Update for the Year Ended December 31, 2018 and Major Projects Update
- Fare Policy Changes: PRESTO Tickets
- Routing Changes – Junction Area Study
- City Council Transmittals – Executive Committee Item 3.1 Engagement with the Province on Toronto’s Transit System – Q1 2019 Status Report, Executive Committee Item 3.12 Save Our Subway – Ensuring Torontonians Know the Facts
- Results of the King Street Transit Pilot
- City of Toronto Report – EX4.1: Toronto’s Transit Expansion Program – Update and Next Steps
- Automatic Train Control Re-Baselining and Transit Systems Engineering Review
- Line 1 Capacity Requirements - Status Update and Preliminary Implementation Strategy
- Line 1 State-of-Good Repair Capital Works
- Subway Closures – 2018 Review and 2019 Forecast
- Automatic Train Control Consultant Contract Amendment
- Notice of Motion – Request for Report on Policies Regarding the Collection of Personal Information
- Notice of Motion – Implementation of a Bus Service Pilot Project – Village Green Square
- Notice of Motion – Wheel Flats & Noise Issues on Line 2,
- Notice of Motion – Feasibility of Adding Leslie Street Stop to 953 Steeles East Express
- Correspondence – Providing Bus Service to Residents in the Stanley Greene Neighbourhood