News   Jul 16, 2024
Minto Submits Modifications to Grand Park Village Plan in Mimico
 167     0 
News   Jul 16, 2024
News Roundup for July 16, 2024
 469     0 
News   Jul 16, 2024
The Urban Jungle
 586     2 

Transit City: Sheppard East Debate

The grade separation and the watermain work needed to be done anyway. They are being coordinated with upcoming Transit City work for the SELRT. But they aren't strictly construction work on the LRT. Until they start laying track and building the stops, the SELRT will be a fair target for criticism and will cost an insignificant amount to shelve.
 
I can only imagine what BS these councillors have to put up with from the public.

The TTC had to lobby hard to get these projects funded, and now the spoiled brats are so ungrateful and continue to mope and whine like babies.
 
nfitz said:
A very wise man for such a youngster.
Click to expand...

What's silly is running a non-grade-separated, road-median, multiple-stopping line into nowhere that misses three closeby key trip generators (Malvern Town Centre, SCC , Progress-Centennial College); that will not generate new ridership to the levels that a subway extension would and that will cost a minimum of $1.030 billion (costs for a eastern terminus to the Zoo, still pending). That's enough to extend the the subway to about Warden. Add in another $1.5 billion and (provided a simplistic bridge crossing of the 401) and the task of getting a one-seat ride from NYCC to SCC is made all the more simpler. We have the funds already in place, we're just consolidating our priorities all wrong.

Btw, the Webster's definition of wisdom. Let's assess if Giambrone fits it:

"The quality of being wise; knowledge, and the capacity to make due use of it; knowledge of the best ends and the best means; discernment and judgment; discretion; sagacity; skill; dexterity.

The results of wise judgments; scientific or practical truth; acquired knowledge; erudition. "

Answer: f* no!
 
Fresh Start said:
That's enough to extend the the subway to about Warden. Add in another $1.5 billion and (provided a simplistic bridge crossing of the 401) and the task of getting a one-seat ride from NYCC to SCC is made all the more simpler. We have the funds already in place, we're just consolidating our priorities all wrong.
Click to expand...

It's just like the goose that laid the golden egg. One golden egg isn't enough, lets cut the goose open and extract all the gold! How did that story end again??
 
Fresh Start said:
What's silly is ....
Click to expand...
What's silly is waiting until construction is about to start to complain. These were perfectly valid comments during the pre-EA phase; during the EA phase, and directly to the MOE before the EA was approved. They were perfectly valid comments to MTO and Transport Canada before they funded the project. They were perfectly valid comments during any of the consultation phases of Metrolinx's program.

You didn't make a single post here about the project at that time. Did you contact Transport Canada? Did you contact the Ministry of Transport? Did you contact the Ministry of the Environment? Did you file comments with Metrolinx? Did you participate in the EA? It's been a 30-month process to get to this point. Opportunity has been abundant to provide input.
 
^ I most certainly did. However, an EA will not allow for a challenge of the business case of transit project. It's sole purpose to assess the impact of construction and operation.
 
kEiThZ said:
However, an EA will not allow for a challenge of the business case of transit project. It's sole purpose to assess the impact of construction and operation.
Click to expand...
That is not the sole purpose ... see http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/news/2006/060601mb3.pdf

Quite frankly, if you failed to ask that the EA decision be referred to the Environmental Review Tribunal during the appropriate timeframe, I really don't see how you have a case.
 
^^ Dude the guy joined the group this year, you have no idea what his opinions were or what sort of activities he was involved in prior to that point. How can you comment on what he did or did not do?
 
nfitz said:
That is not the sole purpose ... see http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/news/2006/060601mb3.pdf

Quite frankly, if you failed to ask that the EA decision be referred to the Environmental Review Tribunal during the appropriate timeframe, I really don't see how you have a case.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, but I do want to point out that the Transit Project Assessment Process are very different. The proponent does not have to study alternatives, only alternative ways of constructing the project (ie cut & cover vs bored). Also, the minister of the environment can only require further study if the project will impact a provincially significant natural or cultural resource or a first nations treaty right.

It prevents obvious stall tactics (ie asking them to reconsider curb heights) but in a worst case scenario you could ram a project all the way through.
 
Fair point - and I confess I've not really looked at what the appeal options of a Class EA versus an Individual EA.

Though assuming that the appeal process exists, and knowing that the EA does demonstrate how subway is clearly not justified (I mean it's not even close), the result would be clear.
 
nfitz said:
Fair point - and I confess I've not really looked at what the appeal options of a Class EA versus an Individual EA.

Though assuming that the appeal process exists, and knowing that the EA does demonstrate how subway is clearly not justified (I mean it's not even close), the result would be clear.
Click to expand...

For the TPAP it works like this:

In the first round, the minister can only approve (with conditions or without) or ask for further study if it impacts one of those three items above. This whole process has to be completed in 6 months but doesn't include the years of pre-planning.

If it gets sent back, the minister the considers the amended report and can either approve or request an individual EA. Can't remember how many days you have to complete the amended report.

Essentially, class EAs don't have appeal mechanisms because the underlying philosophy is that the projects are either high priorities or are so routine that we know what the impacts will be. Individual EA are where the tribunals come in.
 
Essentially then the appeal is to the Minister, who can ask the report be amended or bumped up to an Individual EA (which has happened for some projects).

Now one can seek judicial review on the ruling from the tribunal. Can one seek judicial review on the ruling of the Minister? Or appeal to Cabinet?

Though I don't see what fundamental error one would be arguing.
 
I wholeheartedly agree that TRAPs should not be used to challenge the business case of a project. Philosophically, I think it's wrong to suggest that a subway should be constructed instead of a LRT because of a business case, during what is supposed to be an assessment of the environmental impact of the project. So I am glad that TRAP does not allow for that kind of appeal. However, that still leaves for no real mechanism for any citizen to challenge the underlying service and business case assumptions for a given transit project. In the case of the SE LRT, nobody is concerned that it's going to be an environmental disaster or cut through an Indian burial ground. However, some of us are concerned that this project may not be wisest deployment of tax dollars. For us, the options are limited.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top