06-12-2017, 09:15 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-15-2017, 11:10 PM by Pheidippides.
Edit Reason: Fixed spelling mistakes in table
)
There hasn't been much discussion about the proposed IHT to multi-mode hub trail.
Of the 6 options presented what are everyone's thoughts? Deadline for comments is by June 13th.
Personally I don't find any of the routs ideal, but #1 is probably the closest; I only wish it crossed King beside the tracks like some of the other alternatives do instead of going all the way down to Victoria.
Those evaluation matrix things with the unfilled, partially filled, and filled circles always confuse me. I get that some criteria might be weighted more than others, but I need more information to understand why one route was ranked better on a certain criteria than another.
For example, alternative 1 (the most direct route, 100% new MUT) had the lowest score (0.25) for ongoing maintenance, but alternative 3 (50% road/50% MUT) got the highest score (1). Is that because the road portion of the route #3 is already accounted for in the "roads" budget and wouldn't be considered "new" maintenance costs. If so, that is an invalid comparison.
The same for the property impacts. Alternative 1 seems to only affect about 4 property holders (Catalyst137, AirBoss, the parking lot, and MetroLinx) and alternative 3 affects about 3 property holders (UW, GEXR, private), but #1 scores a 0 and #3 scores 1? The Metrolinx property will even be surplus at some point when the move to a bigger yard further west or consolidate at Shirley.
Of the 6 options presented what are everyone's thoughts? Deadline for comments is by June 13th.
Personally I don't find any of the routs ideal, but #1 is probably the closest; I only wish it crossed King beside the tracks like some of the other alternatives do instead of going all the way down to Victoria.
Those evaluation matrix things with the unfilled, partially filled, and filled circles always confuse me. I get that some criteria might be weighted more than others, but I need more information to understand why one route was ranked better on a certain criteria than another.
For example, alternative 1 (the most direct route, 100% new MUT) had the lowest score (0.25) for ongoing maintenance, but alternative 3 (50% road/50% MUT) got the highest score (1). Is that because the road portion of the route #3 is already accounted for in the "roads" budget and wouldn't be considered "new" maintenance costs. If so, that is an invalid comparison.
The same for the property impacts. Alternative 1 seems to only affect about 4 property holders (Catalyst137, AirBoss, the parking lot, and MetroLinx) and alternative 3 affects about 3 property holders (UW, GEXR, private), but #1 scores a 0 and #3 scores 1? The Metrolinx property will even be surplus at some point when the move to a bigger yard further west or consolidate at Shirley.
Everyone move to the back of the bus and we all get home faster.