Quote:
|
u being a critic... u have been a supporter..... i have been the one who has been criticizing this project and i have been the one who have said from the getgo that a P3 was a wrong move.... I always wanted something that was integrated with the expoline with 80mtr platforms and non-cut and cover tunnelling and no ridership guarantee.
|
You might as well paraphrase what I said years ago.
I've been criticizing this line for the past 5 years, while you've been here in this forum for how long? A year?
I'm quite sure you wouldn't even know of these issues if it weren't for me making noise about it.
There's a difference between criticizing for the sake of a better line, and then criticizing just for
political kicks - which you have been doing everyday.
I've been around here a lot longer than you have. I was very supportive of it being built years ago when Translink was voting for it, and I still am. There's a difference between being supportive and being critical. You can be supportive and also be critical at the same time...the word you're looking for is opposing, which is clearly not the case.
There is nothing wrong with the P3 funding model. Perhaps we could've gone with a different type of P3 model for the Canada Line, but the main problem was that (1) RAVCO did not specify enough on what should be built and (2) RAVCO grossly underestimated ridership.
Quote:
I concur with the diagram
and yes there are none... reason: P3
|
It has nothing to do with a P3, it's because RAVCO didn't specify it.