[EnviroTO]

It seems obvious to me that the costs would be the bridges and retaining walls. Yes, the city should get a break down to ensure that costs like the retaining walls are only billed to the city because it is directly attributable to the bike path and doesn't include the costs that would have been required anyways to support the additional track. I'm assuming at this cost that bridge maintenance will not be required for a long long time, but I'm sure there are cheaper options that are cheaper to build but would require a more regular maintenance schedule. The city should be presented with those alternatives. My concern is value engineering which leads to street crossings.

 

[Allandale25]

Article from today: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/councillors-react-railpath-extension-1.7295724

I note this passage:

In an email on Wednesday, the city said the updated $150 million estimate contains a number of construction-related costs that were not included in the initial $23-million amount.

The original estimate did not include costs related to property acquisition, major utility relocations and noise walls, as well as engineering and assurance services.

It also did not consider increases in material cost due to the COVID-19 pandemic and other economic factors, the city said.

As well, the updated estimate factors in that four bridges will be built over the course of construction.

I wonder as a learning experience if the City can do a better job for future projects making it more clear when they release costs that certain items are not included and it will increase the cost.

 

[junctionist]

Article from today: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/councillors-react-railpath-extension-1.7295724

I note this passage:



I wonder as a learning experience if the City can do a better job for future projects making it more clear when they release costs that certain items are not included and it will increase the cost.

Or is it better to come up with the most palatable number to the public and keep the additional costs buried in some obscure report? They're expanding a badly needed car-free way of getting around the city.

Drivers get their Gardiner Expressway and DVP at an incredible cost to taxpayers, including those who don't drive. Why is it so controversial to build something so useful, even if it is expensive?

 

[Northern Light]

I wonder as a learning experience if the City can do a better job for future projects making it more clear when they release costs that certain items are not included and it will increase the cost.

The increase in costs, the details of which I am increasingly aware is not at all justified in my judgement. Language used to obscure or excuse what's happening here cannot be allowed to stand.

Why is it so controversial to build something so useful, even if it is expensive?

Because it really isn't that expensive. It really isn't. I not only take no issue w/building this extension, I am ardent supporter of doing so. But at 75M per km, it will kill so many other cycling projects, transit projects, libraries and parks....

If this project were priced reasonably and accurately< the savings would be no less than 100M, that's ~5x what the City spends on cycling infra in a typical year. That could deliver 20km in additional on-road cycle tracks, 5km in additional off-road mulit-use trail, increase the size of Bikeshare Toronto 200 docks and still have money leftover.

 

[Northern Light]

Josh Matlow has a column in The Star today in which he once again comes out in support of this project, but not its price tag.

Toronto’s $150 million walking path is a symptom of a much larger problem

The West Toronto Railpath is beloved and well-used. It shouldn't cost $75 million per km to expand, writes city councillor Josh Matlow.

www.thestar.com

From the above:

He also brings back with accurate details this time, a comparison to another major bike trail project on the west coast, but also adds in cost comparisons per km, to HSR projects in Europe and the U.S.

Finally, he migrates the discussion to rightly begin an overdue political discussion of P3s. No, this project is not one......... But aside from legitimately questioning the over-budget, delayed and deficient Ottawa LRT project and the Crosstown, among others, Matlow notes that moving to the P3 model has generally drained the Civil service of the in-house skills to manage construction at any scale.

Metrolinx is a rather hollowed-out contract-issuing agency with a comparatively small staff, who are also high-churn.

While the City, by comparison still has more in-house expertise, it does lack in key areas, for instance, Transportation Services no longer have an in-house paving crew that can carry out road reconstruction. Having such a crew which did a small number of jobs each year, while most were tendered out, gave the city a direct knowledge of costs and risks, it bought the same equipment and scheduled the same types of projects, and was therefore more capable at project management, at tender writing and at extracting good value for money.

 

[Metroscapes]

Josh Matlow has a column in The Star today in which he once again comes out in support of this project, but not its price tag.

Toronto’s $150 million walking path is a symptom of a much larger problem

The West Toronto Railpath is beloved and well-used. It shouldn't cost $75 million per km to expand, writes city councillor Josh Matlow.

www.thestar.com

From the above:

View attachment 589278

He also brings back with accurate details this time, a comparison to another major bike trail project on the west coast, but also adds in cost comparisons per km, to HSR projects in Europe and the U.S.

View attachment 589279

Finally, he migrates the discussion to rightly begin an overdue political discussion of P3s. No, this project is not one......... But aside from legitimately questioning the over-budget, delayed and deficient Ottawa LRT project and the Crosstown, among others, Matlow notes that moving to the P3 model has generally drained the Civil service of the in-house skills to manage construction at any scale.

Metrolinx is a rather hollowed-out contract-issuing agency with a comparatively small staff, who are also high-churn.

While the City, by comparison still has more in-house expertise, it does lack in key areas, for instance, Transportation Services no longer have an in-house paving crew that can carry out road reconstruction. Having such a crew which did a small number of jobs each year, while most were tendered out, gave the city a direct knowledge of costs and risks, it bought the same equipment and scheduled the same types of projects, and was therefore more capable at project management, at tender writing and at extracting good value for money.

When a progressive councillor comes out swinging in an op-ed because of a bill to taxpayers, you've really stepped in it.

 

[just east of the creek]

Josh Matlow has a column in The Star today in which he once again comes out in support of this project, but not its price tag.

Toronto’s $150 million walking path is a symptom of a much larger problem

The West Toronto Railpath is beloved and well-used. It shouldn't cost $75 million per km to expand, writes city councillor Josh Matlow.

www.thestar.com

From the above:

View attachment 589278

He also brings back with accurate details this time, a comparison to another major bike trail project on the west coast, but also adds in cost comparisons per km, to HSR projects in Europe and the U.S.

View attachment 589279

Finally, he migrates the discussion to rightly begin an overdue political discussion of P3s. No, this project is not one......... But aside from legitimately questioning the over-budget, delayed and deficient Ottawa LRT project and the Crosstown, among others, Matlow notes that moving to the P3 model has generally drained the Civil service of the in-house skills to manage construction at any scale.

Metrolinx is a rather hollowed-out contract-issuing agency with a comparatively small staff, who are also high-churn.

While the City, by comparison still has more in-house expertise, it does lack in key areas, for instance, Transportation Services no longer have an in-house paving crew that can carry out road reconstruction. Having such a crew which did a small number of jobs each year, while most were tendered out, gave the city a direct knowledge of costs and risks, it bought the same equipment and scheduled the same types of projects, and was therefore more capable at project management, at tender writing and at extracting good value for money.

Can we ask where in the process of debate over this proposal, the public is likely to be able to view the underlying costing information of this proposal? I believe you and others were trying to obtain such information, but might it become more public in the process of acceptance or rejection?

 

[Northern Light]

Can we ask where in the process of debate over this proposal, the public is likely to be able to view the underlying costing information of this proposal?

Currently, I don't believe there is any automatic point at which this information will be revealed.

I believe you and others were trying to obtain such information

That is correct.

, but might it become more public in the process of acceptance or rejection?

The contract between the City and Mx already exists. To my knowledge, there is no further approval stage, except where Mx asks for more money that the current terms, or other material alteration to the terms.

But I may be wrong on that.

However, I would anticipate, at this point, that there may be an Administrative Inquiry lodged by a Councillor (a way to ask staff for answers to be made public at Council), and/or a motion for a report showing itemized costs. But I don't have specific info on those moving forward at this time.

 

[facepalming_brooklynite]

Josh Matlow has a column in The Star today in which he once again comes out in support of this project, but not its price tag.

Is there any evidence that you can have one without the other? Does it have to be built on Metrolinx's terms? Or is Metrolinx going to walk away from this and say, nevermind, we'll reserve the land for further track expansion?

 

[Northern Light]

Is there any evidence that you can have one without the other? Does it have to be built on Metrolinx's terms? Or is Metrolinx going to walk away from this and say, nevermind, we'll reserve the land for further track expansion?

The land is within Mx's rail corridor, so they certainly have the ability to obstruct the project if they wish, though that wouldn't be great optics.

****

As to the rest of your question, i think I will have to reserve the answer for now, except to say, maybe Mx can be persuaded to offer more reasonable terms.

 

[just east of the creek]

Currently, I don't believe there is any automatic point at which this information will be revealed.



That is correct.



The contract between the City and Mx already exists. To my knowledge, there is no further approval stage, except where Mx asks for more money that the current terms, or other material alteration to the terms.

But I may be wrong on that.

However, I would anticipate, at this point, that there may be an Administrative Inquiry lodged by a Councillor (a way to ask staff for answers to be made public at Council), and/or a motion for a report showing itemized costs. But I don't have specific info on those moving forward at this time.

So this project can proceed as contracted and Joe Q Public could be left to sort out what he is paying for through the efforts of dedicated UT observers cataloguing the stages of construction that occur. Ballsy. Let’s hope for an administrative inquiry as you have noted. I think we all support the idea of the trail (and others like it) but we need to know more. The Car Clan must be loving this.

 

[facepalming_brooklynite]

that wouldn't be great optics.

Has Metrolinx every cared about this?

So what this comes down to is some councillors trying to shoot down a project because it doesn't directly benefit the residents of their ward.

 

[Northern Light]

Has Metrolinx every cared about this?

Sometimes. Pressure can be exerted in many ways.

So what this comes down to is some councillors trying to shoot down a project because it doesn't directly benefit the residents of their ward.

I don't agree with this take at all. I don't think that's remotely fair to Councillor Matlow who has been pro-cycling and is on the record supporting this project.

 

[facepalming_brooklynite]

Sometimes. Pressure can be exerted in many ways.



I don't agree with this take at all. I don't think that's remotely fair to Councillor Matlow who has been pro-cycling and is on the record supporting this project.

I think it's disingenuous for him to claim that he is supporting the project when the likeliest outcome of his complaining is that it will never happen at all.

And he also keeps belittling the project -- the CBC quotes him saying that "for that amount of money they could build rapid transit on two kilometers. rather than just a walking trail," -- this completely ignores the fact that this is a commuter artery for people commuting by bike -- it effectively creates a safe cycling passage from the Junction to the Wellington bikelanes

 

[Northern Light]

I think it's disingenuous for him to claim that he is supporting the project when the likeliest outcome of his complaining is that it will never happen at all.

Councillor Matlow has regularly voted pro-cycle track and path.

As to the outcome........... don't be too pessimistic........ stay tuned.