[Northern Light]

A good example of that is the sheer number of consultants. Get rid of those and we might see things built faster. Like I said, there are many parts that cause things to become expensive and slow to build. I could probably list of 10 things and not even scratch the surface. Some of these are a burden, while others are important are are necessary if we want it done ethically.

May I suggest you do a bit too much 'imagining' and not enough research.

No one on this forum is harder on the consultant enrichment industry than I; but let us be clear, the impact of those costs on large projects are comparatively small.

@kEiThZ noted some actual research above; and here's more for you by Stephen Wickens.... https://rccao.com/research/files/RCCAO-STATION-TO-STATION-REPORT-APRIL2020.pdf

Read up and get back to us.

 

[kEiThZ]

A good example of that is the sheer number of consultants. Get rid of those and we might see things built faster. Like I said, there are many parts that cause things to become expensive and slow to build. I could probably list of 10 things and not even scratch the surface. Some of these are a burden, while others are important are are necessary if we want it done ethically.

At least you've moved on from safety to consultants. Eventually you'll realize that the reason we hire so many consultants la because we don't have continuous workflow that keeps knowledge and skilled employees in house and in the sector.

 

[cplchanb]

At least you've moved on from safety to consultants. Eventually you'll realize that the reason we hire so many consultants la because we don't have continuous workflow that keeps knowledge and skilled employees in house and in the sector.

My colleague has ML friends who started the ECT on one side of the eng/PM table and a couple years later they were literally on the opposite side in the same project. turnover at ML is apparently terrible which can explain partly why project management has been terrible. even asking a simple question became a long drawn out affair. i once wanted to ask a simple question on what this ML acronym meant and where I can find a certain document they were referencing. I literally had to submit an RFI for 1 question and while i got an answer within a couple days the form told me to allow for a few weeks. there was literally noone i could talk to for any minor unofficial inquiries. that is how inefficient and bureaucratic they are.

 

[micheal_can]

At least you've moved on from safety to consultants. Eventually you'll realize that the reason we hire so many consultants la because we don't have continuous workflow that keeps knowledge and skilled employees in house and in the sector.

Well, if we go back about 40 years to the mass removal of government workers who were doing what consultants do these days, we can see how this mess has been building up for some time. On a side note, I can list at least 10 different reasons why things cost more than somewhere like Europe to build.

 

[kEiThZ]

On a side note, I can list at least 10 different reasons why things cost more than somewhere like Europe to build.

That would be progress. Better than ascribing the difference entirely to a single factor which nobody with any actual expertise on the matter, considers to be true.

 

[micheal_can]

That would be progress. Better than ascribing the difference entirely to a single factor which nobody with any actual expertise on the matter, considers to be true.

Progress, as in me bring progressive,or Canada being progressive? Do you want that list? Do we want to fill the next 10+ pages of drivel over it?

 

[allengeorge]

Do you want that list?

Yes.

 

[micheal_can]

Yes.

1) Safety - zero loss of life is expect.
2) foreign workers - in Europe
3) consultants
4) choosing the same companies, even after they were over budget.
5) needing that ribbon cutting pictures for the next election
6) Not using off the shelf stuff. TTC gauge as an example.
7) Requiring "built in Canada" for much of it.
8) Having a long term maintenance contract done by the private sector
9) North American railway standards are higher.
10) Incremental construction is frowned upon.

How is that for a start?

While these may be "bad things" that make our costs higher, most of them may be worth the higher cost.

 

[cplchanb]

1) Safety - zero loss of life is expect.
2) foreign workers - in Europe
3) consultants
4) choosing the same companies, even after they were over budget.
5) needing that ribbon cutting pictures for the next election
6) Not using off the shelf stuff. TTC gauge as an example.
7) Requiring "built in Canada" for much of it.
8) Having a long term maintenance contract done by the private sector
9) North American railway standards are higher.
10) Incremental construction is frowned upon.

How is that for a start?

While these may be "bad things" that make our costs higher, most of them may be worth the higher cost.

by most you mean 6 or more things are worth it.
i can already count 4,5,6,7,9,10 as negative aspects of infrastructure here in NA.... so its more like most are NOT worth the higher costs

 

[kEiThZ]

by most you mean 6 or more things are worth it.
i can already count 4,5,6,7,9,10 as negative aspects of infrastructure here in NA.... so its more like most are NOT worth the higher costs

He's also mostly pulling this out of his backside. In the beginning of this tangent, he was adamant that it was exclusively a difference in safety expectations that explained the difference in construction costs with Europe. Cause ya know, they simply accept higher casualties with construction in Europe. Then we went on to how the cost difference was all "foreign workers" (somebody doesn't understand how the EU works). Then it was all the fault of consultants. We're finally at the point where he understands that a complex problem is multi-factor. But he can't admit he was wrong on the past factors he was pushing. And now we get new ones. Imagine thinking that TTC gauge is a significant cost driver.

Of course, transit experts have studied the topic in-depth. But the gospel should come from a railfan from Sudbury who doesn't even use transit regularly.

 

[allengeorge]

How is that for a start?

Thanks for the list.

Some specific comments/questions.

On (1) - I’m fairly sure European transit projects do not expect loss of life either. Do you have information otherwise?

On (6), I don’t think your point is reasonable. First, new lines are being made with standard gauge. Other than that - it’s kinda unreasonable to expect that we will rip up hundreds of km of track and relay it with standard gauge. Realistically, there’s a lot of customization every time you build a line, and I would be surprised if track gauge was the big cost of our skyrocketing transit costs.

On (7) this is definitely untrue. We generally do not mandate “Built in Canada”. We do ask that some percentage of the contract value be Canadian sourced, but it’s lower and lower (something I don’t agree with). For example, with the OL I believe I read in these forums it’s 10%, which means the train sets are all manufactured in the US or overseas and maybe all that happens in Canada is maintenance.

I do think that lack of long-term vision, ROW-protection or land-banking, transit expansions that run in fits-and-starts, a bizarre financing model, political meddling as well as an overly-involved consultation process all contribute to higher costs - but I don’t know for sure, not being an expert in this area.

 

[kEiThZ]

2) foreign workers - in Europe

This is straight up unsubstantiated bigoted nonsense. Transit construction in Europe is not full of "foreign workers".

 

[Northern Light]

Other than that - it’s kinda unreasonable to expect that we will rip up hundreds of km of track and relay it with standard gauge. Realistically, there’s a lot of customization every time you build a line, and I would be surprised if track gauge was the big cost of our skyrocketing transit costs.

This is a non-factor in cost increases. For a start, TTC gauge has been in use for more than a century (streetcars) and has been in use in our subways since 1954.

Second, laying the the rails a slightly different distance apart does not impact construction costs. In theory, it could have a negligible impact on rollingstock orders, but really adjusting gauge is not a big deal.

 

[Northern Light]

1) Safety - zero loss of life is expect.
2) foreign workers - in Europe
3) consultants
4) choosing the same companies, even after they were over budget.
5) needing that ribbon cutting pictures for the next election
6) Not using off the shelf stuff. TTC gauge as an example.
7) Requiring "built in Canada" for much of it.
8) Having a long term maintenance contract done by the private sector
9) North American railway standards are higher.
10) Incremental construction is frowned upon.

How is that for a start?

While these may be "bad things" that make our costs higher, most of them may be worth the higher cost.

Let me remove the ones that are complete nonsense from the above first.

3) consultants
4) choosing the same companies, even after they were over budget.
8) Having a long term maintenance contract done by the private sector
10) Incremental construction is frowned upon.

Now lets take a closer look at the above, most of which is still dubious, but merits further explanation.

3) consultants

We do spend excessively on business cases and E.A.s that are improperly scoped. However, the total cost in $$ against the project budgets is relatively small, the bigger issue is wasting time, and misdirected public expectations on what's up for discussion.

4) choosing the same companies, even after they were over budget.

There is something amiss in the way we bid out huge projects. I'm not a fan of giant P3s for a host of reasons, one of which is that they severely limit the number of bidding companies.

We recently saw the new Niagara hospital project end up with only one bidder. While we haven't seen that on any rapid transit projects, we do have too few bidders, because we've scoped projects to require such deep pockets and such risk tolerance that most projects are beyond the scope of most bidders.

We really should look to a mixture of doing more work in-house (see everyone's favourite low cost transit building Madrid), as well as smaller packages of private work, without the finance and operating components rolled into the build, so that we get more competitive bids.

8) Having a long term maintenance contract done by the private sector

While there are good reasons to consider bringing this work back in house, in many cases, it doesn't really inflate the cost of the construction, though it certainly results in a higher contract award number when those disparate items are all rolled into a single bid.

Its not as if in-house maintenance services are free or even cheap, its that that cost is kept separate and annual rather than lumping a 25-year forward price into an announced winning bid.

10) Incremental construction is frowned upon.

Phased opening of new transit lines have many desirable qualities, they do allow for quicker delivery of the first opening, for steady progress, for incremental gains in construction knowledge from continuous building and they make it easier to re-tender to new companies for subsequent phases of work, resulting in more manageable tender packages.

That said, they don't directly lower construction costs, they do have some incremental impact vs over-sized packages that are higher risk with fewer bidders.

 

[micheal_can]

by most you mean 6 or more things are worth it.
i can already count 4,5,6,7,9,10 as negative aspects of infrastructure here in NA.... so its more like most are NOT worth the higher costs

The ones on my list that are worth it are 1, 2, 7 and 9. Sorry, that is not most. I should have used a different word. The once that need to stop are 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 10.

He's also mostly pulling this out of his backside. In the beginning of this tangent, he was adamant that it was exclusively a difference in safety expectations that explained the difference in construction costs with Europe. Cause ya know, they simply accept higher casualties with construction in Europe. Then we went on to how the cost difference was all "foreign workers" (somebody doesn't understand how the EU works). Then it was all the fault of consultants. We're finally at the point where he understands that a complex problem is multi-factor. But he can't admit he was wrong on the past factors he was pushing. And now we get new ones. Imagine thinking that TTC gauge is a significant cost driver.

Of course, transit experts have studied the topic in-depth. But the gospel should come from a railfan from Sudbury who doesn't even use transit regularly.

I have always understood things are not a singular issue. However, some of these are the bigger problems. However, those are problems we want. I don't often take transit because the nearest transit ish thing to me is over 10km away.That was a choice I made for moving here. I also do not expect anything to ever come here as there is not enough people here. I live in a rural setting. However, whenever I got to a big city, such as Toronto, or Montreal, I like that I do not need to drive my vehicle everywhere.

Thanks for the list.

Some specific comments/questions.

On (1) - I’m fairly sure European transit projects do not expect loss of life either. Do you have information otherwise?

On (6), I don’t think your point is reasonable. First, new lines are being made with standard gauge. Other than that - it’s kinda unreasonable to expect that we will rip up hundreds of km of track and relay it with standard gauge. Realistically, there’s a lot of customization every time you build a line, and I would be surprised if track gauge was the big cost of our skyrocketing transit costs.

On (7) this is definitely untrue. We generally do not mandate “Built in Canada”. We do ask that some percentage of the contract value be Canadian sourced, but it’s lower and lower (something I don’t agree with). For example, with the OL I believe I read in these forums it’s 10%, which means the train sets are all manufactured in the US or overseas and maybe all that happens in Canada is maintenance.

I do think that lack of long-term vision, ROW-protection or land-banking, transit expansions that run in fits-and-starts, a bizarre financing model, political meddling as well as an overly-involved consultation process all contribute to higher costs - but I don’t know for sure, not being an expert in this area.

Sorry, (1) was from when we built things cheaper and faster in the past and stems to learning the adage for every mile of track of the transcontinental railway there is one dead Chinese person.

For (6) It is true most new lines are being built with standard gauge. However, some are not. Last I checked this line is not Standard gauge. But it does need to continue to be kept the gauge it is.

For (7) A good example of this is the boondoggle of the Crosstown. Those cars are built in Canadian Thunder Bay and Kingston..For the OL,I have yet to hear of an actual selection of what model will be used.

This is straight up unsubstantiated bigoted nonsense. Transit construction in Europe is not full of "foreign workers".

europe migrant workers construction - Google Search

www.google.ca