[cplchanb]

i would say CONSULTANTS are probably one of the worst on this list. as mentioned before the hard cost isnt that much vs building the thing but the soft cost by means of time wasted is 10x worse than paying $1B over budget.
time is money, money controls everything including decision making. everytime theres a "study" that takes months which delays/skews the decision making process which will cost more time and more money down the road.

not to mention consultants can be instructed to consult in a skewed direction to support political motives. not taking back from their work, i myself am a mech consultant but the endless charades some of these consultants are instructed to do in the name of political convenience/correctness is more criminal than contractors screwing up.

 

[micheal_can]

i would say CONSULTANTS are probably one of the worst on this list. as mentioned before the hard cost isnt that much vs building the thing but the soft cost by means of time wasted is 10x worse than paying $1B over budget.
time is money, money controls everything including decision making. everytime theres a "study" that takes months which delays/skews the decision making process which will cost more time and more money down the road.

not to mention consultants can be instructed to consult in a skewed direction to support political motives. not taking back from their work, i myself am a mech consultant but the endless charades some of these consultants are instructed to do in the name of political convenience/correctness is more criminal than contractors screwing up.

Just for this extension, how much was wasted on study after study after study after........?

 

[crs1026]

There is definite evidence that we contract a study, only to study something else, and then study something else, before we land on a design.

That doesn't mean that the consultants do poor work, or charge unreasonably (although there may be some case studies where they have) - but the culture of ready, aim, aim, aim.... has certainly added costs.

The opportunity cost of not getting on with projects and seeing every election as an opportunity to rewrite the plan is a big root cause imho.

I am convinced that the hunger for bulletproof political narratives is what drives our inefficiency. Publicly owned institutions such as transit operators are discouraged from maintaining ongoing project management and engineering expertise because it adds headcount, and is too easy a target for cost cutting..... and leaves accountability resting up the public sector and political food chain.

We simply want to be able to pass the buck and blame someone else. There are private consortiums willing to take the abuse..... and no doubt they charge us dearly for risk that the public sector really ought to be holding, even if there is the occasional scandal or bad press. They have good lawyers to keep them safe.

- Paul

 

[micheal_can]

There is definite evidence that we contract a study, only to study something else, and then study something else, before we land on a design.

That doesn't mean that the consultants do poor work, or charge unreasonably (although there may be some case studies where they have) - but the culture of ready, aim, aim, aim.... has certainly added costs.

The opportunity cost of not getting on with projects and seeing every election as an opportunity to rewrite the plan is a big root cause imho.

I am convinced that the hunger for bulletproof political narratives is what drives our inefficiency. Publicly owned institutions such as transit operators are discouraged from maintaining ongoing project management and engineering expertise because it adds headcount, and is too easy a target for cost cutting..... and leaves accountability resting up the public sector and political food chain.

We simply want to be able to pass the buck and blame someone else. There are private consortiums willing to take the abuse..... and no doubt they charge us dearly for risk that the public sector really ought to be holding, even if there is the occasional scandal or bad press. They have good lawyers to keep them safe.

- Paul

The cost of a consultant is not the issue. The quality of their work is also not the issue. The fact that we do study after study after study is the issue. Even this project, how many different studies were done to figure out whether we replace the cars or build anew section. And even with building a new section, how many studies for where it was to go and how many stations? There comes the point where had we built the first thing that was studied, it would have been cheaper than all the other studies.

 

[allengeorge]

The cost of a consultant is not the issue. The quality of their work is also not the issue. The fact that we do study after study after study is the issue.

As @crs1026 pointed out above, the problem you have isn’t consultants then - it’s politicians and the public being highly risk-averse and not wanting to be left holding the bag.

 

[Northern Light]

The cost of a consultant is not the issue. The quality of their work is also not the issue. The fact that we do study after study after study is the issue. Even this project, how many different studies were done to figure out whether we replace the cars or build anew section. And even with building a new section, how many studies for where it was to go and how many stations? There comes the point where had we built the first thing that was studied, it would have been cheaper than all the other studies.

This is annoying; and wasteful, but comparatively immaterial to construction/project costs for large-scale projects.

 

[micheal_can]

As @crs1026 pointed out above, the problem you have isn’t consultants then - it’s politicians and the public being highly risk-averse and not wanting to be left holding the bag.

It isn't quite that. When was the last time a politician in their platform said something and actually did it within their first term? It can be said that this extension has been talked about long before Ford became premier. In the time since Ford became premier, the transcontinental railway from Montreal to Vancouver, a distance of over 4000km was built.The only consulting that we should have is the one that tells us how to build it responsibly. I would love to see a clause that in the event that the government does not approve it, the leader of the government must personally pay for it. It is not a risk thing, it is a decision thing. This extension will be successful. People will use it. It will be an important piece to the transportation in the Scarborough area. This has been talked of since the start of the construction of Crosstown in 2010. Ten years ago, the council decided to go with this plan. I almost want to say that nothing can be built in Toronto,but somehow, Finch has quietly been being built and haven't had much to be concerned about.

 

[lenaitch]

I'm not sure comparing any current project with one that was undertaken 140 years ago, with all of the 140-year-old social, environmental and economic conditions (plus a small scandal) that went along with it, is all that instructive.

 

[crs1026]

I'm not sure comparing any current project with one that was undertaken 140 years ago, with all of the 140-year-old social, environmental and economic conditions (plus a small scandal) that went along with it, is all that instructive.

Especially so when the overall build out of the railway network across central and western Canada resulted in an overbuilt web of lines, many of which were uneconomic from the get-go, with huge amounts of inefficiency, lost investments, and capital frittered away, let alone outright fraud.

The only person who has ever successfully waxed poetic about Canada's railroad boom was Gordon Lightfoot.... and I have always marvelled that his song didn't develop a backlash in recent years..... it's lovely music, but practically an anthem to colonization.

- Paul

 

[FrankNF]

europe migrant workers construction - Google Search

www.google.ca

Skimming through the first page (and does anyone really go beyond that?) of that google search doesn't really show anything that suggests -- certainly for Western Europe -- that major construction and infrastructure projects have lower labour costs due to migrant labour. Are there many immigrants in the construction industry? Sure. I'm sure there's a good number here as well. Does that result in lower labour costs? For small operators and those who can do a lot of their work under the table, even employing people without legal status, absolutely. Is that common in large, publicly-funded infrastructure projects? There's probably going to be some subcontractors bending employment regulations but any cost benefits from that would likely be more than offset by the generally much higher cost of labour in much of Western Europe.

 

[kEiThZ]

europe migrant workers construction - Google Search

Like I said. Unsubstantiated bigoted nonsense. A Google search about migrant workers working construction is not evidence that construction costs for TRANSIT are lower because of migrant workers.

It's unfortunate that the mods are letting your bigoted anti-immigrant tone pass.

 

[T3G]

The once that need to stop are 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 10.

Point number 8 on your list is "not using off the shelf stuff", and pointing out specifically TTC gauge as being the problem.

The people who rage against legacy transit systems for not using modern off the shelf stuff always seem to conveniently ignore how rebuilding the entire network to modern, global standards would cost an insane amount. Northern Light has already pointed out that laying tracks a bit wider than usual is hardly a concern, and the idea that gauge is at all a concern on a high floor subway train is absolutely hilarious. In the 1950s, we purchased a TON of PCCs from the states - how much of a problem did you think regauging them was?

If you want the TTC to start using off the shelf stuff, I hope you have a very deep wallet.

I am also amused at your idea that we have higher standards for railways here than we do in the EU. Have you ever bothered to read up on how the EU does things? Clearly not, otherwise you wouldn't have written that.

 

[Undead]

Like I said. Unsubstantiated bigoted nonsense. A Google search about migrant workers working construction is not evidence that construction costs for TRANSIT are lower because of migrant workers.

It's unfortunate that the mods are letting your bigoted anti-immigrant tone pass.

Can you tone down the empty rhetoric? Christ.

 

[micheal_can]

I'm not sure comparing any current project with one that was undertaken 140 years ago, with all of the 140-year-old social, environmental and economic conditions (plus a small scandal) that went along with it, is all that instructive.

Ok... The original Yonge Line took5years to build. That was in the 1950s. This extension will take about 10 years. The original line as7.4 km. This extension is 7.8km. That is a very good comparison. 5 more years for 0.4km?

Point number 8 on your list is "not using off the shelf stuff", and pointing out specifically TTC gauge as being the problem.

The people who rage against legacy transit systems for not using modern off the shelf stuff always seem to conveniently ignore how rebuilding the entire network to modern, global standards would cost an insane amount. Northern Light has already pointed out that laying tracks a bit wider than usual is hardly a concern, and the idea that gauge is at all a concern on a high floor subway train is absolutely hilarious. In the 1950s, we purchased a TON of PCCs from the states - how much of a problem did you think regauging them was?

If you want the TTC to start using off the shelf stuff, I hope you have a very deep wallet.

I am also amused at your idea that we have higher standards for railways here than we do in the EU. Have you ever bothered to read up on how the EU does things? Clearly not, otherwise you wouldn't have written that.

The TTC Gauge was for the time of horse carriages. In the 1960s, when subways were being built were horse drawn things still a bothersome? The line this extension is replacing was not off the shelf, even with it being standard gauge. That is what I mean by not "off the shelf"

As far as railway standards, for passenger trains, the EU ones cannot be run here as they do not meet the crash worthiness. That is a higher standard. Whether it is needed is up for debate.

 

[T3G]

The TTC Gauge was for the time of horse carriages. In the 1960s, when subways were being built were horse drawn things still a bothersome? The line this extension is replacing was not off the shelf, even with it being standard gauge. That is what I mean by not "off the shelf"

The reason for the subway being built to TTC gauge took me all of 10 seconds to find on Wikipedia:

According to rail historians John F. Bromley and Jack May, the reason that the Yonge subway line was built to the streetcar gauge (Toronto gauge) was that between 1954 and 1965, subway bogies were maintained at the Hillcrest Complex, where the streetcar gauge is used for shop tracks. The Davisville Carhouse was not equipped to perform such heavy maintenance, and the bogies would be loaded onto a specially built track trailer for shipment between Davisville and Hillcrest. This practice stopped with the opening of the shops at Greenwood Yard in 1965

As far as railway standards, for passenger trains, the EU ones cannot be run here as they do not meet the crash worthiness. That is a higher standard. Whether it is needed is up for debate.

Relying on overbuilt trains being able to absorb crashing into one another doesn't sound like a higher standard, it sounds like the exact opposite. Why are so many of our trains expected to withstand a collision? The EU has lighter trains because they use train protection systems to keep trains apart. THAT is a higher standard.