[chrisw]

Well, I'm excited to see the shift with OnCorr.

 

[Sunnyside]

They are doing very many things, but piecemeal and without defined end points or even intermediate points. So, lots of major investments are made but tjhen some missing piece prevents ML from leveraging these investments and delivering better transportation. The West Highland Creek bridge is one example, the 401/409 tunnels and the half-finished fourth track through Weston are good examples. Obviously some things have to happen early and then wait for other things, but ML is glaringly bad at staging and executing work in a deliberate manner.



I would not exlude ML from the microscope here. One simple example is Rule 42 flagging - every piece of work performed at trackside requires a Rule 42 foreman (basically a watch person and movement controller) to protect workers from moving trains and vv. When work is cancelled on short notice, the Rule 42 flag protection can't be cancelled as it has been embedded in the train operations plan for the day....., and so a foreman sits in a truck with no work to perform. Similarly, if the flagging is arranged for less than a full day's tasks, there is waste. The flagging is a contracted service so a contractor bills for the no-show date, with markup no doubt. I wonder what the A-G would say if they inquired into the volume of non-productive flagging and other costs related to cancelled or deferred work windows and one-of tasks. The ML folks that talk to me off the record say there is huge wastefulness because work is scheduled but in the end does not proceed as intended. The setup and site prep costs of cancelled work may be significant.

A second area that I see is the extreme rigour in using jersey barriers and elaborate measures to separate work from active rail lines. I am very keen to see safe work sites, but these measures are beccoming so elaborate I feel it's reasonable to ask if ML has reached overkill. I don't know if ML requires these measures or if contractors insist on them.... or how much is required by law....and again I am all for erring on the side of safety. But as the barriers far exceed how work was done even a few years ago, one has to ask why the change. Site prep generally seems to go on for ever on ML sites.

- Paul

I gather then that a large portion of the issue is that Metrolinx is not remotely concerned with controlling costs. I’d go as far to say it’s like its a fact of life.

Not to sound like a broken record, but at best it reads like Metrolinx doesn’t know what it’s doing in prioritization terms. At worst, they are just signing off on whatever is put infront of them without regard for what those things actually are. Then, they stack on an unrealistic (& likely consultant created) ‘best practice’ standard of care— which is then enforced at their expense.

In writing this, it makes me wonder if Metrolinx tolerates these costs because it hasn’t internalized them; they didn’t decide this foreman’s job was $100,000, they just asked for the work to be done.