Johnny Au said:
...and it's far from finished:

5696px-Shanghai_Metro_Planning.svg.png
Click to expand...
25 lines and over 1000 km of rail by 2025. It's truly marvelous.







Meanwhile, the Toronto City council passed a motion calling for the Ontario Line section through Leslieville to be put underground. Phil Verster and Paula Fletcher will meet next week.
 
Coolstar said:
25 lines and over 1000 km of rail by 2025. It's truly marvelous.







Meanwhile, the Toronto City council passed a motion calling for the Ontario Line section through Leslieville to be put underground. Phil Verster and Paula Fletcher will meet next week.
Click to expand...
The Province should send the city the bill for 800 million dollars for burying the line.
 
Adjei said:
Instead of doing something useful like advocating for the province to save money by elevating the Eglinton West LRT which will make it completely grade separated while costing less, they waste time on useless motions like this.
Click to expand...
I'm afraid that would be as pointless. That project is further along in early works and procurement stage. The tunnel option is already decided with companies bidding for that contract since last August.
 
Undead said:
It's been said many times before in these pages that any comparison with China's construction is severely flawed.
Sigh.
Click to expand...
I find this attitude extremely unhelpful.

Maybe instead of immediately dismissing one of the best examples in the world because it is in a country we don’t like, we should be looking at what they are doing, filter out the best parts, and use that to identify what we are doing wrong and what changes we can make.

For example, in Shanghai, trains are almost never late, and projects almost always open on time. Now, we ask, why?

The answer is that if a train gets delayed by more than a certain amount, the guy at the top of Shanghai Metro gets fired. That is a powerful incentive structure.

Now, what happens when TTC service gets delayed? Basically nothing.

Maybe Shanghai’s system is a bit extreme, especially when considering that TTC seems to break down every other day. But maybe creating better incentive structures is a good idea.

For projects always opening on time, there are many reasons for this. But, for example, if the signalling provider says they can’t install the promised system by the promised date, what happens? If that was here you’d probably just delay the project. But in Shanghai, they basically just demand that trains must run on opening day, and the signalling supplier has to figure out how to make it happen. So, the signalling company might install some temporary system that allows the line to run, maybe at a slightly worse headway than originally promised, but at least the line is open. And, Shanghai Metro won’t pay for this temporary system, the signalling company’s on the hook, since they were the ones that failed to finish on time.

There are many other differences on the organizational and management level that lead to the results we see. Now I have no idea how to implement changes to this sort of thing (I definitely do not have knowledge or experience of business management), but I’m sure it is possible to at least go in the right direction.
 
sche said:
I find this attitude extremely unhelpful.

Maybe instead of immediately dismissing one of the best examples in the world because it is in a country we don’t like, we should be looking at what they are doing, filter out the best parts, and use that to identify what we are doing wrong and what changes we can make.

For example, in Shanghai, trains are almost never late, and projects almost always open on time. Now, we ask, why?

The answer is that if a train gets delayed by more than a certain amount, the guy at the top of Shanghai Metro gets fired. That is a powerful incentive structure.

Now, what happens when TTC service gets delayed? Basically nothing.

Maybe Shanghai’s system is a bit extreme, especially when considering that TTC seems to break down every other day. But maybe creating better incentive structures is a good idea.

For projects always opening on time, there are many reasons for this. But, for example, if the signalling provider says they can’t install the promised system by the promised date, what happens? If that was here you’d probably just delay the project. But in Shanghai, they basically just demand that trains must run on opening day, and the signalling supplier has to figure out how to make it happen. So, the signalling company might install some temporary system that allows the line to run, maybe at a slightly worse headway than originally promised, but at least the line is open. And, Shanghai Metro won’t pay for this temporary system, the signalling company’s on the hook, since they were the ones that failed to finish on time.

There are many other differences on the organizational and management level that lead to the results we see. Now I have no idea how to implement changes to this sort of thing (I definitely do not have knowledge or experience of business management), but I’m sure it is possible to at least go in the right direction.
Click to expand...
In Canada, you can't put corporations on the hook.
 
sche said:
I find this attitude extremely unhelpful.

Maybe instead of immediately dismissing one of the best examples in the world because it is in a country we don’t like, we should be looking at what they are doing, filter out the best parts, and use that to identify what we are doing wrong and what changes we can make.

For example, in Shanghai, trains are almost never late, and projects almost always open on time. Now, we ask, why?

The answer is that if a train gets delayed by more than a certain amount, the guy at the top of Shanghai Metro gets fired. That is a powerful incentive structure.

Now, what happens when TTC service gets delayed? Basically nothing.

Maybe Shanghai’s system is a bit extreme, especially when considering that TTC seems to break down every other day. But maybe creating better incentive structures is a good idea.

For projects always opening on time, there are many reasons for this. But, for example, if the signalling provider says they can’t install the promised system by the promised date, what happens? If that was here you’d probably just delay the project. But in Shanghai, they basically just demand that trains must run on opening day, and the signalling supplier has to figure out how to make it happen. So, the signalling company might install some temporary system that allows the line to run, maybe at a slightly worse headway than originally promised, but at least the line is open. And, Shanghai Metro won’t pay for this temporary system, the signalling company’s on the hook, since they were the ones that failed to finish on time.

There are many other differences on the organizational and management level that lead to the results we see. Now I have no idea how to implement changes to this sort of thing (I definitely do not have knowledge or experience of business management), but I’m sure it is possible to at least go in the right direction.
Click to expand...

Worth saying here; Andy Byford; and David Gunn a generation earlier both had the chops as the TTC's top guy.

They thrived on being held accountable.

They were always on-site when trouble happened; directly overseeing operations, and being accountable to the media.

Both also fired staff who didn't deliver at critical moments.

It is absolutely possible to hire and empower senior management who take their responsibilities seriously, and who don't abide crap results indefinitely (or at all in serious matters)

However, both left the TTC after relatively short tenures; I think, to the detriment of the Commission.
 
Last edited:
syn said:
The city already contributed $3 billion.
Click to expand...
It makes perfect sense for the city to pay the difference, if they want to change the plan so badly they should be the ones to pay for it.
If they don't feel like paying the extra to bury the line then they should just get over it. Many cities around the world have elevated trains and they are just fine.
It seems like they are only short of calling doomsday if the line is built as proposed.
 
syn said:
The city already contributed $3 billion.
Click to expand...
The same thing was done for the EWLRT. The plan isn’t going to change - and everyone knows it.

The city will send a letter/request, Metrolinx will respond with a non-answer (if at all) claiming this design is appropriate for [insert some reason here], Councillors will grandstand, residents will protest, columnists will write articles - and if financial close comes the line will get built as is.
 
sche said:
I find this attitude extremely unhelpful.

Maybe instead of immediately dismissing one of the best examples in the world because it is in a country we don’t like, we should be looking at what they are doing, filter out the best parts, and use that to identify what we are doing wrong and what changes we can make.

For example, in Shanghai, trains are almost never late, and projects almost always open on time. Now, we ask, why?

The answer is that if a train gets delayed by more than a certain amount, the guy at the top of Shanghai Metro gets fired. That is a powerful incentive structure.

Now, what happens when TTC service gets delayed? Basically nothing.

Maybe Shanghai’s system is a bit extreme, especially when considering that TTC seems to break down every other day. But maybe creating better incentive structures is a good idea.

For projects always opening on time, there are many reasons for this. But, for example, if the signalling provider says they can’t install the promised system by the promised date, what happens? If that was here you’d probably just delay the project. But in Shanghai, they basically just demand that trains must run on opening day, and the signalling supplier has to figure out how to make it happen. So, the signalling company might install some temporary system that allows the line to run, maybe at a slightly worse headway than originally promised, but at least the line is open. And, Shanghai Metro won’t pay for this temporary system, the signalling company’s on the hook, since they were the ones that failed to finish on time.

There are many other differences on the organizational and management level that lead to the results we see. Now I have no idea how to implement changes to this sort of thing (I definitely do not have knowledge or experience of business management), but I’m sure it is possible to at least go in the right direction.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but the problem is no one making the comparison has a take like yours. They just see the map growth and go slack jawed.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top