[AlvinofDiaspar]

Sorry the 58M is for retrofitting the entre network, not just St. Clair - confounding the two when it's already been pointed out to you otherwise is kind of a weak argument.

As to project management - well, drum gave you a rather detailed explaination - repeating your take over and over again doesn't make it the truth. In fact I have a feeling that if one decided mid-project to extend the platform and add to the cost it will also be branded as incomptent in the post-hoc accounting. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

AoD

 

[nfitz]

Funny I knew about all theses issues before your first-hand source was forced to talk due to the Toronto Star.

Didn't everyone? The budget for these platform adjustments appeared in TTC documents 2 years ago, and were repeated last year - http://www.toronto.ca/budget2013/pdf/cap13_an_ttc.pdf

Length is an issue as well.

So you say ... and I can see this for some of the islands ... say on Bathurst at Queen. But I don't see this for most of the St. Clair islands, if any. Given that one of the design parameters back in the 2004 design was the ability to operate multi-unit streetcars (presumably two 15-metre long vehicles), I'd agree there's no reason that they shouldn't be able to handle the 30-metre long vehicles - but you've provided no evidence that they can't.

I agree, it's not a big job to make them longer. The stops are not missing much in length. The whole point of my argument is that extra cost which will be over 58M$, could have been less than that.

What proportion of this $58-million dollars is for St. Clair, compared to the other 700+ stops that the $58M is funding? And how much of what will be installed on St. Clair is for the power and data for the new ticket vending machines?

 

[Solid Snake]

Sorry the 58M is for retrofitting the entre network, not just St. Clair - confounding the two when it's already been pointed out to you otherwise is kind of a weak argument.

As to project management - well, drum gave you a rather detailed explaination - repeating your take over and over again doesn't make it the truth. In fact I have a feeling that if one decided mid-project to extend the platform and add to the cost it will also be branded as incomptent in the post-hoc accounting. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

AoD

If you look at my arguments, I only took issue with the length of the platform. I did say it was not a big job but having to spend more money (talking about st.clair only) 5 years later is embarrassing to the TTC

Second of all, I don't see anything controversial about the 58M$. I only said that it could have been less and that realistically, it will exceed 58M$.

Third, but not least. If you decide mid-project to extend the platform, you will look like a fool because you should have brought it up at the planning phase of the project.

 

[nfitz]

Third, but not least. If you decide mid-project to extend the platform, you will look like a fool because you should have brought it up at the planning phase of the project.

I've already provided a reference to the EA from 2004. It clearly discussed that platforms should be designed for multi-unit operation. So presumably they should have been fine .... (though as I think about it, multi-unit operation of 2 CLRVs would require slightly shorter platforms given the length from the door 1 to door 4 is a bit shorter than what you get with a Flexity ... hmm ... I wonder if that might have been where it started ...

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

It is misleading to talk about 58m without explicitly stating that it covers the cost for the entire network. For someone insisting on details being an essential element of projects it is curious this point gets buried again and again. And on what basis does the "realistically" comes from? Even the TTC portion of the St. Clair project came on budget, however inflated that budget maybe. As to it being embrassing to the TTC? Not really, especially if the work and service interruption are limited in nature. I do find the timing a tad curious however.

If you have any familarity with project management, you'd realize scope changes aren't that rare, particularly when your client is under pressure from multiple actors to make changes (to say that's the case for St. Clair would have been the understatement of the year), and since when does bringing something up equate to getting the signoff to go ahead? You won't hear the end from transportation and SOS.

 

[Juan_Lennon416]

It is misleading to talk about 58m without explicitly stating that it covers the cost for the entire network. For someone insisting on details being an essential element of projects it is curious this point gets buried again and again. And on what basis does the "realistically" comes from? Even the TTC portion of the St. Clair project came on budget, however inflated that budget maybe.

If you have any familarity with project management, you'd realize scope changes aren't that rare, particularly when your client is under pressure from multiple actors to make changes (to say that's the case for St. Clair would have been the understatement of the year), and since when does bringing something up equate to getting the signoff to go ahead?

As a mod, why not move the conversation forward rather than argue?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Since when is pointing out lapses in logic and facts not moving conversations forward? Civil argument is part of discourse afterall.

AoD

 

[Juan_Lennon416]

Since when is pointing out lapses in logic and facts not moving conversations forward?

AoD

But Solid Snake is not getting the message so why keep trying?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

At the end of the day, engagement is better than disengagement.

AoD

 

[Solid Snake]

Since when is pointing out lapses in logic and facts not moving conversations forward? Civil argument is part of discourse afterall.

AoD

Wow! lapse of logic. I totally accept that we diverge in opinions, but attacking someone who disagree with you ...that's rich... But then again, I did point out that I was viewing the situation as a project manager, but hey whatever. Nothing the TTC does is ever wrong.

 

[JoeParez]

The length of 2 CLRVs is greater than one of the new streetcars. About 9 feet more to be exact.

The issue of the curb cutting is something I've seen in all my years in construction. You have different grade levels and sometimes (most of the time) inept concrete workers who don't know a 1/4" from 3/8". Having the vehicle here in order to gauge the curb heights is the absolute best thing. And if it's just a curb cut and smoothing, that doesn't require a line to be shut down.

From my own experience as a draftsperson, I can never accurately plan ahead to decipher how a laborer is going to pour the curb on-site. Most of the time is *shockingly* requires the contractor to cut the concrete cub because it was over-sized. I guess to me, this whole issue is pretty routine.

Also, if the story of the platforms being to small to accept the new vehicles is true (which I doubt because it came from the Sun) - I would think that the dimension that is critical to the TTC would be the length between the doors. I did a quick sketch-up on Auto CAD and I got 85 feet between the front and rear doors. Which is 10 feet greater than an ALRV. Does anyone know the platform lengths on the St. Clair ROW? Perhaps the TTC could change it's procedure to allow the vehicles to overshoot the platform making only the doors all fit on the platform.


Here's what I mean:

 

[W. K. Lis]

The length of 2 CLRVs is greater than one of the new streetcars. About 9 feet more to be exact.

The issue of the curb cutting is something I've seen in all my years in construction. You have different grade levels and sometimes (most of the time) inept concrete workers who don't know a 1/4" from 3/8". Having the vehicle here in order to gauge the curb heights is the absolute best thing. And if it's just a curb cut and smoothing, that doesn't require a line to be shut down.

From my own experience as a draftsperson, I can never accurately plan ahead to decipher how a laborer is going to pour the curb on-site. Most of the time is *shockingly* requires the contractor to cut the concrete cub because it was over-sized. I guess to me, this whole issue is pretty routine.

Also, if the story of the platforms being to small to accept the new vehicles is true (which I doubt because it came from the Sun) - I would think that the dimension that is critical to the TTC would be the length between the doors. I did a quick sketch-up on Auto CAD and I got 85 feet between the front and rear doors. Which is 10 feet greater than an ALRV. Does anyone know the platform lengths on the St. Clair ROW? Perhaps the TTC could change it's procedure to allow the vehicles to overshoot the platform making only the doors all fit on the platform.


Here's what I mean:

I understand that by adding an additional car to the Toronto Rocket subway cars would result in having a train that is longer than the subway platform. However, by overshooting the platform a little would result in ALL the doors to be within the platform. Same scenario. The new streetcar DOORS will be within the platforms.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Are you a Project Manger and if...

Now I've got Away in a Manger stuck in my head. Thanks.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Funny I knew about all theses issues before your first-hand source was forced to talk due to the Toronto Star. .

You got baited there Snake. I could have told you that there was absolutely zero chance that he would have accepted your source. Even it you'd said Byford was your first cousin he would have not accepted it. He was only asking so he could challenge your source's legitimacy and discredit you.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Wow! lapse of logic. I totally accept that we diverge in opinions, but attacking someone who disagree with you ...that's rich... But then again, I did point out that I was viewing the situation as a project manager, but hey whatever. Nothing the TTC does is ever wrong.

Your logic (i.e. your argument) and you as a person are two different things - don't confound the two and say that I am attacking you. I've noted (as others did) multiple times what the task of a project manager involves, and there was never any attempt to provide a rebuttal. The final straw is to paint those who argue against you as someone who'd see TTC as perfect - you know as well as I do that I have not made that suggestion. Of all of TTC's failings, streetcar platforms (which are solvable at a low cost) is probably as close to the bottom of the list as things can get.

AoD