Sauga89
Active Member
Here are an eighth and ninth document.
|
|
|
GO Transit: Construction Projects (Metrolinx, various)
- Thread starter drum118
- Start date
Sauga89
Active Member
Sauga89
Active Member
As mentioned, @nfitz has already posted this in the Finch West LRT thread (probably with higher resolution), but for convenience I figured I'd post this here too.
ShonTron
Moderator
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 13,123
- Reaction score
- 11,353
- Location
- Ward 13 - Toronto Centre
Yeah, I’m not aware of any way to post PDF documents here. I’ll usually provide a link and screenshot the most relevant bits, especially renders.
crs1026
Superstar
A respected (and quite hardnosed) Chief Project Executive that I once had as a mentor referred to this type of reporting as "fireworks reports" - a cherry picked listing of dazzling flashes, one over here, then one over there, one up high, with the intent of making the audience go, "Oooooh" over and over. But each flash only lasting a second or two, and then darkness.
His attitude was, keep turning in fireworks reports and you better have your resume ready. Fireworks reports do not demonstrate performance.
For managing projects, the standard performance expectation is:, every project must have a clearly defined scope and goal, and each periodic report must articulate how much closer the project is to that goal. And also, the report has to explain whether the spend in time and money matched that planned pace.... if a project goes from 30% to 50% completion, but the spend has gone from 30% to 80% of approved budget, let's not sing any praises. Similarly if a project is now 60% complete but has used 90% of the projected timeline, we ought to be having a pretty painful interrogation about where things stand.
By that standard, ML's reporting is substandard in relation to its industry (and construction projects generally). And the fact that its Board regularly accepts this substandard reporting in their public sessions without ever demonstrating that the goal and scope is clear, and without ever probing the work accomplishment, or challenging the validity of the facts, is sufficient reason to argue that they should be sacked.
A good example is the LSE reporting, which implies that the 4xtracking project is reaching substantial completion..... ignoring the fact that several key elements are barely started. The only meaningful goal is an operable fourth track - substantial completion of this one prerequisite contract is good but not reason for celebration. ML needs to frame things in terms of "what, by when, with what resources".
- Paul
His attitude was, keep turning in fireworks reports and you better have your resume ready. Fireworks reports do not demonstrate performance.
For managing projects, the standard performance expectation is:, every project must have a clearly defined scope and goal, and each periodic report must articulate how much closer the project is to that goal. And also, the report has to explain whether the spend in time and money matched that planned pace.... if a project goes from 30% to 50% completion, but the spend has gone from 30% to 80% of approved budget, let's not sing any praises. Similarly if a project is now 60% complete but has used 90% of the projected timeline, we ought to be having a pretty painful interrogation about where things stand.
By that standard, ML's reporting is substandard in relation to its industry (and construction projects generally). And the fact that its Board regularly accepts this substandard reporting in their public sessions without ever demonstrating that the goal and scope is clear, and without ever probing the work accomplishment, or challenging the validity of the facts, is sufficient reason to argue that they should be sacked.
A good example is the LSE reporting, which implies that the 4xtracking project is reaching substantial completion..... ignoring the fact that several key elements are barely started. The only meaningful goal is an operable fourth track - substantial completion of this one prerequisite contract is good but not reason for celebration. ML needs to frame things in terms of "what, by when, with what resources".
- Paul
Last edited:
smallspy
Senior Member
Let me restate my point.....
Once construction has started and an issue is noted with a neighbouring property/structure due to the work being done, construction is stopped. And it may require that the project gets rethought or reengineered to suit.
This is what's happening here.
Dan
innsertnamehere
Superstar
The public facing component of Metrolinx Board Meetings has long become a sort of screwed up publicity exercise. These reports aren't intended for actual serious board level conversations - they are PR documents for public review. Once the public session ends and they go in-camera, then the real conversations (hopefully!) should be happening. But like everything Metrolinx related, we don't know if that's actually happening.. and given Metrolinx's overall performance record.. I doubt it.
cplchanb
Senior Member
Dan its not the fact that theres a rethought required... thats normal for situations like this. the really frustrating part is that this is not a bridge over the grand canyon or a gigantic station. its a relatively simple creek that
shouldnt require 2 years to redesign. this is largely a case of bureaucracy and project mismanagement stalling the project. if they really wanted to they couldve gotten this redesigned and built within the year. its so stupid how the entire double tracking for stoufville
is stalled all because they cant sort out small sections of a mere a 8km stretch of track.
crs1026
Superstar
Exactly, which is why I keep beating this drum. It just shouldn't be this way.
Take it another way. The total investment shown in the chart from this ML report is about $70.114B
The population of Ontario is about 14.7M, of whom 80% are old enough to make a TFSA contribution.
In rough terms, the ML capital spend will cost every Ontario adult about $ 6,000 - about three quarters of one year's TFSA contribution. (Or RESP, or RHOSP, or RRSP - take your choice)
If I put that sum of money in a TFSA investment such as a stock or mutual fund, the fund I invest in is legally obliged to disclose a whack of data about how their enterprise is faring. (I admit I don't read it all, but they have a legal obligation to disclose it, and many advisors, pundits, reporters, and analysts do read and digest it all and offer their opinions which I have access to). If the enterprise doesn't divulge the information, the regulator will prosecute them, and they will go to jail and/or face other sanctions and penalties.
In contrast, how much information do I have access to about my investment in public transit? And how much performance information is this enterprise obliged to disclose about itself? And if they decline to disclose, what consequences ensue?
If my investment investment goes bad, I may be able (in consort with other investors) to sue, to (annually) vote out the Board, or to simply sell and buy something else.
All I can do about ML is vote, once every four years, and my vote will be driven by many factors other than this particular investment..
Again, it shouldn't be this way
- Paul
Last edited:
innsertnamehere
Superstar
And the crazy part is that the budget for GO expansion there does not include the full project cost, only the parts of the project that Metrolinx has defined.
That line alone is a massive problem. We are a full decade into GO expansion and Metrolinx still doesn't know what the hell it wants.
That line alone is a massive problem. We are a full decade into GO expansion and Metrolinx still doesn't know what the hell it wants.
Thaboss
Active Member
Yes like ...
Ontario line has already incured a 10 billion dollar cost ??? That seems rather excessive but idk..
Why is SSE 7Billion dollars more expensive than younge north extention??
crs1026
Superstar
Now that I have expressed my frustrations, here's some observations re the meat of the report
- First, it's apparent that a great many shovels are in the ground. For better or worse, construction is moving in many places. A couple of major logjams, the Halton deal with CN being the biggest, appear to have cleared. Mount Dennis and Confederation both opened. USRC is getting there. I remain skeptical of how ML sequences work (or omits long lead items until late in the game), but things are getting done. So the glass is not empty.
- Funding for a number of programs have increased, at baseline. This may be newly released funding, or addressing overspend, or escalation - but again at least money is flowing
- No information on the prospects for West Highland Creek
- Not a word spoken about capital work on the Barrie line, where much work is happening
- Not a word spoken about capital work on the ML owned portion of the Kitchener line, either west of Georgetown or east of Bramalea
- Not a word spoken about the remaining big ticket items on LSE (Danforth, Birchmount)
- Work on ETCS has begun, but don't expect any big news soon - lots more to do before it is commissioned. Using the Richmond Hill line as a pilot is very prudent, as it's ML-owned, impacts the fewest number of riders during testing and learning phases, and it does include transition to/from CN owned lines that do not operate ETCS. All of these factors can be tested and lessons learned without impacting service on busier lines.
- Paul
- First, it's apparent that a great many shovels are in the ground. For better or worse, construction is moving in many places. A couple of major logjams, the Halton deal with CN being the biggest, appear to have cleared. Mount Dennis and Confederation both opened. USRC is getting there. I remain skeptical of how ML sequences work (or omits long lead items until late in the game), but things are getting done. So the glass is not empty.
- Funding for a number of programs have increased, at baseline. This may be newly released funding, or addressing overspend, or escalation - but again at least money is flowing
- Eglinton West Crosstown +800M
- Ontario Line +950M
- Yonge North Line 1 +1.9B
- GO Expansion +450M
There were no reductions in funding noted, although any overspends likely mean some things are quietly being deferred to adhere to the approved funding envelope
- Improvements to crossing grade signalling in East Hamilton is encouraging, towards badly needed improvement to velocity in this zone- No information on the prospects for West Highland Creek
- Not a word spoken about capital work on the Barrie line, where much work is happening
- Not a word spoken about capital work on the ML owned portion of the Kitchener line, either west of Georgetown or east of Bramalea
- Not a word spoken about the remaining big ticket items on LSE (Danforth, Birchmount)
- Work on ETCS has begun, but don't expect any big news soon - lots more to do before it is commissioned. Using the Richmond Hill line as a pilot is very prudent, as it's ML-owned, impacts the fewest number of riders during testing and learning phases, and it does include transition to/from CN owned lines that do not operate ETCS. All of these factors can be tested and lessons learned without impacting service on busier lines.
- Paul
Last edited:
Bojaxs
Senior Member
I must have missed it. Where did they talk about the RH line?