GO Transit: Service thread (including extensions)

[Allandale25]

^ It's delayed? Hadn't heard that. Did Metrolinx mention that in a Board report or was it mentioned here by someone?

 

[crs1026]

^ It's delayed? Hadn't heard that. Did Metrolinx mention that in a Board report or was it mentioned here by someone?

The ERMF was scheduled to be turned over to GO back at the end of last year. ML has inspected the property a couple of times but has declined to sign off on completion as yet. It's not a case of "delay" so much as "contractor needing to tweak some things". I believe this was reported at a Board meeting back before the election. I have heard similar by word of mouth.

Don't know what the specific issues are, one that was related to me was that the new steel ties in the yard weren't playing nice with the signalling at the entrances to the yard. That's a typical just-built glitch, same as when you buy a house in a new subdivision. But I don't know what the showstoppers might be.

- Paul

 

[Allandale25]

^ Interesting. I wonder why they went with steel instead of concrete?

 

[felix123]

Actually, it was the Liberals who destroyed the organized and big-team approach to service improvements, after details of a couple of impending new services (the Niagara GO trains being an example) leaked out (as transit agencies communicated details of the connecting bus services)..... before the Minister could have a photo op. Under the Liberals, service planners for some transit agencies were a) left in the dark and b) made to sign non-disclosure agreements - which prevented them from coordinating timings of connections, etc between properties until the Minister had made their good-news, I-get-the-credit initial announcement. Frequently, this left too little time to adjust the connections, so buses didn't connect with GO trains at first after schedule changes. It was an exercise in vanity and photo op over proper inter-agency collaboration.

The PC's are just new in office and haven't really worked out a protocol. Bowmanville and Niagara were both blessed by Ford back during the campaign, so it's a pretty safe bet for ML to keep plugging on those. If ML has stopped talking about some other things - well, maybe there's a reason, too soon to tell.

- Paul

Haha, I'll bet Ford "blessed" those rail lines. He and his SoCon ilk are probably studying Jesus-powered locomotives as we speak.

As for the PC transit protocol, it's 2 SUVs in every driveway, even wider highways, writing paper cheques at the grocery store on your way to church, 10 cents off/litre of gas, setting up 1-800 teacher-reporting hotlines, and throwing away the very revenue that was paying for transit enhancements - due to nothing but moronic ideology. We gave them long enough to prove otherwise, and I'm saying this as someone who didn't vote for the libs. It's a mess, people.

 

[Neutrino]

Great strawmen. Scarecrow would be proud.

 

[Allandale25]

Haha, I'll bet Ford "blessed" those rail lines. He and his SoCon ilk are probably studying Jesus-powered locomotives as we speak.

As for the PC transit protocol, it's 2 SUVs in every driveway, even wider highways, writing paper cheques at the grocery store on your way to church, 10 cents off/litre of gas, setting up 1-800 teacher-reporting hotlines, and throwing away the very revenue that was paying for transit enhancements - due to nothing but moronic ideology. We gave them long enough to prove otherwise, and I'm saying this as someone who didn't vote for the libs. It's a mess, people.

The new Ford gov might be waiting for the municipal election to be over to see what they are dealing with, but I imagine they really want to see the results of the line by line review to make further big decisions. So, it's an issue of timing. If they do want to deliver bad news (and I'm not saying bad news won't happen), it makes sense for their purposes to bury it in other decisions post-line by line review. I'm just trying to foreshadow the next marker in time when there will be news.

 

[felix123]

The new Ford gov might be waiting for the municipal election to be over to see what they are dealing with, but I imagine they really want to see the results of the line by line review to make further big decisions. So, it's an issue of timing. If they do want to deliver bad news (and I'm not saying bad news won't happen), it makes sense for their purposes to bury it in other decisions post-line by line review. I'm just trying to foreshadow the next marker in time when there will be news.

I'm not usually so irate about the PCs, but this latest weirdness set me off I'll admit. It seemed like Toronto and the GTA were finally getting somewhere with rail transit, although I suppose that the financial review might be the factor that's blocking movement. I think it's unlikely, but this gov't isn't exactly transparent about its platform or decision-making processes.

I do have to say although you and I might disagree on the culprit behind the lack of progress, your posts are very reasonable - kudos to you. What is the actual date for the completion of this line-by-line review?

 

[nfitz]

Not sure why the angst. Everyone knows that the PCs are going to be trying to spend less money, and that we won't see service expansions as fast as promised by governments that didn't have other priorities.

I'm sure service expansion will continue slowly - and likely not undergo the kind of cutbacks we saw when either the PCs or even the NDP were last elected.

Just be patient, have a beer, and wait for four years - and perhaps we'll see a different government with different priorities.

 

[smallspy]

Was doing some thinking regarding the rumoured 15-min LSE GO service that was believed to be coming this fall. Maybe the reason we didn't see it was because the East Rail Maintenance Facility is delayed, and won't open until this fall anyways.

It is coming this fall.

It is net yet fall, however.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[steveintoronto]

Bowmanville and Niagara were both blessed by Ford back during the campaign, so it's a pretty safe bet for ML to keep plugging on those.

Your faith in their keeping any semblance of a 'promise' is much greater than my belief in Il Duce to keep the trains running on time. Trains that had never run to begin with.

Perhaps an "extension of the subway from Pickering to Bowmanville" is in the offing?

In all fairness, your DBFOM post last week is still the one enduring believability in all of this. By the logic you espoused (gist) 'Wait until the mother of all DBFOM' which was meant in the abstract, but still is massively relevant, still has great bearing on what will happen to GO projects.

Just as it was headed under the Libs, almost every aspect of budgeting for GO expansion is down to DBFOM...so what possible excuse could Ford et al have to stymie whether a project has private inertia behind it or not?

It's not a budgetary item at all in any great sense. It's a *Policy* decision. So why does that have to wait until the "Line by line audit" is completed?

Is the "Obfuscation Ahead" sign a horizontal white bar, or a blinking oversize red traffic one?

 

[SaugeenJunction]

It is coming this fall.

It is net yet fall, however.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

Just considering the September to December schedules have been posted, I am a little skeptical. But you have sources I don't know about, so I'm really hoping you're right. Nothing is technically stopping Metrolinx from changing schedules again between quarterly cycles.

 

[crs1026]

It's not a budgetary item at all in any great sense. It's a *Policy* decision. So why does that have to wait until the "Line by line audit" is completed?

It is absolutely a budgetary issue. While the Liberals promised many things, we always knew they did not have the money to pay for any of it. And when the cheque arrived, they found an excuse to leave the table. The hydrail Hail Mary play was a great example of that. If you look at what the RER cash flow looked like - there is a graphic from the BCA somewhere, I have posted it before - the money was supposed to start to flow in 2017. It didn't appear in the amounts planned. Even the Liberals recognized that it wasn't there.

The incoming government is doing the right thing by rebaselining the entire Ontario budget. Within that, transit is a big element. Even if the PC's were motivated to keep every project they can, and preserve the tax envelope, there has never been a clear statement of what the available revenue will buy. Sure, these are Tories, and they have declared reductions in revenue and come with a general odour of tax reductions. They are no doubt looking for things to cut, even if they aren't saying that out loud. But any prudent government inheriting Wynne's slippery accounting would check the money carefully before moving ahead with things, even if some of those things are no-brainers. I don't support the Ford party line, but his government isn't completely sloppy.

Digressing to your other comments - My complaint with DBFOM is that it replaces the whole ML financial management regime with a single monthly invoice. The cost is set by a competitive tender, but there are so many moving parts - and so much room for change orders, service redesign, etc etc - that the cost figure is not really static. It will get revised. There will be little onus on the vendor to explain those increases.

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

It is absolutely a budgetary issue. While the Liberals promised many things, we always knew they did not have the money to pay for any of it. And when the cheque arrived, they found an excuse to leave the table. The hydrail Hail Mary play was a great example of that. If you look at what the RER cash flow looked like - there is a graphic from the BCA somewhere, I have posted it before - the money was supposed to start to flow in 2017. It didn't appear in the amounts planned. Even the Liberals recognized that it wasn't there.

The incoming government is doing the right thing by rebaselining the entire Ontario budget. Within that, transit is a big element. Even if the PC's were motivated to keep every project they can, and preserve the tax envelope, there has never been a clear statement of what the available revenue will buy. Sure, these are Tories, and they have declared reductions in revenue and come with a general odour of tax reductions. They are no doubt looking for things to cut, even if they aren't saying that out loud. But any prudent government inheriting Wynne's slippery accounting would check the money carefully before moving ahead with things, even if some of those things are no-brainers. I don't support the Ford party line, but his government isn't completely sloppy.

Digressing to your other comments - My complaint with DBFOM is that it replaces the whole ML financial management regime with a single monthly invoice. The cost is set by a competitive tender, but there are so many moving parts - and so much room for change orders, service redesign, etc etc - that the cost figure is not really static. It will get revised. There will be little onus on the vendor to explain those increases.

- Paul

So it's on this?

Independent Financial Commission of Inquiry and External Line-by-Line Audit of Government Spending

https://news.ontario.ca/opo/en/2018...ine-by-line-audit-of-government-spending.html

And I do admit, it is a bit of a trick question, nothing to do with you, but them.

The incoming government is doing the right thing by rebaselining the entire Ontario budget.

Are you sure about that? I've been Googling to find that put into words. Could you provide a link?

Here's all I can find so far: (this recurs on site after site in different iterations but with the same figures)

Doug Ford laid out his infrastructure promises which include:

• Commit $5-billion more funds for subways, relief lines, a two-way GO Transit to Niagara Falls as part of existing plan to build a regional transportation system
• Open the question of Hamilton’s $1.3 billion LRT project to a vote, noting that even if voters reject the LRT, Hamilton would receive the money for other infrastructure projects
• Develop new transportation infrastructure to open access to the Ring of Fire mining project in Northern Ontario’s James Bay lowlands
• Cut aviation fuel taxes on interprovincial flights to and from Northern Ontario, which Ford says will cost $11 million per year

• https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ontario-election-2018-party-platforms/

 

[ssiguy2]

Remember that Ottawa has pledged money for RER so Ford won't want to forgo that kind of largess. That said the Liberals and Metrolinx made a mess of RER by building parking garages {Metrolinx now runs the largest parking lot system in NA} instead of electrifying the system, more aggressively twinning track, buying rolling stock, and creating grade separations.

 

[steveintoronto]

I have trouble with the software formatting above, so I've posted a fresh pane to be perfectly clear that "DBFOM" is going to be the term that gets stuck in a lot of throats, *especially as that relates to GO* and if anyone thinks if Ford is going to do as he claims, and put a chicken in every pot too, they are sorely mistaken.

So I'll repost the 'DBFOM' post from @crs1026 above to make sure we're talking the same term: (I was one of those who 'liked' this)
@TransitBart
Senior Member wrote:

God. This is an echo chamber. The election is not 24 hours done.

Doug Ford is many things. One thing he will be is busy. I doubt he’ll have time - let alone the mental capacity - for his own plan. Let’s imagine in the best “Yes, Minister!” sense that he asks the professional civil service to bring him an appropriate solution.

If anything is really Doug’s plan, then we are in trouble. Not much (of anything) will be done. Just the Del Duca style backslapping needs a few hours a week. That will eat into his time for personally developing GO service plans.

@crs1026 replied:

crs1026, Jun 9, 2018
#5813

crs1026Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined:
Oct 17, 2014
Messages:
4,319
Likes Received:
3,838
↑
We are all conjecturing without data, for sure.

Rather than look for bogeypeople under the bed, why don't we consider what economies there might actually be that be available if a more disciplined and penny pinching provincial regime were in place? Ford says he wants to find economies. There may actually be plenty

Some suggestions:
- Suspend the GO station building program, and reopen the bad decisions that were made when Del Duca decided that Kirby was his Waterloo. The original GO study recommended only 2 stations, IIRC, whereas ML ended up approving 11 because once Kirby made the list, other more deserving stations had to be put on the list. A station is $100M-$150M, after all. Revisit the recommendations with an eye to only approving 4-6 of them. That gives some legitimate flexibility to merge political and technical input (the original Park Lawn no-go recommendation ought to get someone fired, IMHO) but easily cuts $500M from the current plan.
- Suspend any ongoing International Design Competitions for ML architecture. Fire ML's Design Review Panel. Restrict new station construction to a design consisting of a few bus shelters on an ashphalt pad. Ensure there are no more John St footbridge boondoggles. Probably good for $50M
- Fire the ML Board (mostly Liberals, after all) and replace it with 2 fewer Board members. Keep Verster, his severance would be pricey and he may prove to have some good ideas now that the Liberals aren't breathing down his neck. That's an intangible saving but it clears the slate.
- Cancel the "Mother of all DBFOM" RFQ's and replace it with a structured, in house decisionmaking process to reach some key decisions where there should be direct accountability by ML (equipment procurement being one, hydrogen vs electric being another). Then tender for actual delivery but not leaving key decisions to the vendor. Consider using government borrowing instead of commercial financing, to get a better interest rate. Easily $100M in lower borrowing costs, and removes contingencies from the bidders' submissions because Ontario accepts the risk, thereby lowering the bid prices. ML's passing the buck to the DBFOM contractor is probably costing us $250M or more because vendors don't accept risk for free.
- Establish a timetable to electrify only two lines: Barrie and UPE. That keeps work flowing on establishing the core infrastructure at Union Station, an EMU maintenance base, and some of the substation infrastructure which is very long lead time to order anyways. Barrie has to be electric because of the commitment to Davenport, and UPE just makes sense. That knocks $1.5B or more off the budget, provides a more sensible easing in of electrification, and demonstrates forward motion. Use diesel for the rest for now, aiming for 15 minute 2WAD.
- Suspend work on all the wayfinding, route number unification, and related overall system planning that is going on in ML. It's mostly navel gazing, is heavily consultant based. Should never have built this ivory tower in the first place. Does anyone care that Oshawa has a Route 1 and Hamilton has a route 1? Ditto signage replacement - GO replaces perfectly good bus stops with new ones because they changed their logo. (Oh, and fire whoever proposed that last branding change)
- Suspend and hold a challenge process to review all current contracts for technical advisors and contingency based engineering. ML has huge slush funds for ad-hoc engineering and consulting. Turn some of the Tories' hard nosed auditors loose on this, looking for justification, results delivered, and value for money.
- Institute a publicly accessible CEO's scorecard similar to TTC's. ML claimed it needed an IT system before it could deliver this. I have seen these systems used, and while pretty, you can spend a lot of time and money putting it in place where a couple interns doing cut and paste of Excell graphs works just fine in the short turn. Let the public interrogate this data until it confesses. Do not accept the fluffy and non-informative responses that ML's people churn out. Restate plans as commitments, performance contract items, targets stating what by when at what cost. None of the 'by 2024, a miracle will have happened and it will all be there' non-specificity to goals and deliverables.

Just some ideas. Note that no routes or projects cut in the process.

- Paul

https://skyrisecities.com/forum/thr...tion-projects-metrolinx-various.9023/page-388

I quoted this from the above and replied to it a few days later:

- Cancel the "Mother of all DBFOM" RFQ's and replace it with a structured, in house decisionmaking process to reach some key decisions where there should be direct accountability by ML (equipment procurement being one, hydrogen vs electric being another). Then tender for actual delivery but not leaving key decisions to the vendor. Consider using government borrowing instead of commercial financing, to get a better interest rate. Easily $100M in lower borrowing costs, and removes contingencies from the bidders' submissions because Ontario accepts the risk, thereby lowering the bid prices. ML's passing the buck to the DBFOM contractor is probably costing us $250M or more because vendors don't accept risk for free.

I have a few issues with the claims, esp as that relates to how risk is assessed and appears on books as a cost with a "DBFOM", but I digress for now as it's essential to get this "DBFOM" term correct in the usage apparently being used in discussion, as the logic that results from it's apparent use, and my understanding of the term, may differ.

The fault may be mine...but whether it is or not, the claims just aren't adding up as per "DBFOM" and the jurisdictive latitude to examine its use and outcome as the Cons are sure to attempt to obfuscate and hide results until the FOI limit kicks in on the Independent Audit. And that folks, will be months alone.

I don't think the outcome of this is the one some think is to be the case.

Addendum:

To review, here is the link to the "Independent Financial Commission of Inquiry and External Line-by-Line Audit of Government Spending"
https://news.ontario.ca/opo/en/2018...ine-by-line-audit-of-government-spending.html

I'm reasonably good at Googling, and I will continue searching, but as my search stands so far, there is *no avenue for the public to see this audit*. In fact, by making it "Independent" it *appears* (I may be wrong) that it might even be beyond the reach of FOI requests. "Off the books" so to speak. Do you spell "Hypocrisy" with a Capital 'H' or just hide it? "DBFOM" in action? (Ironically, if it were done by the A-G 'in-house' it would be liable to the law as per FOI)

If someone can link me to info that states otherwise to FOI status, please do so.