Bojaxs
Active Member
See, the issue here is that Metrolinx views light rail as "rapid transit".
See, the issue here is that Metrolinx views light rail as "rapid transit".
I agree, largely because a ‘Planning’ department is literally the professional planners on the team, not those doing the kinds of ‘planning’ people expect (although there’s definitely crossover). They aren’t experts on project construction- that’s for other “planners”. They likely don’t plan how infrastructure is to be finished on a day-to-day basis either. So the key issues with project delivery can’t lie with these folks.The conspiracy theorist in me sees these departures as far less of a housekeeping than made out. With the OnExpress go-live date approaching, one would expect that the team that has conceived and negotiated the P3 structure would be wound down. The question should be, how many people can ML shed now that another consortium is managing planning and operational aspects previously managed in house.
It may be convenient for ML to allow the public imagination to perceive these moves as cleaning out deadwood, and certainly the P3 arrangements are far less satisfactory than claimed…. But unless that broom took a much deeper sweep thru the Capital Projects organization, which seems to find three-car funeral processions as too big a challenge, I would say there hasn’t been much of a house cleaning.
BTW employment law pretty much discourages any public flogging of an employee who is fired for poor performance… which is why under current circumstances ML may stay silent but milk the PR value of the departures by inference. But the back story may be very different. I would not judge these .departing folks too harshly.
- Paul
This is certainly a very interesting commentary from a very credible observer
I spent 12 years as the public voice of Metrolinx. This is the real reason our megaprojects keep going off the rails
- Paul
I read and got the same impression. This looks at best like an introductory to the situation for people who have paid almost zero attention to Metrolinx in the past decade until very recent times where the media has finally covered their incompetence, to at worst little more than a self-absorbed windbag trying a PR career salvaging exercise because her personal brand is now so toxic.I think you're being charitable Paul.
I've used many words to describe A.M.A. over the years.......I don't think credible was ever one of them.
In fairness, she was paid to obfuscate, make use of bafflegab, and otherwise explain away or excuse the conduct of Mx.
Its wonderful that she's seen the light post-Mx..........
But really, most of her observations, where true, are widely known here, and not particularly profound.
The one clearly agreeable part is that it would be nice if there were more honesty and straight-forward discussion from project inception through completion.
But her observations to to why projects run amok..........are frankly, mostly wrong, in that they miss the key details.
For everything wrong with E.A.s the public project schedule for construction is rarely stated til after they're done.
Design changes post-construction are not typically about opulent design, but first about dealing with pre-tender E&O, and then later, about VE.
As someone with moderately good insight into various project details (on some projects)......there's lots we could discuss.......but I don't find AMA's commentary on point except in so far as politicians and civil servants
make things worse by hiding and ducking accountability.
It doesnt help that our governments at every level keep choosing to deal with inept firms despite them having clear as day evidence that they bungle projects up badly. These same firms then come back to these same governments asking them for more money to complete said project.A tiny bit off topic but this article brings up the insane cost of a lot of our infrastructure processes. I remember seeing Germany is spending half what we do per KM for new lines.
How do you justify the extra millions to 10 of millions over the low bidder to go to the next one because the low one has preform poorly with the 2nd one doing the same same thing????It doesnt help that our governments at every level keep choosing to deal with inept firms despite them having clear as day evidence that they bungle projects up badly. These same firms then come back to these same governments asking them for more money to complete said project.
[ie: At the municipal level Toronto keeps choosing Sanscon despite their abysmal record. At the provincial level we keep choosing AtkinsRealis (aka SNC-Lavalin), and Bondfield (before they went bellyup). At the Federal level we keep choosing Acciona and AtkinsRealis (which the Feds got exposed for with the SNC Lavalin scandal).]
Our governments choose to consistently ignore bad work, and they decide to go and reward inept and imcompetent firms. We then pay a price premium to fix defects, settle lawsuits, etc. It's not rocket science why infrastructure costs are shooting up more than they should, but since politicians cant do basic homework, we're all getting screwed for it.
I totally agree! Like I don't understand why the city won't take into account the quality of work 3 or 4 years later?It doesnt help that our governments at every level keep choosing to deal with inept firms despite them having clear as day evidence that they bungle projects up badly. These same firms then come back to these same governments asking them for more money to complete said project.
[ie: At the municipal level Toronto keeps choosing Sanscon despite their abysmal record. At the provincial level we keep choosing AtkinsRealis (aka SNC-Lavalin), and Bondfield (before they went bellyup). At the Federal level we keep choosing Acciona and AtkinsRealis (which the Feds got exposed for with the SNC Lavalin scandal).]
Our governments choose to consistently ignore bad work, and they decide to go and reward inept and imcompetent firms. We then pay a price premium to fix defects, settle lawsuits, etc. It's not rocket science why infrastructure costs are shooting up more than they should, but since politicians cant do basic homework, we're all getting screwed for it.
I think you're being charitable Paul.
I've used many words to describe A.M.A. over the years.......I don't think credible was ever one of them.
In fairness, she was paid to obfuscate, make use of bafflegab, and otherwise explain away or excuse the conduct of Mx.
Its wonderful that she's seen the light post-Mx..........
But really, most of her observations, where true, are widely known here, and not particularly profound.
The one clearly agreeable part is that it would be nice if there were more honesty and straight-forward discussion from project inception through completion.
But her observations to to why projects run amok..........are frankly, mostly wrong, in that they miss the key details.