I'm not really sure what could be removed in order to cut costs though. As mentioned there is no building structure to speak of, save for a provision for a bus terminal (Imagine if they built the terminal...). Remove the maintenence level? Maybe, I honestly don't know why it's needed. Maybe we save on structural costs and get a pit and a platform as someone suggested. Still it's only $140 mill where other stations on this line are getting built for closer to $200 mill.
I think the major complaint should be the 30% cost overrun just at the planning stage. At just under $100 mill it may have been palatable, but the bump makes it less so. It's not just this station either it's virtually every station along the route has run into the same "problems" of high water table, etc, etc. Seriously were any professional engineering studies done for this area? Were the station costs intentionally low balled to get approval? Were the cost increases even due to the reasons cited? Or were they used a catch all for other reasons just to jack up the cost of the station? Was the overrun added in simply because the contingency fund is there so they figured we might as well take that as well?
With these sorts of questions I wonder if we shouldn't have an audit/review at the end of each of these projects to see for example, why something might have gone 30% over budget before even putting a shovel in the ground. I think we need that venue to be able to ask the project manangers why things like high water tables, etc were missed in the engineering studies. I'm sure there's usually very good reasons for the overruns but I think we should hear them.
