Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s
- Thread starter JasonParis
- Start date
generalcanada
Senior Member
why is it so hard for people to understand that someone doing a bad job the first time would try to do better?
Why do you think the ontario line isnt a single package of work but like 10 litterally.
- downtown tunneling and stations
- trains tracks and systems and msf
- exhibition
- don yard portal
- east harbour
- shared corridor
- short pape tunnel and stations
- bridge over don valley
- elevated section and stations
all of theese are separate independent projects.
this is metrolinx learning from their mistakes. having a single package of work just doesnt work
The go expansion is doing the same thing.
Why do you think the ontario line isnt a single package of work but like 10 litterally.
- downtown tunneling and stations
- trains tracks and systems and msf
- exhibition
- don yard portal
- east harbour
- shared corridor
- short pape tunnel and stations
- bridge over don valley
- elevated section and stations
all of theese are separate independent projects.
this is metrolinx learning from their mistakes. having a single package of work just doesnt work
The go expansion is doing the same thing.
picard102
Senior Member
Why would they when they've suffered zero consequences?
T3G
Senior Member
So shady stuff is acceptable as long as it's your side that does it?
Why end here? Why not cut corners, skip out on or fudge safety critical investigations, lest any untoward findings end up slowing the projects down?
The very framing of these as "Ford's" itself leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Is this supposed to be a piece of critical infrastructure, or a vanity project? (Well, we know the answer to that question in regards to the SSE.)
crs1026
Senior Member
Just wait until someone tries to pry any information out of ML about how any of these work packages are progressing, let alone if they are on budget and schedule.
- Paul
generalcanada
Senior Member
“Recently, I was asked if I was going to fire an employee who made a mistake that cost the company $600,000. No, I replied, I just spent $600,000 training him. Why would I want somebody to hire his experience?”
– Thomas John Watson Sr., IBM
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Metrolinx went that way because no single consortium wanted to take the risk after the ECLRT and Ottawa LRT debacle without a serious premium. Also, breaking it down into separate contracts doesn't mean it is foolproof either - because it doesn't mean they are independent of knock-on effects from one another.
AoD
T3G
Senior Member
Are you saying that there is no one in the world but Metrolinx who might be able to deliver transit projects, or that another city might "poach" Metrolinx's "experience"?
I find both of these propositions to be highly dubious.
generalcanada
Senior Member
no im not saying metrolinx is like better than DB because they failed a project. im saying theyre better than they were before.
when someone makes a mistake or mismanages a project of course it looks bad, but if they come and learn from it and do better next time why do you want to lose that experience they gained? it doesnt make sense.
also the ttc ceo went to new york, i would in fact argue that other transit agencies are looking for highly talented people to manage their projects
i mean sure you hire DB to run metrolinx with international workers, i guess that works but thats not realistic
T3G
Senior Member
I don't see why we need to hire Metrolinx or DB to manage our transit systems. The TTC and GO were just fine for decades prior to.
Andy Byford is an example of someone who was competent at their job, so of course other transit agencies were interested in hiring him. I'm not sure I trust the judgment of anyone who would want to poach Rick Leary or Phil Verster.
Andy Byford is an example of someone who was competent at their job, so of course other transit agencies were interested in hiring him. I'm not sure I trust the judgment of anyone who would want to poach Rick Leary or Phil Verster.
generalcanada
Senior Member
well obviously not specific indiviuals. like ive seen so many times on this thread talking about trees. Metrolinx isnt a single person, there are tens of thousands of highly skilled contractors ,engineers and project managers who work for them. having that experience lost is what im talking about.
to say "consequences need to happen" to MX is litterally saying you want to fire and rehire all those people, Pointing back to the IBM quote, "i just spent 600,000 to train him"
again...doesnt make sense
as for ttc doing a "fine" job before. like sure, thats a separate arguement entirely though.
IMHO all transit should be owned by the province. theres no reason why we should be having cross-regional border transit issues like we do fare integration aside.
Again completely different topic but still...
T3G
Senior Member
I never said all of those people should be fired and rehired. The organization has been created, we are stuck with it, but there are other consequences that could've applied to them, not the least of which would have been them being forced to be open, transparent, and play by the rules.
This is why Osgoode Hall was such a big deal, it's not about the trees themselves, it's about how Metrolinx appear to be fulfilling their mandate of building transit without the faintest hint of honesty or accountability. The fact that there was no consultation process, and the fact that they went out into the park in the cold to cut down those trees, so that no one would see them, to get ahead of the injunction speaks volumes, as does the secrecy and lack of information about the various delays that have beset the Crosstown.
What is the point of having rules and processes if people can just decide to handwave them away if they believe their goal is worthy enough? Does democracy and transparency mean so little in this country? Why is transit so important that it means we're content with letting a shady corporation do whatever they like? The precedent this sets is profoundly alarming.
I highly disagree. This is a very large province, and expecting them to be able to cater to every single local need and issue is not realistic. For the same reason Glen from Thunder Bay doesn't get to decide when a street sign needs repainting in Ottawa, so, too, should he not get to make decisions about what should be done about the transit system.
generalcanada
Senior Member
well. i just straight up disagree.
- there was in fact "consultation" at multiple points throughout the last 5 years. just because they didnt go with the option you wanted doesnt mean that they didnt consult. Riverside realized this almost a full year ago now
- the internal timeline required them to cut the trees down now. Them cutting the trees in December was an engineering prerequisite to even the start of this tree cutting
- ive litterally heard that point made before like 2 weeks ago im not sure if it was you or someone else but what are you actually asking? LEGALLY they didnt have to do anything until the injunction order. but they did anyway "on good faith" note the difference when they went to the appeal court who directly told them to stop, the original judge didnt
- the crosstown delays are because the ford government doesnt want bad PR, Valve (creator of steam on pc) famously never gives timelines because they dont want to look bad when they miss them. Yaya theyre not a government organization, doesnt mean PR isnt a thing
- Again i too would love more transparency from metrolinx, like id love to see a detailed construction timeline, but at the same time a contractor could use that in ways im not knowledgeable enough to know about. thats why metrolinx keeps stuff close to themselves
"what is the mto for $100 alex"
you just proved my point, do you think the 401 should be managed by the individual cities it runs through?
Jonny5
Senior Member
I love how you're trying to grant Metrolinx absolution, but you still couldn't avoid putting consultation in quotes, because it wasn't consultation, it was declaration and a box-ticking exercise by some nobody PR staff who the decision makers probably have never even met before or since.
Just because they said they consulted doesn't mean they considered the results of it in any way shape or form. Please don't tell me you're so naive to actually think they ever did. The organisation as a whole is so weak and cowardly to ever accept the possibility they could be fundamentally wrong on anything. They even have to pay "influencers" (using quotes here deliberately) to tell everyone they are correct about everything. These are the actions of organisations with very sad cultures. I would think it an embarassment to work for Metrolinx.
picard102
Senior Member
That would apply if there was, again, any consequence for their "mistakes".