Toronto Spadina Subway Extension Emergency Exits | ?m | 1s | TTC | IBI Group

Here's one article on the theme.... there is all sorts of academic literature on the topic, most come to the same conclusion. Infrastructure projects are far riskier than anyone appreciates. The majority fail to meet targets for cost or timing. Where the work is contracted, this frequently doesn't mitigate this effectively. If anything, putting the work in contractors' hands tends to insulate these private contractors from risk.

http://www.infrastructure-intellige...jects-fail-find-out-why-and-how-do-them-right

I don't know enough about how the TTC has structured this project to comment on what teeth they might have, or whether they were asleep at the switch. Often it's a case of having to decide whether to fire the contractor (or a sub) and accept the added cost/delay of retendering - versus sticking with the non-performing vendor and trying to steer them so they get it right.

In theory a non-performing contractor ought to lose money on the work in the end, but if they see that coming they may default and leave the project in the lurch. It's a mug's game. I do think that early and detailed public oversight does help this process. Mr Byford's candour in the media is commendable. His report to the TTC Board (which is in the public domain) has alluded to these problems also.

This project has not been a roaring success but (so far) it appears to be on track to eventually deliver a properly built subway line, and in theory it's still close enough to budget. So I'd say it's not stellar but not a scandal either.

- Paul
 
One way to mitigate this, is not to simply award to the lowest bid, if they are in good standing.

Often, there's a reason they are the lowest bid. And if they have bid too low, they are going to be losing money, and will be looking for all sorts of corners to cut.

But everyone always thinks that the construction should be cheaper than it is ... and it's this pressue that leads to the working be done for the least amount of money possible, rather than being done expediently.
 
junctionist said:
Fast, good, cheap--pick any two. (But if you're hitting just one of those three objectives or none at all, you've got a serious problem.)
Click to expand...
TTC uses good and cheap. But good is hard to quantify - based on past performance. And few jobs this big to compare to.

The one thing TTC seems to be doing, is standing their ground, and not paying much extra money. While the project will be late, it may well be on, or near, budget.

And the voters of this city have made it clear time and time again, that cost is by far the biggest issue. (I'm being somewhat sarcastic here, given the meltdown some people had with the 2009 municipal strike!)
 
Last edited:
nfitz said:
TTC uses good and cheap. But good is hard to quantify - based on past performance. And few jobs this big to compare to.

The one thing TTC seems to be doing, is standing their ground, and not paying much extra money. While the project will be late, it may well be on, or near, budget.

And the voters of this city have made it clear time and time again, that cost is by far the biggest issue. (I'm being somewhat sarcastic here, given the meltdown some people had with the 2009 municipal strike!)
Click to expand...

Except the budget is so padded with contingencies that so called on budget is really not that great a performance. (It's like someone padding the schedule so much that no project would be delayed.) Oldest trick in the book - highball costs/time and coming under to look good.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Except the budget is so padded with contingencies that so called on budget is really not that great a performance. (It's like someone padding the schedule so much that no project would be delayed.) Oldest trick in the book - highball costs/time and coming under to look good.

AoD
Click to expand...

If, as Nfitz suggests, the two main criteria for TTC are good and cheap....the cheap part should ferret out over padding of construction budgets with contingencies....assuming the "good part is equal"=

Contingencies are not extraneous to budgets....they are an item in the budget so if the hard and soft costs for a project are $1B and one bidder includes a 10% contingency he would present a bid for $1.1B.......if his competitor tries to pad that budget with a 25% contingency they would submit a bid for $1.25B and, well, lose the bid.
 
TOareaFan said:
Contingencies are not extraneous to budgets....they are an item in the budget so if the hard and soft costs for a project are $1B and one bidder includes a 10% contingency he would present a bid for $1.1B.......if his competitor tries to pad that budget with a 25% contingency they would submit a bid for $1.25B and, well, lose the bid.
Click to expand...

Of course it is a line-item in the budget (and so it should be) - it doesn't mean that one should spend it if at all possible. I think there are industry standards on the percentage. That said, it's called contingency for a reason and having to dip into it all the time raises questions about just how much of a "contingency" it is.

AoD
 
nfitz said:
New York City. London. Montreal. Bangkok. Seoul. Just off the top of my head ...
Click to expand...

NYC/London aside (not comparable at all), did it cost those other cities 6 years to build 6 suburban stops?

The Blue Line in Bangkok took less than 8 years to construct (1996-2004), including delays due to the massive 1997 Southeast Asia financial crisis. And it has 18 stops, not 6 stops.
 
ksun said:
NYC/London aside (not comparable at all), did it cost those other cities 6 years to build 6 suburban stops?

The Blue Line in Bangkok took less than 8 years to construct (1996-2004), including delays due to the massive 1997 Southeast Asia financial crisis. And it has 18 stops, not 6 stops.
Click to expand...
Right, and I'm sure that the accident rate on Thai construction projects is probably 2 to 3 times as high as on Ontario construction projects.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Of course it is a line-item in the budget (and so it should be) - it doesn't mean that one should spend it if at all possible. I think there are industry standards on the percentage. That said, it's called contingency for a reason and having to dip into it all the time raises questions about just how much of a "contingency" it is.

AoD
Click to expand...

Question (because I don't know) in the fake example I used above, let's say the TTC awarded the contract to the company bidding to complete the work for $1.1B....is that what the TTC pays? Or if, say, the company did not use up their 10% contingency would the TTC get the project completed for $1B? On the other hand, if the losing company turns out to be right and the cost ends up being $1.25B does the TTC pay that even though they picked the $1.1B bid contractor?
 
GenerationW said:
But if ksun can use the line a year or two earlier, isn't that what really matters?
Click to expand...

What troubles me is that if we can't build a relatively simple suburban subway extension without having it fall years behind schedule and over budget, then what's gonna happen with a far more complex project like the DRL?
 
salsa said:
What troubles me is that if we can't build a relatively simple suburban subway extension without having it fall years behind schedule and over budget, then what's gonna happen with a far more complex project like the DRL?
Click to expand...

It's worrisome, definitely. Pioneer Village Station definitely sounds like there has been a problem.

But in general, perhaps we need to re-evaluate our budgets and schedules. Perhaps the schedule is flawed? Many construction timelines set for the tender are overly optimistic and unreachable. Just because something was set as the schedule, doesn't make it realistic or even achievable.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top