ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[Bytor]

Kitchener-Waterloo is at the end of the day a small city. Moreover, public transit has poor modal share here relative to the size of the city. Canadian modal shares are typical for those of a Western European country, so Halifax clusters with Brescia, Lausanne, and Rennes, all similarly sized, at around 13-14%, c.f. KW at 7.5%.

Where do you get 7.5% transit modal share for K-W from? I can only see about 5% from StatCan.

[Bytor]

At this point, I feel about "ION should have been tunnelled through Downtown" the same way I feel about the suggestions that Stage 2 should run down Maple Grove or the 401.

Presenting an option that superficially seems like a good idea until you look at all the data and realize it's utterly ridiculous and either presented in bad faith or echoed by a person too uneducated to know that it is bad faith.

[bravado]

Just to be fair, just because we specifically can't do something because of corruption and waste and incompetence, doesn't mean that the idea is bad. Lots of places could have done the ION "the right way" and on-budget. We should have, but I know full well why we didn't/couldn't.

The ION is a big compromise that is in no way capable for the future, but the alternative was literally nothing, so I get it. I'm still just kinda sick of accepting mediocrity for the same price tag as excellence.

[ac3r]

At this point, I feel about "ION should have been tunnelled through Downtown" the same way I feel about the suggestions that Stage 2 should run down Maple Grove or the 401.

Presenting an option that superficially seems like a good idea until you look at all the data and realize it's utterly ridiculous and either presented in bad faith or echoed by a person too uneducated to know that it is bad faith.

Lmao. If only you could take a look at my CV hahah.

[dunkalunk]

At this point, I feel about "ION should have been tunnelled through Downtown" the same way I feel about the suggestions that Stage 2 should run down Maple Grove or the 401.

Presenting an option that superficially seems like a good idea until you look at all the data and realize it's utterly ridiculous and either presented in bad faith or echoed by a person too uneducated to know that it is bad faith.

Stage 2 should run down Homer Watson

[tomh009]

Just to be fair, just because we specifically can't do something because of corruption and waste and incompetence, doesn't mean that the idea is bad. Lots of places could have done the ION "the right way" and on-budget. We should have, but I know full well why we didn't/couldn't.

The ION is a big compromise that is in no way capable for the future, but the alternative was literally nothing, so I get it. I'm still just kinda sick of accepting mediocrity for the same price tag as excellence.

There probably was some waste or lack of competence (though whether it was any more than usual is a valid question) but I have seen absolutely zero indication of there having been any corruption in the construction or procurement of the ION LRT. Unless you have something substantial on that, let's please not throw that word (which has a very clear and specific meaning) around.

As it is, even the way it is built, it can still absolutely be better. The speeds can be improved in many sections without changing the tracks or the trains (Transport Canada cough cough) and, once the ridership merits it, we can first reduce headways and eventually upgrade to longer trains.

[bravado]

I use the word on purpose. Corruption doesn’t always mean the mafia and cash envelopes. I mean corruption in the sense that a public contract is $x per kg of concrete.

A private contract, with transparency and competition, is $0.5x per kg of concrete.

The status quo is still corruption and it shows in all of our inflated costs covered up by secret contracts. I’d love to dive into the estimated costs for Phase 2 to see why they’re so high - but we can’t, on purpose.

[the_conestoga_guy]

I use the word on purpose. Corruption doesn’t always mean the mafia and cash envelopes. I mean corruption in the sense that a public contract is $x per kg of concrete.

A private contract, with transparency and competition, is $0.5x per kg of concrete.

The status quo is still corruption and it shows in all of our inflated costs covered up by secret contracts. I’d love to dive into the estimated costs for Phase 2 to see why they’re so high - but we can’t, on purpose.

I don't think it's quite as malicious as this, but you're not wrong that the existing system for estimating costs isn't perfect.

Generally speaking, when contractors bid on the project, they provide a single all-in-one cost for their work. Their cost is an estimate based on previous work they've performed, along with other estimating tools.

Where I think it's flawed is that the contractor is then paid based off their percentage of completed work, rather than based off the actual cost of doing that work (materials + labour). For instance, a contractor may estimate that a road reconstruction costs $1m to complete, and they win the project because it's the lowest bid. But it may only cost $750k once everyone has been paid, so that last $250k is just excess profit (on top of the 'regular' profit that the contractor received on all of their markups on materials and labour).

This system is supposed to protect municipalities because if the project goes over-budget, then the contractor is on the hook for the extra cost. I'd prefer a system where the contractors are only paid for the work that they complete, but I'm not sure how such a system could be implemented.

[bravado]

Just in terms of simplicity I want to know what we paid for rails and concrete and labour costs - so that people up top can then go compare with other jurisdictions and bring costs down... Or citizen journalists can do it. Right now we give a bucket of cash to 1 contractor and ask them politely to not be too hard on us once it's all done.

If 1km of rail in Italy costs x and 1km of rail here costs 5x, I'd love for the experts to get an itemized list so we can go compare!

[ijmorlan]

This system is supposed to protect municipalities because if the project goes over-budget, then the contractor is on the hook for the extra cost. I'd prefer a system where the contractors are only paid for the work that they complete, but I'm not sure how such a system could be implemented.

If somebody can complete work more inexpensively than others, why shouldn’t they earn profit from it? Suppose roads regularly cost $1M/km to be built by existing contractors, then somebody comes along and starts bidding $0.9M/km, wins all the jobs, and delivers excellent results. Who cares if their costs are only $0.8M/km due to their clever methods? They’re still saving the government money compared to what was happening before.

In a competitive market, anybody who is able to do the work is able to bid and undercut anybody who is overcharging. Don’t forget, too, that a paving company has a lot of capital tied up in equipment so they need to make a significant profit in order to justify that. Otherwise they could just sell the equipment and buy T-bills and do just as well with less risk.

The government is perfectly free to buy paving machines and hire paving employees. I tend to think they should do more work in-house than they do, but I recognize that some things are better contracted out to specialty companies.

[tomh009]

I use the word on purpose. Corruption doesn’t always mean the mafia and cash envelopes. I mean corruption in the sense that a public contract is $x per kg of concrete.

A private contract, with transparency and competition, is $0.5x per kg of concrete.

The status quo is still corruption and it shows in all of our inflated costs covered up by secret contracts. I’d love to dive into the estimated costs for Phase 2 to see why they’re so high - but we can’t, on purpose.

I see what you are talking about. But that's not corruption. Oxford says: "dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving bribery" and that's not the case here. What you are looking for is transparency.

[panamaniac]

"Corruption" has morphed into "things I don't agree with" nowadays.

[creative]

"Corruption" has morphed into "things I don't agree with" nowadays.

Or “things that I have no idea what I am talking about”

[panamaniac]

"Corruption" has morphed into "things I don't agree with" nowadays.

Or “things that I have no idea what I am talking about”

Indeed.  That no longer prevents people from holding strong opinions.

[Bytor]

At this point, I feel about "ION should have been tunnelled through Downtown" the same way I feel about the suggestions that Stage 2 should run down Maple Grove or the 401.

Presenting an option that superficially seems like a good idea until you look at all the data and realize it's utterly ridiculous and either presented in bad faith or echoed by a person too uneducated to know that it is bad faith.

Stage 2 should run down Homer Watson

Good example! 🤣