T3G
Senior Member
The opening date was never one that ML were going to achieve. If it wasn't for this, it would be something else.
| NEWS | DATABASE | MAP | FORUM | DASHBOARD |  |  | SERVICES | UTPro | LOG IN | CITIES |
|
|
|
max
Active Member
I dug back a bit in the thread and IMO the earliest sign of an issue is this post:
If one assumes the tracker's disappearance is related, then it likely reached it's current position sometime in May 2023.\\
EDIT:
Also by late November 2023 we've got a couple of public indications of where we are from Metrolinx that were shared on the thread. First is the intervention shaft near Brimorton:
Second is the location being north of the 401:
Last edited:
crs1026
Superstar
I have mulled about making noise around the concept of a legislative requirement to publicly divulge any “material change” to the status of a major transit project.
In the private sector, companies are required to disclose major events that impact or alter their earning potential - the point being that investors or potential investors rely on truthfull disclosure to make their investment decisions. Staying silent is arguably misleading these folks. (There is an interesting case currently before the Supreme Court where a mining company waited a month before disclosing that a mine had flooded…. They are in court over the month’s delay in disclosure - the argument being, a month was too long to wait - compare that to ML or TTC where something like this TBM failure may be a year or more under wraps.)
While one might say that principle only is relevant in the private sector - consider that shareholders have the right to attend annual general meetings, propose shareholder resolutions, vote out board members and senior execs, and even sue the board if their investments don’t perform as expected. Whereas taxpayers can clearly be ignored, and only get one shot at booting out politicians once rvery four years…. And have no direct leverage to deal with underperforming transit boards or executives. The per taxpayer investment amount for a transit project may exceed what people contribute to their RRSP annually, so why shouldn’t there be equivalent accountability and obligation to disclose?
In transit space, I would define a “material change” as a projected delay in end date of over six months from the original commitment, or a projected overspend of $100M or more…. Or perhaps 10% of total project cost. The point is, that impact is known much earlier in camera than in public.
I am certain that the Ford government would never endorse the idea, but without a legislative mandate that can be enforced in the courts, ML is never going to fess up.
Maybe the Opposition would consider as a private member’s bill…. They seldom are passed, but it would be a good way to make noise.
- Paul
Last edited:
reinventingthewheel
Active Member
It’s because the private sector stakeholders are given far too much leeway in the contracts they sign with Metrolinx. Publicizing performance issues is a disservice to their businesses, so it’s in their best interest to obfuscate the details and have everyone believe it’s business as usual (I say as I jiggle my mouse, selling the same lie to my employer).
Metrolinx doesn’t establish robust (desperately necessary) accountability mechanisms in their P3 contracts.There NEEDS to be clear performance indicators, reporting requirements that are directed to the public, not through back channels.
Forget about pressing Metrolinx for information on projects already in delivery, vehemently demand they stop yielding to private investors on future contracts and taking the fall for their shortcomings.
Last edited:
TOtramz
Active Member
2 thoughts:
Now that the station contract has been finalized and awarded for 2.5 bil to AECOM and the other company, station construction may begin soon, which begs this question if the TBM will be boring through partially completed stations?
Also, how much work is it really to get this thing unstuck? I think this might be the record for longest stuck TBM.
Now that the station contract has been finalized and awarded for 2.5 bil to AECOM and the other company, station construction may begin soon, which begs this question if the TBM will be boring through partially completed stations?
Also, how much work is it really to get this thing unstuck? I think this might be the record for longest stuck TBM.
chrisw
Active Member
@reinventingthewheel Ehhh, that sounds like you're giving Metrolinx a pass. I'd think it'd be Metrolinx choosing to keep tight lipped.
Aplus23
Active Member
Are they even going to start station construction before the tunnel is completed
NIV
New Member
With the TBM stuck under the 401 the province needs to step in and reevaluate the feasibility of this project as presently designed. Obviously we are going to be drastically over budget and many years behind schedule if we continue to forge through with this deep single bore TBM. Hopefully the media and opposition parties start asking questions. Let’s learn our lesson from the crosstown fiasco.
Allandale25
Senior Member
nfitz
Superstar
They wouldn't need to rebore everything. But they would need to redesign stuff. Order one or two new bespoke TBMs. Significantly modify the launch and recovery sites.
They've tunnelled about 1 km so far, in 2 years. There's still over 6 km to go.
But it seems unlikely that even at this point, it would be faster (or cheaper) to switch to dual bore tunnelling.
Kyle Campbell
Senior Member
They could switch to SEM to keep it as a single bore tunnel, if they really needed to
NIV
New Member
They are about 1km of the 8km’s. Could they transition to a dual bore at this stage? Not sure. The single bore made sense when it was a one stop subway, the 3 stop subway inherited the existing design. Never made sense with 3 stops, way too deep!
nfitz
Superstar
Not through the soils that they originally envision. There's probably 40-metres of head at certain locations!
Indeed. Lawrence East station in particular is completely absurd. With the earlier (3-station TTC) design, Lawrence West would have been a lot like Don Mills station. Very shallow with a bridge over Highland Creek just north of the station. Now it's 40 metres deep there. It was always expected to be the difficult spot with this final design - and very expensive now.
Last edited:
TOtramz
Active Member
micheal_can
Senior Member
Have we even heard of why there is a problem? Without knowing that, even a twin bore may not be the solution.
