Leo_Chan
Senior Member
Now that would just make a ton of sense wouldn't it?
Plus the added bonus of serving the nearby Lakeshore campus of Humber.
All amazing ideas! However, they just make too much sense, therefore they won't be implemented.
|
|
|
GO Transit: Construction Projects (Metrolinx, various)
- Thread starter drum118
- Start date
All amazing ideas! However, they just make too much sense, therefore they won't be implemented.
raptor
Senior Member
Proposal No. RQQ-2017-CRHS-144
Technical Advisory Services during Construction of the Stouffville Stations AFP and Steeles Ave Grade Separation
Metrolinx is accepting bids (“Submissions”) from consultants for the provision of Technical Advisory Services during construction of the Stouffville Stations AFP and Steeles Ave Grade Separation Project, as more particularly described in the Request Document which includes, but not limited to:
Request enquiries and other communications are to be directed to the Procurement Representative Ms. Nicki Bregolin at (416) 202–7504, or Nicki.Bregolin@metrolinx.com
Request to Qualify and Quote Documents are available online at www.metrolinx.merx.com.
Submissions will be accepted until 3:00 p.m. on March 27, 2018 using electronic bid submission (EBS) and will be opened by Metrolinx staff as soon as is practicable after the designated Closing. Details on where and when vendors can obtain information on bids received, prices bid and contract awards will be specified in each tender document.
Please note, effective Monday, February 10th, 2014 for any newly issued tenders Metrolinx will no longer be conducting Public Openings.
Metrolinx reserves the right to reject any or all Request submissions at its sole discretion.
Consultants who possess the following experience and qualifications will be considered for award of this Contract:
Technical Advisory Services during Construction of the Stouffville Stations AFP and Steeles Ave Grade Separation
Metrolinx is accepting bids (“Submissions”) from consultants for the provision of Technical Advisory Services during construction of the Stouffville Stations AFP and Steeles Ave Grade Separation Project, as more particularly described in the Request Document which includes, but not limited to:
- Design and Construction Submission Review
- Compliance and Quality Oversight, Audits and Testing
- Site Activity and Schedule Monitoring
Request enquiries and other communications are to be directed to the Procurement Representative Ms. Nicki Bregolin at (416) 202–7504, or Nicki.Bregolin@metrolinx.com
Request to Qualify and Quote Documents are available online at www.metrolinx.merx.com.
Submissions will be accepted until 3:00 p.m. on March 27, 2018 using electronic bid submission (EBS) and will be opened by Metrolinx staff as soon as is practicable after the designated Closing. Details on where and when vendors can obtain information on bids received, prices bid and contract awards will be specified in each tender document.
Please note, effective Monday, February 10th, 2014 for any newly issued tenders Metrolinx will no longer be conducting Public Openings.
Metrolinx reserves the right to reject any or all Request submissions at its sole discretion.
Consultants who possess the following experience and qualifications will be considered for award of this Contract:
- Demonstrated experience in administering Design Build ("DB") or Public Private Partnerships (“P3”) or Alternative Finance and Procurement (“AFP”) construction contracts with individual budgets over $250 million.
- Minimum five (5) years of demonstrated experience both nationally and internationally in design, construction support and project management of large transit infrastructure projects including but not limited to transportation facilities, structures, track, bridges, tunnels, relocation of major utilities, and other significant civil work.
- Minimum five (5) years of demonstrated experience with construction projects undertaken on a facility which continues to operate during major construction.
- Demonstrated experience in design and construction of multi-disciplinary rail engineering, civil engineering, site servicing, traffic management, lighting and project management
- Demonstrated experience in the management of utility companies, specifically Category 1 Utility Companies.
- Demonstrated experience in projects where different levels of government and municipal agencies are stakeholders.
- Demonstrated experience in providing similar technical advisory services for major infrastructure projects relevant to the Services required under this RQQ Process.
hw621
Senior Member
What is this for? I believe that the construction is starting this year.
Leo_Chan
Senior Member
raptor
Senior Member
The RFP closed on September, 2017, and the winning bidder hasn't been announced yet
hw621
Senior Member
I read this, but not being an engineer don't really know what technical advisory means. It seems to me that ML is hiring someone to build the thing and now hiring someone else to tell them them that the builder is doing the right thing? Then what do we pay ML the big bucks for?
Leo_Chan
Senior Member
That's exactly what's going on. Gotta pay big bucks in order to pay big bucks in order to give big orders in order to do big orders in order to get big results in order to use said big results.
crs1026
Superstar
^Bingo. A lot of the attraction to the AFP process is it firewalls politicians and bureaucrats from being called on the carpet when things go wrong.
Actually, it’s standard for the buyer in a large contract to have an “Owners’ Engineer” who monitors the contractor and does things to assure that the vendor is complying with the contract, which may include verifying the engineering work done by the contractor. Also, no contract or design is perfect and the contractor is likely to come back to ML at various points and ask for direction on minor design questions or unforeseens - which may turn out to be not minor! Again, ML will need expertise to do the careful thinking to be able to give sound direction and to look out for its interests. Trust, but verify applies.
At least, I hope that’s what the contract is for. ML’s budget is so large and its accountability so poor that these contracts get used to study all sorts of things. Over the years, ML/GO have done studies and designs on all sorts of things that never see the light of day. I am always suspicious that these tenders have an element of ‘slush funding’ to them. That may sound paranoid, but I know too many engineers who make very good livings studying miscellaneous things for GO.
- Paul
Actually, it’s standard for the buyer in a large contract to have an “Owners’ Engineer” who monitors the contractor and does things to assure that the vendor is complying with the contract, which may include verifying the engineering work done by the contractor. Also, no contract or design is perfect and the contractor is likely to come back to ML at various points and ask for direction on minor design questions or unforeseens - which may turn out to be not minor! Again, ML will need expertise to do the careful thinking to be able to give sound direction and to look out for its interests. Trust, but verify applies.
At least, I hope that’s what the contract is for. ML’s budget is so large and its accountability so poor that these contracts get used to study all sorts of things. Over the years, ML/GO have done studies and designs on all sorts of things that never see the light of day. I am always suspicious that these tenders have an element of ‘slush funding’ to them. That may sound paranoid, but I know too many engineers who make very good livings studying miscellaneous things for GO.
- Paul
Allandale25
Senior Member
TVO column here on the new station material realized yesterday, constraints at Union Station:
https://tvo.org/article/current-aff...xs-revised-go-train-plans-pass-the-smell-test
https://tvo.org/article/current-aff...xs-revised-go-train-plans-pass-the-smell-test
hw621
Senior Member
Sounds like if we are not doing the studying for ML/GO, we are in the wrong business LOL
crs1026
Superstar
That article lays the whole thing out well. But to beat a not-yet-dead horse - if ML’s latest model is saying that most of the potential customers at Park Lawn are already heading to Mimico, and moving the station will not add more riders, I’m gobsmacked.
There are two different station analyses required. One is whether growth in development in the 905 now justifies adding intermediate stops to the original service plan, and what is the optimal spacing of these, given that (for now) the primary consideration is linking these places to the downtown.
The other is what the optimal spacing and placement of stations is within the 416, to best integrate GO to its municipal transit. This needs to be a whole blank sheet look at all the GO stations within the 416. It’s quite reasonable that GO might need to move stations around to match today’s transit flows and development, which has changed a lot since the original GO stations were placed in 1967. That may abandon capital invested in the original stations, but it is necessary. York U is one example, Etobicoke North is another, and Mimico is another. UPE at Weston is another. There will be winners and losers.
I deplore politicians mucking around in this - but - ML is not a law unto itself. It’s a bureaucracy, and its studies and analyses will need challenge otherwise all the usual dysfunctions of bureaucracy will prevail. There is nothing wrong with Humber Bay making political noise, just as Davenport residents had to in order to mitigate what ML wanted to do to them. Residents have a right to seek an override when the bureaucracy fails them.
Yeah, I can see a Park Lawn street sign from my front porch, so I’m partisan, but I don’t think this community is being selfish.
- Paul
Last edited:
Allandale25
Senior Member
^ Overall, and just throwing this question out there, why didn't Metrolinx provide this level of analysis when the station list was first presented. Wasn't there two reports where there was a large list, then a smaller one which is where Kirby being re-added was the issue in question for the Star's article last year. Now that there is a further revised list, I wonder if the learning lesson here is that given how focus people can get on stations and their cost and travel time implications, the first analysis should be as detailed as possible? What's the learning lesson here for Metrolinx if any?
Won't there always be a risk of politicians in government of any party getting involved? And that's not meant as a judgement of what may or may not have happened here. It just looks messy overall.
Won't there always be a risk of politicians in government of any party getting involved? And that's not meant as a judgement of what may or may not have happened here. It just looks messy overall.
crs1026
Superstar
Lessons for ML? Transportation is no longer a government utility that can function in the background, like the waterworks or animal control. It is front and center as a political issue, just like garbage collection, speed limits on residential streets, development proposals, etc. All the usual processes by which citizens make their desires known have to be respected.
The normal principle of good government applies: City or Ministry staff provide objective, independent analysis and data collection, often applying professional techniques and models which transcend individual jurisdictions and may have professional accountabilities. The public has broad rights to challenge these recommendations and the basis on which they were reached. Elected officials then debate and decide what to do, guided by - but not obliged to comply with - staff recommendations.
What has gone wrong in this case is - DD saw a political opportunity and overruled staff for his own purposes and not through a legitimate process involving residents or taxpayers. If he had received delegations, petitions, angry residents turning out at town halls, we might see the result as an elected representative applying their decisionmaking authority and being guided by community input. Some pols are certainly self serving in their decisions, and we are often suspicious about the positions they take, but they are empowered to make those calls.
The other thing that went wrong was ML thinking that the decision was theirs to make if they had the right study. Studies are not gospel.
ML’s analysis may be sound, but it cannot just present its plans and expect elected reps to just rubber stamp them. In the past, voters didnt turn out to challenge debate GO stations. These days they do. That’s a good thing. Politicians have to take all the inputs - staff, community, and even noisy whiny UTers - and make the best call they can. There will always be tension...Ford vs Webster, Tory vs Keesmaat....what’s critical is the analysis must be honest and the pols must be transparent.
- Paaul
Last edited:
Filip
Senior Member
Verster said Park Lawn has the highest benefit to cost ratio of the new Toronto stations going in.
We knew that 5 years ago but goodness me citizens must be wrong. We are just selfish.
We knew that 5 years ago but goodness me citizens must be wrong. We are just selfish.
torontocolin
Active Member
I believe it's Confederation GO.