News   Nov 28, 2024
 3     0 
News   Nov 27, 2024
 811     4 
News   Nov 27, 2024
 692     1 

GO Transit: Construction Projects (Metrolinx, various)

SMH why does it take so long to do stuff here?!

The correct answer to this is that Metrolinx lacked experience. These bits (and more) should all have been included in the last round of EAs resulting in a successful tender process instead of the bidders kicking it back as impractical to achieve. When you do the process 2 or 3 times, it starts getting really really long.

They can run an EA on something and not build all or part of it. TTC regularly includes extra pieces in their EAs (such as land expropriation which might be useful for construction) which they sometimes the bidder doesn't end up using; Metrolinx hasn't been doing that.

The process CDPQ followed for REM isn't much different; but they only did it once.
 
Last edited:
The correct answer to this is that Metrolinx lacked experience. These bits (and more) should all have been included in the last round of EAs resulting in a successful tender process instead of the bidders kicking it back as impractical to achieve. When you do the process 2 or 3 times, it starts getting really really long.

They can run an EA on something and not build all or part of it. TTC regularly includes extra pieces in their EAs (such as land expropriation which might be useful for construction) which they sometimes the bidder doesn't end up using; Metrolinx hasn't been doing that.

The process CDPQ followed for REM isn't much different; but they only did it once.

The CDPQ also gave out immediate cash flow, where Ontario likes to give it out slowly piecemeal over many years. I think its easier to cook the books that way.
 
I was getting excited when I read notice of completion.... only to be quickly squashed back to reality when it was followed by assessment process..šŸ˜’... SMH why does it take so long to do stuff here?!

This from the report intriuges me:

  • electrification of a portion of the Richmond Hill GO Rail Corridor up to Pottery Road in the City of Toronto.

I was told that the reason the RH line cant have electrification was because the initial section gets flooded by the Don River and needs to be rebuilt first.

Now, I know this is electrification of the CP Don Branch, but I assumed those two tracks shared a similar space up until a point, which was where the flooding issue was.
 
This from the report intriuges me:



I was told that the reason the RH line cant have electrification was because the initial section gets flooded by the Don River and needs to be rebuilt first.

Now, I know this is electrification of the CP Don Branch, but I assumed those two tracks shared a similar space up until a point, which was where the flooding issue was.
The electrification will occur in areas that will be protected by the lower don flood prevention project, and its only there because of the space available for a layover facility.
 
Speaking of all of this, does anyone have a progress update on the double tracking of Stouffville and Barrie lines?
 
Speaking of all of this, does anyone have a progress update on the double tracking of Stouffville and Barrie lines?
The 2nd track is mostly in place in most of the Stouffville Line corridor, and the stations from Kennedy to Unionville are now on new or temporary platforms that use the new tracks, while the old platforms are getting reconstructed. As for the Barrie Line, Double tracking and new platforms should start sometime next year.
 
The correct answer to this is that Metrolinx lacked experience. These bits (and more) should all have been included in the last round of EAs resulting in a successful tender process instead of the bidders kicking it back as impractical to achieve. When you do the process 2 or 3 times, it starts getting really really long.

It's curious that the report documents switch placements in such detail. It's the first time I have ever seen ML include this issue in a TPAP. Possibly it's the underlying earthmoving that requires an EA, I'm not sure how reconfiguring an interlocking requires an EA.

It would be interesting to know what the peer review process on the original EA's and the procurement document consisted of. The revisions do look like someone pointed out a bunch of things that got missed the first time. Or, ML changed its mind about things. The former is a sign of inexperience, where the latter is a sign of scope creep and an undisciplined procurement process.

- Paul
 
^ Wasn't it also stated in the past that the OnCorr bidders also provided feedback during the RFP process? So isn't it possible that some of these changes/revisions/new aspects came from the bidders?
 
^ Wasn't it also stated in the past that the OnCorr bidders also provided feedback during the RFP process? So isn't it possible that some of these changes/revisions/new aspects came from the bidders?

Iā€™m sure they did. Itā€™s an odd place to pick up ā€œfree adviceā€, however. Especially after ML declaring some hefty budgets for consulting and Ownerā€™s Engineer activities.

- Paul
 
Iā€™m sure they did. Itā€™s an odd place to pick up ā€œfree adviceā€, ...

Were they not paid for their design work? RFP prequalification typically includes some type of payment for design work completed as part of the RFP bid which Metrolinx would own even if they do not complete a bid.

Definitely unusual but for a project of that scale with 4 bidders it likely cost them at least $200M ($50M each bid).
 
Last edited:
Were they not paid for their design work? RFP consortium selection typically includes some type of payment for design work completed as part of the bid which Metrolinx would own even if they do not complete a bid.

Definitely unusual but for a project of that scale with 4 bidders it likely cost them $200M.

They are paid for putting together their proposals, yes.

I'm not an expert, but I would have thought that the process would allow them to document areas requiring negotiation after selection, or areas where their bid assumed a variance from the contract spec, as part of their bid submission. That would likely mean they would take the "as built" track and model the service plan ML has laid out, and might well have concluded that the plan wasn't deliverable without changing the physical plant.

If ML has already found the feedback compelling enough to take on this work themselves, and if these concerns are generic enough to all bidders that the work retains a "level playing field" for bidders - that's interesting at least. I would be asking why the design and review process didn't identify those items as necessary, given that ML is defining the service plan.

The switch documentation stands out - it's a case of adding more crossovers in different locations, to the uninformed eye the changes provide additional flexibility and throughput. Having ML do the work may mean they can finance differently, or the ownership of assets is somehow different, or maybe vendors don't care to accept the risk of messing with specialised signal and track infrastructure, and want that left to some other specialised contractor.

I can certainly see why vendors especially those in the operations and maintenance business would want to assume a finished plant, and stay out of the construction relationship with regulators, land owners, neighbours, etc. But if I recall the vendor consortiums all had construction firms on their team, and the "Finance" element of DBFOM was there to pay for whatever changes the vendor found was needed to operate to the ML service spec.

- Paul
 
  • Like
Reactions: rbt
I hate to say it, but the limiting factor will be parking availability at the various stations, Bring on the garages.
If you do the math, you can't build enough parking spots to meaningfully contribute to ridership. I'm fine with parking, if people pay the full cost to operate the parking.
 
In reviewing the APPENDIX A1 - Conceptual Corridor Plans (PDF) (from here as posted above) I see a few places where it says "track upgrade". Anyone know what it means when it says things like 2.45 to 2.60 or 20.44 to 20.80? cc @smallspy @crs1026 (pictures below of LSW examples) UPDATE: never mind. I believe it's referring to the mile marker start/finish points for the upgrades/new track.
1609357430328.png


1609357402425.png
 

Attachments

  • 1609357379056.png
    1609357379056.png
    1 MB · Views: 211

Back
Top