News   Nov 30, 2022
 70     0 
News   Nov 30, 2022
 419     0 
News   Nov 30, 2022
 677     2 

Crosstown LRT | ?m | ?s

fanoftoronto

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
649
Reaction score
2,191
Location
Everywhere and Nowhere

Yes, Rob Ford wanted to bury the eastern surface portion and convert the entire line into heavy rail subway. This was then overturned by Karen Stinz to go back to the original plan.

But the original Transit City plan by David Miller and Adam Giambrone included the central section to be underground LRT.

Screenshot_20220925-222029.png
 

Bordercollie

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 20, 2020
Messages
1,477
Reaction score
1,020
Yes, Rob Ford wanted to bury the eastern surface portion and convert the entire line into heavy rail subway. This was then overturned by Karen Stinz to go back to the original plan.

But the original Transit City plan by David Miller and Adam Giambrone included the central section to be underground LRT.

View attachment 428951
So then if that was the original plan then what was the "comprise" that the mayor and Metronlinx came to? This is essentially the same as what got built.
 

fanoftoronto

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
649
Reaction score
2,191
Location
Everywhere and Nowhere
So then if that was the original plan then what was the "comprise" that the mayor and Metronlinx came to? This is essentially the same as what got built.

Mentioned in the article itself. The original funded plan from Transit City was for a partially underground Eglinton LRT, surface Shepard LRT, and surface Finch LRT. Ford changed that to have fully underground Eglinton LRT and Sheppard subway extended (through private funding).

The compromise mentioned in the article is to build the eastern portion of Eglinton LRT on the surface and use the savings to extend Sheppard subway to Victoria Park and to create some sort of transit along Finch.
 

nfitz

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 10, 2007
Messages
25,239
Reaction score
5,923
Location
Toronto
So then if that was the original plan then what was the "comprise" that the mayor and Metronlinx came to? This is essentially the same as what got built.
They did build the 2007/2008 Transit City plan for phase 1 of both Finch West and Eglinton. The only notable change is that Phase 1 stopped at Mount Dennis instead of the (elevated) station at Jane. Phase 2 of the Eglinton line from Scarlett to Renforth is what changed - going from surface to underground. Which also pushes back the completion from about 2024 to 2030.
 

Steve X

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 16, 2016
Messages
2,442
Reaction score
2,023
Yes, Rob Ford wanted to bury the eastern surface portion and convert the entire line into heavy rail subway. This was then overturned by Karen Stinz to go back to the original plan.

But the original Transit City plan by David Miller and Adam Giambrone included the central section to be underground LRT.

View attachment 428951
When did Rob Ford ever get ML to turn the line into heavy rail? The Flexity's were bought and the yard was already designed for LRVs. The line was to be linked with the SRT so heavy rail was near impossible at that time. The only agreement was to turn it into a tunnel using LRVs. ML then decided to pay a premium to reduce the order. As they love to do. They also reduced the order for Citadis when they cut the Hurontario Line's centre loop.

He only succeeded in getting the money spent on the Sheppard LRT grade separation with the Stouffville Line allocated towards ML's own RER expansion budget. Of course nothing was built on Sheppard and that money went towards Finch West instead to use up the Fed's committed funds before they revoke it. The money allocated towards Finch West is then "saved" allowing Queen's Park to uncommit funding to Sheppard East without getting roasted.

All the money "saved" went towards paying premiums for reduced orders and extra costs (e.g. towards Crosstown delays) and taxpayers got nothing in return. Should we be grateful of Queen's Park?
 
Last edited:

nfitz

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 10, 2007
Messages
25,239
Reaction score
5,923
Location
Toronto
When did Rob Ford ever get ML to turn the line into heavy rail? The Flexity's were bought and the yard was already designed for LRVs. The line was to be linked with the SRT so heavy rail was near impossible at that time. The only agreement was to turn it into a tunnel using LRVs.
The plan to extend the line using SRT happened after Rob Ford was elected. What they currently built is pretty much exactly what was planned before the 2010 election - as Fanoftoronto shows in their post above.

Which is the same as in the March 2010 TPA.
1664169731849.png
 

Steve X

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 16, 2016
Messages
2,442
Reaction score
2,023
The plan to extend the line using SRT happened after Rob Ford was elected. What they currently built is pretty much exactly what was planned before the 2010 election - as Fanoftoronto shows in their post above.

Which is the same as in the March 2010 TPA.
View attachment 428967
The map looks the same but the Kennedy Station layout would be modified.

An older post at Steve Munro's blog shows how the 3 lines were to connect to each other: https://stevemunro.ca/2016/07/05/reviving-the-scarborough-lrt-proposal/
This shows originally the SRT platform would be rebuilt to be underground with the Crosstown one level deeper. This deeper platform would likely not be built if the Crosstown and SRT were to be one line operationally.

Of course the SRT plans got scrapped and ML would save money by moving the Crosstown to where the SRT platform would be. The deeper platform is not built. This then led to another problem, the concourse is in the way to connect to the Eglinton East LRT.
 

felix123

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 4, 2016
Messages
486
Reaction score
835
They could've easily opened the Eastern above grade portion and terminate at science centere but in pursuit of their politcal ego verster insisted it all open at once... shame really..
Here's hoping ML/TTC has a change of heart. CBC is quoting about a yearlong delay, which is already bad enough to warrant an interim solution, in part because another severe delay for a GTA transit project will impact confidence in building future projects.
And if it's actually longer than a year, well, then it really needs a partial opening, no question about it.
 

robmausser

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 16, 2013
Messages
3,884
Reaction score
6,068
All the more reason to finish those two stations first.

The issues of the stations werent discovered until well into construction. It turned out the surveys that the TTC provided Metrolinx for underneath Eglinton station were very wrong, and they encountered a lot of unexpected utilities, concrete, garbage from the 1950s subway build etc. It was a disaster that they weren't expecting.
 

felix123

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 4, 2016
Messages
486
Reaction score
835
The issues of the stations werent discovered until well into construction. It turned out the surveys that the TTC provided Metrolinx for underneath Eglinton station were very wrong, and they encountered a lot of unexpected utilities, concrete, garbage from the 1950s subway build etc. It was a disaster that they weren't expecting.
All the more reason to pivot.
 

crs1026

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
8,372
Reaction score
14,771
The issues of the stations werent discovered until well into construction. It turned out the surveys that the TTC provided Metrolinx for underneath Eglinton station were very wrong, and they encountered a lot of unexpected utilities, concrete, garbage from the 1950s subway build etc. It was a disaster that they weren't expecting.

A similar situation happened with the “Big Becky” Niagara tunnel project. Its TBM encountered rock conditions that were different than what had been assumed/documented. Tunnelling came to a standstill for a time. The contractor took the position that this was an unforeseen that was outside the contract, the customer took a different position.

It doesn’t matter who is right or wrong….. The point is, the P3 project model is misrepresented by the political level as passing all risk to the private sector contractors, and insulating government from all risk. In fact, the contractual terms of a P3 leave some types of risks with government. There will always be some sort of dispute/claims process that sorts out these challenges, In theory, these claims processes should work effectively based on mutual understanding of the contract language and a willingness to settle up where necessary. Settlement out of court is always the better solution.

By not acknowledging and preparing the public for possible claims that go in the contractor’s favour, ML has painted itself into a political corner where it has to take public positions that may not win in court and (when ML ultimately is handed its share of the risk) there is political/public backlash. Engaging in political theatre by claiming that the contractor will be held accountable ( a sly way of pretending ML is blameless, when they may own some of the risk) is not really smart in the long term.

And then there will be the reality that if government aggressively dumps the economic impacts of unforeseens on the contractor, the contractor may just walk away. Even with P3, government must absorb the cost and impact of some things that go bump.

If ML had been reporting on progress more transparently, there might have been more acceptance of how things were going. The delay to this project is really fairly explainable, and not that untoward for a project of its size…. but a year is a long time for pundits and pols to grind it. It may only be one nail in ML’s coffin, but it won’t be forgotten soon.

- Paul
 
Last edited:

nfitz

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 10, 2007
Messages
25,239
Reaction score
5,923
Location
Toronto
A similar situation happened with the “Big Becky” Niagara tunnel project. Its TBM encountered rock conditions that were different than what had been assumed/documented. Tunnelling came to a standstill for a time. The contractor took the position that this was an unforeseen that was outside the contract, the customer took a different position.
Interesting - I can't imagine what they hit that would have been unexpected. I've heard of this in unconsolidated soils where they hit a very unexpected very large boulder.

But I've spent a lot of time dealing with Ordovician bedrock - and there's few surprises in such a small area.

Sounds more like incompetence to me. Which is part of a problem with a PPP which leaves too much of the design to a lowest bidder who often doesn't have the expertise, and doesn't want to pay to bring it in.
 

crs1026

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
8,372
Reaction score
14,771
Interesting - I can't imagine what they hit that would have been unexpected. I've heard of this in unconsolidated soils where they hit a very unexpected very large boulder.

IIRC they hit surprise pockets of softer shale, which tended to bring down the ceiling of the excavation beyond what harder rock would have done.

- Paul
 
Last edited:

pmacpherson68

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 12, 2015
Messages
30
Reaction score
27
In all fairness, those stations have a complex issue none of the other stations have. Underpinning an operational subway line. At Kennedy the platforms are parallel so they didn't have that problem, but Eglinton and Cedarvale both need extensive supports built to hold the Line 1 tunnel in place before any real construction below could begin. There's just a longer timeline to build these stations than any of the others. Doesn't excuse the mismanagement of the project Crosslinx has done here, but there's a reason why it's these two stations that are the problem. And Eglinton Station also has the additional element of moving the Line 1 platform northward, on top of everything else.
But in fairness, didn't they already use this as the last excuse for the delay? They knew all of this the last time they rescheduled the opening, so I don't see how they can re-use the same issue - its just an excuse for mismanagement at this point. I understand issues happen and projects are delayed, but if I used the same reason twice for delaying my projects, I would be out of a job.
 

Top