Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx

[officedweller]

If Metrolinx is opting for a procurement model that follows the "design, finance, build, operate and maintain" model, then obviously Metrolinx will NOT have detailed designs available because those details will be developed and provided by the proponents and each proponent might propose a design variant.

In many procurement cases, the "design" provided to the proponents is a "reference concept" not a micro-managed design that must be strictly adhered to. If that is the case, it would be inaccurate and misleading for Metrolinx to provide details to the public that may not end up being used.

That was the case with the Canada Line in Vancouver. The reference concept suggested bored tunnel, but the bid eventually chosen used shallower cut and cover tunneling. The reference alignment also suggested tunnels under the median of Cambie Street, but the accepted bid placed the tunnel under the northbound lanes instead, so a large hydro conduit did not have to be moved. Even the accepted bid evolved over time, using less stacked tunnel and more side-by-side tunnel than originally proposed.

So just because details are not being provided doesn't mean that they don't know what they are doing
- they just aren't doing it the way that TTC / City of Toronto has done things historically (micromanaging and procuring piecemeal).

 

[crs1026]

So just because details are not being provided doesn't mean that they don't know what they are doing
- they just aren't doing it the way that TTC / City of Toronto has done things historically (micromanaging and procuring piecemeal).

So...where in such a process do affected citizens get to have their input? Meaningfully?

The P3 vendor will choose the alternative that is most beneficial to them (It’s a fixed price deal, remember). They will have negotiated the deal in a way that insulates themselves from risk.

The whole principle of citizens in a democracy having to be transparently informed about alternatives, be consulted and have meaningful input before decisions are made, seems to have been stripped out of the process you describe.

- Paul

 

[smallspy]

So...where in such a process do affected citizens get to have their input? Meaningfully?

The P3 vendor will choose the alternative that is most beneficial to them (It’s a fixed price deal, remember). They will have negotiated the deal in a way that insulates themselves from risk.

The whole principle of citizens in a democracy having to be transparently informed about alternatives, be consulted and have meaningful input before decisions are made, seems to have been stripped out of the process you describe.

- Paul

It depends on how tightly or how loosely the contract is written.

In the case of the Canada Line in Vancouver, the terms were so loose as to allow a fundamental change in how the line was constructed, because the end result - an underground high-capacity transit line - was the same, and was all that was dictated in the contract.

Should IO want, they could create a tender that called for specific portions to be underground, others to be overground, and specific construction methods in specific spots. But considering that this is an organization that can't get construction companies to build hospitals properly, I'm not about to hold my breath on their ability to tender for complex projects such as rapid transit lines.

Dan

 

[crs1026]

It depends on how tightly or how loosely the contract is written.

In the case of the Canada Line in Vancouver, the terms were so loose as to allow a fundamental change in how the line was constructed, because the end result - an underground high-capacity transit line - was the same, and was all that was dictated in the contract.

Should IO want, they could create a tender that called for specific portions to be underground, others to be overground, and specific construction methods in specific spots. But considering that this is an organization that can't get construction companies to build hospitals properly, I'm not about to hold my breath on their ability to tender for complex projects such as rapid transit lines.

I have great confidence that bidders know how to write contracts so tightly that any public opposition can be ignored. The bidders won't want to be involved in, responsible for, or guided by any public debate. They will just get on with it as they see fit.

ML/IO may be incompetent, but on top of that they like things loose. Having the excuse "It wasn't our decision, under the terms of the P3 the contractor makes that decision" firewalls them from any accountability or transparency.

This is no way to design, build, operate, maintain or finance public infrastructure.

- Paul

 

[dad pad]

the important issue being highlighted in the ben spurr article and the steve munro post is not that the procurement contract is vague so that bidders can achieve the ultimate design goals in the way that they see fit. the issue is that metrolinx is privately discussing routing and design alternatives to property developers while giving meaningless pr exercises to members of the public in the form of 'open houses' that provide no real information or space for input

 

[Allandale25]

Latest post with a map by the local residents group.

But this is the map — based on information and data that Metrolinx has shared publicly, and info we’ve received from the TTC and City Council's Executive Committee — that shows how the Ontario Line's *current plan* impacts our community.

The group says that Metrolinx says that this map is inaccurate. The spacing is not to scale on the cross section.

Thoughts?

 

[Towered]

I don't know what words are appropriate to describe this...........obtuseness seems a good start if a less then fulsome indictment of Metrolinx.

Metrolinx Declines to Answer, Again

On Monday, February 3, both my recent NOW Toronto article about the Ontario line and my own Q&A with Metrolinx diving more deeply into the issues appeared. On the same day, Ben Spurr reported i…

stevemunro.ca

LOL! They keep digging their own grave - seriously, how are public servants in such crucial positions so unaware as to how corrupt this behavior looks to the average citizen? It's amazingly tone deaf.

The upper management at Metrolinx should all be fired over this simmering scandal.

 

[Northern Light]

LOL! They keep digging their own grave - seriously, how are public servants in such crucial positions so unaware as to how corrupt this behavior looks to the average citizen? It's amazingly tone deaf.

The upper management at Metrolinx should all be fired over this simmering scandal.

Wouldn't be the first time scandal has visited Mr. Verster's doorstep..........

Under-fire ScotRail chief in corporate gifts probe - The Sunday Post

RAIL chiefs have launched an investigation into claims that the under-fire boss of Scotland’s train network accepted hospitality and gifts from contractors, The Sunday Post can reveal.

www.sundaypost.com

Or that he was held in low regard for his job performance.

ScotRail boss resigns after pressure over firm's performance

Phil Verster’s departure for another rail job raises doubts about future of Scotland’s transport minister Humza Yousaf

www.theguardian.com

 

[Kitsune]

... if that map exists I wonder when thorncliffe is gonna dig up there piece of it.

edit:

That water mark is interesting on the lower corner - it is the South Riverdale Community Health Centre, https://www.srchc.ca/ . Why would there watermark be on the map ?

 

[Tommy521]

Latest post with a map by the local residents group.

The group says that Metrolinx says that this map is inaccurate. The spacing is not to scale on the cross section.

Thoughts?

I've done a quick check over the distances to the 'affected' buildings in google maps. Typical distance seems to be about 14m from the existing rail. I'm not as convinced with the overall impact assessment.

On one hand the northern portion is much closer to grade in this area and may have less effect as the rail bed may not need to extend so far. On the other hand the transition from both sides of the GO corridor to one side and underground will likely have a very large impact that is not shown on this map. Considering we do not know the underground method that will be used along Pape, it may be downplaying that while overestimating the impacts of the above ground portion of the line. Cut-and-cover would impact all the businesses and traffic along the line, while tunneling would require a large launch box likely located at the No-Frills (which, funnily enough, is not considered to be impacted here despite being a mere 5m from the rails!)

Near Gerrard-Carlaw dog park:

(Source: Google Maps)

For the southern section, it is higher above grade and if the rail bed is extended as shown it would definitely have a large impact on everything near the line. However, I would personally expect the bed to be extended using some form of reinforced soil with concrete wall liner, similar to what is shown below:

(Source: Reading Station Elevated Railway)
This would make for a much smaller footprint, and hopefully have less of an effect (ie. not demolishing the rec center). Whether or not this is a good idea in the long run, by essentially limiting the amount of future GO traffic that can travel through the corridor is not really for me to decide here.

Near McCleary Playground:

Long story short, yes it's very likely that the above ground portion would result in the loss of some businesses. But tell me, is this really any different than the underground line? With the underground line you're going to have launch shafts rather intrusively near Eastern Ave east of the Don, potentially causing traffic issues and road closures. You're going to have exit buildings dotting the line, 2 of which would be in the area looked at here. In addition Broadview, Carlaw, and Gerrard station would result in losing more businesses along the line than any of the above ground stations, which sound as though they will be relatively contained within the rail ROW.

I would say the largest impact of the above ground portion above the underground alignment will be the loss of parkland and trees. This is unfortunate, and cannot really be helped if the line is to be on the extended rail bed as shown.

EDIT: If people are interested, I would be willing to perform a more in depth assessment of the potential impacts using some of the open data building files for the area. That may be able to shed more light onto the issue compared to measuring in google maps.

 

[Allandale25]

^ Great feedback. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Northern Light]

I've done a quick check over the distances to the 'affected' buildings in google maps. Typical distance seems to be about 14m from the existing rail. I'm not as convinced with the overall impact assessment.

****

EDIT: If people are interested, I would be willing to perform a more in depth assessment of the potential impacts using some of the open data building files for the area. That may be able to shed more light ontthe issue compared to measuring in google maps.

Good post.

Love to see more work from you on this.

I would love to know the underlying assumptions Metrolinx is making.

1) How many tracks in the corridor? As they already envision adding a 4th for GO, and the OL would require dedicated track, presumably a minimum of 6.

I question whether or not in VIA with HFR may also require its own track.

2) What platform width are they allowing for? With the service frequency they are contemplating, you need a massive amount to/from platform capacity in addition to space on the platform itself.

3) How much extra space is allowed for to support 3rd rail?

4) Has space for future electrification of GO and associated catenary been factored in?

 

[innsertnamehere]

Via with HFR would not be using this stretch of track, BTW.

 

[Allandale25]

Tweets from reporters who were at Mulroney's speech just now.

• Mulroney says government will require owners of property adjacent to transit projects to require permits for work that could affect transit. Mulroney says government will require owners of property adjacent to transit projects to require permits for work that could affect transit.
• New law would require builders to acquire a permit for any development that could interfere with transit construction;
• Metrolinx to be given new powers to coordinate utility relocations;
• New authority to assemble land for transit projects - presumably, changes to expropriation law;
  • Minister says government will “modernize” the process of assembling lands for transit projects (read expropriation). She says property owners’ rights will still be respected.
• Also, changes to environmental assessment law to smooth the way for priority transit projects.
  • Minister says the current environmental approval process “does not offer the flexibility needed” to get transit built quickly. Changes coming, but this “does not mean that we intend to relax any environmental protections.

 

[leopetr]

Via with HFR would not be using this stretch of track, BTW.

I'm pretty sure it would be if Via with HFR is going to stop at Toronto Union station. The only alternatives to this stretch of track are a new tunnel or the CP mainline through Summerhill. Via with HFR is not going to run down the Richmond Hill GO line.