[smallspy]

We need to compare metropolitan population figures: London‘s is 543k (earning it rank #11 among the CMAs in Canada), which only equals that of Reggio Calabria (rank #13 within Italy and I‘m fairly certain that it has only one major rail station), whereas Florence‘s is a sliver above a million (ranking it the ninth-largest metropolitan city in Italy):

Metropolitan cities of Italy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And by that same perspective, Toronto has not two interregional stations but instead 6.

Dan

 

[micheal_can]

For perspective: the Ontario line is 15km, has been under construction for multiple years, and still won’t open by 2030. This is an underdeveloped proposal for a rail project 50 times the length, at least 10 times the length for an initial phase.

In five years we may have a half-detailed design draft. From there it will take more time to flesh out and secure funding. Regardless of whether it is privately or publicly funded, there won’t be extra money invested to rush the construction.

So, if we threw more money at it, we could get it done faster?

 

[generalcanada]

So, if we threw more money at it, we could get it done faster?

to be clear, we are talking about 2 different steps. the "detailed design stage" and "permitting stage".

Both federal candidates have only talked about hastening the duplicate permits required by federal and local agencies.

Like for example how many trees will need to be cut down, we dont know that yet, but once we do thats when shovels can be put into the ground.

Using the Ontario line as an example, It was announced in 2018 with permits and environmental reviews completed before construction started in 2022. Note that detailed design was completed by the contractor for the stations rails and systems after the contract was signed. https://www.renewcanada.net/design-on-pair-of-ontario-line-subway-stations-reaches-milestone/
GO expansion while sitting in development hell for 20 years signed a development agreement in 2022. Environmental permits were done years ago. Detailed design was started only when the contract was signed 3 years ago with construction starting this year.

Use that as a baseline. they say 5 years, but if you threw money at it, you could probably do it in 3 and a half. but that would be pushing it. Detailed design takes a long time

This is also what I mean by saying this isnt just another study. This is the real deal.

 

[micheal_can]

to be clear, we are talking about 2 different steps. the "detailed design stage" and "permitting stage".

Both federal candidates have only talked about hastening the duplicate permits required by federal and local agencies.

Like for example how many trees will need to be cut down, we dont know that yet, but once we do thats when shovels can be put into the ground.

Using the Ontario line as an example, It was announced in 2018 with permits and environmental reviews completed before construction started in 2022. Note that detailed design was completed by the contractor for the stations rails and systems after the contract was signed. https://www.renewcanada.net/design-on-pair-of-ontario-line-subway-stations-reaches-milestone/
GO expansion while sitting in development hell for 20 years signed a development agreement in 2022. Environmental permits were done years ago. Detailed design was started only when the contract was signed 3 years ago with construction starting this year.

Use that as a baseline. they say 5 years, but if you threw money at it, you could probably do it in 3 and a half. but that would be pushing it. Detailed design takes a long time

This is also what I mean by saying this isnt just another study. This is the real deal.

Is there a way to speed up this study? For instance, if 100 people are working on it, would 200peopleworkign on it make it that much faster? Or, if it costs $1 million to do it, would doubling it to $2million speed it up by that much too? Or is it our regulations that are slowing it down?

 

[reinventingthewheel]

Is there a way to speed up this study? For instance, if 100 people are working on it, would 200peopleworkign on it make it that much faster? Or, if it costs $1 million to do it, would doubling it to $2million speed it up by that much too? Or is it our regulations that are slowing it down?

In general, you can speed up any design period by just accepting a poor design, spending less time on refinement. But this leads to big risks in the development, namely by way of cost overruns and schedule slip (so it’s usually counterproductive).

A quick design may use very rough (inaccurate) estimates. It may not meet the acceptance criteria of stakeholders and regulatory bodies. Engineering and construction is heavily regulated to ensure all the boxes are ticked to prove the design before anything gets built (eg. environmental, geological, structural assessments).

Further, a design needs to captivate investors / stakeholders. It needs to be sold with limited/manageable risk and reasonable ROI (whether by profits to private investors or a public boost in well being / economic productivity).

 

[micheal_can]

In general, you can speed up any design period by just accepting a poor design, spending less time on refinement. But this leads to big risks in the development, namely by way of cost overruns and schedule slip (so it’s usually counterproductive).

A quick design may use very rough (inaccurate) estimates. It may not meet the acceptance criteria of stakeholders and regulatory bodies. Engineering and construction is heavily regulated to ensure all the boxes are ticked to prove the design before anything gets built (eg. environmental, geological, structural assessments).

Further, a design needs to captivate investors / stakeholders. It needs to be sold with limited/manageable risk and reasonable ROI (whether by profits to private investors or a public boost in well being / economic productivity).

In my world, I have heard the saying you can have things: good, cheap, or fast. You can only pick 2. So, if it is good and cheap, it won;'t be fast. If it is cheap and fast, it won't be good. And, if it is good and fast, it won't be cheap. That last one is the one I want. I want it good. I want it fast. I know it won't be cheap. From what you are saying, that is not how this could work.

 

[generalcanada]

In my world, I have heard the saying you can have things: good, cheap, or fast. You can only pick 2. So, if it is good and cheap, it won;'t be fast. If it is cheap and fast, it won't be good. And, if it is good and fast, it won't be cheap. That last one is the one I want. I want it good. I want it fast. I know it won't be cheap. From what you are saying, that is not how this could work.

His answer went in a different direction, Thinking you could push the designs to be done quicker. Its 1 thought. not a good one obviously.
The other option is what you pointed out, just hiring 2 engineers instead of 1 to do tasks sequentially.

Engineering work isnt really something that is normally done like that. Usually its things like "soil conditions"... "check"..."tunnel designs"..."check.

Doing it the way youre thinking is not standard and more likely to cause issues than just letting it be.

Others like urbansky can pipe in on more detailed aspects of this.

 

[micheal_can]

His answer went in a different direction, Thinking you could push the designs to be done quicker. Its 1 thought. not a good one obviously.
The other option is what you pointed out, just hiring 2 engineers instead of 1 to do tasks sequentially.

Engineering work isnt really something that is normally done like that. Usually its things like "soil conditions"... "check"..."tunnel designs"..."check.

Doing it the way youre thinking is not standard and more likely to cause issues than just letting it be.

Others like urbansky can pipe in on more detailed aspects of this.

There is/was an issue with a TBM stuck under the 401 for the extension of Line 2. It was stuck due to soil conditions.So, that 'check' was done in error? The way we are doing things does not work. So, maybe the standard way needs to be rethought? Doing things the same way "because we have always done it this way" is never a good thing. I welcome @urbansky's view on this

 

[Urban Sky]

The other option is what you pointed out, just hiring 2 engineers instead of 1 to do tasks sequentially.

Engineering work isnt really something that is normally done like that. Usually its things like "soil conditions"... "check"..."tunnel designs"..."check.

Doing it the way youre thinking is not standard and more likely to cause issues than just letting it be.

Others like urbansky can pipe in on more detailed aspects of this.

A large number of tasks needs to be done sequentially: you can’t start planning the position of electrification poles without knowing where the tracks will be. A large part of my own job is wasted requesting details and answers. The only thing which will help here is the implementation of “digital twins”, i.e., a Master Model in which all changes are applied in real time. But then you always have countless options and variants, so you’d probably need dozens of digital twins. It’s difficult to overestimate the complexity here…

 

[micheal_can]

A large number of tasks needs to be done sequentially: you can’t start planning the position of electrification poles without knowing where the tracks will be. A large part of my own job is wasted requesting details and answers. The only thing which will help here is the implementation of “digital twins”, i.e., a Master Model in which all changes are applied in real time. But then you always have countless options and variants, so you’d probably need dozens of digital twins. It’s difficult to overestimate the complexity here…

With your background, if someone said they want the time it takes to be cut in half,do you see a way it could be done while still doing the due diligence needed?

 

[generalcanada]

There is/was an issue with a TBM stuck under the 401 for the extension of Line 2. It was stuck due to soil conditions.So, that 'check' was done in error? The way we are doing things does not work. So, maybe the standard way needs to be rethought? Doing things the same way "because we have always done it this way" is never a good thing. I welcome @urbansky's view on this

Doing bore-hole drilling can only get you so far. This thing will happen like what happened in Seattle some time back. It happens. how to fix it? cut-n-cover LOL easier and faster too

 

[micheal_can]

Doing bore-hole drilling can only get you so far. This thing will happen like what happened in Seattle some time back. It happens. how to fix it? cut-n-cover LOL easier and faster too

So, in our efforts to lower the impact of the construction, we have added a level of complexity that is slowing down the project?

 

[generalcanada]

So, in our efforts to lower the impact of the construction, we have added a level of complexity that is slowing down the project?

Impact and complexity are inversely co-related.
The more impact, the less complex it is.
Downtown aside, but if you wanna go north from Riverdale to the don valley and ignore impact but keep it simple, cut-n cover all the way. Its going to piss off alot of people but its going to be simple

 

[micheal_can]

Impact and complexity are inversely co-related.
The more impact, the less complex it is.
Downtown aside, but if you wanna go north from Riverdale to the don valley and ignore impact but keep it simple, cut-n cover all the way. Its going to piss off alot of people but its going to be simple

So, with ALTO how can we remove complexity, but yet ensure speeds of 300km/hr are achievable?

 

[generalcanada]

So, with ALTO how can we remove complexity, but yet ensure speeds of 300km/hr are achievable?

close most to all at-grade crossings without needing overpasses?
How many grade separations will we need? build less of those