|
|
|
APTA-2048
Senior Member
Demolition is probably very disruptive and very expensive.
TOtramz
Active Member
I don't think demolishing the RT platforms at this stage would have any tangible benefit...
TOtramz
Active Member
Back when the TBM was operating, were the dump trucks and delivery trucks coming from the mccowan entrance or the Sheppard entrance ?
darth_freeman
Active Member
See here https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2024/sc/bgrd/backgroundfile-242744.pdf
They enter and exit on McCowan, loop back along Nugget, down to Sheppard, and back to Hwy 401.
pesto
New Member
A report on current status of the TBM:
toronto.citynews.ca
here's a highlight:
"When CityNews inquired about the project in late November, officials said tunnelling updates “will continue to be shared publicly through the project’s social media channels.” A review of posts on the project’s X and Instagram accounts since that time doesn’t contain any specific updates on the issue, and officials in the statement didn’t address questions about public updates.
"Ontario residents and the board of directors that oversees Metrolinx typically receive updates in some form on major projects such as the Scarborough subway extension during public meetings held several times a year. However, there hasn’t been a public meeting since the end of November, and the next one isn’t scheduled until the end of June."
Seems like digging for info from Metrolinx is more difficult than digging the actual tunnel.
Scarborough subway extension tunnelling stalled near Highway 401 for months
Metrolinx officials said the tunnel-boring machine for the Scarborough subway extension is still undergoing maintenance near Highway 401.
here's a highlight:
"When CityNews inquired about the project in late November, officials said tunnelling updates “will continue to be shared publicly through the project’s social media channels.” A review of posts on the project’s X and Instagram accounts since that time doesn’t contain any specific updates on the issue, and officials in the statement didn’t address questions about public updates.
"Ontario residents and the board of directors that oversees Metrolinx typically receive updates in some form on major projects such as the Scarborough subway extension during public meetings held several times a year. However, there hasn’t been a public meeting since the end of November, and the next one isn’t scheduled until the end of June."
Seems like digging for info from Metrolinx is more difficult than digging the actual tunnel.
nfitz
Superstar
Months? It's made little progress in a couple of years - when did they first announce it was under the 401?
Kyle Campbell
Senior Member
I wonder how much impact this "scheduled maintenance stop" and the "soil conditions" will have on the projected opening date.
reinventingthewheel
Active Member
TBM launched January 18th 2023, 805 days ago. If it’s really still under the 401 then that’s about 1.2 metres per day, originally slated for 10-15 metres per day.
So SSE construction is missing the mark by about 90%. A transit project progressing even slower than Eglinton, something I never thought I’d hear without words like insolvency or abandonment.
So SSE construction is missing the mark by about 90%. A transit project progressing even slower than Eglinton, something I never thought I’d hear without words like insolvency or abandonment.
PL1
Senior Member
I just don't understand the absolute silence and secrecy surrounding this. Tell the public there's an issue, and move on. IMO, secrecy leads to speculation and conspiracy theories
T3G
Senior Member
The opening date was never one that ML were going to achieve. If it wasn't for this, it would be something else.
max
Active Member
I dug back a bit in the thread and IMO the earliest sign of an issue is this post:
If one assumes the tracker's disappearance is related, then it likely reached it's current position sometime in May 2023.\\
EDIT:
Also by late November 2023 we've got a couple of public indications of where we are from Metrolinx that were shared on the thread. First is the intervention shaft near Brimorton:
Second is the location being north of the 401:
Last edited:
crs1026
Superstar
I have mulled about making noise around the concept of a legislative requirement to publicly divulge any “material change” to the status of a major transit project.
In the private sector, companies are required to disclose major events that impact or alter their earning potential - the point being that investors or potential investors rely on truthfull disclosure to make their investment decisions. Staying silent is arguably misleading these folks. (There is an interesting case currently before the Supreme Court where a mining company waited a month before disclosing that a mine had flooded…. They are in court over the month’s delay in disclosure - the argument being, a month was too long to wait - compare that to ML or TTC where something like this TBM failure may be a year or more under wraps.)
While one might say that principle only is relevant in the private sector - consider that shareholders have the right to attend annual general meetings, propose shareholder resolutions, vote out board members and senior execs, and even sue the board if their investments don’t perform as expected. Whereas taxpayers can clearly be ignored, and only get one shot at booting out politicians once rvery four years…. And have no direct leverage to deal with underperforming transit boards or executives. The per taxpayer investment amount for a transit project may exceed what people contribute to their RRSP annually, so why shouldn’t there be equivalent accountability and obligation to disclose?
In transit space, I would define a “material change” as a projected delay in end date of over six months from the original commitment, or a projected overspend of $100M or more…. Or perhaps 10% of total project cost. The point is, that impact is known much earlier in camera than in public.
I am certain that the Ford government would never endorse the idea, but without a legislative mandate that can be enforced in the courts, ML is never going to fess up.
Maybe the Opposition would consider as a private member’s bill…. They seldom are passed, but it would be a good way to make noise.
- Paul
Last edited:
reinventingthewheel
Active Member
It’s because the private sector stakeholders are given far too much leeway in the contracts they sign with Metrolinx. Publicizing performance issues is a disservice to their businesses, so it’s in their best interest to obfuscate the details and have everyone believe it’s business as usual (I say as I jiggle my mouse, selling the same lie to my employer).
Metrolinx doesn’t establish robust (desperately necessary) accountability mechanisms in their P3 contracts.There NEEDS to be clear performance indicators, reporting requirements that are directed to the public, not through back channels.
Forget about pressing Metrolinx for information on projects already in delivery, vehemently demand they stop yielding to private investors on future contracts and taking the fall for their shortcomings.
Last edited:
TOtramz
Active Member
2 thoughts:
Now that the station contract has been finalized and awarded for 2.5 bil to AECOM and the other company, station construction may begin soon, which begs this question if the TBM will be boring through partially completed stations?
Also, how much work is it really to get this thing unstuck? I think this might be the record for longest stuck TBM.
Now that the station contract has been finalized and awarded for 2.5 bil to AECOM and the other company, station construction may begin soon, which begs this question if the TBM will be boring through partially completed stations?
Also, how much work is it really to get this thing unstuck? I think this might be the record for longest stuck TBM.