[NIV]

We should be demanding Accountability and transparency from metrolinx especially with regards the TBM/soil issue. This would never happen in the private sector! https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/me...cle_0d063e6b-2a44-4e53-9d43-7919171830ab.html

 

[crs1026]

This article lays out the concern without sounding too sensational about it. Glad to see the media starting to notice.

Scarborough subway extension tunnelling quietly resumes as budget forecast tops $10B

The updates on the Scarborough subway extension are set to be reviewed by the Metrolinx board at its June 26, 2025, meeting.

toronto.citynews.ca

- Paul

 

[nfitz]

I just heard on the news that Metrolinx said the TBM stoppage "were planned"

If they were indeed always planned, the period of time that the stopped was far, far, far, greater than planned.

Why can't Metrolinx simply be transparent, rather than making them look like such crappy wankers, by very clearly trying to hide and cover-up what really happened?

This would never happen in the private sector!

???

It can be far, far, worse in the private sector. You never know the initial budgets - or even project scope. And those working on something, are very reluctant to let top management know just how badly they've screwed up. And they work harder to make it look like it's someone else's (especially a contractor's) fault. And then proceed with some big cover-ups to hide things that went really badly.

There's nothing magic about private-sector work that makes things work better. Heck, public and private are hiring the same contractors, same engineers, etc., much of the time. You just don't hear as much. Try FOIing Rio Tinto (to randomly pick a company's name out of the ether) about the errors they made at X, resulting in Y.

 

[crs1026]

It can be far, far, worse in the private sector. You never know the initial budgets - or even project scope. And those working on something, are very reluctant to let top management know just how badly they've screwed up. And they work harder to make it look like it's someone else's (especially a contractor's) fault. And then proceed with some big cover-ups to hide things that went really badly.

There's nothing magic about private-sector work that makes things work better. Heck, public and private are hiring the same contractors, same engineers, etc., much of the time. You just don't hear as much. Try FOIing Rio Tinto (to randomly pick a company's name out of the ether) about the errors they made at X, resulting in Y.

Well, yes, and no Certainly there are plenty of examples where private sector projects went hugely south.... nothing about being private sector guarantees that there won't be errors and goof-ups and plain unforeseens.

But in the private sector there is a legal requirement on some level to fess up, because investors and shareholders have rights where taxpayers don't.

See for example https://www.bennettjones.com/Blogs-...aterial-Change-With-Far-Reaching-Consequences

The case, which has yet to be decided, involves a company where management waited 40 days before fessing up to its shareholders. The claim, as yet unproven, is that 40 days was too long for management to wait before disclosing the problem. Imagine if Metrolinx had only 40 days to announce that Diggy was broken. They waited a year, or more!

Large public infrastructure projects need to operate under a similar legal regime of "material change", where big problems must be disclosed directly to the public without government or politicians shading or suppressing the facts.

The Metrolinx Act needs to impose a direct fiduciary relationship between its Board and Management and the taxpayer. No middleman, no political operatives creating "narratives".

Idealistic, am I - no government is going to propose such legislation - but clearly, we can't trust these bastards.

- Paul

 

[nfitz]

Idealistic, am I - no government is going to propose such legislation ...

I'd think that simply moving all Metrolinx board meetings to open, and requiring at least some council and public members, would massively improve the transparency, as it all of a sudden becomes easier to have stuff out in the open before a board meeting, where Metrolinx staff are painfully shown during questioning to be the manipulative lying and misleading fools that we know they are.

On the other hand, if they were to in detail let people see exactly how the sausage is made, would people still get the sausage? Does complete transparency maximize transit procurement? We certainly see the advantage in other countries of secrecy, obfuscation, and poor safety policies in accelerating and expanding transit expansion.

 

[crs1026]

PS - If I were an activist with a budget for FOI requests, I would be looking at whether any permits or ministerial approvals were required to design and execute the "intervention shaft" that was used to rescue and revive Diggy.
And I would be looking to find the documentation around same, with an interest in whether any of that documentation described the work as "emergency" or "as a result of unforeseen circumstances". I would bet that none of it is characterised as the original plan. The TBM contract itself is a private operation, but there will have to have been documents in the public domain seeking approval for the rescue.

- Paul

 

[NIV]

The Star is great at FOI requests. Would be nice to know why the soil conditions missed? The core samples were drilled before Strabag was given the tunneling contract. The deep single bore TBM design was envisioned and designed when this was just a one stop extension. The 3 stop design used much of the original engineering to speed up the process. Who’s responsible??

 

[nfitz]

PS - If I were an activist with a budget for FOI requests, I would be looking at whether any permits or ministerial approvals were required to design and execute the "intervention shaft" that was used to rescue and revive Diggy.

Ah, that's an interesting thought. Is this theoretical, or a hint?

It's hard to identify all the permits involved - especially as the province can avoid a lot of the building permits if they choose to do so. And even when they exist, no one is going to write "because the TBM is broken" in the permit!

I'm very familiar with dewatering permits. Looking through those on the Environmental Registry, nothing jumps out. Though the largest dewatering permit (4412-CLU6HR) for the launch shaft for "Strabag Scarborough Project Inc" expired in December 2023 (at a whopping 33,334,214 L/min) for up to 100 days a year! I'd assume that was for emergencies. The permanent permit for the launch site remains. And recently one was added for Sheppard East station itself (6417-D9HHCB).

Nothing jumps out to being related to the stoppage - and perhaps additional dewatering wasn't necessary. You'd have to FOIA a lot of documents referenced in the permit, just to get an idea how it's working, and what you'd be looking for, to make another FOIA.

Personally, when I've dealt with permitting for dewatering for TBMs that are sitting in the ground not moving, the new permit has simply changed the expiry date. And the supporting document/application simply says something like "until the TBM moves into the next phase of tunnelling" rather than "it's stuck here because there's been too many NIMBY complaints that we are waiting for further environmental studies, that we should have done before we ever started tunnelling".

 

[Reecemartin]

The short tunnel wasn't inherently the problem. The lack of space everywhere around it in that area was.

You have Ellesmere Station at ground level underneath the Ellesmere overpass and beside the railway alignment. The line then needs to dip under the railway, requiring a vertical separation of approximately 20 feet. Then after crossing, the line needs to not just climb from that negative 20-ish feet back to ground, but climb another 20-ish feet in order to pass overtop of Midland Ave. - and do it far enough away in order to allow for a vertically level alignment in order to build Midland Station.

And all this needs to happen in 600m of alignment.

Maybe they could have eliminated Ellesmere Station to allow the decent further to the south, but there are still very, very limited options with which you can thread a rapid transit line alignment through there.

Dan

You're talking about the area around Ellesmere like its downtown Toronto, and not mostly wide open industrial lots and a few townhomes at the southern edge.

And you're talking about the costs and technical challenges like they are somehow bigger than a mega sized single bore tunnel the whole way from Kennedy to Shep and McCowan.

This seems silly. Especially when the need to keep the RT operating is no longer in the picture, it is inconceivable that a mostly above ground alignment, even doing the following would cost more than the status quo, I think its fair to say it ought to not cost half as much:

- rebuilding a new elevated guideway through STC
- acquiring land and rebuilding the Ellesmere overpass
- doing a short flyunder structure to get under the Stouffville line (if you don't just shift it and move a subway built in the corridor onto the east side of the row)

This isn't whats happening, but it's hardly like getting subway trains under the Stouffville line in the middle of industryland is a challenge so great that the current plan was necessary instead.

 

[dowlingm]

When the decision to do subway was basically a political one, it's difficult to put forward technical theories as potentially superior. It's an interesting intellectual exercise, and might have won the day elsewhere - but not here.

 

[T3G]

The Scarborough Subway is an overbuilt mistake, but the chosen SRT alignment was also a mistake. There's a reason none of the stations except for Kennedy and STC posted very high ridership numbers - because the rest of them served mainly industrial lots. I see no reason why we should have wanted to keep it.

 

[Reecemartin]

The Scarborough Subway is an overbuilt mistake, but the chosen SRT alignment was also a mistake. There's a reason none of the stations except for Kennedy and STC posted very high ridership numbers - because the rest of them served mainly industrial lots. I see no reason why we should have wanted to keep it.

Scarborough town centre will still be one of the busiest stations on the network, and given how busy many of the buses in the area that will feed it are I expect Sheppard and McCowan will also be busy. Warden and Kennedy are some of the busiest stations on the network. The main problem here is that we can't construct rapid transit for the prices we could 20 years ago and the prices that other countries still can.

 

[Northern Light]

You're talking about the area around Ellesmere like its downtown Toronto, and not mostly wide open industrial lots and a few townhomes at the southern edge.

And you're talking about the costs and technical challenges like they are somehow bigger than a mega sized single bore tunnel the whole way from Kennedy to Shep and McCowan.

This seems silly. Especially when the need to keep the RT operating is no longer in the picture, it is inconceivable that a mostly above ground alignment, even doing the following would cost more than the status quo, I think its fair to say it ought to not cost half as much:

- rebuilding a new elevated guideway through STC
- acquiring land and rebuilding the Ellesmere overpass
- doing a short flyunder structure to get under the Stouffville line (if you don't just shift it and move a subway built in the corridor onto the east side of the row)

This isn't whats happening, but it's hardly like getting subway trains under the Stouffville line in the middle of industryland is a challenge so great that the current plan was necessary instead.

First, the SRT Alignment was bad, it missed the single most important trip generator (employment) in Scarborough General; and it also missed the highest residential density, on Danforth, north of Eglinton.

Second, of course the tunnel could have been rebuilt and enlarged, @smallspy didn't suggest otherwise, merely that its not as simple, easy or low cost as some might imagine.
Replacing the exiting tunnel would also have required a shutdown of the line for at least 3 years.

 

[Reecemartin]

First, the SRT Alignment was bad, it missed the single most important trip generator (employment) in Scarborough General; and it also missed the highest residential density, on Danforth, north of Eglinton.

Second, of course the tunnel could have been rebuilt and enlarged, @smallspy didn't suggest otherwise, merely that its not as simple, easy or low cost as some might imagine.
Replacing the exiting tunnel would also have required a shutdown of the line for at least 3 years.

If the goal is to only go to Scarborough town center, which has been the plan for at least one of the subway plans then it's irrelevant how you get there!

With regard to the existing tunnel, I'm not sure what you're talking about. It absolutely is simple easy and low cost compared to what we ended up doing. Nobody suggested it was like repainting a room, but come on, replacing a flyunder in a mostly industrial area is about as simple as above ground urban rail works gets. Tokyo routinely does this kind of thing over a weekend, we would not need three years (though replacing the flyunder in isolation would be pointless, you'd have been doing it so you could run subway trains - which would mean a much bigger rebuild).

 

[Northern Light]

If the goal is to only go to Scarborough town center, which has been the plan for at least one of the subway plans then it's irrelevant how you get there!

No it is not. That statement is completely unsupportable and lacking intellectual rigor.

With regard to the existing tunnel, I'm not sure what you're talking about. It absolutely is simple easy and low cost compared to what we ended up doing.

No one said that the SSE was 'easier' or 'lower cost' than SRT retention. Its merely that SSE is the better project, and the SRT tunnel issue is not 'easy'.

Even if that wasn't the case, it's absolutely ludicrous to suggest that rep replacing this one flyover needed to take three years (though obviously if you're converting the system from SRT to a subway extension, there are other items that will take a longer period). Far bigger feats have been completed and far less time, then replacing that fly under of the SRT under the ST

Its the TTC's own documents that identify it as 3 years. I didn't pull that number out of thin air.