News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 11K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 43K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 6.8K     0 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
I wouldn't blame P3 necessarily - this probably a case of taking too much time to sign the contract than actual delays in construction. Frankly, the way the project was procured is kind of a head scratcher - you start building the tunnel without even having the station coming close to being designed, and then go out there and look for a private consortium to do the DBM. The whole thing was dragged out beyond recognition.

AoD
Click to expand...

I'm not blaming the P3 process. I actually support the P3 process. This delay will just provide fodder for those who fight the P3 process, especially when infrastructure Ontario has been so proud to announce it was ahead of schedule up until this point.

Which also makes me wonder... where did all of that time go? Moving the TBM over?
 
Tuscani01 said:
I'm not blaming the P3 process. I actually support the P3 process. This delay will just provide fodder for those who fight the P3 process, especially when infrastructure Ontario has been so proud to announce it was ahead of schedule up until this point.

Which also makes me wonder... where did all of that time go? Moving the TBM over?
Click to expand...

Just look at the current process - beyond the fact that the construction was artificially divided into tunneling and station/trackage phase, is there any fundamental reason why station building cannot take place at the same time as tunneling, in a staggered fashion?

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Just look at the current process - beyond the fact that the construction was artificially divided into tunneling and station/trackage phase, is there any fundamental reason why station building cannot take place at the same time as tunneling, in a staggered fashion?

AoD
Click to expand...

Agreed. Also, why isn't construction on the surface portion starting yet? Surely, they could be building surface portions while the tunnels are taking shape, and then redirect manpower to the tunnels once complete to build the tracks and stations there.
 
Tuscani01 said:
Agreed. Also, why isn't construction on the surface portion starting yet? Surely, they could be building surface portions while the tunnels are taking shape, and then redirect manpower to the tunnels once complete to build the tracks and stations there.
Click to expand...

Exactly - in fact you can have an almost quasi-assembly line type of arrangement, where one crew would work on digging out the station box, move on to the next station that the TBM just passed through, while a new crew work on the concrete works, etc. The current arrangement is incredibly inefficient, and half of it is waiting.

AoD
 
  • Like
Reactions: PL1
Doesn't all the dug out material have to travel down the length of the tunnel, including through the station boxes? And don't the tunnel lining sections have to move up the length of the tunnel to the diggers, again through the station boxes? How could other work take place in the tunnel?
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Just look at the current process - beyond the fact that the construction was artificially divided into tunneling and station/trackage phase, is there any fundamental reason why station building cannot take place at the same time as tunneling, in a staggered fashion?

AoD
Click to expand...
I wouldn't call this artificial at all. Dividing super mega projects into smaller bundled packages will significantly ease the bidding process and increase the competitiveness of the bids. If you tender a project too large, you run the risk of creating a project that almost no one can take on financially. Bidders are aware of this, and the price will reflect that.
 
wopchop said:
I wouldn't call this artificial at all. Dividing super mega projects into smaller bundled packages will significantly ease the bidding process and increase the competitiveness of the bids. If you tender a project too large, you run the risk of creating a project that almost no one can take on financially. Bidders are aware of this, and the price will reflect that.
Click to expand...
Spreading the money out and wanting to open the line as a whole is the only reason station construction hasn't already started on the western leg of the line (Eglinton West to Black Creek) - with the tunnel in and TBM's out (for this portion), station excavation can safely start. All of the tendering could have easily been completed for this portion of the route as it connects directly to the maintenance and storage facility (also not yet started).

With this plan they should not start on the on-grade portions, as you will effectively be reducing the number of lanes on Eglinton East for no reason (i.e. 2 lanes used with no benefit) and would make transit even worse.

Ultimately this delay, along with the, in my opinion, originally long schedule to complete this project is a result of cash flow from the Province so indirectly Metrolinx - not P3.
 
Tulse said:
Doesn't all the dug out material have to travel down the length of the tunnel, including through the station boxes? And don't the tunnel lining sections have to move up the length of the tunnel to the diggers, again through the station boxes? How could other work take place in the tunnel?
Click to expand...

The material doesn't travel through the station boxes exactly - as only the headwalls are in place. The TBMs tunnel right through these. When they dig the stations out they will remove the sections of tunnel liners which were installed through this area. But right now we have a completed section of tunnel (Black Creek to Allen Road) which means they could have easily started the process for other work relating to the stations.
 
TransitPolicyChanger said:
Spreading the money out and wanting to open the line as a whole is the only reason station construction hasn't already started on the western leg of the line (Eglinton West to Black Creek) - with the tunnel in and TBM's out (for this portion), station excavation can safely start. All of the tendering could have easily been completed for this portion of the route as it connects directly to the maintenance and storage facility (also not yet started).

With this plan they should not start on the on-grade portions, as you will effectively be reducing the number of lanes on Eglinton East for no reason (i.e. 2 lanes used with no benefit) and would make transit even worse.

Ultimately this delay, along with the, in my opinion, originally long schedule to complete this project is a result of cash flow from the Province so indirectly Metrolinx - not P3.
Click to expand...
All good points, as well. I'm not saying that what I said is the only factor, but to say it isn't a factor in tendering large projects is wrong IMO.
 
wopchop said:
I wouldn't call this artificial at all. Dividing super mega projects into smaller bundled packages will significantly ease the bidding process and increase the competitiveness of the bids. If you tender a project too large, you run the risk of creating a project that almost no one can take on financially. Bidders are aware of this, and the price will reflect that.
Click to expand...

I understand that aspect - but what I am saying is that there is no reason why the two phases of construction can't overlap, not that everything has to be covered by a single contract.

AoD
 
wopchop said:
All good points, as well. I'm not saying that what I said is the only factor, but to say it isn't a factor in tendering large projects is wrong IMO.
Click to expand...

I think the real question is why couldn't this be tendered as smaller projects to speed up the process and allow for a staged opening of segments as they are completed? Is cost really the only thing holding that back? If so, would you know how significant the cost difference would be?

Ie. The portion from Black Creek to Eglinton West could have been phase 1, Eglinton West to Yonge, or right to Leslie as phase 2, and the surface portion as phase 3.

And would the savings in staff (bus drivers), diesel, and equipment make up for the increase in cost to get phase 1 opened sooner? Surely the city and TTC would save quite a bit of money by no longer having to run buses along Eglinton West if that portion were to open sooner. Also factor in the cost of gridlock, lost ridership from construction delays, lost business, etc.
 
Tuscani01 said:
I think the real question is why couldn't this be tendered as smaller projects to speed up the process and allow for a staged opening of segments as they are completed? Is cost really the only thing holding that back? If so, would you know how significant the cost difference would be?
Click to expand...
It likely could have, but as TransitPolicyChanger said, cash flow was likely a major contributing factor. The Province has only budgeted so much per year for the project, and the tenders needed to take into account the ability to actually pay for the work to be done.
 
wopchop said:
It likely could have, but as TransitPolicyChanger said, cash flow was likely a major contributing factor. The Province has only budgeted so much per year for the project, and the tenders needed to take into account the ability to actually pay for the work to be done.
Click to expand...
Its all political - not technical. Size is a factor but not one that should have seen this not overly complex project (only complex parts will be at the interchange stations) stretched out this long.

We have worked on bidding for station design - the RFPs came out so late in the process (compared to tunneling) and were all lumped together as one contract - when I think the station designs should have been 100% well over a year ago.
 
I never said it was technical? Pretty sure that I admitted that it was a political and business decision, but okay.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top