[micheal_can]

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

I'd imagine having one every 5-10km would not be onerous. I am also guessing there would not be any level crossings.

 

[Urban Sky]

^^ By my count, this was the ninth post by @micheal_can in the last 24 hours in this thread and it‘s just his usual monopolizing of the discussion with low-effort posts just to see if he can make people take the bate. For the sake of my mental health and of that of others here, can we please move this kind of conversation to a different thread or private messages?

 

[micheal_can]

^^ By my count, this was the ninth post by @micheal_can in the last 24 hours in this thread and it‘s just his usual monopolizing of the discussion with low-effort posts just to see if he can make people take the bate. For the sake of my mental health and of others here, can we please move this kind of conversation to a different thread or private messages?

I'll drop it.

 

[MisterF]

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/1a2e3bb0-8542-4e4d-97b6-04b7d611c3aa/gif

 

[17_Bean_17]

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.

The process that was followed for the Ontario Line is that a rough design was completed by the technical advisor and then improved up to around 10% for the various bids with some changes. From there the design became the responsibility of each GC for each Ontario Line package. The link you shared is regarding reaching 50% design of Civil and MEP works (basically everything to do with the Station structure itself without any of the rail-specific elements that make it a Station) at King-Bathurst and Queen-Spadina, two stations where heavy civil works began in 2023 under the Ontario Line South Civil contract. Design for the rails, systems, and vehicles is handled by a separate contract under Connect6ix for RSSOM. This design is very likely still in its infancy, with many key decisions likely in the proposal phase.

With that said, something like a subway station is easier to construct underneath a progressive design-build model (like ECLRT, HULRT, FWLRT, and the OL) because while it is complex, the construction proceeds in stages which are generally well-understood and provide milestones to aim construction towards (Roughly: Piling - Shoring - Excavation - Foundations - Interior Works - MEP - Superstructure). Additionally, with the exception of timing for TBM arrivals, individual stations on a line can almost function as individual projects valued at hundreds of millions of dollars within the larger linear project. The most important distinction is that once you get to the point of designing and constructing the individual station, the majority of the big, multi-stakeholder, process-chained decisions have been made - The land is acquired, the alignment is finalised, and construction can progress. While this is by no means an easy point to reach with something like the Ontario Line, it is worse within a project like Alto or GO expansion which is working both on a much larger linear scale, and in a more clouded decision space.

A progressive model like design-build introduces many problems which scale to the remaining unfinalised decision space - in a situation like King-Bathurst Station, the decisions are made, permits are acquired, and design has sufficient lead time that construction is progressing well. In a situation like California High Speed Rail, wherein the land was not yet all acquired, the stakeholders not satisfied, and the EA not completed, the design and construction could not help but to continue to run into delays which reverberated out from the issues further back along the critical path. This is why it is crucial to understand what the Alto contract is doing, because if they are successful in clearing all of the stakeholder, environmental, and permitting hurdles, then the construction and design can proceed in a far smoother manner than Canadian Rapid Transit Construction is accustomed to. Time and money spent on these factors now directly leads to a smoother design and construction process, and If they can clear these hurdles while also generating a 50-90% design, then this would be one of the best investments in transit a Canadian Government has ever made.

 

[generalcanada]

The process that was followed for the Ontario Line is that a rough design was completed by the technical advisor and then improved up to around 10% for the various bids with some changes. From there the design became the responsibility of each GC for each Ontario Line package. The link you shared is regarding reaching 50% design of Civil and MEP works (basically everything to do with the Station structure itself without any of the rail-specific elements that make it a Station) at King-Bathurst and Queen-Spadina, two stations where heavy civil works began in 2023 under the Ontario Line South Civil contract. Design for the rails, systems, and vehicles is handled by a separate contract under Connect6ix for RSSOM. This design is very likely still in its infancy, with many key decisions likely in the proposal phase.

With that said, something like a subway station is easier to construct underneath a progressive design-build model (like ECLRT, HULRT, FWLRT, and the OL) because while it is complex, the construction proceeds in stages which are generally well-understood and provide milestones to aim construction towards (Roughly: Piling - Shoring - Excavation - Foundations - Interior Works - MEP - Superstructure). Additionally, with the exception of timing for TBM arrivals, individual stations on a line can almost function as individual projects valued at hundreds of millions of dollars within the larger linear project. The most important distinction is that once you get to the point of designing and constructing the individual station, the majority of the big, multi-stakeholder, process-chained decisions have been made - The land is acquired, the alignment is finalised, and construction can progress. While this is by no means an easy point to reach with something like the Ontario Line, it is worse within a project like Alto or GO expansion is working both on a much larger linear scale, and in a more clouded decision space.

A progressive model like design-build introduces many problems which scale to the remaining unfinalised decision space - in a situation like King-Bathurst Station, the decisions are made, permits are acquired, and design has sufficient lead time that construction is progressing well. In a situation like California High Speed Rail, wherein the land was not yet all acquired, the stakeholders not satisfied, and the EA not completed, the design and construction could not help but to continue to run into delays which reverberated out from the issues further back along the critical path. This is why it is crucial to understand what the Alto contract is doing, because if they are successful in clearing all of the stakeholder, environmental, and permitting hurdles, then the construction and design can proceed in a far smoother manner than Canadian Rapid Transit Construction is accustomed to. Time and money spent on these factors now directly leads to a smoother design and construction process, and If they can clear these hurdles while also generating a 50-90% design, then this would be one of the best investments in transit a Canadian Government has ever made.

Is there a definition for percent design? Whats the difference between 10, 50 90% design?

 

[Thaboss]

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 wowork.

Standardization can get you to fast, good, and cheap but we don't have the pipeline of guaranteed projects to build industry , institutional knowledge, and the right skilled labor for this atm

 

[Allandale25]

The process that was followed for the Ontario Line is that a rough design was completed by the technical advisor and then improved up to around 10% for the various bids with some changes. From there the design became the responsibility of each GC for each Ontario Line package. The link you shared is regarding reaching 50% design of Civil and MEP works (basically everything to do with the Station structure itself without any of the rail-specific elements that make it a Station) at King-Bathurst and Queen-Spadina, two stations where heavy civil works began in 2023 under the Ontario Line South Civil contract. Design for the rails, systems, and vehicles is handled by a separate contract under Connect6ix for RSSOM. This design is very likely still in its infancy, with many key decisions likely in the proposal phase.

With that said, something like a subway station is easier to construct underneath a progressive design-build model (like ECLRT, HULRT, FWLRT, and the OL) because while it is complex, the construction proceeds in stages which are generally well-understood and provide milestones to aim construction towards (Roughly: Piling - Shoring - Excavation - Foundations - Interior Works - MEP - Superstructure). Additionally, with the exception of timing for TBM arrivals, individual stations on a line can almost function as individual projects valued at hundreds of millions of dollars within the larger linear project. The most important distinction is that once you get to the point of designing and constructing the individual station, the majority of the big, multi-stakeholder, process-chained decisions have been made - The land is acquired, the alignment is finalised, and construction can progress. While this is by no means an easy point to reach with something like the Ontario Line, it is worse within a project like Alto or GO expansion is working both on a much larger linear scale, and in a more clouded decision space.

A progressive model like design-build introduces many problems which scale to the remaining unfinalised decision space - in a situation like King-Bathurst Station, the decisions are made, permits are acquired, and design has sufficient lead time that construction is progressing well. In a situation like California High Speed Rail, wherein the land was not yet all acquired, the stakeholders not satisfied, and the EA not completed, the design and construction could not help but to continue to run into delays which reverberated out from the issues further back along the critical path. This is why it is crucial to understand what the Alto contract is doing, because if they are successful in clearing all of the stakeholder, environmental, and permitting hurdles, then the construction and design can proceed in a far smoother manner than Canadian Rapid Transit Construction is accustomed to. Time and money spent on these factors now directly leads to a smoother design and construction process, and If they can clear these hurdles while also generating a 50-90% design, then this would be one of the best investments in transit a Canadian Government has ever made.

That's one of the clearest explanations of the process I've seen. Thank you!

 

[Adjei]

The real transport revolution in Europe is an integrated and highly convenient mass transportation network on which HSR is only the icing on the cake. We should look at emulating the cake, not just the flashy decoration…

Yes this is the high speed thread which is why I didn’t mention it. The non high speed regional and intercity trains make are even more impressive.

In fact I would trade this high speed line to have the electrified non high speed trains and service present in Italy. Even looking at the GTAH plus Kitchener, places like Hamilton, Kitchener and even Niagara Falls which is a huge with tourism should be major hubs with multiple trains arriving hourly and well developed stations with places to shop and eat while waiting for your train. We are really far behind.

 

[smallspy]

Is there a definition for percent design? Whats the difference between 10, 50 90% design?

I'm not aware of it, but different organizations may indicate different percentages to meet different stage gates of the process. For instance, the City of Toronto and TTC generally don't put anything out for tender until the design has reached at least 30%, and in some cases 60%

Dan

 

[17_Bean_17]

Is there a definition for percent design? Whats the difference between 10, 50 90% design?

The percentages of design are associated with the completeness and level of detail, with each key milestone (which can vary between client/project) giving the reviewer(s) opportunity to provide comments and right any misdirections which may be taken prior to fully committing to them.

Generally speaking, 10-20% correlates to bids and initial designs which set out parameters rather then fill them in.

30-80% begins with decisions on more specific major design elements and material specifications. By the end of this phase the level of detail is significantly higher and the drawings begin to become usable for permitting (submitted as IFP - Issued for Permit) and some construction (constructing without 100% drawings is considered constructing at risk). Throughout this phase the level of detail evolves from being sufficient for broad cost estimates to more precise, itemised ones, and as mentioned by SmallSpy, different organisations will have different benchmarks for where these estimates are sophisticated enough to begin tendering. Additionally, throughout this phase in most MX projects, the drawings are circulated to MX for review and comment at key milestones.

At 90%, most decisions have been made and the last 10% involves a final wave of reviewing and comments from those involved to ensure everything is in order before the drawings reach IFC status (Issued for Construction).

It would be incredibly useful to be able to begin construction on Alto with design at a high percentage because a) the tender and cost estimates would be much more reliable than for projects like the OL which start at around 10% b) There would be significantly reduced risk of interference in construction schedule from permitting and design roadblocks c) Construction can be planned and implemented quicker and more efficiently as the planners and schedulers will be working with a very complete picture.

 

[ProjectEnd]

The percentages of design are associated with the completeness and level of detail, with each key milestone (which can vary between client/project) giving the reviewer(s) opportunity to provide comments and right any misdirections which may be taken prior to fully committing to them.

Generally speaking, 10-20% correlates to bids and initial designs which set out parameters rather then fill them in.

30-80% begins with decisions on more specific major design elements and material specifications. By the end of this phase the level of detail is significantly higher and the drawings begin to become usable for permitting (submitted as IFP - Issued for Permit) and some construction (constructing without 100% drawings is considered constructing at risk). Throughout this phase the level of detail evolves from being sufficient for broad cost estimates to more precise, itemised ones, and as mentioned by SmallSpy, different organisations will have different benchmarks for where these estimates are sophisticated enough to begin tendering. Additionally, throughout this phase in most MX projects, the drawings are circulated to MX for review and comment at key milestones.

At 90%, most decisions have been made and the last 10% involves a final wave of reviewing and comments from those involved to ensure everything is in order before the drawings reach IFC status (Issued for Construction).

It would be incredibly useful to be able to begin construction on Alto with design at a high percentage because a) the tender and cost estimates would be much more reliable than for projects like the OL which start at around 10% b) There would be significantly reduced risk of interference in construction schedule from permitting and design roadblocks c) Construction can be planned and implemented quicker and more efficiently as the planners and schedulers will be working with a very complete picture.

You're talking about DD. This isn't even in SD yet. This is a political unicorn fart at this point and I don't really see it ever leaving that stage...

 

[Urban Sky]

You're talking about DD. This isn't even in SD yet. This is a political unicorn fart at this point and I don't really see it ever leaving that stage...

User name checks out!

 

[nfitz]

You're talking about DD. This isn't even in SD yet.

There's various percentage of designs for this stage?

 

[ProjectEnd]

User name checks out!

Batting 1000, baby.

There's various percentage of designs for this stage?

Yep, there will always be a 0%.