[BurlOak]

I don't think the complaints about St. Clair or Eglinton are anywhere near the level of complaints about Yonge.

I hadn't realised there were a short piece of tunnel on that line. If they've done PPP, they'll be paying through the nose for that piece of tunnel compared to had they done it separately ... what are the Eglinton tunnels - about $40 million per km?

Plus the cost of the TBM, plus the cost of the launching and extraction shafts. It is much cleaner for the Contractor to do it all.

 

[arcum]

Well played, Sir or Madam! We should only build grade-separated heavy rail rapid transit in locations where there are virtually no people within a 10-minute walk of any station, because aside from the Ford-Mammo equity argument that people in the suburbs deserve subways, it's way cheaper to tunnel under empty fields, forests and vast tracts of low-density strip malls and subdivisions. Let's can the DRL and extend the Spadina subway to Orangeville instead!

I'm just saying will the over/under on DRL phase 1 (Downtown to Danforth) OVERRUNS be $2B or 5 years of construction?

 

[Wrenkin]

For Canada line, TBM was used for about 2.5km under False Creek. about 6.5km was cut-and-cover under Cambie where the road was wide enough. Of course people compained, just like people in Toronto complained about St. Clair and now Eglinton.

People complained because they were led to believe the Canada Line was going to be tunnelled, and then suddenly one day it wasn't.

 

[Platform 27]

I hadn't realised there were a short piece of tunnel on that line. If they've done PPP, they'll be paying through the nose for that piece of tunnel compared to had they done it separately ... what are the Eglinton tunnels - about $40 million per km?

Evergreen is a PPP (DBF, I think) with tunnelling included in the main contract, AFAIK.

Not to single any posters out, but I think there's a lot of confusion in the above conversation. Underground transit construction of any sort (bored tunnels, cut and cover tunnels, stations...) is more prone to cost overruns than, say, building a park. But regardless of whether you're building a subway or a park, you as an owner ask yourself the same question: is it better to ask the contractor to assume all risk and have them bake it into a higher fixed-price contract, or ask for a lower upfront cost with the understanding that you're covering all overruns. (This is a bit of an oversimplification, because there are a lot of different spots on the spectrum of who assumes how much risk, and even with a full risk transfer to the contractor there's ultimately the risk of their bankruptcy that means the owner gets stuck.)

When trying to make the decision to pick between one of the above approaches, how commonly those types of projects around the world see cost overruns is a bit of a distraction --- contractors darn well know this too, and their bidding reflects it. All things being equal, on a low-risk type of construction the risk premium that the market prices in on a fixed-price contract vs a cost-plus contract would be small; on a high-risk type of construction the delta is wider.

By way of analogy, let's say you're a renter. No matter where in the city you live you face a choice -- you can pay renter's insurance on your home's contents against theft, or have slightly more cash in your pocket but carry the risk you'll get burgled. Paying for insurance is not necessarily a "good deal" in crime-ridden areas and a "bad deal" in crime-free areas, because the insurance industry knows the risks and charges you accordingly.

The theoretical argument for PPPs comes down to the idea that by giving a single contractor enough latitude to design and build and oversee all the moving parts they gain enough confidence in their ability to manage risk that during the competitive process they lower the risk premium priced into their bid.

So, in the case of the Evergreen line tunnel, I don't understand the argument that it would automatically have been far cheaper if it had been split out and tendered separately outside the fixed-price envelope. I don't know if the recent Seattle/Bertha experience might be colouring perception a little here, but TBM-based tunnelling in well-known soil conditions is not especially risky, at least relatively to any other elements of underground transit construction.

 

[nfitz]

Plus the cost of the TBM, plus the cost of the launching and extraction shafts. It is much cleaner for the Contractor to do it all.

Though more expensive, given the need to cover the risk.

 

[nfitz]

So, in the case of the Evergreen line tunnel, I don't understand the argument that it would automatically have been far cheaper if it had been split out and tendered separately outside the fixed-price envelope. I don't know if the recent Seattle/Bertha experience might be colouring perception a little here, but TBM-based tunnelling in well-known soil conditions is not especially risky, at least relatively to any other elements of underground transit construction.

TBM work often has troubles.

Here's a report a few years ago about 3 troubled TBM projects - 2 of which were in the GTA.

http://www.canadianconsultingengine...a-falls-york-region-and-vancouver/1000079861/

Bottom line, if you are going to make the contractor take the risk, it's going to cost you. The contractor and the insurance companies that back them have to make a profit.

 

[Platform 27]

^Sorry, I chose my words poorly. The notional sticker price for the Evergreen line tunnel does indeed go down if you take it out of the Evergreen line DBF contract and turn it into a separate more traditional contract. I meant the "real" price --- net of overrun risk.

Switch the tunnel from one type of contract to another and the risk doesn't evaporate. It goes from being a fully priced-in and known quantity and becomes an unknown unknown.

Arguably, the theoretical level of risk in aggregate gets slightly higher with a split contract because now there's two different contractors and all the fun things that can go wrong with one pointing at the other and the public sector paying... maybe one falls behind schedule and interrupts the other's staging plans at the tunnel mouth who then wants compensation, or the tunnel wall is finished with the wrong fasteners to mount the signals or whatever. I imagine this is a pretty small deal overall... after all, in the case of Eglinton they went with the mixed approach in the interests of keeping the project moving and getting the tunnel dug while the DB bidding for the rest of it occurred.

 

[BurlOak]

There is also large risks when the owner supplies material for contracts. What happens if something goes wrong with the machinery? Was it because of a fault with the machine, or the way it was operated. That is why you will never see the City supply the TBM's - that would be a huge risk.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Even more than a solid argument against TTC control of things, this is a solid argument against suburban subways, just like Den said. On the evening news tonight we were treated to a lengthy clip of John Tory prattling on about how "furious" he is at this. Well, let's see him put his money where his mouth is: clean house at the TTC and never waste money on a suburban subway again. Gonna do that? Nope, didn't think so.

I know that Tory is the wrong target for frustration over the TYSSE, but there is so much backwards thinking from this city and province that it's hard to take sometimes.

Exactly.

This isn't about urban or suburban subways but pure incompetent management of the project. Why did construction have to stop for Ministry of Labour to investigate the death? It should not take 6 months. Why was the schedule delay not accounted for and contractors asked to accelerate work to catch up? The project had ample contingency and it was burned up rapidly. Why? Oh high water table bullshit excuse. All Toronto has this issue and it should have been scoped and accounted for. Oh contractor delays, well who wrote the contract and why are there no penalty clauses for delays?

I understand that some delays are unexpected but to burn through a 20-30% contingency (on a 2.6B project is madness. This recent cost overrun is another 15% extra.

This is insanity. We could have built 10 St Clair ROWs for that price. The question to ask is why Toronto continues to waste money on pet projects but stalls and delays absolutely critical ones like the Relief Line. Instead of spending money on overbuilding Spadina and Scarborough, and Sheppard, we could have had a DRL built by now and LRTs running in the suburbs for the same amount of money. It would serve more people and we would have downtown capacity for growth. Instead we have a broken transit system that teeters from disaster to disaster. It is almost daily that part of a line is down for repairs, signal problems, hydro, weather you name it. We have no alternatives and it's the passengers who get the short end of the stick. Eventually it will get bad enough that business and residents will leave town and Toronto will stall and start to have lower quality of life.

Well it sucks, but the people are at fault. IMO.

I think you win the "post that moves the farthest" prize...you start with

and get, in fairly quick fashion, to

Agreed.




Cut this off York University, push Vaughan to 2035 or something, and get moving on Scarborough and the DRL. You know, subways that will actually serve Toronto.

 

[TOareaFan]

Cut this off York University, push Vaughan to 2035 or something, and get moving on Scarborough and the DRL. You know, subways that will actually serve Toronto.

Let's assume you can get agreement to cut off this subway at YU and halt a section into York Region that is a couple of years from being completed to 2035.....who writes the check to York Region for the money they have already sunk into this?

 

[welkie]

Let's assume you can get agreement to cut off this subway at YU and halt a section into York Region that is a couple of years from being completed to 2035.....who writes the check to York Region for the money they have already sunk into this?

I think it would be unfair to York Region and its residents. We've promised them integration into our subway system, and they were the ones paying for it. I think we should finish this project but strongly considering moving to a staggered approach to transit improvements in the future, first putting down LRT lines where ridership demands it, and upgrading them to subways in the future.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Let's assume you can get agreement to cut off this subway at YU and halt a section into York Region that is a couple of years from being completed to 2035.....who writes the check to York Region for the money they have already sunk into this?

I think it would be unfair to York Region and its residents. We've promised them integration into our subway system, and they were the ones paying for it. I think we should finish this project but strongly considering moving to a staggered approach to transit improvements in the future, first putting down LRT lines where ridership demands it, and upgrading them to subways in the future.

Give them a choice. Vaughan or Richmond Hill. Most will choose RH. You see why I hate suburban subways TOarea. Look at all the politics.

 

[TOareaFan]

Give them a choice. Vaughan or Richmond Hill. Most will choose RH. You see why I hate suburban subways TOarea. Look at all the politics.

I am just trying to understand how your postpone to 2035 plan would work...who would write the cheque?

 

[Adjei]

Let's assume you can get agreement to cut off this subway at YU and halt a section into York Region that is a couple of years from being completed to 2035.....who writes the check to York Region for the money they have already sunk into this?

Plus the tunnels have already been dug into Vaughan and they have already started building the station structures. So how do you stop construction on those stations and put it of into some time in the future. What sense does that even make? Talk about waste!

 

[nfitz]

Cut this off York University, push Vaughan to 2035 or something, and get moving on Scarborough and the DRL. You know, subways that will actually serve Toronto.

Do you realise the tunnel is already complete, and the 2 stations in Vaughan are both well under way, with contracts already awarded to complete the stations.

Surely the $100s of million the TTC would have to refund Ontario, York, and Canada would far exceed the cost of putting in track, power, and signals to Vaughan Centre.