darwink
Senior Member
Tbh that the city didn’t realize it wasn’t ready was a real problem and showed poor project leadership.
Lots of whipsaw trying to find a technical solution that just wasn’t there to control costs and mitigate geology.
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
Lots of whipsaw trying to find a technical solution that just wasn’t there to control costs and mitigate geology.
lemongrab
Active Member
This is the most damning thing for me. The initial costing and readiness were just so unbelievably wrong. It would be nice to see an inquiry or academic study to find out why that happened, and why it took so long to realize it (though it still seems nobody is really acknowledging it).
It kinda seems like anybody who did realize it ran into a brick wall and/or abandoned ship
darwink
Senior Member
T
For the Greenline, we never had that, because even during this last project phase, the expressed preference from a Q&A from iirc 2017 was stuck to. That preference is so strong, that even cutting most of the distance was preferable. But we never saw the tradeoff in public. I'm not confident an evaluation was ever made.
Imagine what it would be like being a career official in that environment. You don't get truth to power when council can define not giving answers they want as being difficult and have you shuffled off with little difficulty.
Its one reason project boards are in best practice brought in very early for projects that aren't typical, and stood up with a CEO that is compensated appropriately for the magnitude of the project. The board insulates the CEO from being fired, and the CEO can speak truth to power. The board forces the council to define their objectives early, and then works to meet those objectives, and shields the project from changes outside of those objectives. Having the objectives defined, lets the CEO respond to most requests with either: this does not serve the objective, do you want to redefine the objective? or, this is out of scope with the objective, perhaps this could be pursued through other means.
The Greenline and the Event Centre 1.0 were two sides of the same coin. Decisions made early without evaluation then presented big problems which weren't reexamined, instead, direction from council, whether from motion, or as expressed preference during Q&A, or from a councillor directly leading a process, was treated as sacrosanct. Extreme preference to not go back to council for redirection slows everything down. For the event centre, we saw how much better the result was when the footprint was allowed to grow, and the target number of seats was allowed to shrink which were both against Council preference.
For the Greenline, we never had that, because even during this last project phase, the expressed preference from a Q&A from iirc 2017 was stuck to. That preference is so strong, that even cutting most of the distance was preferable. But we never saw the tradeoff in public. I'm not confident an evaluation was ever made.
Imagine what it would be like being a career official in that environment. You don't get truth to power when council can define not giving answers they want as being difficult and have you shuffled off with little difficulty.
Its one reason project boards are in best practice brought in very early for projects that aren't typical, and stood up with a CEO that is compensated appropriately for the magnitude of the project. The board insulates the CEO from being fired, and the CEO can speak truth to power. The board forces the council to define their objectives early, and then works to meet those objectives, and shields the project from changes outside of those objectives. Having the objectives defined, lets the CEO respond to most requests with either: this does not serve the objective, do you want to redefine the objective? or, this is out of scope with the objective, perhaps this could be pursued through other means.
kempes_78
New Member
Do some literature research on megaprojects. A complicated process with several unique, distinct phases. Expect surprises. Calgary will learn with difficulty how sincere promises can fade away quickly.
I was going to say this reminds me of the SF Central Subway, but our project's cost is "only" $649 million/km for 9 km, vs. $957 million/km (Canadian dollars) for their 2.74 km line.
BTW https://maps.calgary.ca/greenline/ has the stumpy line now.
BTW https://maps.calgary.ca/greenline/ has the stumpy line now.
darwink
Senior Member
Very aware of the Flyvbjerg hypothesis. Very aware of how it is also abused by the do nothing ever faction (except for things they want, which mysteriously become not megaprojects). Very aware of how in Calgary we only started hearing about it after the above ground section east of the elbow was merged into one contract with the tunnel to follow international best practice, with likely meant local contractors were no longer big enough to be prime contractors and instead needed to get contracts under larger consortium partners, reducing their potential profits.
The city is very much at fault for a lot of the failings here. But Flyvbjerg imo alone provides a useful overview of the problems with projects, and doesn't provide solutions beyond not doing anything ever.
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
Is cost at all a factor? Do you need to pay for parking downtown? Do you find yourself stuck in traffic often on that route?That's fair, I can only speak to the fact that I live near one of the stations that was cut... I was contemplating taking the train downtown once built, but if I'm driving up Ogden Road (literally my commute today) I'm just going to keep going driving downtown. Everyone's different though.
If the actual traffic isn't much of an issue where this line serves than it is vital to add on to this ASAP. I think you need to get Justin's crew to commit to something before they're gone. I do not see Pierre scuttling the commitment to building a train out to Conservative voters in the SE.
Albertasaurus
Active Member
I do wish they'd found the money, somehow, to get the line built to Quarry Park. Not sure what the extra cost would be, but with the amount of employment and new residential going in there it seems like having a station would generate a lot more ridership. I also worry that some of the development planned for there may not go ahead now.
kempes_78
New Member
Flyvbjerg does not provide solutions for the problems. His hypothesis concentrates on areas where control and emphasis should be strong. Too many cooks?
kempes_78
New Member
accord1999
Active Member
The Green Line has a segment that's pretty desolate though and should be a lot of cheaper. Anybody want to guess at how the split is now between the expensive DT and east of 4 Street? Stage 1 is now $5.8B (not including financing charge) so the 2.4 km DT might be around $3.5B?
In 2019 this was how they split the costs:
lemongrab
Active Member
I think you've hit on perhaps the most integral issue here - the objectives seem to have been pushed to the backseat a long time ago. The GL Board wasn't even mandated to meet objectives...it was created to deliver 'the program'. The program being 16th to Shephard. It even explicity excludes BRT improvements (see bolded below - I suspect that meant the BRT north stuff included in the 2017 plan, but it could also be read to exclude any consideration of BRT anywhere)
From the GL Board Governance Manual:
I think most can agree that the Program (Stage 1 as determined in 2017) was not an absolute clear cut homerun best choice (even if you agree that it was a good enough choice). It was arrived at by a poor process, perhaps with ill-defined objectives? So while I can understand the desire to keep the scope narrow to try to get things going, that shouldn't happen at the expense of the original objectives
Were the objectives officially published at any point? In the very simplest terms, I'd have to think the primary objective was something like: build the best possible transit for about $5B (of course with a whole bunch of points to define what that means in terms of service, ridership, targetting the North/SE, and the need to satisfy requirements from Prov/Feds for funding, etc)
A key step whenever any project runs into major issues should be a very zoomed out review of "what are we really trying to do here". It usually isn't the answer, but I've personally experienced it several times (albeit much smaller projects) where 'that option we narrowly decided against a long time ago is actually the best option based on all of the information we have today. So let's do that instead'. It really seems like this never really happened, because of both valid and silly reasons.
Not that anybody asked, but here's what I would have built instead of this:
- Phase 1
- Use the existing LRT vehicle type for the SE green line.
- Make the SE green line branch off 7 Ave, and take 4 St E to go under the CP tracks.
- This means the red, blue and SE green lines would share 7 Avenue, which is not good long-term, but that leads us to:
- Phase 2
- Red line tunnel under 8 Ave (this would be shallower than the proposed green line tunnel that has to go under both the red line tunnel and CP tracks)
- Phase 3
- Build a completely different line to go north - THAT line can use the low floor vehicles, and would need its own MSF somewhere in the north. It could use a reinforced Centre St bridge, enter a tunnel at 2 or 3 Ave S, and dead-end at 7 Ave to provide transfers to the blue and SE green lines, and a short pedestrian tunnel to the red line under 8 Ave.
- 16 Ave N station would certainly need to be in a short tunnel
- Build a completely different line to go north - THAT line can use the low floor vehicles, and would need its own MSF somewhere in the north. It could use a reinforced Centre St bridge, enter a tunnel at 2 or 3 Ave S, and dead-end at 7 Ave to provide transfers to the blue and SE green lines, and a short pedestrian tunnel to the red line under 8 Ave.
O-tac
Active Member
I happened to be driving Ogden road today to the Beltline. Seeing the area in Lynnwood / Millican Flats where the station is going is even crazier than I remembered or saw on Google maps. It’s in the middle of nowhere with no houses or businesses beside it. Even residents within eyesight of the station would need to walk up and down a large hill and across a massive empty field to connect to it. As for business access there’s a road, a ditch and a fence blocking you from even getting to CP’s HQ. This cannot be anything except the first step to start construction before immediately moving to get the extension done.
I also noticed the signs warning of impending Greenline construction on the fence to what would be the Shepard maintenance facility beside 52nd are now gone.
I also noticed the signs warning of impending Greenline construction on the fence to what would be the Shepard maintenance facility beside 52nd are now gone.
lemongrab
Active Member
Here's another wacky idea that has a ton of problems, but could've been okay:
1. After crossing the Bow River it heads due west along Highfield Crescent, where it crosses 11 St and then uses the abandoned tracks ROW all the way to 1st St and 42 Ave SE.
2. It's a bit clumsy here, but connect it to the redline just south or north of the 39 Ave station. South of the station is below grade, or you'd have to fly over the station and join to the north.
3. Shares red line until 8th Ave tunnel, which is expanded as necessary to be the terminus.
This would be about 3km of new track west of the Bow River, but it should be quite simple until the last part.
Compared to the most difficult 7km as currently planned from the Bow River to Eau Claire, which also has to get over heavy rail and the Elbow River. 'Highfield' station would be about 1km SW of the current plan. 4 fewer stations (26th, Ramsay, 4th St (losing the provincial funding in this so-called reality we live in), and Eau Claire).
How much further south would that get us?
1. After crossing the Bow River it heads due west along Highfield Crescent, where it crosses 11 St and then uses the abandoned tracks ROW all the way to 1st St and 42 Ave SE.
2. It's a bit clumsy here, but connect it to the redline just south or north of the 39 Ave station. South of the station is below grade, or you'd have to fly over the station and join to the north.
3. Shares red line until 8th Ave tunnel, which is expanded as necessary to be the terminus.
This would be about 3km of new track west of the Bow River, but it should be quite simple until the last part.
Compared to the most difficult 7km as currently planned from the Bow River to Eau Claire, which also has to get over heavy rail and the Elbow River. 'Highfield' station would be about 1km SW of the current plan. 4 fewer stations (26th, Ramsay, 4th St (losing the provincial funding in this so-called reality we live in), and Eau Claire).
How much further south would that get us?