Best direction for the Green line at this point?

  • Go ahead with the current option of Eau Claire to Lynbrook and phase in extensions.

    Votes: 42 60.0%

  • Re-design the whole system

    Votes: 22 31.4%

  • Cancel it altogether

    Votes: 6 8.6%
  • Total voters
    70
outoftheice said:
Some fun food for thought...

All the UCP's messaging is having this new SE LRT plan connect to their new Grand Central Station that everyone is assuming will be in East Village because that is where the UCP wants it to be. But they are also paying consultants to develop a regional rail plan that, one would hope, is not designed around a politically predetermined outcome and will actually provide recommendations from evidence based decision making. So what if this report comes back and recommends the Grand Central Station actually be located elsewhere downtown? The UCP's entire Green Line plan goes out the window. Will that happen? Odds are slim but it does demonstrate how the UCP are making the same mistakes the City made in the past about Green Line by promising plans, outcomes and costing before some of the most basic factors are decided.
Click to expand...
When megaprojects come home to roost...
 
kempes_78 said:
When megaprojects come home to roost...
Click to expand...

1. Underestimating Initial Project Complexity​

  • PMCs might downplay the project's complexity early on, which leads to insufficient planning and unforeseen challenges later.
2. Inadequate Scope Definition
  • Poorly defined project scope results in scope creep, frequent change orders, and cost overruns that aren't flagged until too late.
3. Lack of Clear Communication Channels
  • Insufficient or unclear communication structures lead to misunderstandings between contractors, vendors, and the employer.
4. Failure to Identify Risks Early
  • Risk management may be reactive rather than proactive, meaning issues that could have been mitigated are only addressed when it's too late.
5. Delayed Decision-Making


  • PMCs may stall critical decisions, especially when awaiting employer input, slowing the project down without clearly indicating the root cause.
6. Inadequate Contractor Performance Monitoring
  • Without proper oversight, contractors may underperform or deviate from the project schedule, but this often remains unnoticed until significant delays occur.
7. Over-Reliance on Contractors
  • PMCs may trust contractors too much, failing to provide adequate oversight and quality control, which results in subpar work that goes unnoticed for a while.
8. Neglecting Long-Lead Items
  • Forgetting or delaying the procurement of critical, long-lead items can cause scheduling bottlenecks that may not become obvious until construction is delayed.
9. Improper Resource Allocation
  • Assigning the wrong personnel or insufficient resources to key tasks, leading to inefficiencies and delays that aren’t immediately apparent to the employer.
10. Failure to Implement Robust HSE Management
  • Poor health, safety, and environmental management can lead to violations or incidents, but these may not be immediately flagged unless a major accident occurs.
11. Inconsistent Quality Control
  • QC inspections might not be thorough or consistent, meaning quality issues go unnoticed until they require expensive rework.
12. Ignoring Stakeholder Concerns
  • Not addressing concerns from local communities or regulatory bodies early on, leading to conflicts and disruptions that the employer may not initially realize.
13. Over-Optimistic Reporting
  • PMCs may provide overly optimistic progress reports to avoid alarming the employer, masking deeper project issues.
14. Inadequate Contractor Prequalification
  • Selecting contractors without thorough vetting, leading to poor performance or inability to meet project requirements later on.
15. Improper Change Management
  • Failure to properly document or track changes in design or scope can result in disputes or unnoticed cost increases.
16. Underestimating Weather or Environmental Impacts
  • PMCs might overlook the impact of adverse weather conditions or environmental challenges on construction timelines.
17. Inefficient Permit and Regulatory Management
  • Delays in securing permits or meeting regulatory requirements may not be flagged early enough, causing unexpected project halts later on.
18. Not Keeping Track of Interface Management
  • Poor coordination between different contractors or packages can lead to interface issues that slow down the project but go unnoticed until integration becomes problematic.
19. Failure to Update the Employer on Delays
  • When delays occur, PMCs may fail to promptly inform the employer or provide the full extent of the issues, making it harder to implement corrective actions.
20. Overlooking Commissioning and Startup Challenges
  • Ignoring the complexities of commissioning and startup activities can lead to last-minute challenges, affecting project delivery and performance without the employer realizing the root cause earlier.
 
From what I've seen the UCP wants two train stations downtown. There's the Grand Central thing in Victoria Park and a smaller station at the west end of downtown
 
Do you mean for the green line? Or their commuter rail line?
 
The City "winding down" the Green Line project doesn't seem like the best approach. Wouldn't it be better to see what the Province comes up with and then vote on that proposal in Council? The current approach seems like a knee-jerk, reactionary move that isn't well thought out regarding its consequences.
 
kora said:
The City "winding down" the Green Line project doesn't seem like the best approach. Wouldn't it be better to see what the Province comes up with and then vote on that proposal in Council? The current approach seems like a knee-jerk, reactionary move that isn't well thought out regarding its consequences.
Click to expand...
The knee-jerk move is that of the UCP, the city needs to make sure it's not going to spend any more money on something if it's just going to be torn up by the provincial government.
 
kora said:
The City "winding down" the Green Line project doesn't seem like the best approach. Wouldn't it be better to see what the Province comes up with and then vote on that proposal in Council? The current approach seems like a knee-jerk, reactionary move that isn't well thought out regarding its consequences.
Click to expand...
Ya it would seem a lot more prudent to preserve the team and governance structure that they finally established for at least a little bit longer. I think the assembled expertise could be redirected in a few directions, such as developing a proposal for a provincial-backed delivery model for mega-projects like this. There was some discussion about this in the July 30 council meeting and the desire to shift the cost-overrun burden to the province instead of the city.

We can tell the province that this would be the better model and hope that they take it on in good faith and figure it out...or we can show them how it should actually work (ie. collaborate with Edmonton, look at other provincial models) and have the framework of a plan that can be adopted [in 3 years by Premier Nenshi...]

And then months down the road the team could get back onto delivering the UCP plan if it isn't totally abhorrent. I'd be more supportive of just taking our ball and going home if the UCP had quashed a quality plan, but in this case I'd rather maintain whatever influence control I could over what remains a salvage operation (just as Lynnwood to EC became a salvage operation)
 
Look forward to a further breakdown but out of the 1.85 Billion I wonder how much is truly lost. The design has to be some of the smaller numbers, right? The utility work, land acquisition, and the LRV, in theory, could still be useful?
 
I
Dkeirle said:
I apologize in advance if this question has been asked recently, but I didn’t see it in one of the previous posts and I didn’t want to go back and read 100 pages of posts over the past year.
My question is whether the Green Line planners looked at having a spur coming off of the red line south? For example, a spur down Anderson Road into Quarry Park and then turning south east over to McKenzie town, etc.
I’m under the assumption they would’ve but I can’t find any mention of it.
Thanks, D
Click to expand...
I don’t recall a red line spur ever discussed as an option. It would make sense in a lot of ways, but I don’t think the 7th ave capacity is there.
 
kiggupiggu said:
The 1 Billion lost is equal to the money needed to extend the current plan to Shepard.

We are going to spend basically the same amount to get something worse.
Click to expand...
C$ 1B is not lost as it has been expended upon design, procurement and placing supply chain contracts to date. If all things were equal, without Alberta interfering, there would be: no negotiating breaches/ terminations of contracts; design issues; staff terminations; liquidating a company; re-designs etc. All that would apply would be a value for escalation which is a valid clause for a project over 2 years in duration. The value to be applied is calculated quarterly. In the execution phase: there will be further design value engineering, innovation and lean construction. With risk and reward, the Contractor's cost per design element is allocated as a an agreed target cost: whatever the underspend or overspend is, a shared %age value is applied which either means a bonus or deduction in value which either benefits or penalises both parties.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top