O-tac
Active Member
And Smith said nothing about it in her televised dear leader speech.
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
kempes_78
New Member
She is a figurehead and her knowledge is limited, face facts. Her marmite moment is in December when she will critique her Consultant's proposal!
ahuch
Active Member
Land acquisition will be lost in certain regards if the ROW changes (e.g. not building Eau Claire), and when I spoke to utility work I meant all of the underground utilities moved over the last three years to accommodate tunnels. Of course it's not 100% wasted, but we're talking about a lot of money and effort here. In what way does it make sense for the city to staff up employees for a mega project and not use contractors? Industry would never do that, it doesn't make sense to hire FTEs for mega projects... What do you do, lay them off once the projects done? Not following your logic here.
lemongrab
Active Member
But the city still owns the land, so it can be resold or repurposed if the eventual alignment doesn't use it
InfrastructureEnthusiast
New Member
Well at a high level, the logic is "don't build mega projects".
It may end up taking longer to build the line from end to end, but it should be somewhat more efficient as institutional knowledge is built. Knowledge that can be used on other smaller projects like red or blue line extensions, or planning for a fourth line.
As a simpler example, if a city decides to build its first road interchange in 10+ years, knowledge on how to do so likely doesn't exist in house, it will have to be learned or hired in.
Along the way, unexpected caveats will be discovered and have to be accounted for, (ie. something to do with local soil conditions) which will likely delay and add costs to the project.
Once completed, if there are no other interchange projects to work on, the team will be disbanded and the institutional knowledge lost.
When a new interchange project is stood up 10+ years later, many of those caveats will have to be relearned, again at unforeseen expense.
However, if a city has a steady stream of interchange projects to work on, the institutional knowledge doesn't get lost, and successive projects may even become faster and cheaper as more efficient methods are discovered via repetition.
To your comments on the land/util costs, if the revised project uses 2st for an elevated route, much of that work may have been necessary anyways, so very little would be lost.
Will the province's consultants be savvy enough to factor in nuanced detail like that?
I won't bet on it, but I'll hope so!
outoftheice
Active Member
Watching Council today we heard that it took 3 years to hire the right people and create the institutional knowledge necessary to deliver a project of this scale. Those people are now out of jobs and few of them will be sticking around so instead of creating that environment where future expansions could build on that institutional knowledge to be delivered cheaper and faster we will be back at square 1. Not to mention any sort of LRT construction has now been delayed by another 2 years minimum according the City Admin today. The UCP's decision will have all kinds of negative ripple effects for our city.
kempes_78
New Member
Megaprojects issues are broadly similar from project to project: knowledge to use on other smaller projects? Hmmm, a megaproject is a different beast to a smaller project. Your example is wide of the mark, with respect. Consultants are far more savvy than you give them credit for. Institutional knowledge is never lost and re-learning is not as 'drastic' as you make out. The Province's Consultants will be savvy and will gently critique each other in ways you cannot comprehend. Why do you think Consultant's carry PI?
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
Isn't this why other regions have more centralized transit/rail planning things like translink? Rail Alberta...
I think the Alberta government believe they can spin this thing up faster than they probably can... What they'll get out of couple months long engineering firm is nothing you can build. I hope they haven't been watching those videos on Chinese cities building out subways in a decade that are bigger than our existing systems. They probably want substantial construction started by Spring '27 so they can have a photo op around election time. 2.5 years does not feel long enough. Maybe it happens but rushing something that isn't ready has its risks.
lemongrab
Active Member
it's possible the 'concepts of a plan' is to re-use everything the city did from Shephard to 4th and then they'll slap together the elevated section to City Hall.
But this assumes the city will share all of those plans and continue with their funding...which seems doubtful and that we'll just have a jurisdictional showdown with the province pointing to a dysfunctional council as a reason to dismantle municipal democracy as we knew it.
DougB
Senior Member
Agencies like TransLink, Sound Transit and BART exist to co-ordinate projects across multiple municipalities. This isn't an issue in Calgary, but Edmonton will need something similar at some point,
whatchyyc
Active Member
thecivilengineer
New Member
As far as i know AECON is contactor and not designing firm which only do construction and not involved in design project. Might be AECOM?
Do they mean "above ground" or actually "at-grade"? If the latter, does that mean the section south of the Event Centre is subject to change as well? Inglewood/Ramsay through Crossroads is currently elevated.
You can't cross the CPKC tracks at grade anyway, so perhaps this means something like an underpass, which is not a tunnel and not elevated?
trtcttc
Active Member
Most likely, they replace WSP which was the main design/engineering firm for Bow Transit Connector.
Aecom designed the Valley line in Edmonton - which looks extremely similar to what the UCP wants to do with the Green line.
Joborule
Active Member
I think they simply mean the downtown terminus/7th ave connection would be at-grade.