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
thecivilengineer said:
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?
Click to expand...
It is AECOM, a very well-known, world-wide established EPC, EPCM, design and build, NEC designer: a very good company to work for and with. AECON is the construction wing. You will get at least 3 to 6 designs for an at-grade solution. 3 will be throw-aways i.e. not feasible, whereas, the remainder will have pros and cons for discussion.
Alberta sounds progressive with its approach, whereas, Calgary think they are but caught punching well above their weight: a common problem when amateurs manage megaprojects.
 
kempes_78 said:
It is AECOM, a very well-known, world-wide established EPC, EPCM, design and build, NEC designer: a very good company to work for and with. AECON is the construction wing. You will get at least 3 to 6 designs for an at-grade solution. 3 will be throw-aways i.e. not feasible, whereas, the remainder will have pros and cons for discussion.
Alberta sounds progressive with its approach, whereas, Calgary think they are but caught punching well above their weight: a common problem when amateurs manage megaprojects.
Click to expand...
In what way does Alberta sound progressive with its approach? They waited until the late stages of procurement to throw a fit and pull funding when they could just as easily have done it sooner if they really wanted this outcome with far less damage done to the city. It's not like AECOM is some kind of godsend compared to WSP, they had a mandate to deliver a tunnel and it is what it is at this point. The province was fully aware of this.
 
The real Alberta problem was the August letter. I’m sure the city actioned a bunch of long lead time and cost hedge contracts soon after.
 
darwink said:
The real Alberta problem was the August letter. I’m sure the city actioned a bunch of long lead time and cost hedge contracts soon after.
Click to expand...
You probably mean the July 29 letter? (then council approved to Lynnwood July 30). But Dreeshen's Aug 1 comments would've seemed a rubber stamp.

The federal business case approval was another interesting element - did we ever have a sense of timeline for that? Is there any chance a surprise federal election could have disrupted things? Would it involve Ministerial approval? I'd hope the process wouldn't be longer than an election campaign, but it also wouldn't be completely shocking if silly games were played in that scenario (the good ole vote for us and we'll do what we already promised we'd do).

All moot now as the election threat was never really serious, but I wonder how much political risk gets weighed in admin's recommendations. Rewinding to 2015 they would have had nearly 4 years of runway prov/feds and 2 years with council. Kinda crazy that it's gone through 3 fed elections, 2 provincial, and 2 municipal
 
kempes_78 said:
It is AECOM, a very well-known, world-wide established EPC, EPCM, design and build, NEC designer: a very good company to work for and with. AECON is the construction wing. You will get at least 3 to 6 designs for an at-grade solution. 3 will be throw-aways i.e. not feasible, whereas, the remainder will have pros and cons for discussion.
Alberta sounds progressive with its approach, whereas, Calgary think they are but caught punching well above their weight: a common problem when amateurs manage megaprojects.
Click to expand...

AECOM designed Ottawa's LRT and Edmonton's Valley Line... two projects that were absolute disasters either prior to, or after, opening day. The fact the UCP is pinning all their hopes and dreams on them and dismissing the work done by all other firms should definitely be a concern for Calgarians
 
It's impossible to be perfect... you could pick any firm like Hatch or WSP and find projects that blew up. AFAIK Valley Line was cos of Bechtel sucking so bad
Edit: After some quick searching I don't think AECOM actually designed the Confederation Line. Looking at AECOM's website they only designed the 30% stage line before the project was cancelled. The revived and built project was designed by SNC Lavalin in the OLRT consortium
 
Last edited:
Crickets from my MLA Matt Jones. Very telling that the guy covering the ward most affected by the Greenline cancellation has nothing to say when I responded with questions to the generic e-mail promising a new design some time in the future.
 
whatchyyc said:
It's impossible to be perfect... you could pick any firm like Hatch or WSP and find projects that blew up. AFAIK Valley Line was cos of Bechtel sucking so bad
Edit: After some quick searching I don't think AECOM actually designed the Confederation Line. Looking at AECOM's website they only designed the 30% stage line before the project was cancelled. The revived and built project was designed by SNC Lavalin in the OLRT consortium
Click to expand...
The Ottawa Confederation Line is an example of trying to get transit at the lowest cost and something we should avoid. As far as I remember OLRT's proposal originally failed the technical review, but Ottawa selected it regardless because it came in much cheaper than the other proposals. Look how it turned out, non-stop issues in the first few years of operation that have cots tons of money regardless and hurt their transit ridership.
 
Nawads said:
The Ottawa Confederation Line is an example of trying to get transit at the lowest cost and something we should avoid. As far as I remember OLRT's proposal originally failed the technical review, but Ottawa selected it regardless because it came in much cheaper than the other proposals. Look how it turned out, non-stop issues in the first few years of operation that have cots tons of money regardless and hurt their transit ridership.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the very politicians that chose this option were the first to complain.
 
ahuch said:
In what way does Alberta sound progressive with its approach? They waited until the late stages of procurement to throw a fit and pull funding when they could just as easily have done it sooner if they really wanted this outcome with far less damage done to the city. It's not like AECOM is some kind of godsend compared to WSP, they had a mandate to deliver a tunnel and it is what it is at this point. The province was fully aware of S
Click to expand...

ahuch said:
In what way does Alberta sound progressive with its approach? They waited until the late stages of procurement to throw a fit and pull funding when they could just as easily have done it sooner if they really wanted this outcome with far less damage done to the city. It's not like AECOM is some kind of godsend compared to WSP, they had a mandate to deliver a tunnel and it is what it is at this point. The province was fully aware of this.
Click to expand...
The City's July announcement - reduction of stations and permanent way - speaks volumes. The province recognised poor judgement.
 
outoftheice said:
AECOM designed Ottawa's LRT and Edmonton's Valley Line... two projects that were absolute disasters either prior to, or after, opening day. The fact the UCP is pinning all their hopes and dreams on them and dismissing the work done by all other firms should definitely be a concern for Calgarians
Click to expand...
July's announcement by the City is a huge concern for Calgary AECOM is a welcome breath of fresh air.
 
Finally some more information on the AECOM work

"For now, the province is paying $2.5 million to a private consultant to develop a new LRT alignment. That report is expected in December."
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top