darwink
Senior Member
On the political side, Calgary confederation was a liberal target seat (the centre north), and having it go through liberal target seats, was very important to the CPC.
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
I had forgotten about that.
Here's the fed announcement from 9 years back: https://www.canada.ca/en/news/archive/2015/07/harper-government-invests-get-calgary-moving.html
kempes_78
New Member
An estimate is only valid and reliable for a limited period of time (say 3 to 6 months, if that), why? Qualifications attached to it e.g. escalation prediction; design presumptions e.g. type of rail track and fastenings, method to construct tunnels; contract e.g. risk and reward and whether split between design and implement, EPCM (Silver book), NEC etc.; staff envisaged; extent of City's value engineering requirements; availability of geotechnical information at 'green areas' and restrictions applied to its ownership and use; national or international builder - ability to select a competent national or local Contractor; design capabilities - remember they are only as good as the information provided to them; competency and capability of Green Line company management board; Flyvberg's principles for undertaking a megaproject should be understood by principal parties and stakeholders etc. etc. etc. Politicians are a menace and believe that for the money spent that they will get what they want yet do they know: the cost of financing and releasing funds in staggered stages; the availability of funders; basics and fundamentals of construction; the envisaged Contract etc. etc. etc? Don't get too optimistic about the 2015 GL FSD report: it is like forecasting US $ v C $ v Euro at moments in time.
From the above: why were the 2 separate design stages of 30% and 60% accelerated to be submitted simultaneously on January 2, 2024 when the City's value engineering works was not complete? That smacks of gross incompetence from the Client's side and shows a lack of understanding under para 1 above!
When para 2 was proposed did anyone look back to the 2015 GL FSD report to compare and contrast values? I doubt it.
Now the torch is with AECOM: their list of qualifications and assumptions should make everyone sit up and take notice!
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
Lol their work is an acute percentage point of the project's costs. Yeah they're fine at what they do but I can tell you no one is sitting up and taking notice. They're bit player in the Green Line snow ball. They'll get their $2.5M for essentially giving us an updated version of this.
kempes_78
New Member
FCC1982
Active Member
God Noooo!
At grade is NOT a solution.
InfrastructureEnthusiast
New Member
CBBarnett
Senior Member
Any other AECOM fans in the house? I can’t say I’ve ever seen someone quite so excited about a specific engineering consultant conglomerate before.
I’m sure they do fine work, just don’t get the love affair. The whole process stinks and is politically driven, any companies attached to that get the stink and suspicion of stink too.
Why should it matter that it’s these guys specifically rather than any other generic acronym consultants to repackage other consultant reports to sell back to the province what they want to hear? Why the love affair?
kempes_78
New Member
A love affair? He he he!
MichaelS
Senior Member
Well, to be fair, we often geek out and fawn over architecture firms. We would lose our minds if we found out Foster and Partners were gong to do a supertall in Calgary for instance. Maybe others who are more dialed in and enthusiastic about infrastructure feel the same way about some engineering firms.
kempes_78
New Member
Industry-wise, AECOM shades WSP and amongst engineering professionals AECOM is usually a preferred choice.
ahuch
Active Member
I have literally never heard anyone say this before. Every EPC has their A teams and their D or F teams, work with any company long enough and you'll have a bad experience eventually. I can't speak to the procurement side of things (or scope for that matter since nobody here knows) but when the provincial government has some last minute rush job they're probably not getting the A team.
Tothewest
Active Member
Agreed here, I think AECOM by experience provides an opinion from a highly reputable company, but they are by no means the single gold standard in light rail transport planning.
However, I would challenge your second sentence, in the sense that 95% of the information (current plan, soil studies, land acquisition, utility drawings, previous studies, previous route planning, ect ect) is at their disposal, and 95% of the route isn't going to change, so in many ways it's a highly focused contract. I don't see a company like AECOM, where you have high reputational sensitivity, taking on a contract that sets themselves up to fail for $2.5M. It's a drop in the bucket of revenue, but a government contract for a wealthy province in a wealthy country. I'd bet we get an "A Team"
kempes_78
New Member
There are other infrastructure engineering companies out there who are equally as good as AECOM. I have worked on AECOM projects as a client and contractor and their ranking has always been first rate!
I am not certain where I, apparently, stated "95% of the information" from. Progressing with another's information is fraught with hidden banana skins hence expect heavy qualifications and assumptions. Not-so-obvious problems arise from geotechnical which influences foundation design for underground, at grade and elevated stations.
A key issue was the rushed, combined 30%/ 60% design submissions from January 2024 where there was still outstanding value engineering to be advised by the City. On the south-east stretch close to the CP tracks there were "several discussions" over how a C-Train travelling at x kilometres had enough braking clearance to clear an incline and then be able to brake at a downhill bend for a nearby level crossing and then the station - a tall order. That incline to be overcome was under discussion for amending which alters the alignment and headway calculations.
For C$ 2.5 M it should prove chicken feed for AECOM. WSP will nervously await whether their Client desired design cuts mustard!
kempes_78
New Member
Scope was always an ongoing issue and uncertainty prevailed across the board. Scope was rushed and caused uncertainty. Some designers knew that their design was to be to 60% yet others had scopes which suggested that 90% might be required. Hastily prepared documents are unhelpful.