kempes_78
New Member
Industry-wise, AECOM shades WSP and amongst engineering professionals AECOM is usually a preferred choice.
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
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.
lemongrab
Active Member
Using 7th or even 8th Ave subway seems impossible without converting to HF trains, right?
Crazy idea:
SE GL moves to 12 Ave, probably gotta be a shallow UG station at arena. Then it connects with the red line underpass and switches into the municipal building tunnel.
But then it forks again to run WNW diagonally across Olympic Plaza for a terminus, leaving the straight 8th Ave ROW for HF trains.
Now it's likely a forever terminus and North is a separate line, but it wouldn't be totally impossible to connect them by running a few blocks up 1st St SE (construction disruption would be unpopular) then turning west on 3 Ave.
With the small empty parcel north of the NE corner of TCC you would have about 250 meters from the Muni Building (maybe even more considering the front plaza/sidewalk in front of west entrance)
Of course you'd have to tear up Olympic Plaza and turn 12 Ave north of Stampede into a construction zone........
What am I missing here...this seems kinda brilliant?
Crazy idea:
SE GL moves to 12 Ave, probably gotta be a shallow UG station at arena. Then it connects with the red line underpass and switches into the municipal building tunnel.
But then it forks again to run WNW diagonally across Olympic Plaza for a terminus, leaving the straight 8th Ave ROW for HF trains.
Now it's likely a forever terminus and North is a separate line, but it wouldn't be totally impossible to connect them by running a few blocks up 1st St SE (construction disruption would be unpopular) then turning west on 3 Ave.
With the small empty parcel north of the NE corner of TCC you would have about 250 meters from the Muni Building (maybe even more considering the front plaza/sidewalk in front of west entrance)
Of course you'd have to tear up Olympic Plaza and turn 12 Ave north of Stampede into a construction zone........
What am I missing here...this seems kinda brilliant?
ahuch
Active Member
Well I think one piece is that we just had utility companies spend about 2 full years moving utilities from 11 ave to 12 ave for the previous green line alignment. Lol.
lemongrab
Active Member
Sunk cost fallacy. Move them back!
Or, this is probably a stretch, but it might not even be impossible to do it off 11th Ave
Or, this is probably a stretch, but it might not even be impossible to do it off 11th Ave
lemongrab
Active Member
40m and 50m radius circles:
kempes_78
New Member
Have you taken town planning considerations on boars, headways, ridership, design philosophy amd geotechnical on board, etc, hmmmm.
lemongrab
Active Member
No. I'm just an idiot on the internet.
kempes_78
New Member
Ooerr missus.
darwink
Senior Member
The issue to investigate would be passenger transfer demand westbound since the terminus is likely too far east. Better than 3rd St SE of course. But would need a detailed analysis on how much better.
lemongrab
Active Member
Yup it's a bit of a drawback, but it's really the exact same distance (1 full block) to WB 1st St station, which is the same station you'd walk to from GL on 2nd St. In fact it would be even faster from a shallow Olympic Plaza station than a deep 2nd St.
EB puts your transfer the same distance but 1 station further east. But that also means a slightly faster overall travel time.
Of course once red line moves to 8th you are locked into that first/last DT station, but it would hopefully be easier to kill the problem with frequency (what a great problem to have!)
A big plus I see is that stations for all 3 lines would be within a ~100m radius with 0-1 levels of grade separation, vs. ~180m and 1-2 levels in both the near and long term. Does that constant mobility benefit outweigh the overload drawback at absolute peak times?
darwink
Senior Member
The green line exists as conceived (an independent access to the centre of the business district) because in the 90s the conclusion was no.