Do you mean SE here?
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
Yes, I edited it. Thanks!
darwink
Senior Member
I get these complaints, but acting like they are 'show stopper' risks the way the city is is bogus. Alberta has 4 elevated stations either built or under construction. It has elevated stations with low floor trains and with high floor trains.
Acting like somehow the greenline is special and needs bespoke everything is one reason the costs are out of control in the first place.
And no, you don 't need to do more analysis, because frankly, except in very marginal cases, traffic engineering is more magic than science. The only place the proposed system removes lanes is where the city already proposed to remove lanes during one interation. The analysis that the city did that deemed it acceptable does not need to be redone 7 years later. This is noted in the report.
Property access isn't needed, that is the whole point of elevated. you can work the problem just as anything else.
Transit analysis was completed when needed (when there weren't other show stoppers, in more than one instance it notes a show stopper is over burdening 7th Ave from the east.)
darwink
Senior Member
Addressed mostly elsewhere (I am not sure we can clean these up, as there are multiple threads going, and it is my fault, as per usual, but mods, feel free to move and fix and edit to make it all make more sense and stop the conservation from continuing in parallel), but the city isn't in a position of authority to reject it. The city's entire argument rests on the property impacts being worth a lot to everyone. The province has said they don't care, that more transit is worth those impacts.
Ultimately, is Council going to go to the people and say burning a billion dollars in a giant pit to accomplish nothing is worth more than the impacts on property owners? That is a spectacularly bad position to argue.
ahuch
Active Member
Isn't that a sunk cost fallacy? The city is likely going to say they can't make a prudent financial decision by March, because the report they were given doesn't have enough of a reliable cost estimate that can be trusted and cost overruns are solely burdening the government with the least means to fund them. I don't see how approving a cheaper plan that's at 5% IFC over the more expensive 60% IFC tunnel is a better solution... What happens if you run into a huge problem and the above ground line ends up costing more than a tunnel? Total boondoggle.
darwink
Senior Member
This is an error in risk costing. An assumption that a 60% design of a far more risky thing is less risky than a 5% design of a not at all risky thing. An assumption that every risk is similar. That the 20% chance of a 100% cost overrun on the tunnel is worth the same as a 0.5% chance of adjacent property owners successfully getting themselves expropriated with no offsetting value of selling those assets, just becvause each might be costed at lets throw out there, a billion dollars. An assumption that their relationship with the contractor has to act like how the city currently views it: we pass a report and you deliver and don't deviate even it it turns out iterating avoids a problem or lowers costs.
Edit: It is also a different sunk cost fallacy. Right now the city is stuck in its plan due to sunk cost, and the province wants them to abandon it and simultaneously reduce the sunk cost from the city by 66%-~85% (costs which apply to both plans). Accepting the elevated line is a huge political sunk cost: admitting they wasted a lot of time and money.
Last edited:
Has this ever happened in other projects?
The reason the tunnel is risky is that we don't actually know with 100% certainty what the geology of the route is. See some of the posts here in the last week - the layers in this part of the Bow valley are so varied that doing boreholes and taking samples won't really give you a clear picture.
The reason the elevated line is risky is that landowners may sue, and property values may tank. But there is a cap to how much effect that would have, especially in a downtown that is still 25% vacant.
Last edited:
HudsonA08
New Member
First and foremost - this argument is troublesome. I don't think anyone can say, with a straight face, that the tunnel will cost less than elevated. I see politicians (Nenshi for one) starting to say this, and it makes them look silly. Elevated will be less than a tunnel - there is no doubt about that. Any risks (like below ground issues) for elevated will be a larger risk for a tunnel. The sunk costs are just that sunk - they are gone. The utilities did not need to be done, but upgrading utilities now keeps it from having to be done in the future - so it's not a forever sunk cost.
ahuch
Active Member
The problems are less technical for elevated specifically on this project now and I'm not even sure how you quantify it, but certainly nothing we'd figure out on a web forum. What if CP doesn't play ball? What if landowners sue and win? Does a new RFP need to be issued and all the politics of introducing things to the media before discussing with project partners drives up bid costs due to industry pushing back against a flip flopping project team?
darwink
Senior Member
So, here is a big thing that Councillor Walcott just posted:
$700 million plus of the city's cost differential estimate is the cost of cancelling and then going back to market. I think that is in error, that while a change order would be in order, that they don't have to go back to market. It is an example of thinking within their paradigm, that due to propriety, their existing contract is to build X, and since they now want Y, that they should cancel and start again. Instead of empowering the existing contractor to just get the new plan done.
$700 million plus of the city's cost differential estimate is the cost of cancelling and then going back to market. I think that is in error, that while a change order would be in order, that they don't have to go back to market. It is an example of thinking within their paradigm, that due to propriety, their existing contract is to build X, and since they now want Y, that they should cancel and start again. Instead of empowering the existing contractor to just get the new plan done.
Beltline_B
Senior Member
This won't be a popular take, but hear me out. With the feds funding contingent on having an approved plan by March, we go ahead and get this built from Seton(or Shepard) to Victoria Park, and get the phase through downtown built later.
The reasoning
a) That portion has to get built one way or another, we can build it with funding from the Feds and the Province
b) The lack of proper connectivity will cause SE residents to either vent their malcontent to the PCs and push them into helping building the DT portion
c) The lack of proper connectivity will cause SE residents to either vent their malcontent by voting in the NDP because the NDP made campaign promises to finish the DT portion.
I welcome people to disagree and explain why they disagree, as I'm open to better options. I don't love this option, but it seems like the only feasible one given the timelines and the amount of screw ups.
The reasoning
a) That portion has to get built one way or another, we can build it with funding from the Feds and the Province
b) The lack of proper connectivity will cause SE residents to either vent their malcontent to the PCs and push them into helping building the DT portion
c) The lack of proper connectivity will cause SE residents to either vent their malcontent by voting in the NDP because the NDP made campaign promises to finish the DT portion.
I welcome people to disagree and explain why they disagree, as I'm open to better options. I don't love this option, but it seems like the only feasible one given the timelines and the amount of screw ups.
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
This is a great point. Any of the physical work done is not sunk. Even the land acquisitions can be flipped or better land use can be executed on them. The Eau Claire townhomes can be a more dense development or even a park. The old mustard seed on 11th can be turned into affordable housing.
What is sunk:
The 60% tunnel design, and as has been pointed out, that came with incredible risk.
I agree with you, the City needs to do what the Province did... "Hey, we're already working with AECOM, lets get them to do a little Green Line thing." Their partner description on the Green Line website says they're capable of designing above-ground structures.
Design and construction partners
www.calgary.ca
Lol Courtney... C'mon dude, AECOM did a report, which actually didn't pick a winner, the province did. So they put whatever image on the cover, why attack them for that?
Side note, I think the elevated stations could be much less wide, especially the 7th Avenue Station. Give them the Shawnessy station treatment:
240 Metres long, with a central crossover over 7th Avenue on the mezzanine level, with entrances to central mezzanine and at either end of the station on 8th and 6th Avenues.
-Keeps the track from splitting, saving width
-Central mezzanine over 7th allows for easy transfer to Blue and Red lines.
-Staggering the platforms allows the platform to reach further north and south
Shawnessy on the left, 2nd Street on the right.
Last edited:
darwink
Senior Member
This would require every level to agree to the scope change. Materially, while it builds different things, it is not actually different from the city's Lynnwood plan strategically.
For the downtown section you get back to contractibility, with a project that is all the downtown segment. Since the risk is so high, to meet the city's demands for fixed cost, the full risk has to be costed into the project, which leads to a huge cost. This was rejected by the province in 2021.
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
Sewing discontent is no reason to do something. You do it because we have never stopped adding on to our LRT lines, we won't start with the Green Line.
darwink
Senior Member
Here is a funny one from the report Walcott posted.
Only too late did they realize underground stations cost $400 million EACH. My word. And they somehow think underground is cheaper?
I had speculated that the underground stations were in the $200 million range before, but, wow.
Only too late did they realize underground stations cost $400 million EACH. My word. And they somehow think underground is cheaper?
I had speculated that the underground stations were in the $200 million range before, but, wow.