O-tac
Active Member
I swear it’s ideological opposition to a socialist transit system or cause it doesn’t use oil or something.
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
Albertasaurus
Active Member
I agree that it's mostly ideological
artvandelay
Active Member
6 years as mayor and he couldn't get a shovel in the ground - but it's everyone else's fault.
accord1999
Active Member
Why can't it be a spectrum of reasons, including thinking that the ROI of the Green Line no longer justifies the investment. One can strongly support a Green Line that's <$5B and stretches from Panorama Hills to Seton, then grudgingly approve something that goes from 16th Avenue to Shepard to opposing the Green Line where it now can only go from Eau Claire to Millican.
FriendlyDrunks
Active Member
I'm just going to leave this here.6 years as mayor and he couldn't get a shovel in the ground - but it's everyone else's fault.
"In late 2019 the newly elected UCP provincial government passed legislation allowing their government to terminate their contribution "without cause" and with only 90 days notice. This move complicated the city's ability to move forward with the project, hindered the city's access to the federal government's investment and raised uncertainty among potential procurement bidders"
darwink
Senior Member
So I think what is recommended warrants a pause.
The question needs to be asked if not address today:
If this isn't a failed procurement, what is?
Were other options to drastically cut costs evaluated? If so, what were they and why were they rejected?
The question needs to be asked if not address today:
If this isn't a failed procurement, what is?
Were other options to drastically cut costs evaluated? If so, what were they and why were they rejected?
Last edited:
O-tac
Active Member
Just cause it can’t be built all in one go doesn’t mean it shouldn’t happen. Every other line built extensions over time. It needs to happen and work is already underway. That said, it should at least go to Quarry Park, not Ogden.
O-tac
Active Member
Is this the recommendation?
I would sooner cut Eau Claire and extend it to QP or Shepard.
darwink
Senior Member
Yup. Terminate at Lynnwood.
accord1999
Active Member
The UCP isn't the only reason for the delays as other things that were happening from 2019-2021 (not even counting COVID). In June 2019, the DT tunnel had to be scaled back and the new plan was only approved by Council in June 2020. The Green Line board was also being setup to take over oversight and management, a new managing director was hired (and left), a CEO and COO needed to be hired. And even when they picked the constructor, at least another 16 months of design was needed to even begin construction.
ahuch
Active Member
I've supported Green Line for years but as far as I'm concerned we should be scrapping this project, what a boondoggle.
O-tac
Active Member
Wtf. Who will that serve? Reverse commuters who work at CP HQ? Is the plan to just get started and already begin the process of Phase 2 funding?
darwink
Senior Member
So focused on keeping the tunnel downtown the project is turned into a rump.
Seemingly no imagination.
O-tac
Active Member
Why did it need to go to Eau Claire? Why not terminate it one station sooner so it can at least reach QP, which is a TOD and large scale employment centre. This is a bad compromise.
Whatever. At this point I’ll just be happy if anything begins construction. At the glacial pace this has been moving another election cycle will finish before this does and the city can begin Phase 2 (asking for Federal and Provincial funding).
O-tac
Active Member
Where will the maintenance facility go?