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: 41 60.3%
  • Re-design the whole system

    Votes: 22 32.4%
  • Cancel it altogether

    Votes: 5 7.4%

  • Total voters
    68
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.
Industry-wise, AECOM shades WSP and amongst engineering professionals AECOM is usually a preferred choice.
 
Industry-wise, AECOM shades WSP and amongst engineering professionals AECOM is usually a preferred choice.
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.
 
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.
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"
 
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 $2.5M. It's a drop in the bucket of revenue, but a government contract for a wealthy province in a wealthy country. I'd bet we get an "A Team"
There are other infrastructure engineering companies out there who are equally as good as AECOM. I have worked on AECOM projects as a client and contractor and their ranking has always been first rate!
I am not certain where I, apparently, stated "95% of the information" from. Progressing with another's information is fraught with hidden banana skins hence expect heavy qualifications and assumptions. Not-so-obvious problems arise from geotechnical which influences foundation design for underground, at grade and elevated stations.
A key issue was the rushed, combined 30%/ 60% design submissions from January 2024 where there was still outstanding value engineering to be advised by the City. On the south-east stretch close to the CP tracks there were "several discussions" over how a C-Train travelling at x kilometres had enough braking clearance to clear an incline and then be able to brake at a downhill bend for a nearby level crossing and then the station - a tall order. That incline to be overcome was under discussion for amending which alters the alignment and headway calculations.
For C$ 2.5 M it should prove chicken feed for AECOM. WSP will nervously await whether their Client desired design cuts mustard!
 
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.
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.
 
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.

Screenshot 2024-09-25 at 3.53.57 PM.png


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?
 
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?
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.
 
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.

View attachment 598895

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?
Have you taken town planning considerations on boars, headways, ridership, design philosophy amd geotechnical on board, etc, hmmmm.
 
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.

View attachment 598895

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?
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.
 
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.
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?
 
Does that constant mobility benefit outweigh the overload drawback at absolute peak times?
The green line exists as conceived (an independent access to the centre of the business district) because in the 90s the conclusion was no.
 

Back
Top