[CalgaryTiger]

Does the $700M needed to get to Sheppard also include the full size MSF instead of the small one?

I would say it includes the full size MSF.

The missing money is because of AECOM's scope versus what the city knows. I think the City is including sunk costs that cannot be recovered.

@darwink mentioned AECOM incorrectly placing the +30 between 6th and 7th Avenues. This image is also not correct. It is the 10th Ave Station between 1st St and 2nd St. You can see the Obsidian Energy building on the left. Minor stuff, but yeah.

 

[CBBarnett]

Not an expert, but this portion of the red line is sooo slow. That underpass would probably be quicker at grade.

It's a cheap tunnel. Only 30 km/h through there. Geometry and design was never setup to make the trains go fast. Grade separation has lots of benefits for reliability, even if it's not particularly fast in this case. Probably costs a minute or two travel time from a faster designed tunnel so not huge (or huge if you multiply it by 50,000 daily users, each day for 40 years).

I don't know my 1980s CTrain history but I am going to take a wild guess that this section is the way it is to avoid land impacts back when built to keep the line on public property as much as possible. It was a bit short-sighted and remain pretty much the only "awkward" part of an otherwise surprisingly rapid line, but probably saved a ton of money. If the Red Line had been a highway project we'd have designed the tunnel for 80km/h + 15% to allow for some expectations of speeding

 

[Red Star]

It's a cheap tunnel. Only 30 km/h through there. Geometry and design was never setup to make the trains go fast. Grade separation has lots of benefits for reliability, even if it's not particularly fast in this case. Probably costs a minute or two travel time from a faster designed tunnel so not huge (or huge if you multiply it by 50,000 daily users, each day for 40 years).

I don't know my 1980s CTrain history but I am going to take a wild guess that this section is the way it is to avoid land impacts back when built to keep the line on public property as much as possible. It was a bit short-sighted and remain pretty much the only "awkward" part of an otherwise surprisingly rapid line, but probably saved a ton of money. If the Red Line had been a highway project we'd have designed the tunnel for 80km/h + 15% to allow for some expectations of speeding

In my opinion, the 14th Ave at-grade crossing and sharp turn is the only blemish on an otherwise perfect LRT line. The rest of the NW Red line is grade separated or has low traffic at-grade crossings.

 

[CalgaryTiger]

Only skimmed a bit so far, but I'm pretty impressed with how open and creative they were. Even the idea I've suggested before to interline the red line underpass tunnel (Option 7)


View attachment 620563

I think there was a way to utilize the work done on 11 in a 2C option that used 2nd Street instead of 6th Street. Dismissing it because of traffic impacts on 11th doesn't sit right with me.

11th is not busy until 4th Street SW so you could've had the line run at grade down 11th. So traffic impact, even for north-south traffic, would be minimal or no more of an issue than 7th Ave.

There could've been an at-grade stop on 11th between 5th and 4th Street SE. That would still bring people to Grand Central without the expensive doubly elevated platform for the Green Line. There could be another stop in the Beltline on 11th between 1st Street and 2nd Street. Then turn the line north up 2nd Street and have it immediately start climbing to get over the CPKC line. Then continue elevated down 2nd.

The money saved using a at-grade solution could easily get the line to Eau Claire. Or even further south.

Anyways... if I'm the city I'm not sure what I do, what they've been given is not exactly a plan, it is 5% of a plan and they have to take it onboard full stop. That's a tough pill to swallow.

 

[Gazyyc]

I'd be interested to see, if the city says no to the alignment and clearly communicates the why such as the low design % and major impacts that weren't addressed (pg48 of the report), how quickly the Province does an about face and claims they were only trying to do what's best and the city is a bully etc etc but will fund. It would be on par for their style of knee jerk 'governance'.

And speaking of pg 48, how can you 'design' a transit alignment without any analysis or study of its impact on traffic, transit, property access/egress and noise/ vibration impacts?
This literally was an exercise in can you draw me a line down a street. It's an insult not only to the city and anyone who worked on the GL but every single taxpayer across the Province.

AECOM are working on HSR, which explains how they were able to build out Grand Central so quickly and the why and how of the Province being able to find someone so quickly and single sourced, to draft their plan, AECOM were already at the trough.

 

[badc0ffee]

There could've been an at-grade stop on 11th between 5th and 4th Street SW.

Do you mean SE here?

 

[CalgaryTiger]

Do you mean SE here?

Yes, I edited it. Thanks!

 

[darwink]

I'd be interested to see, if the city says no to the alignment and clearly communicates the why such as the low design % and major impacts that weren't addressed (pg48 of the report), how quickly the Province does an about face and claims they were only trying to do what's best and the city is a bully etc etc but will fund. It would be on par for their style of knee jerk 'governance'.

And speaking of pg 48, how can you 'design' a transit alignment without any analysis or study of its impact on traffic, transit, property access/egress and noise/ vibration impacts?
This literally was an exercise in can you draw me a line down a street. It's an insult not only to the city and anyone who worked on the GL but every single taxpayer across the Province.

AECOM are working on HSR, which explains how they were able to build out Grand Central so quickly and the why and how of the Province being able to find someone so quickly and single sourced, to draft their plan, AECOM were already at the trough.

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]

I'd be interested to see, if the city says no to the alignment and clearly communicates the why such as the low design % and major impacts that weren't addressed (pg48 of the report), how quickly the Province does an about face and claims they were only trying to do what's best and the city is a bully etc etc but will fund. It would be on par for their style of knee jerk 'governance'.

And speaking of pg 48, how can you 'design' a transit alignment without any analysis or study of its impact on traffic, transit, property access/egress and noise/ vibration impacts?
This literally was an exercise in can you draw me a line down a street. It's an insult not only to the city and anyone who worked on the GL but every single taxpayer across the Province.

AECOM are working on HSR, which explains how they were able to build out Grand Central so quickly and the why and how of the Province being able to find someone so quickly and single sourced, to draft their plan, AECOM were already at the trough.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

 

[badc0ffee]

What happens if you run into a huge problem and the above ground line ends up costing more than a tunnel? Total boondoggle.

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.

 

[HudsonA08]

What happens if you run into a huge problem and the above ground line ends up costing more than a tunnel? Total boondoggle.

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]

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.

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]

So, here is a big thing that Councillor Walcott just posted:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1869848890767474971

$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.