Search results

Hindsight is everything, but if the province had 'interfered' earlier, warning against the not best practice contract model (the split in two) and the governance structure (no greenline board), when the city was making those decisions, everything would have turned out better.

This is a fundamental difference between how the city does a project, and how the province does a project. The province does not release its cost estimates if it can help itself, if it hasn't already gone to market to lock in bids. The city releases its estimates all the time, with varying...

TBH, the city should have just pulled the trigger on the risky and expensive big bore to 16th Ave in 2018 ish as a single contract Design Build Finance. It would have blown its budget, but no more than it already has, and the time savings would more than pay for the overruns. But we don't...

Would they have though? Or would they continue to exhibit capture by large property owners and have just said no. Elevated was continuously rejected along the way.

And being above ground, there is far less of a path dependency problem going on. Lots of things can be done relatively on the fly versus working underground.

This isn’t the case given the fancy delivery model for design and construction. No need to go back to market.

Without the underground component near 100% risk transfer is possible to contract with the private sector delivery partner. The contingency can probably be reduced too. Enough to get it to McKenzie Towne? I wouldn’t count it out.

Back and forth, yes. The Montana Alberta Tie Line.

Danielle Smith 2017 to an NDP government: "I have been advocating that we turn off the existing Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline to show British Columbians how much they rely on fossil fuels from Alberta." Danielle Smith 2024 to a Republican government: "Under no circumstances will Alberta...

and more transfers. Your alignment also precludes building a double deck station for CPR commuter/regional rail which has been alluded to. Anyways. The number 2 reason to stick with 2nd, after ridership and system balance (which has been true for 20 years of studies now) is that the city has...

There are a lot of choices still to be made in the North Central, and the decision making processes at the city incentivize high cost solutions over making any one group disappointed. Ultimately, running up a road ROW that wasn't set aside decades ago is a very costly enterprise in policy...

They [Alberta] also think they're special since they are stuck in a strategic paradigm for evaluation that doesn't exist anymore, where oil is a much more important (and that since they like Keystone XL, and Trump likes Keystone XL, there is no way he can logically square that since Keystone XL...

It has to be that high already to go over the CPR. At this point we've already bought the trains. The marginal savings in the suburbs is Meh. It's not the worst outcome, not the best.

That probably includes the expropriation cost of removing development opportunity, which is way way less if you come to a mutual agreement that maximizes benefits to the developer. It's a weird thing where the government deciding to do something, costs way way more, than the government working...

If council thinks the tunnel is worth an extra billion dollars, let council find the extra billion dollars. They did for the arena, they can do so for this if they really think it is worth it. Versus building 3 giant suburban rec centres. I know which I would choose.

The city can decide on how to extend to Eau Claire, the cost would be rather minimal. But it has major land-use implications, so not exactly the province's call in the same way as ending the tunnel fools errand.

It can stay elevate the entire stretch. This entirely leaves options open. Even better, it might socialize the idea of elevated, meaning we get elevated until north of 16th Ave N, a superior outcome.

The big convention centre + the food hall being accessible, this will really help seed the foot traffic gonig both ways. A train to Banff and a train to the airport? All of a sudden you have a fly in convention destination attached to a UESCO site/National Park that you can hit the highlights of...

If the Green Line Board / Team had felt they could make changes like this, I believe they would. We do see later that the Board and Execs decided they were bound by Council's previous decisions. Internally, it could mean exactly that, or that the Mayor's office made the call that it was better...

Greenline station head/evac point options exploration/ station access footing testing?