darwink
Senior Member
There is no sole source contract listed on the government's website, but that is only updated quarterly by policy (even if it is updated more often in practice).
Green Line LRT | ?m | ?s | Calgary Transit
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
accord1999
Active Member
The full details are probably only available in the confidential meetings, but yeah the 60% design plan was only presented in June. It would seem unlikely that any significant contracts would be signed, especially knowing about the major scope change that would need approval not just from Alberta but also Canada. Canada wanted an updated case presented to them by August 15.
Tothewest
Active Member
This is why social media is a toxic, toxic tool. I have no political dog in this fight, but they literally said the exact same, THERE IS NOTHING NEW TO REPORT HERE lol. DS: "An engineering firm is going to explore an alternate alignment, how far south can we go"...DD: "will ideally stretch to sheppard and even to the south health campus". Literally the same thing, nothing has changed lol
outoftheice
Active Member
Fair enough. Your comments made me go back and look to where I got that impression. It turned out it was a Rick Bell article talking about building to Seton. In my mind I thought it was a direct quote but re-reading it was Bell's summary of what was said so the UCP's messaging may have been consistent this entire time. Still, I can't be the only one to have made the mistake as the majority of the last few pages of discussion on this forum as well as what it being talked about on social media give a strong impression that people think the UCP are going to build to Seton and the price to do that is ditching the downtown tunnels.
Ramsayite
Active Member
Unsurprisingly a dumpster fire with terrible messaging.
Devon Dreeshen is the MAGA guy who was caught drinking in the office right? Definitely the person I want calling the shots on a transit megaproject. But hey thank goodness it's open up the conversation so that we can beat around the bush on this project a little more.
Devon Dreeshen is the MAGA guy who was caught drinking in the office right? Definitely the person I want calling the shots on a transit megaproject. But hey thank goodness it's open up the conversation so that we can beat around the bush on this project a little more.
An enlightened centrist, eh?
Tothewest
Active Member
So you just sit in the weeds, add nothing interesting to the dialogue, and lob a few personal insults. cool.
Ramsayite
Active Member
Calm down, your fragility is showing.
Last edited:
kempes_78
New Member
Smith is committed to Calgary's C$ B Green Line LRT as originally intended. Smith has asked an Engineering Company to give them an alternative route.
This is ominous as the Consultant will surgically pick the contracted green line to shreds. 2 or 3 alternative routes will be promoted offering better value for money. A classic ploy to stall further progress in its current mode.
It is easy for a Consultant to critique designs with false praise, "We understand the routing and alignment but that is not how we would have done it!"
There is a lack of transparency over costs for the deletion of 6 stations and 8 kilometres of track and the price increase of C$ 700 M. What was the cost in savings for their deletion, what elements were impacted by applied escalation and what design revisions were mitigated? How did the design review progress from 30% to 90%?
Will Smith be forthcoming when the Green Line will start up again? How long for route alignment studies, geotechnical surveys, proposed northern line station locations, advantages/ disadvantages of using the existing freight rail permanent way etc. etc. etc?
An interesting bunfight awaits: Gondek and Smith will strut their stuff based on desktop data lacking real what-if scenarios and specific information.
Will there be an inquiry into the existing development contract to determine its financial basis?
Was the Contract deployed correct given these circumstances?
Was the development Contractor the correct entity to employ including its design and costing teams?
So many questions related to this megaproject's planning, presentation and expediting. Will Smith and Alberta fare any better?
This is ominous as the Consultant will surgically pick the contracted green line to shreds. 2 or 3 alternative routes will be promoted offering better value for money. A classic ploy to stall further progress in its current mode.
It is easy for a Consultant to critique designs with false praise, "We understand the routing and alignment but that is not how we would have done it!"
There is a lack of transparency over costs for the deletion of 6 stations and 8 kilometres of track and the price increase of C$ 700 M. What was the cost in savings for their deletion, what elements were impacted by applied escalation and what design revisions were mitigated? How did the design review progress from 30% to 90%?
Will Smith be forthcoming when the Green Line will start up again? How long for route alignment studies, geotechnical surveys, proposed northern line station locations, advantages/ disadvantages of using the existing freight rail permanent way etc. etc. etc?
An interesting bunfight awaits: Gondek and Smith will strut their stuff based on desktop data lacking real what-if scenarios and specific information.
Will there be an inquiry into the existing development contract to determine its financial basis?
Was the Contract deployed correct given these circumstances?
Was the development Contractor the correct entity to employ including its design and costing teams?
So many questions related to this megaproject's planning, presentation and expediting. Will Smith and Alberta fare any better?
kempes_78
New Member
You forget the geotechnical studies which will be key to support the alignment. These tasks are inter-dependent with each other and influence design, curvature and running speeds: coupled with planning etc........
kempes_78
New Member
Not helpful with your cheap jibes: be constructive in your critiques.
kempes_78
New Member
Design is an issue: why has design taken so long and is, allegedly, stuck at 60%, curious.
kempes_78
New Member
Don't be hoodwinked: you overlook what the Province's designs are and expect construction based on what basis, to what alignment and by the same development contractor? What about delay costs, who is responsible for them?
Disraeli
Active Member
The UCP risks stepping in it if they have truly foreclosed on a grade separated line through downtown. There have already been studies that have shown that a mainly cut and cover tunnel is the most viable way to get through downtown given the CP tracks, 7th Ave transit line, traffic congestion, ext.
It's laughable that Smith suggested having the line terminate by the new arena after supposedly critiquing it as a "line to nowhere". I'm sure people in the SE will love having to walk 10 blocks to their office.
It's laughable that Smith suggested having the line terminate by the new arena after supposedly critiquing it as a "line to nowhere". I'm sure people in the SE will love having to walk 10 blocks to their office.
kempes_78
New Member
A couple of kilometres walk will promote a healthy workforce!
Ramsayite
Active Member
The 60% designs were presented but I'm not sure that that means things were "stuck" at that point. I recall seeing a couple station renders that were at the 90% iirc.
Based on what I saw and the amount of surrounding work that's been done at each of the station sites (from Crossroads south) I would hazard to guess that more than half of the stations are very close to shovel ready, although I can't speak for the track, tunnels, guide ways in between those stations.
I don't know about any of the design work west of the elbow; certainly a lot more complex design there. And that is the section that the province claims it will "fix" and that is clearly their justification.
Of course all of the stations south and east of the elbow that may be "complete" are designed for low-floor trains. If vehicle type is one of the things that is under review then it could certainly throw those stations back to the drawing boards.
Re: high floor vs low floor: Perhaps as another poster mentioned, one could just take those existing designs and dig the track down a couple feet to accommodate high floor trains, but something tells me it's not that easy; One can't just make up track grade willy-nilly, especially when these stations all have elevation constraints: Crossroads station immediately enters an elevated guideway that needs to maintain a certain elevation over road and track. Highfield station sits right up against a road and associated underpass with clearance requirements. Lynnwood immediately crosses a road at grade after the station head. Almost all of the stations have some at-grade pedestrian crossing to move between platforms. A couple feet of grade change would completely invalidate these designs. I really really hope that the UCP's review doesn't try to change the vehicles.
I think the average person has no idea how much work has gone into this right-of-way; how many ARPs, TOD sites, road alignments, streetscape upgrades, bike paths, public amenities, utility upgrades etc are hinged upon it and have been designed alongside. The risk of invalidating all of this associated work needs to be considered as part of the package of opportunity costs here. We are at serious risk of butchering a ton of associated planning work.
The reality is that this project is much more than just a train that goes some places; for as long as I have been engaged with this project (2015?) One of the stated goals has been place-making, I.e. avoiding the errors of 1980s LRT (looking at you, 36st NE) And creating opportunities for meaningful development around this line. It's the same stated goal as for the arena except there's a lot more tangible work that has been done to actually achieve that at a public level, at a much larger scale, and without the interference of a for-profit "tenant."
And so, It'll be interesting to see how much design work gets thrown out as part of this "review." I could summarize my greatest concern more succinctly and without prior sass: I don't trust a provincial party of rural grievances to properly understand this project, And I don't trust whatever private interests they're pretending are an "independent review" to understand this work either. Owning an abandoned traincar in High River and liking trains is not a qualification.
And to be clear, the narrative of these aforementioned ideologues is just far too transparent: Leverage collective sticker shock, ignore the scope of this project and reposition it as commuter rail, take advantage of rural and suburban voters biases and lack of awareness of urban place-making to dangle a carrot for vote buying. Then, over-emphasize the opportunity cost associated with capital spending while under-emphasizing opportunity cost associated with every other facet of this project and its delay. Use the per kilometer track cost as a talking point while ignoring all of the amenities that are costed in along this section, then extrapolate this per track cost to the rest of the alignment to overestimate the full project and position it as a boondoggle. Come up with an alternative design that looks cheaper on paper but won't actually get built during your tenure; use it primarily as a talking point during political debates. Carefully avoid communicating about what has been "lost" through the value engineering process so that the whole situation looks great on paper. Deflect all criticisms to the municipality. Ignore that inflation exists.
Bonus move: screw over the "radical downtown urbanites " who you despise and deliver some "benefits" to some donors while you are at it.
Anyway, please accept my apologies for being a bit sassy about this, I'm sure I'm not the only one who is a bit suspicious of users who joined the forum primarily to run PR for the stadium deal and now appear to be running PR for the provincial government while standing aggressively on decorum to deflect any criticisms of such.
Based on what I saw and the amount of surrounding work that's been done at each of the station sites (from Crossroads south) I would hazard to guess that more than half of the stations are very close to shovel ready, although I can't speak for the track, tunnels, guide ways in between those stations.
I don't know about any of the design work west of the elbow; certainly a lot more complex design there. And that is the section that the province claims it will "fix" and that is clearly their justification.
Of course all of the stations south and east of the elbow that may be "complete" are designed for low-floor trains. If vehicle type is one of the things that is under review then it could certainly throw those stations back to the drawing boards.
Re: high floor vs low floor: Perhaps as another poster mentioned, one could just take those existing designs and dig the track down a couple feet to accommodate high floor trains, but something tells me it's not that easy; One can't just make up track grade willy-nilly, especially when these stations all have elevation constraints: Crossroads station immediately enters an elevated guideway that needs to maintain a certain elevation over road and track. Highfield station sits right up against a road and associated underpass with clearance requirements. Lynnwood immediately crosses a road at grade after the station head. Almost all of the stations have some at-grade pedestrian crossing to move between platforms. A couple feet of grade change would completely invalidate these designs. I really really hope that the UCP's review doesn't try to change the vehicles.
I think the average person has no idea how much work has gone into this right-of-way; how many ARPs, TOD sites, road alignments, streetscape upgrades, bike paths, public amenities, utility upgrades etc are hinged upon it and have been designed alongside. The risk of invalidating all of this associated work needs to be considered as part of the package of opportunity costs here. We are at serious risk of butchering a ton of associated planning work.
The reality is that this project is much more than just a train that goes some places; for as long as I have been engaged with this project (2015?) One of the stated goals has been place-making, I.e. avoiding the errors of 1980s LRT (looking at you, 36st NE) And creating opportunities for meaningful development around this line. It's the same stated goal as for the arena except there's a lot more tangible work that has been done to actually achieve that at a public level, at a much larger scale, and without the interference of a for-profit "tenant."
And so, It'll be interesting to see how much design work gets thrown out as part of this "review." I could summarize my greatest concern more succinctly and without prior sass: I don't trust a provincial party of rural grievances to properly understand this project, And I don't trust whatever private interests they're pretending are an "independent review" to understand this work either. Owning an abandoned traincar in High River and liking trains is not a qualification.
And to be clear, the narrative of these aforementioned ideologues is just far too transparent: Leverage collective sticker shock, ignore the scope of this project and reposition it as commuter rail, take advantage of rural and suburban voters biases and lack of awareness of urban place-making to dangle a carrot for vote buying. Then, over-emphasize the opportunity cost associated with capital spending while under-emphasizing opportunity cost associated with every other facet of this project and its delay. Use the per kilometer track cost as a talking point while ignoring all of the amenities that are costed in along this section, then extrapolate this per track cost to the rest of the alignment to overestimate the full project and position it as a boondoggle. Come up with an alternative design that looks cheaper on paper but won't actually get built during your tenure; use it primarily as a talking point during political debates. Carefully avoid communicating about what has been "lost" through the value engineering process so that the whole situation looks great on paper. Deflect all criticisms to the municipality. Ignore that inflation exists.
Bonus move: screw over the "radical downtown urbanites " who you despise and deliver some "benefits" to some donors while you are at it.
Anyway, please accept my apologies for being a bit sassy about this, I'm sure I'm not the only one who is a bit suspicious of users who joined the forum primarily to run PR for the stadium deal and now appear to be running PR for the provincial government while standing aggressively on decorum to deflect any criticisms of such.
Last edited: