Green Line LRT | ?m | ?s | Calgary Transit

Go Elevated or try for Underground?

  • Work with the province and go with the Elevated option

    Votes: 11 78.6%
  • Try another approach and go for Underground option

    Votes: 2 14.3%
  • Cancel it altogether

    Votes: 1 7.1%

  • Total voters
    14
Gondek:
2/After many meetings with Minister Dreeshen & Premier’s Office in July, Minister sent a support letter for the amended Green Line alignment on July 29. He stated his support on air after Council’s July 30 decision. Then his tune changed, while nothing about the project changed.
This is a gross misrepresentation of the letter, which simply laid out a few conditions for continued funding. (July 29 Letter is in here: https://livewirecalgary.com/2024/09/03/minister-dreeshen-letter-fund-calgary-new-green-line/)

Now there isn't really a good faith argument that the revised alignment failed the letter's conditions, but it's interesting to speculate about how the back channel communications played out here. Exactly how much information did the city share in those "many meetings"? I'd expect there was a dialogue/process for the city/GLB to feel out any landmines in the alignment revision before selecting the option to present. So one big question is whether the Prov. was advising in good faith during this stage, or not?

Council needed that letter (and the one from the Feds) to inform their vote on July 30. It's possible that the province had full knowledge of the change details and that the letter was simply signalling the prov's tacit approval. It's all a bit hard to square. Could that province have intentionally guided the city towards such a laughable result, where council either approved it leading to current status (or council voting down/ordering alternative direction would also make them look bad...)

It doesn't really feel like that well orchestrated a plan, but who knows. Some of the Silly Six were parroting some of the current messaging in that council meeting, but those are pretty natural criticisms from their side. Most likely it was just some messy communication all around (as is inevitable when dealing with the loathesome and untrustworthy morons in the UCP) and the UCP concocted their latest plan after the fact despite tripping over their own shoes in the days following the July 30 vote. Gondek's tweet at least indicates there wasn't a shortage of communication in the leadup.
 
N vs SE have significantly unbalanced ridership. Personally, I'm very bullish on the north and bearish on the SE.
Thats already the case for NW vs S and W vs NE. If it gets particularly bad, you can short turn some I guess?
 

tunneling under stephen avenue lolol, can you imagine what that cost would clock in at, let alone the permanent damage to the hospitality industry there. $6.3B got us 4km of a track with only 2 stations in the downtown...this would be an entirely new project with 4-5 downtown stations, and we still haven't crossed the river to the NC. Who is paying for all this????
 

tunneling under stephen avenue lolol, can you imagine what that cost would clock in at, let alone the permanent damage to the hospitality industry there. $6.3B got us 4km of a track with only 2 stations in the downtown...this would be an entirely new project with 4-5 downtown stations, and we still haven't crossed the river to the NC. Who is paying for all this????
There are several ways of mining from cut and cover to TBM: the cost reflects the specific method of working. Don't look at grouped costs in isolation as none of know what specific costs are involved in C$ 6.3 B e.g. flying people in, hotel costs, vehicles etc. 8 Ave construction would hardly hinder the 'hospital industry' as there are ongoing pedestrian access plans etc. The stations could be either boxes or cut and cover. The Client pays for these costs: thank you for enriching the developer, much appreciated!
 
Not much new info, but interesting to hear some rumours somewhat confirmed:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1835686786741461334.html


I wouldn't read too much into this, but it pours a tiny bit of cold water on elevated through 2nd or 1st SW


I'm sure the north felt warm and fuzzy the last 7 years on this (FWIW I do not live in the north)
Gondek is wrong on that front. The last report that seriously considered it was before she was on council though.
 
If they want to put any tunnels under Stephen Ave then now would be a good time. Coincide the project with the redevelopment of the Ave. There's already a tunnel leading that way anyway that was built along with the municipal building and Olympic Plaza back in the mid 80s. I think it would be a serious mistake though to run a line along the Nose Creek. Where I live in Beddington makes it infeasible to use without driving to it, and I seriously doubt the TOD potential of placing the line in effectively what should be a park. Build it where the people are! As Nenshi once said.
 
Gondek is wrong on that front. The last report that seriously considered it was before she was on council though.
Ya I'm just trying to read the tea leaves on what has and hasn't been seriously considered. That whole point is a bit weird, but it indicates to me that they never really considered an elevated option on their desired alignment (2nd Street has six +15s including a double decker; 1st St SW has just two simple ones) or else she'd know that +15s aren't some impossible obstacle. It's also interesting that she mentions at-grade or elevated for 8th Ave at all, as it seems widely accepted that it's a someday tunnel.


Further to over-analyzing little statements, I go back to Dreeshen's letter
Screenshot 2024-09-16 at 9.24.43 PM.png

Kinda odd to have just those two points. Perhaps they just wanted to mention Grand Central Station and it would be weird to have that as the only point so they added the next most obvious requirement. Or...did the city contemplate and share some possible alignments that didn't satisfy both of those conditions? That doesn't really jive with everything we've heard from the city...only thing I can think of is a 10th Ave alignment that terminates around 1st/2nd St, leaving the door open for a future 2nd St tunnel and getting reasonably close (~350 meters) to 7th Ave. I actually don't totally hate this idea (which leaves me especially skeptical the city would have actually considered it!). Not sure it gives enough room to get as deep as they want to go, though.
 
Some fun food for thought...

All the UCP's messaging is having this new SE LRT plan connect to their new Grand Central Station that everyone is assuming will be in East Village because that is where the UCP wants it to be. But they are also paying consultants to develop a regional rail plan that, one would hope, is not designed around a politically predetermined outcome and will actually provide recommendations from evidence based decision making. So what if this report comes back and recommends the Grand Central Station actually be located elsewhere downtown? The UCP's entire Green Line plan goes out the window. Will that happen? Odds are slim but it does demonstrate how the UCP are making the same mistakes the City made in the past about Green Line by promising plans, outcomes and costing before some of the most basic factors are decided.
 
Some fun food for thought...

All the UCP's messaging is having this new SE LRT plan connect to their new Grand Central Station that everyone is assuming will be in East Village because that is where the UCP wants it to be. But they are also paying consultants to develop a regional rail plan that, one would hope, is not designed around a politically predetermined outcome and will actually provide recommendations from evidence based decision making. So what if this report comes back and recommends the Grand Central Station actually be located elsewhere downtown? The UCP's entire Green Line plan goes out the window. Will that happen? Odds are slim but it does demonstrate how the UCP are making the same mistakes the City made in the past about Green Line by promising plans, outcomes and costing before some of the most basic factors are decided.
When megaprojects come home to roost...
 
When megaprojects come home to roost...

1. Underestimating Initial Project Complexity​

  • PMCs might downplay the project's complexity early on, which leads to insufficient planning and unforeseen challenges later.
2. Inadequate Scope Definition
  • Poorly defined project scope results in scope creep, frequent change orders, and cost overruns that aren't flagged until too late.
3. Lack of Clear Communication Channels
  • Insufficient or unclear communication structures lead to misunderstandings between contractors, vendors, and the employer.
4. Failure to Identify Risks Early
  • Risk management may be reactive rather than proactive, meaning issues that could have been mitigated are only addressed when it's too late.
5. Delayed Decision-Making


  • PMCs may stall critical decisions, especially when awaiting employer input, slowing the project down without clearly indicating the root cause.
6. Inadequate Contractor Performance Monitoring
  • Without proper oversight, contractors may underperform or deviate from the project schedule, but this often remains unnoticed until significant delays occur.
7. Over-Reliance on Contractors
  • PMCs may trust contractors too much, failing to provide adequate oversight and quality control, which results in subpar work that goes unnoticed for a while.
8. Neglecting Long-Lead Items
  • Forgetting or delaying the procurement of critical, long-lead items can cause scheduling bottlenecks that may not become obvious until construction is delayed.
9. Improper Resource Allocation
  • Assigning the wrong personnel or insufficient resources to key tasks, leading to inefficiencies and delays that aren’t immediately apparent to the employer.
10. Failure to Implement Robust HSE Management
  • Poor health, safety, and environmental management can lead to violations or incidents, but these may not be immediately flagged unless a major accident occurs.
11. Inconsistent Quality Control
  • QC inspections might not be thorough or consistent, meaning quality issues go unnoticed until they require expensive rework.
12. Ignoring Stakeholder Concerns
  • Not addressing concerns from local communities or regulatory bodies early on, leading to conflicts and disruptions that the employer may not initially realize.
13. Over-Optimistic Reporting
  • PMCs may provide overly optimistic progress reports to avoid alarming the employer, masking deeper project issues.
14. Inadequate Contractor Prequalification
  • Selecting contractors without thorough vetting, leading to poor performance or inability to meet project requirements later on.
15. Improper Change Management
  • Failure to properly document or track changes in design or scope can result in disputes or unnoticed cost increases.
16. Underestimating Weather or Environmental Impacts
  • PMCs might overlook the impact of adverse weather conditions or environmental challenges on construction timelines.
17. Inefficient Permit and Regulatory Management
  • Delays in securing permits or meeting regulatory requirements may not be flagged early enough, causing unexpected project halts later on.
18. Not Keeping Track of Interface Management
  • Poor coordination between different contractors or packages can lead to interface issues that slow down the project but go unnoticed until integration becomes problematic.
19. Failure to Update the Employer on Delays
  • When delays occur, PMCs may fail to promptly inform the employer or provide the full extent of the issues, making it harder to implement corrective actions.
20. Overlooking Commissioning and Startup Challenges
  • Ignoring the complexities of commissioning and startup activities can lead to last-minute challenges, affecting project delivery and performance without the employer realizing the root cause earlier.
 
Do you mean for the green line? Or their commuter rail line?
 
The City "winding down" the Green Line project doesn't seem like the best approach. Wouldn't it be better to see what the Province comes up with and then vote on that proposal in Council? The current approach seems like a knee-jerk, reactionary move that isn't well thought out regarding its consequences.
 

Back
Top