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

Go Elevated or try for Underground?

  • Work with the province and go with the Elevated option

    Votes: 10 76.9%

  • Try another approach and go for Underground option

    Votes: 2 15.4%

  • Cancel it altogether

    Votes: 1 7.7%
  • Total voters
    13
kora said:
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.
Click to expand...
The knee-jerk move is that of the UCP, the city needs to make sure it's not going to spend any more money on something if it's just going to be torn up by the provincial government.
 
kora said:
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.
Click to expand...
Ya it would seem a lot more prudent to preserve the team and governance structure that they finally established for at least a little bit longer. I think the assembled expertise could be redirected in a few directions, such as developing a proposal for a provincial-backed delivery model for mega-projects like this. There was some discussion about this in the July 30 council meeting and the desire to shift the cost-overrun burden to the province instead of the city.

We can tell the province that this would be the better model and hope that they take it on in good faith and figure it out...or we can show them how it should actually work (ie. collaborate with Edmonton, look at other provincial models) and have the framework of a plan that can be adopted [in 3 years by Premier Nenshi...]

And then months down the road the team could get back onto delivering the UCP plan if it isn't totally abhorrent. I'd be more supportive of just taking our ball and going home if the UCP had quashed a quality plan, but in this case I'd rather maintain whatever influence control I could over what remains a salvage operation (just as Lynnwood to EC became a salvage operation)
 
Look forward to a further breakdown but out of the 1.85 Billion I wonder how much is truly lost. The design has to be some of the smaller numbers, right? The utility work, land acquisition, and the LRV, in theory, could still be useful?
 
I
Dkeirle said:
I apologize in advance if this question has been asked recently, but I didn’t see it in one of the previous posts and I didn’t want to go back and read 100 pages of posts over the past year.
My question is whether the Green Line planners looked at having a spur coming off of the red line south? For example, a spur down Anderson Road into Quarry Park and then turning south east over to McKenzie town, etc.
I’m under the assumption they would’ve but I can’t find any mention of it.
Thanks, D
Click to expand...
I don’t recall a red line spur ever discussed as an option. It would make sense in a lot of ways, but I don’t think the 7th ave capacity is there.
 
kiggupiggu said:
The 1 Billion lost is equal to the money needed to extend the current plan to Shepard.

We are going to spend basically the same amount to get something worse.
Click to expand...
C$ 1B is not lost as it has been expended upon design, procurement and placing supply chain contracts to date. If all things were equal, without Alberta interfering, there would be: no negotiating breaches/ terminations of contracts; design issues; staff terminations; liquidating a company; re-designs etc. All that would apply would be a value for escalation which is a valid clause for a project over 2 years in duration. The value to be applied is calculated quarterly. In the execution phase: there will be further design value engineering, innovation and lean construction. With risk and reward, the Contractor's cost per design element is allocated as a an agreed target cost: whatever the underspend or overspend is, a shared %age value is applied which either means a bonus or deduction in value which either benefits or penalises both parties.
 
kempes_78 said:
C$ 1B is not lost as it has been expended upon design, procurement and placing supply chain contracts to date. If all things were equal, without Alberta interfering, there would be: no negotiating breaches/ terminations of contracts; design issues; staff terminations; liquidating a company; re-designs etc. All that would apply would be a value for escalation which is a valid clause for a project over 2 years in duration. The value to be applied is calculated quarterly. In the execution phase: there will be further design value engineering, innovation and lean construction. With risk and reward, the Contractor's cost per design element is allocated as a an agreed target cost: whatever the underspend or overspend is, a shared %age value is applied which either means a bonus or deduction in value which either benefits or penalises both parties.
Click to expand...
I would argue a lot of that is lost at this point if we don't build anything. Design is worthless if you don't proceed with the project scope, land acquisitions and utility relocations don't matter if you don't proceed or choose a different right of way, etc...
 
CalgaryTiger said:
Look forward to a further breakdown but out of the 1.85 Billion I wonder how much is truly lost. The design has to be some of the smaller numbers, right? The utility work, land acquisition, and the LRV, in theory, could still be useful?
Click to expand...

The land acquisition and utility work shouldn't really be lost, whatever replacement project comes along will use much of the same row to SE, hopefully the contracts were written in such a way that the city retains ownership of the design work and not the contractors, otherwise there will be a lot of wheel reinventing...

Some interesting numbers from the CBC article on the wind down:

City officials also said Calgary may be open to litigation from contractors because of broken agreements, although it's unclear to what extent.

Almost 250 employees and consultants were involved in the Green Line on behalf of the city, and about 800 staff were brought in as contractors. There are more than 70 contracts that need to be addressed as a part of the wind-down.
Click to expand...

800 contractors seems like an awful lot of of overhead on this project.. I don't think the province was wrong on pulling the pin.

Seems like it would be better an cheaper for the city to keep the design work for these projects in house, and only contract out the construction as required.

Even then, if there were a series of smaller projects in the books that could provide steady work, it might even be cheaper to in source more of the construction and cut out that middleman too.

I think a lot of the construction inflation we've seen in recent years is coming from profit margins that don't really need to be there..
 
kempes_78 said:
C$ 1B is not lost as it has been expended upon design, procurement and placing supply chain contracts to date. If all things were equal, without Alberta interfering, there would be: no negotiating breaches/ terminations of contracts; design issues; staff terminations; liquidating a company; re-designs etc. All that would apply would be a value for escalation which is a valid clause for a project over 2 years in duration. The value to be applied is calculated quarterly. In the execution phase: there will be further design value engineering, innovation and lean construction. With risk and reward, the Contractor's cost per design element is allocated as a an agreed target cost: whatever the underspend or overspend is, a shared %age value is applied which either means a bonus or deduction in value which either benefits or penalises both parties.
Click to expand...
I'm not referring to the money that was actually spent on something (some of that can be considered lost as well). According to the article there is nearly 1 billion in wind down cost.
 
ahuch said:
I would argue a lot of that is lost at this point if we don't build anything. Design is worthless if you don't proceed with the project scope, land acquisitions and utility relocations don't matter if you don't proceed or choose a different right of way, etc...
Click to expand...
You forget that certain contracts are in place: build or not build? Negotiation is key and creative discussions may see Contractors be considered for other projects. There always is middle ground and this is not unusual in megaprojects. There is a key negotiation point: the existing 60% design. Who owns that design presently; what does the design contract state? You would give anything to be a fly on the wall in that bun fight!
 
kiggupiggu said:
I'm not referring to the money that was actually spent on something (some of that can be considered lost as well). According to the article there is nearly 1 billion in wind down cost.
Click to expand...
That is a worst case scenario. Assume that Alberta wants to redesign. Effectively, a 75% staff reduction would be immediately effective (Contractors, self-employed, local staff etc.). 25% staffing is sufficient to calculate termination costs in conjunction with legal teams. Negotiating termination contracts of awarded contracts. What does the contract cover? Overheads and lost profits, reimbursement of insurances, placing of sub-contracts of any tier? The list is endless. A shrewd developer will have covered loss of profit and overheads: you may have a contract but you have not fulfilled obligations to secure insurances etc., without them, you have not complied with the contract - no cost. C$ 1B is an outside possibility but heavy negotiations are an art form.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top