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

Go Elevated or try for Underground?

  • Work with the province and go with the Elevated option

    Votes: 49 79.0%

  • Try another approach and go for Underground option

    Votes: 9 14.5%

  • Cancel it altogether

    Votes: 1 1.6%

  • Go with a BRT solution

    Votes: 3 4.8%
  • Total voters
    62
It's impossible to be perfect... you could pick any firm like Hatch or WSP and find projects that blew up. AFAIK Valley Line was cos of Bechtel sucking so bad
Edit: After some quick searching I don't think AECOM actually designed the Confederation Line. Looking at AECOM's website they only designed the 30% stage line before the project was cancelled. The revived and built project was designed by SNC Lavalin in the OLRT consortium
 
Last edited:
Crickets from my MLA Matt Jones. Very telling that the guy covering the ward most affected by the Greenline cancellation has nothing to say when I responded with questions to the generic e-mail promising a new design some time in the future.
 
whatchyyc said:
It's impossible to be perfect... you could pick any firm like Hatch or WSP and find projects that blew up. AFAIK Valley Line was cos of Bechtel sucking so bad
Edit: After some quick searching I don't think AECOM actually designed the Confederation Line. Looking at AECOM's website they only designed the 30% stage line before the project was cancelled. The revived and built project was designed by SNC Lavalin in the OLRT consortium
Click to expand...
The Ottawa Confederation Line is an example of trying to get transit at the lowest cost and something we should avoid. As far as I remember OLRT's proposal originally failed the technical review, but Ottawa selected it regardless because it came in much cheaper than the other proposals. Look how it turned out, non-stop issues in the first few years of operation that have cots tons of money regardless and hurt their transit ridership.
 
Nawads said:
The Ottawa Confederation Line is an example of trying to get transit at the lowest cost and something we should avoid. As far as I remember OLRT's proposal originally failed the technical review, but Ottawa selected it regardless because it came in much cheaper than the other proposals. Look how it turned out, non-stop issues in the first few years of operation that have cots tons of money regardless and hurt their transit ridership.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the very politicians that chose this option were the first to complain.
 
ahuch said:
In what way does Alberta sound progressive with its approach? They waited until the late stages of procurement to throw a fit and pull funding when they could just as easily have done it sooner if they really wanted this outcome with far less damage done to the city. It's not like AECOM is some kind of godsend compared to WSP, they had a mandate to deliver a tunnel and it is what it is at this point. The province was fully aware of S
Click to expand...

ahuch said:
In what way does Alberta sound progressive with its approach? They waited until the late stages of procurement to throw a fit and pull funding when they could just as easily have done it sooner if they really wanted this outcome with far less damage done to the city. It's not like AECOM is some kind of godsend compared to WSP, they had a mandate to deliver a tunnel and it is what it is at this point. The province was fully aware of this.
Click to expand...
The City's July announcement - reduction of stations and permanent way - speaks volumes. The province recognised poor judgement.
 
outoftheice said:
AECOM designed Ottawa's LRT and Edmonton's Valley Line... two projects that were absolute disasters either prior to, or after, opening day. The fact the UCP is pinning all their hopes and dreams on them and dismissing the work done by all other firms should definitely be a concern for Calgarians
Click to expand...
July's announcement by the City is a huge concern for Calgary AECOM is a welcome breath of fresh air.
 
Finally some more information on the AECOM work

"For now, the province is paying $2.5 million to a private consultant to develop a new LRT alignment. That report is expected in December."
 
CalgaryTiger said:
Finally some more information on the AECOM work

"For now, the province is paying $2.5 million to a private consultant to develop a new LRT alignment. That report is expected in December."
Click to expand...
Very high level with outline routes. Expect issues with getting accurate geotechnical information (a big problem with the recent Contractor) and cost: far too soon to be specific, even high level. C$ 2.5M equates to some 10,000 - 15,000 manhours!
 
O-tac said:
Crickets from my MLA Matt Jones. Very telling that the guy covering the ward most affected by the Greenline cancellation has nothing to say when I responded with questions to the generic e-mail promising a new design some time in the future.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected lol! Does Matt Jones visit this site? He called me around lunch time and I made all of my points. I said the province should use as much of the previous legwork for the SE as it could and that 7th ave wouldn’t work. I said if nothing else they should at least go EV to Seton which he said was fair. Hopefully he takes his constituents’ feedback to the Premier.
 
Surrealplaces said:

Picking the facts from the myths in the Green Line LRT saga​

Click to expand...

I was really curious about more details behind the 2015 GL Funding Staging and Delivery report (that has been quoted a few times recently I think), so I've been listening to the meeting where it was presented. There is a [mostly] smoking gun on what the city thought the 4.5B would buy

Chris Jordan from city admin in the Dec 11 2015 SPC on Transpo and Transit meeting in his opening presentation:
“We have estimated the capital costs at this point is between $4.5B-$5B for the segment between North Pointe and Seton…of course this is dependent on alignment through downtown which is unknown at this point.”
Click to expand...

exactly 3 hours in:
https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings....aspx?Id=e5a65b64-568c-402a-9083-c2d307724498
 
^ If they had clearly said, $4.0 billion, 2014 dollars, PLUS the tunnel, they would have been right on the money IMO.

A few words would have changed the discussion entirely.
 
darwink said:
^ If they had clearly said, $4.0 billion, 2014 dollars, PLUS the tunnel, they would have been right on the money IMO.

A few words would have changed the discussion entirely.
Click to expand...
He goes on to say later that the SE is a class 3 estimate; North is a class 5 (and I believe the core had gotten lumped in with the north earlier in the process)

The uncertainties weren't really hidden or obfuscated...it just seems like nobody wanted to focus on them

Another important point here is that fed funding was always contingent on matching dollars from the city/prov (city had figured it out over 30 years, no firm commitment from prov but they were talking). I wonder if there was concern that doing just the SE (even though that would require the core) wouldn't be expensive enough to secure the 1.5B x 3. But I haven't heard them delve into the staging strategy yet
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top