News   Apr 03, 2020
Pastel Morning
 6.8K     1 
News   Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.4K     5 
News   Apr 02, 2020
Soon to be Gone
 5K     0 

Urban Development and Proposals Discussion

CBBarnett said:
I do wonder what a private sector major bus garage would cost, if there is such a comparable thing that would have a similar scale, fleet size and operational requirements.

Now I am all interested in this niche world of bus garage costs and design, here's another massively expensive one in Vancouver for 300 busses in a multi-storey garage configuration. No cheap land in Vancouver, plus got slammed with inflation and new seismic code requirements. $848M!

View attachment 629684

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/translink-marpole-transit-centre-bus-depot-vancouver-cost
Click to expand...
What we're realizing is buckle up for whatever comes after the Vic park bus barns. How expensive is the green line train storage in Shepard?
 
For bus infrastructure you should be able to get three levels of government paying for it. That should help. I was thinking if a couple of the suburban bus barns are built in the right place you could include storage/maintenance for the airport and regional railcars too. So maybe you can get the province to support more than 33.3% of the project?
 
maestro said:
A bunker in an industrial park isn't going to be $150 to $200 million either. It's going to cost $300 to $400 million. Still much cheaper than the Montreal Taj Mahal for transit buses. I just wonder how it only cost $600 million.
Click to expand...
Their labour costs are much lower since they're poorer .
 
CalgaryTiger said:
For bus infrastructure you should be able to get three levels of government paying for it. That should help. I was thinking if a couple of the suburban bus barns are built in the right place you could include storage/maintenance for the airport and regional railcars too. So maybe you can get the province to support more than 33.3% of the project?
Click to expand...
Would we rather use our '3 levels' application on 1 super nice thing, , or 1 meh thing and a second thing that costs as much as the meh thing. Matching funds are not unlimited.
 
darwink said:
Would we rather use our '3 levels' application on 1 super nice thing, , or 1 meh thing and a second thing that costs as much as the meh thing. Matching funds are not unlimited.
Click to expand...
Ideally you'd have one in the north and one in the south. Both are the exact same design so you're not having to duplicate the design work, only the construction, which should improve efficiency. I'm single-handedly solving our nation's productivity issue.
 
DiscoStu said:
I don't know about you guys, but I'm starting to think the Vic park barns are just fine.
Click to expand...
I just want transit to decide what's best for them. Stay or move - but give them the funding and decision that what maximizes their service efficiency and operations potential so we can get quality, high frequent service easier.

What I am skeptical is "transit" projects that aren't really for transit - they are driven by vague increase "development potential" arguments. These always sound great, but if there's no concrete plan for immediate development they really aren't anything, often they are just vapour-ware nonsense in practice - but with a very real and immediate impact to transit service.

We have seas of development opportunities, many of which never happened. The sentence always goes: " ____ is such a great location with great development potential if only we ______."

Try out the sentence for Victoria Park:

"Victoria Park is such a great location with great development potential if only we build a new arena, build a new convention centre, expand stampede park, tear down an existing neighbourhood, build a new underpass, expand the convention centre, build another new arena, extend 17th Avenue and add an at-grade LRT crossing, plan to build another underpass, and finally move a bus garage."

I am not saying that it won't happen or there isn't benefit - I am just saying transit should make the call that's best for them. The track record of boosters relying on development potential arguments is very poor in the immediate area so shouldn't be the leading reason.
 
CBBarnett said:
Try out the sentence for Victoria Park:

"Victoria Park is such a great location with great development potential if only we build a new arena, build a new convention centre, expand stampede park, tear down an existing neighbourhood, build a new underpass, expand the convention centre, build another new arena, extend 17th Avenue and add an at-grade LRT crossing, plan to build another underpass, and finally move a bus garage."
Click to expand...

And even after all that it's still right beside freight tracks and in a flood plain!
 
Will be curious to see if there is a list of projects that accompany this plan. Spending up to $250 million a year on rec facilities for the next 25 years seems like it would build a crap ton of new things. How much was the Y in Seton?

calgaryherald.com

What is GamePLAN? Council to consider 25-year spending plan to fund rec facilities

When it comes to recreational facilities, should the City of Calgary be making waves, going under, or staying afloat?
calgaryherald.com calgaryherald.com
 
maestro said:
There's so much nonsense in government contracts that narrows down the field and allows the few experienced government bidders to up their bids.
Click to expand...

100%. I'll add to this; I have submitted on many government contracts, and a large chunk of them are pervasively set up in a way that in order to win them, you need the experience; but in order to get that experience, you need to win them. This creates a limited ecosystem where only few firms that have that experience are able to actually win them. A good example of this is with fire stations in Calgary; only a few designers have the resume for them, and therefore those studios win all that specific work. I can tell you straight up that if given the chance, other firms and startups can competitively design these if given the chance, and they try - but they usually never make it deep into the bidding process. Governments have backed themselves into a corner with this type of bidding structure, and it limits competition. I will say there are cases that do buck that trend, but they are very rare and few/far between.
 
IceCreamMan said:
100%. I'll add to this; I have submitted on many government contracts, and a large chunk of them are pervasively set up in a way that in order to win them, you need the experience; but in order to get that experience, you need to win them. This creates a limited ecosystem where only few firms that have that experience are able to actually win them. A good example of this is with fire stations in Calgary; only a few designers have the resume for them, and therefore those studios win all that specific work. I can tell you straight up that if given the chance, other firms and startups can competitively design these if given the chance, and they try - but they usually never make it deep into the bidding process. Governments have backed themselves into a corner with this type of bidding structure, and it limits competition. I will say there are cases that do buck that trend, but they are very rare and few/far between.
Click to expand...
There has been a little talk about it (I recall a G&M article not long ago) but really it's a HUGE problem that no one thinks about. Procurement in Canada is absolutely beyond broken and it severely stifles innovation, creates monopolies, and drives up costs. It's unbelievable. The architecture firm I work at is doing all their competitions in other countries because there's no hope in hell we would ever win anything in Canada with the way things are setup. That's true for 99% of offices in the country
 
Yes, the $584 mill for the Bellechasse bus depot is a lot, I'm not even saying something exactly like that is right for Calgary but I do think there are a couple important lessons there

If you're going to be spending $2-300 mill on a bus barn anyway you can look at justifying the additional cost as premium public/park space. I don't know how much has been invested into stage 2 of Riverwalk in the entertainment district, but the Vic Park bus garage is a key node along the water and the location is gonna be key strategically for north-south pedestrian movement along the river. If you're going to bring a lot more residents to the area in the future it makes sense to make a plan for great public spaces

keep in mind the price also includes a lot of mechanical and repair equipment, as well as an administrative/office building as well, it's not just simply a garage

the savings on operational costs if busses don't have to dive as far to park every day is not nothing, and it adds up in the long run ...but I suppose something like that would have to be studied for Calgary

I can personally attest that putting it underground means its pretty non-invasive and not noisy at all (although I don't think I've seen it operating in at full capacity yet)


Ultimately I don't know what's right for the Vic Park Garage location, but I will say putting another basic above-ground garage in its place would be a waste of a key strategic location.


If not a bus garage, it could be something else (Pumphouse? Underground public parking?) we need think about doubling or tripling the functionality of key infrastructure sites so they can be shared and help grow the appeal of the Entertainment District
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top