Ongoing Calgarians complaining about pedestrian bridges thread - Page 37 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

nik- · 08-13-2009, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Byrns

You forgot 92% cheaper.

And drastically less than what Calgary is getting and needs. Lets compare other projects that don't fill the same role and get mad because there is differences in costs.

Byrns · 08-13-2009, 10:37 AM

I'm more mad at the lack of consultation because some people figure having public input will lead to a failed project. When it appears to have worked out just fine in Banff.

The Yen Man · 08-13-2009, 10:38 AM

IMO, that comparison is bunk. It's like comparing the costs of a single lane residential road to a multi lane highway. Guess which one costs more?

nik- · 08-13-2009, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Byrns

I'm more mad at the lack of consultation because some people figure having public input will lead to a failed project. When it appears to have worked out just fine in Banff.

Do you get mad when they don't consult you about interchanges? Or the Ring Road? The public isn't consulted on a lot of infrastructure projects. The difference is that the media has decided to turn this one, which has a lot smaller price tag than the others, into an issue.

Bigtime · 08-13-2009, 10:44 AM

Compare some numbers on the Banff versus Calgary bridge:

Calgary Bridge:

$24.5M for a population of 1,088,193 = $22.51 per person

Banff Bridge:

$2.01M for a population of 6700 (2006 stat) = $298.66 per person

Also remember you cannot add tourists into the Banff numbers as they are not paying the taxes that are going towards their bridge.

And this is without going into all those other details, such as the size differences and engineering differences between the two.

Michael Platt is an idiot.

You Need a Thneed · 08-13-2009, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Byrns

Banff's bridge only cost $2mill. I guess they don't care about having extra tourists coming just to see it.

http://www.calgarysun.com/news/colum...47106-sun.html

Since they consulted the citizens of Banff before agreeing on a design and location, I expect it to fall into the river within a year.

Another embarrassing article from the Sun. The Calgary bridge is twice as wide and twice as long. In other words, Calgary's bridge has 4 times the deck area as Banff's bridge, and by the time you factor in the extra structure required for a longer open span, and the difficulty in building a longer open span, the multiplier would probobly be at least 6-8 times. That would mean a similar design to Banff bridge being built in Calgary at the site of the proposed peace bridge would cost $15 Million +/- a million or two.

The sun writer also got the cost of the Banff bridge wrong, it's not 2.01 million, it's nearly 2.3 million. It doesn't sound like much, but it makes a difference when you also have to add a multiplier to do a proper cost comparison.

The Banff bridge also will require in stream work, something that Calgary is avoiding.

You Need a Thneed · 08-13-2009, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Byrns

I'm more mad at the lack of consultation because some people figure having public input will lead to a failed project.

No one has ever said that.

socktape · 08-13-2009, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Byrns

I'm more mad at the lack of consultation because some people figure having public input will lead to a failed project. When it appears to have worked out just fine in Banff.

It would be a lot easier to consult a town of what... a couple of thousand (at most) people vs over a million.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

IMO, that comparison is bunk. It's like comparing the costs of a single lane residential road to a multi lane highway. Guess which one costs more?

I agree. Take a look at some of the company's other projects they've done. I would much rather have the bridge we've got compared to the ones they have built for the local golf course, etc. The wood covered bridge they built for the private landowner is nice... but could you imagine that going over the bow? The scope of the projects themselves are completely different.

Barnes · 08-13-2009, 11:20 AM

Take a look at Surespan's work. It will look great!

If you like the pre-fab, temporary bridge look.

kermitology · 08-13-2009, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Byrns

I'm more mad at the lack of consultation because some people figure having public input will lead to a failed project. When it appears to have worked out just fine in Banff.

You can't trust the public. The public are stupid. Stupid people shouldn't be allowed to make decisions.

Byrns · 08-13-2009, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nik-

Do you get mad when they don't consult you about interchanges? Or the Ring Road? The public isn't consulted on a lot of infrastructure projects. The difference is that the media has decided to turn this one, which has a lot smaller price tag than the others, into an issue.

Of course they consult the public for those projects. For example the west LRT, or any other redevelopment there are open houses.

Byrns · 08-13-2009, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fotze

Would a designer have come up with a bench? I think not.

Because if you ask people for ideas we're forced to adopt every single one of them.

Burninator · 08-13-2009, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Byrns

Of course they consult the public for those projects. For example the west LRT, or any other redevelopment there are open houses.

Didn't that go terribly though? I didn't follow it that closely, but didn't it get dragged out several months extra because everyone wanted to put their 2 cents in (and a bunch of NIMBY's)? And I thought whatever the people voted on for one part of the plan didn't work engineering wise?

ken0042 · 08-13-2009, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Byrns

Of course they consult the public for those projects. For example the west LRT, or any other redevelopment there are open houses.

Ok, but let's look at the scope of those projects. The West LRT is in the $500M- $1B range.

How about things like the Graves Bridge twinning taking Glenmore over the Bow. Was there an open house for that? (I actually don't know- but don't recall one.)

Even if I hated the new Peace Bridge, I think I would hate more living in a city where every $25M project went to a comittee.

Byrns · 08-13-2009, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burninator

Didn't that go terribly though? I didn't follow it that closely, but didn't it get dragged out several months extra because everyone wanted to put their 2 cents in (and a bunch of NIMBY's)? And I thought whatever the people voted on for one part of the plan didn't work engineering wise?

So it's better to just shut up and let our politicians do whatever they want? Because we don't want risk heated discussion... There are\have been some pretty big idiots serving on council, and a lot of their decisions are pretty stupid.

Muta · 08-13-2009, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Byrns

Of course they consult the public for those projects. For example the west LRT, or any other redevelopment there are open houses.

Absolutely, the public should be consulted on decisions like those.

However, the general public should never get involved in the design of something itself; the red tape involved with making it happen is way more wasteful on resources than simply having a design competition with shortlisted parties.

Byrns · 08-13-2009, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ken0042

Ok, but let's look at the scope of those projects. The West LRT is in the $500M- $1B range.

How about things like the Graves Bridge twinning taking Glenmore over the Bow. Was there an open house for that? (I actually don't know- but don't recall one.)

Even if I hated the new Peace Bridge, I think I would hate more living in a city where every $25M project went to a comittee.

It was at a committee, and the committee rejected the $25 mill bridge. Council overruled them.

Table 5 · 08-13-2009, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fotze

So the consultation got bike lanes, viewing areas and benches? Whew I know I'd feel smarter having suggested that, dummy calatrava woulda never thought of bike lanes or benches.

Yeah, but we could've gotten speed holes and a racing stripe.

Byrns · 08-13-2009, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muta

Absolutely, the public should be consulted on decisions like those.

However, the general public should never get involved in the design of something itself; the red tape involved with making it happen is way more wasteful on resources than simply having a design competition with shortlisted parties.

I didn't know there was a competition. They only asked the one designer.

Muta · 08-13-2009, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Byrns

So it's better to just shut up and let our politicians do whatever they want? Because we don't want risk heated discussion... There are\have been some pretty big idiots serving on council, and a lot of their decisions are pretty stupid.

Sometimes, that's what good leaders need to do. They need to make decisions and get things done. Hey, it's the people that vote them in. So it's not like you didn't have a part in it.