City owns the +15s and has easements through the buildings for certain degrees of access.
I say we outsource it. Get a company like Starbucks.
"People need coffee but first you have to develop a system to get them from point A to point B. Now go!!"
Or we need a real hero and we all know who they are...get a group of Chinese restaurant cooks together and they'll have this problem sorted before the lunch rush.
NSFW!
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
Looking at the +15 counts from April 2018 (not sure if newer exist) that +15/30 from The Core over 2nd street had the highest pedestrian count in the entire network at 32,689.
The Following User Says Thank You to Bigtime For This Useful Post:
I say we outsource it. Get a company like Starbucks.
"People need coffee but first you have to develop a system to get them from point A to point B. Now go!!"
Or we need a real hero and we all know who they are...get a group of Chinese restaurant cooks together and they'll have this problem sorted before the lunch rush.
NSFW!
The affected buildings could expand their food courts right to the train lines.
I have a lot of respect for Chabot even though I usually disagree with him politically. He's pushing back reasonably against his conservative overlords
__________________
CP's 15th Most Annoying Poster! (who wasn't too cowardly to enter that super duper serious competition)
The Following User Says Thank You to powderjunkie For This Useful Post:
The AECOM report will be fun. 99.9% guaranteed it's a 'wink wink nudge nudge', UCP-friendly edition that garnered a good paycheque for them. The Green Line has been studied to death already, so AECOM suggesting the UCP-preferred route, even if they don't internally believe it, will be unsurprising.
Well that was quite the clapback to the province. I honestly think that the UCP is more interested in letting this die and hanging it around the neck of Nenshi and other "woke" politicians in the new party-format civic elections than actually delivering anything to Calgarians.
So I wonder what happens next? The province has shown that they want to assert more control over municipalities, and they hold the plug on this. But they seem to be putting the city in a position where they either agree to unknown terms, or they can't proceed due to the risk, which the province will blame them for the project's failure.
...and they can't tell us anything as the AECOM report has been marked as confidential.
How the #### is this reality?
No, we won't pay for what you came up with and what we agreed to and you spent money on, we'll sole source a contract for $2.5 million, tell them they can't actually look at the scope of the project, have them confirm the napkin sketch we think know is better, we'll tell you how to build it, but we won't actually release the report that says that. You'll just have to trust us.
Well that was quite the clapback to the province. I honestly think that the UCP is more interested in letting this die and hanging it around the neck of Nenshi and other "woke" politicians in the new party-format civic elections than actually delivering anything to Calgarians.
So I wonder what happens next? The province has shown that they want to assert more control over municipalities, and they hold the plug on this. But they seem to be putting the city in a position where they either agree to unknown terms, or they can't proceed due to the risk, which the province will blame them for the project's failure.
Yup, the best outcome for the UCP is to have this debacle drag out for many more years to come.
__________________
CP's 15th Most Annoying Poster! (who wasn't too cowardly to enter that super duper serious competition)
Reminds me of a toxic boss I used to have. Would say no to something that needed to be done, drags feet while I had to prove to him why it needed to be done, time passes and everyone gets pissed off including the customer, and then in the end says just do it but ball is in my court to make my customer happy again. Same boss that said don't come to me with problems, you have to come with a solution too.
Funny how these people end up in positions of power. Now we have a provincial government that is just like him, except I can't just up and quit to get away from it.
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to BlackArcher101 For This Useful Post:
The AECOM report will be fun. 99.9% guaranteed it's a 'wink wink nudge nudge', UCP-friendly edition that garnered a good paycheque for them. The Green Line has been studied to death already, so AECOM suggesting the UCP-preferred route, even if they don't internally believe it, will be unsurprising.
Can you point me to these studies? The city is quite a bit better at transparency than the Unsane Clown Posse, so they aren't so hard to find.
It's been studied a fair bit (with different conclusions each time), but ultimately the decision was made based on a public engagement process in 2016 that didn't really address the cost issue beyond a vague bullet point or two, and it's quite apparent that the specific costing data used by councillors was wildly inaccurate (understandably for the most part considering how the mega project world has evolved the last decade). It'll also be a long rant that I've probably made too many times before, but pretty much each piece of the reasoning to justify the decision has also proven false (but wind me up a bit and I'll probably spout it all off).
The initial decision in 2017 was absolutely fine based on the data at the time. The problem is that there has been no appetite to revisit these most crucial elements in the face of evolving evidence. And this is again understandable because it would be unpopular and nobody would want to own that change. But it's also proven to be an existential issue, and now we all get to suffer.
__________________
CP's 15th Most Annoying Poster! (who wasn't too cowardly to enter that super duper serious competition)
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to powderjunkie For This Useful Post:
The AECOM report will be fun. 99.9% guaranteed it's a 'wink wink nudge nudge', UCP-friendly edition that garnered a good paycheque for them. The Green Line has been studied to death already, so AECOM suggesting the UCP-preferred route, even if they don't internally believe it, will be unsurprising.
I don’t think it’s that surprising even without a finger on the scale.
It was the alignment plan I think in 2006.
If you added price and length as constraints this becomes the alignment again. If I told you the project has budget X and is from downtown to Shepard what design are you coming back with?
I think the city should be pushing the province to for cost certainty because this is their estimate now
Can you point me to these studies? The city is quite a bit better at transparency than the Unsane Clown Posse, so they aren't so hard to find.
Sorry, I don't personally have access to them. That info nugget comes from the design and construction team members who are (were?) on the project, some of whom I work with regularly though.
Can you point me to these studies? The city is quite a bit better at transparency than the Unsane Clown Posse, so they aren't so hard to find.
It's been studied a fair bit (with different conclusions each time), but ultimately the decision was made based on a public engagement process in 2016 that didn't really address the cost issue beyond a vague bullet point or two, and it's quite apparent that the specific costing data used by councillors was wildly inaccurate (understandably for the most part considering how the mega project world has evolved the last decade). It'll also be a long rant that I've probably made too many times before, but pretty much each piece of the reasoning to justify the decision has also proven false (but wind me up a bit and I'll probably spout it all off).
The initial decision in 2017 was absolutely fine based on the data at the time. The problem is that there has been no appetite to revisit these most crucial elements in the face of evolving evidence. And this is again understandable because it would be unpopular and nobody would want to own that change. But it's also proven to be an existential issue, and now we all get to suffer.
We'd be further ahead if the UCP had paid you the $2.5M instead of AECOM.
