So I come home from Phoenix on Sunday I've been down here for ten day's am I good to take Stony all the way to 22x??
Um i would say don't bother. It's more closed than it's open and where it is open the speed limit is 60km/h. I found out the hard way trying to take it to work.
The combined year revenues of the 2 companies building the road is $16 billion. Even if they take the maximum penalty of $5M, they probably don't care. Penalties should have been much higher if the province was serious about getting it done on time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CedarMeter
So I come home from Phoenix on Sunday I've been down here for ten day's am I good to take Stony all the way to 22x??
The combined year revenues of the 2 companies building the road is $16 billion. Even if they take the maximum penalty of $5M, they probably don't care. Penalties should have been much higher if the province was serious about getting it done on time.
They've probably lost money on extra hours they didn't plan on doing to get this done after all the delays, and so the real costs of the delay are going to be much higher than $5 million. There are material and labour related costs to every mistake and problem they've had over the course of construction, and I can imagine there will be quite a few instances of attempting to recover some of those costs from subs and vice versa.
They've probably lost money on extra hours they didn't plan on doing to get this done after all the delays, and so the real costs of the delay are going to be much higher than $5 million. There are material and labour related costs to every mistake and problem they've had over the course of construction, and I can imagine there will be quite a few instances of attempting to recover some of those costs from subs and vice versa.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
Not to mention that revenue is not profit. The fines don't impact revenue, but they will eat profit.
Sure, if they hit the maximum. I would be interested how much profit is here though. On $785M though $5M is a drop in the bucket. Combine that with some of the stories I've heard about this project and I can only shake my head.
$5 million isn't just a drop in the bucket, it's likely a minimum of 10% of the anticipated profit.
We are a sub trade on the project, and I can assure you that we aren't the cause of any delay.. If they had given us the go ahead when they first could have, and assuming that it was the same experience for other sub trades, and they gave go aheads to everyone else when they should have, that would have helped them not have to do two years of work in this last year.
$5 million isn't just a drop in the bucket, it's likely a minimum of 10% of the anticipated profit.
We are a sub trade on the project, and I can assure you that we aren't the cause of any delay.. If they had given us the go ahead when they first could have, and assuming that it was the same experience for other sub trades, and they gave go aheads to everyone else when they should have, that would have helped them not have to do two years of work in this last year.
That's exactly the kind of stories I've heard on the project. Basically it was a mess from the very beginning. I guess I figured profit would be higher though. I figured closer to $120M of the $785, so the $5M wouldn't be as big of a deal.
I obviously don't know better than some of our road geeks here, but I suspect they will make far more off the maintenance contract than they will the construction itself.
I obviously don't know better than some of our road geeks here, but I suspect they will make far more off the maintenance contract than they will the construction itself.
Considering the maintenance for 30 years is part of the $785 million contract cost, any money they lose during construction will impact the money they expected during the maintenance portion.
The Following User Says Thank You to Mazrim For This Useful Post:
Before this $5 million cap figure gets repeated too many times, can anyone actually confirm it? I have seen enough misinformation to know not to trust a figure like that unless I see it in the paperwork.
Another thing to consider is the penalty the contractor faces for any faults, like $108,000 per kilometer if any lane within that kilometer is more than 35 cm narrower than the design width. Unless they plan to fix it, I'm pretty sure they've screwed that on the exit for the SB-EB loop at DF/22X. There's like a hundred of these things that they could get fined for, so they're probably weighing perfection against the $70,000/day penalty. It's even $24 per day per delineator that isn't with 35 mm of plumb.
^ Is that why they changed the off-ramp from SB Deerfoot to Cranston down from 2 lanes to 1? It's the strangest thing, it was 2 lanes for a few weeks, then a few days ago they re-painted the lines and now it's 1 huge lane.
Having SB Deerfoot down to 1 lane for the last 2 days has been super awesome as well.
^ Is that why they changed the off-ramp from SB Deerfoot to Cranston down from 2 lanes to 1?
The original plan was for it to be 1 lane and it's shown as such on the presentation board; it was only 2 lanes at first (with pretty much no shoulder on either side) so they could have 2-way traffic for the detour in the interim, but at that spot they need a 4.8 m lane, 1 m inside shoulder, 2.5 m outside shoulder, so 2 lanes couldn't have fit permanently.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Acey For This Useful Post:
Anyone know why the Beddington Trail overpass is so messed up? Why you cant go northbound on Deerfoot from it? That had to be a conscious decision and every time I go past it, I wonder why.
__________________ https://www.reddit.com/r/CalgaryFlames/
I’m always amazed these sportscasters and announcers can call the game with McDavid’s **** in their mouths all the time.
The Following User Says Thank You to ricosuave For This Useful Post:
Location: Close enough to make a beer run during a TV timeout
Exp:
Two words for you- Al Duerr.
At the time Deerfoot was controlled by the city, and with Beddington needing access to SB Deerfoot they found the cheapest possible solution. It's a classic example of the city's short sightedness that we are paying for now.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ken0042 For This Useful Post:
Probably for the same cost-benefit reason as the Cranston debacle. Those Beddington bridges are really long; having to cross the train tracks and then the creek so that's $$. With the 96 Ave bridges open now it's pretty much a non-issue. For anyone in my area (Panorama) it's faster to go Harvest Hills to Stoney, or use the new bridge.
A flyover there built to today's standards would also put you right in the path of obliteration in the event an airplane overruns runway 29 and comes tumbling down the hill. I'm sure they'd consider that as well.
Location: Close enough to make a beer run during a TV timeout
Exp:
So here's the question- was 96 ave/ Airport trail planned back in the early 90s when the Beddington Trail interchange was built?
After seeing your answer Acey, and looking at Google Maps, if you could go NB from Beddington that would create a weave there. If it was done with bridges like the Ikea/Southland exits are, it could work. Otherwise it would be a cluster-fata.
If they had done it from day one, and NB exit ramp swung out wider they could have had a loop ramp inside of it which wouldn't change any current weave/merge situation:
But to do it now would be a 15 metre high thing like this.
So here's the question- was 96 ave/ Airport trail planned back in the early 90s when the Beddington Trail interchange was built?
I have nothing to confirm it, but given how long it takes road projects in this city to go from idea to approval to funding to construction, I will bet that yes, the 96th avenue bridge was probably in the plan somewhere in the early 90s.
