HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Calgary > Transportation & Infrastructure

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #7521  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2018, 8:39 PM
DoubleK DoubleK is offline
#YYC
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corndogger View Post
Does anyone know if this section of the road is now behind schedule and if so, will the contractors be penalized if they don't meet any deadlines the province may have set for them?
Mazrim would probably know better, but I'm certain that this will be considered a relief event under the terms of the DBFO agreement.

I can't imagine that the agreement contained a provision to deal with this form of government intervention. One of the principles of these agreements is unfettered access to the project limits.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7522  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2018, 9:48 PM
Mazrim's Avatar
Mazrim Mazrim is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 1,232
These consortium groups that win P3 work are masters at getting every extra dollar they can from the client. As soon as the government asks for anything that deviates from what was originally agreed on, it's a change order. I imagine that their schedule had enough leeway because of the nature of the land deal that they're still fine, but the amount of effort they've probably expended into this dispute is probably significant.

I don't actually know where the beaver pond wetland is, but as long as there's around 10 meters of separation between the wetland buffer area and the edge of the road, they should be able to build a retaining wall to protect it without impacting the road design.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7523  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2018, 2:15 AM
5seconds's Avatar
5seconds 5seconds is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,614
This is the pond and the edge where the road was set to impact:

https://www.google.ca/maps/place/50%...4d-114.1641235

And it wasn't so much the road but the slope of the berm as it is slightly raised in this area if I remember right.
__________________
My Southwest Calgary Ring Road Blog: calgaryringroad.wordpress.com
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7524  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2018, 3:42 AM
Corndogger Corndogger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,256
Twitter dust-up erupts over southwest gravel pit dirt as monitoring extended

A Calgary MLA on Tuesday accused a city councillor of bullying her over disputed efforts to address southwest residents’ complaints about dust and noise from a nearby gravel pit.

When told on Twitter by Ward 6 Coun. Jeff Davison that she “failed to do (her) job” in reducing the impacts of a gravel pit next to homes in the West Springs area, Calgary-Bow MLA Deborah Drever lashed back.

“This is bullying at its finest. I expect better from a city councillor,” she tweeted.

“If you would like to know all the work that is being done with the gravel operations, all you have to do is pick up a phone and call my office. You haven’t reached out once.”

The spat began when she accused Davison of wrongly taking credit for new dust monitoring measures at the site.

In an interview, Davison cautioned Drever over her choice of words, while saying he knows area residents are exasperated with their MLA and Alberta Transportation over their complaints about the gravel operation, which feeds construction of the southwest ring road.

“She needs to be very careful with what she calls bullying … I find it defamatory and completely out of context,” he said.

“Not doing your job is not doing your job.”

Full article at: http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...ime=1517362757
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7525  
Old Posted Feb 1, 2018, 7:31 AM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by craner View Post
God forbid we try to plan for the future - especially when there was only going to be one chance for an agreement with the Tsuu T'ina.
Without the inner road, there will still be room for 8+ lanes of freeway. How on earth is that not planning for the future? Should we build every single road with room for 16 lanes just in case?

I'd also like to shamelessly gloat that I was right all along - it's now confirmed those middle lanes will never be used and were a complete waste of money.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7526  
Old Posted Feb 1, 2018, 9:15 AM
Corndogger Corndogger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
Without the inner road, there will still be room for 8+ lanes of freeway. How on earth is that not planning for the future? Should we build every single road with room for 16 lanes just in case?

I'd also like to shamelessly gloat that I was right all along - it's now confirmed those middle lanes will never be used and were a complete waste of money.
The 8 lanes is being built now for the current road. How are they going to be build another freeway using the same lanes?

You shouldn't gloat at all because you're not right. The only people confirming the extra space won't be used for the other road is the NDP who will never be in power again as long as any of us are alive. Thank God for once there were people looking ahead and factoring in other constraints such as this was a one time opportunity to acquire the land.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7527  
Old Posted Feb 1, 2018, 3:03 PM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corndogger View Post
The 8 lanes is being built now for the current road. How are they going to be build another freeway using the same lanes?

You shouldn't gloat at all because you're not right. The only people confirming the extra space won't be used for the other road is the NDP who will never be in power again as long as any of us are alive. Thank God for once there were people looking ahead and factoring in other constraints such as this was a one time opportunity to acquire the land.
There is no need for another 8 lane freeway on the same route. What scenario do you envisage that would need capacity for 400,000 AADT? The high estimates the province was basing this road on put the usage at 150,000 by 2050, less than Deerfoot today and the SWRR (without the inner lanes) will be significantly larger and better designed, so it should easily be capable of handling the traffic levels well into the future. 16 lane freeways are actually incredibly rare, so deciding this road would need to be one should have required some extreme justification.

Since you want the SWRR, the least important section, to be built with such massive future expansion potential, logically then you must want every road built to have the same expansion capacity. If not, what makes this road so special? We haven't built the rest of the 201 or 216 so large, nor HWY1 or 2, yet they are going to be the busier roads in the future.

As for politics, I don't want to get into that. But the civil administration, while led by the reigning government, stays on as they change and it is them that design the roads. It was under the Progressive Conservatives in 2012 that any plans to build outer ring roads was scrapped.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7528  
Old Posted Feb 1, 2018, 7:11 PM
Acey Acey is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 3,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
Since you want the SWRR, the least important section, to be built with such massive future expansion potential, logically then you must want every road built to have the same expansion capacity. If not, what makes this road so special? We haven't built the rest of the 201 or 216 so large, nor HWY1 or 2, yet they are going to be the busier roads in the future.
This has been answered so many god damn times but I realize you're too busy gloating in what you believe to be a victory, which is in fact not a victory at all. Scroll back to the last time we argued about this same bullshit to see the answer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7529  
Old Posted Feb 1, 2018, 7:28 PM
Bad Grizzly's Avatar
Bad Grizzly Bad Grizzly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 988
What makes it so special? For starters and the main reason is you should try and build what you can now rather than have to negotiate an expansion later. In case you hadn't noticed, this section is on native land and who knows how negotiations will go in 20 years. Build it now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
There is no need for another 8 lane freeway on the same route. What scenario do you envisage that would need capacity for 400,000 AADT? The high estimates the province was basing this road on put the usage at 150,000 by 2050, less than Deerfoot today and the SWRR (without the inner lanes) will be significantly larger and better designed, so it should easily be capable of handling the traffic levels well into the future. 16 lane freeways are actually incredibly rare, so deciding this road would need to be one should have required some extreme justification.

Since you want the SWRR, the least important section, to be built with such massive future expansion potential, logically then you must want every road built to have the same expansion capacity. If not, what makes this road so special? We haven't built the rest of the 201 or 216 so large, nor HWY1 or 2, yet they are going to be the busier roads in the future.

As for politics, I don't want to get into that. But the civil administration, while led by the reigning government, stays on as they change and it is them that design the roads. It was under the Progressive Conservatives in 2012 that any plans to build outer ring roads was scrapped.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7530  
Old Posted Feb 1, 2018, 7:29 PM
Bad Grizzly's Avatar
Bad Grizzly Bad Grizzly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 988
Quote:
Originally Posted by craner View Post
Yeah - it was hard to even read her words in the decision without my blood pressure rising.
God forbid we try to plan for the future - especially when there was only going to be one chance for an agreement with the Tsuu T'ina.
Thank you. That's 100% what I think too. Forgot trying to do a deal in 20 years, becuase someone else at Tsu'tima will be in charge and then everything goes out the window.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7531  
Old Posted Feb 1, 2018, 8:00 PM
craner's Avatar
craner craner is offline
Go Tall or Go Home
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,876
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
Without the inner road, there will still be room for 8+ lanes of freeway. How on earth is that not planning for the future? Should we build every single road with room for 16 lanes just in case?

I'd also like to shamelessly gloat that I was right all along - it's now confirmed those middle lanes will never be used and were a complete waste of money.
I don't necessarily agree with building the current overpasses extra wide to accommodate 16 lanes at this point but I do agree with securing the ROW now.

As 5seconds posted earlier (& I agreed), by the time 16 lanes are required the overpasses being built now will need to be replaced anyway.

Maybe we will never need 16 lanes but there may be another need for this additional room in the ROW in the future - for something we haven't even dreamed of yet.

And no, I don't think we need to plan every road for over capacity to the degree this one is. But this is a special case given the lengthy negotiations with the Tsuu T'ina (60 years ?). I wouldn't want to get caught in 40 years wishing the ROW had more room (again, possibly for something unimagined as of yet).

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7532  
Old Posted Feb 1, 2018, 8:08 PM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acey View Post
This has been answered so many god damn times but I realize you're too busy gloating in what you believe to be a victory, which is in fact not a victory at all. Scroll back to the last time we argued about this same bullshit to see the answer.
No, it hasn't been answered at all. There are no projections, even unrealistic ones, which show the level of over building which has been planned is necessary. Even if it was a good idea to build a road with 3x the capacity of the projections, there are other roads where this overbuilding would be a better idea.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7533  
Old Posted Feb 1, 2018, 8:12 PM
5seconds's Avatar
5seconds 5seconds is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by craner View Post
And no, I don't think we need to plan every road for over capacity to the degree this one is. But this is a special case given the lengthy negotiations with the Tsuu T'ina (60 years ?). I wouldn't want to get caught in 40 years wishing the ROW had more room (again, possibly for something unimagined as of yet).
:
Technically initial negotiations began in Summer 1984, but were discontinued by 1986-ish. Next real discussions began again late 1990s, and then became much more serious by early 2000s.

Discussions began way before all of that. Early 1970s.
__________________
My Southwest Calgary Ring Road Blog: calgaryringroad.wordpress.com
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7534  
Old Posted Feb 1, 2018, 8:13 PM
5seconds's Avatar
5seconds 5seconds is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,614
Also it looks like I am being attacked on twitter by some associates of the Save Lakeview folks. Not surprised I guess, but it's getting petty.

https://twitter.com/FraserMarie2/with_replies
__________________
My Southwest Calgary Ring Road Blog: calgaryringroad.wordpress.com
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7535  
Old Posted Feb 1, 2018, 8:13 PM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by craner View Post
And no, I don't think we need to plan every road for over capacity to the degree this one is. But this is a special case given the lengthy negotiations with the Tsuu T'ina (60 years ?). I wouldn't want to get caught in 40 years wishing the ROW had more room (again, possibly for something unimagined as of yet).

What about, for example, Highway 2? It's far more feasible that it will need additional capacity in the future, yet we have not reserved a huge ROW and built oversized bridges for that, yet it would be hugely expensive to buy all the land along the way if we do somehow end in the unrealistic scenario of needing a 16 lane road. Practically, that is the same situation we would be in with the SWRR.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7536  
Old Posted Feb 1, 2018, 8:53 PM
Mazrim's Avatar
Mazrim Mazrim is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 1,232
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
What about, for example, Highway 2? It's far more feasible that it will need additional capacity in the future, yet we have not reserved a huge ROW and built oversized bridges for that, yet it would be hugely expensive to buy all the land along the way if we do somehow end in the unrealistic scenario of needing a 16 lane road. Practically, that is the same situation we would be in with the SWRR.
1) Highway 2 probably doesn't have sensitive land issues like the SW ring road does.
2) The land can be slowly acquired over time if they need to go to bigger expansions.
3) The land for the SW ring road can't be slowly acquired as necessary, as we've all seen from the lengthy negotiations.
4) It's not practically close to the SW ring road situation at all.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7537  
Old Posted Feb 1, 2018, 9:38 PM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazrim View Post
1) Highway 2 probably doesn't have sensitive land issues like the SW ring road does.
2) The land can be slowly acquired over time if they need to go to bigger expansions.
3) The land for the SW ring road can't be slowly acquired as necessary, as we've all seen from the lengthy negotiations.
4) It's not practically close to the SW ring road situation at all.
Yes it is. Rather than one owner, you have many, and they will need payment. Both would be extremely difficult and costly making them both unrealistic propositions, so they are practically equivalent.

I'm not sure why so many of you think this massive waste of money was a good idea, especially now we have objective proof the province does not plan on ever using those lanes. It seems the biggest proponents of this boondoggle are the so called fiscal concervatives who would cry foul over a few pennies in different circumstance.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7538  
Old Posted Feb 1, 2018, 9:47 PM
Bad Grizzly's Avatar
Bad Grizzly Bad Grizzly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 988
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
What about, for example, Highway 2? It's far more feasible that it will need additional capacity in the future, yet we have not reserved a huge ROW and built oversized bridges for that, yet it would be hugely expensive to buy all the land along the way if we do somehow end in the unrealistic scenario of needing a 16 lane road. Practically, that is the same situation we would be in with the SWRR.
Hwy #2 is a different issue. Obviously it's a vastly longer stretch, so we have to do it that way. This is different.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7539  
Old Posted Feb 1, 2018, 11:16 PM
Mazrim's Avatar
Mazrim Mazrim is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 1,232
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
I'm not sure why so many of you think this massive waste of money was a good idea, especially now we have objective proof the province does not plan on ever using those lanes. It seems the biggest proponents of this boondoggle are the so called fiscal concervatives who would cry foul over a few pennies in different circumstance.
I don't think the larger purchase of land was a bad idea. I think building the bridges on the road with the ultimate lanes in mind was definitely something that could have been deferred. Do no ultimate grading and no ultimate bridges and this project gets a lot cheaper, but leave that land for the just-in-case. I don't think one government saying they want it, and the next one saying they don't is a guarantee that it will never be used.

Who knows, maybe automated cars take off in a big way, no one owns their own vehicle anymore and just hail an automated car to their location at a very affordable rate, and traffic volumes triple. Maybe the government of the 2050s will gladly use the available space to expand.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7540  
Old Posted Feb 1, 2018, 11:38 PM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazrim View Post
I don't think the larger purchase of land was a bad idea. I think building the bridges on the road with the ultimate lanes in mind was definitely something that could have been deferred. Do no ultimate grading and no ultimate bridges and this project gets a lot cheaper, but leave that land for the just-in-case. I don't think one government saying they want it, and the next one saying they don't is a guarantee that it will never be used.
This I can agree with - fine purchase the larger amount of land if you really have to, but there was no need to build the bridges the way they did. Even if you had to build all 16 lanes, they could have still slimmed it down even rather than putting in the huge prairie grass centre medians.

What we have built instead wastes that land in perpetuity. Even if you put a railway or transit down the middle (why? To where?, that still leaves an enormous amount of ugly wasted space.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Calgary > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:51 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.