Calgary Stoney Trail [Ring Road]

[lubicon]

Thanks.

[MalcolmTucker]

Can't make it - will be out in Banff. Hope it goes well!

[Cage]

Originally Posted by lubicon

On the topic of the Ring Road and the provincial election does anyone know where the NDP stands on finishing the SW portion in Calgary?

SW or West portion?

My guesstimate is that an NDP majority will result in significant decrease to SWRR design, including the introduction of signalled intersections instead of interchange. Plus a permanent deferral of the West portion.

Building high capacity roads is not an NDP type of thing. The NDP does schools, hospitals, transit, and urban projects.

The NDP will use the freed up funds from the Calgary RR to fund other projects that are more their style.

For an NDP minority, they would reduce the SW portion as discussed above and fund the West portion with the revised timeline and to mimic the downsized design of the SW.

They could also propose a Toll road for the ring roads with additional freed up funds to go towards transit projects.

[*Stardust*]

Originally Posted by Cage

SW or West portion?

My guesstimate is that an NDP majority will result in significant decrease to SWRR design, including the introduction of signalled intersections instead of interchange. Plus a permanent deferral of the West portion.

Building high capacity roads is not an NDP type of thing. The NDP does schools, hospitals, transit, and urban projects.

The NDP will use the freed up funds from the Calgary RR to fund other projects that are more their style.

For an NDP minority, they would reduce the SW portion as discussed above and fund the West portion with the revised timeline and to mimic the downsized design of the SW.

They could also propose a Toll road for the ring roads with additional freed up funds to go towards transit projects.

If Ring Roads aren't an NDP thing, is CTrain and City Charters? Those are the two things I want to see a push for at a municipal level towards the provincial goverment.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Cage

SW or West portion?

My guesstimate is that an NDP majority will result in significant decrease to SWRR design, including the introduction of signalled intersections instead of interchange. Plus a permanent deferral of the West portion.

Building high capacity roads is not an NDP type of thing. The NDP does schools, hospitals, transit, and urban projects.

The NDP will use the freed up funds from the Calgary RR to fund other projects that are more their style.

For an NDP minority, they would reduce the SW portion as discussed above and fund the West portion with the revised timeline and to mimic the downsized design of the SW.

They could also propose a Toll road for the ring roads with additional freed up funds to go towards transit projects.

Doesn't the SWRR have to built ASAP according to the agreement with Tsuu T'ina? Redesigning it to save pennies would take time and likely scupper the entire thing permanently, or at least make it far more expensive to build out properly if it did survive. Doing anything like that would be extremely short sighted and I'd hope the next government is grown up enough to to let the SWRR continue as is.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Doesn't the SWRR have to built ASAP according to the agreement with Tsuu T'ina? Redesigning it to save pennies would take time and likely scupper the entire thing permanently, or at least make it far more expensive to build out properly if it did survive. Doing anything like that would be extremely short sighted and I'd hope the next government is grown up enough to to let the SWRR continue as is.

The NDP statement from a few days ago about the SWRR was two-fold:

• Create a sunshine list for all existing infrastructure projects. They mentioned a similar idea that several forumers have voiced here before (myself included): they want to clear the air of any PC cronyism and political influence into infrastructure funding decisions. Their central complaint way too many closed door decisions, without the metrics being public as to why one project was favoured over another.
• Assuming the SWRR passes this first test, they want to proceed with the current timeline set by the PCs in the recent budget. So the two-phase, slimmed down approach.

[Socguy]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Doesn't the SWRR have to built ASAP according to the agreement with Tsuu T'ina? Redesigning it to save pennies would take time and likely scupper the entire thing permanently, or at least make it far more expensive to build out properly if it did survive. Doing anything like that would be extremely short sighted and I'd hope the next government is grown up enough to to let the SWRR continue as is.

That would be correct and the NDP has already stated that they will follow through with pretty well all the projects that have been started.

I do hope that the NDP, should they actually be elected, start to pay attention to the cities in ways the the PC's have not. I.e. infrastructure upgrades, transit, big city charter and so on.

[CalgaryAlex]

Originally Posted by Cage

SW or West portion?

My guesstimate is that an NDP majority will result in significant decrease to SWRR design, including the introduction of signalled intersections instead of interchange. Plus a permanent deferral of the West portion.

Building high capacity roads is not an NDP type of thing. The NDP does schools, hospitals, transit, and urban projects.

The NDP will use the freed up funds from the Calgary RR to fund other projects that are more their style.

For an NDP minority, they would reduce the SW portion as discussed above and fund the West portion with the revised timeline and to mimic the downsized design of the SW.

They could also propose a Toll road for the ring roads with additional freed up funds to go towards transit projects.

I'm glad you typed out "guesstimate", because everything you posted is straight, unfounded conjecture.

[Mazrim]

The province has been paying for the mistake of signalizing parts of Anthony Henday for some time now. I would hope that mistake would not be repeated again in Calgary.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by MasterG

The NDP statement from a few days ago about the SWRR was two-fold:

• Create a sunshine list for all existing infrastructure projects. They mentioned a similar idea that several forumers have voiced here before (myself included): they want to clear the air of any PC cronyism and political influence into infrastructure funding decisions. Their central complaint way too many closed door decisions, without the metrics being public as to why one project was favoured over another.
• Assuming the SWRR passes this first test, they want to proceed with the current timeline set by the PCs in the recent budget. So the two-phase, slimmed down approach.

I have concerns on whether it is possible to build an objective technocratic infrastructure list in the province. And if we did, people would HATE it. If we did have one, you know what wouldn't have been built/be under construction? Highway 63. Below average accidents per km, and too low of traffic volumes.

Sometimes democracy means weighing intangible factors.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

I have concerns on whether it is possible to build an objective technocratic infrastructure list in the province. And if we did, people would HATE it. If we did have one, you know what wouldn't have been built/be under construction? Highway 63. Below average accidents per km, and too low of traffic volumes.

But also the single route for all road based supplies to one of the province's single most important economic areas? Am I misunderstanding you? If anything I would think the major trucking routes would receive more funding if we funded things 100% rationally.

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

I have concerns on whether it is possible to build an objective technocratic infrastructure list in the province. And if we did, people would HATE it. If we did have one, you know what wouldn't have been built/be under construction? Highway 63. Below average accidents per km, and too low of traffic volumes.

Sometimes democracy means weighing intangible factors.

Is Highway 63 twinning supposed to be an example of a good project? The entire safety benefit could have been achieved by having speed cameras every 50 km on the road, and you get a nice big ticket in the mail if you cross two of them in less than 28 minutes. Or just hire a couple of dozen more cops. Either way, that would be revenue-neutral instead of a massive expense.

Because of the substantial work done on rural highways by the PCs over the last 44 years, any objective technocratic infrastructure list would wind up with - maintenance aside - almost no projects outside of urban areas and regions. Which would probably suit the 3/4 majority of urban residents of the province just fine - not to mention the rural ones who want fewer government services, anyways. Win/win.

[CalgaryAlex]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

I have concerns on whether it is possible to build an objective technocratic infrastructure list in the province. And if we did, people would HATE it. If we did have one, you know what wouldn't have been built/be under construction? Highway 63. Below average accidents per km, and too low of traffic volumes.

Sometimes democracy means weighing intangible factors.

I don't think the economic impact of a piece of infrastructure would be skipped. Yes, Highway 63 twinning is important not just because of accidents and traffic volumes, but because the road basically shut down (and actually requires extensive scheduling) when huge pieces of equipment and structures are trucked up it.

I would hope economic impact of capital projects would be placed rather high on their weighting scale, right up there with safety. At least, a rational government would do so.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by milomilo

But also the single route for all road based supplies to one of the province's single most important economic areas? Am I misunderstanding you? If anything I would think the major trucking routes would receive more funding if we funded things 100% rationally.

Originally Posted by CalgaryAlex

I don't think the economic impact of a piece of infrastructure would be skipped. Yes, Highway 63 twinning is important not just because of accidents and traffic volumes, but because the road basically shut down (and actually requires extensive scheduling) when huge pieces of equipment and structures are trucked up it.

I would hope economic impact of capital projects would be placed rather high on their weighting scale, right up there with safety. At least, a rational government would do so.

Highway 881 is the secondary route to the Fort McMurray oil sands. Large load movement has lots of notice and you can take the other route.

Economic impact cases are usually are load of BS. Hard to predict the future. If we knew oil was going to collapse would we be twinning 63?

Trust in all levels of government have dropped so much I wonder if in our lifetimes we are in danger of letting representative democracy slip away. Assuming that politicians are making bad calls all the time and that third parties somehow can be more fair grinds my gears.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Highway 881 is the secondary route to the Fort McMurray oil sands. Large load movement has lots of notice and you can take the other route.

Economic impact cases are usually are load of BS. Hard to predict the future. If we knew oil was going to collapse would we be twinning 63?

Trust in all levels of government have dropped so much I wonder if in our lifetimes we are in danger of letting representative democracy slip away. Assuming that politicians are making bad calls all the time and that third parties somehow can be more fair grinds my gears.

At lot of this is the result of disingenuous engagement, the recent budget survey is a great example of how not to do engagement.

First rule of public engagement is only do it if you have a decision to make.

IMO openness and transparency is critical to any government decision. I think most people recognize that the government won't always make decisions they like, but they'll understand them if the rational is communicated.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by *Stardust*

If Ring Roads aren't an NDP thing, is CTrain and City Charters? Those are the two things I want to see a push for at a municipal level towards the provincial government.

C-train - yes, city charters, yes. NDP is always urban agenda party in whatever form they take across the country.

Originally Posted by milomilo

Doesn't the SWRR have to built ASAP according to the agreement with Tsuu T'ina? Redesigning it to save pennies would take time and likely scupper the entire thing permanently, or at least make it far more expensive to build out properly if it did survive. Doing anything like that would be extremely short sighted and I'd hope the next government is grown up enough to to let the SWRR continue as is.

Think back to the Chretien first term, he immediately cancelled the EH-101 Helicopter contract, cancelled the privatization of Pearson airport; both moves were very short sighting as they incurred 100s of millions in penalties.

When Steven Harper took office, he cancelled the Kelowna accord with aboriginals, raised personal taxes by 1% to pay for the GST cut, and did a host of other items.

There are other examples at the provincial level where the new government made drastic changes to in-progress projects that did not follow the new governments mantra.

Originally Posted by CalgaryAlex

I'm glad you typed out "guesstimate", because everything you posted is straight, unfounded conjecture.

Just conjecture on my part. However I am looking into how other governments changed from one party mantra to another. There are usually a few major unexpected changes.

Looking at a concept from today, if its an NDP majority then Joe Ceci will be a cabinet minister with a big portfolio. Joe hangs around the likes of Farrell, Carra, and Pincott; all the city councillors who dont like the gold plated SWRR design and feel that money could be better spent on other transportation priorities. Do you really expect that Ceci would have proSWRR mega road mindset?

Originally Posted by 5seconds

Yes, the 2013 agreement states that the road has to be built 'substantially the same as the plan attached' to the agreement, and all intersections are noted as 'interchanges'.

Unless you can convince a judge that a signalized intersection is 'substantially the same' as a free-flowing interchange, then the road will need to be built the way it was originally agreed.

The agreement is oddly silent on the idea of a toll road. Once transferred the land would be in the control of the Province, and it would appear that they could enact a toll if required.

Unless of course the NDP govt renegotiates with the Tsu Tinna to get out of having to build the interchanges. There is a long list of NDP favourites that could win over the Tsu Tinna.

[Fuzz]

I wonder if there are any savings to be had with a new government looking at costs though. We all thought the pricetag was a bit outrageous, maybe there was some cronyism padding of contracts going on there? No idea.

[Socguy]

Thinking back, was there not a clause in the agreement something to the effect of: If the Provence doesn't build the road, the band still gets to keep the transferred land and money?

If that is the case, any renegotiation will be extremely costly.

No, I stand by my initial assessment: Like it or lump it, this project is a go. Any changes to the way future projects are done won't show up for a few years, (should the NDP take charge).

[andasen]

Any thoughts on how much savings can be found by decreasing the gold plated design capacity of the road (ala 16 lanes down to 10) while keeping the interchanges?

[MalcolmTucker]

No much really, since you aren't building clear spans, which drives cost.