South Edmonton Hospital & Health Campus | ?m | ?s | Province of Alberta

[quit]

Without disclosing too much and being as vague as I can, I do have inside knowledge about what's going on with this project.

VERY long story short, this hospital will get built. There has been way too much money already spent on schematics, design etc. for this to not proceed. There are two main problems right now:

1) The site itself. The pipeline crossings running through this site are very complicated and there are multiple parties involved that are making negotiations slow. Removing and replacing these lines is a huge undertaking in and of itself and no one really knows when this issue will sort itself out.

2) Cost. Initial estimate was that this facility would cost around $1.2 billion. However that estimate has ballooned to at least triple the initial estimated cost. The estimated cost is so large and so off the initial mark that it's forcing various governmental bodies to rethink how to approach design, needs, etc. to have this brought down to a more reasonable cost. The original goal and purpose was to have this hospital be a world class facility with all the bells and whistles that a modern hospital should and NEEDS in order to provide the best care possible to a large population group. Basically, the government is stuck trying to figure out how to reduce some costs without cutting or removing much needed specialized care in order to lessen the burden on the other hospitals in the city and surrounding area.

No one has an estimate as to when this could even be completed. But they are way too deep in this to back out and there's a ton of moving parts ongoing that have to get sorted out before this can move along.

#1 getting right of way agreements in place along with the necessary upgrades to existing lines is one thing (standard changed in 2019 to require larger pipe depending on proximity to developments), but talk of completely removing and relocating pipelines is on a whole other level. Having dealt with an issue recently where there a couple pipelines near a project was a pain enough. How many lines are on the site here?

 

[northlands]

Without disclosing too much and being as vague as I can, I do have inside knowledge about what's going on with this project.

VERY long story short, this hospital will get built. There has been way too much money already spent on schematics, design etc. for this to not proceed. There are two main problems right now:

1) The site itself. The pipeline crossings running through this site are very complicated and there are multiple parties involved that are making negotiations slow. Removing and replacing these lines is a huge undertaking in and of itself and no one really knows when this issue will sort itself out.

2) Cost. Initial estimate was that this facility would cost around $1.2 billion. However that estimate has ballooned to at least triple the initial estimated cost. The estimated cost is so large and so off the initial mark that it's forcing various governmental bodies to rethink how to approach design, needs, etc. to have this brought down to a more reasonable cost. The original goal and purpose was to have this hospital be a world class facility with all the bells and whistles that a modern hospital should and NEEDS in order to provide the best care possible to a large population group. Basically, the government is stuck trying to figure out how to reduce some costs without cutting or removing much needed specialized care in order to lessen the burden on the other hospitals in the city and surrounding area.

No one has an estimate as to when this could even be completed. But they are way too deep in this to back out and there's a ton of moving parts ongoing that have to get sorted out before this can move along.

Great info, but I fully 100% believe the UCP would walk away from this project, and cite all the wasted costs on the NDP's decision to purchase this land (despite the UCP doing site prep).

As well to point #1 - how exactly DID that happen? Where was the due diligence? Why did they buy a plot of land with multiple active pipelines to build a hospital? What was the mitigation strategy and why was it removing/replacing/rerouting existing pipelines? How has no journalist done a FOIP request to figure out what happened there?

 

[Munanyo]

#1 getting right of way agreements in place along with the necessary upgrades to existing lines is one thing (standard changed in 2019 to require larger pipe depending on proximity to developments), but talk of completely removing and relocating pipelines is on a whole other level. Having dealt with an issue recently where there a couple pipelines near a project was a pain enough. How many lines are on the site here?

There's multiple (I think 3 from what I heard) but can't confirm the exact number.

Great info, but I fully 100% believe the UCP would walk away from this project, and cite all the wasted costs on the NDP's decision to purchase this land (despite the UCP doing site prep).

As well to point #1 - how exactly DID that happen? Where was the due diligence? Why did they buy a plot of land with multiple active pipelines to build a hospital? What was the mitigation strategy and why was it removing/replacing/rerouting existing pipelines? How has no journalist done a FOIP request to figure out what happened there?

I honestly don't know why that specific site was chosen, especially since it wasn't some big secret that there would be some serious logistical challenges to build a facility of this size and magnitude there. I could try and see if I can get some info on that so if I do I'll be sure to report back here. One thing I do know though, is that there are some high ups who have been also wondering why in the hell was this site chosen in the first place.

 

[Glenco]

It is my understanding the province owned all of the property west of 127 street and used to lease it to the university for farm research. As to why they pic that particular spot is a mystery.

 

[edmontonidiot]

It is my understanding the province owned all of the property west of 127 street and used to lease it to the university for farm research. As to why they pic that particular spot is a mystery.

There's multiple (I think 3 from what I heard) but can't confirm the exact number.

I honestly don't know why that specific site was chosen, especially since it wasn't some big secret that there would be some serious logistical challenges to build a facility of this size and magnitude there. I could try and see if I can get some info on that so if I do I'll be sure to report back here. One thing I do know though, is that there are some high ups who have been also wondering why in the hell was this site chosen in the first place.

It's not a mystery, it's all about location.

Alberta is lacking in infrastructure. This site was chosen specifically because it's accessibility. If constructed it will be accessible by via the Henday and Highway II, not to mention bus and LRT. It's location is ideal to reduce strain from the Red Deer Regional Hospital as well. There have been talks between Edmonton city administration and the provincial government about creating a new overpass connecting Highway II to 30 Ave SW, which has room to be twinned for additional traffic.

It's the best possible location for a new hospital.

 

[quit]

It's not a mystery, it's all about location.

Alberta is lacking in infrastructure. This site was chosen specifically because it's accessibility. If constructed it will be accessible by via the Henday and Highway II, not to mention bus and LRT. It's location is ideal to reduce strain from the Red Deer Regional Hospital as well. There have been talks between Edmonton city administration and the provincial government about creating a new overpass connecting Highway II to 30 Ave SW, which has room to be twinned for additional traffic.

It's the best possible location for a new hospital.

Minus the existing complicated privately owned infrastructure. Something, something due diligence. I imagine plenty of sites out there are quite accessible with existing buildings or other private interests; it doesn't necessarily make it a good choice for public projects.

 

[edmontonidiot]

Minus the existing complicated privately owned infrastructure. Something, something due diligence. I imagine plenty of sites out there are quite accessible with existing buildings or other private interests; it doesn't necessarily make it a good choice for public projects.

Talk about a overstatement. It’s a large parcel of mostly unused parcel of land, they’ll figure it out.

Considering there will be direct LRT access, which is vital, I’d argue there’s not a lot of other options that are more accessible.

 

[David A]

It's not a mystery, it's all about location.

Alberta is lacking in infrastructure. This site was chosen specifically because it's accessibility. If constructed it will be accessible by via the Henday and Highway II, not to mention bus and LRT. It's location is ideal to reduce strain from the Red Deer Regional Hospital as well. There have been talks between Edmonton city administration and the provincial government about creating a new overpass connecting Highway II to 30 Ave SW, which has room to be twinned for additional traffic.

It's the best possible location for a new hospital.

Yes, the location is good and well thought out - the only problem is implementation.

 

[TravellingChris]

Great info, but I fully 100% believe the UCP would walk away from this project, and cite all the wasted costs on the NDP's decision to purchase this land (despite the UCP doing site prep).

Look what happened with the "superlab." Remember that the project was cancelled after the UCP defeated the NDP in 2019. At the time this decision was presented as a "win" for taxpayers--that it was cheaper to use the existing arrangement with private companies than to build that facility.

I could easily see the UCP government reversing the decision to build the SW hospital, stating publicly that "Despite our herculean efforts, we have been unable to find a way to proceed with this project in a cost-effective, fiscally-responsible manner for the foreseeable future."

The press release would go on to muse about the challenges of the current macroeconomic environment, the obligation of the government to deliver other badly-needed health facilities elsewhere in the province; the decision to prioritize projects located in ridings that actually voted UCP; the shortage of doctors meaning that even if a hospital were built there would be nobody to actually work there; the poor performance of the Edmonton Elks; the erratic behaviour of Vladimir Putin; the erratic behaviour of Britney Spears; urban coyotes stealing garbage from people's recycling bins; pipelines crossing the site of the proposed hospital; coyotes crossing the site of the proposed hospital; and the fact that Danielle Smith really misses hosting her radio show.

 

[Whattagame]

Look what happened with the "superlab." Remember that the project was cancelled after the UCP defeated the NDP in 2019. At the time this decision was presented as a "win" for taxpayers--that it was cheaper to use the existing arrangement with private companies than to build that facility.

I could easily see the UCP government reversing the decision to build the SW hospital, stating publicly that "Despite our herculean efforts, we have been unable to find a way to proceed with this project in a cost-effective, fiscally-responsible manner for the foreseeable future."

The press release would go on to muse about the challenges of the current macroeconomic environment, the obligation of the government to deliver other badly-needed health facilities elsewhere in the province; the decision to prioritize projects located in ridings that actually voted UCP; the shortage of doctors meaning that even if a hospital were built there would be nobody to actually work there; the poor performance of the Edmonton Elks; the erratic behaviour of Vladimir Putin; the erratic behaviour of Britney Spears; urban coyotes stealing garbage from people's recycling bins; pipelines crossing the site of the proposed hospital; coyotes crossing the site of the proposed hospital; and the fact that Danielle Smith really misses hosting her radio show.

See also: the living wall in the Federal Building. The UCP makes "cost-cutting" decisions that cost more for taxpayers on the regular if things don't fit the UCP identity.

 

[quit]

Talk about a overstatement. It’s a large parcel of mostly unused parcel of land, they’ll figure it out.

Considering there will be direct LRT access, which is vital, I’d argue there’s not a lot of other options that are more accessible.

Not really an overstatement when it was brought up in the past in planning reports, for example.

Page 9:

Two major utility corridors containing oil and gas pipelines and power transmission lines transect Heritage Valley in a southwest to northeast direction. These corridors offer the opportunity to provide recreational amenities in the form of green spaces and pedestrian and bicycle linkages to other communities and places of interest. Sensitive land uses such as schools and health care facilities should be kept away from the corridors, in accordance with established standards.

Then there is this diagram that shows the existing row - in the fine print, there are six operational pipelines at the time of the map that bisect the hospital land, plus the north/south ATCO pipeline to the east.

Again, it was not really an overstatement when it took me 10 minutes of googling to see the inherent issues that would need to be considered during design. Sure, they will probably figure it out, but how much extra time and cost does that add to the project? I would argue significant scope creep. You can see the pipeline row on google maps using the terrain view that extends southeast and northeast of the project site. The lines will likely need to be relocated AND upgraded to class 4 lines. Meaningful work has yet to begin on infrastructure relocation.

Yes, the project will likely proceed, but when will it open for service to the public when the healthcare system in Edmonton has already stretched to its limits 10 years ago? Another 10 years from now? 15? I would argue we are well within our rights to point out the poor planning and lack of due diligence that was done in choosing this site. Sorry, but when I read articles about people waiting over 24 hours in an emergency room, I think I should be able to say that our government isn't doing a very good job at fixing the problem.

 

[David A]

Look what happened with the "superlab." Remember that the project was cancelled after the UCP defeated the NDP in 2019. At the time this decision was presented as a "win" for taxpayers--that it was cheaper to use the existing arrangement with private companies than to build that facility.

I could easily see the UCP government reversing the decision to build the SW hospital, stating publicly that "Despite our herculean efforts, we have been unable to find a way to proceed with this project in a cost-effective, fiscally-responsible manner for the foreseeable future."

The press release would go on to muse about the challenges of the current macroeconomic environment, the obligation of the government to deliver other badly-needed health facilities elsewhere in the province; the decision to prioritize projects located in ridings that actually voted UCP; the shortage of doctors meaning that even if a hospital were built there would be nobody to actually work there; the poor performance of the Edmonton Elks; the erratic behaviour of Vladimir Putin; the erratic behaviour of Britney Spears; urban coyotes stealing garbage from people's recycling bins; pipelines crossing the site of the proposed hospital; coyotes crossing the site of the proposed hospital; and the fact that Danielle Smith really misses hosting her radio show.

Don't forget about the Federal government, I expect they will somehow blame them also. Sorry to hear about Britney's divorce, especially if it will impact us getting a hospital.

 

[northlands]

Not really an overstatement when it was brought up in the past in planning reports, for example.

Page 9:



Then there is this diagram that shows the existing row - in the fine print, there are six operational pipelines at the time of the map that bisect the hospital land, plus the north/south ATCO pipeline to the east.

Again, it was not really an overstatement when it took me 10 minutes of googling to see the inherent issues that would need to be considered during design. Sure, they will probably figure it out, but how much extra time and cost does that add to the project? I would argue significant scope creep. You can see the pipeline row on google maps using the terrain view that extends southeast and northeast of the project site. The lines will likely need to be relocated AND upgraded to class 4 lines. Meaningful work has yet to begin on infrastructure relocation.

Yes, the project will likely proceed, but when will it open for service to the public when the healthcare system in Edmonton has already stretched to its limits 10 years ago? Another 10 years from now? 15? I would argue we are well within our rights to point out the poor planning and lack of due diligence that was done in choosing this site. Sorry, but when I read articles about people waiting over 24 hours in an emergency room, I think I should be able to say that our government isn't doing a very good job at fixing the problem.

Maybe Jason Kenney with his new appointment on the ATCO BoD will help get the ATCO pipe dealt with?

Hahahahahha

 

[edmontonidiot]

Not really an overstatement when it was brought up in the past in planning reports, for example.

Page 9:



Then there is this diagram that shows the existing row - in the fine print, there are six operational pipelines at the time of the map that bisect the hospital land, plus the north/south ATCO pipeline to the east.

Again, it was not really an overstatement when it took me 10 minutes of googling to see the inherent issues that would need to be considered during design. Sure, they will probably figure it out, but how much extra time and cost does that add to the project? I would argue significant scope creep. You can see the pipeline row on google maps using the terrain view that extends southeast and northeast of the project site. The lines will likely need to be relocated AND upgraded to class 4 lines. Meaningful work has yet to begin on infrastructure relocation.

Yes, the project will likely proceed, but when will it open for service to the public when the healthcare system in Edmonton has already stretched to its limits 10 years ago? Another 10 years from now? 15? I would argue we are well within our rights to point out the poor planning and lack of due diligence that was done in choosing this site. Sorry, but when I read articles about people waiting over 24 hours in an emergency room, I think I should be able to say that our government isn't doing a very good job at fixing the problem.

I work in oil and gas. I can tell you with confidence that both the city administration of Edmonton, and the provincial government weighed the cost when they carried out a land survey. Feel free to forward both entities your Google search results.

Again, in the context of the city plan, this location is ideal and can reduce strain on both the city and other municipalities. It’s a win win. If you want to invest hundreds of millions of dollars on infrastructure without conflict, fire up Minecraft in sandbox mode.

Edit: I’m rereading your comment. Specifically, your last paragraph, you understand the difference between the administration and city council for example? Right? Planning can take years, regardless if policy and policy makers are superseding.

Edmonton having a overburden health care system is a policy failure. A provincial policy failure that has nothing to do with this specific location being chosen. The provincial government for decades, chose not to invest.

We could have had multiple hospitals built in the past few decades, matching GDP and population growth. We chose not to do due poor policy, this has nothing to do this the planning of this specific location.

 

[quit]

We could have had multiple hospitals built in the past few decades, matching GDP and population growth. We chose not to do due poor policy, this has nothing to do this the planning of this specific location.

Two things can be true at the same time - a policy failure over decades and poor planning in this instance.