News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.4K     0 

allengeorge said:
Hasn’t Metrolinx moved to a partnership model for transit work, where they take some of the planning risk up front along with the private sector?

It’s possible I misunderstood what this model was.
Click to expand...

I don't think they did for all of them - only for some (e.g. Union Station south concourse/platform expansion). The question I have is - if one of the main rationale for P3 delivery is private sector assumption of risk, how much benefit are we really getting from that delivery mode when risk are no longer being assumed by the private sector? It is a form of cherry picking.

AoD
 
allengeorge said:
Hasn’t Metrolinx moved to a partnership model for transit work, where they take some of the planning risk up front along with the private sector?

It’s possible I misunderstood what this model was.
Click to expand...
Its a yes and no answer and I should have been more clear on ML. ML may say they take some risk, but that has yet to be seen so far. Until it is shown that ML has taken some risk, no is the answer

Crosstown has BBD equipment with Finch getting Ottawa Style cars from Alstom. Even Mississauga getting the same cars as Finch and not schedule to start show up until fall 2023 with all 44 here by mid 2024.

EllesDon did Ottawa construction and is doing the Crosstown Line and working on many other projects under ML and IO for transit.
 

I love how one P3 project doesn't go well and they think that it's all bad. This should not be the case. This was a situation where the city tried to fit a round peg into a triangle. The contractor did what they were asked, and the result was some contorted shape that is kinda wobbly.

This situation can be fixed, it just requires professional third party oversight.

Are the trains being properly inspected? Are the backup systems being tested? Is the track properly maintained? Are all of the boxes checked? What boxes are missing?

Although the private consortium should be doing those things without proper oversight who is to say that they are?

Although that massive sink hole was a disaster....
And the curve is too tight for the trains but that's the route that was chosen. Why didn't anyone raise a flag and say "hey this curve is too tight".
 
Bordercollie said:
I love how one P3 project doesn't go well and they think that it's all bad.
Click to expand...

Right? Waterloo Region's ION worked out well. The biggest delay there was waiting for the automation equipment to arrive, which the region unexpectedly had to spec for themselves and install after the trains had arrived because Metrolinx left them hanging by not having the Crosstown's gear picked out yet.
 
My opinion is that the traditional P3 model that has been sold to the public was always based on a false premise: that somehow the private sector was going to accurately predict risk and deliver outcomes to time and budget for large infrastructure projects.

I’m sure this model works (with some acceptable risk and financing premium) for smaller projects that are more restrained in scope and have fewer variables: constructing institutional buildings, resurfacing huge lengths of roadways - anything where companies are able to build something on the order of a few years again and again and again.

Transit projects the way North America does them are not set up for success with this model. There are too many unknowns, you don’t get many firms competing because there are only a few globally that could tackle projects of this size, those that do compete have had fewer projects they could learn from, and they’ll ask for a rich premium in the process. On top of that, with projects of this scope where you do a significant portion of the design and discovery during the project lifetime, the chances of your initial timeline being accurate are low.
 
allengeorge said:
My opinion is that the traditional P3 model that has been sold to the public was always based on a false premise: that somehow the private sector was going to accurately predict risk and deliver outcomes to time and budget for large infrastructure projects.

I’m sure this model works (with some acceptable risk and financing premium) for smaller projects that are more restrained in scope and have fewer variables: constructing institutional buildings, resurfacing huge lengths of roadways - anything where companies are able to build something on the order of a few years again and again and again.

Transit projects the way North America does them are not set up for success with this model. There are too many unknowns, you don’t get many firms competing because there are only a few globally that could tackle projects of this size, those that do compete have had fewer projects they could learn from, and they’ll ask for a rich premium in the process. On top of that, with projects of this scope where you do a significant portion of the design and discovery during the project lifetime, the chances of your initial timeline being accurate are low.
Click to expand...

Agree, but would add/reinforce that there is virtually no way for any consortia to overcome the financing problem. There borrowing costs are so much larger than government's, that even if that cost weren't marked up (which it is), you would have to deliver a project at least 1/3 cheaper than traditional procurement just to hold the cost even.

I buy a near zero percent chance of that.

Once you factor in a financing mark-up, the cost differential is astronomical. The P3 model as we understand it today isn't merely broken, it never made any sense in the first place.
 
Last edited:
jayme2016 said:
The reality is Ontario needs to play a bigger role maybe not money but support.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what you’re thinking of in terms of support - could you expand?

I think it’s probably worthwhile for someone in government to ask - and really account for - the reasons for going with P3s as traditionally structured in Ontario. Is it political risk mitigation? Don’t think that works: politicians and government departments wear the blame regardless. Is it timeline adherence? Big, risky P3s seem just as likely to blow their timelines and budgets. Is it cheaper financing? Highly unlikely? So…what is it?

Maybe traditional P3s should be limited to smaller projects, and with bigger ones governments should take on the financing themselves, work with a long-term private sector partner on repeated design phases and portion/build projects incrementally.

Just spitballing.
 
allengeorge said:
I’m not sure what you’re thinking of in terms of support - could you expand?

I think it’s probably worthwhile for someone in government to ask - and really account for - the reasons for going with P3s as traditionally structured in Ontario. Is it political risk mitigation? Don’t think that works: politicians and government departments wear the blame regardless. Is it timeline adherence? Big, risky P3s seem just as likely to blow their timelines and budgets. Is it cheaper financing? Highly unlikely? So…what is it?

Maybe traditional P3s should be limited to smaller projects, and with bigger ones governments should take on the financing themselves, work with a long-term private sector partner on repeated design phases and portion/build projects incrementally.

Just spitballing.
Click to expand...
One thing is Ontario should double check the company a city has picked .
 
Bordercollie said:
And the curve is too tight for the trains but that's the route that was chosen. Why didn't anyone raise a flag and say "hey this curve is too tight".
Click to expand...
There are no curves on the system that are much tighter than the King to Union curve in Toronto, around 400 feet. At the same time, the storage yard has much tighter ones, and we have not heard of any issues there. These are essentially LRVs, not heavy rail. There seem to be some problems with the type of rail and the way it is laid that are a little too complex for me.

1669990552437.png
 
I don't think you guys understand the scope of these projects that run into the billions of dollars.

You can do all the soil samples, modelling forecasting etc, but when you start digging there are going to be unknowns like Rideau station that smells like rotten eggs, or Davisville that was once used as a garbage dump.

However I think some of these "issues" can be mitigated by hirring a consultant to oversee the project from 0-100% (if the city or province doesn't have the expertise). But even this consultant can't predict supply chain issues, COVID-19, record inflation, worker shortages among other things.

But things like a really shap turn that exceeds the vehicle specifications....could be mitigated.
 
Bordercollie said:
I don't think you guys understand the scope of these projects that run into the billions of dollars.

You can do all the soil samples, modelling forecasting etc, but when you start digging there are going to be unknowns like Rideau station that smells like rotten eggs, or Davisville that was once used as a garbage dump.

However I think some of these "issues" can be mitigated by hirring a consultant to oversee the project from 0-100% (if the city or province doesn't have the expertise). But even this consultant can't predict supply chain issues, COVID-19, record inflation, worker shortages among other things.

But things like a really shap turn that exceeds the vehicle specifications....could be mitigated.
Click to expand...
I think we could do a better job as a province but your right there are other factors.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top