[steveintoronto]

^This is where P3 loses its allure.

Suppose the builders are short on cash!

This is where it comes down to the actual contract, not whether it's P3, DBFOM, or SOOL. Ontario is going to be caught in the middle of a massive attempt to hoodwink the public on this, and Doug Ford is the worst one to be Premier when the needed discussion happens. Mulroney would be the person of the present regime.

London, UK has had absolute disasters with P3 models, Bombardier being at the centre of one for the London Underground. Details supplied if requested. An inquiry was scathing on BBD and those who drew up the P3 terms, which BBD and some others walked away from.

But London has learned some very valuable lessons, Crossrail being one (not perfect, but in the big scheme of things, has worked excellently for almost all concerned. It is touted as a model to emulate for other nations, let alone other cities) The *corporate structure* (Two shareholders, effectively London gov't and the national gov't) was a huge part of it. But also a realization that P3 contracts in the past were too rigid is some respects, and fractured under stress, and too flexible in others.
Now Transport for London (TfL) leads the nation in this:

TfL is a model for transport investment and management in other UK cities
The governance model under which TfL operates and the powers that it holds enable it to have much greater control over London’s transport system compared to other UK cities. These features represent some of the main reasons behind the capital’s efficient and high quality transport system, characterised by a higher usage of public transport and lower carbon emissions compared to other areas. For example:

• High Rate of public transport usage. 44 per cent of people in London commute to work by public transport compared to only 16 per cent in England and Wales.64
• Bucking the trend with buses. Since 2000, the number bus journeys increased by 60 percent compared to a decrease in cities up and down the country.65

Convenient, user-friendly Oyster cards. London benefits from an integrated ticketing system whereby a single card can be used on all transport services across London. This system also allows the generation of commuting data used to model the impact of delays on congestion and commuting patterns and better inform investment decisions.66

The TfL model is characterised by five main features which address many of the challenges that hinder transport policy in other parts of the UK.

1. Control over the provision of bus services
2. The ability to negotiate for long-term funding settlements
3. Ability to raise local funds
4. A governance structure characterised by the single management of most public transport
5. A transport strategy that is integrated with other policy areas

These features, although imperfect, provide the framework for devolving powers and funding to Greater Manchester and the newly formed combined authorities. Offering them the long-term certainty and flexibility to strategically invest in their transport systems will help them increase the take up of public transport, cut carbon emissions and promote economic development in the city region.
[...]

http://www.centreforcities.org/read...el-transport-investment-management-uk-cities/

There's still no sign of the 'Grown-Ups' in QP having a hand on the levers. God help us all if it's left to Dougie. It's time for a conversation on the present travails of Crosstown/Crosslinx. The model has already gone through a massive rejig earlier in the project, it might be time for another. Yes, sometimes rejigging is necessary, in fact more often than not this has to happen. The question is who absorbs the change in risk and costs?

With Metrolinx' past performances, this is unlikely to be daylighted. There's going to be a lot more on this subject...

Addendum: Note also the TTC's attempt to fashion themselves as a TfL clone. It's a wild dream. The City of Toronto Act alone puts the kibosh on that, and the TTC's ancient governing structure does too. It has to change, but it won't...and QP has the power to, but if they use it, they'll make it even worse. Boy, that's a glum thing to write, best I leave it at that. Oddly, the hope I see is in Private Initiative doing what Ontario/Toronto should be doing, but are incapable of doing it.

 

[steveintoronto]

The decision for standard gauge on the "Transit City" LRTS (im calling them this ancient name because this is when the decision was made) to use standard gauge was because it is cheaper, and they saw no reason to incorperate Transit City into the TTC streetcar or subway system.

You can buy off the shelf LRTs if you use standard gauge.

The interoperability with Hurontario LRTs is simply a beneificial side effect, and their use of standard gauge is both because why wouldn't you, and because Transit City was taken over by the Ontario government, which then started to create their own LRT plans like Ottawa, Missisauga, Hamilton and KWC.

Or to flip this over: Why in the world would anyone, given the choice, *and funding!* build something to the TTC gauge, which no-one else in the world uses save for some other city somewhere I can't even remember! You build to a world standard given a choice, unless you're terrified of the tracks being used by invading armies using standard gauge trains...

Many "Metro" trains could run on the Crosstown tracks and in the tunnels, many of which would also use the same power supplied (1500 VDC catenary) as well as being able to run on 25kVAC, as projected for GO RER.

 

[drum118]

Companies building Eglinton Crosstown LRT launch lawsuit against Metrolinx

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Interesting timing.

AoD

 

[BurlOak]

Interesting timing.

AoD

I wonder if Ford can use this to negotiate a fully grade separated Eglinton line.

Province agrees with Contractor that they should get an extra $1B and an extra year of construction due to errors in the original contract.
In exchange, the Contractor agrees to make the Brentcliffe to Kennedy portion grade separated for $1B.

The Contractors happy as they get resolution on their claim, and get some extra work (upon which they can make additional profit).
The province is happy as they can blame the previous government for a bulk of the cost overruns, and how for a nominal extra amount, they created a fully grade-separated line.

 

[raptor]

I wonder if Ford can use this to negotiate a fully grade separated Eglinton line.

Province agrees with Contractor that they should get an extra $1B and an extra year of construction due to errors in the original contract.
In exchange, the Contractor agrees to make the Brentcliffe to Kennedy portion grade separated for $1B.

The Contractors happy as they get resolution on their claim, and get some extra work (upon which they can make additional profit).
The province is happy as they can blame the previous government for a bulk of the cost overruns, and how for a nominal extra amount, they created a fully grade-separated line.

Wouldn't it require a new EA (or at least an addendum), so at least 2 years for studying + engineering? what is the contractor supposed to do in the meantime?

 

[hw621]

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Wouldn't it require a new EA (or at least an addendum), so at least 2 years for studying + engineering? what is the contractor supposed to do in the meantime?

Plus the line will get delayed even further.

AoD

 

[cplchanb]

Interesting timing.

AoD

I must say these contractors are just pure mafia crooks (ie SNC...). Sure metrolinx isnt a shining example but this timeline was known for years and to make an excuse for more money is just political games.
They knew what they were getting into and they really shoulve priced accordingly, unless there is indeed such a significant departure from the plans that would require $1B (!) more.
Either that or the engineers who designed the system made significant errors or revisions to the tender drawings.

 

[raptor]

I must say these contractors are just pure mafia crooks (ie SNC...). Sure metrolinx isnt a shining example but this timeline was known for years and to make an excuse for more money is just political games.
They knew what they were getting into and they really shoulve priced accordingly, unless there is indeed such a significant departure from the plans that would require $1B (!) more.
Either that or the engineers who designed the system made significant errors or revisions to the tender drawings.

That's all true, however I can't see what they have to lose with this lawsuit. Given the timing, looks like a it's a sure win for them

 

[crs1026]

Every large project has a Claims process where the contractor can seek relief for things that went wrong, change orders, unforeseens, etc. Usually that’s a cleanup process that happens towards the end of the project, but it can lead into the courts.
The timing on this is interesting - any number of potential reasons, one being the project is at loggerheads over things, another being that with Wynne gone the vendor is finally able to bring things to light, or as noted there could be a cash flow problem. After the Bombardier debacle, ML’s credibility is not high, so my Spidey senses are tingling.

- Paul

 

[cplchanb]

Every large project has a Claims process where the contractor can seek relief for things that went wrong, change orders, unforeseens, etc. Usually that’s a cleanup process that happens towards the end of the project, but it can lead into the courts.
The timing on this is interesting - any number of potential reasons, one being the project is at loggerheads over things, another being that with Wynne gone the vendor is finally able to bring things to light, or as noted there could be a cash flow problem. After the Bombardier debacle, ML’s credibility is not high, so my Spidey senses are tingling.

- Paul

Thats true. Being in the construction industry myself if there needs to be a change or a fix they action first and then claim afterwards. As mentioned the timing seems like they were scheming on suing from the onset knowing that a change in govt would lead to turmoil during the transition. Dirty politics and profiteering I must say at the expense of the everyday citizen. Crosslinx has the typical me first and money mentality which isnt wrong, but just a real dick move at a critical point of the project.

 

[ShonTron]

The timing on this is interesting - any number of potential reasons, one being the project is at loggerheads over things, another being that with Wynne gone the vendor is finally able to bring things to light, or as noted there could be a cash flow problem.

Or simply that the contractor decided not to go ahead with a lawsuit too close to the election period, and was sitting on this for a few months. Now a government is formed.

 

[steveintoronto]

Or simply that the contractor decided not to go ahead with a lawsuit too close to the election period, and was sitting on this for a few months. Now a government is formed.

The rumblings have been around for the last six months on this. I really can't see any epiphany from Crosslinx with the election outcome,, I suspect it's just a case of serendipity.

If anything, Crosslinx need to protect contract(s) as written even more with a Dougie Dog who loves to rip up contracts like toys. There were massive delays on the project, and that always pushes up costs that are usually settled by discussion and/or arbitration. But lawsuits are tools of the trade too: (And this can go both ways)

Litigation Risks in Public-private Partnerships
Tuesday, July 25, 2017
P3
[...]
LITIGATION BETWEEN PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT
A well-drafted P3 contract should have a dispute resolution clause providing for some type of mandatory notification of the alleged default(s), an opportunity to cure the same and, perhaps, even a mandatory alternative dispute resolution procedure to be used before a lawsuit may be filed. Governments typically loathe spending money on litigation of any sort. Accordingly, the agreement should be drafted to encourage the informal resolution of minor or easily curable issues without (the threat of) litigation.

Private partners most often find themselves as defendants in a suit filed by the government partner as a result of issues like grave construction flaws (such as the collapsing tunnel ceiling that killed a Boston woman as a result of shoddy work on the Big Dig); a major ambiguity in the underlying agreement; or a serious error on the private entity’s part in calculating or preparing its bid. Importantly, the risk associated with all such issues can be managed in advance; doing so may require more time and the investment of additional resources, economic and otherwise, on the front end, but the risk of failing to do so is considerable. Consulting with an attorney at the beginning of a P3 relationship can pay major dividends by entirely avoiding or significantly mitigating future litigation costs.
[...]

http://constructionexec.com/article/litigation-risks-in-public-private-partnerships

 

[cplchanb]

The rumblings have been around for the last six months on this. I really can't see any epiphany from Crosslinx with the election outcome,, I suspect it's just a case of serendipity.

If anything, Crosslinx need to protect contract(s) as written even more with a Dougie Dog who loves to rip up contracts like toys. There were massive delays on the project, and that always pushes up costs that are usually settled by discussion and/or arbitration. But lawsuits are tools of the trade too: (And this can go both ways)

http://constructionexec.com/article/litigation-risks-in-public-private-partnerships

well regardless, they need to keep the project going in order to mitigate it becoming a gongshow a la the line 1 extension. The last thing anyone wants is to have construction stop while the shitshow gets sorted whatever direction.