[A 6264]

Actually it's not surprising at all. It's supposed to serve all demographics of society so it's almost a mandatory requirement

You can count me among the demographics. When cell phones became a big thing, many of us were asking, why on earth would we want to carry a tracking device around with us? Supposing we were somehow being monitored by burglars and gangs, who would want to know when we're out of the house. (I am tech savvy, and I'm not paranoid nor ignorant of technology, but this was decades ago, when the system was not as secure. Did you know, we used to be able to hear unencoded cell phone traffic on scanners purchased from Radio Shack?) So I never got a cell phone, and still have (almost) no use for one.

About a year ago, I was out visiting in the west end. There was a big power failure that hit the west side, and took hours to clear. The Bloor subway shut down, power and street lights were out all the way from Bloor to the lake. I used a pay phone at Jane station to call and say I'd be late. That was after I walked past several pay phones that were broken, or being used by other people in the same situation. Pay phones are not museum exhibits yet.

 

[nfitz]

I'm curious, seeing Eg & Finch were both PPP, how much money did the private company {Mosaic?} have to put down for the privilege of running the route?

Mosaic isn't running the route. They are doing maintenance. TTC is the operator.

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

You can count me among the demographics. When cell phones became a big thing, many of us were asking, why on earth would we want to carry a tracking device around with us? Supposing we were somehow being monitored by burglars and gangs, who would want to know when we're out of the house. (I am tech savvy, and I'm not paranoid nor ignorant of technology, but this was decades ago, when the system was not as secure. Did you know, we used to be able to hear unencoded cell phone traffic on scanners purchased from Radio Shack?) So I never got a cell phone, and still have (almost) no use for one.

About a year ago, I was out visiting in the west end. There was a big power failure that hit the west side, and took hours to clear. The Bloor subway shut down, power and street lights were out all the way from Bloor to the lake. I used a pay phone at Jane station to call and say I'd be late. That was after I walked past several pay phones that were broken, or being used by other people in the same situation. Pay phones are not museum exhibits yet.

When landline phones first came on the scene, the first telephones were mostly shared "party lines". My parents had one in the 1950's. We could listen in to conversations people were having or other "parties" on the line. Police were able to "tap" telephone lines to listen in onto conversations. Sorry, for being off topic.

 

[A 6264]

When landline phones first came on the scene, the first telephones were mostly shared "party lines". My parents had one in the 1950's. We could listen in to conversations people were having or other "parties" on the line. Police were able to "tap" telephone lines to listen in onto conversations. Sorry, for being off topic.

Gosh, you must be older than I am, I don't remember the 50s. But I do remember a friend had a party line at their house, and I was a bit shocked. Another apology for off topic.

 

[ssiguy2]

Mosaic isn't running the route. They are doing maintenance. TTC is the operator.

Then why is this considered a PPP? Why isn't the TTC doing the maintenance and for the vehicles, why not Alstom? This doesn't seem like a partnership but rather the province writing a private company a cheque which they instead could be writing to the TTC. This is probably why the Canada Line PPP worked, the company put hundreds of millions into the line's construction so had real skin in the game AND any cost overruns would be 100% at the expense of the company not the province/city. It did come in over budget but that was due to the City wanting an extra station and potential for infills but the line the PPP agreed to came in on-budget and..........wait for it............4 months early.

The whole point of a PPP is to be able to access to private capitol to help fund new infrastructure. These guys seem to have just gotten a maintenance contract.
What am I missing or misunderstanding because I'm lost.

 

[nfitz]

Then why is this considered a PPP? Why isn't the TTC doing the maintenance and for the vehicles, why not Alstom? This doesn't seem like a partnership but rather the province writing a private company a cheque which they instead could be writing to the TTC.

PPP is a private-public (or public-private) partnership. Could easily not include various items. For example I doubt most PPPs to build schools include hiring teachers, etc.!

You may be thinking of a DBFOM (design build finance operate maintain) ... or various versions. This would be a DBFM).

In future, we may be better to simply doing B's and P's.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I heard a talk he was giving a few years ago to promote a new book on the climate crisis, but he didn't talk about the book. He just went on and on about Transit city and how it was visionary and so much better than the current provincial projects.

Then maybe he should have run again to finish what he’d started instead of giving Rob Ford a runway to destroy it all.

 

[zang]

Gosh, you must be older than I am, I don't remember the 50s. But I do remember a friend had a party line at their house, and I was a bit shocked. Another apology for off topic.

Party lines were still common in rural areas all the way up to the 90s.

 

[micheal_can]

Party lines were still common in rural areas all the way up to the 90s.

There is a boy scout camp near Powassan that is still on one. I think they may be the only one left on it, but it is still technically a party line.

 

[Westey]

Then why is this considered a PPP? Why isn't the TTC doing the maintenance and for the vehicles, why not Alstom? This doesn't seem like a partnership but rather the province writing a private company a cheque which they instead could be writing to the TTC. This is probably why the Canada Line PPP worked, the company put hundreds of millions into the line's construction so had real skin in the game AND any cost overruns would be 100% at the expense of the company not the province/city. It did come in over budget but that was due to the City wanting an extra station and potential for infills but the line the PPP agreed to came in on-budget and..........wait for it............4 months early.

The whole point of a PPP is to be able to access to private capitol to help fund new infrastructure. These guys seem to have just gotten a maintenance contract.
What am I missing or misunderstanding because I'm lost.

Accessing Private Capitol. Nobody can borrow for less than the gov't.
I think all in means in real life is that the gov't is willing to pay a premium (over-and-above the normal time-value of money) in order to spread the costs over a longer period of time.
In the DBFOM (design build finance operate maintain),

1. the DB should be for the Contractor to design the entire line so they can optimize total costs. Maybe pay more for trains and less for stations, or more for tunnels and less for stations. I understand that worked well in Vancouver. Ontario chose to break the DB part into a few large contracts. Too large to allow more bidders, but not large enough to really allow optimization. Either break it into smaller DBB (Design Bid Build) contracts that can get more bidders (but needs gov't to Quarterback everything), or give it all to one contractor. But not in between.
2. The Finance is just there to make the immediate gov't books look better.
3. The Operate is admission that gov't operation is inherently less efficient.
4. The Maintenance is a sort of Warranty - since there was much less oversight during construction.

 

[Voltz]

Accessing Private Capitol. Nobody can borrow for less than the gov't.
I think all in means in real life is that the gov't is willing to pay a premium (over-and-above the normal time-value of money) in order to spread the costs over a longer period of time.
In the DBFOM (design build finance operate maintain),

1. the DB should be for the Contractor to design the entire line so they can optimize total costs. Maybe pay more for trains and less for stations, or more for tunnels and less for stations. I understand that worked well in Vancouver. Ontario chose to break the DB part into a few large contracts. Too large to allow more bidders, but not large enough to really allow optimization. Either break it into smaller DBB (Design Bid Build) contracts that can get more bidders (but needs gov't to Quarterback everything), or give it all to one contractor. But not in between.
2. The Finance is just there to make the immediate gov't books look better.
3. The Operate is admission that gov't operation is inherently less efficient.
4. The Maintenance is a sort of Warranty - since there was much less oversight during construction.

And it’s done so the media can’t make headlines over an expense claim for orange juice.

 

[nottoban]

Accessing Private Capitol. Nobody can borrow for less than the gov't.
I think all in means in real life is that the gov't is willing to pay a premium (over-and-above the normal time-value of money) in order to spread the costs over a longer period of time.
In the DBFOM (design build finance operate maintain),

1. the DB should be for the Contractor to design the entire line so they can optimize total costs. Maybe pay more for trains and less for stations, or more for tunnels and less for stations. I understand that worked well in Vancouver. Ontario chose to break the DB part into a few large contracts. Too large to allow more bidders, but not large enough to really allow optimization. Either break it into smaller DBB (Design Bid Build) contracts that can get more bidders (but needs gov't to Quarterback everything), or give it all to one contractor. But not in between.
2. The Finance is just there to make the immediate gov't books look better.
3. The Operate is admission that gov't operation is inherently less efficient.
4. The Maintenance is a sort of Warranty - since there was much less oversight during construction.

You’re pretty far off here.

AFPs (the Ontario version of a P3) are used because they are supposed to move risk away from the public sector. Governments can always borrow money more cheaply than private companies. The reason AFPs use private financing is to force private partners to take responsibility if things go wrong. If a project is late or does not work as promised, ProjectCo is (in theory) supposed to pay for that. Under the traditional design bid build approach, cost overruns almost always end up being paid by the government.

That said, the benefits of that risk transfer have not really happened on transit projects in Ontario thus far. A big reason is that AFP consortia are extremely experienced at navigating contracts and using contract language to their advantage, while the public client was not as well prepared or as contract-savvy (hence the reliance on consultants in technical advisory roles). That imbalance means risks that were meant to stay with ProjectCo have drifted back to the public sector.

The extra cost of an AFP is not just about paying interest over time. It is the price of asking the private partner to take on the risk of delays, cost overruns, and long term performance. Those same risks exist under design bid build, but in that model the government carries almost all of them, even if they aren't generally publicized.

Breaking large projects into separate pieces is done on purpose. You can only fully optimize a whole system if the government is willing to give up control over standards and how the network fits together long term, which would not be advisable with TTC as operator. For example, TTC standards for tunnels need to be much more strictly adhered to versus stations which can vary more as long as they work just as well and meet certain criteria.

In theory, AFPs also give governments access to up to date industry knowledge. Private firms work on large projects around the world and bring newer construction methods than public agencies that build megaprojects only occasionally. That benefit has shown up unevenly because the public client has not always been positioned to challenge or properly manage the private partner.

The main benefit, cost wise (again in theory) is the predictability of a fixed price and schedule, and penalties if the private partner doesn't meet the requirements. That obviously hasn't worked out as planned thus far.

The problem to date is that the client has not consistently acted as a strong, informed client, allowing private partners who understand the contracts far better to shift risk back onto taxpayers. This is compounded by TTC being able to leverage their position as operator to have elements of the project delivered to their liking very late in the game and at significant cost as these are considered contract changes.

There are a million ways that these projects could be better delivered using AFP but the benefits, if they're managed properly, are still significant.

 

[Bordercollie]

You’re pretty far off here.

AFPs (the Ontario version of a P3) are used because they are supposed to move risk away from the public sector. Governments can always borrow money more cheaply than private companies. The reason AFPs use private financing is to force private partners to take responsibility if things go wrong. If a project is late or does not work as promised, ProjectCo is (in theory) supposed to pay for that. Under the traditional design bid build approach, cost overruns almost always end up being paid by the government.

That said, the benefits of that risk transfer have not really happened on transit projects in Ontario thus far. A big reason is that AFP consortia are extremely experienced at navigating contracts and using contract language to their advantage, while the public client was not as well prepared or as contract-savvy (hence the reliance on consultants in technical advisory roles). That imbalance means risks that were meant to stay with ProjectCo have drifted back to the public sector.

The extra cost of an AFP is not just about paying interest over time. It is the price of asking the private partner to take on the risk of delays, cost overruns, and long term performance. Those same risks exist under design bid build, but in that model the government carries almost all of them, even if they aren't generally publicized.

Breaking large projects into separate pieces is done on purpose. You can only fully optimize a whole system if the government is willing to give up control over standards and how the network fits together long term, which would not be advisable with TTC as operator. For example, TTC standards for tunnels need to be much more strictly adhered to versus stations which can vary more as long as they work just as well and meet certain criteria.

In theory, AFPs also give governments access to up to date industry knowledge. Private firms work on large projects around the world and bring newer construction methods than public agencies that build megaprojects only occasionally. That benefit has shown up unevenly because the public client has not always been positioned to challenge or properly manage the private partner.

The main benefit, cost wise (again in theory) is the predictability of a fixed price and schedule, and penalties if the private partner doesn't meet the requirements. That obviously hasn't worked out as planned thus far.

The problem to date is that the client has not consistently acted as a strong, informed client, allowing private partners who understand the contracts far better to shift risk back onto taxpayers. This is compounded by TTC being able to leverage their position as operator to have elements of the project delivered to their liking very late in the game and at significant cost as these are considered contract changes.

There are a million ways that these projects could be better delivered using AFP but the benefits, if they're managed properly, are still significant.

Consultants always make money

 

[PL1]

Line 5 (or at least the station overhang at Leaside) is already improving my commute!

 

[A 6264]

The overhang at Don Valley (SW corner) is even better; they put a bench under the overhang which keeps most of the snow off.