Yeggy said:
The major cost is debt repayment, but that debt is already on our books.

I was surprised to learn we pay transed the operational fee, then they just turn around and pay the city right back for the debt servicing. It seems a bit odd.
Click to expand...
Interesting. If the city then gets the revenue and it can cover the debt servicing then it should be ok. It can the city more control over the line and perhaps there will be some operational efficiencies.

The city really never wanted P3 initially, but this was forced on it. It seems like TransEd was now looking to get out of what has turned out not a very profitable situation for them.

As long as we are not picking up large operating deficits, much additional debt or making a large payout, this should be ok.
 
David A said:
Interesting. If the city then gets the revenue...
Click to expand...
The City already gets the revenue from the line. All fare revenue goes to the City. Presumably TransEd might get the any ad revenue they can generate, but that's tiny. TransEd payments are seperate. I don't they I have ever seen them as a line item in any budgets.
 
northlands said:
I wonder if the City provided TransEd a loan at a lowered borrowing cost than their private financing to help TransEd remain solvent through their extended construction phase and effects of COVID. Otherwise that's entirely at odds with how a DBFOM P3 delivery model functions, where the idea is the P3 consortium self-finances whatever wasn't paid upfront/upon operational phase.
Click to expand...
No, it was private financing TransEd used.
 
20260610_121926.jpg


20260610_123532.jpg


20260610_123616.jpg
 
EdwardEdm said:
No, it was private financing TransEd used.
Click to expand...
All I can tell you is both the LRT Manager and ETS Manager sat down for an interview where they said the debt for the line, the major cost of the take over, is already on the city books.

I looked up the project agreement and on page 7 you will see the finance section where it states that Transed will arrange financing but also the city will enter into a direct financing agreement.

 
Yeggy said:
All I can tell you is both the LRT Manager and ETS Manager sat down for an interview where they said the debt for the line, the major cost of the take over, is already on the city books.

I looked up the project agreement and on page 7 you will see the finance section where it states that Transed will arrange financing but also the city will enter into a direct financing agreement.

Click to expand...
Between that, and Schedule 21, it appears to be more so a way for the lenders to cover their asses, including replacing TransEd with a substitute contractor.
AI Says:
In a Public-Private Partnership (P3), a Direct Lender Agreement (or Lenders' Direct Agreement) is a tripartite contract between the public authority, the private project company, and the project’s senior lenders. It dictates how lenders can intervene to protect their investment if the private partner defaults or the P3 contract fails.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if there were disagreements over improving certain crossings, like Whitemud/75 Street. If crossing arms and signals were to be placed there, who would be responsible?
 
The_Cat said:
I wonder if there were disagreements over improving certain crossings, like Whitemud/75 Street. If crossing arms and signals were to be placed there, who would be responsible?
Click to expand...
The city would be responsible regardless. It's a design change. $3-5 million probably. Don't expect any changes until ETS takes over.
The_Cat said:
Looking at the construction today, I wonder how soon the Boardwalk will be rebuilt.
Click to expand...
I haven't seen anything indicating a replacement of the wooden boardwalk. I believe it will be pavers.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top