News   Apr 18, 2024
 42     0 
News   Apr 18, 2024
 1.3K     3 
News   Apr 18, 2024
 356     0 

Siemens Report: Public-Private Partnership Success Stories

M II A II R II K

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
3,944
Reaction score
1,061
Siemens Report: Public-Private Partnership Success Stories


MAY 7, 2014

logo.png


Read More: http://nextcity.org/daily/entry/siemens-report-public-private-partnerships

Website: http://w3.siemens.com/topics/global/en/sustainable-cities/Pages/home.aspx#


A new report from Siemens, PwC, and Berwin, Leighton, Paisner looks to the very recent past to answer that frequently asked question of why cities are increasingly opting for public-private partnerships as a means to finance infrastructure.

- The report, called “Investor Ready Cities,†offers a few compelling examples of partnerships that worked to provide cities with the capital needed to modernize infrastructure, without asking voters for a tax increase or state or federal governments for help.

- The “Investor Ready Cities†report suggests these cities will save money. While it’s difficult to measure costs not incurred, the report points to an incident in 2011 where Chattanooga was hit with a series of tornadoes that knocked out power in 77,000 homes. More than half of the homes saw their power restored in just two seconds. The city estimates that without the smart grid, the same event would have required 250 service visits and 17 hours of work, with a cost of around $1.4 million — just for one storm!


City: Delhi, India - Project: Metro rail system

- The Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) was formed by the governments of India and Delhi as a central focal point to oversee the project’s implementation and financing. Most of the funding came from “soft†loans (low interest rate over a long duration) from the Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) and the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), and matching grants from the governments of Delhi and India. Ten to 15 percent of the funding came from a “value capture†scheme, where the DMRC captured back some of the proceeds from commercial property development around the metro stations.

- DMRC was able to keep costs low with innovative procurement policies like fixed-price contracts, streamlining of approvals, and contracting out portions of the projects to different firms, rather than putting one contractor in charge of the whole project. Despite worries that this would lead to a messier process, DMRC proved deft at coordinating the different contractors. Sometimes there’s just no substitute for skilled administration.

City: Singapore, Republic of Singapore - Project: Water system

- Through aggressive policy changes such as raising water prices, mandating water-efficiency labeling for water-related consumer products like taps, shower heads, and washing machines, and imposing energy efficiency mandates in the building codes, the city-state succeeded in achieving a more diversified water supply, full sewer coverage for residents, and one of the world’s lowest water loss rates — a mere 5 percent.

- Singapore achieved this result through a mix of consumer regulation and infrastructure construction funded by public-private partnerships. On the regulatory side, the public utilities board helped create a culture of conservation by setting user prices by incorporating the full unsubsidized cost of water, instituting water efficiency labeling, and amending building codes to require low-flow toilets and self-closing taps. On the infrastructure side, the PUB contracted with the private sector to build desalination plants and other infrastructure using a design-build-own-operate (DBOO) approach that freed the utility from the upfront construction and operating expenses of the plant.

- Singapore is making strong progress toward its goals of providing cleaner water while conserving resources. Through its DBOO contract structure, the public utilities board is able to issue financial penalties against the operator in the event of poor service quality, like “reduced plant availability, reduced storage capacity, excessive residual waste or insufficient water quality,†so in theory the operator has a strong incentive to deliver high-quality service, in order to get its contract renewed at the end of the term.

City: Chattanooga, Tennessee

 - Project: Smart grid and communications



- Chattanooga not only faced all the usual problems American cities experienced in the post-World War II era (its population dropped by 20 percent between 1950 and 1990 due to the decline of manufacturing and suburbanization), it also faced a heightened risk of power outages from tornadoes and other natural disasters due to its location in Tornado Alley. The “Investor Ready Cities†report estimates that these kinds of outages cost a city of Chattanooga’s size around $100 million a year in repairs and lost economic activity.

- Forward-thinking city leadership had spent decades devising a plan to reinvent the city as a regional business hub, using targeted public investments like “self-healing†smart grid electricity and a fiber-optic communications system that would ensure reliable power and connectivity. When the recession hit in 2008, and the federal government announced it would pump hundreds of billions of dollars into “shovel ready†projects around the country, Chattanooga had a plan ready to go that would prove to be one of the greatest success stories of the stimulus — the Gig City municipal fiber network.

- A little less than one-third of the project was funded with federal dollars, and the rest came from revenue bonds issued by the city of Chattanooga. Issuing bonds can be risky if a positive return on investment isn’t a sure bet, but in October 2012, the city’s (and federal government’s) proactive investment in its infrastructure paid off when the bonds were upgraded to AA+ status, lowering the city’s borrowing costs and improving the return on the public’s investment.

- EPB, Chattanooga’s municipal utility, made the business case that launching the nation’s most advanced electric grid would generate enough savings for electricity customers that EPB could afford to expand broadband to the entire city — not just a small affluent area willing to pay premium rates for ultra-fast Internet.

- Electricity savings, not revenues from the standard triple-play of television, telephone and Internet — would fund the network. Businesses looking for higher-quality power and Internet service would move to the city and pay taxes, enabling the utility to recoup its investment and the city to pay off its revenue bonds. Only a public provider with access to both ratepayer revenue and bond revenue would be able to take this kind of global view of the return on an infrastructure investment, unlike a traditional cable company or municipal authority.

- In 2010, Chattanooga became the first U.S. city to connect every home and business in a 600-square-mile area to a lightning-fast one-gigabit-per-second fiber-optic network and smart electricity grid. EPB is able to save users money by offering time-of-use tariffs, where they can pay lower rates if they agree to run power-hungry appliances during off-peak times. Companies like Claris Networks, now based in Knoxville, Tennesse, have been expanding their business in Chattanooga due to the lower cost and higher-quality connectivity, which is eight to 10 times cheaper than in Knoxville. This is putting pressure on other cities in the region to finance their own fiber-optic networks to compete.

.....




Delhi_800_565_80.jpg





Singapore_SiemensChart_800_565_80.jpg





Chattanooga_SiemensChart_800_565_80.jpg
 
JA and Everyone: Good thoughts here...Privatizing public city necessities like mass transit can lead to troubles ahead...LI MIKE
 
I'm not against P3s like we have with the ECLRT. The private sector builds and maintains the line while the people of Ontario own and operate it.

However I'm not in favour of private ownership or operation of the lines. I believe that gives the private sector way too much control

I wonder if P3s on ECLRT actually saved the public any money. I suspect that the use of P3s was just to appease some of the more conservative leaning Liberals.
 
There are some definite advantages however and to say there are none is disingenuous.

PPP can help greatly offset the initial price of the project. If a project is $2 billion and the PPP can come up with $1 billion then that is money that can be used elsewhere in the system like rolling stock. Also if the govt decides it doesn't have the money to go it alone then the project will be delayed until they get the money. The problem with that scenario is that if the project is delayed by even 5 years, the price could go up by easily 25%.

PPP also helps keep the infrastructure costs to a set maximum. Any cost over runs are born 100% by the private partner and not the government and hence taxpayers. None of this "escalating costs" crap or cost overruns which are endemic in transit projects.

It depends on how the projects are set up. On the Canada Line the stations are pleasant but very basic and not the Taj Majal stations that the TTC is building on the Spadina extension. Yes the stations are small but that had nothing to do with the PPP and everything to do with Campbell. He is the one that set the capacity perameters. The frequency of service is dictated by Translink not the private partner and the reason it is already near capacity is because Translink is broke and has no money to run more frequent service and Campbell didn't buy enough rolling stock.

PPPs are a corporate welfare scheme when existing infrastructure is transferred over to the private sector but the Canada Line was a new piece of infrastructure. this is why the Canada Line was PPP but the Evergreen Line is not as the Evergreen will also run on the existing Millenium line.

Delhi has built a huge Metro system using PPP and gone from opening it's first small line in 1993 to having 400km by 2021.........Toronto should be so lucky.

Building new infrastructure with public money is no guarantee of cheap fares either. Just look at the Rothchild Line Toronto is building to Pearson as it will be at least $25 one way. Useless to the thousands who work everyday at Pearson.
 
I'm not against P3s like we have with the ECLRT. The private sector builds and maintains the line while the people of Ontario own and operate it.

However I'm not in favour of private ownership or operation of the lines. I believe that gives the private sector way too much control

I wonder if P3s on ECLRT actually saved the public any money. I suspect that the use of P3s was just to appease some of the more conservative leaning Liberals.

If I understand it correctly, Eglinton is having the launch sites built by one contractor, the tunnelling and station headwalls by a second, and the stations, tracks, electrical, etc. all by a P3 contractor. Essentially, this eliminates any (or most) ability for the P3 contractor to propose a significant change to save money. I would have thought the P3 contractor should have been given the entire contract, and they may have found a more efficient way to move the 12,000 ppdph (or whatever number is required). As it is (with the tunnelling already done), it may have been more advantageous to break the stations into smaller design-build contracts so that more contractors could have bid.
 
There are some definite advantages however and to say there are none is disingenuous.

It depends on how the projects are set up. On the Canada Line the stations are pleasant but very basic and not the Taj Majal stations that the TTC is building on the Spadina extension. Yes the stations are small but that had nothing to do with the PPP and everything to do with Campbell. He is the one that set the capacity perameters. The frequency of service is dictated by Translink not the private partner and the reason it is already near capacity is because Translink is broke and has no money to run more frequent service and Campbell didn't buy enough rolling stock.

I wonder if Translink actually felt that the short stations and cut-and-cover construction were the best options, but did not have the political support to push it through. Did they deliberately write the contract this way, knowing full well what the contractor would do, just so they could get the minimal cost solution to be implemented in the end?
 
I wonder if Translink actually felt that the short stations and cut-and-cover construction were the best options,...

Can't speak for the short stations, but the city as a whole has vowed to never disrupt the city like that again when any other option (boring) is usable even at significantly higher direct cost.
 
I'm not against P3s like we have with the ECLRT. The private sector builds and maintains the line while the people of Ontario own and operate it.

However I'm not in favour of private ownership or operation of the lines. I believe that gives the private sector way too much control

I wonder if P3s on ECLRT actually saved the public any money. I suspect that the use of P3s was just to appease some of the more conservative leaning Liberals.

I'm a bit confused... At first you say you're ok with P3s where "the private sector builds and maintains the line while the people of ontario own and operate it" but then say you're against private 'ownership or operation' of the line.

Wouldn't it make sense to have whoever maintains the line operate the line? Aren't those two words almost synonyms? Doesn't it make sense to have whoever is responsible for building and designing a given asset be responsible for operating it? In the long run that would lead to the most logical alignment of interests.
 
I'm a bit confused... At first you say you're ok with P3s where "the private sector builds and maintains the line while the people of ontario own and operate it" but then say you're against private 'ownership or operation' of the line.

Wouldn't it make sense to have whoever maintains the line operate the line? Aren't those two words almost synonyms? Doesn't it make sense to have whoever is responsible for building and designing a given asset be responsible for operating it? In the long run that would lead to the most logical alignment of interests.

Oh I'm fine with the private sector operating the line as well. Just as long as they have to abide to the strictest service quality and pricing standards, or face incredibly heavy financial penalties if they fail to. Pricing needs to be fully controlled by government.

I'd also prefer short contracts so there's always strong competition to operate the lines. A company that knows they have a contract for decades has no incentive to improve service and pricing (beyond heavy financial penalties). However if they know that they'll have to deal with heavy competition in a few years will want to do everything possible to maintain good service and pricing, or risk losing the contract to their competitors.
 
Last edited:
Here is the response:

[video=youtube_share;7FFWN5wQPqA]http://youtu.be/7FFWN5wQPqA[/video]

There is so much misinformed crap in that video its saddening..

Fares aren't set by the P3's. Its the regional council that sets fares, and they are the ones who decided to set fares at $3.75.

A P3 is a contract to operate and maintain the service on the governments terms, With a competitive bidding process to come to the lowest possible price to deliver the desired services. Its what the new 407 extension will operate like, not the sale of the original. (Government owned, rates set by the province, operations contracted out to Cintra) Control of fares, frequencies, etc. are all still in the publics hands, its simply the day to day operations and maintenance contracts that are awarded to the most competitive bidder. The private corporation involved couldn't give 2 craps about fare prices, increased fare simply benefit the province (the one paying for the operations), the contractor gets the set amount for the completed work no matter what the fare is.
 
Last edited:
Can't speak for the short stations, but the city as a whole has vowed to never disrupt the city like that again when any other option (boring) is usable even at significantly higher direct cost.

Just saying, if I was designing a line and saw the ability to save a half billion dollars, I may be tempted to get the Contractor to take the blame and have the taxpayer save the money. Especially knowing that the extra disruption is not much more than construction by TBM which still requires equally large (if not larger) excavations at the intersections (which are the real source of traffic disruption).
 
There is so much misinformed crap in that video its saddening..

Fares aren't set by the P3's. Its the regional council that sets fares, and they are the ones who decided to set fares at $3.75.

A P3 is a contract to operate and maintain the service on the governments terms, With a competitive bidding process to come to the lowest possible price to deliver the desired services. Its what the new 407 extension will operate like, not the sale of the original. (Government owned, rates set by the province, operations contracted out to Cintra) Control of fares, frequencies, etc. are all still in the publics hands, its simply the day to day operations and maintenance contracts that are awarded to the most competitive bidder. The private corporation involved couldn't give 2 craps about fare prices, increased fare simply benefit the province (the one paying for the operations), the contractor gets the set amount for the completed work no matter what the fare is.

I don't know if you saw that advertisement from one of the transit unions claiming that the Liberals were privatizing transit with P3s. Spreading the same nonsense as in that video.
 
Just saying, if I was designing a line and saw the ability to save a half billion dollars, I may be tempted to get the Contractor to take the blame and have the taxpayer save the money. Especially knowing that the extra disruption is not much more than construction by TBM which still requires equally large (if not larger) excavations at the intersections (which are the real source of traffic disruption).

Yeah, Toronto went through this dance with Union 2nd platform. The non-disruptive bids were too high so we re-tendered allowing shut-downs of Front street. The disruptive bid (which we took) wasn't much lower.

FYI, the tunnelling contracts for Eglinton as a whole are about $400M ($320M for tunnels, $54M for TBMs, some engineering?). If cut & cover saved 50% of the tunnel cost, it's only $200M in savings for the entire project, roughly $18M/km.

Saving $500M on tunnelling would require a much larger project than the 11km on Eglinton, but the budget will go up proportionally for stations. Perhaps cut and cover tunnels are most appropriate for sewer projects which may build 50km long tunnels, sometimes 8m diameter, but don't have the station costs.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, Toronto went through this dance with Union 2nd platform. The non-disruptive bids were too high so we re-tendered allowing shut-downs of Front street. The disruptive bid (which we took) wasn't much lower.

FYI, the tunnelling contracts for Eglinton as a whole are about $400M ($320M for tunnels, $54M for TBMs, some engineering?). If cut & cover saved 50% of the tunnel cost, it's only $200M in savings for the entire project, roughly $18M/km.

Saving $500M on tunnelling would require a much larger project than the 11km on Eglinton, but the budget will go up proportionally for stations. Perhaps cut and cover tunnels are most appropriate for sewer projects which may build 50km long tunnels, sometimes 8m diameter, but don't have the station costs.

The savings would be on the stations, not on the tunnels. By being shallower, there is less excavation, less disruption, and less time to construct. The station platform being closer to grade actually allows it to take less time access the transit line - making it more useful.

I am not sure is this applies to Eglinton, because some of the deep stations may be required to flatten the slope of the tracks.
 

Back
Top