If you think the cost transparency is messed up now, just wait until the Mother of All DBFOM contracts is in place. One vendor bid for the whole system. Costs are proprietary property of the vendor. Just like CN and CP today.
- Paul
I'd lost where this post was made, as it's worth a lot of comment, and thus my late answer to it. Like it or not, this appears ever more likely on the horizon as one of the only ways Ford can slash costs (immediate costs, the taxpayer remains on the hook long-term) and still build.
It has a mixed blessing (and I actually favour this, but not done by morons who haven't a clue which way to hold a card, let alone a hand) in that the SSE, for instance, would not attract any private capital unless highly subsidized and underwritten by the taxpayer. The SSE is probably the most glaring example. Other projects *if done right* (huge 'if' in the case of Ford, who can't even run a business) could do well by this method. Huge swathes of Oz infrastructure have been delivered very successfully this way (with a lot of Cdn money!), and on the federal front, I still think it more likely than not that private capital will circumvent the Infrastructure Bank to build VIA's HFR+.
DBFOM is worthy of a string of its own, as there's reams of articles and papers on-line of examples, both horrific and wonderful, on-line.
I don't think the average Ontarian has a clue of what's coming, which in itself lends its going wrong.
Costs are proprietary property of the vendor.
Some would take that to issue, it's worthy of a lot of discussion, but the glaring example of where we *still* haven't a clue is:
Just like CN and CP today.
And that's *exactly* where a legal change from the Feds is necessary. The trouble is, as is the case for the Missing Link or simpler Freight By-Pass, it's all theoretical until costs are required by law to be disclosed.
This could be written into a DBFOM, but already, that's part of the case going to court for the Crosstown.
Do the provinces and Feds have the balls to require this by law? I suspect it *is* required, but the provs and feds haven't even the balls to test it in court.
More on this later...Quick addendum: I suspect there are legal devices to get around this if Ottawa makes this a project of their own...a la the Infrastructure Bank. Precedent?
National Capital Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. N-4)
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/N-4/
[...]
Objects, Purposes and Powers
Marginal note: Objects and purposes of Commission
- 10 (1) The objects and purposes of the Commission are to prepare plans for and assist in the development, conservation and improvement of the National Capital Region in order that the nature and character of the seat of the Government of Canada may be in accordance with its national significance.
- Marginal note: Powers
(2) The Commission may, for the purposes of this Act,
- (a) acquire, hold, administer or develop property;
- (b) sell, grant, convey, lease or otherwise dispose of or make available to any person any property, subject to such conditions and limitations as it considers necessary or desirable;
- (c) construct, maintain and operate parks, squares, highways, parkways, bridges, buildings and any other works;
- (d) maintain and improve any property of the Commission, or any other property under the control and management of a department, at the request of the authority or Minister in charge thereof;
- (e) cooperate or engage in joint projects with, or make grants to, local municipalities or other authorities for the improvement, development or maintenance of property;
- (f) construct, maintain and operate, or grant concessions for the operation of, places of entertainment, amusement, recreation, refreshment, or other places of public interest or accommodation on any property of the Commission;
- (g) administer, preserve and maintain any historic place or historic museum;
- (h) conduct investigations and researches in connection with the planning of the National Capital Region; and
- (h.1) [Repealed, 2013, c. 33, s. 213]
- (i) generally, do and authorize such things as are incidental or conducive to the attainment of the objects and purposes of the Commission and the exercise of its powers.
- R.S., 1985, c. N-4, s. 10;
- R.S., 1985, c. 45 (4th Supp.), s. 3;
- 2013, c. 33, s. 213.
How abstract is this idea? View this in the context of the outrage the present federal government has reacted with to Ford's blatant interference of Toronto's municipal election. That was done while QP thumbed their collective noses at Ottawa, and at least one MP countered:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/toronto-ford-council-vaughan-1.4765191
Jul 27, 2018 - Ottawa. Change quickly access local content from your selected region ... If we have to work around Queen's Park, we will work around Queen's Park: Vaughan ... Adam Vaughan, a Toronto Liberal MP and parliamentary secretary for ... Mortgage and Housing Corp. to provide more direct cash to cities.
To bring this all back to DBFOM, that specifically aside, it's a huge factor in how 'things are going to change' in how Toronto and the GTHA are going to move forward.
