Search results

Yeah, the government won't be able to transfer government risk that is for sure. Danger is inflexibility, would never be able to see the innovation we have seen in the Go Expansion award if it is too prescriptive.

You're equating availability and operation cost with operation cost. Who do you think pays for the capital cost for a student traveling to York University? It (and the rolling stock) was debt financed just the same. The levelized cost of availability is just hidden. As for the second part -...

One of the reasons for P3s is to make the lifecycle availability cost transparent to the government investor. We just don't commonly calculate a comparable number for most projects, so can't really say whether it is high or not. Having the number then lets the government decide whether the...

How do you account for design choices which reduce costs for the builder but raise costs for the operator, or operational choices which lower costs for the operator (or increase revenue for the operator, like additional frequencies) but raise costs for the maintainer? Having operations as part...

Not exactly. The builder is holding the lease—they're leasing a government asset. This can sometimes be called 'own-transfer' but the result is the same. Then set the term, likely in the 30 to 50 year range - 50 years is the max end of amortizing rail assets besides limited earth works iirc...

May get a short form of non-commercially sensitive info - operational, maintenance, and performance standards, plus outlining any at risk revenue. I don't think that will contain what you want. What you might be able to get with a target: the final score sheets with $ amounts redacted. How...

With income for the proponent dependent on operating revenue, not having the proponent operate misaligns incentives needed to ensure success. With O in there with revenue risk exposure, we have the opportunity for the proponent to invest in additional frequencies, additional classes...

it is a bit different when it is a fares as payment style contract arrangement.

The study didn’t dive deep into travel demand and rail demand sucked between the cities in the 80s with unreliable not fast service which required a cab to get to downtown Edmonton. one of the compelling things about Calgary Edmonton is the amount of travel demand is quite high for cities...

It does or did before COVID, just it is spread among many operators. Red Arrow (3-4x), EBus (2x) (same company as Red Arrow the incumbent 'business class' operator--think the Porter Airlines of buses-- E Bus is a different market segment), RiderExpress (from Saskatchewan, 2x), Cold Shot (2x)...

It isn’t like Calgary-Edmonton is a stretch. It was the other corridor examined in the mid 80s by VIA in its HSR study. There problem there is the initial investment to get a minimally viable service, and that it is so high there is no viable no billions in infrastructure before service...

That is all in the measuring ... Are you measuring at the time of development, or versus a P3 that didn't include real estate elements and what the cost would be to government of that P3. Because it could appear that all profit is going to the P3 partner, but the government gave them less...

It won't happen, because the economics don't work. There is more than enough pipeline capacity now. This is just resource extraction populism which happens to sound visionary.

Alon doesn't think P3s are a good way to deliver transit. Full stop. Not familiar with much from him other than his tendency to draw fantasy maps and provide high level cost analysis.

In general. Socialist, centrist, right wing, they all do it. Maintenance is hard to justify to voters. Some of the biggest P3 users were/are left wing French and Italian governments. Each optimize. Then the top two or three go into 'competitive dialog', basically working through each to...

I wonder if solar charged, battery, run wireless controlled, handbreak actuators would be possible.

This is the normal procurement project for this type of thing. They're really complicated contracts, and the processes take a long time.

P3s like this use words to simplify things for the 'everyperson'. "Own" when coupled with transfer is akin to an exclusive long term lease. Only in rare cases would a P3 not guarantee maintenance and repair. Typical you'll have rolling stock amortized fully, and hard infrastructure in a year...

Land and rights can be expropriated on behalf of corporations. In this case, it would be expropriating for a publicly owned piece of infrastructure, so even if there was an issue, there isn't in this case. Expropriating for private purposes is much more fraught in the USA.

You’re thinking a bit too narrowly. This project is about as extensive of a P3 as you can get. P3s pick from a menu of items: Design Build Finance Operate Maintain Own Transfer Three main reasons for doing P3s. Optimizing projects in a way that is rare for governments to be able to do...