innsertnamehere
Superstar
I'm not sure I understand all this "privatization" mantra - it's a standard P3 design-build-operate contract. It's not like the Liberals are selling off VIA rail or something, just contracting out operations.
|
|
|
VIA Rail
- Thread starter ehlow
- Start date
ManyQuestions
Active Member
Interesting article about the upcoming privatisation of VIA Rail with HFR (in French).
Train à grande fréquence | Le privé dans le siège du conducteur
C’est le privé qui sera aux commandes du futur train à grande fréquence (TGF) et qui décidera du prix à payer pour monter à bord ainsi que des horaires. Ce projet milliardaire risque également d’engendrer des bouleversements chez les employés de VIA Rail au cours de la prochaine décennie.www.lapresse.ca
I don't see how this is different from any other major Canadian infrastructure projects in the past decade. The government is contracting out all of the planning, implementation, and management of the project because the government does not employ people with the technical skills needed to make these kinds of big projects happen. I'm in the currently in the process of interviewing for new graduate infrastructure engineering jobs and everything is with private contractors because the government long ago made a policy decision to outsource almost all aspects of technical projects. For better or for worse, Transport Canada and the provincial ministries now only develop big picture project plans and contract out the implementation and upkeep. I don't really see how this is a surprise unless I misinterpreted the entire article. This seems to be the exact same contract design as the Ottawa LRT and the GO RER project.
afransen
Senior Member
This is almost a non-issue. Certainly not a reason to avoid electrification.
nfitz
Superstar
If the private company is to set fares and timetables, it is different than many infrastructure projects.
More akin to 407 than anything else.
It might make it more attractive for operators like CN and CP to bid.
ManyQuestions
Active Member
The only difference from the Ottawa LRT and GO Expansion projects I see is that the contractor "s’occupera de la perception des revenus" but it is not clear if the company will own the project after providing partial financing as in the 407 or if it will just be assigned an integrated management contract. However, I'm still worried that the government won't oversee the contractor closely enough to prevent a repeat of the Ottawa LRT fiasco. I've linked an article about the similar contracting of the GO Expansion project below. It seems that the biggest issue with this shift to this model is the potential loss of union jobs as operations are contracted out along with the other standard issues with outsourcing. Would be interesting to read into what happened when GO and AMT outsourced their operations.
Metrolinx and Infrastructure Ontario Progress to the Next Step for the GO Expansion Program | UrbanToronto
Metrolinx and Infrastructure Ontario (IO) have identified potential partners to design and build the infrastructure and then operate and maintain GO Transit trains for 25 years as part of its GO Expansion Program. Potential operations partners are Germany's Deutsche Bahn or France's SNCF.
robmausser
Senior Member
How dare you bring logic into this! Private bad, public good. Ignore the fact that VIA Rail isn't a rail building corporation and is only setup to operate train service in Canada and has zero experience or the proper facilities to do any of the HFR work...
Xav
Active Member
My understanding is that Via is providing the fleet and will own the infrastructure. I might be wrong thoughThe only difference from the Ottawa LRT and GO Expansion projects I see is that the contractor "s’occupera de la perception des revenus" but it is not clear if the company will own the project after providing partial financing as in the 407 or if it will just be assigned an integrated management contract. However, I'm still worried that the government won't oversee the contractor closely enough to prevent a repeat of the Ottawa LRT fiasco. I've linked an article about the similar contracting of the GO Expansion project below. It seems that the biggest issue with this shift to this model is the potential loss of union jobs as operations are contracted out along with the other standard issues with outsourcing. Would be interesting to read into what happened when GO and AMT outsourced their operations.
Metrolinx and Infrastructure Ontario Progress to the Next Step for the GO Expansion Program | UrbanToronto
Metrolinx and Infrastructure Ontario (IO) have identified potential partners to design and build the infrastructure and then operate and maintain GO Transit trains for 25 years as part of its GO Expansion Program. Potential operations partners are Germany's Deutsche Bahn or France's SNCF.urbantoronto.ca
Frank_Lee
New Member
Potentially large scale engineering study of Vancouver to Portland funded: https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/vancouver-seattle-cascadia-high-speed-rail-washington-state-funding
Once again, reaching too high, I think.
Once again, reaching too high, I think.
crs1026
Superstar
While GO contracted out their operations staffing (after having assumed a workforce from CN and CP) the GO workforce remains unionised. Given Canadian labour laws and politics, I cannot imagine a P3 arrangement leading to a non-union shop running VIA. However, P3 might well "upset the apple cart" by allowing an organizing drive by a different union. That might or might not be a good thing, depending on how the new union organization performs compared to the status quo..... and that's really only material from the viewpoint of the workers themselves.
However, the proponents to this particular P3 might or might not come from a union-friendly background, so labour relations might take a turn for the better or worse, and that might become a matter of public concern..
In all of this the public is mostly a spectator. The transition might be invisible (as it mostly has been at GO) or it might create turmoil that serves the public far worse than maintaining status quo. Personally, I don't think the potential for change is something to be afraid of.
The bigger issues relate to the transparency of the P3 relationship and the line of sight to things that ought to be a matter of public accountability. There is little in the Ontario experience with P3, be it with ML, 407, or otherwise, that recommends it. The P3 mostly insulates government officials and politicians from being accountable for decisions, and allows them to deflect inquiries and challenges. The Metrolinx experiences with P3 ie Crosstown and Oncorr do not demonstrate responsiveness to the public or direct, pragmatic decisionmaking. At GO, there are very obvious disconnects between the maintenance forces (who are managed by different contractors than the running trades contractor), on-train operations, existing construction projects (different contractors again), and dispatching. One hears too many left-hand, right-hand stories to be impressed with ML's current situation.
Considering that neither VIA nor Transport Canada have the expertise or project management infrastructure for this kind of a project, some form of contracted arrangement to create HFR is inevitable. It may be that contracting the entire design-build-operate-maintain domain might achieve a better overall cost structure, but I have nothing but praise for VIA as a direct employer and operator/maintainer of today's passenger operation, and I would have to see some real benefits before arguing that VIA should not continue to employ its own workforce to operate and maintain the system. I would argue that the design construction and commissioning should be a contract, but a turnkey back to VIA is desirable. PS: VIA does contract out the maintenance of its existing lines, and those contract relationships appear to be effective. If it ain't broke......
- Paul
Darwinkgo
Active Member
If they are concerned, the unions should ensure a successorship right clause in the next contract round. They only had since the HFT concept started being bounced around to do so.
Allandale25
Senior Member
HFR will not reduce Cornwall’s Via train service
CORNWALL, Ontario – Cornwall and other many cities along Via Rail’s southern Ontario route, will not be serviced by their new high-frequency rail line. Last year, the Cornwall City Council…
www.cornwallseawaynews.com
CapitalSeven
Senior Member
Cornwall wakes up and smells the coffee that has been brewing on the stove for more than half a decade and suddenly learns about things called maps. Newsflash.
TerryJohnson
New Member
Given the wide range of reactions to the latest HFR announcement, Transport Action Canada is seeking input:
www.transportaction.ca
Seeking your views on High Frequency Rail
We would like to hear opinions from our members and supporters to ensure our reaction to the updated High Frequency Rail announcement reflects the consensus of your views.
www.transportaction.ca
Bordercollie
Senior Member
So they could have a private company build it and then lease it back from them? In a way of track fees or some other agreement?
I guess it's better than having CN own it since you are the exclusive user of that infrastructure.
Darwinkgo
Active Member
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. Transferring risk (cost overruns, new technology, delays). Cost discovery (lock in and know up front cost over 30, 50 years).
The objective is since the winner makes money from building, operating and maintaining, that they can better optimize among all three to find the ‘best price’. It also ensures enough maintenance is done (government is bad at this).
A government may design to ensure low enough upfront cost at a higher operating and maintenance costs—not because they want to but because the project has a hard budget cap.
A government typically wouldn’t take a technological risk even if there is a good chance at huge maintenance and or operational savings. There is also assigning a price to various risks (geotechnical, design) so they’re known up front. Can also transfer things like demand risk (ensure project isn’t compromised in ways which reduce demand—or ensure project isn’t a white elephant).
Cost discovery is another one. A risk world wide has been lines being built and the original economic models being way optimistic. So you set a minimum service level, and ask for subsidy needed to pay for it. Then you know up front. the great thing is the builder can make decisions a government would rarely do. Like add way more service speculatively. Deep discounting to build a market. Spend more money to make a service faster because it will generate more demand. Making choices that lead to large early losses to support future profits.
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. Transferring risk (cost overruns, new technology, delays). Cost discovery (lock in and know up front cost over 30, 50 years).
The objective is since the winner makes money from building, operating and maintaining, that they can better optimize among all three to find the ‘best price’. It also ensures enough maintenance is done (government is bad at this).
A government may design to ensure low enough upfront cost at a higher operating and maintenance costs—not because they want to but because the project has a hard budget cap.
A government typically wouldn’t take a technological risk even if there is a good chance at huge maintenance and or operational savings. There is also assigning a price to various risks (geotechnical, design) so they’re known up front. Can also transfer things like demand risk (ensure project isn’t compromised in ways which reduce demand—or ensure project isn’t a white elephant).
Cost discovery is another one. A risk world wide has been lines being built and the original economic models being way optimistic. So you set a minimum service level, and ask for subsidy needed to pay for it. Then you know up front. the great thing is the builder can make decisions a government would rarely do. Like add way more service speculatively. Deep discounting to build a market. Spend more money to make a service faster because it will generate more demand. Making choices that lead to large early losses to support future profits.