HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2221  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2017, 7:03 PM
Genauso's Avatar
Genauso Genauso is offline
A hole being Doug
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 494
Quote:
Originally Posted by spaceprobe View Post
My question is, if the project was built and funded completely by the province (ie, not P3), how much would the province be "losing" when accounting for all costs (ie debt and interest payments)? Will it be higher or lower than with P3? In my opinion, the question isn't whether the bridge needed to be replaced, but rather, whether P3 was the appropriate option. This is something we (the province) can learn from before deciding on the next bridge to build.
Simple question indeed.
To get the answer for the port mann bridge, hopefully the answer is publicly available without a FOI:
http://www.partnershipsbc.ca/project...ement-project/
https://www.bcauditor.com/
ccpa thinktank

No two projects are identical, and there are unknown future differences like the banks financing the Golden Ears bridge P3 went bankrupt during construction but were bailed out by their own governments before it caused too much trouble.

For the Port Mann bridge, they changed to BC borrowing and then lending the money instead of banks in 2009 and claimed doing so saved $200 million. After the project was completed it was supposed to transition back to private financing.

Interest rates for private infrastructure-backed borrowers may be lower today as neither inflation nor growth has been sighted, but they could diverge significantly at any time in the future.

The auditor general's website search function didn't turn up a review of the Port Mann project to show financing costs.


In general
It's still a small time span and small sample of projects to compare the public vs p3 projects but in general the P3 will finish on time, and hit their budget. While public projects are within 10% of budget and schedule. If private financing is used, the public option finishes cheaper (compound interest on not just the multi-year construction, but covering the higher borrowing rate for the lifetime of the payback period.)

However as we have seen with the Port Mann bridge, sometimes the schedule or budget is met by eliminating de-icing gear from the design. The split of obligations is point by point and adversarial, but it shouldn't be an issue if it was all planned for and expected.

It's important to remember that the work is done by the same cluster of smaller contractors. Short of believing there is significant waste in the decision for what each sub-contractor is worth paying, P3s supposedly earn their keep in design + financing. IMO P3s are a political tool to say the budget is balanced, and are preferred despite when the public/other option results in better value.

related: Vaughn Palmer: The fine art of dissecting debt from contractual obligations
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2222  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2017, 10:24 PM
Reecemartin's Avatar
Reecemartin Reecemartin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Toronto
Posts: 440
In terms of traffic though, wouldn't it be expected that a 10 lane bridge would induce significant demand? And with expansion only going as far as 17a and certainly not continuing down Oak Street do we not think this newly induced demand will cause any bottlenecks there? Seems like the bridges growth room is virtually all for Richmond and the Port as well as 17a, which is not a problem, I'm just surprised if the proportion of drivers from South Surrey going to Vancouver and Vice-Versa is that small?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2223  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2017, 10:55 PM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 6,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reecemartin View Post
In terms of traffic though, wouldn't it be expected that a 10 lane bridge would induce significant demand? And with expansion only going as far as 17a and certainly not continuing down Oak Street do we not think this newly induced demand will cause any bottlenecks there? Seems like the bridges growth room is virtually all for Richmond and the Port as well as 17a, which is not a problem, I'm just surprised if the proportion of drivers from South Surrey going to Vancouver and Vice-Versa is that small?
10 lanes without a toll absolutely would. You can't overstate the lengths Metro Vancouver drivers will go to avoid a small toll though.

The current PMB (basically free flowing all the time) has less traffic than the old one did near the end of it's life, when it was essentially a parking lot 12 hours a day.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2224  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2017, 11:30 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 23,595
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2225  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2017, 11:48 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 23,595
Procurement Options Report (Aug 2015)
http://engage.gov.bc.ca/app/uploads/...t-Aug-2015.pdf


GMT Tunnel Decommissioning Options Report (Feb 2017)
http://engage.gov.bc.ca/app/uploads/...s-Feb-2017.pdf


From the January 2017 Project Status Report:


http://engage.gov.bc.ca/app/uploads/...port-FINAL.pdf

Last edited by officedweller; Mar 4, 2017 at 12:07 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2226  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2017, 12:00 AM
fredinno fredinno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by officedweller View Post
If it's supposed to be congested by 2045, why build the bridge for a 100 year spec? Why not stop at 50 years (giving time for a replacement?)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2227  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2017, 12:09 AM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 23,595
Because there's no guarantee it would be replaced in 2045 or sooner after (think Patullo).

PS - you know that when you quote a post you can delete some of the content so you don't clog up the thread with useless repetition, right?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2228  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2017, 12:10 AM
fredinno fredinno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by officedweller View Post
Because there's no guarantee it would be replaced in 2045 or sooner after (think Patullo)
If the bridge is completed by 2020, it would have until 2070 to be replaced...

25 years from being congested. PLENTY of time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2229  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2017, 12:35 AM
LeftCoaster's Avatar
LeftCoaster LeftCoaster is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 9,140
Why are we designing anything to be congested at all?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2230  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2017, 1:36 AM
fredinno fredinno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftCoaster View Post
Why are we designing anything to be congested at all?
Because otherwise we would have 20 lane bridges...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2231  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2017, 4:01 AM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 6,340
How do these projections match the ones above that don't see an increase in daily volume from today's GMT to a tolled GMB in 2045?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2232  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2017, 7:12 AM
fredinno fredinno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenC12 View Post
How do these projections match the ones above that don't see an increase in daily volume from today's GMT to a tolled GMB in 2045?
Dunno, different projection models?

Keep in mind, this is government figures, so it's going to be biased towards their agenda.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:56 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.