Green Line LRT - $4.6 Billion Project - Page 200

milomilo · #**3981** Posted **Dec 20, 2020, 5:37 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by accord1999

Yes, I went back to that T&T meeting and saw in the report that they also provided an estimate of the river crossing costs.

[img]https://i.imgur.com/21j4VIK.png[img]

Suprisingly, as part of the report they actually gave a remarkably itemized and precise (if perhaps not accurate) estimate of construction costs. Perhaps you can give your opinion on whether they were realistic or missing anything. Here's one page of it:

[img]https://i.imgur.com/8Lv1aSW.png[img]

app_d: detailed analysis of the various options for the NC segment north of 24th Av:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LUVNeNkL6e1PFPk_uW1Te_5bn06Yhpl-/view?usp=sharing

app_g: the itemized costs of construction
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1n5FeBmLhrgPBteBNS5z15r3Bz5WbZaCu/view?usp=sharing

I always view any consultation document with this level of precision with extreme skepticism - it gives the illusion they have thought of everything, but in reality it probably does not have any accurate costs. The Bow Valley transportation document was the same - putting in the detail of adding oil pan costs in maintenance depots, as if that is an important thing to include in a high level estimate.

milomilo · #**3982** Posted **Dec 20, 2020, 5:40 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by superelevation

Its amazing to see the contrast between what the UCP is doing in AB and what the CAQ are doing in Quebec - where a 10 Billion dollar 30 km light metro was just announced.

The UCP are not doing this, it's the City of Calgary leadership. They lost complete sight of what the actual purpose of this transit project should be years ago, and reality is slowly, painfully, showing itself to them.

Doug · #**3983** Posted **Dec 20, 2020, 5:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by milomilo

Seems a bit of a stretch to say that Green Line cost overruns would be enough to push the Calgary to default on its debt. And assumes the city would actually go ahead if it assumed all the risk.

The province did their bit by funding the project. Otherwise, they should let the city make its own decisions. The province could give the cities more funding options too... but both of these things assume the UCP actually believed in a consistent conservative ideology, but they don't.

The Province would step in before a default, or to prevent massive increases in municipal taxes. In other words, it would bear the risk of overruns.

jawagord · #**3984** Posted **Dec 20, 2020, 5:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by superelevation

Its amazing to see the contrast between what the UCP is doing in AB and what the CAQ are doing in Quebec - where a 10 Billion dollar 30 km light metro was just announced.

Yep, very different!

Transport Minister François Bonnardel is withdrawing the government's support for Quebec City's proposed tramway network, which he said won't go ahead unless it is reconfigured to better serve the suburbs.

The announcement from Bonnardel is the second set-back in as many days for the 22-kilometre surface transit network that is the centrepiece of Quebec City Mayor Régis Labeaume's political legacy.

It comes on the heels of a harshly critical report from Quebec's environmental review board (BAPE), which questioned the very decision to go with a tram system at all, rather than a subway or light-rail. The BAPE also criticized the proposed network map, saying it doesn't adequately serve outlying areas of the city.

As it happens, that's Bonnardel's main critique as well.

"The government will not approve this project, as currently proposed, if there isn't a refinement, an improvement of the project in terms of serving Quebec City's suburbs," he told a news conference at the National Assembly.

s211 · #**3985** Posted **Dec 20, 2020, 6:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by superelevation

Its amazing to see the contrast between what the UCP is doing in AB and what the CAQ are doing in Quebec - where a 10 Billion dollar 30 km light metro was just announced.

Yeah, "amazing". As I understand it, they're looking at the Caisse to fund/invest in the project. In effect, they're using their public-sector pension fund to perpetuate its Quebec-first mandate, instead of achieving maximum returns for its pensioners.

milomilo · #**3986** Posted **Dec 20, 2020, 6:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug

The Province would step in before a default, or to prevent massive increases in municipal taxes. In other words, it would bear the risk of overruns.

And yet my point still stands, it is very unlikely the Green Line would push Calgary into serious financial harm, and definitely not the province. As I understand it too, the province would always have been able to pull the plug anyway if it looked like a disaster was incoming. Hence the UCP's actions are pure politicking, and at odds with proper conservative doctrine.

Both the city and province are being uselessly incompetent here. The province should either put in some useful input or get out of the way, and the city needs to stop whining, accept responsibility for the dumpster fire they have created, make some tough decisions and stop kicking the can down the road.

milomilo · #**3987** Posted **Dec 20, 2020, 6:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by s211

Yeah, "amazing". As I understand it, they're looking at the Caisse to fund/invest in the project. In effect, they're using their public-sector pension fund to perpetuate its Quebec-first mandate, instead of achieving maximum returns for its pensioners.

Hey, the UCP mused this too, only instead of using pension funds for useful infrastructure, to invest in oil projects the private sector deemed poor investments.

outoftheice · #**3988** Posted **Dec 22, 2020, 6:00 AM**

A bit of a long read but a great blog post by Cllr Shane Keating that addresses the recent Green Line controversy and the comments made by Minister Ric McIver. Sounds to me like the City of Calgary has done its homework and is ready to start building if only the province will let them...

https://www.shanekeating.ca/2020/12/21/green-line-credibility/

Doug · #**3989** Posted **Dec 22, 2020, 2:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by milomilo

Hey, the UCP mused this too, only instead of using pension funds for useful infrastructure, to invest in oil projects the private sector deemed poor investments.

Pension funds were not invested in oil projects. Any political influence on direction of pension fund investment would be a disaster. Quebec is the only province we’re this occurs.

MalcolmTucker · #**3990** Posted **Dec 22, 2020, 5:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug

Pension funds were not invested in oil projects. Any political influence on direction of pension fund investment would be a disaster. Quebec is the only province we’re this occurs.

They talked about it though. IMO AIMCo is already in too deep on Alberta assets - office towers, industrial space, and companies.

Mazrim · #**3991** Posted **Dec 22, 2020, 6:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by outoftheice

A bit of a long read but a great blog post by Cllr Shane Keating that addresses the recent Green Line controversy and the comments made by Minister Ric McIver. Sounds to me like the City of Calgary has done its homework and is ready to start building if only the province will let them...

https://www.shanekeating.ca/2020/12/21/green-line-credibility/

I shake my first at the person who decided to bold a ton of the text in that post. Yikes.

GreaterMontréal · #**3992** Posted **Dec 22, 2020, 6:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug

Pension funds were not invested in oil projects. Any political influence on direction of pension fund investment would be a disaster. Quebec is the only province we’re this occurs.

The Provincial government is the one choosing who will be the ''boss'' of the Caisse. François Legault has chosen Charles Émond as new president of the CDPQ. I don't see how this is a disaster, they created CDPQ Infra, La Caisse is in the Top 10 of institutional investors in infrastructure worldwide. They have the expertise, so why not use it to our own good.

The Federal government has created the Canada Infrastructure bank. Michael Sebia (who was the last boss of the CDPQ) is now the President of the CIB.

Alberta could have something similar, like using oil and gas revenues to build public transport projects that run on solar and wind energy.

YYCguys · #**3993** Posted **Dec 23, 2020, 2:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mazrim

I shake my first at the person who decided to bold a ton of the text in that post. Yikes.

It was just a bit OTT wasn’t it! But perhaps the intention was to emphasize his points and make clear his position.

milomilo · #**3994** Posted **Dec 23, 2020, 3:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug

Pension funds were not invested in oil projects. Any political influence on direction of pension fund investment would be a disaster. Quebec is the only province we’re this occurs.

Which is why I said mused, and it was half popular when they talked about it so the threat is there. I agree with the second part of your post.

milomilo · #**3995** Posted **Dec 23, 2020, 3:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

Alberta could have something similar, like using oil and gas revenues to build public transport projects that run on solar and wind energy.

Using oil revenue for public projects is one thing. Using people's pension funds is another - there is a conflict of interest between providing highest return to pension holders and best value for transit investment. And it is an unnecessary political "trick", the government has better tools already to remove money from individuals and transfer to public projects.

Doug · #**3996** Posted **Dec 23, 2020, 6:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

They talked about it though. IMO AIMCo is already in too deep on Alberta assets - office towers, industrial space, and companies.

Absolutely. The governance of these pension plans should prevent investment within the province as doing so would both concentrate risk, and increase the potential for political interference.

GreaterMontréal · #**3997** Posted **Dec 23, 2020, 6:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by milomilo

Using oil revenue for public projects is one thing. Using people's pension funds is another - there is a conflict of interest between providing highest return to pension holders and best value for transit investment. And it is an unnecessary political "trick", the government has better tools already to remove money from individuals and transfer to public projects.

La Caisse is not just a pension fund, it is a creator of wealth by reinvesting in the local economy. People who work in the public sector already know how much they will receive when they'll retire. Even if the fund makes incredible returns of 20% per year, the amounts received at retirement will not increase.
https://www.cdpq.com/en/performance/impact-activites

I don't see how Alberta could not do something similar. Ontario Teacher's Pension Plan is similar as they invest in real estate and are the principal owner of MLSE.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-o...rastructure-investments/article29263827/

i believe that the next big infrastructure projects in Canada will be financed by the big pension funds, and Alberta will benefit from that.

Doug · #**3998** Posted **Dec 23, 2020, 10:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

i believe that the next big infrastructure projects in Canada will be financed by the big pension funds, and Alberta will benefit from that.

Sure...but Alberta public sector pension funds should always (or at least mostly) be invested outside the province to guard against motivations other than seeking the best possible risk adjusted rate of return.

Corndogger · #**3999** Posted **Dec 23, 2020, 10:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by milomilo

Which is why I said mused, and it was half popular when they talked about it so the threat is there. I agree with the second part of your post.

Half popular with who? Anyone who was around in AB in the 1980s will remember the horrible investment decisions made by the government of the day and how much frickin' money we lost. The province can do other things to help industries such as streamline regulations but we shouldn't be making risky investments.

Corndogger · #**4000** Posted **Dec 23, 2020, 10:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug

Sure...but Alberta public sector pension funds should always (or at least mostly) be invested outside the province to guard against motivations other than seeking the best possible risk adjusted rate of return.

I agree. I believe the CPPIB has most of the pension funds it manages invested outside of Canada for the very reasons you state.