Quebec wants to build faster and cheaper
Quebec wants to build and repair things faster and cheaper – pity this wasn’t stated before that contract to fix the stadium roof.
The FTQ is not entirely thrilled.
-
Kate
Reply
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Pages
Other levels of gov’t
Sideblog projects
Enviro Montreal is a Bluesky feed that follows local environment news. Also available on Mastodon.
Archives
Pages rescued from montreal.com
Meta
jeather 13:11 on 2024-03-12 Permalink
How about we build and repair things to last longer?
Michael 14:31 on 2024-03-12 Permalink
Nothing in this province lasts that long with winter ice and salt.
jeather 16:23 on 2024-03-12 Permalink
Yes, yes, nowhere else has our winters, that’s why you don’t feel the difference when you drive in Vermont or upstate NY or Ontario.
dhomas 03:34 on 2024-03-13 Permalink
If it’s already shit quality, might as well be cheap, right? /s
In all seriousness, after reading the article, it sounds like the government wants to “partner” with private enterprise. This seems like a recurring theme with the CAQ, though it’s not exclusive to this government. Sounds like short-term gains but with long-term issues. Will all our “public” infrastructure end up being owned by private hands? Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) comes to mind. Where the private companies own the infrastructure while it’s profitable and then dump it on the government when it’s not. An example of this is the A25 bridge to Laval: it’s owned by the private for 31 years (starting 2011) who maintain it and get to take a majority of the toll revenue. Then, it reverts to government ownership. When do bridges start to require maintenance? (This is also an example of previous governments privatizing public infrastructure)
They say that they want to involve construction companies earlier on in the discussions so that they can course correct if they are on the wrong path. Coming from a software development background, this is quite common theme: involve stakeholders to make sure you’re development is answering the right needs, for the right people, in the right way. In theory, this sounds like a good idea. If government proposes a plan to build something and the actual builders come in and say “well, here’s a better way you can accomplish your goal”, sounds like a good thing. In reality, the stakeholders could use their early involvement to co-opt these projects to better suit their own needs (and profits).
What it sounds like to me is that the government, despite its massive budget and spending, does not have the required expertise in-house to determine feasibility (and ACTUAL cost) of construction projects. Maybe THAT is what they should work on.
Kate 09:15 on 2024-03-13 Permalink
The flaw in our system is that every government only needs to think as far ahead as getting itself re-elected. They don’t care what happens after 31 years – they’ll probably all be retired by then, so I’m afraid their choice will always be based on that knowledge.
JP 10:18 on 2024-03-13 Permalink
Yeah…they’ll be retired and potentially not even alive after 31 years…
jeather 10:34 on 2024-03-13 Permalink
Yes, that’s the problem — making it last longer term is cheaper over time, but more expensive right now, and politicians are all about the saving money now because the costs will come due later. Like businesses, but with even less motivation.