Waverley underpass questioned

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 11/02/2016 (2989 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

A local consultant is questioning what he calls city hall’s reckless rush to construct the Waverley underpass.

Ken Klassen, who advises clients around the world on energy-efficient design, said he’s concerned the administration is exaggerating the benefits of the underpass and underplaying the costs.

“The city has stumbled and stumbled badly in the past when it comes to the management of major capital projects,” Klassen said. “The benefits of this project are marginal in relation to its enormous cost — triple the price of Kenaston (underpass) and almost double the price of Plessis (underpass). So why the rush?

“The (administration) is stampeding a rookie mayor and a bunch of rookie councillors into making snap decisions on projects, and they don’t have all the facts, and there hasn’t been adequate public scrutiny. It’s not a way to run a city.”

Klassen, a River Heights resident, said he’ll raise his concerns at today’s special meeting of the public works committee, which is expected to endorse the administration proposal to include the $155-million Waverley underpass project in the 2016 budget.

Mayor Brian Bowman earlier this week defended proceeding with the project, saying it was unanimously chosen by council in March as the most pressing road infrastructure project facing Winnipeg.

Bowman said funding has been committed from both the province and the federal government and further delays will only increase the cost if the project isn’t approved by the Feb. 24 council meeting.

The main reason for building the underpass is to relieve traffic congestion caused by the approximately 40 trains that cross Waverley Street daily, but Klassen said the costs and ongoing maintenance and financing far outweigh any benefits the city might identify.

The administration identified the Waverley project as having the best results among several competing infrastructure projects (Kenaston widening, Marion upgrades, Chief Peguis Trail extension) on a cost/benefit analysis basis but Klassen questions the claim, how the study was done and its accuracy.

Klassen said the administration grossly exaggerated the benefits of the Kenaston underpass 10 years ago to justify doing that project rather than the initial stage of the southwest transit corridor and later admitted its error.

He said he’s concerned city officials are doing the same with the Waverley underpass.

“It seems the system is still broken,” Klassen said, adding city officials refuse to release the cost/benefit analysis.

“If the administration gets away with this on Waverley, what else are they going to bring forward that is not costeffective? What else are they going to be able to hide in terms of information and keep it away from public or council scrutiny?

“Do you think there’s a lot of trust now in the administration?”

Klassen said he’s troubled by the criteria cited in the cost/benefit analysis for the project, describing it as “very untraditional,” and unlike any used by the provincial or federal governments or any other government agency in North America.

The cost/benefit analysis criteria has never been subject to any public review as to whether it’s reasonable, he said, adding it assigns a two per cent weighting to cultural factors and three per cent to environmental factors.

“I question some of the weighting and categories. I’ve never seen a cost/benefit analysis for a transportation project quite like this.”

Even accepting the city’s criteria, Klassen said the city’s data found the Waverley underpass has a cost/benefit of 11, adding ideally the score should be under one.

“This project is not even remotely cost-effective.”

Klassen said when he asked city officials to see the actual cost/benefit analysis on the project, they refused to release it to him and advised him to file an access-to-information request.

“There’s no reason why the cost/ benefit analysis shouldn’t be released to me, to members of council or anyone else,” Klassen said.

“It might be the top-rated project but it doesn’t mean it’s necessarily cost-effective,” Klassen said. “Why is the administration shy all of a sudden about having public scrutiny of the cost/benefit analysis.

“It’s like buying a used car but you’re told you can’t look under the hood or take it for a test drive but I’ll sell it to you for $155 million.”

Klassen said he’s also troubled by the administration’s decision to award a $12.3 million contract for engineering design work to Dillon Consulting without going to tender.

“I had to submit a 62-page proposal to bid on a $32,000 contract with the province,” Klassen said. “I’ve never heard of any government awarding a $12-million contract without first going to tender.”

aldo.santin@freepress.mb.ca