[kEiThZ]

My conspiracy theory is that the McKenna/Sabia crowd may have won the day, in the sense of arguing "let's not build HFR, let's just drag our heels and wait until HSR might be sellable".

Meh. If that was the case, the Liberals wouldn't be keeping quite about it at all. They'd be out here bragging about how they are going to transform how Canadians travel.

I have helped draft Memorandums to Cabinet in my career. I'm not nearly as confident that this is wordsmithing to cover up a subsidy. I think it really is what they say it is: works to enable HFR.

The best case scenario here is that they are still digesting the JPO report and we'll see a launch later their year. Or something even more substantial after the election.

The scenario I fear, is that they are still trying to get some non-governmental sector to take this up, as originally intended with the CIB model.

Again, priorities say a lot. They found money for practically any and every left leaning cause in this budget, but couldn't make a hard commitment to HFR, even over the next 5 years, despite the hundreds of billions in deficits already being programmed.

 

[Northern Light]

They found money for practically any and every left leaning cause in this budget, but couldn't make a hard commitment to HFR, even over the next 5 years, despite the hundreds of billions in deficits already being programmed.

I too am disappointed by not seeing more for VIA.

But I think this statement reads as hyperbole.

There's a mere 500M towards pharmacare (that was previously committed to); which won't go far at all.

There was nothing for dental care.

No parental leave expansion

No immediate move to raise the income replacement rate of EI

No increase (beyond inflation) for the Canada Health Transfer

No material raise to the Child Benefit

etc etc.

In point of fact there's an awful lot more subsidy going to business and the wealthy than what one might typically call 'left-wing'.

The Childcare is the one large-scale commitment on the 'progressive side'; along with some real money for green-stuff; though much of that for business and wealthy home/car owners.

 

[kEiThZ]

I too am disappointed by not seeing more for VIA.

But I think this statement reads as hyperbole.

There's a mere 500M towards pharmacare (that was previously committed to); which won't go far at all.

There was nothing for dental care.

No parental leave expansion

No immediate move to raise the income replacement rate of EI

No increase (beyond inflation) for the Canada Health Transfer

No material raise to the Child Benefit

etc etc.

In point of fact there's an awful lot more subsidy going to business and the wealthy than what one might typically call 'left-wing'.

The Childcare is the one large-scale commitment on the 'progressive side'; along with some real money for green-stuff; though much of that for business and wealthy home/car owners.

"They didn't fully fund everything so your statement is hyperbole."

I stand by what I said. This government seems to prioritize anything and everything over Infrastructure. And despite their rhetoric over caring about climate change, most of their deficits Pre-Covid went to expanded social programs, and only a tiny fraction of their post-Covid spending is going to infrastructure. This, from a government that started out pledging small deficits to fund infrastructure. Talk about bait and switch.

It's amazing how they have even appropriated the "Build back better," rhetoric from the US, and then twisted the interpretation to substantially focus on deficit financing expanded social programs. Something the Americans aren't actually doing.

This is increasingly turning out as tone deaf as the Wynne Liberals. Lots of spending. Not much that benefits the middle class, who get stuck with the bill. They did the exact same thing. Prioritizing all kinds of deficit financed social programs over universally used infrastructure.

I'd be a lot less annoyed, if they had the cojones to actually raise taxes to pay for their social spending. Instead, they are deficit financing all of this and leaving us very little tangible assets in return.

 

[lenaitch]

^ Maybe a chunk of the $491 million is the "Sharbot Lake bypass." Or building a more modern swing bridge in Peterborough that doesn't have to be manually operated.

There's also the need to get to the north side of the CP Belleville Sub (when heading east).

Plus @reaperexpress ' idea here:

Post in thread 'GO Transit: Construction Projects (Metrolinx, various)' https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threa...-projects-metrolinx-various.9023/post-1678705

So the speculative list of where the $491 million could go for the key words of reducing "bottlenecks, improve fluidity and connectivity"

I forgot about the canal swing bridge. It will have to be replaced and, depending on the HFR schedule, the new one will get quite a workout.

 

[crs1026]

I forgot about the canal swing bridge. It will have to be replaced and, depending on the HFR schedule, the new one will get quite a workout.

It would be a relief to know that the money is targeted to whatever long-lead-time items are in the HFR plan. Possibly VIA said to government, look if we don’t start building some of these things soon, they won’t be ready in good time and we won’t start running trains for that much longer..... and maybe that argument was accepted. So maybe it preserves rather than erodes VIA’s path forward.
Still, plunking money down in places with no guarantee that HFR will ensue is a strategy of white elephant building.... the Peterboro swing bridge is a good example of that.
It’s really hard to understand why government is so unwilling to get to yes. The remainder of the budget was relatively non-regional, and maybe this didn’t fit the budget context. But even so, a six year spend.... yeesh!...

- Paul

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

It’s really hard to understand why government is so unwilling to get to yes.

This is what pisses me off. $70M worth of studies done. They had even suggested in 2019, this was "pre-procurement" work. Now they budget more than $300B in deficit spending over the next half decade and still can't commit to $4B for a rail line in the busiest corridor in the country?

At least with the Conservatives, they don't hide their disdain for climate policy and public transport. The Liberals say they're serious and then refuse to actually put in resources.

The half billion they put in is ridiculous when you look at the timeline. If these are enabling works, they would need to be completed over 2-4 yrs. Not 6.

I'm getting pessimistic that they now want to do more studies. Maybe we'll get another HSR study. And then before anything is done, the Liberals will be out of power and nothing gets built.

I'm usually optimistic on politics. But the Liberals fucking up this file has just destroyed any optimism I had. I feel betrayed voting for them.

 

[roger1818]

It would be a relief to know that the money is targeted to whatever long-lead-time items are in the HFR plan. Possibly VIA said to government, look if we don’t start building some of these things soon, they won’t be ready in good time and we won’t start running trains for that much longer..... and maybe that argument was accepted. So maybe it preserves rather than erodes VIA’s path forward.
Still, plunking money down in places with no guarantee that HFR will ensue is a strategy of white elephant building.... the Peterboro swing bridge is a good example of that.
It’s really hard to understand why government is so unwilling to get to yes. The remainder of the budget was relatively non-regional, and maybe this didn’t fit the budget context. But even so, a six year spend.... yeesh!...

- Paul

- Paul

The only thing I can think is that risks that were outlined in the study (any good engineering study will outline the risks) were considered too great to blindly proceed, since they don't want to create a white elephant. I expect the biggest risk is the cost of acquiring the land and other required assets. You can estimate how much it will cost, but until you have a signed purchase agreement in hand, you just don't know for sure, and with the way real estate prices have been going crazy, that poses a significant risk. The swing bridge could be another such risk as until a replacement has been designed, you don't really know how much it will cost.

Like many others on here, I am disappointed that HFR wasn't fully backed or detailed, but the government giving VIA money to "de-risk the project" and "for infrastructure investments" is better than not funding it at all. The only money in a budget that you can truly count on is the money for the upcoming year since next year's budget will override whatever was estimated in the current budget. Those future authorizations do give VIA permission to start making deals though, as there is a promise of money. If those deals go well, we may see more money in future budgets. If they don't, the money could go away.

 

[EnviroTO]

The good news is that $491 million isn't doing nothing, the bad news is that they haven't published a plan yet so whether $491 million is going to a watered down plan where they throw good money after bad, or actually build something supportive of eventually controlling their own timetable is a big question mark. The easiest work to commit to is Ottawa-Montreal. If they focused their efforts there, ensuring continued access to downtown Montreal before developments there lock them out of affordable access, and improvements towards getting the trip time to 75min then it would be money well spent, while being fairly non-committal on the route and cost of Toronto to Ottawa.

 

[Allandale25]

^ I'm not as familiar with the Ottawa-Montreal stretch as I am with the Toronto-Ottawa stretch.

What types of projects between Ottawa-Montreal could the $491 million be spent on?

 

[crs1026]

The good news is that $491 million isn't doing nothing, the bad news is that they haven't published a plan yet so whether $491 million is going to a watered down plan where they throw good money after bad, or actually build something supportive of eventually controlling their own timetable is a big question mark. The easiest work to commit to is Ottawa-Montreal. If they focused their efforts there, ensuring continued access to downtown Montreal before developments there lock them out of affordable access, and improvements towards getting the trip time to 75min then it would be money well spent, while being fairly non-committal on the route and cost of Toronto to Ottawa.

This was my first thought also, but time is of the essence. So I'd be happier if they selected items that the engineering study found will be the longest to build, and got those started.
Even so, the spend for 21-22 suggests they aren't prepared to mobilise yet. (They really can't put shovels in the ground until they have completed consultations, and those aren't really off the ground yet, and those might not be taken seriously until government confirms they are serious about proceeding.... it's a circle)

- Paul

 

[crs1026]

^ I'm not as familiar with the Ottawa-Montreal stretch as I am with the Toronto-Ottawa stretch.

What types of projects between Ottawa-Montreal could the $491 million be spent on?

Additional sidings, some curves to be eased, perhaps grade separations or crossing improvements to get that last 20 km/hr of speed. And likely new trackage through and east of De Beaujeu... Coteau would have to see additional track, as it's a known bottleneck that is an important yard for CN freight. The mid-2000's track expansion called for improvements there, until VIA ran out of money. Possibly new CTC and turnouts for the approach to Central Station - while the curves there can't be eased, the signalling is old and probably end of life. (Kind of analogous to the various USRC improvements.) Adjustments to get the most capacity out of the line(s) east of Coteau given that there will be VIA trains there continually if service goes to hourly.

IIRC the amount cited specifically for Ottawa - Montreal was only about $195M.

- Paul

 

[Allandale25]

^ Thanks! Also maybe upgrading more of Ottawa's station with high level platforms?

 

[roger1818]

^ Thanks! Also maybe upgrading more of Ottawa's station with high level platforms?

That is quite possible. They have completed Phase 1A and AFAIK, they are still awaiting financing for Phase 1B.

 

[kEiThZ]

There's plenty they could do. But again, why is all this budgeted over 5-6 years and not 2-3 years?

 

[roger1818]

There's plenty they could do. But again, why is all this budgeted over 5-6 years and not 2-3 years?

Do you really think that this whole project could be completed in 2-3 years? For example, if the plan is indeed to replace the swing bridge, it would take a year for the RFQ on the new design, a a year or two to finalize the design, a year for the RFQ on the construction and a couple years to build the replacement.