crs1026
Superstar
Do I think that? No.
Is that what VIA claimed was possible? Yes.
Six years is a change from the stated plan, which iirc was closer to 4.
Shame on us for relying on the little that has been said about this project publicly.
- Paul
|
|
|
- Thread starter ehlow
- Start date
Is that what VIA claimed was possible? Yes.
Six years is a change from the stated plan, which iirc was closer to 4.
Shame on us for relying on the little that has been said about this project publicly.
- Paul
Darwinkgo
Active Member
Re complaints there isn’t enough $$ for infrastructure:
For stimulus, there isn’t much if any excess capacity in construction. Directing more money there would cause mostly cost inflation, not extra construction. Why? This is a really weird recession.
Also: why has such a big group on here lost the thread?
1: the budget was never going to contain the full HFR budget (because it isn’t a government expenditure)
2: we know the project does not have environmental and Duty to Consult approvals
3: we know that the intent was to create as freestanding (uses revenues to pay for itself) of a project as possible, but that additional funding was possibly needed
4: we know the government doesn’t shy away from out of cycle announcements
5: CIB has been making a lot of investments
For stimulus, there isn’t much if any excess capacity in construction. Directing more money there would cause mostly cost inflation, not extra construction. Why? This is a really weird recession.
Also: why has such a big group on here lost the thread?
1: the budget was never going to contain the full HFR budget (because it isn’t a government expenditure)
2: we know the project does not have environmental and Duty to Consult approvals
3: we know that the intent was to create as freestanding (uses revenues to pay for itself) of a project as possible, but that additional funding was possibly needed
4: we know the government doesn’t shy away from out of cycle announcements
5: CIB has been making a lot of investments
kEiThZ
Superstar
Given that they had previously said they could construct HFR in 4 years, I don't doubt there's a lot they could do in 2-3 yrs. Would a swing bridge be replaced in 2-3 years? Probably not. But, I doubt most of these enabling works are swing bridges either.
We're at not the point that people are so desperate to see anything positive in this, that we're trying to argue that replacing a swing bridge over 6 years is definitive progress on HFR. Ridiculous.
kEiThZ
Superstar
I'm starting to think the Opposition was right on how useless the CIB is. I've been a staunch defender of the idea to date. But this failure has be thinking the criticism was right.
Allandale25
Senior Member
Here's something we haven't seen in awhile, a Minister talking about enhancing passenger rail service in front of a VIA Rail train.
Caveats I'll proactively acknowledge:
Caveats I'll proactively acknowledge:
- yes I'm aware some will see this as a political stunt;
- yes, I'm aware the budget hasn't passed and could be tied to an election;
- yes, I'm aware that the $491 million will be spent over six years and we don't know yet exactly what it'll be used for;
- yes, I'm aware they could have exercised the option for the new fleet to buy even more rolling stock and invest even more over six years than what was listed in the budget;
- yes, I'm aware we still don't know what "de-risking" HFR means and the exact role and next steps of the CIB; and
- [insert all other caveats, concerns noted above I missed, and healthy skepticism]
kEiThZ
Superstar
It's weird. They keep talking as though they are building HFR. And yet they haven't put out an official launch.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
You guys have to remember that expanding VIA, at least in it's current form, is a hard sell.
Ottawa has dedicated a LOT of new money for infrastructure and all of it being Green and hence improving a rail service that will expand both it's diesel fleets and usage of them goes counter to their vision of transferring Canada over to a non polluting economy.
Ottawa has dedicated a LOT of new money for infrastructure and all of it being Green and hence improving a rail service that will expand both it's diesel fleets and usage of them goes counter to their vision of transferring Canada over to a non polluting economy.
Darwinkgo
Active Member
*whispers* because they are.
I'll add another bit of archania for you. If the JPO found a subsidy was needed, the CIB could not sign off on an investment before the feds signed off on a subsidy. Now the process can flow through Treasury Board (program approval), then the CIB board can approve, then the JPO full report goes to the Minister of the Environment and a mandatory waiting period starts (we will hear about this if anyone is paying attention). Then the Minister/Cabinet signs off on the report, and then an event with the PM is scheduled. If the process is properly followed.
If they don't think someone will sue (or a FNMI group or person will sue) they can take the risk and do the above in just about any order.
DirectionNorth
Active Member
People have to travel somehow. Rail travel is much better than car/plane travel.
Allandale25
Senior Member
^ Also, I believe the new diesel engines VIA are getting are Tier 4. That's an improvement. I believe the same rolling stock can be used for HFR if needed.
roger1818
Senior Member
Correct, but just so everyone is aware, the Tier 4 emissions standards don't regulate Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emissions. They only regulate reduced Hydrocarbons (HC), Carbon Monoxide (CO), Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) and Particulate Matter (PM). You can find details about Tier 0-4 emissions standards here.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Quite the assumption. You're telling me they decided to launch the most significant investment in intercity rail in half a century and then not actually tell the public about it in their budget?
Have you ever had politicians not loudly trumpet a major investment? Mostly this looks like messaging to me, where they are trying to get credit for improving service between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal without actually doing that much. Helps that a new fleet will come online in the coming years.
Also, does the CIB need to make TB submissions? Wasn't the entire point of the CIB that they would bring a non-traditional, arms-length, non-political approach to infrastructure? Why would each project need TB submission and cabinet approval?
kEiThZ
Superstar
They actually didn't commit a whole lot of new money to their "green" intiatiatives. And really not much to public transit.
I also don't see how your point can be true when they are helping transit surprised authorities buy diesel buses all over the country (even while buying some electric buses) and have even helped fund some GO expansion that still uses diesel locomotives.
Allandale25
Senior Member
I see both as possibilities. What @Darwinkgo said above, but also you're point about cabinet approval.
It's possible they didn't feel the need to put it in the budget in terms of marketing it either because a) they want to save it for a future announcement when it can get more press given the big ticket items in the budget (like child care) and b) they might be worried about perception issues outside of the HFR corridor and blowback from other parts of the country, and as a result don't want to trumpet it too much.
This is just speculation on my part.
Northern Light
Superstar
Possible.
No.........but....
Its quite common to parcel out your Front-Page good news stories.
If you put them all out on the same day, you risk burying your own positive coverage, with your other positive coverage.
Its very clear that they wanted the budget to be about the Childcare piece.
I have no inside knowledge on the thinking on HFR here.........
But I have seen items concealed in the budget...........; or the bulk of the costs farmed out to a future year (meaning no substantial line-item needs to be there in the budget)
The Budget, as I'm sure you know, is a highly political document.
One must often wait for the Supplementary Estimates to find the details.