News   Jun 14, 2024
Dual High-Rises and Production Studio Space Proposed in the Port Lands
 1.9K     1 
News   Jun 14, 2024
Exchange District Condos' Four Towers Progressing by Square One
 1.4K     1 
News   Jun 14, 2024
News Roundup for June 14, 2024
 781     0 

Star: Flaherty - Transit Money not Firm

Are you saying the federal government should just be a piggy-bank?
Click to expand...

Not at all. What I am saying is that Ottawa should be involved when the projects are of an interprovincial, national, or of other importance to the federal government. Border crossings, interprovincial connections (such as bridges or rail links), remote community infrastructure, and the TransCanada Highway would be examples of projects where federal involvment would be warranted.

You could then classify another group of projects as those which don't warrant direct involvment, but are still of moderate importance. The 401 would be a good example which is primarily for intraprovincial travel, but because of its economic importance to the transport industry and its interprovincial and international connections has some national importance. Bridges crossing the Island of Montreal to the North and South Shores would be another. Public transit in large cities would fall into this category as well.

But when it comes to suburban ring roads around Toronto I really don't see the value in such a project at the federal level. It won't even function as a bypass for important links like the 401. Other examples would be a rail line from Montreal to Sherbrooke, or upgrades to the highway from Calgary to Edmonton, or banal projects like building aterial roads in any Canadian city.

If a project is relevant, important, and of a nature that the federal government should play a role than by all means the current 1/3 by 3 formula is a fine formula. Of course in some cases this percentage could change depending on the nature, which is also fine.

But what I don't want to see is Ottawa exercising its authority in projects where it clearly does not belong (ie a northern ring road for Toronto). It is one thing for highways and transit to be political electioneering tokens in provincial and municipal elections. But if the situation arises where the federal government is playing the same game than it should, as not to overstep its authority, hand over any excess funds and taxation so that citizens do not have to beg another level government and be at the mercy of MP's across the country to ensure they have funding for projects which clearly do not belong in the hands of the federal government.
 
I hope the Feds don't fund this absurd extension to Vaughan (York yes, but not Vaughan. I'd rather see the whole extension killed than taken to Vaughan). The TTC didn't come up with this idea remember, it was the Ontario government, c/o Finance Minister Sorbara. If the subway to Vaughan gets built, it'll make the Sheppard line look like a good idea, nay, genius!
 
The subway to Vaughan doesn't affect the TTC at all, though. In fact, the effect might be positive, since York Region will likely then contribute half of the cost of the subway, and it'll pay all the operating cost of the line north of Steeles. They're the ones who'll have to worry about a potential white elephant.
 
I don't see Vaughan pitching in half of the cost of the subway north of Steeles, a 1/3 split possibly, but the Vaughan half is lets say half, so in total that's about 1/6 of the cost of the subway. And I don't see how the TTC wouldn't get stuck with some of the costs of the subway north of Steeles. Either way, its one hell of a white elephant. As if Spadina isn't already underused. The extension beyond Steeles will bring down the average usage per station on the Spadina line even lower.
 
There's no way the TTC would get stuck with any costs north of Steeles. If anything, it'd be an excellent financial proposition for them, operating the line on contract with York Region.
 
If the subway is extended, it really has to go north of Steeles...there's absolutely no point going just to York U.
 
Sure York will pay for costs north of Steeles - just the small matter of saying how much that is, exactly... I can see Toronto being screwed in revenge for how York pays for Toronto social services because the province bailed under Harris.
 
I find that unlikely. It's pretty easy to determine costs north and south of Steeles. You can even put different contracts out to tender.
 
They do like their roads.

Canada and Alberta partner to twin Highway 63 - $320-million joint investment will improve traffic safety for motorists in the Wood Buffalo region

FORT MCMURRAY, AB, Aug. 29 /CNW Telbec/ - The Government of Canada today
announced its commitment to invest up to $150 million toward the cost of
twinning a 146-km section of Highway 63.
The Honourable Lawrence Cannon, Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and
Communities, Brian Jean, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport,
Infrastructure and Communities, made the announcement with the Honourable Ty
Lund, Minister of Alberta Infrastructure and Transportation, and the
Honourable Guy Boutilier, Minister of Alberta Environment and Member of the
Legislative Assembly for the Fort McMurray - Wood Buffalo Constituency.
The Alberta government will provide the remaining $170 million of the
$320-million project, which includes the design and construction of two
additional lanes to the existing two-lane Highway 63 from Highway 55 near
Grassland to north of Mariana Lake. In addition to funding the remaining
$170 million for this project, the Alberta government will pay the full cost,
estimated at $360 million, of twinning the remaining stretch of Highway 63
from north of Mariana Lake to Fort McMurray.
Improvements to Highway 63 will result in a safer and more efficient road
system.
"Highway 63 is an important transportation roadway. The Government of
Canada, in partnership with the Province, is proud to improve access to Fort
McMurray and to support more efficient movement of people and goods in the
Wood Buffalo Region," said Minister Cannon.
"This project will improve the safety of Canadians travelling this route
while contributing to economic growth in the area," said Parliamentary
Secretary Brian Jean. "The highway will be upgraded to meet provincial
expressway standards, and will provide drivers with safer intersections, a
wide median divider and paved shoulders to accommodate oversize loads. There
should be a reduction in vehicle collisions and fatalities."
"The Alberta government committed earlier this year to twinning the
entire 240-km stretch of Highway 63 from Fort McMurray south to Highway 55,"
Minister Lund said. "We are very pleased the Government of Canada has
recognized the importance of this project to northeastern Alberta and has
agreed to contribute to the cost of its construction."
"As MLA for the Fort McMurray-Wood Buffalo region and a long-time
advocate for twinning Highway 63, I see today as an important step forward,"
said Minister Boutilier. "Today's announcement will build upon the work we
have already started as we continue making this highway safer for drivers. It
also allows us to invest more funding in an area of the province that
contributes so much to Alberta."
The federal and provincial governments are working together to develop a
contribution agreement that will detail the project elements and federal
funding parameters. Financial support is conditional on meeting applicable
federal and provincial requirements, including the successful completion of
environmental assessments required under the Canadian Environmental Assessment
Act.

The federal contribution comes from the Canada Strategic Infrastructure
Fund, which supports large-scale projects of major national and regional
significance. The goal of this fund is to strengthen areas that are vital to
sustaining economic growth and enhancing quality of life for Canadians.
Contributions from the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund have also been
dedicated to the construction of ring roads in the cities of Calgary and
Edmonton. Funding in the amount of $75 million per project was committed to
assist in the construction of these roadways.

The Government of Canada's 2006 Budget committed an unprecedented
$16.5 billion over the next four years for provincial, territorial and
municipal infrastructure, including an additional $2 billion for the Canada
Strategic Infrastructure Fund and $2.4 billion for the new Highways and Border
Infrastructure Fund. In addition, the Government of Canada is committing
$88 million to municipal infrastructure needs across Alberta, and is providing
$476.9 million in gas tax transfers to municipalities to use on
infrastructure. This is in addition to another $40 million for Alberta transit
needs through the Public Transit Fund. For more information on Infrastructure
Canada and its programs, please visit www.infrastructure.gc.ca/.

The Government of Alberta also announced record funding in this year's
three-year Capital Plan. The province is investing nearly $15 billion over
three years in Alberta's schools, healthcare facilities, post-secondary
projects, roads and municipal infrastructure. More information on the
Government of Alberta's infrastructure programs is available at
www.infratrans.gov.ab.ca.

<<
Backgrounder

Canada and Alberta Partner to Twin Highway 63
>>

Two additional lanes will be constructed along the existing two-lane
Highway 63 from the Highway 55 junction near Grassland, Alberta, to a point
north of Mariana Lake - a total length of 146 kilometres along the existing
highway corridor. The roadway will be upgraded to provincial expressway
standards with safer intersections, a wide median divider and paved shoulders
to help accommodate oversize loads.
The project is estimated to cost $320 million. The federal government
will fund up to a total of $150 million towards the eligible costs of the
project, with the funds being sourced from the Canada Strategic Infrastructure
Fund. The Province of Alberta will provide the remaining funding of
$170 million.
The Alberta government regards this project as a top transportation
priority. As part of a larger plan to twin the 240-kilometre stretch of
Highway 63 from Fort McMurray south to Highway 55, at a total cost of
$680 million, this project is expected to enhance safety and contribute to the
support of trade and economic development.
Planning work has already commenced on the northern segment from Fort
McMurray to north of Mariana Lake.

Contributions from the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund have also
been dedicated to the construction of ring roads in the cities of Calgary and
Edmonton. Funding in the amount of $75 million per project was committed to
assist in the construction of these roadways. In addition, $50 million was
provided to the Parks Canada Agency as part of the "national priorities"
envelope of funding towards the twinning of part of the Trans-Canada Highway
in Banff National Park.


For further information: Natalie Sarafian, Press Secretary, Office of
the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, (613) 991-0700;
Infrastructure Canada, Communications and Promotion, (613) 948-1148; Bart
Johnson, Director of Communications, Alberta Infrastructure and
Transportation, (780) 415-1841; Jay O'Neill, Director of Communications,
Alberta Municipal Affairs, (780) 427-8862
 
Twinning the entire Highway 63? Wow - I know Fort McMurray's a boom town and parts of 63 unsafe, but it does have rail access, and Fort McMurray isn't that big, with almost nothing in between.

The Ontario equivalent would be to twin Highway 144 between Sudbury and Timmins (though I concede, it is longer). Ontario isn't even done twinning Highway 69, and that gets a lot of traffic sometimes.

I could think of many twinnings in Ontario that would make more sense than a 63 expressway:
- Highway 6 401 to Hamilton, Guelph to Fergus
- Highway 7 Peterborough to Ottawa, Brampton to Kitchener
- Highway 8 New Hamburg to Stratford, Stratford to Mitchell
- Highway 10 410 in Brampton to Owen Sound.
- Highway 11 North Bay to New Liskeard
- Highway 17 Manitoba Border to Ottawa (or more realistically Sault Ste. Marie to North Bay, Arnprior to Petawawa)
- Highway 24 Cambridge to Brantford
- Highway 35 35/115 split to Lindsay

....and so on, and so on.

Not complaining about the lack of twinned highways in Ontario (though I could see the sense in some of the above), but twinning all of 63 seems a bit, well, overdone, especially for a oil boom of unknown length.
 
Those twinnings would all be nice, but the Fort McMurray highway definitely needs it. My cousin lives up there, and the traffic jams are brutal. Even worse, there are huge trucks carrying heavy equipment going up and down that road all the time, and it's impossible to pass them on the two-lane road.

The rail line stops short of Fort McMurray.
 
Maybe they should start thinking of using that rail line more for heavy equipment.

I was in Haliburton last weekend, and came back down on Highway 35. Highway 35 has seen an increase in traffic, and the solution serves the corridor well. Through Minden and south to Coboconk, there are stretches of 4-lane roads, along with frequent passing lanes. It is enough to efficiently separate fast and slow moving traffic without the expense and damage of twinning. I think because the road is rarely straight enough for conventional passing. I'd like to see this treatment on highways that are a bit busy, but don't warrant twinning.
 
That's the problem, though. The line doesn't serve the oil sands facilities. They could extend it, but Klein has shown no desire to do so.
 
- Highway 7 Peterborough to Ottawa, Brampton to Kitchener
Click to expand...

Given the nature of Brampton-to-Kitchener (which, with downloads and all, might as well be quasi-disconnected county roads at this point), I'd say that the existing 401 pinch-hits just fine...
 
From what I understand, many companies in Fort Mac are forbidding their employees from using Hwy 63, it has become so dangerous. Wikipedia states: "Due to the industrial demands of the oilsands, Highway 63 boasts some of the highest tonnage per kilometre in Canada, and the largest and heaviest loads that trucks have ever carried." It's basically Canada's Silk Road these days (Oil Slick Road?). It's apparently also "the deadliest highway in Alberta".

Perhaps a full-fledged twinning isn't needed, but something major obviously needs to be done. It would be nice to see the railway upgraded, but sadly that doesn't seem to be the way things are done these days.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top