Frank_Lee
Active Member
It could also buy more rolling stock if the JPO found they would need to run a lot of trains for the business case to work.
|
|
|
VIA Rail
- Thread starter ehlow
- Start date
Darwinkgo
Active Member
Gotta read between the lines. And not even very finely.
It is $4.4 million to get it to cabinet decision day. And $491.2 million for the subsidy.
"for infrastructure investments that would support the overall success of the high frequency rail project"
That is the subsidy. Without the subsidy the project wouldn't be successful.
Sounds like Finance most certainly had a budget letter with the exact subsidy need in their hands.
kEiThZ
Superstar
That's the optimistic interpretation. And I sincerely hope you're right and I'm wrong.
But I'm really, really, really disappointed right now. Because we're here trying to find optimism in reading between the lines in a budget document instead of discussing a commitment to launch this.
This government will have doubled the national debt in a decade in power and couldn't find $4B to get HFR built? For all that talk about concern about climate change, they have consistently put social spending ahead of infrastructure and it's now getting ridiculous that they will happily announce $30B in deficit financed child care, but can't commit to a rail line in the busiest intercity corridor in the country?
If they don't have a launch before the election, I'm staying home. There's no point.
SaugeenJunction
Senior Member
Let’s not lose track of the fact that the budget includes half a billion for HFR infrastructure. It’s not the announcement we wanted, but it’s a chunk of change. On the $491 million, here are some ideas for infrastructure it could fund.
1) If the line uses the Stouffville line, VIA might be funding the Scarborough Jct fly under, which Metrolinx/Verster mysteriously now says it doesn’t need. My thought is that Metrolinx wants VIA to pay the $140 million for it.
2) VIA might go ahead and buy the Havelock Sub from CP. I can’t imagine it would be that expensive though, and if CP’s odd freight train can still run, they’d sell it. Would let VIA be able to start some upgrades.
3) I have a running theory that VIA will move its Toronto Union platforms to the new ones south of the station so GO can use the current VIA ones. Metrolinx had a strange high floor stub track rendering in their Union Station Enhancement Project public consultation with a high floor platform on the east of the station. Maybe VIA is pitching into this project too? Image below. Just some theories, I’d love to hear people’s takes.
Allandale25
Senior Member
^ 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"
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"
Last edited:
crs1026
Superstar
You have to admit, though, that for those of us who don't know the secret signs and black-art rituals of how Ottawa transacts decisions, this process sure looks like the approval process is standing on its head.
If, as you suggest, the line item in today's budget is nothing more than a top-up aka capital subsidy in advance of approving HFR (because the CIB/JPO report found that the project can't service the full investment that the project requires), then Ottawa is booking a subsidy for a program that hasn't been approved at Cabinet yet, and/or that it doesn't see fit to voice support for.
And, if in fact that top-up is needed, it's a rebuttal of the whole business case, which was said to have legs as a subsidy free program.
Like @kEiThZ I hope I'm wrong, but in an environment where a similar priced COVID buyout for Air Canada was conceived and approved in under a year (and, in so doing, raised harsh criticism for taking too long) it's hard to imagine what additional twists and turns ought to be needed to vet HFR.... and it's hard to believe that everything that is being "studied" and "explored" along the way doesn't have a few self evident truths that don't need validation. Only VIA seems to have to count angels on the head of a pin, and then list all their names, and then provide their CV's, and then ask the RCMP to give each angel a security clearance....and only VIA has to whisper their names and pretend there aren't any angels, or even a pin, in the name of remaining '"coy".
The six-year phasing of this expense is curious, too. Will the project take that long to build? That's a change to the story.
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". The money to be spent might well just be some slim pickings from VIA FAST, with the objective of pacifying CN, easing the conflict on the Lakeshore line for a few years, and maybe roughing in a few obvious improvements that will bridge to HSR.
Hopefully VIA will make some statement about how it intends to apply the funds, and again, I hope I'm wrong....but few government programs roll out in this strange way.
- Paul
kEiThZ
Superstar
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
Superstar
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
Superstar
"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.
Last edited:
lenaitch
Senior Member
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
Superstar
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
Superstar
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
Senior Member
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
Senior Member
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
Senior Member
^ 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?
What types of projects between Ottawa-Montreal could the $491 million be spent on?