News   May 03, 2024
 619     0 
News   May 03, 2024
 405     0 
News   May 03, 2024
 215     0 

Cities to Ottawa: Let's get building now

borgo100

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
195
Reaction score
8
From Pickering airport to sewers, local politicians have wish lists in hand, ready to kick-start economy

Jan 13, 2009 04:30 AM

As the federal finance department continues pre-budget consultations across the country, GTA municipal leaders are taking the opportunity to offer up infrastructure wish lists – projects that hold the potential to cure long-standing ills while stimulating the local economy.

They have a lot of ground to make up. Underfunding infrastructure has left the GTA with a patchwork transit system and cities with road and water budgets that cannot even cover regular maintenance.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said the Jan. 27 budget will result in a deficit of up to $30 billion, much of that the result of spending on infrastructure as a way to kick-start the economy. Local politicians are eager for their piece of the pie.

But there's skepticism as to when, or even whether, the cash will flow.


"The problem with federal funding is that they make announcements but you never see the money," said Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion.



TRANSPORTATION

Who wants it? Everyone. And Toronto is making it a top priority.

Price tag? Billions.

To implement the Metrolinx 25-year regional plan will alone cost $50 billion.

"The number one priority for any federal investment in Toronto is transit," said TTC chair Adam Giambrone. Transportation projects give bang for the buck. First, jobs are created. Then there is the long-term payoff when people can move about more easily. (Estimates put the cost of GTA congestion at more than $2 billion a year.) That leads to more jobs.

More transit also cuts greenhouse gases and air pollution.

Finally, the studies have all been done, thanks to Metrolinx, the provincial agency in charge of the region's transportation, which has pulled together a prioritized plan.

The one thing missing? How to pay for it. The province has committed more than $11 billion, but much more is needed.

Toronto is seeking $6 billion in capital funding to move quickly on the first phases of its Transit City light-rail network. Mississauga's McCallion hopes Ottawa comes to the rescue to address a $52 million overrun on a bus rapid-transit project, caused by the rising costs of steel and asphalt.



PICKERING AIRPORT


Who wants it? East Toronto, Durham.

Price tag? At least $2 billion.

Plans were developed during the 1970s and never entirely dropped, even though lands expropriated decades ago remain farm fields. A final decision on its development is expected this year. Ottawa's money would ensure a federal commitment and possible fast-tracking.

With a catchment area from central Toronto to Belleville, it could replace Pearson for many residents and businesses. Durham officials see it as a key employment centre as businesses set up to take advantage of a new air link.



SEWERS, ROADS, WATER


Who wants them? Everyone.

Price tag? Billions.

Consider this, Toronto's road repair backlog sits at $320 million and Mississauga is, for the first time, considering taking on debt to pay for replacements and upgrades.

They may not be glamorous, but concrete and metal conduits form the backbone of any city, and there isn't one in the GTA that could not use help replacing and rebuilding these things.

"All you need to do is knock on doors to find out that traffic and gridlock are huge issues here," said Halton Region chair Gary Carr, who would fast track plans to expand and repair regional roads and bridges and modernize water and waste-water treatment.

Lloyd Russell, commissioner of finance for York Region, said the municipality would fast-track a sewer project running southeast through Richmond Hill and Markham.

It also hopes to develop a facility to process green bin organic waste.

The fight over just who will pay for all this is heating up. In Halton, politicians are threatening to freeze development until they receive more funding, saying the fees paid by new developments no longer cover the costs of growth.

Other local governments are watching the Halton battle closely.



SUBURBAN REDEVELOPMENT


Who wants it? The regions.

Price tag? Billions of dollars.

With 100,000 people a year settling in the GTA, the province is seeking to curb urban sprawl and demanding higher urban densities. The municipalities that ring Toronto are laying the groundwork for this shift from suburban to urban, focusing on environmentally sound, compactly built, transit- and pedestrian-friendly downtowns with bike paths and jobs close to homes, clustered around downtown regions.




EDUCATION/PRIVATE SECTOR HUBS


Who wants them? Durham.

Price tag? Unknown, but likely in the tens of millions.

Toronto has MaRS, Waterloo has the Perimeter Institute, and now Oshawa wants to develop, around its own University of Ontario Institute of Technology, a business park that links public researchers with private-sector funding and business acumen. "When you think of Waterloo, you think of RIM. We want to create that same atmosphere right here in Oshawa," said Mayor John Gray.

http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/569863
 
Good article.

Why is Durham pushing for Pickering airport? I think that is a colossal waste of money. Pearson is nowhere near capacity and there is no need for another international airport in Toronto. Montreal recently closed theirs because it was a huge white elephant. Leave the Pickering lands as farmer's fields. Farmers grow food that feeds a booming GTA population. Plus, lets keep some rural open space in the GTA. Not all parts can be super-developed.
 
Mirabel isn't closed. It's only passenger traffic that has stopped.

I thought the first stage of Pickering didn't have any passenger traffic.
 
Well, my point was that Mirabel was overbuilt and is now underused and will continue to be for decades to come.

What would be the first phase of Pickering?
 
322835640_2138b7173c.jpg
 
Mirabel was a white elephant for a number of reasons. Chief among them was that demand for Montreal's airports were artificially created by insisting that trans-atlantic flights use Montreal as an airport of entry. Once that requirement was removed, traffic moved to Pearson. The other major reason was distance and access. Mirabel was supposed to absord travellers from Ottawa and Montreal. It sucked at doing both. Given the travel time to Pearson for travellers from eastern GTA, a Pickering airport would not have this problem.

The Pickering airport is needed. It will result in the consolidation of general aviation traffic from Buttonville, Oshawa and Markham airports. Those three airports cannot grow any more and are severely restricted in operations. A quick glance at a VTA chart will show you the benefit of consolidating all that traffic at Pickering. It clears up airspace and will free up some valuable land for development.

As for commercial traffic. Pickering is not scheduled to take on commercial traffic for a decade or two. But it should be noted that the GTA will need another commercial airport in a decade. The GTAA estimates that Pearson will run out of airside capacity in 2021 with six runways. And even if high-speed rail materializes, that will only delay the date by which Pearson will run out of capacity.
 
An irrepressible part of my heart wants the Pickering airport concept scrapped and relocated to City Center airport. Why? Basically, I have one reason and one reason only, so don't bother bringing up actual arguments. To stick it to those free loading island people. It would be great, with their little squatter camps shaking under the roar of an inbound A380. Pure catharsis against the forces of NIMBY.

Less vengefully, the Pickering airport could be a good idea that will be so heavily screwed up by the time it gets anywhere I tremble to see what awaits. Realistically, the only way it will ever see the light of day is if a local politician champions it through a tumultuous zoning battle. Not being content to merely build a humble airport, the champion politician will surely want to rival whatever Dubai or Shanghai's new airport is in 2020. We will have our own Mirabel.

Best case scenario though, it could be a good idea. It would be great to stir up some competition with Pearson, though I guess if it is developed by the GTAA that will never happen.
 
Last edited:
does the airport need zoning approval since it's federally regulated?

No. And the federal government does own the land and Transport Canada has already conducted its required assessments and keeps them up to date. Realistically, this airport is not going to landing anything bigger than a few business jets a day for a decade or more. There's no chance of it being overbuilt a la Mirabel. The GTAA has already laid out its plans for Pickering. Forget Mirabel, it won't even be bigger than Hamilton for a decade at least. From that point, the GTAA has laid out its growth plans which will be in tandem with traffic growth.

In my view, both as a general aviation pilot and a citizen interested in urban development, the Pickering airport will be good for the GTA. It will consolidate traffic from airports that are being encroached on by urban development. It will move traffic away the Pearson approach paths. And it will free up a massive amount of land for dense development in areas that can be easily served by municipal services and transit.
 
As for this stimulus dream list, I sincerely hope the federal government shows some caution in what it funds. If the purpose of the economic stimulus is to get people working than it's not going to be the type of sexy green projects favoured by The Star. The quickest projects that can be initiated: defence construction (our military bases are falling apart), fixing up aboriginal reserves (particularly housing), fixing up low income housing, school and university construction, road/rail/water infrastructure repairs and retrofit, and energy efficiency retrofits for government buildings. Transit projects, new highways, high speed rail, etc. will only create few jobs while they are in their design phase. The bulk of jobs for any project come in the build phase. If the feds hope to create employment, they should resist the urge to fund the wishlist of mayors throughout the land
 
On the general theme of stimulus.
By SAMUEL J. PALMISANO

As a new American administration takes office during the most severe economic crisis since the Great Depression, everyone is understandably fixated on the present emergency -- on what went wrong and how to fix it. There is a growing feeling of desperation, the idea that we must do something -- anything -- to get the world's economic juices flowing again.

Let me offer a different point of view: We shouldn't undertake projects simply for the sake of creating economic activity. Rather than just stimulate, we should transform.

Let's seize this opportunity to create more and better jobs, cultivate valuable skills, and not simply repair but prepare our economy for the 21st century. The best news of all is that investing in innovation will cost less and yield faster results than investing in renovation

This view is grounded not in the headlines of the moment, but in the facts of what is now possible technologically for businesses of all sizes. American businesses have the capacity to transform the systems through which the world literally works. The planet isn't just getting smaller and "flatter," it's also becoming smarter. Intelligence now undergirds the way everything operates.

Smarter infrastructure is by far our best path to creating new jobs and stimulating growth. We at IBM were asked to map this out by President-elect Barack Obama's transition team, and our research shows that a $30 billion stimulus investment in just three areas -- smart grids, health-care IT and broadband -- could yield almost one million new jobs within one year. That's possible because these kinds of infrastructure have significantly greater economic and societal multiplier effects than traditional infrastructure like bridges and highways.

Our power grids are the largest remaining artifact of the Industrial Age, and they're due for a smart upgrade. Using broadband data streams, digital sensors and advanced analytics, demand can be understood in real time. Utilities can source and manage power more intelligently, helping to bring renewable sources onto the grid. And consumers could understand the variable cost of power and alter their behavior accordingly. A smarter utility network could also handle the growing demand for hybrid and electric cars. Today's utility grid would struggle to manage this burden.

A $10 billion per year smart grid stimulus investment could yield almost a quarter of a million jobs digitizing the grid and in related industries, such as alternative energy and automotive. This investment will enable new forms of industrial innovation by creating exportable skills, resources and technology.

Similarly, investing in electronic health records will stimulate integration and efficiency across the entire health-care system. Indeed, it could actually become a true system -- able to link diagnosis, drug discovery and health-care providers to insurers, employers, patients and communities.

Health-care research would become more informed and intelligent, and health-care providers could develop more advanced, individualized treatments with targeted pharmaceutical drug therapies. A $10 billion stimulus investment could generate more than 200,000 direct and indirect jobs. In addition, it could prove a major impetus for streamlining health-care costs

We can learn a lot from the network effect of the stimulus investments in the Interstate highway system of the 1950s. Back then, our economic system was analog. Building a new highway system sped the movement of physical assets, creating a new high-speed transportation system that enabled businesses to expand much more quickly, helping drive economic growth for decades.

Today, we live in a digital world. Many of our most valuable assets are online, traded virtually. As a result, communities with broadband access grow employment at a significantly higher rate. And yet today, the United States, the country that developed the Internet, ranks 12th in broadband penetration and 15th in average broadband speed. This is unacceptable if we want our nation to compete in the 21st century.

I meet frequently with government leaders around the world, and they are considering exactly these kinds of smart investments. Forward-thinking nations, companies and communities will leverage this opportunity to completely rethink key infrastructure services. Will we? Will the U.S. make investments in our future whose impact is not just additive, but exponential?

Let's not fix a flawed past. Let's build a smarter future for our country.

Mr. Palmisano is the chairman and CEO of IBM.
Seems to make sense. I am always puzzled that when politicians talk about stimulating the economy, it inevitably means stimulate the economy of the 1950s. While that is great if you are a steelworker or road builder, I am at a loss to explain how it benefits the rest of the economy and society at large. I don't know how well these policies could be transfered to Canada, but given their proportionately low cost they seem like a bargain.
 
An irrepressible part of my heart wants the Pickering airport concept scrapped and relocated to City Center airport. Why? Basically, I have one reason and one reason only, so don't bother bringing up actual arguments. To stick it to those free loading island people. It would be great, with their little squatter camps shaking under the roar of an inbound A380. Pure catharsis against the forces of NIMBY.

Somehow, the bile in that statement makes your position on the Union Station Bush sheds all the more comprehensible. Like you belong to the Calvin Henry-Cotnam school of transit geekery (i.e. Reform candidate in Scarborough East, 1997)
 
Pickering is a white elephant, not needed, and a waste of time. Period. Please let it die.

How so? It is meant to consolidate existing traffic in the eastern GTA at one location allowing the other locations to close down. So obviously there is a demand for at least some general aviation traffic.

Next, the GTAA's calculations clearly show that a new airport will be needed as Pearson's runs out of capacity. If you know something different, please let us know.

http://gtaa.com/local/files/en/Corp...apter 3 - Aviation Activity and Forecasts.pdf

http://gtaa.com/local/files/en/Corp...-2008/MP - Chapter 5 - The Airside System.pdf

Again, the airport is not scheduled to take on commercial traffic for a decade. For the most part it's going to be a small community airport and down the road is probably going to end up a mixed use airport like Hamilton or the Island. So the Mirabel white elephant comparisons are not apt here. It might even allow the island to close down!
 
Last edited:

Back
Top