|
|
|
So that means paying an extra 2.3 billion or so for double tracking eh? Man this thing keeps going in circles.
I don't think it was vague at all....the federal gov't announced that they are contributing $1.9B to GO Transit's ReR plan.....GO / Metrolinx/Ontario did not announce any change to that ReR plan.....so if you dig out the GO ReR plan, that is what is being built.....no?
Yes, something that they had, to some extent, already designed/planned before any notion of a bypass came along.
And that in itself might just be a cover story for actual discussions going on behind closed doors. The Link has so many ramifications and possible trade-offs, each one to be valuated and risk assessed, let alone nominal book value, that the discussions will be very complex. The most likely outcome I see is a stand-alone entity, with or without various government and/or rail company share, but charted to have Federal Powers under the various pertaining regulating acts, or created as an Act of its own to relegate a lot of the disputes. One of the models for this would be Union Station, which was established under a Federal Act, but there are many other examples. Needless to say, TTR still exists to this day, long after the railways divested direct ownership of Union Station. I'd call that a success.
I'm also impatient, but don't panic now, I see greater opportunity to get the *best* resolution of this mess than at any other time previously in recent memory.l
Agreed, that's the inverse logic of seeing construction to avoid freight on the lines affected, rather than re-routing freight to begin with. Every dollar invested to do that is money in the railway companies' pockets, as (in this case Metrolinx) the RoW isn't owned by the passenger carrier. It's a the worst of options.
Agreed again, and even if The Link is built, that investment is still realized, and ostensibly, since most of that stretch is already roughed-in or more, it can/will happen within two years. Even if started today, The Link will take probably four.
The *departmental structure* was set up in 2014, the *funding* was appropriated in the Budget last year. It hasn't even been fully itemized, aimed and disbursed yet. The reason we're getting this string of announcements is because the Cabinet is on the road announcing who gets 'prizes'. The book value of the program was touted (IIRC) to extend over eleven years. That can, of course, be cancelled by a later regime, but unlikely to be so.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...in-infrastructure-spendinggo/article28228477/
Fair enough, I just wish these guys would be clear on what is happening. I would like to see all the tracks upgraded including Richmond Hill as well.
It's far from a satisfying answer, but consider this: If this is to be done properly, and a huge chunk of taxpayer money is going to go into this, far better that they "measure twice, and cut once". That can be an excuse, a very convenient one, but there are tangible signs of very real progress.
This is good, but GO expansion has been in the works since the early 2000's, right? We should see results soon.
if soon is a past tense word....I would agree.
Obviously I can't give a definitive answer to an open question, but my feeling is that McCuaig, and I've been a critic of the man on a number of issues, felt it was "time to move on" quite probably due to being frustrated on points exactly as you describe. To realize the vision Queen's Park has been expounding for decades, other than in increments, McCuaig was stymied. He now has a chance to be part of something that really does affect change.
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...f-he-pushed-for-go-station-in-his-riding.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-02/$5b-plan-in-budget-to-fund-public-transport-projects/7374772Budget 2016: $5b infrastructure fund to be used to fund public transport projects
By Stephen Dziedzic and Francis Keany
Updated 1 May 2016, 7:56pm
Photo: The Melbourne Metro and Sydney Metro rail projects will share in half the funding. (ABC News: Margaret Burin)
Map: Australia
The Federal Government will use a $5 billion fund to pay for major public transport projects in tomorrow's federal budget.
The Melbourne Metro and Sydney Metro rail projects will share in half the funding, which will be made available through the Federal Government's Asset Recycling Initiative.
The fund was first established under the Abbott Government, but initially excluded public transport schemes.
New South Wales will receive $2.19 billion, while Victoria will get $2.4 billion.
The Asset Recycling Initiative provides funding for transport proposals, but only if the state and territory governments privatise assets to fund a share of the proposal.
State-federal funding is likely to come from the privatisation of the NSW electricity network and the Port of Melbourne. [...]
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-...lease-sale-to-fund-transport-projects/5299290
http://www.benefitscanada.com/news/why-big-pension-funds-love-australian-ports-95151
I have actually, although I don't read the Ozzie Press as much as I used to. (The Review, SMH, Melbourne Age, etc) The Financial Times has had good coverage of your situation, but it doesn't change my points as posted one iota. That situation is more a state one, as it is provincial here. The lack of a national electrical grid policy is as much a fault here as there. But that's a whole other subject apart from what is being discussed. The UK is having similar electrical system shortcomings, and Crossrail stands as much as ever as an excellent model, both in engineering and in oversight governance in spite of electrical delivery and pricing problems.
No, and there doesn't need to be. Delivery capacity from distribution feeders is projected to be more than adequate. Power shortage per-se is not a present problem, pricing is, but that's a whole other subject.
