- Where are the plans for this project and how was a cost estimated without detailed drawings?
From my understanding, the TPA has issued an RFP regarding the tunnel to be received within three weeks. I don't know why this is really question worthy, every project starts with preliminary estimates and requirements before further clarifying goals and costs.
Where is the business case for this $38m project? The TPA board has not seen one and neither have the governments or taxpayers
Once again, no such official documentation exists. Comments by McGuinty and the Federal government indicating support of the project are merely token statements, not government policy. That Porter or the TPA has not produced a formal BCA or EA within days of officially proposing such a project is hardly newsworthy or remarkable.
Why shouldn't the Island Airport or the airlines self-finance this project as Pearson must do when it contemplates improvements?
Because we have a stimulus package designed to stimulate the economy, a goal which the involved parties will most likely argue the tunnel proposal advances. Not to mention minor tidbits like 600m+ of public financing for the UPRL to the benefit of Pearson, as well as the (totally) subsidized construction of transit like the Eglinton LRT to the benefit of Pearson.
How can the premier and the federal government give a favourable review to this vague project when an actual application for infrastructure funding has not been approved by the TPA Board?
Umm... easy? For instance, the Premier is asked if he supports the conceptual idea of a tunnel, he says "maybe." See, easy! There is no law anywhere that politicians are required to withhold initial judgment until after a formal EA. I don't even get why he bothers bringing this up considering he and his ilk showed no reservations in supporting projects like Transit City prior to formal EAs and endorsed it even when it was a "vague project." That is what politicians are supposed to do.
Why has this particular proposal jumped the queue? Why when the city wants to build a subway to York University and serve millions of people with better transit, do the Federal Tories insist that the city form a public-private partnership to qualify for funding, yet on this project they propose a 100% public subsidy all to the advantage of a single airline?
That is very factually incorrect. Given the whole preliminary status of things, I won't speak categorically, but the TPA has already pledged to cover 20% of the costs, and federal stimulus rules limit federal contributions to a maximum of 50% of project costs. Conceivably more money could, maybe should, be raised from user fees but talk of a "100% public subsidy" is totally without basis.
When $38m dollars is given over to one company with no public process and it is used to subsidize the movement of a small group of travellers, something is seriously wrong. This is the privilege that I question.
First, see above about funding. Second, the proposal will be submitted to bi-partisan pannels to determine its' eligibility for stimulus funds within the context of the Tripartite Agreement. Third, the formal EA proccess will include a community consultation component, why Vaughan keeps ignoring the
preliminary nature of everything I have no idea. Fourth, what bloody privilege? Porter is a publicly accessible low cost carrier in full compliance with all pertinent accessibility regulations. "Privilege" implies a kind of "special advantage", and no given social group has any particular preferential access to Porter or the YTZ.
It has nothing to do with class, unless you are talking about a particular class of politician who circumvents public process to hand out public tax dollars to private interests.
Keeping in mind the
preliminary nature of all this, why does Vaughan imply that only he, with a mighty electorate of seven thousand, is more representative of "the public" than either Dalton McGuinty or the the consensus between Ignatieff and Harper, who together represent millions of Canadians, on the subject of stimulus eligibility? Legally, the TPA is not even subject to Vaughan's authority in this matter. Clearly his grasp of civics and the rule of law is lacking.
Something is wrong at the TPA, and before the Conservatives, with help from Queen's Park, shovel more taxpayers’ dollars towards this tunnel project of questionable value Torontonians, taxpayers – in fact Canadians – deserve answers. Instead we get a silly debate about class war.
Then it would be wise not to base your entire argument around disqualifying the many Torontonians who enjoy Porter's services as being a "privileged elite" and unworthy of recognition. Vaughan et al have been flogging class warfare like pirated DVDs at a Chinese flea market and he has the gall to write that criticism of his lies and, to some extent, libel of hundreds of thousands is a "silly debate"?
To be clear: I don't think the island airport is needed; it's not a boon to the waterfront or a transportation priority for Toronto. But if it is there and people use it, so be it. My quarrel is not with the choices people make to get to Ottawa. My concern is with a federal government in Ottawa that makes up the rules as it goes along and in doing so provides substantial public subsidies through its agencies to private interests. It is this set of privileges I attack and seek to end.
Perhaps if Vaughan could list some of these alleged instinces of males fides he would give a more credible argument. As it is, he himself as a representative of
City Council has been found to have spuriously modified rules for the purpose of circumventing contractual obligations and contravening relevant contracts related to the operation of TCCA. (see my earlier post for a summary of relevant court documents) Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
