How many Ottawa Projects will be included in federal infrastructure program?

[lrt's friend]

Here is an interesting article from Edmonton. 3 Ottawa projects are listed, the Montfort Hospital expansion, the Museum of Nature reconstruction and Highway 7 expansion.

Alberta boasts more projects atop infrastructure list than other provinces

By Mike De Souza, Canwest News ServiceJanuary 13, 2009



Anthony Henday Drive construction, at a cost $1.42 billion this year, rounds out the top 10 on a list of Canada's biggest infrastructure projects for 2009.
Photograph by: Ed Kaiser, The Journal, file, Canwest News ServiceThe energy and transportation sectors are on top of a new ranking of Canada's biggest infrastructure projects for 2009 that estimates $61 billion in public and private capital investments will soon be pumped into the country's economy for construction.

The ranking of the top 100 infrastructure projects, obtained by Canwest News Service, shows a wide range of multimillion- and multibillion-dollar projects, with more than a third scheduled to be completed in 2009. Overall, Alberta had the most projects in the top 25, followed by British Columbia. Ontario also had the most projects overall, with 41, including 15 hospital or health-care facility expansions.

A proposed $6.5-billion Hydro-Quebec power-generating complex on the Romaine River north of the Gulf of St. Lawrence is the biggest project in the list. The ranking will be published Wednesday by ReNew Canada, an infrastructure magazine.

The maintenance and refurbishing of the Bruce Power nuclear complexes in Kincardine, Ont., on Lake Huron, are next on the list with an estimated $5.25 billion in capital spending, followed by another Hydro-Quebec project, estimated at $5 billion, on the Rupert River near James Bay.

Mira Shenker, editor of ReNew Canada, said the list provides a glimpse of Canada's massive infrastructure gap. Shenker said there are many projects that won't make it onto a list that already includes $61 billion in estimated spending.

"There's so much more that either is going on or needs to be going on, and so much more capital that needs to be poured into infrastructure renewal," she said in an interview Monday.

The $2.63-billion expansion of the Toronto subway system stands at No. 4 on the list, followed by construction of a new $2-billion Enbridge Inc. pipeline from Alberta to Wisconsin.

A $2-billion rapid transit line in Vancouver stands at No. 6.

Shenker said that B.C. probably appears to be getting more large projects compared to its ranking in previous years because of the upcoming Winter Olympic Games in 2010. She added that some other provinces in the eastern part of the country are also spending massive amounts on individual projects to fix crumbling roads and bridges.

"They're not flashy, and they wouldn't make a list like this, but they're certainly important, (and) maybe more important in some ways," she said.

Canadian municipalities have estimated they need at least $123 billion to bring their existing infrastructure, including roads, sewers and public transit, up to acceptable levels.

The list was the fourth edition of the top 100 ranking produced by ReNew Canada and Colbourne Communications following consultations with industry stakeholders.

INFRASTRUCTURE TOP 100

1 Romaine

Hydroelectric Complex Project: A construction project to build four new Hydro Quebec generating stations with a total capacity of about 1,500 megawatts in a region north of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The environmental assessment was referred to a panel, but construction was slated to begin in mid-2009, lasting about 10 years. Capital cost: $6.5 billion.

2 Bruce A Nuclear Generating Station Restart: Major main-tenance and refurbishing to restart units at nuclear power station on the shores of Lake Huron in Ontario. Capital cost: $5.25 billion.

3 Eastmain-1-A/ Sarcelle/Rupert Project: New Hydro Quebec project expected to generate 893 megawatts of power, enough electricity for half a million homes. Construction is scheduled to finish by 2012. Capital cost: $5 billion

4 Spadina Subway Extension: An expansion of the Toronto subway system, adding six new stations over a 8.6-kilometre span under-ground. Construction is slated to begin in April 2009, and slated for completion in 2015. Capital cost: $2.63 billion

5 Alberta Clipper Project: New 1,600-kilometre pipeline owned by Enbridge that would run from Alberta to Wisconsin. The project is expected to be completed in 2009. Capital cost: $2 billion

6Canada Line: A 20-kilometre North-South rapid transit line in Vancouver, scheduled for completion in 2009. Capital cost: $2 billion

7 Port Mann/Highway 1 Project: Construction to widen a 37-kilometre stretch of the Trans-Canada Highway linking Vancouver with the rest of British Columbia, including the replacement of a major bridge crossing over the Fraser River. Capital cost: $1.6 billion

8 Keephills 3 Generating Plant: Epcor and TransAlta will build and operate this coal-fired power plant in Alberta that is expected to be more efficient and produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions than existing plants, which are expected to close in 2010. Capital cost: $1.6 billion

9 Autoroute 30: A long-awaited beltway around Montreal. Two sections of the highway remain to be completed, including one section that will be operated as a public-private partnership. Capital cost: $1.5 billion.

10 Edmonton Ring Road, Anthony Henday Drive NW: Construction of this route is expected to be completed in the fall of 2011. It includes a 21-kilometre stretch of road with four to six lanes and 29 bridge structures. Capital cost: $1.42 billion

11. International Facilities Project. Capital cost: $1.3 billion. Calgary.

12. Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station Refurbishment. Estimated project spending: $1.4 billion. Point Lepreau, N.B.

13. Edmonton International Airport Expansion. Capital cost: $1.1 billion.

14. Niagara Tunnel Project. Capital cost $985 million. Niagara Falls, Ont.

15. Edmonton Clinic North at University of Alberta. Capital cost: $909 million. Edmonton.

16. Golden Ears Bridge. Capital cost: $808 million. Maple Ridge, Pitt Meadows, Surrey and Langley, B.C.

17. Prince Rupert Port Expansion (Phase 2). Capital cost: $770 million. Prince Rupert, B.C.

18. Canaport LNG Terminal. Capital cost: $750 million. Saint John, N.B.

19. Portlands Energy Centre (PEC). Capital cost: $730 million. Toronto.

20. West LRT Line. Capital cost: $700 million. Calgary.

21. Alberta Schools Alternative Procurement (ASAP). Capital cost: $643 million. Calgary and Edmonton.

22. Woodstock General Hospital. Capital cost: $685 million. Woodstock, Ont.

23. Chute-Allard et des Rapides-des-coeurs. Capital cost: $680 million. Saint-Maurice River, Que.

24. Red River Floodway Expansion. Capital cost: $665 million. Winnipeg.

25. East Toba and Montrose Run of River Project. Capital cost: $660 million ($500 million in construction costs). Powell River, B.C.

26. Calgary Ring Road, Stoney Trail NE. Capital Cost: $650 million. Calgary.

27. New Data Centre Project. Capital cost: $650 million. Toronto region.

28. Edmonton Remand Centre. Capital cost: $620 million. Edmonton.

29. Interior to Lower Mainland Transmission Project. Capital cost: $602 million. British Columbia.

30. Bruce to Milton Power Line. Capital cost: $600 million. Toronto.

31. Seymour-Capilano Water Utility Projects. Capital cost: $600 million. Vancouver.

32. Sea-to-Sky Highway Improvement Project. Capital cost: $600 million. Vancouver.

33. Winnipeg James Armstrong Richardson International Airport Redevelopment. Project cost: $585 million. Winnipeg.

34. 2010 Winter Olympics (Southeast False Creek/Vancouver's Olympic Village, and Whistler's Olympic Village.) Project cost: $580 million. Vancouver and Whistler, B.C.

35. North Bay Regional Health Centre. Capital cost: $551 million. North Bay, Ont.

36. Harrison Hydro Project. Capital cost: $500 million. British Columbia.

37. Wolfe Island Wind Project. Capital cost: $450 million. Wolfe Island, Ont.

38. William Osler Health Centre. Capital cost: $450 million. Brampton, Etobicoke and Georgetown, Ont.

39. Kelowna and Vernon Hospitals Project. Capital cost: $432.9 million. Kelowna and Vernon, B.C.

40. Calgary Ring Road, Stoney Trail NW. Capital cost: $430 million. Calgary.

41. Sault Area Hospital. Capital cost: $408 million. Sault Ste. Marie, Ont.

42. Sydney Tar Ponds Cleanup. Capital cost: $400 million. Sydney, N.S.

43. Durham Consolidated Courthouse. Capital cost: $334 million. Oshawa, Ont.

44. Halifax Harbour Cleanup. Capital cost: $330 million. Halifax.

45. Centennial Centre for Interdisciplinary Science, University of Alberta (PHASE 2). Capital cost: $312 million. Edmonton.

46. Deltaport Third Berth Project. Capital cost: $300 million. Vancouver.

47. Foothills Medical Centre McCaig Tower. Capital cost: $300 million. Calgary.

48. Union Station Signalling Contract. Capital Cost: $280 million. Toronto, Ont.

49. Peter Lougheed Centre. Capital cost: $260 million. Calgary.

50. Glenmore and Bearspaw Water Treatment Plants Upgrade. Capital cost: $235 million. Calgary.

51. South LRT Extensions. Capital cost: $228 million. Edmonton.

52. Nanaimo Centre Project/Vancouver Island Conference Centre. Capital cost: $220 million. Nanaimo, B.C.

53. Bluewater Health. Capital cost: $214 million. Sarnia, Ont.

54. London Health Sciences Centre North Toronto. Capital cost: $212 million. London, Ont.

55. Autoroute 25 Expansion. Capital cost: $210 million. Montreal.

56. Residential Care and Assisted Capacity Initiative. Capital cost: $210 million. Vancouver Island, B.C.

57. Montreal Port Expansion Phase 1. Capital cost: $200 million. Montreal.

58. Cariboo Connector. Capital cost: $200 million. Prince George, B.C.

59. Pitt River Bridge and Mary Hill Exchange. Capital cost: $198 million. Port Coquitlam, B.C.

60. Henderson General Hospital Redevelopment. Capital cost: $198 million. Hamilton.

61. The Rivers District Community Revitalization Project. Capital cost: $192.5 million. Calgary.

62. Edmonton Clinic South at University of Alberta. Capital cost: $185 million. Edmonton.

63. Royal Alberta Museum. Capital cost: $180 million. Edmonton.

64. Hospital Montfort. Capital cost: $173 million. Ottawa.

65. East Windsor Cogeneration Centre (EWCC). Capital cost: $170 million. Windsor, Ont.

66. Queen Elizabeth Way Widening. Capital cost: $167 million. St. Catharines, Ont.

67. The Credit Valley Hospital Phase 2. Capital cost: $162.8 million. Mississauga, Ont.

68. Filmport. Capital cost: $160 million. Toronto.

69. Corus Building. Capital cost: $160 million. Toronto.

70. Ashbridges Bay Treatment Plant Odour Control. Capital cost: $160 million. Toronto.

71. Colchester Regional Hospital. Capital cost: $155 million. Truro, N.S.

72. Canadian Museum of Nature. Capital cost: $152 million. Ottawa.

73. St. John's Harbour Cleanup. Capital cost: $144 million. St. John's, N.L.

74. Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre. Capital cost: $142 million. Toronto.

75. Kingston General Hospital. Capital cost: $142 million. Kingston.

76. Algoma Steel Cogeneration Facility. Capital cost: $135 million. Sault Ste. Marie, Ont.

77. Kicking Horse Canyon Phase 3. Capital cost: $135 million. Golden, B.C.

78. Deh Cho Bridge. Capital cost: $132 million. Fort Providence, N.W.T.

79. Sudbury Regional Hospital. Capital cost: $131.9 million. Sudbury, Ont.

80. Queenston-Lewiston Bridge Crossing. Capital cost: $130 million. Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ont.

81. Windsor Gateway Project. Capital cost: $128 million. Windsor, Ont.

82. Nova Scotia Community College. Capital cost: $123 million. Halifax.

83. Marriott Hotel -- Pierre Elliot Trudeau International Airport. Capital cost: $120 million. Montreal.

84. Northwest LRT Extension. Capital cost: $120 million. Calgary.

85. Queen's University, Queen's Centre Phase 1. Capital cost: $115 million. Kingston, Ont.

86. Ottawa Hospital Regional Cancer Program. Capital cost: $113 million. Ottawa.

87. Toronto Rehabilitation Institute. Capital cost: $112.1 million. Toronto.

88. Peace Canyon Turbine Upgrade. Capital cost: $112 million. Hudson Hope, B.C.

89. Highway 7 Expansion. Capital cost: $106 million. Ottawa.

90. Trillium Health Centre. Capital cost: $104.1 million. West Toronto and Mississauga, Ont.

91. Twinning of TransCanada Highway. Capital cost: $100 million. Banff, Alta.

92. Britannia Mine Remediation Project. Capital cost: $99 million. Britannia Beach, B.C.

93. Roy McMurtry Youth Centre. Capital cost: $93.2 million. Brampton, Ont.

94. Boundary Bay Airport Redevelopment. Capital cost: $90 million. Vancouver.

95. David Braley Cardiac, Vascular and Stroke Research Institute. Capital cost: $90 million. Hamilton.

96. George Brown Waterfront Campus. Capital cost: $90 million. Toronto.

97. Lakeshore West Rail Corridor Improvements. Capital cost: $88 million. Mississauga, Ont.

98. York Archives. Capital cost: $85 million. Toronto.

99. George M. Shrum Generating Facility. Capital cost: $78 million. Hudson Hope, B.C.

100. Mica Generator Improvements. Capital cost: $77 million. Revelstoke, B.C.

Source: ReNew Canada Top 100 Infrastructure projects in 2009

© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal

[eemy]

And the Ottawa Hospital Regional Cancer Program

[Beatrix]

What about Ottawa's LRT plan?

[Rathgrith]

And the new bridge?

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Beatrix

What about Ottawa's LRT plan?

Ottawa hasn't even submitted it for consideration. These projects must be shovel-ready projects and we aren't even close to moving forward, so we would never get funding for it under this program.

The old plan was ready to go and it was mentioned at City Council in November, but we decided that we don't want to build any LRT (not even part of the old plan not conflicting with the tunnel) until the tunnel is planned and funded. So we lose out on getting any funding for LRT from the upcoming federal budget and infrastructure program.

I think that this was a foolish move on the part of the city to not try to get funding for part of the LRT project even if it wasn't their number 1 priority. There are only so many opportunities to get this kind of funding and we chose that our high minded priorities are more important than trying any way to get parts of it funded.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Rathgrith

And the new bridge?

Isn't that 50 years from now! We need to add and subtract possible locations a few more dozen times.

[Beatrix]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Ottawa hasn't even submitted it for consideration. These projects must be shovel-ready projects and we aren't even close to moving forward, so we would never get funding for it under this program.

The old plan was ready to go and it was mentioned at City Council in November, but we decided that we don't want to build any LRT (not even part of the old plan not conflicting with the tunnel) until the tunnel is planned and funded. So we lose out on getting any funding for LRT from the upcoming federal budget and infrastructure program.

I think that this was a foolish move on the part of the city to not try to get funding for part of the LRT project even if it wasn't their number 1 priority. There are only so many opportunities to get this kind of funding and we chose that our high minded priorities are more important than trying any way to get parts of it funded.

On the topic of high minded priorities, I totally expect Clive Doucet or another councilor to throw a monkey rench into the plan at the 11th hour. I have my doubts that this thing will ever get built.

[Ryersonian]

Originally Posted by Beatrix

On the topic of high minded priorities, I totally expect Clive Doucet or another councilor to throw a monkey rench into the plan at the 11th hour. I have my doubts that this thing will ever get built.

Of course it won't...Come on do any of you really expect to ever have the pleasure of planting your butt down on an LRT...I'm 29 and I sure don't.

Tragic really.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Beatrix

On the topic of high minded priorities, I totally expect Clive Doucet or another councilor to throw a monkey rench into the plan at the 11th hour. I have my doubts that this thing will ever get built.

I have my grave doubts that it will ever be built and Clive Doucet will not be the main reason. Cost escalations and the lack of matching funding will put the plan on the shelves.

[Beatrix]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I have my grave doubts that it will ever be built and Clive Doucet will not be the main reason. Cost escalations and the lack of matching funding will put the plan on the shelves.

Yes, those are very good reasons for this specific proposal.

However that doesn't change the fact that we are stuck with a council filled with egomaniacs who can't see past the boundaries of their own wards. With that kind of mentality, I doubt we will EVER see a decent transit proposal with a shot at getting built!

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Beatrix

Yes, those are very good reasons for this specific proposal.

However that doesn't change the fact that we are stuck with a council filled with egomaniacs who can't see past the boundaries of their own wards. With that kind of mentality, I doubt we will EVER see a decent transit proposal with a shot at getting built!

You are very right. Plan A, which would have built one affordable LRT line and required a bit of a leap of faith that it would build LRT momentum failed. Plan B, which produced a grandiose city wide plan, may fail because it is too big, and too costly even to get the first LRT leg off the ground. Clearly, if Plan B also fails, we have run out of LRT options that could possibly be sold to the public. We can't build LRT that serves only one part of the city and we can't afford to build LRT to serve everybody at once. Plan C will simply enhance the Transitway system. Maybe one day, when we are desparate enough, a tunnel will be built downtown, for buses, but that will be a last resort when no other options are available. A bleak picture.

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

You are very right. Plan A, which would have built one affordable LRT line and required a bit of a leap of faith that it would build LRT momentum failed. Plan B, which produced a grandiose city wide plan, may fail because it is too big, and too costly even to get the first LRT leg off the ground. Clearly, if Plan B also fails, we have run out of LRT options that could possibly be sold to the public. We can't build LRT that serves only one part of the city and we can't afford to build LRT to serve everybody at once. Plan C will simply enhance the Transitway system. Maybe one day, when we are desparate enough, a tunnel will be built downtown, for buses, but that will be a last resort when no other options are available. A bleak picture.

Wow. lrt's friend, you are sounding more pessimistic than normal. Maybe you need to get some sun to brighten your outlook. (I know it is hard in the winter, but I think sunny days are coming.)

Any way; there is a will amoung City Councillors to have an LRT system. Staff continually put forth the same plan, which is not well defined nor thought-out enough. The general public would like a rail system, but would like to have a much better idea of what it would be and where the system would go. And, of course the NIMBYs have loud voices.

For example, Hintonburg's association states that they would like to see the train run along the Scott trench, but declare that it is totally unacceptable for the buses to temporarrily use Scott during the conversion. There is a selling job that needs to be done here.

If the system were well planned and justified, a strong Council could easily sell it to the public. There might be an appeal or two to the OMB, but if the plan is solid, it will win.

Currently, I don't think that we have that plan and I think this is where a lot of the problems lie. If Staff did their homework (OK, actually, the buck is passed on to Contractors, but under the direction of Staff) and layed out a proper plan with solid supporting documents and design, then I think this project would advance well. When people can see a really good end to a short disruption, they will generally accept it.

In addition to that, our current Council is not selling a plan. How can they when they are not sold on it? We have a mayor who seems to expound the virtues of every concept that passes over his desk, good or bad; individual Councillors who are fixated on the flaws of the current plan; Ones who want to put forward their onw plans; and Councillors who are just plain holding a grudge because the old plan was cancelled.

If Staff finally listened to the people and designed a plan which lead to better public transit service, and Council united behind that plan and explained to the public why it was the one to go with, then things would move ahead. Remember, the Staff would have built the plan based on the people’s concerns so selling a good solution to those issues would be very simple. Also, a proper plan includes well defined problem mitigation strategies so the masses will understand that everything practical is being done to ease any temporary pains. And that those inconveniences would be short lived.

All that said, I am fairly confident that at least the eastern arm (Tunneys to Blair) and the tunnel will be built. I also expect that the O-Train will be converted to twin-track electric LRT, but maybe not until 2020-5.

It is fine to joke about the slow progress, but what we need to do is help to develop the current vision into a workable system, despite Staff’s apparent lack of will to change things. Send in all of your constructive ideas. And try to be positive.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Wow. lrt's friend, you are sounding more pessimistic than normal. Maybe you need to get some sun to brighten your outlook. (I know it is hard in the winter, but I think sunny days are coming.)

Any way; there is a will amoung City Councillors to have an LRT system. Staff continually put forth the same plan, which is not well defined nor thought-out enough. The general public would like a rail system, but would like to have a much better idea of what it would be and where the system would go. And, of course the NIMBYs have loud voices.

For example, Hintonburg's association states that they would like to see the train run along the Scott trench, but declare that it is totally unacceptable for the buses to temporarrily use Scott during the conversion. There is a selling job that needs to be done here.

If the system were well planned and justified, a strong Council could easily sell it to the public. There might be an appeal or two to the OMB, but if the plan is solid, it will win.

Currently, I don't think that we have that plan and I think this is where a lot of the problems lie. If Staff did their homework (OK, actually, the buck is passed on to Contractors, but under the direction of Staff) and layed out a proper plan with solid supporting documents and design, then I think this project would advance well. When people can see a really good end to a short disruption, they will generally accept it.

In addition to that, our current Council is not selling a plan. How can they when they are not sold on it? We have a mayor who seems to expound the virtues of every concept that passes over his desk, good or bad; individual Councillors who are fixated on the flaws of the current plan; Ones who want to put forward their onw plans; and Councillors who are just plain holding a grudge because the old plan was cancelled.

If Staff finally listened to the people and designed a plan which lead to better public transit service, and Council united behind that plan and explained to the public why it was the one to go with, then things would move ahead. Remember, the Staff would have built the plan based on the people’s concerns so selling a good solution to those issues would be very simple. Also, a proper plan includes well defined problem mitigation strategies so the masses will understand that everything practical is being done to ease any temporary pains. And that those inconveniences would be short lived.

All that said, I am fairly confident that at least the eastern arm (Tunneys to Blair) and the tunnel will be built. I also expect that the O-Train will be converted to twin-track electric LRT, but maybe not until 2020-5.

It is fine to joke about the slow progress, but what we need to do is help to develop the current vision into a workable system, despite Staff’s apparent lack of will to change things. Send in all of your constructive ideas. And try to be positive.

Frankly, basing a rapid transit plan on popular opinion is not good planning. Most members of the public have no idea what is involved in designing rapid transit and that was quite evident during last year's process. A good plan should have been developed by transportation and transit experts who in turn needed to sell it to City Council and then to the general public. This would have built realistic expectations and enthusiasm as it was refined. I am not saying that council and the public should not have a say, but the starting point should have been the experts. The current plan was based on a mishmash of public surveys, staff reports (who are not transit experts) and City Council motions. The initial plan released 11 months ago was a reflection of and biased by the City Council motions that preceeded it. The result has been a plan that contains too many compromises and fails to excell at anything. For this reason, the plan approved in November was received by the public with little enthusiasm. The process solicited so many wishes from the public and then dashed most of them.

I am very weary of submitting constructive ideas because even when they were being actively solicited last year, I got the impression that they were not really wanted. It seems to me even pointless to make suggestions at this time as the plan is now more or less etched in stone except for the design details.

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Frankly, basing a rapid transit plan on popular opinion is not good planning. Most members of the public have no idea what is involved in designing rapid transit and that was quite evident during last year's process. A good plan should have been developed by transportation and transit experts who in turn needed to sell it to City Council and then to the general public. This would have built realistic expectations and enthusiasm as it was refined. I am not saying that council and the public should not have a say, but the starting point should have been the experts. The current plan was based on a mishmash of public surveys, staff reports (who are not transit experts) and City Council motions. The initial plan released 11 months ago was a reflection of and biased by the City Council motions that preceeded it. The result has been a plan that contains too many compromises and fails to excell at anything. For this reason, the plan approved in November was received by the public with little enthusiasm. The process solicited so many wishes from the public and then dashed most of them.

I am very weary of submitting constructive ideas because even when they were being actively solicited last year, I got the impression that they were not really wanted. It seems to me even pointless to make suggestions at this time as the plan is now more or less etched in stone except for the design details.

I'm sorry you feel that way. It comes across that it has made you feel frustrated. I too have felt that most of the comments have simply fallen on deaf ears, but that doesn't mean that I'm giving up. I have been actively involved in trying to make a difference. You have a lot of knowledge and I hope you continue to put forth your ideas. You never know which ones will trigger some improvements in the design.

Sorry, I was getting a bit off topic for this thread.

Back on the topic of the infrastructure, the three projects listed in the top 100 are the Montfort Hospital expansion, the Museum of Nature reconstruction and Highway 7 expansion. There might be others, but they would be farther down the list.

Have you noticed that none of these are city projects? There are two for the Province (hospital and road) and one federal project (museum). Also, it seems to me that these are projects which will have impact in helping the economy: Enlarging a hospital makes more room for doctors and equipment; improving a museum encourages a better educated population; and expanding a major commuting route facilitates business development and helps provide a larger pool of workers for those businesses. These projects are creating new opportunities.

The items that the City put forth are, generally, more maintenance items. Resurfacing a bridge is something which needs to be done from time to time, but it doesn't really change what already exists. People might enjoy a smoother Park & Ride lot, but they were probably already parking there any way.

This city seems to have no real future vision. It has been given the opportunity to create wonderful new things; to change the way things are. Unfortunately, it continues with the idea that what we have is good enough and just needs a bit of paint.

I understand that these were to be 'shovel-ready' projects, but that is one of the points. The city doens't have a list of 'things we would love to do'. Things that we have planned to do, but didn't have the money for. The city has no dreams; no imagination.

Maybe lrt's friend, et al, weren't so far off topic after all. The lack of innovation with respect to the LRT plans is an excellent example of how the city is simply replacing the buses with trains but not designing an improved transit network. In effect, just resurfacing the bridge.

Did the city submit the extension of the Hunt Club Rd. east to the 417? The EA has been done, and it is a project which would increase access. The interchange would be mostly funded by the Province.

[lrt's friend]

Maybe lrt's friend, et al, weren't so far off topic after all. The lack of innovation with respect to the LRT plans is an excellent example of how the city is simply replacing the buses with trains but not designing an improved transit network. In effect, just resurfacing the bridge.

Thank you Richard. This is what I have been talking about for the last 2 years. The Chiarelli plan I have always admitted was flawed but nobody can deny that it was trying to do innovative things. I am not just talking about the north-south route either but also the ideas that were not fully developed for the following phases. Instead of correcting the flaws, we decided to blow everything up, because everything became a political game and a popularity contest. We stopped looking towards the future and instead we looked at the present and the past, our Transitways. And gradually with each successive version of the new plan, innovation was removed to the point that it simply became a plan to replace buses with trains. It became absolutely necessary to prioritize and consider only routes that move the maximum number of passengers, not understanding that the O-Train attracted a whole group of new transit riders despite having a train only once every 15 minutes. So what, if we have a train every 2 minutes, if those passengers were the same ones that were formerly on buses and the travel time is more or less the same. I am disallusioned.

[lrt's friend]

At least $7B for new infrastructure in budget: Baird
Last Updated: Monday, January 26, 2009 | 11:26 AM ET Comments92Recommend44CBC News
The federal government plans to spend at least $7 billion on new infrastructure projects in an effort to boost the sagging economy, Transport Minister John Baird said Monday.

The measures will be included in Tuesday's federal budget, Baird told a news conference in Ottawa.

"We will be making investments in roads, bridges, water and sewer systems, as well as transit," he said.

While he didn't provide any further details, Baird did offer the following breakdown of how the money will be spent over the next two years:

$4 billion for an infrastructure stimulus fund to help provinces, territories and municipalities.
$2 billion for repairs and construction of colleges and universities.
$1 billion for sustainable green infrastructure projects.
Opposition leaders, provincial premiers and mayors have called for billions to be spent on infrastructure projects to boost the economy and have urged the federal government to streamline the approval process.

Baird said the government is determined to speed up the process.

"We are ready to cut red tape and duplication and get these projects moving quickly," Baird said, adding the new projects will provide "hope and opportunity" for Canadians worried about their futures.

"It is important we make sound investments. We'll be quite vigilant in this regard. We do believe we can make some changes administratively to speed up the green-lighting of projects," he said.

Liberal infrastructure critic Gerard Kennedy said the Harper government has a low credibility rate when it comes to moving ahead with such projects.

Of the $1.5 billion pledged for infrastructure projects under the 2007 Building Canada Fund, only $300 million has been spent because of red tape, said Kennedy.

"This is an area of high skepticism," he said.

He also said it's not clear that Baird is talking about new money, noting the government has recycled spending announcements in the past.

Many elements of Tuesday's budget have already been leaked, including billions of dollars for social housing, job retraining, agriculture and tax cuts.

The government expects to have a $64-billion deficit over the next two years.

Apparently, any money made available for municipal projects has to be matched

It has been confirmed that the money must be matched by both the province and the municipality.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Apparently, any money made available for municipal projects has to be matched

The mayor now braggs on how 6000 jobs can be created with the money. Isn't that pure luck that it's number of jobs that have been lost because of the transit strike?

[lrt's friend]

Lowell Green just said on CFRA that the current special federal spending should not line the pockets of the rich. Agreed! Then he proceeded to suggest that federal infrastructure money should help pay for Eugene Melnyk's soccer stadium. I almost fell on the floor. Is he insane????? A private for profit project funded with public money!

[lrt's friend]

They mentioned on the radio that there is a list of infrastructure projects that were mentioned in the budget.