The LRT debate is starting to resemble a game of blitz chess, Andrew Dreschel writes

WHEELING AND DEALING

The LRT debate is starting to resemble a game of blitz chess in which each move is rapidly countered by the other side. Consider some of the latest ploys. Coun. Chad Collins, who believes LRT is a misguided project, asked staff to investigate the claim that some $80 million of city money would be freed up as a result of Metrolinx picking up the cost of replacing aging infrastructure along the route.

Collins was skeptical about the claim and didn’t like the fact there was talk of redirecting the presumed savings to suburban and Mountain infrastructure projects to lure council doubters and fence-sitters back aboard. It turns out Collins is right. After reviewing the 10-year capital forecast, staff did not find any significant capital projects along the LRT corridor that would result in budget savings that could be used elsewhere.

In other words, there is no $80 million to be freed up because no money has been earmarked for work along the route.

“I guess it’s important to do your homework,” says Collins.

Not so fast, ripostes Coun. Sam Merulla, who happily admits he’s orchestrating efforts to dangle inducements before vacillating councillors.

Merulla says there may not be any immediate savings but there will be avoided costs down the road, which still saves local taxpayers money.

In other words, even though replacing things like water and sewer lines along the LRT corridor is not part of the 10-year capital budget, those services will still eventually need attention.

“Whether we’re saving it today or we’re saving it years from now, it’s all taxpayers’ money,” says Merulla. “The difference is we don’t have to budget for the local taxpayer to pay for it, the province will.”

Not surprisingly, Collins has a countermove.

Avoiding costs 15 or 20 years down the road still doesn’t free up money to redirect elsewhere, he says.

For the record, the estimated $80 million stems from the 2013 Rapid Ready report, which notes that replacing roads and water lines along the LRT corridor may not be in the capital budget but are part of the overall infrastructure repair backlog.

Additionally, general manager of finance Mike Zegarac says staff have yet to calculate what the avoided costs along the current corridor will be, but he figures there’s likely a financial benefit to extending the life and value of some of the infrastructure pieces.

In any event, Merulla is already working on another line of attack.

During the LRT construction phase, he wants to divert to the Mountain and suburbs all the money that would normally be spent on infrastructure projects across Wards 1 through 4.

Since LRT will go through those four lower city wards, he says they won’t be able to close down other streets for major road or sewer work because of traffic disruptions and displacements. So why not redirect that money as an “incentive” to shore up LRT support?

Incentive is one word for it. Buy-off is another. Other equivalents abound.

Meanwhile, Coun. Terry Whitehead is plotting a new offensive of his own.

Whitehead, who says he’ll support LRT “if it meets the right conditions,” is drafting a motion to study the merits of running the line down Main East instead of King East.

Arguing there is no “empirical data” showing which route is better, Whitehead wants council to consider hiring an independent consultant to report on the potential cost of moving the route to Main.

“We’ve got one chance to get this right and I think we owe it to the taxpayers to do that.”

According to a 2009 report, city staffers internally considered and rejected Main before making a recommendation to council. But there’s little documentation on why.

Whitehead last week withdrew a similar motion because some councillors thought the wording was provocative. He says he’s not trying to be “obstructionist.” “I want to be on solid ground. “If we’re stuck with LRT, I want to make sure it’s the best it can be.

“I think we need to ask the right questions, and I think the community expects us to ask the tough questions so we can come back with the best product under the circumstances.”

Come to think of it, the debate is actually more like a multiplayer chess variant than simple blitz chess.