12-05-2017, 10:46 AM
(12-05-2017, 10:28 AM)danbrotherston Wrote:(12-05-2017, 10:09 AM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: The recipients of those funds budgeted $X for cycling infrastructure as part of normal annual capital expenditures. The province gave them some amount $Y for those projects. The recipients are now spending the same $X on cycling infrastructure, but will take the $Y they received and apply it to something non-cycling-related. I mean, technically they will say that they are now spending $(X-Y) in combination with the province's $Y to create $X of cycling infrastructure, but the $Y will wind up as a net addition elsewhere in the budget, either lowering roadwork maintenance backlogs, or going towards tax increase reductions.
This is probably true in some cases, but in others, our city being a prime example, there was no money budgeted for those projects or it was budgeted very far in the future so we will get more infra sooner here.
That makes more sense to me. The quote from the Record would only make sense if the City official were referring to other bicycle infrastructure projects, otherwise the purpose of the provincial grant program would be lost.