I'd like to know what you think is inherently wrong with the principle that governments should spend according to the level of resources they collect from the populace? If you abandon any sense of cost/benefit, you lose any ability to prioritize spending according to need and expected value.
Now I'll say off the bat this: I love high-speed rail. We should have had it 30 years ago, we should have it today.
BUT: It's naive to think that any transit project is worth it at any cost. I know that is not what you're saying in your post - but it is a sentiment I see prevailing among some urbanists and transit enthusiasts and I'm simply using your post as a springboard for discussion. This project is allocating $3.9B for research and planning alone. Entire rail lines have been built start to finish for less money around the world. The total cost of the project (unconfirmed) is rumoured to be $65B - that's roughly $65M per kilometre; over 4x more expensive than the most recent TGV line in France, for no discernible reason.
Attitudes that transit must be built no matter the cost are one of the reasons prices keep inflating. And like it or not we do live in a world of trade-offs: How many hospitals could we build with that money? How many new schools? How about funding for our military? Regular people (non-transit obsessed people like us) care about these things and justifiably recoil at these costs. Not to mention when they are being announced in the dying days of a lame-duck government with no mandate months (or possibly weeks) before an election. I want this project to happen, and I think it should. But let's not assume that anyone who opposes these projects is just too dumb to see the benefits.
1. While the timing of this latest announcement is unfortunate. One could argue that by attaching it to the election, it has now become an election issue, that demands a reponse from all the interested parties. So in effect assuming the next govt is in support of the project their would be a mandate.
2. With regard to the overall cost, imo it's premature to call it overpriced when compared to the latest french project, because we really don't know the scope of this project. For instance, are we getting airport to airport service? Are we getting airport to airport plus downtown to downtown service? How large will the highspeed terminus be in each of these cities? You're also comparing it to a region that has developed the supply chain and the expertise to build highspeed rail over litrally 70 years. We have non of this.
3. Your concern, with regards to military expenditure is valid, though there's no evidence that we cannot do both, especially when for at least 5 years, an average of less than 1 billion will be dedicated to the development of this line. Regardless of this project, within the next 5 years, if we choose not to invest into the military, it'll be because we didnt want to do so, not because trudau wants this line built.
When construction begins in earnest, with development time, spanning something like 10 years, you're looking at capital investment of 7 - 10 billion per year on such a project. A large sum to be sure but hardly something that canada cannot spend. And with the estimated ROI of 34b increased activities (surely exaggerated but still), it it is hard to deny that it wouldn't be worth it in the medium to long term..
Schools and hospitals are provincial matters, so I'd direct your ire towards that level of govt. Not the feds.
Fyi, countries should not be run like business with the end goal of maximizing profit. Even still, if it where, plenty of business run on credit and years of loss pumped into capital investments and R&D to create value. If a pure business approach is what you want, then yea this project is for you
