[urbanclient]

This take, phrased like this, is essentially inciting people to engage in maximum conflict with maximum indignation.

Why would you want to do that?

No different that in cities, people should always be heard when raising legitimate concerns.

I've spent a lot of time explaining to Planners, Builders, Architects and UT'ers how to smooth acceptance of change.

It need not involve confrontation, nor patronizing talk. That strategy almost always backfires. Many here have benefited from my advice and seen projects move much more quickly as a result.

HSR would be no different.



You don't understand why a citizen of Canada, and a Resident of Ontario should have any say at all in how their government behaves and how their money is spent, and how their quality of life is affected?

I don't understand that at all.

Of course we ought not to let people ardently opposed to change to be needless obstructive; nor should we allow the ill informed to alter or delay a project for imaginary problems.

But allowing people to have input, to request information, to be consulted at some level is not at all unreasonable, in the absence of same, you just abolished both democracy and minority rights.

No need for all this inflammatory stuff.

Perhaps the way the message was conveyed rather than the meaning behind the message is the issue. Of course the residents of Canada should have a say in how their government spends their tax dollars. The crux of the issue is that far too often, a small minority of stakeholders wield outsized and disproportionate influence on how the government makes decisions. Sometimes it's the rich, sometimes it's NIMBYs. In cases of opposition to public transit projects, it's usually both, all to the detriment of a much larger demographic which often includes less powerful, less affluent people.

"A developed country is not a place where the poor have cars. It’s where the rich use public transportation" – Gustavo Petro
Or at least a place where the rich may deign to use public transportation on occasion instead of being fearful of its lamentable state

 

[Mihairokov]

No need for all this inflammatory stuff

Sure, just as much as I don't think there needs to be any discussion on these towns getting HSR stops, or any other situation where we're altering a route that should only really have five or six stops maximum.

 

[Urban Sky]

Sure, just as much as I don't think there needs to be any discussion on these towns getting HSR stops, or any other situation where we're altering a route that should only really have five or six stops maximum.

You are describing, whether you like it or not, exactly the levers how local opposition is placated in other countries: You want rural folks to swallow highly disruptive construction work for half a decade and permanent noise pollution? Then better pack some sweeteners and go to the negotiation table!

 

[Northern Light]

Perhaps the way the message was conveyed rather than the meaning behind the message is the issue. Of course the residents of Canada should have a say in how their government spends their tax dollars. The crux of the issue is that far too often, a small minority of stakeholders wield outsized and disproportionate influence on how the government makes decisions. Sometimes it's the rich, sometimes it's NIMBYs. In cases of opposition to public transit projects, it's usually both, all to the detriment of a much larger demographic which often includes less powerful, less affluent people.

"A developed country is not a place where the poor have cars. It’s where the rich use public transportation" – Gustavo Petro
Or at least a place where the rich may deign to use public transportation on occasion instead of being fearful of its lamentable state

I'm happy enough to agree with this; no one should be accepting of endless obstructionism or public policy's answer to extortion.

But that shouldn't preclude constructive engagement. That doesn't mean false promises of excessive stops, or undue compensation etc. Clearly there are limits necessary to how a project is built to retain its utility and viability, but those can be honoured while giving a fair hearing to concerns.

Sure, just as much as I don't think there needs to be any discussion on these towns getting HSR stops, or any other situation where we're altering a route that should only really have five or six stops maximum.

As noted above, of course there are reasonable limits on numbers of stops and various other project details; listening to concerns, wit an open mind, does not require acceding to every demand/request, nor should it.

 

[ssiguy2]

I love these NIMBYs in the woods. They scream about some trees being felled but sure didn't have a problem felling them to build their house and driveway and I'm quite confident that they didn't bitch when Ontario Hydro had to pull down some trees to provide them with power.

Imminent domain laws should be strengthened in favour of the gov'ts while still employing fair and environmentally responsible practices. We are at a point where in trying to appease everyone, nothing gets built and that has to stop. Spock was right......."the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".

 

[reinventingthewheel]

I just watched this video reposted by Oh The Urbanity! on YouTube. It’s a good look at abstract components of Montreal’s REM. Final product aside (for all its shortcomings), the contracts and public policy choices to help develop and deliver this massive project with such haste makes for an interesting case study.

The reason I share it in this thread is because CDQP is apart of the Cadence consortium developing Alto, and I find that encouraging. They have prior experience with investment in infrastructure and now with the REM they have experience wholly owning the project planning and management with limited (much less than usual) government interference. A similar project development model for Alto could really improve the odds of it actually being built.

 

[lenaitch]

I love these NIMBYs in the woods. They scream about some trees being felled but sure didn't have a problem felling them to build their house and driveway and I'm quite confident that they didn't bitch when Ontario Hydro had to pull down some trees to provide them with power.

Imminent domain laws should be strengthened in favour of the gov'ts while still employing fair and environmentally responsible practices. We are at a point where in trying to appease everyone, nothing gets built and that has to stop. Spock was right......."the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".

Looking beyond the trite quote from 1980s Hollywood entertainment, the legal term is 'eminent domain' and it is a term not used in Canada. We use the term 'expropriation' for the compulsory acquisition of private property for public works, and it is addressed in both federal and provincial statutes. Like most other actions of the State, it is subject to judicial oversight and I'm not willing to surrender that to make 'the many' happy.

There are also several other pieces of legislation that need to be addressed, including environmental laws, that I'm also not willing to give a government a free pass on in the hopes that they will be 'responsible'.

 

[urbanclient]

Looking beyond the trite quote from 1980s Hollywood entertainment, the legal term is 'eminent domain' and it is a term not used in Canada. We use the term 'expropriation' for the compulsory acquisition of private property for public works, and it is addressed in both federal and provincial statutes. Like most other actions of the State, it is subject to judicial oversight and I'm not willing to surrender that to make 'the many' happy.

There are also several other pieces of legislation that need to be addressed, including environmental laws, that I'm also not willing to give a government a free pass on in the hopes that they will be 'responsible'.

And when exactly is the government going to build a new regular rail line, much less a high speed one through Nipissing District or East Ferris?

 

[crs1026]

There are also several other pieces of legislation that need to be addressed, including environmental laws, that I'm also not willing to give a government a free pass on in the hopes that they will be 'responsible'.

Or even "truthful". or "transparent"

The interesting thing about the California HSR is that it reached a point of being overspent and behind schedule.... before a single length of rail was even laid, and before many of the shovels hit the ground. In other words, not the result of poor construction.... but rather the result of forced redesigns, disfunction in choosing the route and securing land, allowing local political interests undue influence, and enduring numerous litigations driven by individual interests.

Looking at government actions in Ontario, I might well agree that the process is " broken".... but giving government free hand would only make that worse.

A return to very disciplined environmental and business case analysis, coupled with rigourous enforcement of Freedom of Information laws, and restriction of the use of Ministerial privilege, at least would get the truth out. Will it prevent people advocating for silly things? Probably not.... but suppressing public input is a guarantee of litigation and political gerrymandering.

We need to stick to an open process where issues get raised and people take accountability for resolving them.

- Paul

 

[urbanclient]

Or even "truthful". or "transparent"

The interesting thing about the California HSR is that it reached a point of being overspent and behind schedule.... before a single length of rail was even laid, and before many of the shovels hit the ground. In other words, not the result of poor construction.... but rather the result of forced redesigns, disfunction in choosing the route and securing land, allowing local political interests undue influence, and enduring numerous litigations driven by individual interests.

Looking at government actions in Ontario, I might well agree that the process is " broken".... but giving government free hand would only make that worse.

A return to very disciplined environmental and business case analysis, coupled with rigourous enforcement of Freedom of Information laws, and restriction of the use of Ministerial privilege, at least would get the truth out. Will it prevent people advocating for silly things? Probably not.... but suppressing public input is a guarantee of litigation and political gerrymandering.

We need to stick to an open process where issues get raised and people take accountability for resolving them.

- Paul

I think what many folks have to realize is that a public works project like Alto will be inherently authoritarian as opposed to libertarian. In a libertarian's utopia, the Corridor would likely not be getting (privatized) high speed rail until population density doubled or tripled in the major cities such that a private rail company could reap immediate returns upon completion. The current projection is that Alto won't even be breaking even from a ticket revenue minus capital and operating costs standpoint. Whether or not you can stomach some encroachment on your freedom from big brother in exchange for some benefit to your compatriots and the larger environment is a matter of personal preference.

 

[crs1026]

I think what many folks have to realize is that a public works project like Alto will be inherently authoritarian as opposed to libertarian.

Well, there's "authoritarian" but then there's "accountable to process".

Clearly, there will be winners and losers, and everybody will not be happy. But there needs to be a meaningful and responsive and non-political place where people can state their case and where issues can be debated. The results may impose a decision on people, but those decisions can be more respected than mere authority.

I don't see the courts as being such a venue, I'm pretty jaded about any process that involves lawyers, and litigation typically strays from actual issues towards what lawyers think is strategically most winnable. And justices (wisely) are not comfortable with the detailed technocratic aspects of disputes (as we have seen with the CN and VIA Venture matter) - the route and station debate will necessarily involve a great deal of input from engineers, environmental experts, financial analysts, etc etc.... but needs to not be slave to technocrats or bureaucrats.

Nor do I have confidence in the CTA, as it's a near-invisible and ingrown tribunal with no demonstrable past performance around hearing and responding to the public.

Some form of tribunal or commission with a mandate to make decisions about route, private property interests, and such is doable - if the right people can be found to sit on it. And if it can be kept non-political.

Most of all, the decisionmaking needs to be kept out of the political backroom.

Call me idealistic, eh. But it is how the decisions ought to be made.

- Paul

- Paul

 

[chrisw]

I just watched this video reposted by Oh The Urbanity! on YouTube. It’s a good look at abstract components of Montreal’s REM. Final product aside (for all its shortcomings), the contracts and public policy choices to help develop and deliver this massive project with such haste makes for an interesting case study.

Note that the video creator was actually The Flying Moose. He was also able to get guests Jonathan English and Marco Chitti. He also recently did a video on the Ontario Line with Jonathan English as a guest.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Flying Moose has absolutely insane production quality - excellent video. A shame he only puts something out every 3-4 months.

 

[lenaitch]

And when exactly is the government going to build a new regular rail line, much less a high speed one through Nipissing District or East Ferris?

I didn't realize direct impact or proximity was a forum requirement for comment.

 

[micheal_can]

Rail to Tweed and Perth can be an entirely separate project. Those two towns have a population so low (6000) that if teleported to a CMA, they wouldn't even warrant a tram, subway or regular rail station, much less a high speed rail station. But worst case let's say they do get ignored, these two towns get nothing but negative externalities; exaggeration here, but would a tyranny of the small minority be preferred over a tyranny of the majority? Should the government kowtow to 12,000 people and risk project costs ballooning for a project likely to cost nearly $100 billion? Best case scenario, those two towns have an economic output of $840 million a year (12,000*70,000). Alto by conservative estimates is supposed to raise Canadian GDP by $20 billion a year. It just makes environmental and economic sense to bear some social costs in rural areas to reap benefits for the whole country. If I assume correctly that rural residents care about protecting the clean air and water, the pristine wilderness, then the drastic reduction of car and plane emissions in the long-run from a high speed rail project would be one of the best ways to do it. Hastings and Lanark counties are about 8000 square kilometres total, even if Alto took up all 8000 sqkm of their land, that would still be a drop in the bucket compared to the 7 million square kilometres of untouched Canadian wild land. In this pristine wilderness there are countless ecosystems that would benefit from reduced carbon emissions, the majority of which is generated by urbanites. Lastly, large portions of Hastings and Lanark counties are not even considered untouched wild land as they have been developed by humans for agriculture and natural resource extraction.

What I spoke of is to put a station on the new line near those place sand on the new line, run a slower train, like the Venture set. Not a whole other line for those places.

This take, phrased like this, is essentially inciting people to engage in maximum conflict with maximum indignation.

Why would you want to do that?

No different than in cities, people should always be heard when raising legitimate concerns.

I've spent a lot of time explaining to Planners, Builders, Architects and UT'ers how to smooth acceptance of change.

It need not involve confrontation, nor patronizing talk. That strategy almost always backfires. Many here have benefited from my advice and seen projects move much more quickly as a result.

HSR would be no different.



You don't understand why a citizen of Canada, and a Resident of Ontario should have any say at all in how their government behaves and how their money is spent, and how their quality of life is affected?

I don't understand that at all.

Of course we ought not to let people ardently opposed to change to be needlessly obstructive; nor should we allow the ill informed to alter or delay a project for imaginary problems.

But allowing people to have input, to request information, to be consulted at some level is not at all unreasonable, in the absence of same, you just abolished both democracy and minority rights.

No need for all this inflammatory stuff.

This brings in the politics of separation.Whether it is provinces(QC,AB) or regions (Northern ON), ignoring the people who's land is being exploited for something that they do not directly benefit from,and then get ignored is why the idea of separating gets fueled. Heck, there is even grumblings that the GTA should be a separate province so that the ROO can get what they think they should have. Again, HSR service, no, but SSR, yes.

And when exactly is the government going to build a new regular rail line, much less a high speed one through Nipissing District or East Ferris?

Uhm, wrong part of the province... and it should be opening in the next 2 years.