Ah. Does our trolling friend understand that this sub thread was created as a box to put them in - essentially as harm reduction?
There are actually three boxes - first he got a Northlander box, but given that inch....
Taking a more constructive tone, I do think there is an equivalency to "Maslow's Hierarchy" going on with transportation funding, and it's fundamentally on the right track. We need to work according to a "hierarchy of needs". We don't need to fulfil each level totally before addressing the next, there is value in some overlap... but our passion for a particular route or project should not overtake the rational and deliberate building of the network, nor should it demand funding when money is needed for a higher level build. One does foundations and load bearing walls first.....
First, there is substantial investment in local and regional transit, which is the fundamental enabler to a transportation network that is not perpetuating automobile (and airplane).
Then there is the investment in a dedicated central corridor backbone, which for the moment is Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal HxR.
Then there are logical extensions to the backbone. In my view, Montreal-Quebec is a "logical extension" that appears to be already in motion. Toronto-Kitchener-London-Windsor is probably the next deserving logical extension. One could argue Toronto-Niagara is a logical extension.
Then there are the lesser but desirable spokes from the backbone. I would place Toronto-North Bay in this bucket, but it needs to compete with other buckets.... Toronto-Kingston-Ottawa/Montreal is one, possibly Montreal-Sherbrooke and Montreal-Drummondville-Quebec. Toronto-Brantford-London. toronto-Sudbury belongs here. Links to the USA belong here. The big challenge with the "spokes" is they are all individually expensive, in that they largely depend on sharing freight routes and/or may require rebuilding segments of abandoned or downgraded branch lines. So they will have to compete for funding, which the backbone and logical extensions are already needing. And they may demand policy changes eg sharing priority. It's critical that we build business cases and prioritize them on an apples to apples basis. How does Sudbury fit in that bucket? We can debate that, but why bother until we are getting to this point in the priority listing.
North Bay-Timmins falls elsewhere, in the category of "services to outlying areas needing special treatment". The question becomes how deserving is it compared to Prince Rupert, Churchill, White River, northern and northeastern Quebec resource communities in the hinterland. My sense is that the roads and airports are already good enough, certainly better than some routes in this bucket, so I don't see the burning need for spending money here. Queens Park is playing politics with the Northlander investment, not working from a sensible transportation to-do list.
A big question is, when is the right time to begin additional backbones on the Prairies and in the Maritimes. I believe both of these can come eventually, but probably not until people in those regions see the value and become committed to these as a priority. For example, while Edmonton-Calgary is probably viable as a backbone, it only deserves to be started once Albertans agree that it's how they intend to get around. Otherwise it's a "nice to have" but is a sideshow that is marginal to existing highway and air resources. Frankly, I think it will take a full and successful buildout in Ontario-Quebec which demonstrates modal share growth before people really get interested, even if there is lots of political grumbling about equity and favouritism. We need to build these when we need them, not just so people in Alberta and the Maritimes have nice things.
So yeah, we can all troll about our pet project - but let's stick to an orderly to-do strategy.
- Paul