[micheal_can]

Yet you are unable to articulate any rationale why we shouldn’t rather invest the amount what that would cost into our intercity bus networks instead, where it would create so much more bang for the buck, as you could run ten times as much service and thus serve so many more people so much better. That‘s why all your proposals, even those which sound completely reasonable to you, are mere fantasies on which all your admirable passion is wasted without achieving anything for your region about which you evidently care so much. It‘s a bit tragic, but it‘s the life you choose: wasting your leisure time arguing with strangers about things which are impossible to attain - just because you are too inflexible and stubborn to consider anything else than trains as acceptable in any context…

The government provides services that will never turn a profit. Those services are needed for a group of people. So, if we are subsidizing the Corridor trains, then there is no argument to not have what I listed to happen as well. The Corridor has planes and buses. So, why not make them better?

 

[Urban Sky]

The government provides services that will never turn a profit. Those services are needed for a group of people. So, if we are subsidizing the Corridor trains, then there is no argument to not have what I listed to happen as well. The Corridor has planes and buses. So, why not make them better?

Tell me you haven’t understood anything of what was just said to you without telling me that you haven’t understood anything of what was just said to you! Can you at least do a minimum effort to try to understand what we are trying to tell you or are you just planning to continue your spamming until the mods and gods of UT lose their patience, just like they eventually did on Skyscraper Page…?

 

[micheal_can]

Tell me you haven’t understood anything of what was just said to you withouy telling me without you haven’t understood anything of what was just said to you! Can you at least do a minimum effort to try to understand what we are trying to tell you or will you just continue your unfocused trolling until the mods and gods of UT lose their patience, just like they eventually did on Skyscraper Page…?

So,when the military is dispatched for a natural disaster, who pays the bill?

 

[Urban Sky]

So,when the military is dispatched for a natural disaster, who pays the bill?

I guess the answer to my previous post is “No, I’ll rather continue spamming”, then…

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

*Grumbling on Mt. Olympos*

MoD

 

[Cobra]

The government provides services that will never turn a profit. Those services are needed for a group of people. So, if we are subsidizing the Corridor trains, then there is no argument to not have what I listed to happen as well. The Corridor has planes and buses. So, why not make them better?

Because airlines, auto, energy companies have relentlessly lobbied both parties in government to ensure HSR never gets built in that corridor

 

[lenaitch]

So,when the military is dispatched for a natural disaster, who pays the bill?

What the ?!&##? is that supposed to mean?

 

[ARG1]

What the ?!&##? is that supposed to mean?

What I think his rationale is is that since the government shouldn't be expected to make a profit and have to pay for services out of pocket, then its justified that the government pays for any and all transit. The fact that busses are far more cost effective than trains doesn't matter when you're not expected to have a profit motive in the first place.

 

[Urban Sky]

What I think his rationale is is that since the government shouldn't be expected to make a profit and have to pay for services out of pocket, then its justified that the government pays for any and all transit. The fact that busses are far more cost effective than trains doesn't matter when you're not expected to have a profit motive in the first place.

I suspect that the question raised by @lenaitch was less what that reference to military spending was supposed to mean than what this had to do with anything he was supposedly responding to. As far too often, we just got thrown at our faces the ever-same talking points without any attempt to respond to any of the points which had actually been made…

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

It's quite simple. Canada is geographically large with an extremely low population density outside of the handful of major population centres. Even eliminating the Northern Territories leave a vast country with very few people.

As I mentioned a few months ago following my trip to Italy. The comparison to Italian rail is a joke, until you realize that Italy is 30 times smaller geographically (9,000,000 Sq-Km vs 300,000 Sq-Km) than Canada while having a population size 1.5x larger than Canada (40 million vs 59 million)

 

[micheal_can]

What do I mean?

Like I have said multiple times, if we are to have any meaningful passenger rail service outside of the Corridor, the attitudes surrounding funding needs to change. It really is that simple. Till then, death by a million cuts shall continue till it is seen as irrelevant enough to cut it complete.

 

[Northern Light]

It's quite simple. Canada is geographically large with an extremely low population density outside of the handful of major population centres. Even eliminating the Northern Territories leave a vast country with very few people.

As I mentioned a few months ago following my trip to Italy. The comparison to Italian rail is a joke, until you realize that Italy is 30 times smaller geographically (9,000,000 Sq-Km vs 300,000 Sq-Km) than Canada while having a population size 1.5x larger than Canada (40 million vs 59 million)

The above is, of course, correct.

But to take that lens and apply it specifically to Northern Ontario would seem apt for this poster.

Northern Ontario is ~808,000km2, or 2.67x the size of Italy with a population of ~780,000 or about 0.75% of the population.

 

[Urban Sky]

What do I mean?

Like I have said multiple times, if we are to have any meaningful passenger rail service outside of the Corridor, the attitudes surrounding funding needs to change. It really is that simple. Till then, death by a million cuts shall continue till it is seen as irrelevant enough to cut it complete.

Great, and to what was that a valid answer?

 

[micheal_can]

Great, and to what was that a valid answer?

It is the real answer to what needs to change if we wanted meaningful service. Do you not agree? Is there another way to get meaningful service outside the Corridor?

 

[Urban Sky]

It is the real answer to what needs to change if we wanted meaningful service. Do you not agree? Is there another way to get meaningful service outside the Corridor?

Since you apparently don’t bother to read posts before responding to them, let me remind you of the context in which you responded with your military-spending-reference:

If you don’t have the mental capacity to follow a conversation, then just don’t participate!