[Urban Sky]

View attachment 608646

I truly believe that we can disagree with each other without feeling any strong emptions and I recall the discussions here as very respectful.

The point of my graph (which I should update, I know) is not to dispell the case for building HSR infrastructure, but to highlight that the length of a country’s (per capita) rail network length can only explain 10% of that country’s (again, per capita) rail ridership. HSR is a valid way to grow rail ridership, but it’s efficacy is rather modest, compared to expanding less flashy but better utilized rail networks…

 

[SashaLemon]

Sorry I just made that image yesterday on the assumption that it would take longer to learn who won!
You are respectful and I have no ill-feelings.

 

[p_xavier]

Good if it's Cadence who won.

 

[Urban Sky]

Good if it's Cadence who won.

Only until PP moves into the PM office and asks why on earth totally-not-SNC-Lavalin would deserve any responsibility for such an important project. Their scandalous selection as project partners for the Confederation Line and the no leas controversial execution of said mandate will also not have missed the eyes of someone who already has one of his main working places within walking distance. Most companies are competent enough to somehow manage to protect their reputation sufficiently so that they don’t have to completely change their name in the (vain) hope of shedding their toxic brand!

That at least two other proponents (CDPQ and Air Canada) are also Montréal-based will also not help to increase its appeal in Conservative eyes - and rightly so! And let’s of course not forget that it was the CDPQ’s own brainchild which nuked the economical and fiscal viability of the MTRL-QBEC segment.

Choosing Cadence is only the rational choice if you want the project to get cancelled by the next government - and I unfortunately believe that this is the sole remaining motivation for the incumbant government in pursuing this project…

Greetings from Montréal,
Urban Sky

 

[roger1818]

Their scandalous selection as project partners for the Confederation Line and the no leas controversial execution of said mandate

It was their selection for the Trillium Line extension that was scandalous. I don't recall any scandal regarding their selection for the original Confederation Line, but their execution was certainly sub par (not sure that is much of a controversy by anyone other their avid supporters), and they didn't even bid on the extension of it.

 

[guavadelic]

Matti Siemiatycki, director of the Infrastructure Institute at the University of Toronto, argues against funding HSR because Canada is dealing with a doctor shortage and in the midst of a housing crisis. Bless his heart, he seems to think funds saved by not upgrading passenger rail would go towards making life better for Canadians.

 

[Urban Sky]

Matti Siemiatycki, director of the Infrastructure Institute at the University of Toronto, argues against funding HSR because Canada is dealing with a doctor shortage and in the midst of a housing crisis. Bless his heart, he seems to think funds saved by not upgrading passenger rail would go towards making life better for Canadians.

I believe there are many shades of gray between „investing tens of billions of taxpayer into French-style TGVs“ and „letting VIA creep towards obscurity“. However, the last thing Canadians need is a to recreate the CAHRS mess where construction stretches over half a century, because the needlessly aggressive conditions of Proposition 1A (2008) make it impossible to descope the speed and travel time targets without loosing these $10 billions in funding. And that‘s how that project creeps on at snailpace without being really useful within another 3 or so decades, whereas other funding priorities wither.

VIA’s HFR proposal was designed to avoid this trap by designing the least ambitious passenger rail investment program which would still be a gamechanger, but „VIA HFR-TGF“ seems determined to replicate CAHSR, which would foreseeably take several decades before it closes the gap between Smiths Falls and Toronto and becomes actually useful.

 

[micheal_can]

Matti Siemiatycki, director of the Infrastructure Institute at the University of Toronto, argues against funding HSR because Canada is dealing with a doctor shortage and in the midst of a housing crisis. Bless his heart, he seems to think funds saved by not upgrading passenger rail would go towards making life better for Canadians.

Thia is how some voters think, and how they vote. Completely disregarding them is not a winning strategy anymore.

 

[MisterF]

Matti Siemiatycki, director of the Infrastructure Institute at the University of Toronto, argues against funding HSR because Canada is dealing with a doctor shortage and in the midst of a housing crisis. Bless his heart, he seems to think funds saved by not upgrading passenger rail would go towards making life better for Canadians.

Welcome to CBC News. Tonight: why we can't have nice things.

 

[6ixGod]

Matti Siemiatycki, director of the Infrastructure Institute at the University of Toronto, argues against funding HSR because Canada is dealing with a doctor shortage and in the midst of a housing crisis. Bless his heart, he seems to think funds saved by not upgrading passenger rail would go towards making life better for Canadians.

Meanwhile in 1970

This is long overdue….if this were any other country, they would have built this 20 years ago. How many more highways are you going to build? How many more flights are you going to add?

 

[roger1818]

Matti Siemiatycki, director of the Infrastructure Institute at the University of Toronto, argues against funding HSR because Canada is dealing with a doctor shortage and in the midst of a housing crisis. Bless his heart, he seems to think funds saved by not upgrading passenger rail would go towards making life better for Canadians.

I recommend watching the video and drawing your own conclusion. It didn’t seem as much an argument against HSR as an uncertainty that it is a priority to most Canadians right now in the backdrop of both a housing and doctor shortage. The video also talked about the number of flights between Toronto and Montreal and how that’s unsustainable.

 

[roger1818]

Welcome to CBC News. Tonight: why we can't have nice things.

Give the average person the choice between having a doctor, a place to live and HSR, how do you think they would rank them? I’m not opposed to HxR, but I do feel we need to be careful how we spend our money, especially in a time of need. I agree we should have built it 20 years ago, but we probably could have better afforded it back then than we can right now. Heck, Even 5 years ago would have been better timing

Of course the other thing to consider is that the cost will be amortized over a decade or so, so maybe we can afford all 3 priorities.

 

[dowlingm]

Give the average person the choice between having a doctor, a place to live and HSR, how do you think they would rank them? I’m not opposed to HxR, but I do feel we need to be careful how we spend our money, especially in a time of need. I agree we should have built it 20 years ago, but we probably could have better afforded it back then than we can right now. Heck, Even 5 years ago would have been better timing

Of course the other thing to consider is that the cost will be amortized over a decade or so, so maybe we can afford all 3 priorities.

It’s not like we’re choosing between doctors and trains. Doctors are a provincial responsibility, shortages are all over the province, and Doug’s response is to tell foreigners they can’t study here and to hand out $200 cheques.

 

[Adjei]

Give the average person the choice between having a doctor, a place to live and HSR, how do you think they would rank them? I’m not opposed to HxR, but I do feel we need to be careful how we spend our money, especially in a time of need. I agree we should have built it 20 years ago, but we probably could have better afforded it back then than we can right now. Heck, Even 5 years ago would have been better timing

Of course the other thing to consider is that the cost will be amortized over a decade or so, so maybe we can afford all 3 priorities.

I don’t really get this line of thinking. We have been having health care issues and housing issues forever so not building this is not all of a sudden going to make those problems disappear.

Countless billions are being spent on pharmacare, dental care and other social endeavours and we still have other issues to be fixed. I don’t know why every time something infrastructure related is announced we get people coming out talking about all these other issues we have as if cancelling this will of a sudden fix them.

 

[micheal_can]

It’s not like we’re choosing between doctors and trains. Doctors are a provincial responsibility, shortages are all over the province, and Doug’s response is to tell foreigners they can’t study here and to hand out $200 cheques.

For a select group of voters, it is exactly that the government is choosing one over the other. They are the same ones who are pissed that we spend money on refugees when we have people homeless,but if we were to spend money on homelessness, they would think the government is stealing from them. The reality is, this select group does not understand anything unless their favorite politician says it is good or not.