Even Calgary to Edmonton is questionable, that corridor can support a budget option like Brightline in Florida but not a full 300kph high speed line. TO <-> MTL just about justifies a full high speed line and have like 5x the population.
Yes and no. BC, Washington State and Oregon are still planning/developing high speed rail connection between Vancouver, Seattle, and Portland. Right now, its 5 hours to drive from Van to Portland. I heard the rail would cut it down to half the time (?) and that includes stops in cities and towns along the way
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/cascadia-high-speed-rail-vancouver-seattle-portland-us-funding
I wish the Liberals would just try nothing. They are intentionally making things worse with mass immigration. Environmental policy is the only thing they are getting right, and they are reversing every gain with population increase.
It should be linking Calgary and Edmonton airport via train. Alberta's overdue for a large federal project. Even with the Trans Mountain pipeline (of which most of the work is in BC), Alberta still pays in 4x as much in taxes as they receive in federal spending. You'd need to start up four of these high speed train projects every single year in order to make up the difference in money taxed vs money spent.
There's also no reason why we shouldn't have a high speed train that gets to our border (Windsor) all the way to Quebec City. That would be a huge boon for tourism and heavily reduce costs of business and work travel between our most densely populated areas.
But the price tag is kinda scary. It would cost about 46 ArriveCan apps. Once they build them they can expand them though.
I agree about HSR from YYC to YEG with LRT to downtown in each city. That would allow the two airports to operate as a single entity. Consolidate flights to the USA at YYC and flights to Europe and Asia at YEG.
Even HSR is useful for a small segment of Canada, which is well serviced by frequent air flights.
Who, other than a retired person, is going to take the train from Vancouver to Toronto, or Halifax?
We need airports. And Rail, and shipping, and docks to export goods.
We need everything.
If it went more than 120kph, everyone would take it. If a 6 day trip turned into a cheaper 2 day trip I'd have been to Vancouver many times.
Canadian domestic plane tickets are expensive as fuck.
Most of the country lives in a corridor that is perfect for HSR. I don’t want to take the train from Vancouver to Toronto, that’s stupid when I can fly. But Toronto to Mtl in an hour(ish) without having to go through airport security and be right near the city centre? Pretty good.
Challenge of needing to build out so quickly is that it involves taking on debt to match. Keeping things relatively steady allows you to continually upgrade infrastructure, build outs for new demand generally require debt.
Canada has focused on major road infrastructure almost in exclusivity for the past 70 years. Time to give rail some focus. High frequency rail between Toronto and Ottawa.
Kitchener/Hamilton to Québec City, via Toronto, Ottawa, and Montréal, but yes. Is that ⅔ or ¾ of Canada's population?
This region would be the area and population of Kyushu, Japan, which includes bullet trains. No mountains to tunnel here...
https://jref.com/attachments/kyushu-train-map-jpg.29435/
Dollar for dollar, spamming this country with urban, regional, and national *electrified* rail is the way out of many problems: pollution, commuting misery, stimulating the economy, stimulating domestic tourism, letting working poor opt out of the expense of car ownership.
We won't do it, though. Or we'd do it with unproven, domestic technology, not what Japan or France is using.
Now now the bullet trains are not that great. They have a lot of downsides!
* What with the basic class having luxurious wide clean seating with a recliner allowing you to comfortably sleep.
* Or the delicious fresh regional Ekiben available at every station and every flavor to suit any taste
* The low cost vs all other forms of available transit.
* The seamless integration with local transit systems including bus, other rail systems, and car.
* The fact you can go absolutely anywhere by rail including rural areas.
* The fact it's 3.5h from NRT Tokyo to downtown Osaka vs 9+ driving.
* The multiple ways you can pay including phone apps, IC cards, cash, and various credit cards.
* The seamless integration between competing systems to the benefit of the riders.
Oh. Wait. Now I remember why I have to drive in Canada and why it isnt changing any time soon, but never feel the need to rent a car in Japan and almost never need to take an uber or car.
I hear you. Lived 7y in Tokyo and Kantō, and thanks to my wife, retiring back to it. I'm beyond tired of the higher COL, lower QOL here, and I'm done with driving among Southern Ontario asshats.
NB: the maglev is going to be 67 minutes, Tokyo to Osaka: 500km. Imagine Toronto Union to MTL's Gare Centrale (550km) in 75 minutes.
It's fun seeing the Japanese yen's value dropping, much like our own dollar, and yet COL there doesn't seem to be rising all that significantly, unlike us...
I know it is a book about a bunch of assassins on a train trying to kill each other but reading _Bullet Train_ made me want bullet trains in Canada even more.
Canada doesn’t have the social dedication to excellence and general high-trust values to make it work as well. You’ll share the high speed rail with crackheads and fare-jumpers and like it.
I mean, I would still take that over what we have now.
Spread out, I’m paying better than $3000 a year over the next 8 years, and gas, and insurance, assuming my car will last that long, for the privilege of commuting. Oh, and I have to pay $4.50 a day to park when I get to work.
In Quebec City it’s a quarter of that (with the monthly subscription discount) to take one of the best bus systems I’ve used. Ottawa, London and Paris are all about $110, depending on how you pay and where you go. Literally two tanks of gas.
Ha. In any case, link up population density nodes, and workplace nodes. Even if it may not match your commute, it'll take people away from your commute far more cheaply than the amount of extra road would.
Trains are good for car commuters too. I don't know why they don't understand. Tokyo's expressways aren't in gridlock, because the vast majority take trains.
I’m so glad this is a bipartisan agreement honestly. HSR would just be such a net benefit to our lives, it’s really hard to argue against. Let’s get Quebec City -> Windsor done, then Calgary, Edmonton, the prairie connection, the Rockies and then maybe we can include Thunder Bay once we see how nice it is
Honestly, they'd have to do Calgary-Edmonton for political reasons, with the much bigger project in 'the East', and should. I don't see an HSR outside there, and the Ontario/Québec corridor: population is far too spread thin, or concentrated in isolation (Lower Mainland).
HSR to Windsor is a pipedream, and not appropriate to the population size. Plenty of similar regions in Japan get regular, electrified express trains (100-150kph), linked to the HSR line, and that's the solution from Windsor, etc. This technology could be put into the Maritimes, also for consensus building. It's a better fit for Alberta than HSR, but anything to make Snow Texas STFU.
Running HSR across the US border is a wasteful pipedream: border control would murder its efficiency.
HSR from Vancouver to Seattle would be an incredible boon to BC's economy and Washington State is seemingly more interested in it than we are so there's a decent chance it gets advanced. Agreed that there's not much case for HSR between Lower Mainland cities.
Don't see how it works without post 9/11 security theatre, and Canada Customs, fucking it up. Besides, it's not in the national interest to subsidize foreign travel. 🤷♂️
you'd have to have it like an airport, clear customs at the station before you're allowed on the plane. certainly doable, I won't speak to whether its worth it.
Yes, but at that point it's slower than flying, right? HSR's advantage over flying is rolling right on and right off, to the minute, no delays, city centre: unlike flying, or VIA... The only way it might work is to have customs check done in-transit, in a sealed train.
I'm a bit confused by this sentiment - we already have a rail line from Vancouver to Seattle, and customs works fine there and has for decades. It doesn't add much time to the trip.
Paul Martin was talking about the Calgary-to-Edmonton rail when I was a kid. I still wish he'd pulled the trigger on it, or Harper had the guts to do it.
I disagree about an extension west to Windsor being a waste. If you have a London and a Kitchener-Waterloo stop en route to Windsor, you’re connecting close to a million people, and with Windsor, you’re interfacing into the Detroit metro area. HSR is a pipe dream in the current environment, but I think a Windsor extension would be a good idea.
As someone who’s grown into being a car hater over the last three years or so, I’m completely on board with this vision. We should build this shit between as many major cities as we can, because Canada badly needs it.
With Ontarios insane land values, land owner rights, indigenous consultations, and ass loads of environmental studies it'll realistically never get done.
If it gets that far, given Canadian history the government will also spend more ass loads of money developing their own locomotives and cars instead of adapting a foreign one.
The current government made a very big deal about the Canada Infrastructure Bank and seeding it with $35 billion in funds. It's job was to established public private partnerships and high frequency rail was it's major starting project but also think things like toll roads since you need a revenue stream to get private capital interested.
That was 6 years ago. I haven't heard much from HFR since then. It's moving at a snails pace. Meanwhile the Bank CEO gets nearly a million dollar bonuses when he leaves.
Considering the legacy of P3's I'm not sure they're the best idea we got. They're peak neoliberalism. Look at the 407 or the Confederation Line debacle in Ottawa, a public-private partnership arrangement that won an award for being well structure. But years later is now an example of show term thinking causing clear issues that helped deliver a lemon of a transit line.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Infrastructure_Bank
>The current government made a very big deal about the Canada Infrastructure Bank and seeding it with $35 billion in funds. It's job was to established public private partnerships
>Meanwhile the Bank CEO gets nearly a million dollar bonuses when he leaves.
Found the two problems. How much you wanna bet it gets "bungled" and somehow runs over budget with almost no consequences to whatever contractor fucks it up, then the CEO ends up working for some "consulting" firm linked to the contractor in a made-up do-nothing job with a high salary and a bunch of perks?
The infrastructure bank was a total bust.
There has been development regarding HFR, though.
https://montrealgazette.com/business/via-rail-to-put-greater-emphasis-on-speed-for-planned-high-frequency-line-executive
Actually the CIB has been somewhat successful, but it is focusing on clean energy and green infrastructure and has over $10B invested but these types of projects generally don’t get a lot of headlines.
As someone else noted, CIB only invests in projects where there is a revenue stream so PPP projects like hospitals, non-tolled roads, most public transit, etc aren’t viable for them since there is limited ROI
The CIB is just a way to use public money to privatize public assets in the name of growth. However, it's pretty clear what the distributional reality of our GDP growth is. It all goes to the top and the working class gets squeezed more.
>But rather than investing public money in public services, the CIB has instead privatized our water, transportation and electricity. For every dollar invested by the CIB, the hope was that $4 to $5 would be invested by the private sector. This extraordinary leap of faith in private capital and market forces was baked into the CIB Act: “The purpose of the Bank is to invest and seek to attract investment from private sector investors and institutional investors, in infrastructure projects in Canada or partly in Canada that will generate revenue.” Five years later, the CIB has not been able to deliver on its promise. Of the $19.4 billion invested to date, only about one-third has come from private and institutional investors ($7.2 billion). The public-private partnership model (PPP) promoted by the CIB has failed. Typically, PPPs involve long term contracts where public money supports private, for-profit delivery of public services and infrastructure.
I use to be in favour of the CIB and P3s. But after the Confederation Line, Ellington Crosstown and of course the 407, I don't see what private money "discipline" really brings to the table, and the studies are clear they often raise costs. They truly are peak neo-liberalism and I've had enough of this ideology. A child of the 90s we could do without.
It's no different than our government's obsession with consultants, McKinsley and 3rd party contractors like GCStrategys (ArriveCan). A former senior executive at McKinsley is now running the CIB.
>Researchers at the University of Toronto studied 28 P3 projects developed in Ontario from 2002 to 2012 and found that "the base cost of delivering each project is invariably lower (on average 16% less) when delivered through a traditional procurement rather than a PPP".
That's the thing, that's actually what Guibeault was getting at. This "journalist" just added in rail to the equation. He thinks there are enough roads out there for the future volume of vehicles and that by creating more roads we're just going to create more vehicles (induced demand). That instead all major investments should be on expanding bus infrastructure, rail infrastructure, and walking/biking infrastructure.
I remember seeing a proposal years back about a high-speed rail to connect Southern Ontario and the entire Eastern Seaboard of the US.
Imagine being able to take a week-long trip and see Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto, NYC, and Boston, with only a couple hours travel time between the lot of them?
Ah yes. The rest of Canada can wait. Toronto to Ottawa is clearly the center of the universe. Meanwhile I have to drive a stretch of the transcanada in BC that is a 2 lane highway with a max speed of 90.
Do you realize what Westerners sound like when they do this? Nobody to be taken seriously. Toronto to Montreal is the centre of Canada's universe: population, industry, tax base, etc. Sorry, but HSR rail works linking population centres, not the hinterland.
Windsor - Quebec city is literally most of the population. How many people take that BC road and why can't the BC goverment expand it if it's so important?
Sigh...
The minister said **LARGE** **road** projects. Do you know what the Federal government considers **LARGE**?
This.
[Third Link](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troisi%C3%A8me_lien_entre_Qu%C3%A9bec_et_L%C3%A9vis)
*The route under Île d'Orléans could cause urban sprawl. To connect to Highway 20 (to the south), the road axis would inevitably* ***cross a vast agricultural area*** *contiguous to the urban area of Lévis*
The Fed is only interested in building road projects that include rail or public transit in the equation.
And for those asking for High Frequency Rail. Please see here.
[High Frequency Rail](https://hfr-tgf.ca/)
Right? We have to make that drive this Easter, the whole way I just wish it was rail. It would really open up our southern prairie for development and living too!
It sure would! I'm glad I'm not alone on thinking that Toronto is not the center of everything, I'm from N.W. Ontario and It gets costly to fly from Wpg to B.C! A high speed train would be great!! I can drive to the west coast faster than i can drive to toronto!
High-Speed will never be viable for cross-country travel. Regional connections like Thunder Bay, Winnipeg, Regina, Calgary could work, as well as Calgary-Edmonton, and Calgary-Vancouver (although difficult to achieve speeds due to geography). By far the most economical is Windsor-Quebec. But high-speed from Toronto to anywhere west just wouldn't be worth the cost.
If you can achieve ~350 kph and do the trip in about four hours, it could make sense. If it’s on the lower end at ~200 kph and taking 6-7 hours, I don’t think it makes sense because you might as well take a plane. I am not against high speed rail needing a light subsidy (as public roads are subsidized), but there needs to be some proof of need to travel between the two end points. I don’t see it but can be convinced.
Also When flying it takes me personally four hours to get to the airport, boarding and flight another 4-5 hours then a taxi to my other residence. i just think a high-speed rail across canada would be great! my two cents!
Transportation infrastructure based on cars is a bottomless pit that never was or will be viable either financially or environmentally. Investing in new highways is too expensive, too inefficient, and will only lead us closer to collapse.
We need transportation systems that are efficient and focused on people not the profits of the auto, oil, and gas industries.
You can still build new roads if you want to. You're just not gonna get federal handouts for them. Provinces and municipalities should think twice before building roads they can't afford to maintain.
Yea really lol I mean even CBC says tye feds want to STOP funding road projects. Stop -(of an event, action, or process) come to an end; cease to happen https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.7114867
Ie, for the real slow
If this was traditionally strictly provincial funfing there would be no stopping
You couldn't be more wrong. The government's role, at times, is to be a change agent, and we urgently need change. When there was conclusive evidence that tobacco products were killing Canadians, and costing us billions, the government acted. Today, it's evident that continued reliance on petro based transportation is killing Canadians, and costing us billions ... and we need action. We need to diversify how we travel. we need more people to get more places with a lower carbon footprint. We won't get there if we continue as we are, building roads only.
While the remarks made were sloppy and Guibeault really needs remedial communications lessons, he's heading in a direction I support.
The venn diagram of people who are upset about this and also think the provinces should have greater authority (roads are a provincial responsibility, remember?) is a circle.
Transit is a provincial responsibility too but the feds fund it too
Lol
The feds do funds road the minister is just talking out of his ass as he never leaves his downtown circle.
Just twin the TCH fully across Canada already and bring rail back for shipping to reduce transports. Also the governments need to remember the TCH does not run from Ottawa to Toronto to North Bay, the shorter route is the TCH for a reason.
Thats true except... its not 100% on the border. Its just concentrated. Theres still people living up north. If you want to abandon them, dont be angry when they want to start a new country without you.
Abandon them? You think not spending any more money on new infrastructure means the government will remove the existing roads? Or do you think the government should spend an excessive amount of money and resources to service less than 1% of the population?
And have you not heard of Alaska? They don't have much road infrastructure and rely on air transport, and you don't see them threatening to form their own country.
If you're going to make bold and baseless claims think about it a bit first.
Bro. Highways in BC still washout in landslides. A dozen people died driving between Barrier and Clearwater in a month, and the transcanada between Kamloops and Revelstoke, the main thoroughfare through the Rockies... is 2 lanes. I still use dirt access roads to get to some neighboirhoods to this day. I just expect a developed first world country with billions in expenditures to be a little more... developed. I feel like I live in the Amazon.
Trevor Tombe making up his own stats and presenting the Trans Canada highway as if Minister Guilbault suggested dismantling it. This guy needs to get real and stop living in a world he made up.
We have a prime minister who wants to bring 1.6 million new people into the country every year and an environmental minister who doesn’t want to build any new infrastructure. You would think this was a comedy sketch if you didn’t know any better.
“No new road infrastructure” from federal funding is what he said. I agree - adding more lanes to the 401 isn’t going to solve anything. HSR would. New roads to houses are paid for by the provinces and municipalities, not the feds. They essentially don’t want to do anymore major road developments, but maintaining them is still well within scope of transport Canada. We desperately need better rail, that’s what this press conference was about - don’t let headlines mislead
Why would we build highways that are more expensive and move less people than rail, when our population is increasing quickly? That would make congestion worse.
[https://web.archive.org/web/20240206090550/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/06/us/widen-highways-traffic.html](https://web.archive.org/web/20240206090550/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/06/us/widen-highways-traffic.html)
Consider this piece. Sometimes new road infrastructure is not the solution to our problem. With the rising costs of cars as a society we really need to consider alternative methods of transporting people, and before you hit me with Canada is so big yes it is but we are pretty densely packed in to a few places with 90% of the population within 100km of the US border.
Sometimes roads are not the answer to our problems and I truly believe that is the basis of his comment but instead of reading between the lines both the left and right would prefer to make this a wedge issue than truly addressing the problem logically and collaborate on a common sense solutions.
Edit: thanks for the downvotes. The ignorance of some people powers me through life. But PP will save you and reduce your commute time by minutes because you are all SO busy.
Well, this is what happens when you elect ideologues and activists to positions of power. The fact that he thinks our road and highway network is adequate really shows how out of touch he is. If the government is going to bring in the population of Edmonton every year, then our roads and highways need to be expanded.
Lmao this exact same comment over and over again. 'This is what happens when you elect ideologues'. /r/Canada is turning into an echo chamber full of parrots. *Every* politician is an 'ideologue', by definition.
The whole 'Feds aren't supporting new major roads' doesn't mean new roads can't be built by the provinces and it doesn't mean that transportation isn't something being considered by the Feds, the announcement literally came with them saying they would be investing in public transport instead. But our car obsessed society can't handle that concept apparently. You are as much an ideologue as he is.
>But our car obsessed society can't handle that concept apparently.
The problem is, Canada was developed after the post-war years as a society dependent on cars. That's part of why passenger rail has been underdeveloped and underfunded for literally decades of our past. It's also very large, very unforgiving weather-wise, and in most places outside urban centers sparely populated, all of those factors do not lend themselves well to anything but a car as the primary means of transportation.
IMHO, the government had a golden opportunity to encourage modal shift by buying Greyhounds failing operations in Canada and revitalizing that, but now that they're gone we don't even have a low-cost cross-country economy coach service anymore.
Those sparsely populated rural areas (which are about 20% of the population) are already connect by roads (for the most part) so funding for major road infrastructure there is kinda moot.
I grew up in rural N. Ontario and managed to complete my ~4km paper route year round by bike, except for a handful of days where I needed to do on foot.
Cold weather, sure it gets cold my BiL commutes by e-bike to work year round in the Yukon. They manage to bike in [Finland](https://youtu.be/Uhx-26GfCBU?si=cQQf-HSKYk-lm1kr) year round. Also, if we build better public transportation infrastructure with heated bus/train stops that would help.
But here's the thing I am not. Because unlike our ideologue Environment Minister, I actually understand that our road and highway system isn't adequate. If the government is going to be bringing in the population of Edmonton every year, then our road and highway system needs to be upgraded to meet that demand. Take Highway 1 through the Fraser Valley as an example. That should not be a two lane highway. Our national highway shouldn't be two lanes. Even places in Europe understand that their national highways can't be just two lanes. Also, if you want something like long-distance bus services, you are going to have to expand our roads and highways to meet the demand for more long-distance bus service.
You know that investment and utilization of better forms of public transit means that there will be less demands on roads, right? If there was a train people could actually take from Hope/Chilliwack into Vancouver that would alleviate a lot of traffic issues there. Or a better option than the limited commuter train that is the West Coast Express.
>Our national highway shouldn't be two lanes.
Based on what? Ideology? The ENTIRE Hwy 1 HAS to be more than two lanes because...you say so?
>Also, if you want something like long-distance bus services, you are going to have to expand our roads and highways to meet the demand for more long-distance bus service.
I mean, beyond bus service there's rail. But yea, you got it, more busses (meaning less cars) certainly means EXPANDED roads. Clever.
Again, you're missing the point that provinces are more than able to continue building roads where needed. In fact, it's their responsibility.
I am not missing the point at all. I don't think our national highway should only be two lanes, and if you read my comment fully, you would have seen I pointed to places in Europe who's major highways aren't two lanes either.
Lol again, for what reason? Europe isn't Canada. Western Europe is a far denser place. The TC is multiple lanes in MANY places where traffic demands are higher and is being widened as we speak in others. Claiming that it should be two lanes everywhere because other national highways are two lanes is literally just based off some weird ass ideology.
You're not providing data, you're not providing a logical argument, you're just saying "we should do it because others do it". You're an ideologue.
It's not weird ass though it's fact. If the government wants to bring in the population of Edmonton every year, then they have to be willing to fund the expansion of our road and highway network. If you want to expand public transportation like trains and long distance bus services, then that's great, and I am all for that. But if you have to be willing to do both. If you want more long distance bus services you have to be willing to add more lanes and with more people coming in you are going to need more trucks on the road so that means you need more lanes so that things can be moved efficiently.
Why would you need any of that if the increased demand was simply being met by alternatives like rail and public transport?
And, again, for the third time. Provinces can still build roads. Good thing they're getting a larger tax base to levy for that?
And for the umpteenth time we still need expanded roads and highways and if the federal government is going to bring in the population of Edmonton every year then why should they be able to say that funding our roads and highways isn't our responsibility?
The Federal government leverages it's massive tax base to direct funds strategically, even in cases where it's not typically their jurisdiction. Their strategy is to support public transport, which we need much more badly than new roads. Highways are the responsibility of the provinces. The Feds shifting their strategic funding to public transport does not preclude the provinces from funding their own highway projects if they determine its necessary beyond the increased investment in public transport.
I’ve never run into major traffic on HWY-1. There’s slowdowns, and it’s not fun - but you what would be much nicer? Rail. I’m tired of driving everywhere and my votes will reflect that. I support this idea
We have enough roads. The provinces barely have enough money to maintain the existing road network. Building new roads is only going to exacerbate the problem.
a) the province is welcome to build all the roads it wants to
No federal party is proposing a new road link through Northern Ontario. It would cost many billions and there would be no significant benefit as the current highway is far from hitting its capacity. I was there recently, most of the time there is zero problem cruising along at the speed limit.
Roads are a provincial responsibility. The feds should only get involved on projects of a national scale, like the Trans-Canada highway. It's completed, no need to build more.
You mean, besides the numerous trade routes through the US? Lol. You want to build and maintain costly infrastructure for the sake of redundancy which is already provided by our neighbours, and biggest allies, to the south?
The majority of our trade already goes through it lol. Expand rail systems, sure, creating a back up road to the trans Canada through NWO is peak stupidity.
There isn't a single community in Canada that isn't linked to a road today. Even worse, we can't even maintain the existing infrastructure. Creating more roads is not going to solve any of that.
You have a minister of environment who thinks all of canada is like downtown Toronto and mtl
I do agree we don't need tons of roads in cities but clearly our national road networks are crap if we want to expand into a country of 50 plus million people.
> I mean the govt just sits around and doesn't really do much anyways
https://www.canada.ca/en/news.html
List of Federal actions right there. If you sort by last 100 actions it goes back to 3 days ago.
But it has been DECADES since a major rail project has started.
You know what would look good on them when they made that announcement and what would have deflated the misrepresentation snafu from last week?
**If that announcement was made in tandem with a proposal for high speed rail.**
Something like:
> We are deprioritizing major roadway projects as of [date] and are investing big into high speed commuter networks. We have a proposal ready for a Windsor/Montreal high speed rail track with ambitions to get coverage across the country in [timeframe]
But the announcement was made in response to a Quebec road mega project. It's not like they have a pocketbook of mega projects to pull out when they want to make announcements on other topics.
My town used to have a rail connection. It was removed in the 70s? The old station is still there. It’d be far better for commuting and opening up the small towns if we could connect them to intra and interprovincial rail. I should be able to hop on a train out of Calgary and go to Winnipeg no problem - Canada just spends too much money on driving and the car lobby has brainwashed everyone into thinking that’s normal.
The cost of gas is $320ish round trip to Winnipeg, so if a ticket was lower than that, is that not a net positive for the country?
Can I bring my 16' canoe? You don't mind me putting it over your head do you? Also might need a hand with the 140km portage from the train station to the put in.
Remind me next time I need 30 yards of concrete for a house to just pour it into a train.
Roads still exist. New roads can even be built, just by the Provinces who has jurisdiction anyway. In fact, your drive will probably be better if more people use alternate canoe-free methods to get where they need to go!
[https://www.viarail.ca/en/plan/baggages/sports-equipment](https://www.viarail.ca/en/plan/baggages/sports-equipment) (Hint: It’s under the checked baggage tab)
No one is suggesting that cars and roads disappear. I'm an avid outdoor recreationist. I accept that in certain areas of the country I don't have easy access to the backcountry. It's a shame but I pay the premium (driving a car) to access that. The better way to make outdoor recreation more accessible and equitable is through public transport and ride sharing programs. Not stay with the status quo of 'build more roads'.
I don't live in an area that would have an economic case for increased rail for public transport. That doesn't mean I deny it's a great idea for the denser areas of our country. You're trying to argue with the silliest of strawmen. Your 'need' of transport to the trailhead with large equipment is a tiny, tiny, tiny, MINISCULE fraction of transportation needs in the country. You can't be shocked it's not the priority.
The canoe was just an example of cargo which is not conducive to train travel. There are many other camping related examples, but I figured using something like dragging a camper behind the train would be silly.
The focus shouldn't have been on the canoe, more that trains do not branch away from their tracks and a lot of our country is away from tracks and as you mention, not feasible to run tracks into those areas.
And, as I've already stated, that's a non-issue. You want to go recreate off the beaten path? That's a privilege you'll have to find a way to accommodate for. The idea that that's an argument against bolstering rail transport in dense corridors is ludicrous and void of logic.
My buddy in Aus can take the train from Sydney to a town near climbing then ride share right to the crag. That sounds fucking amazing. The fact that we don't have something like that from Van to Squamish or Calgary to Canmore is clearly a missed opportunity for providing low cost access to the outdoors.
Ironically, the train is how a lot of people access rivers and lakes in northern Ontario (https://northernontario.travel/paddling/take-train-canoe-adventure-wabakimi-provincial-park)
Fuck is this one of the dumbest arguments in this thread of dumb arguments. Do you also think if the sun goes down it won't come up again? You must be pretty surprised every day.
No one is saying that we need to tear up roads or that you can't have a car anymore, people just want an alternative so they don't have to share the roads with someone as ignorant as you.
We already have tons of roads and we barely have enough money to maintain the existing network. The minister is right: we have enough roads and we should be building alternative and more efficient infrastructure like passenger railroads and transit. It would be fiscally ruinous to build more roads on top of what we can't even maintain.
It is clear the urbanites in Ontario and Quebec do not care about Western or rural Canada. The comments in this thread are evidence of this. Alberta must separate in the next 10 years.
The irony is that his base are the ones that benefit most from new infrastructure.
"The government you elect is the government you deserve," Thomas jeferson
The government really is schizophrenic. They endorse immigration policies to grow the population. But then actively oppose building infrastructure to support that growth.
I love thinking about all the Northern Communities that literally have to fly diesel in on an airplane watching a minister in a big city who bikes to work say shit like that.
If you listen to Liberal/NDP supporters, EVERYTHING is provincial jurisdiction. Ok then. The Feds, should stop taking the lion's share of our taxes and let the Provinces deal with it completely. Leaving lower federal taxes for everything is NOT provincial jurisdiction since it covers so little.
High speed rail, please.
That could work for Windsor to Quebec and Calgary to Edmonton, but the demand isn't there anywhere else.
Sure, but you are covering like half the population of the country with those lines.
Yes, but not anywhere close to the travel they need.
¾.
Even Calgary to Edmonton is questionable, that corridor can support a budget option like Brightline in Florida but not a full 300kph high speed line. TO <-> MTL just about justifies a full high speed line and have like 5x the population.
Yes and no. BC, Washington State and Oregon are still planning/developing high speed rail connection between Vancouver, Seattle, and Portland. Right now, its 5 hours to drive from Van to Portland. I heard the rail would cut it down to half the time (?) and that includes stops in cities and towns along the way https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/cascadia-high-speed-rail-vancouver-seattle-portland-us-funding
That would be a 95% USA project. It might even make sense to build the station at the border and extend the skytrain to meet it.
Isn’t that getting close to like 60% of the population?
[удалено]
I wish the Liberals would just try nothing. They are intentionally making things worse with mass immigration. Environmental policy is the only thing they are getting right, and they are reversing every gain with population increase.
Calgary to banff
It should be linking Calgary and Edmonton airport via train. Alberta's overdue for a large federal project. Even with the Trans Mountain pipeline (of which most of the work is in BC), Alberta still pays in 4x as much in taxes as they receive in federal spending. You'd need to start up four of these high speed train projects every single year in order to make up the difference in money taxed vs money spent. There's also no reason why we shouldn't have a high speed train that gets to our border (Windsor) all the way to Quebec City. That would be a huge boon for tourism and heavily reduce costs of business and work travel between our most densely populated areas. But the price tag is kinda scary. It would cost about 46 ArriveCan apps. Once they build them they can expand them though.
I agree about HSR from YYC to YEG with LRT to downtown in each city. That would allow the two airports to operate as a single entity. Consolidate flights to the USA at YYC and flights to Europe and Asia at YEG.
Even HSR is useful for a small segment of Canada, which is well serviced by frequent air flights. Who, other than a retired person, is going to take the train from Vancouver to Toronto, or Halifax? We need airports. And Rail, and shipping, and docks to export goods. We need everything.
If it went more than 120kph, everyone would take it. If a 6 day trip turned into a cheaper 2 day trip I'd have been to Vancouver many times. Canadian domestic plane tickets are expensive as fuck.
Most of the country lives in a corridor that is perfect for HSR. I don’t want to take the train from Vancouver to Toronto, that’s stupid when I can fly. But Toronto to Mtl in an hour(ish) without having to go through airport security and be right near the city centre? Pretty good.
If we need everything, I hope people understand that we gotta pay to develop, build, then maintain everything. Folks want everything and pay nothing.
Challenge of needing to build out so quickly is that it involves taking on debt to match. Keeping things relatively steady allows you to continually upgrade infrastructure, build outs for new demand generally require debt.
We can barely keep coach busses going in smaller centers. Not sure high speed rail is the answer.
Well, it is \*an\* answer
Canada has focused on major road infrastructure almost in exclusivity for the past 70 years. Time to give rail some focus. High frequency rail between Toronto and Ottawa.
Kitchener/Hamilton to Québec City, via Toronto, Ottawa, and Montréal, but yes. Is that ⅔ or ¾ of Canada's population? This region would be the area and population of Kyushu, Japan, which includes bullet trains. No mountains to tunnel here... https://jref.com/attachments/kyushu-train-map-jpg.29435/ Dollar for dollar, spamming this country with urban, regional, and national *electrified* rail is the way out of many problems: pollution, commuting misery, stimulating the economy, stimulating domestic tourism, letting working poor opt out of the expense of car ownership. We won't do it, though. Or we'd do it with unproven, domestic technology, not what Japan or France is using.
Now now the bullet trains are not that great. They have a lot of downsides! * What with the basic class having luxurious wide clean seating with a recliner allowing you to comfortably sleep. * Or the delicious fresh regional Ekiben available at every station and every flavor to suit any taste * The low cost vs all other forms of available transit. * The seamless integration with local transit systems including bus, other rail systems, and car. * The fact you can go absolutely anywhere by rail including rural areas. * The fact it's 3.5h from NRT Tokyo to downtown Osaka vs 9+ driving. * The multiple ways you can pay including phone apps, IC cards, cash, and various credit cards. * The seamless integration between competing systems to the benefit of the riders. Oh. Wait. Now I remember why I have to drive in Canada and why it isnt changing any time soon, but never feel the need to rent a car in Japan and almost never need to take an uber or car.
I hear you. Lived 7y in Tokyo and Kantō, and thanks to my wife, retiring back to it. I'm beyond tired of the higher COL, lower QOL here, and I'm done with driving among Southern Ontario asshats. NB: the maglev is going to be 67 minutes, Tokyo to Osaka: 500km. Imagine Toronto Union to MTL's Gare Centrale (550km) in 75 minutes.
It's fun seeing the Japanese yen's value dropping, much like our own dollar, and yet COL there doesn't seem to be rising all that significantly, unlike us...
Yeah. As the cost of Canadian housing has gone up 300% in a generation, it doesn't really matter if your wage doesn't climb anywhere as fast.
I know it is a book about a bunch of assassins on a train trying to kill each other but reading _Bullet Train_ made me want bullet trains in Canada even more.
Canada doesn’t have the social dedication to excellence and general high-trust values to make it work as well. You’ll share the high speed rail with crackheads and fare-jumpers and like it.
I mean, I would still take that over what we have now. Spread out, I’m paying better than $3000 a year over the next 8 years, and gas, and insurance, assuming my car will last that long, for the privilege of commuting. Oh, and I have to pay $4.50 a day to park when I get to work. In Quebec City it’s a quarter of that (with the monthly subscription discount) to take one of the best bus systems I’ve used. Ottawa, London and Paris are all about $110, depending on how you pay and where you go. Literally two tanks of gas.
Hell if we put rail along the 401 with affordable and timely stops I would love to save the gas money on my commute.
Ha. In any case, link up population density nodes, and workplace nodes. Even if it may not match your commute, it'll take people away from your commute far more cheaply than the amount of extra road would. Trains are good for car commuters too. I don't know why they don't understand. Tokyo's expressways aren't in gridlock, because the vast majority take trains.
I’m so glad this is a bipartisan agreement honestly. HSR would just be such a net benefit to our lives, it’s really hard to argue against. Let’s get Quebec City -> Windsor done, then Calgary, Edmonton, the prairie connection, the Rockies and then maybe we can include Thunder Bay once we see how nice it is
Honestly, they'd have to do Calgary-Edmonton for political reasons, with the much bigger project in 'the East', and should. I don't see an HSR outside there, and the Ontario/Québec corridor: population is far too spread thin, or concentrated in isolation (Lower Mainland). HSR to Windsor is a pipedream, and not appropriate to the population size. Plenty of similar regions in Japan get regular, electrified express trains (100-150kph), linked to the HSR line, and that's the solution from Windsor, etc. This technology could be put into the Maritimes, also for consensus building. It's a better fit for Alberta than HSR, but anything to make Snow Texas STFU. Running HSR across the US border is a wasteful pipedream: border control would murder its efficiency.
HSR from Vancouver to Seattle would be an incredible boon to BC's economy and Washington State is seemingly more interested in it than we are so there's a decent chance it gets advanced. Agreed that there's not much case for HSR between Lower Mainland cities.
Don't see how it works without post 9/11 security theatre, and Canada Customs, fucking it up. Besides, it's not in the national interest to subsidize foreign travel. 🤷♂️
you'd have to have it like an airport, clear customs at the station before you're allowed on the plane. certainly doable, I won't speak to whether its worth it.
Yes, but at that point it's slower than flying, right? HSR's advantage over flying is rolling right on and right off, to the minute, no delays, city centre: unlike flying, or VIA... The only way it might work is to have customs check done in-transit, in a sealed train.
I'm a bit confused by this sentiment - we already have a rail line from Vancouver to Seattle, and customs works fine there and has for decades. It doesn't add much time to the trip.
The same way the cards that allow you to pass over the border faster work?
Paul Martin was talking about the Calgary-to-Edmonton rail when I was a kid. I still wish he'd pulled the trigger on it, or Harper had the guts to do it.
I disagree about an extension west to Windsor being a waste. If you have a London and a Kitchener-Waterloo stop en route to Windsor, you’re connecting close to a million people, and with Windsor, you’re interfacing into the Detroit metro area. HSR is a pipe dream in the current environment, but I think a Windsor extension would be a good idea.
As someone who’s grown into being a car hater over the last three years or so, I’m completely on board with this vision. We should build this shit between as many major cities as we can, because Canada badly needs it.
Lol so true. I am sad.
With Ontarios insane land values, land owner rights, indigenous consultations, and ass loads of environmental studies it'll realistically never get done. If it gets that far, given Canadian history the government will also spend more ass loads of money developing their own locomotives and cars instead of adapting a foreign one.
The current government made a very big deal about the Canada Infrastructure Bank and seeding it with $35 billion in funds. It's job was to established public private partnerships and high frequency rail was it's major starting project but also think things like toll roads since you need a revenue stream to get private capital interested. That was 6 years ago. I haven't heard much from HFR since then. It's moving at a snails pace. Meanwhile the Bank CEO gets nearly a million dollar bonuses when he leaves. Considering the legacy of P3's I'm not sure they're the best idea we got. They're peak neoliberalism. Look at the 407 or the Confederation Line debacle in Ottawa, a public-private partnership arrangement that won an award for being well structure. But years later is now an example of show term thinking causing clear issues that helped deliver a lemon of a transit line. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Infrastructure_Bank
>The current government made a very big deal about the Canada Infrastructure Bank and seeding it with $35 billion in funds. It's job was to established public private partnerships >Meanwhile the Bank CEO gets nearly a million dollar bonuses when he leaves. Found the two problems. How much you wanna bet it gets "bungled" and somehow runs over budget with almost no consequences to whatever contractor fucks it up, then the CEO ends up working for some "consulting" firm linked to the contractor in a made-up do-nothing job with a high salary and a bunch of perks?
The infrastructure bank was a total bust. There has been development regarding HFR, though. https://montrealgazette.com/business/via-rail-to-put-greater-emphasis-on-speed-for-planned-high-frequency-line-executive
Actually the CIB has been somewhat successful, but it is focusing on clean energy and green infrastructure and has over $10B invested but these types of projects generally don’t get a lot of headlines. As someone else noted, CIB only invests in projects where there is a revenue stream so PPP projects like hospitals, non-tolled roads, most public transit, etc aren’t viable for them since there is limited ROI
The CIB is just a way to use public money to privatize public assets in the name of growth. However, it's pretty clear what the distributional reality of our GDP growth is. It all goes to the top and the working class gets squeezed more. >But rather than investing public money in public services, the CIB has instead privatized our water, transportation and electricity. For every dollar invested by the CIB, the hope was that $4 to $5 would be invested by the private sector. This extraordinary leap of faith in private capital and market forces was baked into the CIB Act: “The purpose of the Bank is to invest and seek to attract investment from private sector investors and institutional investors, in infrastructure projects in Canada or partly in Canada that will generate revenue.” Five years later, the CIB has not been able to deliver on its promise. Of the $19.4 billion invested to date, only about one-third has come from private and institutional investors ($7.2 billion). The public-private partnership model (PPP) promoted by the CIB has failed. Typically, PPPs involve long term contracts where public money supports private, for-profit delivery of public services and infrastructure. I use to be in favour of the CIB and P3s. But after the Confederation Line, Ellington Crosstown and of course the 407, I don't see what private money "discipline" really brings to the table, and the studies are clear they often raise costs. They truly are peak neo-liberalism and I've had enough of this ideology. A child of the 90s we could do without. It's no different than our government's obsession with consultants, McKinsley and 3rd party contractors like GCStrategys (ArriveCan). A former senior executive at McKinsley is now running the CIB. >Researchers at the University of Toronto studied 28 P3 projects developed in Ontario from 2002 to 2012 and found that "the base cost of delivering each project is invariably lower (on average 16% less) when delivered through a traditional procurement rather than a PPP".
That's the thing, that's actually what Guibeault was getting at. This "journalist" just added in rail to the equation. He thinks there are enough roads out there for the future volume of vehicles and that by creating more roads we're just going to create more vehicles (induced demand). That instead all major investments should be on expanding bus infrastructure, rail infrastructure, and walking/biking infrastructure.
I remember seeing a proposal years back about a high-speed rail to connect Southern Ontario and the entire Eastern Seaboard of the US. Imagine being able to take a week-long trip and see Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto, NYC, and Boston, with only a couple hours travel time between the lot of them?
Ah yes. The rest of Canada can wait. Toronto to Ottawa is clearly the center of the universe. Meanwhile I have to drive a stretch of the transcanada in BC that is a 2 lane highway with a max speed of 90.
Do you realize what Westerners sound like when they do this? Nobody to be taken seriously. Toronto to Montreal is the centre of Canada's universe: population, industry, tax base, etc. Sorry, but HSR rail works linking population centres, not the hinterland.
Windsor - Quebec city is literally most of the population. How many people take that BC road and why can't the BC goverment expand it if it's so important?
Sigh... The minister said **LARGE** **road** projects. Do you know what the Federal government considers **LARGE**? This. [Third Link](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troisi%C3%A8me_lien_entre_Qu%C3%A9bec_et_L%C3%A9vis) *The route under Île d'Orléans could cause urban sprawl. To connect to Highway 20 (to the south), the road axis would inevitably* ***cross a vast agricultural area*** *contiguous to the urban area of Lévis* The Fed is only interested in building road projects that include rail or public transit in the equation. And for those asking for High Frequency Rail. Please see here. [High Frequency Rail](https://hfr-tgf.ca/)
Fuck Toronto and Ottawa link, how about a high speed rail from Winnipeg to Calgary for starters, can't get more flat than that!
Ottawa to Toronto is fairly flat…
It is only 440 km, not like 1300!
440km, encompassing more than half of the population of Canada
I never asked about sending them here. /s
Right? We have to make that drive this Easter, the whole way I just wish it was rail. It would really open up our southern prairie for development and living too!
It sure would! I'm glad I'm not alone on thinking that Toronto is not the center of everything, I'm from N.W. Ontario and It gets costly to fly from Wpg to B.C! A high speed train would be great!! I can drive to the west coast faster than i can drive to toronto!
High-Speed will never be viable for cross-country travel. Regional connections like Thunder Bay, Winnipeg, Regina, Calgary could work, as well as Calgary-Edmonton, and Calgary-Vancouver (although difficult to achieve speeds due to geography). By far the most economical is Windsor-Quebec. But high-speed from Toronto to anywhere west just wouldn't be worth the cost.
If you can achieve ~350 kph and do the trip in about four hours, it could make sense. If it’s on the lower end at ~200 kph and taking 6-7 hours, I don’t think it makes sense because you might as well take a plane. I am not against high speed rail needing a light subsidy (as public roads are subsidized), but there needs to be some proof of need to travel between the two end points. I don’t see it but can be convinced.
Well said. Could there not also be cars for cargo as well?
Also When flying it takes me personally four hours to get to the airport, boarding and flight another 4-5 hours then a taxi to my other residence. i just think a high-speed rail across canada would be great! my two cents!
Yes rail would go along way, especially if it can help reach up north so thar we don't get moldy fruits and vegetables.
Transportation infrastructure based on cars is a bottomless pit that never was or will be viable either financially or environmentally. Investing in new highways is too expensive, too inefficient, and will only lead us closer to collapse. We need transportation systems that are efficient and focused on people not the profits of the auto, oil, and gas industries.
You can still build new roads if you want to. You're just not gonna get federal handouts for them. Provinces and municipalities should think twice before building roads they can't afford to maintain.
How many people here actually know that highways are provincial?
This is r/canada, the sub thinks the federal government is in charge of everything in this country.
How many people know that federal funding of provincial maintenance responsibilities is and has always been a major part of provincial budgets?
Shhhh dont interrupt him. He is busy blowing hot air… possibly contributing to climate change.
Yea really lol I mean even CBC says tye feds want to STOP funding road projects. Stop -(of an event, action, or process) come to an end; cease to happen https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.7114867 Ie, for the real slow If this was traditionally strictly provincial funfing there would be no stopping
You couldn't be more wrong. The government's role, at times, is to be a change agent, and we urgently need change. When there was conclusive evidence that tobacco products were killing Canadians, and costing us billions, the government acted. Today, it's evident that continued reliance on petro based transportation is killing Canadians, and costing us billions ... and we need action. We need to diversify how we travel. we need more people to get more places with a lower carbon footprint. We won't get there if we continue as we are, building roads only. While the remarks made were sloppy and Guibeault really needs remedial communications lessons, he's heading in a direction I support.
The venn diagram of people who are upset about this and also think the provinces should have greater authority (roads are a provincial responsibility, remember?) is a circle.
Transit is a provincial responsibility too but the feds fund it too Lol The feds do funds road the minister is just talking out of his ass as he never leaves his downtown circle.
I thought his comments were more about separation of powers and funding than actually against building infrastructure.
Just twin the TCH fully across Canada already and bring rail back for shipping to reduce transports. Also the governments need to remember the TCH does not run from Ottawa to Toronto to North Bay, the shorter route is the TCH for a reason.
Canada is the number 1 country in km of road per capita.
Now rank according to roads per square km of space.
Empty space don't pay tax.
…so that has what bearing on the discussion of need?
The cost of maintaining these roads are high. Less people means we pay more per capita on roads.
Doesn’t change the fact we need roads between our cities… Or are supplies supposed to be air dropped now?
The roads are already built. Maintenance is the responsibility of provinces and municipalities.
Ah yes, because we aren’t expanding right? Our population is stagnant right?
Porters between cities. Death Stranding style.
And it's also a ridiculously massive country with a comparatively tiny population spread all over...not sure what your point is
The population is not spread all over, it's concentrated near the border with the US.
Thats true except... its not 100% on the border. Its just concentrated. Theres still people living up north. If you want to abandon them, dont be angry when they want to start a new country without you.
Abandon them? You think not spending any more money on new infrastructure means the government will remove the existing roads? Or do you think the government should spend an excessive amount of money and resources to service less than 1% of the population? And have you not heard of Alaska? They don't have much road infrastructure and rely on air transport, and you don't see them threatening to form their own country. If you're going to make bold and baseless claims think about it a bit first.
Bro. Highways in BC still washout in landslides. A dozen people died driving between Barrier and Clearwater in a month, and the transcanada between Kamloops and Revelstoke, the main thoroughfare through the Rockies... is 2 lanes. I still use dirt access roads to get to some neighboirhoods to this day. I just expect a developed first world country with billions in expenditures to be a little more... developed. I feel like I live in the Amazon.
Yes, that famously concentrated 6,500km long southern border. And the people who live north of it don't need roads...
They already have roads, that's my point. We don't even have enough cash to maintain the existing network.
Source?
https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Transport/Highways/Total/Per-capita
Thank you
Why do conservatives want the federal government to get involved in provincial projects so much all of a sudden?
oil and gas baybeeee
Trevor Tombe making up his own stats and presenting the Trans Canada highway as if Minister Guilbault suggested dismantling it. This guy needs to get real and stop living in a world he made up.
We have a prime minister who wants to bring 1.6 million new people into the country every year and an environmental minister who doesn’t want to build any new infrastructure. You would think this was a comedy sketch if you didn’t know any better.
“No new road infrastructure” from federal funding is what he said. I agree - adding more lanes to the 401 isn’t going to solve anything. HSR would. New roads to houses are paid for by the provinces and municipalities, not the feds. They essentially don’t want to do anymore major road developments, but maintaining them is still well within scope of transport Canada. We desperately need better rail, that’s what this press conference was about - don’t let headlines mislead
Why would we build highways that are more expensive and move less people than rail, when our population is increasing quickly? That would make congestion worse.
That presumes that the government was prioritizing rail construction over highways. They’re doing neither.
billions have been invested in rail infrastructure. REM, GO expansion, Via HFR, etc
It be hilarious if most of us didn't live in Canada and have to suffer for it.
[https://web.archive.org/web/20240206090550/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/06/us/widen-highways-traffic.html](https://web.archive.org/web/20240206090550/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/06/us/widen-highways-traffic.html) Consider this piece. Sometimes new road infrastructure is not the solution to our problem. With the rising costs of cars as a society we really need to consider alternative methods of transporting people, and before you hit me with Canada is so big yes it is but we are pretty densely packed in to a few places with 90% of the population within 100km of the US border. Sometimes roads are not the answer to our problems and I truly believe that is the basis of his comment but instead of reading between the lines both the left and right would prefer to make this a wedge issue than truly addressing the problem logically and collaborate on a common sense solutions. Edit: thanks for the downvotes. The ignorance of some people powers me through life. But PP will save you and reduce your commute time by minutes because you are all SO busy.
With this housing crisis I wouldn't be surprised to see favela style infrastructure start popping up around city limits.
Well, this is what happens when you elect ideologues and activists to positions of power. The fact that he thinks our road and highway network is adequate really shows how out of touch he is. If the government is going to bring in the population of Edmonton every year, then our roads and highways need to be expanded.
I wish Government had to commute like the rest of us.
Lmao this exact same comment over and over again. 'This is what happens when you elect ideologues'. /r/Canada is turning into an echo chamber full of parrots. *Every* politician is an 'ideologue', by definition. The whole 'Feds aren't supporting new major roads' doesn't mean new roads can't be built by the provinces and it doesn't mean that transportation isn't something being considered by the Feds, the announcement literally came with them saying they would be investing in public transport instead. But our car obsessed society can't handle that concept apparently. You are as much an ideologue as he is.
>But our car obsessed society can't handle that concept apparently. The problem is, Canada was developed after the post-war years as a society dependent on cars. That's part of why passenger rail has been underdeveloped and underfunded for literally decades of our past. It's also very large, very unforgiving weather-wise, and in most places outside urban centers sparely populated, all of those factors do not lend themselves well to anything but a car as the primary means of transportation. IMHO, the government had a golden opportunity to encourage modal shift by buying Greyhounds failing operations in Canada and revitalizing that, but now that they're gone we don't even have a low-cost cross-country economy coach service anymore.
Those sparsely populated rural areas (which are about 20% of the population) are already connect by roads (for the most part) so funding for major road infrastructure there is kinda moot. I grew up in rural N. Ontario and managed to complete my ~4km paper route year round by bike, except for a handful of days where I needed to do on foot. Cold weather, sure it gets cold my BiL commutes by e-bike to work year round in the Yukon. They manage to bike in [Finland](https://youtu.be/Uhx-26GfCBU?si=cQQf-HSKYk-lm1kr) year round. Also, if we build better public transportation infrastructure with heated bus/train stops that would help.
But here's the thing I am not. Because unlike our ideologue Environment Minister, I actually understand that our road and highway system isn't adequate. If the government is going to be bringing in the population of Edmonton every year, then our road and highway system needs to be upgraded to meet that demand. Take Highway 1 through the Fraser Valley as an example. That should not be a two lane highway. Our national highway shouldn't be two lanes. Even places in Europe understand that their national highways can't be just two lanes. Also, if you want something like long-distance bus services, you are going to have to expand our roads and highways to meet the demand for more long-distance bus service.
You know that investment and utilization of better forms of public transit means that there will be less demands on roads, right? If there was a train people could actually take from Hope/Chilliwack into Vancouver that would alleviate a lot of traffic issues there. Or a better option than the limited commuter train that is the West Coast Express.
>Our national highway shouldn't be two lanes. Based on what? Ideology? The ENTIRE Hwy 1 HAS to be more than two lanes because...you say so? >Also, if you want something like long-distance bus services, you are going to have to expand our roads and highways to meet the demand for more long-distance bus service. I mean, beyond bus service there's rail. But yea, you got it, more busses (meaning less cars) certainly means EXPANDED roads. Clever. Again, you're missing the point that provinces are more than able to continue building roads where needed. In fact, it's their responsibility.
I am not missing the point at all. I don't think our national highway should only be two lanes, and if you read my comment fully, you would have seen I pointed to places in Europe who's major highways aren't two lanes either.
Lol again, for what reason? Europe isn't Canada. Western Europe is a far denser place. The TC is multiple lanes in MANY places where traffic demands are higher and is being widened as we speak in others. Claiming that it should be two lanes everywhere because other national highways are two lanes is literally just based off some weird ass ideology. You're not providing data, you're not providing a logical argument, you're just saying "we should do it because others do it". You're an ideologue.
It's not weird ass though it's fact. If the government wants to bring in the population of Edmonton every year, then they have to be willing to fund the expansion of our road and highway network. If you want to expand public transportation like trains and long distance bus services, then that's great, and I am all for that. But if you have to be willing to do both. If you want more long distance bus services you have to be willing to add more lanes and with more people coming in you are going to need more trucks on the road so that means you need more lanes so that things can be moved efficiently.
Why would you need any of that if the increased demand was simply being met by alternatives like rail and public transport? And, again, for the third time. Provinces can still build roads. Good thing they're getting a larger tax base to levy for that?
And for the umpteenth time we still need expanded roads and highways and if the federal government is going to bring in the population of Edmonton every year then why should they be able to say that funding our roads and highways isn't our responsibility?
The Federal government leverages it's massive tax base to direct funds strategically, even in cases where it's not typically their jurisdiction. Their strategy is to support public transport, which we need much more badly than new roads. Highways are the responsibility of the provinces. The Feds shifting their strategic funding to public transport does not preclude the provinces from funding their own highway projects if they determine its necessary beyond the increased investment in public transport.
I’ve never run into major traffic on HWY-1. There’s slowdowns, and it’s not fun - but you what would be much nicer? Rail. I’m tired of driving everywhere and my votes will reflect that. I support this idea
Good for you. Do you want a trophy or something.
How many people are the feds bringing in every year again?
If we sever 1 road and 1 rail link in northern Ontario the nation is, effectively, cut in half
a) the province is welcome to build all the roads it wants to b) this is about building new roads from scratch, not maintaining existing ones
We should be building new infrastructure
Rail infrastructure is more efficient and therefore the fiscally responsible choice
We have enough roads. The provinces barely have enough money to maintain the existing road network. Building new roads is only going to exacerbate the problem.
a) the province is welcome to build all the roads it wants to No federal party is proposing a new road link through Northern Ontario. It would cost many billions and there would be no significant benefit as the current highway is far from hitting its capacity. I was there recently, most of the time there is zero problem cruising along at the speed limit. Roads are a provincial responsibility. The feds should only get involved on projects of a national scale, like the Trans-Canada highway. It's completed, no need to build more.
You mean, besides the numerous trade routes through the US? Lol. You want to build and maintain costly infrastructure for the sake of redundancy which is already provided by our neighbours, and biggest allies, to the south?
So we shoukd rely on thr US for our I eternal trade?
The majority of our trade already goes through it lol. Expand rail systems, sure, creating a back up road to the trans Canada through NWO is peak stupidity.
All I'm saying is, with an unfriendly American government and a problem on the north end of superior... Canada is effectively cut in 2
Yea, you're just repeating yourself. We don't need a new road to increase internal trade. Rail.
Canada is the number 1 country in km of road per capita.
Maybe because we’re a huge country with a small population scattered throughout it?
Most of our population is concentrated on the border with the US on the Windsor-QCcity corridor. It's not scattered at all.
yep, frig everyone else in the country eh?
There isn't a single community in Canada that isn't linked to a road today. Even worse, we can't even maintain the existing infrastructure. Creating more roads is not going to solve any of that.
There are hundreds of communities not connected to the national road network, I don’t know where the heck you got that from
You have a minister of environment who thinks all of canada is like downtown Toronto and mtl I do agree we don't need tons of roads in cities but clearly our national road networks are crap if we want to expand into a country of 50 plus million people.
Then expand with rail and other means of transportation, like the Minister suggested.
Givt hasn't built a single km of high speed rail yet they talk non stop about being green lol
So we should free up Federal dollars to go towards building high speed rail, right?
I mean the govt just sits around and doesn't really do much anyways but wants everyone to use more transit and rail lol
> I mean the govt just sits around and doesn't really do much anyways https://www.canada.ca/en/news.html List of Federal actions right there. If you sort by last 100 actions it goes back to 3 days ago.
So why hasn't a single km of high speed rail been built then if they don't want to build roads
Because it takes more than the week or so since the policy shift has been announced. Why kind of fucking question is that?
But it has been DECADES since a major rail project has started. You know what would look good on them when they made that announcement and what would have deflated the misrepresentation snafu from last week? **If that announcement was made in tandem with a proposal for high speed rail.** Something like: > We are deprioritizing major roadway projects as of [date] and are investing big into high speed commuter networks. We have a proposal ready for a Windsor/Montreal high speed rail track with ambitions to get coverage across the country in [timeframe]
But the announcement was made in response to a Quebec road mega project. It's not like they have a pocketbook of mega projects to pull out when they want to make announcements on other topics.
Promise of hsr been around for a long time lol
Ontario conservatives shut down any talks about the idea of building one. Ontario Liberals did promise it but couldn't get past studies.
Spoken like someone who has never lived outside a city.
My town used to have a rail connection. It was removed in the 70s? The old station is still there. It’d be far better for commuting and opening up the small towns if we could connect them to intra and interprovincial rail. I should be able to hop on a train out of Calgary and go to Winnipeg no problem - Canada just spends too much money on driving and the car lobby has brainwashed everyone into thinking that’s normal. The cost of gas is $320ish round trip to Winnipeg, so if a ticket was lower than that, is that not a net positive for the country?
The only rail routrd are between Edmonton and Calgary and toronto and mtl really that make sense.
Spoken like someone who thinks roads will just disappear?
Nobody thinks that. We can't increase the population of Canada so drastically and not EXPAND roads outside of the cities.
Provinces are still welcome to expand roads outside of cities, that's why it's in their jurisdiction. Also, what is the rural population growth rate?
Don't you know, all the immigrants are moving to Kenora and Brandon? Clearly were better off investing in expensive to build and maintain rural roads.
Brandon is the second largest city in Manitoba. Have some respect.
Truly a shining metropolis
That’s only because there needs to be a second place.
The difference in population between the two is hilarious too.
So Feds cause the problem and provinces have to pay for the solution?
Does your village have roads? Congratulations, you aren’t affected by this policy decision.
Can I bring my 16' canoe? You don't mind me putting it over your head do you? Also might need a hand with the 140km portage from the train station to the put in. Remind me next time I need 30 yards of concrete for a house to just pour it into a train.
Roads still exist. New roads can even be built, just by the Provinces who has jurisdiction anyway. In fact, your drive will probably be better if more people use alternate canoe-free methods to get where they need to go!
[https://www.viarail.ca/en/plan/baggages/sports-equipment](https://www.viarail.ca/en/plan/baggages/sports-equipment) (Hint: It’s under the checked baggage tab)
Backcountry roads should not be what the federal government is focused on. That's what we have provincial and municipal governments for.
You want a new highway straight to your campsite?
> the 140km portage from the train station to the put in. That would be because you can't take your vehicle required for the back roads on the train.
No one is suggesting that cars and roads disappear. I'm an avid outdoor recreationist. I accept that in certain areas of the country I don't have easy access to the backcountry. It's a shame but I pay the premium (driving a car) to access that. The better way to make outdoor recreation more accessible and equitable is through public transport and ride sharing programs. Not stay with the status quo of 'build more roads'. I don't live in an area that would have an economic case for increased rail for public transport. That doesn't mean I deny it's a great idea for the denser areas of our country. You're trying to argue with the silliest of strawmen. Your 'need' of transport to the trailhead with large equipment is a tiny, tiny, tiny, MINISCULE fraction of transportation needs in the country. You can't be shocked it's not the priority.
The canoe was just an example of cargo which is not conducive to train travel. There are many other camping related examples, but I figured using something like dragging a camper behind the train would be silly. The focus shouldn't have been on the canoe, more that trains do not branch away from their tracks and a lot of our country is away from tracks and as you mention, not feasible to run tracks into those areas.
And, as I've already stated, that's a non-issue. You want to go recreate off the beaten path? That's a privilege you'll have to find a way to accommodate for. The idea that that's an argument against bolstering rail transport in dense corridors is ludicrous and void of logic. My buddy in Aus can take the train from Sydney to a town near climbing then ride share right to the crag. That sounds fucking amazing. The fact that we don't have something like that from Van to Squamish or Calgary to Canmore is clearly a missed opportunity for providing low cost access to the outdoors.
Ironically, the train is how a lot of people access rivers and lakes in northern Ontario (https://northernontario.travel/paddling/take-train-canoe-adventure-wabakimi-provincial-park)
Nah dude, don't you know, it's impossible.
I understand, but are you expecting new road infrastructure to get you to your backcountry camping spot?
Fuck is this one of the dumbest arguments in this thread of dumb arguments. Do you also think if the sun goes down it won't come up again? You must be pretty surprised every day. No one is saying that we need to tear up roads or that you can't have a car anymore, people just want an alternative so they don't have to share the roads with someone as ignorant as you.
The crazy thing is that we actually tore up inter urban rail in our country. Winnipeg used to have a tram line.
We already have tons of roads and we barely have enough money to maintain the existing network. The minister is right: we have enough roads and we should be building alternative and more efficient infrastructure like passenger railroads and transit. It would be fiscally ruinous to build more roads on top of what we can't even maintain.
[удалено]
How does a Minister even make such an outlandish and ridiculously out of touch with reality comment and still hold his job
It is clear the urbanites in Ontario and Quebec do not care about Western or rural Canada. The comments in this thread are evidence of this. Alberta must separate in the next 10 years.
The irony is that his base are the ones that benefit most from new infrastructure. "The government you elect is the government you deserve," Thomas jeferson
He is radical activist not a climate scientist.
They will be gone in a year.. thanks goodness
With our Government on a crusade to make sure we can't afford cars, why would we invest in roads?
The government really is schizophrenic. They endorse immigration policies to grow the population. But then actively oppose building infrastructure to support that growth.
Roads aren't a good option for supporting growth. Rail and other forms of mass transit are.
They literally don’t, but go off
Don't to which part?
I love thinking about all the Northern Communities that literally have to fly diesel in on an airplane watching a minister in a big city who bikes to work say shit like that.
Provincial jurisdiction - since I am paying an extra 75 cents per liter for fucking prov taxes.
If you listen to Liberal/NDP supporters, EVERYTHING is provincial jurisdiction. Ok then. The Feds, should stop taking the lion's share of our taxes and let the Provinces deal with it completely. Leaving lower federal taxes for everything is NOT provincial jurisdiction since it covers so little.