Me and a guy swapped jobs last year. He lives in Stittsville. I live near Montfort hospital. Naturally this means I commute to Carling and he commutes to Coventry now. I'm sure both of us spending 30-45 mins in traffic each way is meeting the government's climate goals....
I loved walking and biking to work. And routinely volunteered to stay later when necessary to support those who gotta run out for daycare pickup. Now I'm in the latter group.
Not at all. I'm nowhere near it and, at my age, will never ride it and my economy will not be effected by it. Just providing points. If my post seemed as a direct reply to you rather than the general discussion, I apologize.
Curious though; if a discussion surrounding a 'nation building project' is only to be restricted to those directly impacted, should navy matters be out of bounds to inlanders?
No doubt, landowners directly impacted by this, or any other public undertaking have a right to be pissed; I would be too.
Again, I am not against this project. Like said to @ytz I'm really happy you're excited and I hope it all works out.
I can simply empathize with rural landowners who will have their property expropriated. Sucks. People generally don't live rural to be next to HSR.
Our family hunting camp is east of Kaladar just on the south side of 7. Sort of between Kaladar and Arden. I suspect some of that may be affected. But I don't hunt there anymore, living in NS and all. I will be waiting to hear what the family says.
Cant see the economic opportunity beyond the political colours. If it uplifts GDP by even half of what has been projected its a win in less than a decade but partisanship is partisanship.
If there are other projects totaling the same cost that could uplift GDP by more (say, 1.2%), then sinking that money into HSR (given above estimated 1.1%) will be a net loss of 0.1%.
I do not contend that HSR will be a dead loss. I do contend it might be a relative loss.
It also doesn't do much to regionally diversify Canada's economy or spread risks among multiple projects. It represents a lot of eggs in one proposed basket.
OAS is a social safety net paid out of general revenues. When was started and for the majority of it's run it was funded with a ratio of 7 workers to 1 retiree. Demographics made OAS in its current form viable, and now they're making it non viable.
I was in Sydney Australia recently and was amazed at how they had addressed part of the mass transit challenges.
1. Very clear and efficient toll highway system of which significant portions are tunnels. 3 lanes each direction built to shorten routes via underground access. 45 min cab ride from the airport gate to our hotel vs. 1.5 hour above ground public road
2. Multi-track rail corridor. Some stations are 5 wide tracks...passenger traffic tends to be the outer-most line allowing for stops at stations - route specific as most stop ~ every second station. Center lanes are for through traffic which includes the big freight trains coming through. But the transit system allows a person to go almost 200 km away inland for about $25 each way...not a bad gig for an hour and half train ride to city center/harbor front.
Almost all the train traffic is above ground - makes sense when looking at tunnel costs - and appears to have been built in partnership with the original railway lines. But even where old sidings and rail sheds have been decommissioned they have upgraded some sites into bus service centers and/or car parks for transit users....investments into a system rather than ad hoc changes.
While the weather is one factor I do think there are many factors that would be a solution for Canadian cities but would need to look into alot of different municipal and federal train regulations to understand better.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.