Liberal Minority Government 2025 - ???

[Halifax Tar]

Yep. That's why I can't take the Chicken Little routine from some self-professed fiscal conservatives seriously. OAS is already $80B per year. Going to $100B per year in 2030. Not one of the people in this discussion supposedly concerned about spending want to touch that. Instead, they are oh so concerned about $60-90B spread over the next 15 years. The $1.4 Trillion on OAS we'll spend in the same timeframe? Not a peep. These people would rather have their pogey than their grand kids have good infrastructure. That's what it's really about. Not any supposed fiscal concern.

I will happily give up my OAS to make sure shit like this gets built so the next generation benefits.

Ahem, excuse me. I right here would consider myself a fiscal conservative. And I 100% believe in changing or abolishing OAS.

I believe the boomers and before lived an opulent and glutenous lifestyle; mortgaging that on the the backs of the following generations. I think we should think long and hard about leveraging our future for those in their twilight years.

I am fine with social safety nets for those who are incapable physically or mentally from working and contributing. But for those who made choices not too, they should be a burden on their family, not the tax system, especially given the times and opportunities they lived through.

You can have my OAS too.

 

[lenaitch]

Few years ago this was discussed. There government went to an open bid, leaving the routing completely open in the hopes that one of the large rail operators might be interested in partnering on a solution like this. They weren't interested. And expropriating a primary corridor from two of the largest freight rail operators in the world and anchors from the economy is probably not a low risk option. God only knows how long that court fight would go. And after all that? You still may not get the geometry you need and now you have to expropriate in even more populated areas and do even more grade separation. It's not a clear cut easy solution.

The corridor at play is the CN Kingston Subdivision. No clue what its market value would be beyond 'a lot', and the government (which used to own CN, didn't want to so sold it, and probably doesn't want to again) would still have to give freight priority so they don't start crippling the economy. There might be a degree of improvement in VIA's on-time performance by removing some of the animosity CN has to being a landlord railway, but I'm not sure it would make much difference. As you say, the corridor limits potential speeds, both in terms of alignment and grade, but also factors such as turnout (switch) speeds and level crossings. Once you get about a certain speed, at-grade crossings are not allowed.

there is a ridiculous amount of decommissioned rail lines in canada, make the trains electric, set up a couple SMR to power the network and you would have cheap operating, hell, lets put it all underground to take weather out of the factor. It would be expensive as hell but imagine how much would be made if you say drilled through the mountains from calgary, went to Kelowna, then to Vancouver. could probably be in Vancouver in about 6h, less if you exceed 100km/h in a closed system

The problem with old right-of-ways is most are over a century old and built to accommodate track speeds of that era. Many, particularly in and around urban areas, have been built over, either completely or to the extent that you are back into the mass expropriation problem. The ones that were built into the rural areas served an economy and doesn't exist anymore.

An question that I have never clearly understood is whether railway actually own the land they sit on or just have a permanent easement from the government while it is operating. They are arguments supporting both sides. I assume those really close to the game know.

Boring through the mountains; yes, a completely different discussion.

Other than urban transit rail, which is still subsidized, I'm not aware of a rail line that stands on its own solely on passenger revenue.

 

[ArmyRick]

On another note, this the Liberal Minority Discussion thread,
in many instances I notice a crowd of people here will discuss at length any potential positives they LPC may be perceived or are actually doing.

But same crowd shys away from say the Court ruling on the emergencies act being illegal (whish is a big F-ing deal), Michael Ma whole fiasco on forced labour (so bad the CBC even called him out) or Carney starting to asked a lot more difficult discussions on cost of living, etc.

Call me an asshole and tell me if I am wrong but in my opinion, many of you won't discuss issues that cast shade on carney and the LPC.

 

[RangerRay]

This is a classic “Little Canada” vs “Big Canada” debate.

The “Little Canada” usually can’t see beyond their own parochial perspective and continue to see the country as a colonial backwater not worthy of a big project to get the country on a global facing. I often see this at the municipal level in Winnipeg whenever there is a proposal for better infrastructure. “Where do you think this is, Vancouver?” No, but it is a city of 3/4 of a million people, a provincial capital, a major transportation hub, and a major city of a G7 nation. It’s not a small town in some colonial backwater. There is no excuse to not have world class infrastructure other than parochialism and misplaced budget priorities. Maybe don’t rip up the same street every year for three years because Roads, Sewer and Hydro don’t talk to each other. Or maybe use better road building materials and techniques so the road lasts a little longer. There’s a reason why roads are better in Grand Forks and Fargo despite having the same climate as Winnipeg.

I live far away from this area and will probably never ride it. But I can see that it has the potential to be an economic boost to a very important part of the country, in turn boosting the entire country.

I would exclude property owners directly affected by this though. If this was going through my neighbourhood and my property was going to be expropriated, I’d be upset too, even if I could see the benefits. It would be nice if this could be avoided, but that’s not the real world unfortunately.

 

[Brad Sallows]

A car is estimated at $1K/month all in (including payments, fuel, insurance, maintenance...). And that's after-tax dollars. Even if you end up spending $300 per month on taxis, trains and rentals, you're still well ahead. Where else can you get that kind of a pay increase?

Depends on lifestyle. Most people with children seem to own at least one car.

Every time a discussion starts touting qualities that might appeal to single or otherwise childless persons, I wonder where all the people on this board who favour spending limited resources on pro-family policies have gone.

 

[dapaterson]

Or CFHA!

I don't hate you that much.

 

[dapaterson]

This is a classic “Little Canada” vs “Big Canada” debate.

The “Little Canada” usually can’t see beyond their own parochial perspective and continue to see the country as a colonial backwater not worthy of a big project to get the country on a global facing. I often see this at the municipal level in Winnipeg whenever there is a proposal for better infrastructure. “Where do you think this is, Vancouver?” No, but it is a city of 3/4 of a million people, a provincial capital, a major transportation hub, and a major city of a G7 nation. It’s not a small town in some colonial backwater. There is no excuse to not have world class infrastructure other than parochialism and misplaced budget priorities. Maybe don’t rip up the same street every year for three years because Roads, Sewer and Hydro don’t talk to each other. Or maybe use better road building materials and techniques so the road lasts a little longer. There’s a reason why roads are better in Grand Forks and Fargo despite having the same climate as Winnipeg.

I live far away from this area and will probably never ride it. But I can see that it has the potential to be an economic boost to a very important part of the country, in turn boosting the entire country.

I would exclude property owners directly affected by this though. If this was going through my neighbourhood and my property was going to be expropriated, I’d be upset too, even if I could see the benefits. It would be nice if this could be avoided, but that’s not the real world unfortunately.

As a lifelong resident of Big Canada I agree 100% - and suspect part of the underlying problem is that Big Canada is all too often deaf to Little Canada's concerns, seeking one size fits all solutions to issues that need nuance - Rosedale is not Tisdale, and firearms rules for one may not meet the needs of the other (for example).

 

[Brad Sallows]

And a lot whose are. More if you build out even the barest hub and spoke system.

Sure, as long as the competition for subsidy money doesn't result in bus services being cannibalized to support rail services. (Yes, it happens.) Removal of spokes doesn't help. Nor does removing routes required by people on low incomes, especially in cases where transit is "sold" on the basis of providing transportation for people with low incomes. An end result is that total ridership in a transit system can actually decrease, absolutely or sometimes merely as a fraction of total population.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I would exclude property owners directly affected by this though. If this was going through my neighbourhood and my property was going to be expropriated, I’d be upset too, even if I could see the benefits. It would be nice if this could be avoided, but that’s not the real world unfortunately.

I feel like you and I may be the only ones who seem able to put ourselves in their shoes. Sucks.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Public transit doesnt stop at the train station.

Didn't think I needed to go into detail about how all the effects of the legs of an end-to-end journey act as incentives or disincentives.

I'll remain skeptical that very many people who don't work in downtown office towers will be organizing their lives around HSR.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I feel like you and I may be the only ones who seem able to put ourselves in their shoes. Sucks.

Be grateful. Look at any ongoing project that pre-empts use of streets and private (commercial) property. The costs are generally not compensated.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Be grateful. Look at any ongoing project that pre-empts use of streets and private (commercial) property. The costs are generally not compensated.

I have no idea what this has to do with the empathy I feel for someone getting their property expropriated.

 

[Brad Sallows]

There is no excuse to not have world class infrastructure other than parochialism and misplaced budget priorities.

Sure there is. Requirements > resources.

"Monorail" (from a Simpsons episode) is a joke containing some useful lessons. Ask the North Van ratepayers who are getting a world class sewage treatment plant.

I don't know of any governments that spent their way to prosperity, especially on borrowed money, and most especially by spending borrowed money on armed forces. If it were that easy, they'd all be doing it.

Good chance there'll be at least one emergency room closure in BC this weekend. Oh, well.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I have no idea what this has to do with the empathy I feel for someone getting their property expropriated.

I look at the bright side: they get compensation.

 

[Maxman1]

Lets take a pause on the HSR discussion. Part of the reason I really don't take discussions here too seriously anymore is this.

 

[ytz]

Ahem, excuse me. I right here would consider myself a fiscal conservative. And I 100% believe in changing or abolishing OAS.

You're one of the exceptions. We've had this discussion before. OAS is swallowing the entire federal budget. Every f'ing spare dollar goes into OAS. And then when the deficit runs up people will propose cutting everything but OAS.

Because of the forum here, I get we all care about defence. But how the heck do you defend a large increase in defence spending and tell the public everything else needs to be slashed? Won't happen. So in reality, of you're advocating for infrastructure spending to get cut, don't be surprised when things you think are important get chopped too.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Ahem, excuse me. I right here would consider myself a fiscal conservative. And I 100% believe in changing or abolishing OAS.

I believe the boomers and before lived an opulent and glutenous lifestyle; mortgaging that on the the backs of the following generations. I think we should think long and hard about leveraging our future for those in their twilight years.

I am fine with social safety nets for those who are incapable physically or mentally from working and contributing. But for those who made choices not too, they should be a burden on their family, not the tax system, especially given the times and opportunities they lived through.

You can have my OAS too.

Completely concur. I would go one step further, and question the amount of money on extending quantity of life, at great expense, over quality of life. we (Canada) have some very distorted priorities

 

[ytz]

The “Little Canada” usually can’t see beyond their own parochial perspective and continue to see the country as a colonial backwater not worthy of a big project to get the country on a global facing. I often see this at the municipal level in Winnipeg whenever there is a proposal for better infrastructure. “Where do you think this is, Vancouver?”

So I noticed this when posted to the US, where infrastructure is broadly worse. People were fatalistic about it. "It's always sucked. It'll never get better. Nobody will use it. Why try?" A whole culture of low expectations from public services and just acceptance of crap. Meanwhile, the French will set police cars on fire if their services go to shit. That's the difference.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Completely concur. I would go one step further, and question the amount of money on extending quantity of life, at great expense, over quality of life. we (Canada) have some very distorted priorities

Solid add on. And I agree.