LinkSoul60 Posted April 17 Report Posted April 17 40 minutes ago, CdnFox said: Intelligent adults don't throw money away just to look cool to their friends. Especially when they're already broken living on their credit card I know you desperately want to turn this into some weird bizarre argument how mommy and daddy never give you nice things You're incredibly under-qualified to talk about intelligence, so give it a rest. And typically you feel compelled to default to child mode... You're an idi0t Quote
Zeitgeist Posted April 17 Report Posted April 17 (edited) 1 hour ago, CdnFox said: Canada should think smart. We're not building a bridge between the mainland and Vancouver Island. It would be great to have one and really improve tourism and security for those who live on the island because the fairies go down regularly. But we're not building one And do you know why? Because we could replace the entire fleet of fairies twice for what it would cost. So you look at it and you say this is stupid. And that is the problem with your rail. It's stupid. It is insanely expensive, there is an excellent chance that it'll wind up never getting built in the end, it will probably run at least double possibly triple what they're estimating, and there is no reason to believe it will ever see enough traffic to make it worth the money spent even if it was $110 of the price Intelligent adults don't throw money away just to look cool to their friends. Especially when they're already broken living on their credit card I know you desperately want to turn this into some weird bizarre argument how mommy and daddy never give you nice things but the reality is it just doesn't make sense and you have never provided a single drop of information or data coming from a source this verifiable to say otherwise Well I hope we get it and it’s entirely because transportation in southern Ontario is a disaster and the Montreal St. Lawrence Valley is a disaster. My hope is that this line becomes a first major investment in a network of high speed rail in the Greater Golden Horseshoe, which is basically a chain of about 10 cities ranging in size between 300,000-3,000000 people. Frankly if you live in other parts of the country and haven’t lived in this part of the country within the past 20 years, you haven’t seen the rapid growth in population and congestion. Below are the populations of all cities with 100,000 or more people sitting next to each other in Southern Ontario largely based on 2021 Census data: • Hamilton — ~569,000 • St. Catharines — ~137,000 Niagara Falls itself is ~94,000 • Burlington — ~186,000 • Oakville — ~213,000 • Mississauga — ~717,000+ • Brampton — ~656,000+ • Milton — ~132,000 • Toronto — ~2.9M+ • Vaughan — ~323,000 • Markham — ~338,000 • Richmond Hill — ~202,000 • Pickering — ~99,000 (just under but often included) • Ajax — ~127,000 • Whitby — ~138,000 • Oshawa — ~175,000 • Barrie — ~147,000 • Kitchener — ~257,000 • Waterloo — ~121,000+ • Cambridge — ~138,000+ • Guelph — ~143,000+ I haven’t added Ottawa to Montreal to Trois Rivières to Quebec City. Peterborough is also out, but in case you’re interested: • Montreal — ~1,763,000 • Laval — ~438,000+ • Longueuil — ~254,000 • Terrebonne — ~120,000+ • Gatineau — ~291,000 • Trois-Rivières — ~139,000 • Quebec City — ~549,000 • Lévis — ~150,000+ Peterborough, Ontario — 83,651 Sherbrooke, Quebec — 119,038 Southern Ontario arc: ~7.3 million Ottawa–Quebec corridor: ~4.7 million Projected Growth in 20 years: Southern Ontario: 9.19M; Ottawa–Quebec corridor: 5.76M. In 20 years we’re looking at this line serving a corridor of around 15 million people, but it may not be ready by then if we start today. Edited April 17 by Zeitgeist Quote
CdnFox Posted April 17 Report Posted April 17 1 hour ago, LinkSoul60 said: You're incredibly under-qualified to talk about intelligence, so give it a rest. pot meat kettle. Kettle pot I'm not saying I'm the smartest guy in the world. But I'm definitely considerably smarter than you Quote And typically you feel compelled to default to child mode... You're an idi0t He says in child mode. Wow you sure taught me LOLOL!! Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
CdnFox Posted April 17 Report Posted April 17 54 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said: Well I hope we get it and it’s entirely because transportation in southern Ontario is a disaster and the Montreal St. Lawrence Valley is a disaster. This will make it worse. This isn't going to solve the problems and then there will be no money to sell the problems 54 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said: Below are the populations of all cities with 100,000 or more people sitting next to each other in Southern Ontario largely based on 2021 Census data: • Hamilton — ~569,000 • St. Catharines — ~137,000 Niagara Falls itself is ~94,000 • Burlington — ~186,000 • Oakville — ~213,000 • Mississauga — ~717,000+ • Brampton — ~656,000+ • Milton — ~132,000 • Toronto — ~2.9M+ • Vaughan — ~323,000 • Markham — ~338,000 • Richmond Hill — ~202,000 • Pickering — ~99,000 (just under but often included) • Ajax — ~127,000 • Whitby — ~138,000 • Oshawa — ~175,000 • Barrie — ~147,000 • Kitchener — ~257,000 • Waterloo — ~121,000+ • Cambridge — ~138,000+ • Guelph — ~143,000+ I haven’t added Ottawa to Montreal to Trois Rivières to Quebec City. Peterborough is also out, but in case you’re interested: • Montreal — ~1,763,000 • Laval — ~438,000+ • Longueuil — ~254,000 • Terrebonne — ~120,000+ • Gatineau — ~291,000 • Trois-Rivières — ~139,000 • Quebec City — ~549,000 • Lévis — ~150,000+ Peterborough, Ontario — 83,651 Sherbrooke, Quebec — 119,038 Southern Ontario arc: ~7.3 million Ottawa–Quebec corridor: ~4.7 million Projected Growth in 20 years: Southern Ontario: 9.19M; Ottawa–Quebec corridor: 5.76M. In 20 years we’re looking at this line serving a corridor of around 15 million people, but it may not be ready by then if we start today. Utterly irrelevant. There's no indication that a significant portion of those people are going to be remotely interested in using this system with any frequency or regularity. In fact the system's own numbers are posted above in this thread and they are a tiny tiny fraction of that So you still haven't made a business case, Your entire argument seems to be that there are people that live in Canada. That's true, but that doesn't have anything to do without many will actually need or use this rail system versus the infrastructure we could build if we put the same money to something else Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
Goddess Posted April 17 Report Posted April 17 14 minutes ago, Legato said: Liberals are currently filibustering in committee so Champagne cannot be questioned about this. Now that Libs have a majority, committees will be mostly useless for holding the government to account. Quote "There are two different types of people in the world - those who want to know and those who want to believe." ~~ Friedrich Nietzsche ~~
LinkSoul60 Posted April 18 Report Posted April 18 6 hours ago, CdnFox said: pot meat kettle. Kettle pot I'm not saying I'm the smartest guy in the world. But I'm definitely considerably smarter than you He says in child mode. Wow you sure taught me LOLOL!! You're still an idi0t Quote
Zeitgeist Posted April 18 Report Posted April 18 (edited) 9 hours ago, CdnFox said: This will make it worse. This isn't going to solve the problems and then there will be no money to sell the problems Utterly irrelevant. There's no indication that a significant portion of those people are going to be remotely interested in using this system with any frequency or regularity. In fact the system's own numbers are posted above in this thread and they are a tiny tiny fraction of that So you still haven't made a business case, Your entire argument seems to be that there are people that live in Canada. That's true, but that doesn't have anything to do without many will actually need or use this rail system versus the infrastructure we could build if we put the same money to something else It will replace short run flights and bring these markets closer together, essentially creating more opportunities for millions of people and businesses in both provinces. It’s not just about tourism. It’s about options and access. To be able to get between cities so rapidly is a game changer. You will find more people living farther from major cities commuting to cities and you’ll find more people living and working between cities in ways that weren’t possible before. Some of this line will form part of a commuter network. For example, people who never considered living in a city like London, Ontario where the homes are half the price of Greater Toronto will have cheaper housing options within a reasonable commute. The problem for Southern Ontario is that everyone is trying to cram into the same city region to be within a commute distance, which has put the demand for housing far above supply, as 7 out of 10 new Canadians settle in the GTA. It’s unaffordable and congested, impacting quality of life and living standards significantly, but that’s where the jobs are. The GO electrification plan will only improve this situation so far. The speeds and frequencies are limited. 40 years ago you could drive from Burlington to Richmond Hill in under an hour. That drive is close to two hours at rush hour. The 407 cuts it down to 1hr15minutes at a two way daily toll cost of around $140. There simply aren’t the train connections. Bus connections are infrequent. The transportation network in Southern Ontario needs help on all fronts. There’s almost no room for surface highway expansion except in the countryside (Hwy 413). This is getting worse. Burying highways is exorbitantly expensive, but we’ll probably have to do that too. The longer we wait to do any of it the costlier it is. We should’ve been building subways nonstop for the past 50 years. We simply can’t keep up. Edited April 18 by Zeitgeist Quote
Legato Posted April 18 Report Posted April 18 3 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said: It will replace short run flights and bring these markets closer together, essentially creating more opportunities for millions of people and businesses in both provinces. It’s not just about tourism. It’s about options and access. To be able to get between cities so rapidly is a game changer. You will find more people living farther from major cities commuting to cities and you’ll find more people living and working between cities in ways that weren’t possible before. Some of this line will form part of a commuter network. For example, people who never considered living in a city like London, Ontario where the homes are half the price of Greater Toronto will have cheaper housing options within a reasonable commute. The problem for Southern Ontario is that everyone is trying to cram into the same city region to be within a commute distance, which has put the demand for housing far above supply, as 7 out of 10 Canadians settle in the GTA. It’s unaffordable and congested, impacting quality of life and living standards significantly, but that’s where the jobs are. The GO electrification plan will only improve this situation so far. The speeds and frequencies are limited. 40 years ago you could drive from Burlington to Richmond Hill in under an hour. That drive is close to two hours at rush hour. The 407 cuts it down to 1hr15minutes at a two way daily toll cost of around $140 a day. There simply aren’t the train connections. Bus connections are infrequent. The transportation network in Southern Ontario needs help on all fronts. There’s almost no room for surface highway expansion except in the countryside (Hwy 413). This is getting worse. (AI) Zoom calls are significantly replacing business travel by offering a cost-effective, time-saving, and sustainable alternative for meetings and client engagements. Companies are cutting internal travel by a third or more, reducing emissions, and utilizing virtual tools, which transformed corporate travel patterns. While not eliminating in-person travel, video is a permanent alternative. Impact on Travel and Business Reduced Costs and Emissions: Virtual, high-definition meetings drastically reduce expenses on flights and hotels, while helping organizations meet sustainability targets. Increased Productivity: Businesses are finding that many in-person meetings can be replaced by, or augmented with, tools like Zoom's AI Companion. "Hybrid" Corporate Travel: While travel has not been completely eliminated, many corporations are shifting to a model where only essential, high-stakes, or relationship-building trips are made, replacing routine internal travel. Virtual Alternatives: Technologies such as Microsoft Teams, Google Meet, and Zoom allow for remote team meetings, client presentations, and training, acting as efficient alternatives. Key Findings 84% of 45 large businesses surveyed expected to reduce business travel. Video conferencing can replace in-person interactions, aiding in lowering greenhouse gas emissions. Virtual, high-definition setups are increasingly used to visit manufacturing sites or check on international projects Quote
CdnFox Posted April 18 Report Posted April 18 47 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said: You're still an idi0t OOooohh such an adult thing to say!! Watching your adulting in action sure makes me see the error of my ways! LOL And i'm still smarter than you, so .... 1 Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
CdnFox Posted April 18 Report Posted April 18 29 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said: It will replace short run flights and bring these markets closer together, essentially creating more opportunities for millions of people and businesses in both provinces. We know evidence to support that. It's what you would hope would happen, it's what you think might possibly happen but there's absolutely no actual business plan but says that's what's going to happen that's anything other than just conjured numbers with little bases, are you honestly saying that we couldn't possibly spend 100 billion dollars in other ways that would vastly MORE increase opportunity for people? You HAVE to know that's not true. You just keep saying 'this will make things better' as an argument but there's nothing behind that. Can you show me a report that shows that currently 100 billion dollars worth of business is being prevented from happening as a result of not having this? I mean we have those kinds of reports when we build a bridge, surely to god we have all kinds of studies if we're spending 100 bilion dollars (probably more like 300 billion) No? Nothing? Does that not TELL you something? This will be a cash cow for libs and the lib friendly companies and in the end it will not be worth it assuming it ever gets built in the first place. Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
Zeitgeist Posted April 18 Report Posted April 18 (edited) 1 hour ago, Legato said: (AI) Zoom calls are significantly replacing business travel by offering a cost-effective, time-saving, and sustainable alternative for meetings and client engagements. Companies are cutting internal travel by a third or more, reducing emissions, and utilizing virtual tools, which transformed corporate travel patterns. While not eliminating in-person travel, video is a permanent alternative. Impact on Travel and Business Reduced Costs and Emissions: Virtual, high-definition meetings drastically reduce expenses on flights and hotels, while helping organizations meet sustainability targets. Increased Productivity: Businesses are finding that many in-person meetings can be replaced by, or augmented with, tools like Zoom's AI Companion. "Hybrid" Corporate Travel: While travel has not been completely eliminated, many corporations are shifting to a model where only essential, high-stakes, or relationship-building trips are made, replacing routine internal travel. Virtual Alternatives: Technologies such as Microsoft Teams, Google Meet, and Zoom allow for remote team meetings, client presentations, and training, acting as efficient alternatives. Key Findings 84% of 45 large businesses surveyed expected to reduce business travel. Video conferencing can replace in-person interactions, aiding in lowering greenhouse gas emissions. Virtual, high-definition setups are increasingly used to visit manufacturing sites or check on international projects That revolution already happened and has been curtailed or reversed. Yes some work can certainly be done remotely, some of the time, in most types of work. Some types of work can be done entirely remotely. Some jobs can only be done in person. Work from home has been reversed for most workers since the pandemic. I’m guessing you’re a proponent of 15 minute cities? I think it’s great to have as much of what you need close by, but not everything can be done by teleconference or supplied locally, and most employers don’t want WFH due to the lack of accessibility and accountability. . Physical presence matters for many reasons. Virtual presence can get you only so far. Overall our traffic is exceeding pre-pandemic levels. Edited April 18 by Zeitgeist Quote
Legato Posted April 19 Report Posted April 19 On 4/18/2026 at 12:00 AM, Zeitgeist said: That revolution already happened and has been curtailed or reversed. Yes some work can certainly be done remotely, some of the time, in most types of work. Some types of work can be done entirely remotely. Some jobs can only be done in person. Work from home has been reversed for most workers since the pandemic. I’m guessing you’re a proponent of 15 minute cities? I think it’s great to have as much of what you need close by, but not everything can be done by teleconference or supplied locally, and most employers don’t want WFH due to the lack of accessibility and accountability. . Physical presence matters for many reasons. Virtual presence can get you only so far. Overall our traffic is exceeding pre-pandemic levels. Proposed to be 12 years from now. Almost 70% of Canadians will never use it, but we'll have to spend $8,000 per family on taxes to pay for its construction. After which, by the way, it will continue to lose money every year forever by their own admission. And finally it will only take people out of airplanes which is a money-making mode of transportation and put them into trains which are a money losing mode of transportation. It will take longer to get from Toronto to Montreal than it does now by plane. So it travels slower, costs more, loses money. Why do it. Quote
Zeitgeist Posted April 19 Report Posted April 19 (edited) 1 hour ago, Legato said: Proposed to be 12 years from now. Almost 70% of Canadians will never use it, but we'll have to spend $8,000 per family on taxes to pay for its construction. After which, by the way, it will continue to lose money every year forever by their own admission. And finally it will only take people out of airplanes which is a money-making mode of transportation and put them into trains which are a money losing mode of transportation. It will take longer to get from Toronto to Montreal than it does now by plane. So it travels slower, costs more, loses money. Why do it. Overall travel will be faster, easier, and cheaper for more people between these cities than it is now because there will be more options and greater competition. Essentially these cities and regions will be brought closer together and can function more as a unified east-west economy, creating new synergies, opportunities, and efficiencies. It’s actually tremendous nation-building infrastructure. It will eventually pay itself off through users, but more importantly, it will generate new economic activity. Also, it’s business for our steel and resource mills at a time when they could use the work and a certain amount of infrastructure building is essential to offset losses from tariffs. This is the right time. Edited April 19 by Zeitgeist Quote
Legato Posted April 19 Report Posted April 19 4 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said: Overall travel will be faster, easier, and cheaper for more people between these cities than it is now because there will be more options and greater competition. Essentially these cities and regions will be brought closer together and can function more as a unified east-west economy, creating new synergies, opportunities, and efficiencies. It’s actually tremendous nation-building infrastructure. It will eventually pay itself off through users, but more importantly, it will generate new economic activity. Also, it’s business for our steel and resource mills at a time when they could use the work and a certain amount of infrastructure building is essential to offset losses from tariffs. This is the right time. One more option for a multi billion dollar boondoggle. Competition for who and what? Will never pay for itself. Yes it's more business for the steel industry which at this moment does not produce the high carbon steel needed for the rails. Well looky here.... Brookfield Infrastructure Partners is positioned to benefit from the Alto High-Speed Rail (HSR) project in Canada, with potential involvement in financing as the project progresses. Quote
Zeitgeist Posted April 19 Report Posted April 19 (edited) 33 minutes ago, Legato said: One more option for a multi billion dollar boondoggle. Competition for who and what? Will never pay for itself. Yes it's more business for the steel industry which at this moment does not produce the high carbon steel needed for the rails. Well looky here.... Brookfield Infrastructure Partners is positioned to benefit from the Alto High-Speed Rail (HSR) project in Canada, with potential involvement in financing as the project progresses. Sure, there’s always going to be a bit of that. Ford stood accused of supporting his developer donors, etc., but some firms are going to have to get some of that business. Unfortunately for major infrastructure projects, government and private industry have to work together somewhat. All I know is government is going to spend a fortune on many things that are intangible and of arguable merit. At least we get something usable that’s a real asset at the end of this project. If you’re a Quebecer, you should want this, because you’re getting as much infrastructure investment with a smaller population. I can see this causing a tourism and investment boom in Quebec as more people choose to visit and have property/investment there. It essentially gives Quebec more access to Canada’s consumers. Edited April 19 by Zeitgeist Quote
herbie Posted April 19 Report Posted April 19 I still wonder why there isn't highspeed rail service Calgart to Edmonton. Seems to me a logical test route and couldn't be as axpensive as the Skytrain project in Vancouver & area. Quote
CdnFox Posted April 20 Report Posted April 20 23 hours ago, herbie said: I still wonder why there isn't highspeed rail service Calgart to Edmonton. Seems to me a logical test route and couldn't be as axpensive as the Skytrain project in Vancouver & area. Highspeed rail is a lot more expensive per km than skytrain class services. And the short answer is again there's just not enough of a business case to make it worth considering. It would costs tens of billions at least, it would require land appropriation that would be contentious and huge impact, and not enough people would use it to justify all of that, Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.