Quote from: HVC on July 09, 2025, 05:40:14 PMQuote from: Jacob on July 09, 2025, 05:21:31 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on July 09, 2025, 05:06:47 PMYes, Alberta has concerns about pipelines, and that continues. But you made a claim about infrastructure generally. And that is not accurate. Just take a look at the expansion being undertaken at the Port of Prince Rupert over the last 10 years. The expansion of YVR for the transportation of goods. The expansion of the Port of Vancouver. The expansion of the transportation networks (rail and road) into and out of those ports, the development of LNG terminals etc etc etc
Those are great counter examples, in fact.
What I'm curious about is what differs between the projects that get built and the ones that end up as long term contentious political topics - that is, pipelines for Albertan fossil fuels via BC and Quebec, and - as per Grey Fox - the rail networks that aren't going to be upgraded.
My impression, which can be faulty, is that intra provincial infrastructure gets priority over inter provincial infrastructure. Which doesn't help the middle of Canada much. I wasn't so bad when America was right at the border. But that left weaknesses that are very apparent now.
Quote from: Jacob on July 09, 2025, 05:21:31 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on July 09, 2025, 05:06:47 PMYes, Alberta has concerns about pipelines, and that continues. But you made a claim about infrastructure generally. And that is not accurate. Just take a look at the expansion being undertaken at the Port of Prince Rupert over the last 10 years. The expansion of YVR for the transportation of goods. The expansion of the Port of Vancouver. The expansion of the transportation networks (rail and road) into and out of those ports, the development of LNG terminals etc etc etc
Those are great counter examples, in fact.
What I'm curious about is what differs between the projects that get built and the ones that end up as long term contentious political topics - that is, pipelines for Albertan fossil fuels via BC and Quebec, and - as per Grey Fox - the rail networks that aren't going to be upgraded.
Quote from: Savonarola on July 09, 2025, 04:53:57 PMQuote from: Jacob on July 09, 2025, 04:14:23 PMMy gut instinct is that there are two main factors, but I'd love to hear other folks' perspectives (and thoughts on how to address those factors if you agree they're significant).
- The cost-benefit analysis doesn't actually add up. That is, the expected return on investment is not substantial enough (or carries high risk) for private capital to fund the projects; and the political case is similarly not substantial enough for politicians to fund it.
- The transit provinces (I'm thinking BC and Quebec here primarily, but maybe elsewhere as well) don't see enough upside in taking on the environmental risk and local stakeholder dissatisfaction. It's a kind of a generalized point, so I'd like to understand more about what could turn it into win-win propositions for the transit provinces, beyond "it's good for Canada" and "it's good for the economy of other provinces" (not that these aren't good arguments, but evidently they're not always sufficiently persuasive).
By "Upgrading infrastructure," what is it that you're looking to do? Something like simply upgrading existing track can be done fairly quickly (by the standards of rail, I mean), and you can do pieces at a time. If you're looking at building completely new track (a greenfield project in rail lingo), you need to think in terms of decades before you have an operating system.
The most logical place for Canada to start, in my opinion, is to mandate Positive Train Control so that the existing trains can run quicker and safer. That took about ten years in the United States.
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 08, 2025, 07:11:30 PMApparently in Turkish, Grok is an hardcore anti-Erdogan supporter.Least it has something right.
Quote from: grumbler on July 09, 2025, 04:49:32 PMSo the Epstein client list that Pam Bondi said Monday was on her desk not only does not exist, but never actually existed.
Quote from: Jacob on July 09, 2025, 05:21:31 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on July 09, 2025, 05:06:47 PMYes, Alberta has concerns about pipelines, and that continues. But you made a claim about infrastructure generally. And that is not accurate. Just take a look at the expansion being undertaken at the Port of Prince Rupert over the last 10 years. The expansion of YVR for the transportation of goods. The expansion of the Port of Vancouver. The expansion of the transportation networks (rail and road) into and out of those ports, the development of LNG terminals etc etc etc
Those are great counter examples, in fact.
What I'm curious about is what differs between the projects that get built and the ones that end up as long term contentious political topics - that is, pipelines for Albertan fossil fuels via BC and Quebec, and - as per Grey Fox - the rail networks that aren't going to be upgraded.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 09, 2025, 05:06:47 PMYes, Alberta has concerns about pipelines, and that continues. But you made a claim about infrastructure generally. And that is not accurate. Just take a look at the expansion being undertaken at the Port of Prince Rupert over the last 10 years. The expansion of YVR for the transportation of goods. The expansion of the Port of Vancouver. The expansion of the transportation networks (rail and road) into and out of those ports, the development of LNG terminals etc etc etc
Page created in 0.020 seconds with 13 queries.