Author Topic: Question for the Canadians (Read 41225 times)

Doug · « **Reply #75 on:** July 04, 2009, 10:20:39 PM »

Got it now Andrew lol.

Not sure I would call roads like the 12B near Orillia a remote road. Its a very old road but get a lot of traffic from Lindsay, Orilia, all the way top to Toronto. These secodary roads are extremely important to the people that live inthe smaller cities and towns not directly on the 400 for example.

101 is the only way to get from Timmins to KL and onto Quebec unless you plan on adding 6 hours to drive south and link up to the equaly bad trans Canada.

Thats just the 3 worst that I frequent and pull fromt he top of my head.

Maybe its just me but I expect good roads, good public facilities and schools. All of these have been neglected for the past 20 years ( less money for upkeep ) and now it seems they are starting to rapidly decay

Wizard · « **Reply #76 on:** July 04, 2009, 10:23:22 PM »

Our city road is not what you can call our pride of smoothness. You need bogger truck to float over them.

Cheers, Wizard

ZackaryMac · « **Reply #77 on:** July 05, 2009, 02:43:13 AM »

It seems the bad-roads thing is universal. The roads around here on the east coast of Canada are not so good either. Trans-Canada is decent, but many secondary highways aren't nice at all. Sometimes the dirt roads are nicer to drive on, especially after a fresh surface re-grading.

I can't understand why they re-surface the Trans-Canada highway every few years when it's ok, yet leave the beat-up secondary roads to continue to fall apart, as they haven't been re-surfaced in decades. Typical government.

BTW, I noticed this morning that a enthusiastic Rotweiller/Doberman mix dog cannot run as fast as a scared fox. The neibour's dog chased a fox (that is living under a tree on my property), and the dog didn't have a chance. I thought it was kind of funny.

t19 · « **Reply #78 on:** July 05, 2009, 03:41:22 PM »

Trans Canada hwy paving is paid for by the Feds

The secondary roads are your problem... and now you know the rest of the story

mobile_bob · « **Reply #79 on:** July 05, 2009, 10:25:01 PM »

it would take another 50 years to rebuild the rail infrastructure that has been taken out in the last 50 years

where once just about every burg of any size had a rail station, now here in the states they are in some cases hundreds of
miles apart, necessitating trucks to get the goods out to the people in all these small towns across the country.

then there is time sensitive stuff, like produce, no chance of getting that stuff coast to coast these days without huge losses.

don't know if this is a fact or not, but i bet half the rail that was here prior to 1950 is gone, never to be relaid.

trucking will be here for a very long time to come, and the highways will continue to pay the price.

that is until obama come up with tier 5 and 6 requirements wherein the exhaust coming out of a diesel engine is cleaner
than the air in ingested, and has been further treated to have a floral scent.

bob g

Stan · « **Reply #80 on:** July 05, 2009, 11:53:25 PM »

I dunno Bob.....If the politicals get it into their heads that we've already gone waaay past the tipping point of our atmosphere and it's not just a question of "if" global warming is gonna smack us upside the head, it just a question of "how soon" and they start adding up the $$$$ it's gonna cost to just maintain our atmosphere at the "just barely able to support life" stage, maybe they'll find the $$$ to rebuild the railbeds NOW!

Take a gander at "The Revenge of Gaia" by Lovelock. Lots of sane, conservative facts and they are all tied together in a meaningful way.
Stan

Doug · « **Reply #81 on:** July 06, 2009, 02:22:44 AM »

You had to get Bob stoked with Global warming again eh?

Rail realy is the only saine way to move freight, sooner we get backl on track the better.

At least market forces are pushing us in that direction. present hick-up effects unknown but for the last 10 years the railways have been building volume and turning proffits. Lest hope that trend continues and accelerates.

Stan · « **Reply #82 on:** July 06, 2009, 03:03:45 PM »

It's interesting that the Californians are proposing a huge new rail system somewhere down there around LA. It will evidently be super high tech, very very computer oriented and extremely expensive "the most expensive single infrastructure project in United States history". http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/magazine/14Train-t.html?_r=1&ref=magazine

All this at a time when California just got their credit rating downgraded and just might have to go to the US Feds for a bailout that would make the total of all bailouts look puny in comparison.

It's a shame both countries can't look back a hundred years or so and see the simple, very reliable, and profitable rail system we both had then. Steam trains that could reach speeds of 100mph, cheap to run, simple to fix and they mostly ran on time!!!

Stan

AdeV73 · « **Reply #83 on:** July 06, 2009, 04:18:16 PM »

Quote from: Doug on July 06, 2009, 02:22:44 AM

Rail realy is the only saine way to move freight, sooner we get backl on track the better.

At least market forces are pushing us in that direction. present hick-up effects unknown but for the last 10 years the railways have been building volume and turning proffits. Lest hope that trend continues and accelerates.

You're half right: Rail was the only sane way to move freight; but now, it's not: economically, it just doesn't stack up. Can you name me any railroad on the planet that doesn't need government funding (or government intervention at the very least) to keep it going?

Rail ceased to be viable as road transport improved. In fact, there's only two ways rail can turn a profit:

1) The government pays so much of its running costs, that passenger/freight traffic pays it into "profit"
2) The government charges alternative transportation so much in tax, that the rails become cheap by comparison.

OK, maybe 3 ways:

3) The government bans car and truck use, forcing people onto the railways.

As for the bad roads thing... it's quite simple: It's government (local or national) in charge of building & maintaining the roads; so as a result they will always be "just behind the curve" in both quantity and quality... and now that the NIMBYs rule any new infrastructure project (road, rail, air, you name it...), there's barely a cat in hell's chance of any decent new infrastructure being built anytime soon.

Stan · « **Reply #84 on:** July 06, 2009, 04:49:47 PM »

Don't forget Ade that the government (meaning you and me) gives huge funding benefits to the trucking industry. That's because the government builds and maintains the roads for the trucks to drive on. They don't do that for the railroads. I know the trucks pay a bit higher road taxes but their weight and number of tires destroy roads far more than the puny road taxes can possibly keep up with. Just drive down any major highway in a narrow wheelbase car and tell me the ruts pounded into the pavement aren't from trucks.

Stan

AdeV73 · « **Reply #85 on:** July 06, 2009, 05:04:01 PM »

Quote from: Stan on July 06, 2009, 04:49:47 PM

Don't forget Ade that the government (meaning you and me) gives huge funding benefits to the trucking industry. That's because the government builds and maintains the roads for the trucks to drive on. They don't do that for the railroads. I know the trucks pay a bit higher road taxes but their weight and number of tires destroy roads far more than the puny road taxes can possibly keep up with. Just drive down any major highway in a narrow wheelbase car and tell me the ruts pounded into the pavement aren't from trucks.

You're quite right, Stan; that is the case - although here in the UK we have a "QUANGO" (QUasi-Autonomous Non-Governmental Organisation) called Network Rail which is government owned, and which owns the UK's rail infrastructure (rails+signals+stations). Naturally, it's operated by the government at vast cost to the taxpayer. It also charges large amounts of money to the train operating companies for access to track/rail.... but it also has to pay vast subsidies to those ToCs....

And so, round & round the money goes, where it stops, nobody knows...

What would be interesting would be if Government refused to build new roads or repair existing roads; I guess someone would fill the vacuum, but I'm not sure how, or indeed who....

compig · « **Reply #86 on:** July 06, 2009, 05:16:36 PM »

I'd like someone to show me the financial evidence that rail freight isn't viable , it's seems impossible to think that trucks are cheaper !! I remember Red Star parcels on British Rail , it was an amazing service , delivery could be as soon as a few hours after despatch !!

Stan · « **Reply #87 on:** July 06, 2009, 05:34:13 PM »

I think that job would keep a forensic accountant in a career for life, if s/he could convince anyone to pass over the actual data.
Stan

mactoollover2005 · « **Reply #88 on:** July 16, 2009, 05:56:49 PM »

Howdy Folks
I have travelled pretty well most of the main roads in western Canada and a heck of a lot of roads in Ontario, major and side roads,seems to me that as you drive to Ottawa and Toronto the roads get better.From arnprior west they just start deteriotating with some new patched up or redone tinystrips along the way to the next town. why is it then, that the ontario tax base the north provides over 60% of the tax revenue but receives less than 10% for all of the north and the south gets something like 40-50%??? just wonder what would happen if everyone in the north said f--- it and left ontario. no mining,no timber, no hydro,etc.. think the south would become like the old west towns ,,now called ghost towns...and on their way out of their big cities they would find out how the rest of ontarions live, higher prices for everything ,higher gas prices,usually 10 to 15 cents more per liter and ride our bronco riding roads that would make most city drivers cringe just to look at..

Just my 3 cents worth
Derek

Doug · « **Reply #89 on:** July 16, 2009, 07:23:35 PM »

The idea of splitting the province comes up every now and then but no one takes it seriously enough to actualy do it.....

I like the idea myself. Make the capital someplace like Tmmins ( ya I can hear the growns ) so the bigger centers do not pull the dollars like Toronto and I bet we would be better off.

News: