Couldn't agree more and as a US resident I will apologize for my country and the current state of affairs. But check out this idea that someone came up with on Facebook: Canada becomes the 51st state much to the delight of the Donald. Unintended consequence: Canada's approx. 41 million people now get to vote, and guess what? The result is like adding another slightly larger California to the mix. Wayne Gretsky runs for president in 2028 and wins in a landslide. Would he be able to make us more like Canada and California? Food for thought
Do you really think the United States would actually take it as 1 state? And do you think Canada would only want to be 1 whole state. I believe each province would become a state since they already have there own respective State/Province government.
And give us 20 Senators, 16 of which would probably be Democrats? I dont think so. When and if we get annexed, we will be like Puerto Rico, no say at all.
I didn't say we would take in 10 provinces at the same time. We would piecemeal it one or two at a time. And Puerto Rico is a US territory kind of like your 3 territories that Canada has. I may not be learning any thing about what things you normally talk about, but I am learning about Canada now. Thanks
Canada would be coming in under Republican terms, not their own, which means the worst possible terms for Canadians. It wouldn't matter what they want.
So, two quick questions off the top of my head without digging deeper:
1) Name me any metropolitan transit system anywhere that is successfully off the taxpayer dime (no subsidies at all) for both operational and maintenance costs (since you are pushing public transit here)? And as I asked before, where are the Canadian $ Trillions going to come from to do such rebuild (from your previous post lauding such rebuilds)?
2) Your words: "I keep saying people want walkable communities but apparently I'm wrong". So by what mechanism will you force people into such communities? Are you offering carrots or sticks?
OK, one more - in the words of Steve Mac Donald: "Have less, do less, be less". What is your guess on how many Canadians will willing to be "frugality monks" and embrace this - and what will you do against those that actively refuse?
1) name a metropolitan road system that is successfully off the taxpayer dime.
2) Economics might well do it, but cars are expensive. Patriotism might help too, as it did in the 2nd world war.
3) cant do much about those who actively refuse. If they can get along, good for them. As I said in my last post, nobody asked for this, it might well be forced on us.
Here's an example that has worked out so well that they are working to get some people fired:
"The residents of Maumee are so thrilled with the street’s reconstruction that they have submitted more than 10,000 signatures to the election board seeking to recall the mayor and six members of the city council. Their real goal is to fire the city administrator, who they believe has run roughshod (with the support of the city council) over citizen interests. "
If you would please, a couple of examples such communities?
Please, however, exclude extremely tiny communities which, by definition, would be walkable due to their small sizes (like those that have to be supplied by either plane or ships (like Nunavut Eastern Arctic Shipping)?
1) So I can safely assume that your answer to my actual question about trains. Answer? Certainly none in the Americas. In fact, Canada's systems (Winnipeg, Metro Vancouver, VIA, GO Transit, and Brampton Transit) require 40 - 50% Government subsidies to operate.
2) First, nobody is at war (although Progressives here in the US try very hard to put their pet issues on a "war footing") and WW II is now 80 years in the past. However, you mention economics - are you suggesting that someone/something rejigger Canada's economies to force people to move; your answer is Sticks?
3) "cant do much about those who actively refuse". Well, I asked for a number - I'll settle for your guess for a percentage of the 40 million Canadian population that would go along with your idea. Take a WAG at it!
You are missing the point. Governments should not be judged by profit. They should be judged by whether they deliver the services to those who need them. Any honest assessment of the North American road system would establish that we have subsidized cars and roads to the the teeth and that there are a substantial number of people who do not use either because of income, age or ability. On top of the actual subsidies going to roads and cars, we should also count the costs of the pollution, land that cannot be used productively and health costs. Jeff Speck and Donald Shoup are two planners who have done the studies on the economic costs of driving. Both wrote excellent books; but they also have had Ted Talks
I never said that Government should make a profit - my words were "(no subsidies at all)". Translation - don't LOSE money. No mention of "profit" at all. My point is that hardly ANY public transit system pays for itself and most operate at huge deficits (I'm looking at the MBTA in Boston where I lived for 6,7 years).
"They should be judged by whether they deliver the services to those who need them."
This could be a fountain of LOTS of posts surrounding the idea of "What is the Proper Role of Government?" at each level of government within a given jurisdiction. What services are allowed by its Constitution and at what PRICE? At what SLA (service level agreement - how much, when, and again, what cost)?
Companies are judged by profit - it is a limiting factor and a self-correction mechanism ("Are we doing the right things at the right price that consumers will pay for our products?"). It can be wielded like a scalpel, a machete, or a broadsword to make cuts when a company must rightsize itself. And yes, I have been caught up in a number of those situation as the computer industry has undergone several "technology convulsions" so I know what it is like to lose one's job.
Sadly, there seems to only be a sledgehammer in the public sector - a massive vote by disgruntled voters, unhappy with the direction of their government, vote for folks that promised to do massive course corrections.
By evaluating government projects on whether or not they lose money implicitly values government programs on the basis of money and pivots the discussion away from how to deliver services to those who need them. Like you I have lived in cities with excellent and some not so great transportation networks in the US ( East Coast, West Coast & Central), Western Europe, China and now in Canada.
Hands down, the worst transportation system is where I am currently living and I live downtown. Although my city was developed before the car reigned supreme, the choices made by mostly conservative governments and municipal governments where the discussion always turns to hiring private companies to run services, or the need to curtail those services which are losing money. There is a hefty amount of discontent around transportation and much of it is fanned by disinformation campaigns. “We need more free parking downtown so people will shop, eat or come downtown” “Bike lanes are bad for local business” “Walkable cities won’t work here” Shoup has shown that ample free parking is in fact bad for businesses and downtowns. There are oodles of studies showing that cyclists are going slow enough and stop by businesses on their routes . There are loads of examples of cities pivoting back to walkability and these are the places where people want to live and visit…think Scandinavian cities (even those with real winter climates), cities in France, the Netherlands, England, Germany and Switzerland. Even cities like Bogota have managed to readjust their transportation systems.
In the end, taxpayers do pay for services. But some of the places with the highest taxes, seem to provide services that their residents are willing to pay for because most of the population benefits from the services at several points in their lives. By the way, these are the countries with the highest “happiness” score. Like all countries, they have their issues, but these countries are better models for Canada than the US (even before the most recent election.)
REmember, too, that Lloyd wrote about Canada creating all KINDS of new rail systems and capacity.
Again, where is the cost of all that going to come from? Either by borrowing or taxation. And that cost, for a large area/small population, is not one to snicker at.
So while you threw out "profit", now do "where's the money going to come from?".
Has anyone evere done an in-depth cost-benefit analysis of changing, say, Toronto's TTC, into totally free transportation? Vehicles would be left at home by droves; low-income workers, with increased mobility, and would be able to take other jobs with better pay, lower transportation costs would increase consumer spending. That's the depth of my thinking, but it seems reasonable to me. The cleaner air might be worth it.
Well, i do have some right-to-repair laws in the policy pipeline and a continental e-waste recycling initiative. But if a circular economy’s not the way to go, what is?
Couldn't agree more and as a US resident I will apologize for my country and the current state of affairs. But check out this idea that someone came up with on Facebook: Canada becomes the 51st state much to the delight of the Donald. Unintended consequence: Canada's approx. 41 million people now get to vote, and guess what? The result is like adding another slightly larger California to the mix. Wayne Gretsky runs for president in 2028 and wins in a landslide. Would he be able to make us more like Canada and California? Food for thought
As an American I'd love it if Canadians could save us from ourselves. I think it would be a bum deal for Canada, though.
Gretzky!? 🤮
Do you really think the United States would actually take it as 1 state? And do you think Canada would only want to be 1 whole state. I believe each province would become a state since they already have there own respective State/Province government.
And give us 20 Senators, 16 of which would probably be Democrats? I dont think so. When and if we get annexed, we will be like Puerto Rico, no say at all.
Yes, or like DC, another territory under Republican occupation.
I didn't say we would take in 10 provinces at the same time. We would piecemeal it one or two at a time. And Puerto Rico is a US territory kind of like your 3 territories that Canada has. I may not be learning any thing about what things you normally talk about, but I am learning about Canada now. Thanks
Canada would be coming in under Republican terms, not their own, which means the worst possible terms for Canadians. It wouldn't matter what they want.
So, two quick questions off the top of my head without digging deeper:
1) Name me any metropolitan transit system anywhere that is successfully off the taxpayer dime (no subsidies at all) for both operational and maintenance costs (since you are pushing public transit here)? And as I asked before, where are the Canadian $ Trillions going to come from to do such rebuild (from your previous post lauding such rebuilds)?
2) Your words: "I keep saying people want walkable communities but apparently I'm wrong". So by what mechanism will you force people into such communities? Are you offering carrots or sticks?
OK, one more - in the words of Steve Mac Donald: "Have less, do less, be less". What is your guess on how many Canadians will willing to be "frugality monks" and embrace this - and what will you do against those that actively refuse?
1) name a metropolitan road system that is successfully off the taxpayer dime.
2) Economics might well do it, but cars are expensive. Patriotism might help too, as it did in the 2nd world war.
3) cant do much about those who actively refuse. If they can get along, good for them. As I said in my last post, nobody asked for this, it might well be forced on us.
re 2) the market prices for housing in walkable communities would suggest people will inhabit them willingly.
Here's an example that has worked out so well that they are working to get some people fired:
"The residents of Maumee are so thrilled with the street’s reconstruction that they have submitted more than 10,000 signatures to the election board seeking to recall the mayor and six members of the city council. Their real goal is to fire the city administrator, who they believe has run roughshod (with the support of the city council) over citizen interests. "
https://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=22744#more-22744
If you would please, a couple of examples such communities?
Please, however, exclude extremely tiny communities which, by definition, would be walkable due to their small sizes (like those that have to be supplied by either plane or ships (like Nunavut Eastern Arctic Shipping)?
1) So I can safely assume that your answer to my actual question about trains. Answer? Certainly none in the Americas. In fact, Canada's systems (Winnipeg, Metro Vancouver, VIA, GO Transit, and Brampton Transit) require 40 - 50% Government subsidies to operate.
2) First, nobody is at war (although Progressives here in the US try very hard to put their pet issues on a "war footing") and WW II is now 80 years in the past. However, you mention economics - are you suggesting that someone/something rejigger Canada's economies to force people to move; your answer is Sticks?
3) "cant do much about those who actively refuse". Well, I asked for a number - I'll settle for your guess for a percentage of the 40 million Canadian population that would go along with your idea. Take a WAG at it!
Also, it seems like Canada wants to emulate the California HST (High Speed Train) boondoggle project: https://newatlas.com/transport/canada-185mph-intercity-high-speed-rail-network-toronto-quebec-city/. More here:
- https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/article/trudeau-announces-high-speed-rail-network-in-toronto-quebec-city-corridor/
-https://www.cadence.info/en
$4.4B CDN to start over 6 years for just developing plans. MUCH more for actually building it
At that rate, you're talking decades before the first rolling stock turns a revolution (pun intended).
You are missing the point. Governments should not be judged by profit. They should be judged by whether they deliver the services to those who need them. Any honest assessment of the North American road system would establish that we have subsidized cars and roads to the the teeth and that there are a substantial number of people who do not use either because of income, age or ability. On top of the actual subsidies going to roads and cars, we should also count the costs of the pollution, land that cannot be used productively and health costs. Jeff Speck and Donald Shoup are two planners who have done the studies on the economic costs of driving. Both wrote excellent books; but they also have had Ted Talks
"Governments should not be judged by profit"
I never said that Government should make a profit - my words were "(no subsidies at all)". Translation - don't LOSE money. No mention of "profit" at all. My point is that hardly ANY public transit system pays for itself and most operate at huge deficits (I'm looking at the MBTA in Boston where I lived for 6,7 years).
"They should be judged by whether they deliver the services to those who need them."
This could be a fountain of LOTS of posts surrounding the idea of "What is the Proper Role of Government?" at each level of government within a given jurisdiction. What services are allowed by its Constitution and at what PRICE? At what SLA (service level agreement - how much, when, and again, what cost)?
Companies are judged by profit - it is a limiting factor and a self-correction mechanism ("Are we doing the right things at the right price that consumers will pay for our products?"). It can be wielded like a scalpel, a machete, or a broadsword to make cuts when a company must rightsize itself. And yes, I have been caught up in a number of those situation as the computer industry has undergone several "technology convulsions" so I know what it is like to lose one's job.
Sadly, there seems to only be a sledgehammer in the public sector - a massive vote by disgruntled voters, unhappy with the direction of their government, vote for folks that promised to do massive course corrections.
By evaluating government projects on whether or not they lose money implicitly values government programs on the basis of money and pivots the discussion away from how to deliver services to those who need them. Like you I have lived in cities with excellent and some not so great transportation networks in the US ( East Coast, West Coast & Central), Western Europe, China and now in Canada.
Hands down, the worst transportation system is where I am currently living and I live downtown. Although my city was developed before the car reigned supreme, the choices made by mostly conservative governments and municipal governments where the discussion always turns to hiring private companies to run services, or the need to curtail those services which are losing money. There is a hefty amount of discontent around transportation and much of it is fanned by disinformation campaigns. “We need more free parking downtown so people will shop, eat or come downtown” “Bike lanes are bad for local business” “Walkable cities won’t work here” Shoup has shown that ample free parking is in fact bad for businesses and downtowns. There are oodles of studies showing that cyclists are going slow enough and stop by businesses on their routes . There are loads of examples of cities pivoting back to walkability and these are the places where people want to live and visit…think Scandinavian cities (even those with real winter climates), cities in France, the Netherlands, England, Germany and Switzerland. Even cities like Bogota have managed to readjust their transportation systems.
In the end, taxpayers do pay for services. But some of the places with the highest taxes, seem to provide services that their residents are willing to pay for because most of the population benefits from the services at several points in their lives. By the way, these are the countries with the highest “happiness” score. Like all countries, they have their issues, but these countries are better models for Canada than the US (even before the most recent election.)
REmember, too, that Lloyd wrote about Canada creating all KINDS of new rail systems and capacity.
Again, where is the cost of all that going to come from? Either by borrowing or taxation. And that cost, for a large area/small population, is not one to snicker at.
So while you threw out "profit", now do "where's the money going to come from?".
Has anyone evere done an in-depth cost-benefit analysis of changing, say, Toronto's TTC, into totally free transportation? Vehicles would be left at home by droves; low-income workers, with increased mobility, and would be able to take other jobs with better pay, lower transportation costs would increase consumer spending. That's the depth of my thinking, but it seems reasonable to me. The cleaner air might be worth it.
Here are a couple of interesting videos by Jeff Speck https://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_speck_the_walkable_city/ and https://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_speck_4_ways_to_make_a_city_more_walkable Both are older, but the logic holds. It is worth noting that there are a number of European cities that stepped back from cars.
Professor, i have just one question to ask: what is your stance on a circular economy?
I have issues, I wrote about them here https://lloydalter.substack.com/p/jargon-watch-circular-ish-vs-circular
Well, i do have some right-to-repair laws in the policy pipeline and a continental e-waste recycling initiative. But if a circular economy’s not the way to go, what is?