NorthAmerican SuperHighway

[lone wolf]

There are some simple things that would make transportation quicker and cheaper. Like allowing superBs everywhere and take union featherbedding out of long distant transport.

Call me traitor but I'm an advocate of short-haul trucking and intermodal rail. The backbone of the service is still in place but it needs some major surgery and a lot of streamlining at division points. Unfortunately, the unions will put up a huge fight to keep those pickable pockets.

 

[gopher]

I do not fully understand the issues here. My understanding was that a bullet train system had been proposed a while ago which was similar to the one used in Europe and in Japan. Considering today's need for rapid transportation, I would have thought that this was preferable. The problem, as usual, was the cost and who was to pay for it and its maintenance.

 

[Liberalman]

At least the Americans are creating jobs to enforce all this red tape.

America should build a security wall like in Israel if they were that concerned because Canada and Mexico just will not do their part to go after the criminals that have operations in here and export finnished products to America.

 

[Machjo]

"Besides, don't we have an adequate North American highway system already? If the problem is too much traffic at certain places, then raise the gas tax. It'll solve that problem."

No, WE do not have an adequate highway system. Meaning Canada.

South of the 49th, you can travel from Bangor to San Diego without a trafic light to hinder you.

You can do the same from Boston to Seattle.
Or Seattle to Miami.
Or Miami to Los Angeles.

Yet here in Canada one can not go by a single community (with the possible exception of Kenora, ON) without slowed down with traffic lights, unreasonable speed limits, meddling cops, inconveniently located gas stations, sad lack of motels and restaurants from Halifax to Vancouver. On the glorious Trans-Canada Highway.

Our Trans-Canada Highway, a Major Mickey Mouse, Two-Lane dirt road, loaded with traffic lights, lacking with convenient gas stops, restaurants and motes is a National disgrace! Name just one sane person travelling from Toronto to Vancouver who would be soft-minded to take it!

If the presence of a North-South Highway would spur the creation of a genuine Trans-Canada Highway, I am all for it.

The US has 10 times our population, AND a smaller land mass! How in the world do you expect us to compete with that without busting our budget? Considering our population density (or should I say lack thereof?) compared to the US', there is no way to compete with them on this front. My advice on that front would be for Canada to co-operate with the US whereby Canadians may be free to use US roads, and would pay for it of course through a US carbon tax. Considering that even the US suffers the disadvantages of low populaiton density (albeit not as severely as Canada), they would probably appreciate it.

I realise this may offend the sentiments of nationlists in the forum, but let's be realistic. If we really want everything the US has, then we'd better start producing more babies, 'cause that's the only way we'll be able to afford it. We'll need to birth our way to a wider tax base.

 

[Machjo]

I am surprised, I haven't been to Canada in years, and when I was it was between Montreal Toronto and Quebec. Just assumed you had a National Hwy system similar to ours.

We cannot possibly afford a highway system similar to yours. Our population density is just too low to afford it.

 

[Machjo]

I do not fully understand the issues here. My understanding was that a bullet train system had been proposed a while ago which was similar to the one used in Europe and in Japan. Considering today's need for rapid transportation, I would have thought that this was preferable. The problem, as usual, was the cost and who was to pay for it and its maintenance.

In Canada, we could afford a bullet train system in the regions around and between Toronto and Montreal, where about 50% of Canada's population lives, because we'd have the tax base there to support such a system over such a small part of land. Try pulling that off cross-Canada without a significant tax hike or a significant expansion in the tax base either through increased birth rates of immigration.

 

[YukonJack]

"The US has 10 times our population, AND a smaller land mass! How in the world do you expect us to compete with that without busting our budget? Considering our population density (or should I say lack thereof?) compared to the US', there is no way to compete with them on this front. My advice on that front would be for Canada to co-operate with the US whereby Canadians may be free to use US roads, and would pay for it of course through a US carbon tax. Considering that even the US suffers the disadvantages of low populaiton density (albeit not as severely as Canada), they would probably appreciate it.

I realise this may offend the sentiments of nationlists in the forum, but let's be realistic. If we really want everything the US has, then we'd better start producing more babies, 'cause that's the only way we'll be able to afford it. We'll need to birth our way to a wider tax base."

Machjo, land mass is not an issue. Most Canadians live within 150-200 miles from the U.S. border, which makes the functional, tax-paying part of Canada just as densely (or sparsely populated as the U.S.). If you ever traveled thru Northern Minnesota, North Dakota, Montana, Idaho and Washington states, you would know that these states are very much like our own provinces: sparsely populated, hard-working honest people who need good transportation. Americans built it, we have not.

Your idea of Americans and Canadians share our best rods DOES have merit. I lived in Hamilton, Ontario, when the matter of the Red Hill Creek (?) expressway came up. Lot of people thought that if it were built, American truckers would use (some claimed abuse it) it in their travel fron Buffalo to Detroit and past.

I fully agree with you about producing more babies. To my joy and delight we expect our second grandchild near the end of August.

 

[ironsides]

If I were Canadian, I would insist that we have atleast one major Inter Province super highway similar to U.S. Interstate 90 one major non-stop Trans-Canada Highway. Stop worrying about American truckers and start worrying about your own truckers. These roads you say are to expensive will only increase your National income. You will have to spend money to make money, charge toll's on parts of the highway if you want. Those who want to live like hermits, just move farther north.


"YukonJack: Machjo, land mass is not an issue. Most Canadians live within 150-200 miles from the U.S. border, which makes the functional, tax-paying part of Canada just as densely (or sparsely populated as the U.S.). If you ever traveled thru Northern Minnesota, North Dakota, Montana, Idaho and Washington states, you would know that these states are very much like our own provinces: sparsely populated, hard-working honest people who need good transportation. Americans built it, we have not."

What YukonJack says about sums it up.

 

[Machjo]

If I were Canadian, I would insist that we have atleast one major Inter Province super highway similar to U.S. Interstate 90 one major non-stop Trans-Canada Highway. Stop worrying about American truckers and start worrying about your own truckers. These roads you say are to expensive will only increase your National income. You will have to spend money to make money, charge toll's on parts of the highway if you want. Those who want to live like hermits, just move farther north.


"YukonJack: Machjo, land mass is not an issue. Most Canadians live within 150-200 miles from the U.S. border, which makes the functional, tax-paying part of Canada just as densely (or sparsely populated as the U.S.). If you ever traveled thru Northern Minnesota, North Dakota, Montana, Idaho and Washington states, you would know that these states are very much like our own provinces: sparsely populated, hard-working honest people who need good transportation. Americans built it, we have not."

What YukonJack says about sums it up.

Honestly, I have never had any problems with our highway system. I've travelled through Canada once on land (and a few times by air), and have also travelled through parts of the US taking a shortut through parts of the prairies.

My issue is what's the point of building more roads if what we have now works fine. Of course we could build more highway just to beat our collective nationalist chests. But honestly, I'd found even the US side to not be that congested, so I figure from the standpoint of costs, that both sides would benefit if we simply used the US roads and the US introduced a carbon tax. This way, we would save money in not building roads we don't need, and the US side would get a much appreciated subsidy from Canadian users of their roads through the carbon tax when refilling at the pump to help maintain their roads. After all, I'm sure the US doesn't appreciate having half-used roads any more than we do. Let's put the roads we have already to full use before building any more.

Like I said, if we want more roads, then let's have more babies to make it worthwhile.

 

[Machjo]

Another point: not building more roads would encurrage people to move along the roads that exist already, thus encouraging an increase in population density and so more efficient use of infrastructure and services.

 

[Machjo]

Ummm...this economic downturn has absolutely smacked the Trucking
Industry up side the head in a truly dirty way. We already pay through the
nose in road & fuel taxes & tolls & apportioned plating & commercial
Insurance (truck, trailer, cargo, liability, & compensation) and permits
and so on and so forth. Margins are skinnier than skinny at this point.

Here's your Fuel Tax, and it's already ugly enough (Trust me on this one).

Here's the simple version: International Fuel Tax Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here's a more detailed version with links if you're curious:
International Fuel Tax Agreement (IFTA) - Finance -

Remember though that a fuel tax would also be followed by reduced taxes in other areas to compensate. I'd be all for it.

 

[Machjo]

But Ron, your links seem confusing. Is this tax easy to pay? I was thinking of something straightforward like you pay at the pump, simple as that. From the links, what's all this about reporting your fuel consumption, etc.? Sounds complicated. I like the KISS principle myself.

 

[ironsides]

Guess having more babies is the fun way to do it, that is how we did it and were still trying to play catch-up with the traffic.


"Remember though that a fuel tax would also be followed by reduced taxes in other areas to compensate."

I can not remember when a increase in one tax meant a savings in another, usually we just had another tax increase.

 

[Machjo]

Guess having more babies is the fun way to do it, that is how we did it and were still trying to play catch-up with the traffic.


"Remember though that a fuel tax would also be followed by reduced taxes in other areas to compensate."

I can not remember when a increase in one tax meant a savings in another, usually we just had another tax increase.

That's directly related to government spending. if government spends like a drunken sailor, you're right. However, if government keeps its spending down, then a tax increase in one area leads to increased revenue but no increased spending. this allows for debt to be paid off more quickly, and so it's natural for the government to then look at the possibility of reducing other taxes to compensate.

Though granted, seeing how government debt has been growing in North America in the past decade, especially on your side of the border, you may be right.

 

[Machjo]

By the way, Ironsides, last Canadian election two parties, the Green Party and the Liberal Party, had proposed a tax shift (aka Green shift). The Green Party was proposing a revenue neutral shift, though I'm not 100% sure of the Liberal plan. So at least as far as teh Green Party went, it's clear that the only way to create a revenue neutral tax shift is to reduce or eliminate one tax to compensate in an increase in another. The Green party was mainly eyeing reductions in income taxes.

Some Canadians are attracted to this idea, especially those who don't consume much gas (as they'd obviously benefit from it). Other Canadians, especially those who rely considerably on gas consumption, obviously oppose it since it would likely mean more taxes for them.

I don't know if there is any similar debate in the US, but this is where my comment was coming from.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

Well, this discussion has degenerated nicely into a conversation comparing the US and Cdn highway systems. From a possible conspiracy to reduce our national govt to corporate rubble to who has a more comprehensive highway system.

Both highway systems are alike in the sense that both are built up as much as possible, to a point most other countries have nothing to compare it with. Try explaining to someone from France, Nigeria, or Korea that you can easily travel 3000 miles in your car and still be in the same country. While speaking the same language, listening to the same music on the radio and reading the same street signs.

Mexico? Don't make me laugh.

 

[Machjo]

Dumpthemonarchy,

I don't know where you got that idea. Had you read my posts above, I think I'd made it clear enough that I'm quite satisfied with our hoghway system as it is and that we should not be building more highways until the ones we have already are in full use.

 

[ironsides]

By the way, Ironsides, last Canadian election two parties, the Green Party and the Liberal Party, had proposed a tax shift (aka Green shift). The Green Party was proposing a revenue neutral shift, though I'm not 100% sure of the Liberal plan. So at least as far as teh Green Party went, it's clear that the only way to create a revenue neutral tax shift is to reduce or eliminate one tax to compensate in an increase in another. The Green party was mainly eyeing reductions in income taxes.

Some Canadians are attracted to this idea, especially those who don't consume much gas (as they'd obviously benefit from it). Other Canadians, especially those who rely considerably on gas consumption, obviously oppose it since it would likely mean more taxes for them.

I don't know if there is any similar debate in the US, but this is where my comment was coming from.

No, we have had no debates like that in the U.S. untill now with Obama proposing all kinds of changes, results of which who knows.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

I doubt there's word in Spanish for superhighway. Plus, we don't consider Mexicans to be North Americans. A not very inclusive Canada here.

 

[Machjo]

I doubt there's word in Spanish for superhighway. Plus, we don't consider Mexicans to be North Americans. A not very inclusive Canada here.

Superhighway = autopista

And strictly speaking, North America extends to Panama. So I think Mexico is well within North America's borders.