Absolutely agree. And from my perspective, so much of the anti-HSR noise in Canada has been coming from people who have barely experienced good rail travel, let alone high speed propositions in the likes of France, Spain, Italy, China or Japan etc.
So you have the “I don’t want you to cut those trees down”, as well as the “this project will be a boondoggle with no benefit to me” commentary.
At the same time, we don’t have Alto saying “this is what the train might look like, feel like, how the stations could appear etc.”
I appreciate this is hard to be specific on just how, but artists impressions and building empathy goes a long way at this stage. It’s emotional as much or more than it is rational. Plus those emotions will actually drive the economics of the whole thing in the form of ridership.
You’re right to be skeptical. We should still be advocates. I think the role is very much one of “critical friend” to a project we have to get, if not right, at least more interestingly less wrong.
They should just see all of the complaints Transit construction in Ontario results in Metrolinx getting into controversy with local communities. The feds have little experience managing individual councillors, which will be key to this project. If construction is loud, no one cares that it's for a "nation building project"
Reading the Canadian rail expropriation law is eye opening as to what will be required (if they don’t change the law)…basically they have to try to buy stuff outright, and then if not every piece of land potentially gets its own public meeting…which will need staffing beyond what exists…and each bit has its own timeline…if they are serious there will be an attempt to modify this law before they get much further… https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/E-21/section-4.1.html
I imagine that ALTO would also have the option of seeking expropriation through provincial laws instead. The federal law is restricted to railways, as that's an enumerated federal responsibility, but provinces have a more general expropriation ability. At least in Quebec, this does allow for hearings over multiple parcels.
Absolutely agree. And from my perspective, so much of the anti-HSR noise in Canada has been coming from people who have barely experienced good rail travel, let alone high speed propositions in the likes of France, Spain, Italy, China or Japan etc.
So you have the “I don’t want you to cut those trees down”, as well as the “this project will be a boondoggle with no benefit to me” commentary.
At the same time, we don’t have Alto saying “this is what the train might look like, feel like, how the stations could appear etc.”
I appreciate this is hard to be specific on just how, but artists impressions and building empathy goes a long way at this stage. It’s emotional as much or more than it is rational. Plus those emotions will actually drive the economics of the whole thing in the form of ridership.
You’re right to be skeptical. We should still be advocates. I think the role is very much one of “critical friend” to a project we have to get, if not right, at least more interestingly less wrong.
They should just see all of the complaints Transit construction in Ontario results in Metrolinx getting into controversy with local communities. The feds have little experience managing individual councillors, which will be key to this project. If construction is loud, no one cares that it's for a "nation building project"
There’s quite a few houses right up next to the St Jérôme line. It will be nimby’d to death that and many won’t be happy if the bike path goes away
Reading the Canadian rail expropriation law is eye opening as to what will be required (if they don’t change the law)…basically they have to try to buy stuff outright, and then if not every piece of land potentially gets its own public meeting…which will need staffing beyond what exists…and each bit has its own timeline…if they are serious there will be an attempt to modify this law before they get much further… https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/E-21/section-4.1.html
I imagine that ALTO would also have the option of seeking expropriation through provincial laws instead. The federal law is restricted to railways, as that's an enumerated federal responsibility, but provinces have a more general expropriation ability. At least in Quebec, this does allow for hearings over multiple parcels.