Ending the recession

[notyoueither]

You are saying that Prince George - McBride - Valemount - Jasper - Hinton - Edmonton isn't a big trucking route?

It's the second behind only the transcanada, and it's got a much lower slope.

I don't know why you are calling bull****.

Do you have photos of this two lane cow-path all the way to Edmonton?

[Naked Gents Rut]

I don't believe that to be the case.

I agree. Frankly, I think people who deem America's infrastructure to be vastly inferior to that in other countries are the same people who haven't spent much time in other countries. Even Japan, the wet-dream of every pro-infrastructure spending type out there, doesn't seem to have significantly better infrastructure than the United States on the whole. Their rail system blows America's out of the water, for example, but America's highway system is much better than Japan's. America also lacks the widespread blight in rural areas that Japan has as a result of pointless infrastructure spending in the 90s.

[DanS]

Further, cherry-picking can give false impressions. While its true that Japan's passenger rail system blows ours out of the water, it seems unlikely that their freight rail system is significantly better (and is perhaps worse, I don't know). This leaves aside the fact that we don't have much of a need for passenger rail, unlike Japan which has a great need for it.

[Naked Gents Rut]

I'd imagine the Japanese freight rail system is generally worse, given that their freight rail shares track with passenger rail in most of the country.

[Ben Kenobi]

Do you have photos of this two lane cow-path all the way to Edmonton?

4 lane interstate > 2 lane highway.

It would actually make more economic sense to upgrade this route to 4 lanes then the Trans-Canada because of the terrain involved.

You could do it pretty cheap if you upgraded double lane from Prince George to Tete Jaune Cache, and then again from Jasper to Edmonton.

[snoopy369]

Well sir...I don't see it as "randomly spending money" - the infrastructure needs improving, regardless of what "grade" you give it.

But I'm willing to agree to disagree.

-=Vel=-

... and this is where you are, to quote DanS, wrong. (In my opinion.) Infrastructure ALWAYS "needs improving"; a road two weeks old is already beginning to degrade and could be improved. It's a matter of how badly, and how the need is relative to the other uses the money has.

You are saying, "Let's agree to shift the 'need' of infrastructure up a bit relative to other things, compared to how we have it now." I actually agree with that, by the way. You're saying to do this "because it will create jobs." I also agree with that. What I don't agree with, is the rationale behind this- "A bunch of studies done by the professional association with an interest in the matter show our infrastructure sucks." I think the rationale is "because it will create some jobs and restore some confidence to the economy in hard-hit sectors." Dan disagrees with THIS element, of course, and I certainly don't go nearly as far as you do in the matter, because I don't agree with this group of studies in the depth of the problem -- I'd go so far as to say that the problem is no different from 2005, there's just a reason to modify the relative priorities based on economic effect. I would pay a lot of attention to that economic effect, and fund projects with a large effect, and not fund projects with smaller or later effects as much (so, no train improvements, and even larger bridge improvements probably less so than simple road improvements and building rehabs that can be undertaken quickly).

[DaShi]

The only thing that will end the recession is Ben apologizing to me!

[Velociryx]

... and this is where you are, to quote DanS, wrong. (In my opinion.) Infrastructure ALWAYS "needs improving"; a road two weeks old is already beginning to degrade and could be improved. It's a matter of how badly, and how the need is relative to the other uses the money has.

You are saying, "Let's agree to shift the 'need' of infrastructure up a bit relative to other things, compared to how we have it now." I actually agree with that, by the way. You're saying to do this "because it will create jobs." I also agree with that. What I don't agree with, is the rationale behind this- "A bunch of studies done by the professional association with an interest in the matter show our infrastructure sucks." I think the rationale is "because it will create some jobs and restore some confidence to the economy in hard-hit sectors." Dan disagrees with THIS element, of course, and I certainly don't go nearly as far as you do in the matter, because I don't agree with this group of studies in the depth of the problem -- I'd go so far as to say that the problem is no different from 2005, there's just a reason to modify the relative priorities based on economic effect. I would pay a lot of attention to that economic effect, and fund projects with a large effect, and not fund projects with smaller or later effects as much (so, no train improvements, and even larger bridge improvements probably less so than simple road improvements and building rehabs that can be undertaken quickly).

Snoopy, I respect you. We have been on the same side of the ideological fence far more often than not. And from your post, it appears that we (largely) agree this time. I'm happy with that.

The only thing (and this is, IMO a nit, as the major factor is jobs, jobs, jobs, and as I said earlier, the details don't much matter to me), but the point I made earlier is the same, and I feel it's a fairly salient one.

If the American Dental Association came to me and said, "man, our roads suck!" - I would not be inclined to put much stock in that. Why? Because while they can tell me a great deal about root canals, they're just not terribly well positioned to tell me about the state of our infrastructure.

There IS a group out there that is though, and their words carry great weight with me.

If they don't with you, that's okay.

-=Vel=-

[notyoueither]

4 lane interstate > 2 lane highway.

It would actually make more economic sense to upgrade this route to 4 lanes then the Trans-Canada because of the terrain involved.

You could do it pretty cheap if you upgraded double lane from Prince George to Tete Jaune Cache, and then again from Jasper to Edmonton.

When did you make this trip where you 'just got back from a trip to Edmonton, two lane all the way?' 1978?

[notyoueither]

You are saying that Prince George - McBride - Valemount - Jasper - Hinton - Edmonton isn't a big trucking route?

It's the second behind only the transcanada, and it's got a much lower slope.

I don't know why you are calling bull****.

That would be Highway 16.

This is 16 near Edson (between Hinton and Edmonton) on the highway you describe.

It's been like this (4 lane, divided) for quite some time. It was as pictured when I drove to and from BC in ~1988. The entire length from Edmonton to somewhere short of the national park (Jasper) was completed over a long period of time, but it has been complete across the province for some years.

So, I'm calling BS because you seem to be full of it, past the eyes.

http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://image26.webshots.com/27/3/65/24/330336524JhzgjC_fs.jpg&imgrefurl=http://travel.webshots.com/photo/1330336524015812843JhzgjC&usg=__uYhcXL0j3bBXHVoPabeMWsdHooU=&h=1800&w=2400&sz=530&hl=en&start=2&um=1&tbnid=gRPCx8uY6TJgbM:&tbnh=113&tbnw=150&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dalberta%2Bhighway%2B16%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN

[Ben Kenobi]

When did you make this trip where you 'just got back from a trip to Edmonton, two lane all the way?' 1978?

Are you claiming that it's a four lane highway?

Oh, forgive me.

Google maps say you lie.

dark orange = 4 lane highway.

light orange = 2 lane highway.

Notice how it's light orange all the way from Prince George to Edmonton?

Show me where it's a 4 lane highway NYE.

[notyoueither]

Are you claiming that it's a four lane highway?

Oh, forgive me.

Google maps say you lie.

dark orange = 4 lane highway.

light orange = 2 lane highway.

Notice how it's light orange all the way from Prince George to Edmonton?

Show me where it's a 4 lane highway NYE.

http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://image26.webshots.com/27/3/65/24/330336524JhzgjC_fs.jpg&imgrefurl=http://travel.webshots.com/photo/1330336524015812843JhzgjC&usg=__uYhcXL0j3bBXHVoPabeMWsdHooU=&h=1800&w=2400&sz=530&hl=en&start=2&um=1&tbnid=gRPCx8uY6TJgbM:&tbnh=113&tbnw=150&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dalberta%2Bhighway%2B16%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN

Follow the link, dip****. Your map needs updating, or your disability is eyesight as well as hearing. Are you going to persist in lying about having just travelled it?

[Ben Kenobi]

This is 16 near Edson (between Hinton and Edmonton)

I'm looking at another map and it shows divided highway for a short way near hinton. That's all I see.

I'm seeing it from Hinton to HWY 40, which is about maybe 10kms.

[notyoueither]

Why do you need maps, Ben? I thought you just travelled it.

[Ben Kenobi]

Your map needs updating, or your disability is eyesight as well as hearing. Are you going to persist in lying about having just travelled it?

It's been like this (4 lane, divided) for quite some time. It was as pictured when I drove to and from BC in ~1988. The entire length from Edmonton to somewhere short of the national park (Jasper) was completed over a long period of time, but it has been complete across the province for some time

One of us is lying and it ain't me.

You are saying that from Hinton to Edmonton is all 4 lane? I have another recreational atlas which is from 1997, and they are saying that it's two lane.