Yes, that would be logical and would cover hydrogen and anything else that comes to market. More thought also needed to go into robust privacy protection and handling visiting/travelling vehicles. Driver-owned/AA/RAC data co-ops that share with insurance and DVLA only with permission, for example.

This seems to be the issue in Winnipeg. The redesign was supposed to make the system faster and better but the jury is very much out on whether that’s working.
Meanwhile, Ottawa’s “New Ways to Bus” has turned out to be dozens of cuts in a trenchcoat.

Also agree about existing small/community businesses, as an entrepreneur myself. This could potentially be done as “air rights” with payment and limited disruption rather than tearing everything down and starting over.

We need a comprehensive strategy to build upwards - taking existing single-level car-oriented strip-malls and turning them into the kind of mixed-use density that worked in traditional downtowns, with additional towers where there’s transit.

Transfer time penalty an inconvenience, especially to connect with VIA services and Amtrak, unless you relocate everything which is a whole lot harder than building a tunnel from Central to Parc.

A tunnel to Parc is a technically relatively straightforward project, just a billion or so more expensive than it would have been to implement SYSTRA’s recommendations about sharing the Mount Royal Tunnel when the REM was being designed…

Surface running was envisioned early on and later ruled out, but they didn’t reconsider the low-floor LRV requirement that had flowed from it.
(This is why requirements mapping is so important in systems engineering… 💸 )

Using Skytrain technology or another off-the-shelf light metro system could have saved a fortune for Crosstown, and the Confederation Line.

It’s usually Blue and Yellow 🤨

That’s on the news outlet—not sure why they’d go for a stock photo rather than the free media kit VIA provided!

That’s unfortunate, especially not providing energy storage to keep the functions of parliament going in an outage.

Methane rules? Weakening. EV mandate? Paused. Oil & gas emissions cap? On the chopping block. New LNG plants? Back in fashion. Canada can still choose a better path. But it starts with honesty, accountability, and climate policy aligned with science, not petrostate logic.

Import duty of twenty-five quid on flags.

How the govt. resolves this is a very difficult question. Streamlined permitting for a catalogue of standard home designs that a lot of companies can compete to manufacture is a valid approach, but we also need serviced land to build them on which requires significant public borrowing-to-invest.

That’s my point, there’s a huge market failure in which land, construction, and house prices have become decoupled from wages and day-to-day expenses. A decade of low/zero interest rates post-2008 allowed increased land and property speculation.

Unfortunately a large section of the media is unwilling to let politicians explain complex long-term challenges and strategies that can’t be captured in a soundbite.

It’s partly a question of productivity in house building itself. It currently costs about $300/sqft to build more to build new housing stock vs about $200 in 2019, more than many households can afford, so housing starts are falling and the market is stagnating when we really need more homes.

Pakistan is paying break fees to avoid taking delivery of LNG it no longer needs, and China is building wind and solar capacity at astonishing rates. Will there still be an Asia-Pacific market for Canadian LNG by the time these projects are completed?

www.reuters.com/sustainabili...