Trans Mountain pipeline is a good example of why infrastructure is, if even possible anymore, so much more costly, at least in Canada. The approval process alone essentially killed off the project but had to be rescued to save political face and was necessarily nationalized. The expectations of risk-free, impact free construction enshrined in regulation is a major component. Environmental monitors likely outnumbered equipment operators and in addition to delaying activities tying up machinery and personnel, they engaged in such activities as transplanting frogs and moss. Another uniquely Canadian feature is the holding hostage of all resource development to the (SCOC enabled) never-ending grievance industry and resulting shakedowns. As someone who has been involved at multiple levels of construction projects, my one word culprit would have to be 'Leviathan'.
You offer two examples where we have "not" lost the ability to complete: the Confederation Bridge and the Canada Line.
Mr. Wikipedia tells me that the Confederation bridge was constructed between 1993 and 1997. Of course, the initial thoughts about such a bridge go back to the 1870s - a looooonnnnggg time - but Mr. Wikipedia (again!) tells me that the current iteration became a reasonably firm proposal in the 1980s, so, perhaps 10 - 15 years soup to nuts (i.e. start to finish for those of you without culinary inclinations).
That fine fellow Mr. Wikipedia (yet again!!) tells me that the Canada Line came under consideration starting in 1990 and was considered and considered until 2000, with construction starting in 2002 and completion in 2009.
To summarize, these "successes" themselves had a history of paralysis by analysis and, in any event, the projects came under consideration over forty years ago (the Bridge) and thirty years ago (the Line). Can one reasonably consider (ooooppps: that word!) them to be "current" successes or "historical" successes and if the latter, does that perhaps negate your thesis?
Just wondering.
The truth is, I am, by turns, cynical and pessimistic and not anywhere near optimistic about Canada's ability to do just about anything other than waste money and dither. On those latter two (lack of) "qualities" I am quite confident in claiming supremacy but not in pretty much anything else.
It's true that the Confed Bridge and Canada Line projects were completed a decade or so before the full scope of the Eglinton LRT and Ottawa train debacles was known. But I'd still say it all leaves us better off than the UK - I can't offhand think of ANYTHING substantial they accomplished since WWII.
I agree as far as you go but by comparing to the UK you are setting a straw man to be able to reflect Canada's "performance" positively. How about if you compared to the achievements in other countries, oh, say, the US, Germany, Switzerland, Singapore, Australia, etc., etc. My point is that by comparing to the UK Canada is bound to look better but by comparing to other countries I expect that we suffer.
That's true. I don't have nearly enough data points to make a serious comparison here. I guess what I was really trying to communicate here is that we have a serious problem with infrastructure development - although things may not (yet) be as bad as they could be.
I wish that I could be an optimist but, as I noted, I am decidedly not.
In truth, I think the argument that "Canada is broken" has great merit and I think that the reason is the massive over dependence on incredibly too much "democracy." Specifically, I think that there is the insistence that we listen to every group incessantly and at far, far too great length and we then allow each and every group, very much including so many groups who have no real standing to cause delay and more delay.
Put differently, I am now a crotchety old man in my seventies. I have advised my children that they really should consider emigration to another country - almost ANY other country - if they wish to be able to provide for my grandchildren. I don't want to see them go, I really don't, but I do not see a future for this current political arrangement and I don't see any realistic prospect of being able to improve in any real sense on this political arrangement.
The intense desire to not discomfit ANYONE and to allow endless talk, talk, talk, appeal, appeal, appeal means that EVERYONE gets to talk, even if their connection with a particular project is incredibly minute, all in the hope that by talking, talking, talking, etc. all will some to an agreement. Life doesn't work that way and it is not possible to make all people happy all the time.
In other words, it is an incredibly stupid idea of far, far too much democracy where everything gets talked to death but nothing gets done.
You're confusing the *proof-reading elves* in the basement with the *fact-checking drones* in the sub-basement. The elves are just really there to keep the rat population in check. No pay to cut.
Trans Mountain pipeline is a good example of why infrastructure is, if even possible anymore, so much more costly, at least in Canada. The approval process alone essentially killed off the project but had to be rescued to save political face and was necessarily nationalized. The expectations of risk-free, impact free construction enshrined in regulation is a major component. Environmental monitors likely outnumbered equipment operators and in addition to delaying activities tying up machinery and personnel, they engaged in such activities as transplanting frogs and moss. Another uniquely Canadian feature is the holding hostage of all resource development to the (SCOC enabled) never-ending grievance industry and resulting shakedowns. As someone who has been involved at multiple levels of construction projects, my one word culprit would have to be 'Leviathan'.
It’s almost as if this pipeline never should have been built.
Pipelines have become extremely political.
They also cross many jurisdictions.
You offer two examples where we have "not" lost the ability to complete: the Confederation Bridge and the Canada Line.
Mr. Wikipedia tells me that the Confederation bridge was constructed between 1993 and 1997. Of course, the initial thoughts about such a bridge go back to the 1870s - a looooonnnnggg time - but Mr. Wikipedia (again!) tells me that the current iteration became a reasonably firm proposal in the 1980s, so, perhaps 10 - 15 years soup to nuts (i.e. start to finish for those of you without culinary inclinations).
That fine fellow Mr. Wikipedia (yet again!!) tells me that the Canada Line came under consideration starting in 1990 and was considered and considered until 2000, with construction starting in 2002 and completion in 2009.
To summarize, these "successes" themselves had a history of paralysis by analysis and, in any event, the projects came under consideration over forty years ago (the Bridge) and thirty years ago (the Line). Can one reasonably consider (ooooppps: that word!) them to be "current" successes or "historical" successes and if the latter, does that perhaps negate your thesis?
Just wondering.
The truth is, I am, by turns, cynical and pessimistic and not anywhere near optimistic about Canada's ability to do just about anything other than waste money and dither. On those latter two (lack of) "qualities" I am quite confident in claiming supremacy but not in pretty much anything else.
It's true that the Confed Bridge and Canada Line projects were completed a decade or so before the full scope of the Eglinton LRT and Ottawa train debacles was known. But I'd still say it all leaves us better off than the UK - I can't offhand think of ANYTHING substantial they accomplished since WWII.
I agree as far as you go but by comparing to the UK you are setting a straw man to be able to reflect Canada's "performance" positively. How about if you compared to the achievements in other countries, oh, say, the US, Germany, Switzerland, Singapore, Australia, etc., etc. My point is that by comparing to the UK Canada is bound to look better but by comparing to other countries I expect that we suffer.
That's true. I don't have nearly enough data points to make a serious comparison here. I guess what I was really trying to communicate here is that we have a serious problem with infrastructure development - although things may not (yet) be as bad as they could be.
I wish that I could be an optimist but, as I noted, I am decidedly not.
In truth, I think the argument that "Canada is broken" has great merit and I think that the reason is the massive over dependence on incredibly too much "democracy." Specifically, I think that there is the insistence that we listen to every group incessantly and at far, far too great length and we then allow each and every group, very much including so many groups who have no real standing to cause delay and more delay.
Put differently, I am now a crotchety old man in my seventies. I have advised my children that they really should consider emigration to another country - almost ANY other country - if they wish to be able to provide for my grandchildren. I don't want to see them go, I really don't, but I do not see a future for this current political arrangement and I don't see any realistic prospect of being able to improve in any real sense on this political arrangement.
Who is to blame? All of us!
The intense desire to not discomfit ANYONE and to allow endless talk, talk, talk, appeal, appeal, appeal means that EVERYONE gets to talk, even if their connection with a particular project is incredibly minute, all in the hope that by talking, talking, talking, etc. all will some to an agreement. Life doesn't work that way and it is not possible to make all people happy all the time.
In other words, it is an incredibly stupid idea of far, far too much democracy where everything gets talked to death but nothing gets done.
I'm sorry David, but the "Empire STATUE Building" [please note the capitalization]???
You just have to deal with those proof-reading elves in the basement. Cut their pay yet again.
You're confusing the *proof-reading elves* in the basement with the *fact-checking drones* in the sub-basement. The elves are just really there to keep the rat population in check. No pay to cut.
Oh, rats, then!