Any discussion on HFR from him always characterizes the project as unambitious. His last video compared the project to a rail line being built in Ethiopia. This kind of talk only provides fodder to those who oppose the project. "Hey look. Even railfans think this is useless."
He'll caveat this by saying something is better than nothing. And I agree with that. But he seems to have no idea of the history of HSR developed elsewhere, or that lines can be improved progressively. Instead, he simply suggests anything less than the government committing to tens of billions in HSR is unambitious. This is ignorance. And when it comes from someone with a large platform, it should be called out.
Thanks. One part of the project that I certainly consider ambitious is the relaying of track that was ripped out in the 1960s and the proposed length in kilometres. I mean, in most of Europe and the US, how often does that happen? I realize this might be going a little off topic but was it the case that a lot of those HSR lines in Europe built new corridors or they upgraded existing ones? It's also an apples and oranges comparison for the level of ambition for VIA's HFR to Europe's HSR if people consider that HSR in Europe doesn't have to tangle with to major freight railways (I believe) and has had decades of a head start. Also, was there really a lot of privately owned land next to the line, multi-layer governments and approval processes in Ethiopia? That definitely seems like apples and oranges. Canada is huge and has major regional competition for investment.