Should the government prioritize the maintenance and repair of existing roads and bridges over building new infrastructure?

No

Canada is nearly as bad as the US in regards to infrastructure in that we are so ridiculously far behind in new infrastructure and dealing with old infrastructure. The problem all stems from highly autocentric city and regional planning with zero investment in alternative transportation infrastructure. No amount of adding lanes to a road or highway is going to ever solve our traffic issues in our cities, they just adding lanes worse. People need good, CONVENIENT, TIMELY, short and medium and long ranged transportation alternatives beyond private personal transportation. We also need to…  Read more do away with "stroads", those awful streets that allow for highway speed traffic with badly designed ultra wide intersections and long turnouts. There's way, way too many stroads and not enough streets and avenues. We need city planning that promote better public transit and alternative modes of transportation. Currently, all Canadian cites outside of inner Vancouver have zero alternate viable transpiration choices. Yes, there will be a lot of short term higher investment, but if the project is well designed it will be highly successful and pay for itself in massive infrastructure cost savings in other infrastructure areas of concern.

Yes, but funding should still be given to new projects in places where infrastructure is needed.

Depends if there looks like there needs to be improvement in some towns

We should repair existing roads and build new infrastructure

It depends on the region and whether it will benefit the majority of people there or cause more issues.

The government should focus on a balance between both transportation initiatives. However, I believe that our current roads and bridges should have better repair as roads are incredibly important.

Yes and no. Balance is needed. We need to look at ways to make it more sustainable like using recycled tires as pavement.

Make more human-centered infrastructure focused on creating walkable, transit-oriented, and sustainable communities, rather than sprawling landscapes designed for automobiles.

depends on if its a busy place or a place where no many go and depending on ow unsafe and damaged the stuff is

it lowkey depends, but if some roads or bridges are really in no use then its time to build new ones.

The government should repair current Infrastructure and build new bike and public Transit infrastructure to encourage people to drive less

This should not be a priority, but should be fixed appropriately as the government is responsible

It depends, if a road or bridge is in desperate need of repair, then yes, but if the infrastructure is really important, then focus on it.

I believe we should prioritize both equally, starting with exisiting roads and then move onto new infrastructure

Current infrastructure and new infrastructure should be both prioritized

Privatize the repair of roads and bridges and building of new roads and bridges, but first the private companies should repair over build new

Depending on the area and need to follow the growing population

They should be investing in both old and new infrastructure

I believe both are equally important. We need new infrastructure, and we have to keep the old infrastructure in good enough shape for people to access what they need.

if the road is really bad yes but if we need those buildings prioritize those

Existing and new infrastructure are equally important

No, prioritize building of publicly owned and publicly delivered mass transit.

both are as important one cannot be prioritized over the other

Yes and no. If the road is in desperate need of repairs then they should prioritize fixing the so no cars are damage. If the roads are in need of small repairs the they can work on them but mainly focus on building new infrastructures..

The government should overhaul the existing infrastructure making it long-lasting and eco-friendly

I think there exists a happy medium between the two. Canada should strive to make "walkable" cities that are as pedestrian friendly as possible, and to do so would require both repair and new infrastructure.

Government should invest in public transit infrastructure instead of roads.

given calgary's current water problems, yes. our tax dollars should go towards maintenance rather than new projects that siphon funding

No, if the maintenance includes upgrading the infrastructure.

Yes, but also find room in the budget to reinvent old infrastructure into new infrastructure, also this is a municipal issue

50-50. We need a balanced approach, since the demands on both sides here are so prominent.

Yes, unless said infrastructure is redendant and only causes further traffic issues by being inaccessible to pedestrians and public transit.

No, so long as the new infrastructure is built to a higher, longer lasting quality

Maintenance should be prioritized unless new infrastructure could be more effective I.e. building a new (high speed) rail line instead of a new replacing highway or airport

Question is too broad. Answer should depend on much more context.

New infrastrasructure should always be the bigger priority in the economy we are in to encourage growth; however, constant maintenance of existing roads and such is still important and should be the bigger concern for the provincial government

Slighty because that's what matters right now. But not too much that building new infrastructure isnt a focus

Government should focus on both, not one over the other.

Many existing roads/railways are not always kept in the same condition as those in higher density/income cities. The construction of new roads/railways shouldn't be discouraged (if there was no existing road/railway in the given area to begin with) but the upkeep of existing roads/railways should be recognised and encouraged before the construction of a new road/railway.

If the highway is functional and can transport large sums of people from region to region with minor roughups in the region, then it is not required. However, new infrastructure to new locations should be made in order to make commuting more functional.

No, the Liberal government plan is absolutely stupid. No new roads, but want more people. A Greenpeace whacko in charge. Cause congestion and shows how stupid he really is.

Yes, only if the existing roads and bridges especially if the roads or bridges become a safety risk.

they should maintained both until the government can replace the existing roads with newer infrastructure as a whole.

As long as doing so would not drain our economy due to the rate at which old infrastructures breakdown after being fixed and thus, the need to fix them again

Both things are important. New infrastructure should be prioritized except in cases where existing infrastructure has become dangerous when not maintained or repaired.

Yes and no. If it is easy to repair, yes repair it. If the road has been repair so many times and is falling apart, it should be renewed

Depends on the situation. Sometimes infrastructure needs to be replaced due to age and degradation regardless of maintenance, and such maintenance costs might outweigh the costs of building new.

Neither Yes or No both should be prioritized equally

They should be prioritized based on the needs and demands of the areas in question

Should the UK labour party leader and prime minister repairs more roads and building new ecological infrastructure service issues by Ireland prime minister

prioritize it over it, but continue to pump new infrastructure etc.

Yes, for vehicles, but build new infrastructure for public transportation.

Maintain current infrastructure where needed, build on natural landscape as little as possible while still meeting societal needs

Yes and No, We should focus on repairing old infrastructure, while at the same time improving it with new infrastructure

It depends on the cost efficiency of building new infrastructure.

They should continue to build new infrastructure while increasing functionality of previously existing infrastructure.

The needs of individual communities need to be considered.

I dont think they should building road and bridge rather than building, I think they should do both buildings and roads.

Yes, but only in regards to vital roads and traffic chokepoints

road infrastructure, yes. Transit infrastructure, no.

Both should be equally prioritized, Canada lacks proper and easy transportation especially cross province transports.

No, both should be prioritized as needed within an area

Yes, until the frequency and cost to upkeep reaches a certain threshold.

Yes, but we do need new infrastructure especially in rural areas to keep critical infrastructure safe from forest fires.

This is where so see way too much wasted money by things like re paving roads that are perfectly fine and multiple workers standing around. Its infuriating!!!

If it improves the commute time yes Québec roads are very awful to drive

repair and maintenance should have a higher priority but it important to build new infrastructure where there is none

They should do both work on the existing one and try to build new where required (only) to improve the transportation experience

Both must be a priority but it is more important to keep all infrastructure in tact than to just build it new leaving the existing infrastructure in disrepair.

We need to do both. We can't sacrifice one issue for another