trains, busses or automobiles

Canadian lefties have this tendency towards fossilized thinking that 'subsidies are good'. I figure this is a reaction to the neo-liberal attack on subsidies. An understandable reaction, but one that imports misunderstandings.

When people say 'subsidy' they are in practice thinking operating subsidies. IE, topping up operations with social value that we do not expect to be able to break even financially.

Improving rail transport does not require [ongoing] operating subsidies. What is required is investment that 'the market' will not do.

Wholesale government investment in a company or an industry or an infrastructure can often be rightfully called a subsidy- as is definitely the case with the nuclear power industry.

But investment in infrastructure is not inherently a 'subsidy'. And it unwittingly plays to the neo-liberal agenda to call such investments subsidies.

One of the 5 points of the NDPs Green Agenda is Green Transportation Strategy and one of the points within that is improved support for rail transport [freight and passenger].

Its a pretty general and thin agenda. But good enough for the kind of exposure we can get now. A 20 point rail plan would not be appropriate at this juncture. Need first to get people on board with the basic principles.

And Jack has been touring around putting flesh on those general principles by calling for support of particular projects.

[ 03 August 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

Its interesting what is happening in Europe now.

Various European countries started binges on high speed rail some years ago. I don't know enough about it to know how much of that was coordinated. But obviously a lot. For example, cutting central London to Paris down to 2 and 1/4 hours.

This would never have been undertaken by simply waiting until 'markets' 'wanted' to finance the ventures.

These new rail options have matured just when jet fuel price hikes are making untenable the RyanAir / Easy Jet model of cheap travel within Europe.

Build it and they will come, because it will be cost competitive.

For high speed rail here is no direct comparison for Canada. But the same principle applies to expanding/starting intra-urban light rail: by the time it is built, demand for it will be much higher than the assumptions on which it was built.

Same for the much less sexy expansions of bus systems. Be that more express buses in medium size cities like Halifax Metro that get more commuters riding, or expansion of routes in very low density systems such as Kings Transit [Kings and Annapolis Counties of NS].

[ 03 August 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

I'm not. That doesn't eliminate the car from urban areas or begin to grapple with cancerous suburban sprawl.

People had families long before cars and car-dependent suburbs, and will have families when such poisons are as bad a memory as slavery and the genocidal "cleansing" of aboriginal populations.

Actually, a lot of suburbs are currently being densified and urbanised - there is an photo-article about Surrey BC in Geist.

"People like it".... Hmm, wonder why?

I suspect you escaped that suburban wasteland to live in a city, no?

Electric cars are NO solution to sprawl, to an urbanism where people can access goods, services, culture and friends via public transport, walking and on bicycle (weather permitting).

I reallly don't understand your worship of one of the worst evils of capitalist society.

Well actually in this case, while the solution bruce is advocating is no solution to the cancerous growth around cities, it IS actually much more appropriate for rural areas - provided the electric cars can have a larger range of KM storage.

Though actually I think solutions must be found other than the car (or in conjunction with it) even for smaller centres, as first of all not everyone can drive, or drive safely. And even very small towns are ringed with sprawl nowadays.

quote: Canadian lefties have this tendency towards fossilized thinking that 'subsidies are good'.

Depends on the subsidy. This is the same as saying "production" is good. It depends on what is being produced.

Well, yes. The current nickle metal hydride use rare earths which will quickly become expensive.

Er... trams are an example of electrification of roads, at least in urban, suburban and peri-urban areas, moreover they are pretty much user-friendly or "idiot-proof". Small children, most elderly people no longer able to drive, disabled or slightly-disabled, distracted, tired and somewhat intoxicated people can take them (obviously not advocating being drunk or stoned and disorderly, just mean it is a safe way to get home after a "souper bien arrosй" or a party)... And in our climate, they could be equipped with a front snow plough or other measures for comfort and safety of passengers and staff.

If you look at historical tramlines, it is astonishing how far they
went beyond city cores!

But where population density does not make that feasible, perhaps "bornes" alongside highways where drivers could recharge their electric vehicles would be a good solution.

No, I don't think electric vehicles cause sprawl - it is merely annoying when it is seen as a way of keeping current driving and town planning patterns, which have never been sustainable, and will become increasingly less so.

Weather permitting, trams can also be twinned with bicycles (and electric bicycles for those who need them or for difficult terrain).

That is an utterly different issue - over-concentration as opposed to development of regional centres. Doesn't excuse being an apologist for the poison of suburban sprawl.

I don't think you know much about environmental issues, and the harm car-centred development causes. Oh well, you can learn.

There is a lot on the net about sustainable planning, carfree cities, etc.

[ 04 August 2008: Message edited by: lagatta ]

Didn't an NDP government nationalise "soil" decades back? I don't mean nationalising buildings or saying people can't own their own dwellings, but nationalising the soil beneath to brake speculation. Indeed it is a key problem - important to look at measures that have been taken elsewhere in the world.

This has always been a matter of social justice - now it is also a matter of life and death.

quote: I’m enthusiastic about electrifying the roads. A rail down the center of arterial roads with a sunken conduit that a car or bus could connect to with a computer controlled trolley that it tows. There is no known battery for the electric car so they’re going to have to go with something like this. Vehicles would be hybrids.

Theres so much that we could do now with the existing infrastructure and technology before we go jumping to futuristic visions like electrified roads. Not to mention saying "this could be done now" while saying "there is no known battery for the electric car" is seriously flawed.

Even if some roads were electrified, most would not be- even in the urban core let alone beyond. And battery packs are the large scale and longer term answer to that, not hybrids.

With the in-production technology available right now we could have mass produced pure electric EVs for the same price as a subcompact that have a range more than what a third of vehicles drive in a day. Way over half of households could use one such vehicle to do everything except commutes beyond the median range.

And thats with lead acid batteries. The pure full speed EVs with lithium ion batteries that will start hitting the market in less then 5 years will beging expanding on that range possibility, and within a few more years rapid recharging will spread in availability.

Another knock against electrifying roads, and in favour of electrifying with battery packs, is our need to use already existing capabilities to decentralize the production of electricity.

The technology and the economics of electrifying roads requires centralized power plant capacity. The economics and technology of photovalics and wind power is already good enough that with some pump priming we can get individuals and businesses to begin producing their own power, and the economic and technological incentives for that will improve.

The reason we have hybrids rather than pure electric vehicles is because the automakers assumed you could not sell a vehicle that will not drive to infinity without needing to be plugged in.

While I think they WERE more or less right, thats a marketing decision, not a technical [let alone social needs based] one.

There will soon be plug-in hybrids that will drive a fair distance on just the battery pack and electric motor. [The hyped up Chevy Volt is touted as the first electric car- but its just another hybrid.]

But hybrids are more expensive than [full speed] EVs. As well as more resources going into building them, they use a lot of energy lugging around that gas engine- whether it is in use or not.

Here is a still open thread on electric cars: Electric Cars- Sustainability of, Build Yourself, Etc. . I think hybrids and the Chevy Volt come up in the discussion.

Just gave it a bump up onto TAT- in the "babblers helping babblers" forum.

[ 04 August 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

Boom Boom, they were also among the cartel that killed the extensive tramway /streetcar systems in many North American cities, replacing them with vastly inferior bus systems and forcing a great number of workers to buy cars.

I'm looking up the report - cycling and sustainable transport activist Robert Silverman here had a copy of it decades ago.

http://www.bilderberg.org/nclchoms.htm#Burden

Ah, yes, the Snell Report!

General Motors and the demise of streetcars

quote:It is not right that a house in Newmarket is three times cheaper than a house of a similar size in Rosedale. I don't think that I can agree with this statement. The house in Rosedale is certainly 3x as convenient, and likely more than 3x as prestigious.

What I'm certain we could agree on is the fact that it is insane that the owners of the house in Rosedale pay 3 (or more) times as much tax on the property; when the environmental footprint of the house in Newmarket is much higher due to the increased cost of delivery of services, and commuting costs.

I'd rather live in a squalid room in a major city (with good public transport, and cyclable) than live in any place like Newmarket.

We have exurbs of our own now, "la deuxiиme couronne", beyond Montrйal island, Laval and Longueuil.... seventh circle of hell.

I feel the same way Webgear. Every time I take road trips out of the city I see this beautiful land, all closed up with massive signs promoting the next "community". These giant houses, so close together, next to no backyard, I wonder why anyone would want to live in them, and it pisses me off to no end that good beautiful land was killed to make room for these monstrosities. Truly the most ugly, unimaginative houses I have seen.

quote: I can not believe the amount of great farmland that has been destroyed due to these new and ugly subdivisions.

The saddest part about it all is that it is the new wave of housing. When I was a kid we used to be able to take the bus up to Sheppard Ave just west of Morningside and ride horses at a farm. There were a lot of farm houses then. We'd spend the entire day exploring the forests, the old farm houses and riding horses. Now, the same area is nothing like it used to be. No farm houses, the stables closed down long ago and these huge houses and box stores are everywhere.

There are some towns which have voted and said no to Walmarts and big box stores. Cobourg is one of these towns. It's also where I plan on living when I finish school.

What I find even more distressing is seeing these horrendous housing complexes in the middle of vast farm land. It simply makes no sense to me why anyone would move from the city to live in a city-like community which has zero charm.

I'd take a small house with a nice backyard any day.

Stargazer

I remember the farms south of Caledon village, now long gone, there once was a horse farm that had amazing animals but I think there is an overly expensive subdivision built on the farm.

Frustrated Mess

Recently I read a news article about an apple farm in the area that closed down because they could not find any businesses to by the apples. The farm use to provide apples for juice producer however that business collapsed last year.

What a sad state we are in.

Ah, LTJ, the don't be so quick to commendation. the devil is in the details and it is one very big piece of legislation of which that bit forms a very nice media distraction from the many other bits.

Have a read: http://nhppa.org/?page_id=24

Bill C-51 and C-52 must be read together and with an eye toward the larger strategy of SPP and harmonization.

That's what I hear.

Webgear, have you been hearing about this?

quote: Applause broke out again when Regional Councillor Richard Whitehead spoke about the "dark tunnel" Caledon was being pushed down by "one developer," a path he said others would soon follow.

The developer referred to by all three councillors was Benny Marotta, who owns Solmar Development, with whom the town has been mired in an acrimonious battle over his plan to build a community of 21,000 southeast of Bolton.

Marotta recently filed notice he intends to launch a $500 million lawsuit against the town if it did not follow through on its promises to his company. He also asked for an apology for comments by Morrison, which she has refused to do.

The threat prompted council to ask the province to hold an inquiry into the struggles small communities face as they deal with Ontario's anti-sprawl legislation.

Many councillors are concerned the provincial plan for growth has put into play a swath of agricultural land in south Caledon, which has been the subject of developer speculation. This land is not protected through the Green Belt or the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. They are concerned the municipality has been left to its own devices to face developers.

http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/472978

Arrogant these developers. Arrogant, mean fuckwits with nothing better to do than sue when they don't get their way. The town doesn't want this development but as far as the developer is concerned that's just too freaking bad.

Spun off from CN during the privatization of the public service, VIA was intended to be a massive rip-off of the public from its very conception.

[ 06 August 2008: Message edited by: Lard Tunderin' Jeezus ]

quote:Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
Spun off from CN during the privatization of the public service, VIA was intended to be a massive rip-off of the public from its very conception.

That's not even close to being true, LTJ.

VIA was created as a government-owned institution in 1978 (there was no privatization of anything whatsoever taking place at that time) to take over passenger services previously offered by CN and CP.

CN and CP lost massive amounts of money, because it is inherently impossible to run a for-profit intercity passenger rail service in any country of the world that I'm aware of. (As opposed to freight rail, which is hugely profitable in North America.) The taxpayers in those days (pre-1978) picked up 80% of CN and CP's operating deficit on passenger transport, but they grumbled obviously about having to lose the other 20%. VIA was set up for the express purpose of removing passenger rail from the "commercial" sector (because CP was always private, while CN had by then been given a "commercial" mandate as a crown corporation), and continuing to operate it without any explicit profit motive.

To that end, the government heavily subsidized VIA from the start. Operating grants reached as high as $400-600 million in the late 1980s. Then, in 1989, the Mulroney government slashed half of VIA's routes, got rid of lots of workers, etc., and drastically reduced the subsidy.

For several years now, VIA's annual grant has been fixed at around $170 million. They also get occasional capital grants to renew their fleet, stations, etc. (like the $700 million that was announced earlier this year, almost 5 years late - Chrйtien had promised it in 2003, but Paul Martin immediately nixed it, even though he wasn't yet crowned leader!). It still "loses" lots of money.

VIA must be treated like any other mass transit facility. It should indeed, as Michelle says, be subsidized to the hilt. We need high-speed rail in the "corridor" (Windsor to Quйbec City), or at a minimum Ottawa-Toronto-Montrйal, but these studies have died on the vine since the 1970s.

VIA is a precious national asset. Neo-lib and neo-con politicians are always looking for excuses to shut it down or parcel it out. Instead of complaining about the high fares, IMO we should be lobbying loud for VIA to be treated like other essential transit services and given the funding and the mandate it needs to do the job right.

There’s some very interesting arithmetic involved with electrifying the roads. An electric engine is 98% efficient while a gas or diesel engine is 25% efficient at most, 18% in practice. So electricity is more efficient by a factor of 5.

At the same time Wikipedia puts the amount of oil used in liquid fuels as 70% to 84%. Mostly this is gas, diesel and jet fuel. That is of the 84 million bbl a day used in the world. Thus if the worlds roads were electrified, and it’s only a matter of time, you might be looking at requiring 35 million bbl a day equivalent less energy. This dents the problem that it’d take 7,000 nuclear reactors or 14 million wind turbines to replace the 84 million bbl’s a day.

Bruce

Allow me to renege slightly on my previous mea culpa.

Via was set-up to fail. Spun out of CN (and forced to provide a massive public subsidy to the private CP), it was from day one saddled with their antiquated rolling stock at over-inflated values and yet not granted nor given any rights to track and passage, leaving the passenger service forever in thrall to its predecessors.

I had known that led to a spiral of repeated subsidy and service cutbacks, but for some reason (continuous neocon speculation, perhaps?) had assumed that VIA too had eventually been privatized. As Unionist pointed out, it has not.

quote: New computerised control systems will make this technology very efficient and new component technology will reduce the weight of these systems to a point where it is practical in smaller vehicles but commercial availability is still several years away.

All electric vehicles are already quite viable. The components are much improved. But they are viable now with lead acid batteries.

The improvements that are on the way will make the vehicles better. But the fact we do not have these vehicles widely available already is a business decision based in marketing limitations of the comapnies involved, not technical limitations.

It's curious but as market prices for energy go up electricity will remain regulated. In Ontario the electricity is a public utility but I understand that in the USA where electricity is sometimes private the price is still set by regulation. This will affect the whole energy equation.

quote:To put it simply- but not oversimplifying- it is what is available now or in the near enough future to hook up to the grid. I have to agree with Ken here. As interesting conceptually as 'electrified roadways' are, there is no effective transition to such an infrastructure, and not enough advantage to it in the long run. (Particularly in Canada, with our low population density.)

Battery electric vehicles have several advantages. They are immediately useful; they allow off-peak electrical production from low-emission sources to be stored effectively, and they could even be utilized to share their stored lower-cost low-emission power on the grid during peak hours - with much less infrastructure required than the electrified road.

A day in the life of a bus driver