Dan416
Senior Member
So who's writing to Bombardier to petition to them to lobby the government to have a TGV?
|
|
|
Rail: Ontario-Quebec High Speed Rail Study
- Thread starter isittimetomoveyet
- Start date
isittimetomoveyet
Active Member
I read an article in Macleans a couple of weeks ago about the skyrocketing price of oil, and the repercussions our society may face as a result. The article stated that when a barrel of oil hits $180 to 200... the business model for global air travel falls apart.
The result: that in the near future (when oil trends toward that price, and maybe even sooner if people just realize ITS IN OUR BEST INTERESTS TO GET OFF OF OIL...NOW) high speed rail travel, such as in many of the progressive European cities whose systems we envy, will rule the day. So perhaps in another 5 - 10 years the model will be much, much more economical.
At least I hope so... a true high speed rail line would be badass.
The result: that in the near future (when oil trends toward that price, and maybe even sooner if people just realize ITS IN OUR BEST INTERESTS TO GET OFF OF OIL...NOW) high speed rail travel, such as in many of the progressive European cities whose systems we envy, will rule the day. So perhaps in another 5 - 10 years the model will be much, much more economical.
At least I hope so... a true high speed rail line would be badass.
RedRocket191
Senior Member
You know that every Metrolinx project is being screened for PPP and that there is a long list of projects that are being recommended for PPP, right?
The only difference is that we're not calling it PPP...
The only difference is that we're not calling it PPP...
urbanfan89
Active Member
If the situation with fuel prices becomes really, really, bad, then governments will be compelled to drastically ramp up passenger rail service.
Once that happens the next thing would be to work a sweetheart deal and buy all the mainline railway tracks from the freight companies and then work to separate passenger and freight trains, effectively giving us a European-style nationalized network. The US Government will probably do the same thing, allowing for a half-decent rail system on the continent.
If the California High Speed Rail project is green-lighted and is successful, then watch out.
Once that happens the next thing would be to work a sweetheart deal and buy all the mainline railway tracks from the freight companies and then work to separate passenger and freight trains, effectively giving us a European-style nationalized network. The US Government will probably do the same thing, allowing for a half-decent rail system on the continent.
If the California High Speed Rail project is green-lighted and is successful, then watch out.
AnarchoSocialist
Active Member
I am hoping to speak with someone from Bombardier this week about high speed rail in Canada to find out where they stand in terms of a TGV Canada project and if they intend to throw their weight behind a proposal. In the meantime I also plan on sending the occasional letter to MPs and MPP's about the project as well.
As I mentiooed several pages back, as long as Alberta is pushing for a high speed rail project federal funding should be far less susceptible to regional bickering making that concern something that is far less of a concern than a few years ago. The two big hurdles still remain airlines and lack of provincial governments taking the lead on a project. But at least McGuinty and Charest are talking about it, which is a small but important start.
AnarchoSocialist
Active Member
No, it doesn't have to be Bombardier, but they do work with Alsthom on high speed trains so there is a good chance it would be them in some form or another. And not TGV would be essentially what we have now, which is not adequate, which is why we are discussing TGV in the first place. Choosing the status quo means accepting a mediocre rail system that will have no chance of accomodating changing transportation needs in the future.
afransen
Senior Member
I read that piece in Macleans and it is sheer hyperbole. Just think about it... most things have $100/barrel oil priced in. If oil hits $200 a barrel, prices for other products cannot increase more than 100%. Since air flights are 'made' from many things aside from oil (lots of labour, fees and capital), the price increase would likely be substantially less than 100%. Couple that with the fact that in the medium term, airlines will change structure so as to require less fuel per passenger km, it's not likely airports will become anachronisms any time soon. Maybe people will have fewer weekend getaways to Vegas....
My point: the price sensitivity of many products to changes in price of oil is much less than 1. Let's not get too hysterical. The sky is not falling. There will be a period of adjustment as systems adjust to use more labour and capital, and less fuel. I read something in the paper about how Wal-Mart is doing this, by packing trailers not using pallets as is traditionally done, but by individually stacking boxes in the trailer. This helps to maximize the volume utilization of the truck (and the fuel it burns on each trip), at the expense of labour costs (but there are lots of high school kids willing to work for minimum wage). Also keep in mind that there is a ceiling on energy prices. If the price of oil quadruples, even marginal alternative energy technology becomes attractive. Maybe not in private automobiles, but certainly for industrial processes, institutional utility requirements and commercial transportation.
AnarchoSocialist
Active Member
Well said afransen. The notion that rising energy prices are going to cause everything to collapse is a little annoying at times. Yes, rising energy prices are going to change how people and goods are transported, it will make it more expensive, and it will mean that some industries, such as airlines, will see some rather large changes take place in terms of how the operate their business. But fall apart? As you pointed out, that is not likely to happen.
It is also unfortunate too see rising energy prices used more and more, to the point of it being the sole reason at times, for more investment in passenger rail, and in this case, TGV service. Again, that is one factor that makes high speed rail service more attractive, but by no means the only one. Comfort, reliability, downtown - downtown service, incorporation of modern transportation and logistic technologies, economic benefits, and environmental benefits are just as important too. It has always been the combination of these factors that have made the idea of high speed rail so appealing to me.
It is also unfortunate too see rising energy prices used more and more, to the point of it being the sole reason at times, for more investment in passenger rail, and in this case, TGV service. Again, that is one factor that makes high speed rail service more attractive, but by no means the only one. Comfort, reliability, downtown - downtown service, incorporation of modern transportation and logistic technologies, economic benefits, and environmental benefits are just as important too. It has always been the combination of these factors that have made the idea of high speed rail so appealing to me.
isittimetomoveyet
Active Member
Good comments, but a couple of points:
- Air Canada's recent layoffs of approx. 2100 employees. This was apparently due to the rise in oil prices. If this is the case from a shift from 1.00 to 1.35 a litre (I know airplanes use jet fuel, and its priced different, just bare with me) then what happens if the price rises to 2.00 a litre? Are these layoffs part of what you are describing as a rebalancing of costs ie. labour, etc?
I suppose we could simply look to Europe where the cost of fuels is much higher. The airline industry seems to be alright there, right?
- Inflation is a bitch. Oil, or some derivative thereof, is in almost everything we produce. If the price of oil does increase too quickly though, and we see those costs transferred to consumer products, wouldn't it have a potentially devastating effect on the economy?
- And I agree that we can't use the questionable future of fuel prices as the only selling point for a true high speed rail line. Sadly, dollars and cents is what the bottom line is for many of the people making the decisions, and the environmental factors, ease of use and whatever, don't play a major factor.
- Air Canada's recent layoffs of approx. 2100 employees. This was apparently due to the rise in oil prices. If this is the case from a shift from 1.00 to 1.35 a litre (I know airplanes use jet fuel, and its priced different, just bare with me) then what happens if the price rises to 2.00 a litre? Are these layoffs part of what you are describing as a rebalancing of costs ie. labour, etc?
I suppose we could simply look to Europe where the cost of fuels is much higher. The airline industry seems to be alright there, right?
- Inflation is a bitch. Oil, or some derivative thereof, is in almost everything we produce. If the price of oil does increase too quickly though, and we see those costs transferred to consumer products, wouldn't it have a potentially devastating effect on the economy?
- And I agree that we can't use the questionable future of fuel prices as the only selling point for a true high speed rail line. Sadly, dollars and cents is what the bottom line is for many of the people making the decisions, and the environmental factors, ease of use and whatever, don't play a major factor.
urbanfan89
Active Member
We go back to the future. Flying becomes something rare and special for the average Joe, and only the rich will fly regularly. Everyone else will take the train, and perhaps airships will return for long-haul flights!
First the strong Euro is shielding them to an extent, but some airlines have gone belly-up there as well.
Get ready for social and economic chaos. On the scale of Russia in the 1990s.
Fuel prices alone can justify investment in high speed rail. Sh!tty Air Canada service, dumbass drivers on the 401, and anything else will also help.
AnarchoSocialist
Active Member
I have to disagree about the importance of convenience, ease of use, etc. The car and air travel became popular in large because of the factors. With the automobile it was the freedom and speed of travel it offered people. With air travel long distances no longer became one or two day long trips (or more in the case of transatlantic travel). It is why those who could afford paid for it as a luxury item in the early days and why so little opposition to using great sums of taxpayer money was present (to a large degree) in creating the infrastructure that made it accessible to even more people.
The same is true of enhanced rail service, both on a regional scale and intercity scale. The convenience of fast travel, without having to deal with airport check ins, travelling from airports to downtown centres, driving 4 or 5 hours, fast travel times, and the comfort of modern high speed trains are greatly important to making it something the public will want to invest in. Yes, the bottom line is important, and in the case of the Quebec-Windsor corridor this has never really been an issue since any report I have seen suggests TGV service would be profitable. And high energy prices further enhance this as well. But I still do not think high prices on their own can offer anywhere near full justification and it will take all those other factors to make investing in it attractive to the public at large.
salvius
Active Member
Very well analysed, and I think right on the money.
p5connex
Active Member
Didn't read all the posts, but I thought this was a really interesting discussion and wanted to weigh in - albeit briefly -ahem..
I think what might be missing from this discussion is, with the rise in cost of oil, so rises the cost of everything associated with oil. This is not just the cost of fuel or transport or air travel etc., but thousands of things. Petroleum is in literally thousands of products, from the gas in the car/truck/train, jetfuel to the plastic bags (hopefully you bring your own) you take your groceries home in, and the roads you drive on. The cost of oil will no doubt affect the cost of travel, but it will ultimately affect the cost of hundreds, probably even thousands of things both directly and indirectly associated with travel.
For example, most, if not all new roads being built today, as well as all the roads that already exist, are to a large extent constructed from the petroleum by-product asphalt/bitumen - (tar). The cost to keep these roads in service and in reasonable condition is already eating up infrastructure budgets around North America- so much so, that cities are opting to forego road repairs, or just filling in potholes. Because of the excessively high prices, we will see less and less repair work being done on fewer roadways. Now, if you extrapolate to include just the roadways in the GTA alone, you can imagine that things are only going to get worse- the way we view present travel is going to change both dramatically and soon! Especially for those who do the daily car commute to the city, or drive for a living.
Urbanfan89 makes a good point too- flying will ultimately become a luxury good once again- where only the rich will be able to afford it. Silly to think that we haven't started to really research new methods of creating fuel until recently...
p5
I think what might be missing from this discussion is, with the rise in cost of oil, so rises the cost of everything associated with oil. This is not just the cost of fuel or transport or air travel etc., but thousands of things. Petroleum is in literally thousands of products, from the gas in the car/truck/train, jetfuel to the plastic bags (hopefully you bring your own) you take your groceries home in, and the roads you drive on. The cost of oil will no doubt affect the cost of travel, but it will ultimately affect the cost of hundreds, probably even thousands of things both directly and indirectly associated with travel.
For example, most, if not all new roads being built today, as well as all the roads that already exist, are to a large extent constructed from the petroleum by-product asphalt/bitumen - (tar). The cost to keep these roads in service and in reasonable condition is already eating up infrastructure budgets around North America- so much so, that cities are opting to forego road repairs, or just filling in potholes. Because of the excessively high prices, we will see less and less repair work being done on fewer roadways. Now, if you extrapolate to include just the roadways in the GTA alone, you can imagine that things are only going to get worse- the way we view present travel is going to change both dramatically and soon! Especially for those who do the daily car commute to the city, or drive for a living.
Urbanfan89 makes a good point too- flying will ultimately become a luxury good once again- where only the rich will be able to afford it. Silly to think that we haven't started to really research new methods of creating fuel until recently...
p5
isittimetomoveyet
Active Member
Is this part of the funding formula that will be released in the fall?
RedRocket191
Senior Member
Not quite.
The decision to use AFP (Alternative Financing and Procurement) is usually made during the environmental assessment stage for each line or once we know the entire scope of work for the project.
The investment strategy is the document that proposes how we'll pay for the entire package of lines proposed by the RTP, and the draft is due out next month. The final will be released with the final RTP in the fall.
I'll try to dig up an old document of all the Move Ontario 2020 projects that were screened for AFP, but that document is not relevant as the scope of work has changed for many projects.
EDIT
Here it is
The decision to use AFP (Alternative Financing and Procurement) is usually made during the environmental assessment stage for each line or once we know the entire scope of work for the project.
The investment strategy is the document that proposes how we'll pay for the entire package of lines proposed by the RTP, and the draft is due out next month. The final will be released with the final RTP in the fall.
I'll try to dig up an old document of all the Move Ontario 2020 projects that were screened for AFP, but that document is not relevant as the scope of work has changed for many projects.
EDIT
Here it is