The Future of Flying and Driving are Really Shakey
Now that high speed fever has finally hit Vancouver, people somehow seem really surprised that there are not already plans and funding in place for it. Some are taking the old plans developed by Washington State during the peak of cheap oil and indifference from Canada as set in stone and not subject to revision even in face of the new found commitment of the US Federal Government to fund and champion high speed rail.
News reports quote staff from Washington that not surprisingly state the current policy, as staff is supposed to do until they receive new direction from the politicians. The reports then make the huge leap and come to the conclusion that high speed rail will never happen, that at best, it is on "really shaky ground". Well, it was on really shaky ground in the states before the last election. Since when does having currently policies mean policies won't change?
High speed rail is proven technology used by millions of people in countries around the world. It is the only form of long-distance transportation that does not face a shakey, uncertain future. The airline industry is not profitable, has no proven alternative to oil, and is becoming an increasingly miserable experience. Gas prices are certain to rise and the world's oil supply will run out sooner or later, leading to the end of gas powered automobiles. in a world where wages where stagnent even before the recession, it is uncertain that electric cars will ever be an affordable alternative even if technical and practive hurdles can be overcome.
Even if by some miricle the problems facing flying and driving can be overcome, high speed rail is still a faster, more affordable, greener and more comfortable form of transportation for trips between 100 and 500 km. Compared to the tens of billions of dollars we collectively spend per year on flying and driving, the cost of high speed rail is a relative bargin. By not building high speed rail, we risk our economic future.
High speed rail is proven technology used by millions of people in countries around the world. It is the only form of long-distance transportation that does not face a shakey, uncertain future. The airline industry is not profitable, has no proven alternative to oil, and is becoming an increasingly miserable experience. Gas prices are certain to rise and the world's oil supply will run out sooner or later, leading to the end of gas powered automobiles. in a world where wages where stagnent even before the recession, it is uncertain that electric cars will ever be an affordable alternative even if technical and practive hurdles can be overcome.
Even if by some miricle the problems facing flying and driving can be overcome, high speed rail is still a faster, more affordable, greener and more comfortable form of transportation for trips between 100 and 500 km. Compared to the tens of billions of dollars we collectively spend per year on flying and driving, the cost of high speed rail is a relative bargin. By not building high speed rail, we risk our economic future.
Labels: High Speed Rail
posted by Richard Campbell @ 2:33 PM
9 Comments:
Richard, on the Tyee's Hook section I asked a few questions about this. Let me just ask, how has high speed rail hit Vancouver?
Well Richard, I guess the non-response means that the answer is it hasn't, and it's not going to in the lifetimes of people living now, right?
I am not sure what you mean by "how has high speed rail hit Vancouver". Please clarify so I can respond.
Depends on how long we live. I would expect high speed rail in 20 to 30 years so it is time to start planning now. Before Obama came along, it would have been 50-70 years. This quick change has caught a lot of people, including the State of Washington and of course, the provincial and federal governments.
I am not sure what you mean by "how has high speed rail hit Vancouver". Please clarify so I can respond.
Well Richard, your article started off with this passage:
"Now that high speed fever has finally hit Vancouver ... "
Your time frame of 20 to 30 years for HSR is hard to accept. If major investments are needed now simply to improve service simply to the next, incremental level, and these expenditures are large enough that some governmental players, such as BC's carbon tax government, aren't the slightest bit interested, then how on earth does one come to the conclusion that the far, far larger investments needed for HSR are just a couple of decades away?
It beggars belief even in the context of BC politics where a great deal of escapist dreamer material has been circulated over the years ("The Best Place on Earth!")
I said "high speed rail fever hit" referencing the sudden flurry of interest from politicians, media and business. We are obviously still in the early stages up here but we can't really afford to be in twenty or thirty years to be potential one of the only cities of our size in North America that is not connected by high speed rail.
You don't really know if the BC government is interested or not. So far all there has been is silence, which is not entirely unexpected due to the election. The silence is also telling. If they were not interested at all, they would just say that, repeating their current public policy. Silence probably means they are thinking about it but having come up with a position refined enough to take public. I would expect it will take them a few months to come up with a strategy.
At the federal level, Iggy is a big fan of high speed rail. This may force Harper on board, as Harper seems to be very willing to take on new policies these days just to stay in power.
You might also be interested in the book by Jeff Rubin, chief economist at CIBC World Markets for almost 20 years:
http://thetyee.ca/Books/2009/06/03/RubinsWorld/
Some quotes from the review include:
" We should be investing in the future, not the past, making a huge capital investment to build buses and public transit."
Rubin saw big problems ahead, especially for the air travel industry. "It will face an upheaval greater than automotive restructuring."
At the federal level, Iggy is a big fan of high speed rail.
I wasn't aware of that. I have not heard anything to that effect from Ignatieff himself. Maybe I just haven't been paying enough attention.
Of course, being a supporter of HSR may simply mean Quebec-Windsor and Calgary-Edmonton, but not Vancouver-Seattle, especially given the conclusions that the WSDOT officials have come to regarding costs of track upgrades and possible ROW acquisitions.
I know that Jack Layton is a big fan of passenger rail and public transit. He arranged for the 2006 NDP convention in Quebec City to include a rail trip from Montreal to Quebec.
I haven't read Jeff Rubin's book and I don't intend to.
It is the job of WSDOT officials to figure out the costs and the role of the politicians to make the decisions given this information. The cost of rail also has to be compared against the cost of highway and airport expansion. They did this in California and concluded they would have to spend twice as much on roads and airports if they did not build HSR.
HSR makes sense to me. In the lower mainland though the next logical step is interurban rail through from Vancouver to the Fraser Valley. Tracks are there. The government is talking about doing this. Demonstration line for 2010.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home